Horace on Poetry: The 'Ars Poetica' 0521077842, 9780521077842

Citation preview

HORACE POETRY OM

*

★

THE 'ARS POETICA’ BY

C. O. BRINK ..'p ^ Γ.,ιΙ,-φ

md

A k p ^ M B W A h O lfi

CAMBRIDGE A T THE UJflVKftSlTr PRESS 197»

Pubiabed by the Syndic» of ifee Cambridge Unm rary fits» Benttey House, tm Eteten Road, London American Branch: yt I m 37th Street, New York, *. y »«**»

Cambridge fn w tn tty Pro* 197» Library of Congro» Catalogue Card Number: 7»-» 16746 Standard Book Number; 5*1 07784 9

CONTENTS Preface

P°Ze v “

Abbreviations

xxv

Introduction to Manuscripts and Editions

5* 73 432

‘ ARS P O E T I C A ’ COMMENTARY A p p e n d ix «

T H E ‘A RS P O E T IC A ’ AS

t

H O R A T IA N

PO ETRY

1 Poetic Patterns in the Àrs P o e tic a and the Odes 2 The Poem

Bibliography

443 445 *68 524

In d e x e s

1

Passages cited

2

M a n u s c r ip ts a n d T e x t

$

L e x ic a l » G ra m m a tic a l, M e tr ic a l

4 5

L ite r a r y T h e o ry G e n e ra l

529

54° 5# 55$

PREFACE In this book I have brought together some of the varying modes of criticism which we associate with the verbal arts. The A r s P o e tic a is not really so elusive as we are told it is, but it demands more approaches than one, and above all an understanding that these approaches are not mutually exclusive, let alone contradictory. Those readers who wish to see from the outset where I am tending are asked to start by reading the section entitled ‘The Poem’. But the solution which I propose in that section is only one part of the subject of this book. A sound text has yet to be established on the foundation of a sound selection of manuscripts; that calls for one kind of criticism. Vocabulary and metre, style and tone, play allimportant parts in the poem and demand their own kinds of criticism, not indeed divorced from the first but having a different scope. Moreover, nothing that concerns the literary theory of the poem, and hence its order and arrangement, is agreed. Some scholars talk as if all that is needed is agreement on that literary theory. In fact such disagreements conceal a literary problem, and that calls for another kind of criticism still. Scholars like E. Norden and A. Rostagni have tried to make sense of the A r s as literary theory. For that exercise a criticism of sources and content suffices. Yet the A rs will not make sense in purely conceptual terms; its poetry rebuffs the conceptualist. Others like F. Klingner, and more recently G. Williams ( T r a d itio n a n d O r ig in a lity in R om an P o e try , 1968), have thought that its poetry could be read, as it were, straight off; they have ignored the literary theory which it proclaims as its subject and primary concern. To that kind of approach the A r s will not yield either; its subject, the literary theory, resists and will not let itself be pushed out of the way by references to ‘the imaginative play of ideas in a world of «i·

vu

P r e fa c e

fantasy’ [ib id . p. 357), however compelling the poet’s imagina­ tion. We are faced with a work of the imagination that makes a poetic symbol out of a literary theory. Hence we need to determine the literary theory as well as what the poet made of it—the two are interdependent. They call for a criticism of sources that does not lose sight of literary criticism ; we need to remember that we are dealing with a poem. It seems to me imperative, therefore, if we want to rise to the level of a major work by a major poet that we should go all the way from establishing a reliable text to a reliable commentary on subject-matter, style and tone, to an attempt to ascertain how that subject-matter, a conceptual theory, becomes poetry. I have found this an engrossing but very hard thing to under­ take, because bridges from one of these areas to another have still to be constructed. My procedure is, I fear, bound to involve a certain amount of repetition, if the reader is to see at every stage of the argument why and how I draw the conclusions which I do draw. I began with source-criticism in my P ro le g o m e n a . In this volume an assessment of the manuscripts and a critical edition lead off; then, in the commentary, there follow assessments of the vocabulary and style as well as a first attempt to disengage Horace from the tradition determined in the P ro le g o m e n a ', next I suggest a mode of reading the poem on the basis of the commentary and, finally, I make value-judgement explicit by asking whether we are right in thinking of the A r s as lowly as many of our contemporaries say we should, or as highly as readers in earlier centuries did. All these are forms of criticism, and all are needed to make the poem readable. The textual introduction offers no new manuscript material. It seeks to establish a selection of indispensable codices that satisfies a century’s experience of dealing with these sources of the text. Fewer rather than more codices than are used in recent editions will, I hope, improve the critical apparatus. Secondly the introduction offers what I regard as strong arguments against the varying classifications of manuscripts viii

Preface

proposed by Keller, Vollmer, and Klingner. I abandon the class-sigla that have been proposed. The critical apparatus is designed to present variant readings as clearly as possible, while not obliterating what traces of original class-divisions survive. This is a practical problem, and little else besides. The critical aspect here is largely negative—to ascertain, in the face of persistent editorial overstatement, what in fact we do not know. In orthography I have adopted standard forms throughout, abandoning what might be described as Lachmann’s doctrine, which Housman propagated in his editions. I find it hard to describe the avoidance of summa constantia as illiberal (Lachmann on Lucr. i. 125, cf. Housman’s Juvenal, p. xxi); what in fact should be avoided is the inconsistency that arises when an occasional old form appears in the text vis-à-vis dozens of instances of ordinary spelling. Perhaps there is a case for summarizing the orthography of important codices, as Housman did in the case of Manilius. But since anything like an author’s practice is hard or impossible to establish, I have long since canvassed the view recently expressed by G. P. Goold in Harvard Studies, l x ix (1965), 11, that these rarities should not be offered in the text of a critical edition. This remains convincing even though in B and C we have corrup­ tions that clearly arise from old spellings, and in the Vaticanus Reginae we have an outstanding orthographer at work. I have however changed the practice of Prolegomena, retaining u for v in Latin texts. The framing of a trustworthy text is hard, not least because this and other Horatian poems are now set in the form of a vulgate handed from one recent editor to the next with much assurance and little reliability. I have printed only what I think I can understand and translate (having made a trans­ lation for my own use), but have indicated what I cannot, and put cruces whenever the reason for that seems to me to lie in the inadequacy of the transmission and not of myself. This procedure would not call for notice in certain other authors; IX

P r e fa c e

in the editing of Horace it does. That is my reason for erring (if I do) rather on the side of scepticism in obelizing when there remains an area of doubt concerning an emendation, for example at lines 60 and 65. As far as conjecture in Horace is concerned it is hard, at this stage, to put forward something that is (as Housman would have said) both new and true ; I have had to restore to older scholars a number of emenda­ tions which I had found independently. But it is not always conjectural emendation that demonstrates a critical view of the text. There are commentators in plenty who expound what is plain and who happily hold their farthing candle to the sun. Such commentaries are not required after centuries of good or at any rate competent work. We need, and need badly, commentaries that tackle the great difficulties abounding in the A r s , and apply the same critical mind that can shed light on textual problems to other verbal aspects of a text, whether they are labelled ‘style’ or ‘subject-matter’. The aspect of style in Horace’s poems needs to be opened up afresh, from vocabulary to the structure of sentence and paragraph. With consummate irony Horace called the poetry of his sermones ‘prose’. What he meant by that must be gauged not only from the Callimachean and Lucilian background, and the differing settings of his literary S a tire s, but from his own practice. A few ‘unpoetische Wörter’ apart, Latin prose would have demanded a very different vocabulary from that which he employs. Throughout I have not grudged space for determining the penumbra and source of Horatian words, and I hope that readers will not grudge it either. Similarly we must reassess the delicately judged middle level of poetic style, and its variability in these sermones, particularly in the A r s . Such are the elements into which we can dissect the limbs of a poem’s unity—its sections and paragraphs in humdrum language. The flow of thought, sentiment, expression seems as continuous in this poem as anywhere in ancient poetry, Greek or Latin. In spite of that I have used paragraphs, thus X

P r e fa c e

deviating from many editors of Horace, and making the job more difficult for myself but, I hope, easier for ot ers. Indentation, E. Fraenkel dryly reminded editors [Horace, p. 139 n. 3), was invented for the purpose of assisting rea ers in the business of reading. Scholars will wish to be told what an editor thinks the ‘parts’ of this poem are. Recent discus­ sions on the layout of the A rs show only too clearly that opinions on this matter are by no means undivided. The most controversial aspect of the A rs is its content, so called. If we are right in thinking, paradoxically, that the content of a true poem is indistinguishable from its wording and pattern, then here lies the crux of the matter. We cannot even begin to sense what the poet did with the materia s e had at hand unless we have a clear view of these materials, that is, the literary theory he was writing about, t was is state of affairs that caused me to publish a volume o pro ego mena. There I have stated as clearly as I can what I thm was the literary theory that provided these materials. ^ Apart from Aristotle’s P oetics Horace’s work is the only comprehensive A r s P o e tic a that has come down to us rom antiquity. ‘Longinus’ offers only one primary aspect t e Sublime—which for him fills the whole horizon, emetnus restricts himself to ερμηνεία, style; Cicero or Qumt ian or Dionysius offers rhetorical theory, which, however 1 e, is not identical with poetic theory; and the late sketc es o e G r a m m a tic i G ra eci or L a tin i are too desiccated to be represen a tive. A historical accident (that the A rs was by Horace, and thus preserved) has lent it the virtue of not only being a poem by one of the great Roman poets but of representing a os ancient genre—as far as a poem can represent an essenti y conceptual mode of writing. If the A rs has this additiona ro e to play, a commentator must place it within the tra ltion which it represents. This is my reason for citing re evan material so fully. The A r s recalls literary theory in almost every word. We must remind ourselves of what it recalls. Even a sketchy acquaintance with ancient literary t eory XI

suggests that a conventional tripartite or quadripartite structure is, in some way or other, part of the A r s P o e tic a . This could have been, indeed was, noticed before Neoptolemus of Parium, Horace’s reputed authority, had reappeared from the shades. What could have enabled anyone to sense this feature was the submergence of the conventional pattern, and the multiplicity of less conventional patterns that overlie it. Here for all to see was Horace at work. Once the Neoptolemic material (such as it is) had re­ appeared, the way was open for making into a hypothesis what was earlier a mere guess prompted by the feature of Horace’s style which has just been mentioned. Such a hypothesis is put forward in my P rolegom ena . It rests on a comparison of the A rs with the fragments of Neoptolemus and those treatises of Aristotle that are relevant to both Neoptole­ mus and Horace, chiefly the P oetics and R h eto ric. My hypothe­ sis was simple in conception though complex in execution. The technical substratum, I suggested, and many of the technical details of the A rs were certainly traditional, and probably derived by Horace from Neoptolemus’ work on literary theory. Horace, if this view prevails, cannot be regarded as the originator of such features as the basic tripartite (or quadripartite) layout. On the contrary, such features were among the characteristic data of the didactic and critical genre, around which the poet—to the dismay of romantic readers—wove his poetic patterns. I can see two ways in which this hypothesis may be verified, both severely limited by the nature of our evidence, and neither providing anything like a complete proof of my contention. The first is a full statement of the evidence concerning Neoptolemus. This I have offered in P rolegom en a. It amounts to a discussion of the remains of Neoptolemus’ critical work, a comparison with Aristotle’s P oetics and R h eto ric, on which, directly or indirectly, the Hellenistic critic seems to have drawn, and finally a comparison of Neoptolemus and Aristotle with similar portions of the A r s . Clearly it must be remem-

Preface

bered that the Neoptolemic material is scanty, and although something can be known about his teachings, anything like a ‘reconstruction’ cannot be attempted. Moreover, not even the Aristotelian side of the picture is complete. That is why some features of the putative Greek theorizing can be demon­ strated with greater assurance than others and, in each case, the varying degree of probability has to be borne in mind. But as long as allowance for that difference is made, comparison reveals a fairly consistent brand of Hellenistic Aristotelianism. The second way in which my hypothesis may be verified is to ascertain what Horatian creativeness has made of that traditional poetic theory. Suppose Horace’s poem makes consistent and unforced sense on the assumption that its author did not himself ‘make up ’ the technicalities of an ars p o e tic a but reflected and re-created such an ars in the patterns and spirit of his own poetry. This would be a kind of proof of the initial hypothesis. A k in d of proof only, for the Hellenistic, and especially the Neoptolemic, provenance of a given detail cannot be demonstrated in that way, even if one of the poem’s several patterns—the basic pattern of literary theory—is shown to be a coherent entity. But it would be a step forward to show the coherence of that (pre-Horatian) entity, and more than a step, if we are aiming (as indeed we are) at Horace, and not primarily at his predecessors. Such, with the limitations inherent in the evidence, are the proofs that can be advanced. How strong is the force of any rebuttal that has been put forward? My volume of prolego­ mena has provoked a gratifyingly diverse and protracted discussion. Out of more than thirty reviews I select three that seek to disprove one or other of my basic contentions. Some of their disagreements may serve further to clarify the position. Professor G. M. A. Grube {Phoenix, xix (1965), 79) denies that over such matters as appropriateness {decorum ), unity, and the nature of poetic vocabulary, it was necessary to bring in Aristotle via Neoptolemus. These ideas were discussed by xiii

Preface

Cicero, by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Horace’s contemporary in Rome, and many others; they were in fact common cur­ rency. I agree, they were discussed by many, but it does not follow that, for this reason, we should not bring in Aristotle and Neoptolemus. Professor Grube’s reaction would have been natural and salutary in the face of the more rigid kinds of nineteenth-century4source-criticism’. The objections resemble those kinds of source-criticism which they oppose in mistaking for mechanical commonplaces the traditions of thought built up over some centuries. Because the ancient literary critics share certain assumptions that are not ours they seem to us to purvey common and indistinguishable currency. We have to distinguish between tradition and individual expression. Having learned to understand the community of thought and feeling in an ancient civilization, we have to school ourselves to discern the fine and subtle differences between fine and subtle minds within this community. I am concerned with these differences as well as with the community of thought. Professor Brooks Otis (G nom on , xxxv (1964), 265) thinks that the Prolegom ena have ‘ added a new dimension of thought to a familiar scene ’, and considers the juxtaposition of Horace, Neoptolemus, and Aristotle, to which Professor Grube objects, the most original and significant part of the book. His own complaints are different. Porphyrion, he suggests (pp. 226-7)? should be used more extensively for the reconstruction of Neoptolemus than I have done. Nothing would suit my case better than if he could. But I am less sanguine for reasons set out in my textual introduction (pp. 40-1). Professor Otis second suggestion cuts rather more deeply, and requires consideration. While accepting my contention that in the A rs we find combined ‘specific bits (in some cases consecutive sections) of Aristotle’s P o e tic s and R h e to r ic ’, he doubts whether this combination is likely to be pre-Horatian. The Poet he urges (pp. 2?0 ^ did not simply follow the or er o eoptolemus or some other Aristotelian critic but treely restructured materials from the P o etics , R h eto ric, NeoptoXIV

P r e fa c e

lemus, and perhaps others such as Cicero. The point about Horace’s freedom of combination is well taken, but it is in fact what I myself believe. Where we differ is in the judgement of how this freedom was exercised. No new evidence or argument has appeared since to persuade me that Horace had nothing better to do than apply his formative skill to a conflation of Aristotle’s P o e tic s and R h e to ric with Neoptolemus and perhaps others. The basic trichotomy which Professor Otis mentions (p. 267), and its consequences for matters of poetic theory, are precisely the kinds of things the literary scholars and critics concerned themselves with ; and, in spite of many similarities, the arrangement, purpose, and ethos of Cicero’s O rator (Otis, loc. c it.) are quite alien to Horace’s known preoccupations. I return to this matter at a later place in my commentary (P· 132)· According to a long review by Professor Gordon Williams (in J R S , Liv (1964), 186-96, especially 194-5) my bo°k *s open to a major logical objection—its argument is circular. It would indeed be circular if I concluded that because Horace is said to have brought together the most outstanding precepts of Neoptolemus we can reconstruct Neoptolemus from Horace, and then use that reconstruction to explain the A rs. But that is not at all how I argued. The tripartite (or quadripartite) order of Horace’s basic scheme was asserted long before Neoptolemus’ adherence to the triad poema—poesis—po eta had become known. Nothing was wrong with that assertion except its rigidity, which neglected all the other principles of ordering in the A r s . It was again without recourse to Neoptolemus that my re-examination of the poem’s layout endorsed these earlier findings, however limited their importance in view of Horace’s complex patterning. Moreover Philodemus’ reports °n Neoptolemus do not, for elucidation, require this analysis ° f the A r s , n o r in elucidating them did I require it (Williams, ° P ' c i t . p. I94). Rather, in ch. 2 of P rolegom ena, I unravelled bilodemus’ reports without these adventitious aids, being Particularly concerned at this stage of my argument not to b

XV

P re fa c e

conflate Neoptolemic and Horatian evidence. I made a case on inherent grounds that Neoptolemus had not only referred to the literary triad (as Philodemus says he did) but laid out his work in accordance with it (.P rol . 72-3). It was only in ch. 3 of my study that I widened the factual basis, and made the assumption that much more of the literary theory of the A r s than is commonly assumed may have come from Neoptolemus. This was a hypothesis which should chiefly be judged by the number of puzzles it solves if it were correct. The greatest puzzle it would solve is this : where in the Aristotelian material of the A rs does the persistent note originate which is neither Aristotelian nor Horatian nor even Roman? The answer would then be that it originates from the poet’s Hellenistic material rendered Horatian, Augustan, and Roman by him. Finally Neoptolemus’ putative position between Aristotle and Horace is allegedly required, after having been inferred from the A rs, to ‘disentangle the structure and composition of the A r s ’ (Williams, loc. c it.). But is it? On the contrary, it happens to be one of the virtues of the Neoptolemic hypothesis that it allows us to make two related observations, once the triad has been safely lodged with Neoptolemus. (1) Horace seems to have attached scant importance to the tripartite scheme of the literary experts; it appears that he took it over from them in order to put it in its place as only he could, by making it part of a larger and more complex order; (2) if allowance is made for that, ‘the structure and composition of the Ars’ are characteristically Horatian, and require no Neoptolemus to be ‘disentangled’. I would say therefore that the boot is on the other foot; it is Professor Williams who mistakes the logic of my procedure. He has tried (unsuccessfully in my view) to push the debate back to an earlier stage when critics still argued that the A rs was either a treatise based on a rigid conceptual triad of poem a-poesis-poeta , or else a loosely organized poetic serm o. We are again supposed to get impaled on one of two available horns of a false dilemma. It is true, instead of ‘loosely organXVI

P re fa c e

ized poetic se rm o ’ we are asked to say ‘imaginative play of ideas in a world of fantasy ’ (Williams, cited above pp. vii-viii) ; that sounds more contemporary but otherwise makes no odds. Professor Williams’ brief sketch of the A rs at the end of his review, and his longer sketch in T radition and O rigin ality in R o m a n P o e try (1968, pp. 329-57), have put on record that their author thought he could ignore a century’s critical work on these problems. Yet he claimed that he was examining the A r s ‘as a work of poetic imagination in which Horace modified the sort of material provided by Aristotle’s Poetics (together with much else) in accordance with artistic principles of his own’ ( T r a d itio n etc. p. 355). But it is precisely ‘the sort of material’ provided by earlier literary theory that critical scholarship in this field has subjected to intense scrutiny. To do otherwise is to involve the practitioner in a most damaging non seq u itu r ; he must by his definition pronounce on Horace’s modification of material which he yet declines to determine. No wonder the ground on which he stands is infirm. Since this procedure is now on record there is perhaps here no need for further argument. Readers will doubtless make their own choice. I have however referred to Professor Williams’ thesis in my commentary whenever specific issues made clarification desirable. The instance cited in Appendix 2 is striking ; if he had been more willing to take note of previous critical work, he might have avoided traps repeatedly sign­ posted in the long history of Horatian scholarship. So much for proof or rebuttal of the Neoptolemic hypothesis. These discussions have suggested to me the following arrange­ ment of the commentary. As I said earlier, I have paragraphed the poem, although very much aware that the paragraphs and sections are valid as divisions of literary theory rather than in the final poetic analysis. I have prefaced nearly all of these paragraphs by two separate introductory notes, headed ‘The Tradition’ and ‘Horace’ respectively. In the former I have set down what relevant information on the traditional bases of Horace’s literary doctrine has come to my notice; a xvu

b- 2

P re fa c e

wider and not strictly relevant purview would have brought in many more parallels. In the latter I have indicated briefly what I think Horace has done to that traditional scheme of things to make it amenable to his own purposes. In a few places I have specified that ‘The Tradition’ is in fact ‘Neoptolemus’. I have felt free to do that only when extra­ neous evidence for Neoptolemic origin comes to hand, especially in the basic tripartite (or quadripartite) layout. In the places where a concurrence of Horace and a modified Aristotelianism suggests (to me) Neoptolemus, I have been content to affix the label ‘The Tradition’, and to refer the reader to my discussion in Prolegomena, unless additional evidence or argu­ ment has made renewed discussion desirable. In the places where there is no concurrence of Horace and Aristotle I have indicated what traditional affiliations I could discover, which then may or may not be Neoptolemic. This procedure may seem unduly cautious. I have adopted it for a reason. It will, I hope, make the commentary usable also for those who are not persuaded that behind the A rs Poetica there lies a consistent literary theory which Horace has broken up, and used for his poetic purposes. Such readers will at any rate agree that what I call tradition contains important parallels’. They will also be willing to regard as Horatian any devices that are alien to the aims of a literary theorist but demonstrably relevant to those of a poet. Such remarks hint broadly that, in spite of Horace’s reliance on it, the work of Neoptolemus or any other literary critic can have been the model for the A r s in some senses of that word but not in others. It would be folly to impute to a poet of Horace s stature simply the versifying of one or more Greek ‘sources’. Neoptolemus, I suggest, was Horace’s source m that the poet picked up the technical structure of an ars poetica rom him. If so, that structure, in the didactic genre of literary theory, fulfilled the same function as the form of any ync genre m the Epodes or O des] it stimulated the poet’s rma ve imagination, moving him to overlay (and thereby xviii

P r e fa c e

qualify) this simple and humdrum order of things with other kinds of arrangement less simple and humdrum. In another sense Neoptolemus was Horace’s source for an indeterminate number of technical matters, Porphyrion’s praecepta N eoptolem i . . . d e a r te p o e tic a , non quidem om nia se d em inentissim a ; these the poet clearly viewed with the same ironic detachment of the amateur which he applied to the praecepta forming the structure of literary theory. Finally Neoptolemus may have stimulated Horace’s mind by his combining, as he seems to have done, a Callimachean enthusiasm for artistic elaboration with an Aristotelian belief in the viability of the large poetic genres and the seriousness of poetry. That is much, yet far from all there is in the A r s . The poet, a reader with wide sympathies and great erudition, must have had a hundred-and-one other ‘sources’ in different senses of this word. To say that Horace ‘was certainly not deriving his material simply and seriatim from one Greek handbook’, or to call ‘inconceivable that Horace based himself on a single treatise’ (G. Williams, T r a d itio n etc. pp. 336, 355), is to deny what I do not maintain. When Horace remembers the most recent scholarly research on the in itia of the Greek elegiac metre, he lets his learning enable him to give a neat turn to what I take to be his Hellenistic authorities—A .P . 77-8 quis tamen exiguos elegos e m is e rit au ctor, | g ra m m a tic i certant e t adhuc sub indice lis est ; here he is manifestly using a different ‘source’ from Neoptolemus. The criticisms of contemporary descriptiones at A .P . 16-18 must surely have been suggested by ‘contemporary sources’. So must have been the implied condemnation of ‘neoteric’ aesthetics or its counterpart, the opposition to the archaism of Yarro’s poetic theory, although this formidable if super­ annuated adversary is never mentioned. It needs no saying that Latin literature is ever-present in allusion, approval, or rejection; the Lucretian colouring of a verse like 49; Caecilius and Plautus, Cato and Ennius, Virgil and Varius (53-8); or the strictures on scenic metre (270) and the critique of Roman drama (285) ; or the sidelong glances at Cicero’s and others’ XIX

Preface

writings on friendship (419 if.), or such covert quotations of Lucilius as 431-3 and doubtless many others which we cannot now specify ; or the influence of Virgil that permeates the whole A rs. At any time Roman can coalesce with Greek and w ith the theory of the literary critics, over music (202) or Satyric plays (satyros 221 et al., but Fauni in Rome (244)) or Greek and Roman drama (275, 285). ‘On the face of it, virtually every­ thing in the A rs is Horatian and Roman. Yet matters dem on­ strably Horatian and Roman may be no more th a n a Horatian construction placed on Neoptolemus’ teachings’ (F rol. 135). Clearly we must beware of working w ith an unrealistic and mechanical notion of w hat we call a ‘poetic source’. Pindar’s Second O lym pian Ode is preserved and thus we can see for ourselves how similar, and yet how utterly different is O des 1.12. I suspect that we would find the same if N eoptole­ mus’ A rs could be read in its entirety; but th at seems h ard er to accept because Neoptolemus was prim arily a critic, and Horace was a poet. Thus we are carried from content, text, style, and tone to Horace’s architectonic skill and the pattern of the poem as a whole. It is only in the complexity of this pattern th a t the apparent contradictions of the ‘problem of the A r s ’ can be resolved. The structural imagination at work, in spite o f the disparateness of genre, is no different in type in the sm all and tightly controlled lyrics and the largest of the hexam eter poems, the A rs. In order to find the term s needed for a description of the whole poem I have recalled some structural features which the A r s shares with the O des. I have resisted the temptation of draw ing descriptive literary criticism into the commentary; the step from textual and stylistic criticism to literary would not otherwise be clearly made, and it should be so seen to be made. A lthough my description of the poem is based on the line-to-line commentary, it is set ap art from it. I have adopted a m ethod of narration but not of continuous narration. Instead I have retained the division into sections, although the final imXX

P re fa c e

pression of the poem is one of continuity and not division. My aim has been to show how the poet made the basic pattern of the literary critics find its place in a larger and more compre­ hensive framework, thus overcoming the inherent contra­ dictions of the rigid conceptual scheme (style versus content and arrangement, ‘poem’ versus ‘poet’, etc.), while yet dis­ playing poetry as a kind of philosophy, sapientia. The criss-cross of the patterns is so complex that a charting of the ground such as I have attempted cannot do it justice. Further reading will bring out further links and connexions. All I can do is to show a new mode of reading which is not constrained to neglect one essential aspect of the poem for another. Such reading finally involves making value-judgements ex­ plicit, and not leaving them unexpressed. I have ventured to do this because I suspect my view of the poem depends ultimately on a value-judgement. Most classical scholars think meanly of the A r s P o e tic a . I believe that it is a great work and that it needs to be brought back to the centre of the stage, at any rate of Latin scholarship. What that involves cannot here be said, though it it will be sensed from the terms in which in this book I speak of the poem. But I have no doubt that the centre of the stage is its rightful place—the place to which the Italians and French of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries assigned it. There it remained, exercising a decisive influence in the eighteenth century, until the Romantics of the nine­ teenth removed it, at the very moment when it had ceased to be a major cultural concern. Its cultural concern is beyond our r?ach though not beyond our purview; its scholarly concern is within our reach. If in these two books I have made some steps in the right direction I shall feel richly rewarded for work that has already taken ten years and, to be extended to E p is tle s η, will take yet a few more. This volume has been long in the making and the obligations that I have incurred during that time have been considerable. Once again my wife has assisted me over the bibliography and XXI

P re fa c e

many details of the book. Mrs A. Johnson, research typist of Gonville and Cams College, has helped me in drafting the indexes, Mrs L. Hatfield in checking references. I have received many compliments on the design and appearance of the first volume, which I now wish to pass on to their proper recipients, the staff of the Cambridge University Press. they have also spent much time and thought on the complicated layout of the present volume. Afany librarians have readily assisted my searches for H oratiana. ; I wish to thank especially Mr J. C. T. Oates and Mr R. V. Kerr, of the Cambridge U ni­ versity Library, and Dr W. Hörmann, formerly Director of the Department of Manuscripts at the Bayerische Staats­ bibliothek, Munich. The Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton again granted me the advantages of membership; this enabled me to complete the first draft of the commentary in 1966, and raise a number of Aristotelian questions with Professor Harold Cherniss. I have made use of some of Professor F. Solmsen’s notes on the first volume, and in general have attempted to bear in mind what reviewers of that book have said. Dr W. Ehlers of the Thesaurus L inguae L a tin a e has kindly made the materials of that great storehouse of Latinity avail­ able to me on several occasions. The authorities of the War­ burg Institute gave me advance notice of a book that has since appeared in their Studies. So many friends and colleagues in Cambridge and elsewhere have answered my importunate questions that I cannot here mention them all. I am particularly grateful to Professor U. Limentani for help with matters Italian. I am greatly obliged to Mr E. J. Kenney for the rigour with which he has brought my proofs closer to consistency of presentation; even at that late stage he most helpfully queried some of my suggestions, and contributed others. Mr R. E. H. Cotterill gave me welcome further assistance with the proofs. Miss J. M. Reynolds remembered an inscription which has enabled me to clarify the old problem of urceus and am ph ora ; on diis problem I also had the benefit of advice from Professor S. S. Frere, DrM. H. Callender, and MrJ. J. Patterson. I have xxii

P r e fa c e

consulted Professor E. W. Handley on the Menandrean topics raised at pp. 249-50, and Dr D. O ’Brien on the Empedoclean evidence mentioned at pp. 427-8. Dr J. G. Landels of Reading drew my attention to the aulos recently acquired by his university, and considered with me the bearing of this instrument on the interpretation of a well-known but badly understood section of the A r s P oetica. Professor L. Golden of Florida State University did much to confirm my feeling that a chapter on the A r s as a Horatian poem should be part of this book. My largest debt is to Professor F. R. D. Goodyear, who made many acute and perceptive observations on an earlier draft, and suggested numerous improvements. All these are more favours than I can easily repay. But, at any rate, q u i g r a te beneficium a ccip it, p r im a m eius pensionem soluit.

C.O.B.

XX1U

A B BR EV IA T IO N S AAM ABA W AGG AJP APA BVSA CIL CP CPG

Abhandlungen der Akademie. . An Mainz Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Abhandlungen der Gelehrten Gesellschaft zu Göttingen American Journal o f Philology Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Classical Philology Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum ed. E. L. von Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin cu Classical Quarterly CR Classical Review CRF Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta ed.3 O. Ribbeck CW Classical Weekly EC Les Etudes Classiques F PL Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum ed. W. Morel GG Grammatici Graeci GL Grammatici Latini ed. H. Keil GR Greece and Rome H Hermes HS Harvard Studies in Classical Philology HV Herculanensia Volumina, Collectio Altera, Naples, 1862-76 IG Inscriptiones Graecae JB Jahrbuch, Jahrbücher Journal o f Philology JP K .- H . A. Kiessling’s commentary on Horace, re-edited by R. Heinze, see ‘ Select List o f Editions and Com m entaries’ L .-S .-J . H . Stuart Jones’ New Edition o f Liddell and Scott’s Greek—English Lexicon MH Museum Helveticum Mnem. Mnemosyne N .F . N eue Folge NGG Nachrichten der Gelehrten Gesellschaft zu Göttingen n.s. N ew series, nouveile sèrie, nuova serie P Philologus PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani PW Philologische Wochenschrift

3

2

XXV

Abbreviations R-E REA REL RFIC RM RP SBA W SBBA SBHA SBPA

SI SVF ΤΑΡΑ TLL TRF3 WS TCS

Paulys Real-Encyclopädie d. classischen Altertumswissenschaft: Neue Bearbeitung Reme des Etudes Anciennes Revue des Etudes Latines Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica Rheinisches Museum Reme de Philologie Sitzungsberichte der Akademie, Wien Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin Studi Italiani di filologia classica J. von Arnim’s Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Transactions. . .o f the American Philological Association Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta ed.3 O . R ibbeck Wiener Studien Tale Classical Studies The Grammars o f Kühner-Stegm ann, H ofm ann-Szantyr, and Neue-W agener have been cited by authors’ names, volumes and pages, J . W ackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax etc., Erste Reihe2, zweite Reihe2 as W ackernagel, Vorl. i2. i ff., π2, i ff., and E. Löfstedt, Syntactica as Löfstedt, Syn. i2. i ff., n. i ff. A. Otto, Die Sprichwörter & c. der Römer (1890, repr. 1962) has been cited as O tto, Sprichwörter and pagenumber, O. Immisch’s commentary on the A .P. as Im m isch, pp. i f f , my Prolegomena (1963) as Prol. 1 ff.

XXVI

IN T R O D U C T IO N TO M ANUSCRIPTS AND

ED ITIO N S

i . T h e S electio n o f M a n u scrip ts

Contemporary editions of the A rs Poetica and other Horatian poems are open to two objections. First, and most impor­ tantly, they tend to fall below the critical level long since attained, being either complacently conservative, or else, like A. Y. Campbell’s editions of the O des, wildly audacious in conjecture. To these procedures P. Maas’s concise paper on the text of the O des 1 offers a welcome antidote. The objection I am here concerned with is less important—the manner in which manuscript evidence is offered. Editors, without exception, either group the selected codices in classes, as though all could be classed, or else they offer a string of symbols, as though no codex was related to any other. A valid case cannot be made for either procedure. Nobody has seen all the manuscripts of H. Nobody knows even their number. A palaeographer has tabulated about 300, and estimates that approximately 250 of these were copied before 1300.2 If the next two centuries were included, the estimated number would be ‘many times 250’, indeed the p a e n e in fin itu s num erus of an eighteenth-century editor. O f this unknown total more than 60 manuscripts including nearly all the early ones—none written before the ninth cen­ tury—were collated by O. Keller and his colleagues. A paper by W. von Christ3 and later work on the text has reduced the unmanageable number to a few (12-15) manuscripts, which are indispensable for a sound text. No one can deny the possi­ bility that there is textual gold hidden in the uncollated codices; there is at any rate some silver in cod. K, unknown 1 SI, X X V I I - X X V I I I (1956), 227-8. 8 Hilda Buttenwieser, Speculum, xvn (1942), 54. 3 SBBA (1893), 83-116. I

I

BHA

Introduction to Manuscripts and Editions

until F. Vollmer chanced upon it; cf. his 2nd ed. p. viii,

casu

contigit ut adim enirem codicem IC R eitero H olderoque non notum .

But there is scarcely much of it and while T extgesch ich te is likely to profit from a much more extended study, the text of H. is not likely to profit. As for collation, I doubt if anyone can seriously fault Keller’s and Holder’s painstaking and meticulous work. I have tried to do so, collating codd. GK and 5 , and working continuously with microfilms of K and R, and the Leiden facsimile of B. Except for the details of K, the harvest has been minute. Improvement of text and app. crit. is not to be hoped for from recollation. For the A r s none of the following manuscripts can be en­ tirely dispensed with; they are set out in alphabetical order: aBC (E in the last 36 verses where C fails us) KRV and the pairs δπ λΐ φψ. I describe them in the sequel; for more detailed descriptions Keller’s edition may be consulted. I have jettisoned the readings of other codices which may be seen in the editions of Keller, Klingner, and Lenchantin-Bo. Cod. L in particular1 does not in the A rs seem to me to deserve the attention paid to it by D. Bo.2 a ^ Ambrosianus O 136 sup. (formerly Avennionensis), s. ix-x. Contains all the poems, S . 11. 7. 28-8 fin. in a different hand. For specimens of writing, see E. Chatelain, P a lè o graphie des classiques latin s, 1, pi. 81. Introduced by Keller and Holder in 1869 (voi. 111), but later and especially in the A r s un uly neglected by Keller. The codex contains ancient material e.g. C. 1. 12. 15, iv. 14. 28, S. 1. 4. 110, E p . 11. 1. 27; tor the A rs see below, pp. 31-2; I do not share Klingner’s opinion o its character. Its affinity with any of the best «» ices -not codices of the second rank such as M and y in ngner s group ζ) can be defined only where the Parisinus A happens to be preserved; in those poems—not the A r s — codd. a and A are often closely akin. 1

Laurentianus 34. i, s. x-xi.

* Paravia edition, n* (rc^g), ix. 2

The Selection o f Manuscripts

B = Bernensis 363, s. ix, a major source of the text of H.; earlier owned by a well-known collector of manuscripts, Jacobus Bongarsius (d. 1612 at Paris).1 A complete facsimile appeared in S. de Vries’s C odd. G r. et L a t . π (Leiden, 1897), with a full description by H. Hagen. First used by Orelli, 1837 (Ist ed.). A codex of excerpts from various authors including contemporary or near-contemporary poems ; Hagen, Introd. p. ii n. 3, gives a full list of its contents. The Horatian excerpts were perhaps selected to display a large variety of metres. Apart from one of the ps.-Acronian Lives, B contains selected odes and epodes, many complete, some fragmentary, some repeated; also the C .S . and A .P . 1-440, S . 1. 1-3. 134. Neither the date nor the provenance of cod. B is agreed. The script is Irish and the codex contains Irish glosses. The marginal scribbles are of considerable historical interest; they refer in te r a lia to life and politics in the ninth century. Keller and others point out that the reference on fol. 186r to queen Angelberga, wife of King Hludovic II of the Lango­ bardi, applies to the years 856-90; she married in 856 and died in 890; the carm en a d Tadonem , archbishop of Milan (fol. I94v), points to the years of his episcopate, 861-9. There are other references to slightly earlier events. At one time the codex was believed to be the oldest surviving manuscript of H. Subsequently dates after the middle of the ninth century were canvassed; Keller, on the basis of the above dates, suggested 850-70. On the other hand, expert palaeographers have dated B later, E. Maunde Thompson to the tenth cen­ tury,2 L. Traube to the late ninth: ‘vor dem A u sgan g des g . J a h r h u n d e r ts is t er n ich t geschrieben* A The marginalia might then, as Traube thought, be copied from the source. As place of origin Fleury on the Loire used to be suggested (Keller and Holder, ist ed. p. xi, Ghatelain, P aléog. 1, 23.) But for this origin there is no valid evidence.4 The marginal allusions and 1 * 3 *

Cf. H. Hagen, Jacobus Bongarsius, &c. (Bern, 1874). Cit. T. Gottlieb, It'S, ix (1887), 151. Ό Roma Nobilis’, ABAW, xix (1892), 349. Keller, 2nd ed. p. xix.

3

1-2

Introduction to Manuscripts and Editions

other features rather point to northern Italy, though the Bobbio catalogue, s. x, records no Horace. A competent study of all the contemporary material in B is desirable. Until this is undertaken, chronological conclusions concerning the sur­ vival of Horatian copies on the European continent and in Ireland are precarious; cf. P. von Winterfeld,1 A. Bernardini, A ppunti cronologici intorno a l i cod. bernensis’ 3 6 3 (Sinigaglia, 1911) cited by Pasquali, S ton a della tradizion e, 2nd ed. (1952), p. 385 n. 3, and Pasquali’s own remarks ib id , and pp. 374 E ; see also below p. 30. Medieval Italy was not so well provided with copies of H. as were France and Germany.2 The com­ paratively uncontaminated text of B could then be due to geographical rather than chronological causes. The scribe’s writing is careless and sparsely corrected ; many slips and false word-divisions survive. But the superficially disordered and unsophisticated codex preserves much ancient and good matenai and, with its younger relatives C and probably K, represents a distinct form of the Horatian text. Examples will he given below. C /E = M onacensi* la t. 14685, s .x i,» ea rlier o w n e d b y , a n d

er aps written at, one of the major Benedictine monasteries S0U r crmany, St Emmeram (Regensburg). The mon• f ^ .°Un e m ^le eighth century, was for a long time rich .1 y E jy manuscripts; B. BischofF, whose knowledge o f ..... u,rE MSS is unrivalled, has written about St κ Ξ “ 1 m· ^ / “ “ ‘deutschen Schreibschulen.. .in der and

‘71

1. *·

^ / E w a s first u s e d b y K e l l e r

7

the e r min· of i8 8 ; editors thought that i n d ^ “ T ter ° ftWO Codices ‘»«"d together-C , s. xi, ^ ο Λ ^ ϊΓ ρ theJevid“ “ "O' favour such a rimple ypothesis. Prolonged work on the C/E readings and a week scradnjzjng the manuscript in the Ι ^ ^ , Γ ν ό 1 RM , LX (1905), 32 fr. 3 ®uttenwieser, Speculum, xvn (1942), κ4.

*

β3ί

33 Probab]y s· xi·, see Mow

Sammlung Bzbliothekswiss. Arbeit^, p. 49 4

T h e S e le c tio n o f M a n u s c r ip ts

convinced me that, in principle, Klingner was right when he based the distinction between G and E on the use of two different sources rather than on the putative difference of scripts, inks, and dates; see F. Klingner, H , l x x (1935),

379- 8 1. I would describe the position as follows. Unlike B, cod. C is something like an ‘edition’ of Horace. Fulness was aimed at ; and, having more than one source to draw on, the scribe largely succeeded, the exception being C . iv 7. 21-E p o d . 1. 23, which are missing completely. Three times an incomplete portion was supplemented by a text apparently taken from a different source. In each case the former of the two texts shows marked similarities with B and K where each is extant. These texts are best described by their old siglum ‘C’ in order to distinguish them from the additional portions, Keller and Holder’s ‘E ’. The priority of the incomplete portions is rendered probable by the larger amounts available for supple­ mentation. In one case, that of the Satires, the C text1 could have been dispensed with altogether, since the E portion that follows offers the whole of the S atires, and thus duplicates the C portion, though the readings differ in a number of places. In another case, the lyric poems, C offered no more, and per­ haps had no more to offer, than C . in . 27. i - i v . 7. 20, E pod. i. 24.-17 fin. and C .S . The rest was drawn from E, I mean i. i. i-in . 26 fin., accommodated on the two quaternions before C . hi. 27; C . iv. 7. 2 1 - E p o d . 1. 23 have already been seen to be missing. In the remaining case, C, unlike its older relative B, took the A r s only up to 1. 440. While B explicitly declared that poem to be ‘finished’, C filled the page with two ornamental drawings and a bit of exposition. The missing 36 verses of the A r s were taken from E, and fill one column of the next page; some scholia occupy one half of the second column, the rest is left blank. The readings, with one possible excep­ tion, are poor. Between the two groups of S atires come the E p is tle s , with no difference in externals that I can find. They 1 S . i. 4. iaa-6. 40, a . 7. 118, n. 8. 5

Introduction to M a n u sc rip ts a n d E d i t i o n s

may therefore belong to either C or E, and require more argument than is apposite here since the codices closest to C are not extant in the E pistles. I have not therefore attempted to adjudicate between Keller and Holder, who call this por­ tion E, and Klingner and Lenchantin, who call it C, though Klingner has left an awkward trace of the earlier nomen­ clature at E p . i. i. 72. By way of summing up I list the C and E texts in their distribution over the codex: fols. 56-70 C . 1. 1. 1-111. 26 fin. (E); fols. 7 i-8 ir C . in. 27. i-iv. 7. 20, E p o d . 1. 24-17 fin., C .S ., A .P . 1-440 (C); fol. 8Γ A . P . 441-76 (E); fols. 82-83v S . I. 4. 122-6. 40, π. 7. 118, n. 8 (C); fols. 83v-9 2 v E p . i-n (?C, ?E); fols. 92v-i02v S . 1. 1. i-n. 5. 82, and fols. 104-5 S . π. 6. 34-8 fin. (E). The remaining portion of the S a tir e s (n. 5. 83-6. 33) is added on fol. 103, written in a single column over the width of the page, not in two columns as in the rest of the codex. The script differs; B. Bischoff1 assigns it to the twelfth century. Thus S . 1. 4.122-6. 40,11. 7. 118, and n. 8, are duplicated. K ~= codex St Claude, Dép. Jura (Bibl. Municipale), no. 2, s. xi; received from the local Benedictine abbey of St Oyan ( S . E ugendus) to which the name of St Claude was later applied. The codex was listed in 1492 in the catalogue of the abbey but does not appear in the surviving fragment of the eleventh century catalogue. Introduced by F. Vollmer, H o ra ce 2 ( 1912) .2 A collection of pieces from various authors; the Horatian poems were probably part of a different codex, a palimpsest; now they amount only to A . P . and S . 1 . 1 . 1-11. 2. 24. K con­ tains good and clearly ancient material. The manuscript is not so closely related to B or C as Vollmer and Klingner have con­ fidently asserted, although for better or worse BCK often agree. It is also true that some of K’s best readings are shared with B or C or both, but other good readings are not. For i j t ; iai"?ncr»H> (1935), 380 n. 4. cf. pracf. p. vui, SBAW (1913), pt. m, ‘Zum Homerus Latinus*, pp. 5-7.

6

T h e S e le c tio n o f M a n u s c r ip ts

example contrast A .P . 237, 289, 393, 400 with 5, 7, 230, 305, 339, 371, 378, 420, 430, 458. The correct wording quiduis (23), which appears only in K and, as a correction, in ψ, is possibly but not certainly due to conjecture in both cases. R = Vaticanus Reginae 1703, dated by Keller to the eighth century, but palaeographers now assign it to the middle of the ninth. Even so it is probably a little older than B, and hence may be the oldest known manuscript of H. Though recorded much earlier, the codex was fully used first in Keller and Holder’s ed. min. of 1878. It is one of a large number of manuscripts (several Horatian among them) and books that came to the Vatican by the bequest of Queen Christina of Sweden (d. 1689 at Rome); earlier it belonged to the Mon­ astery of St Peter and St Paul at Wissembourg, Alsace. This is one of the finest specimens of Carolingian script, carefully, though not always felicitously, corrected. For a photograph, see Chatelain, P a léo g . 1, pi. 87 ; I have recollated the codex from a microfilm. Housman thought that it is ‘probably the best MS (of H.) on the whole, and certainly much the best in orthography’.1 For the preservation of old forms in its spelling, see Keller, ed.2 praef. p. lxiii. But R cannot be called the best manuscript of the A r s . This is not to deny the all­ round excellence of the codex in this poem. In many passages good evidence is preserved, often against the BC tradition (e.g. 226, 230, 234, 235, 237, 373, 461). There are not a few places where the codex propagates a poor paradosis, e.g. 62, 72, 94, 100, 133, 187, 237, 261. There are however no places in the A r s where R alone preserves the correct wording as it does for example at C . 11. 7 . 5 P om pei (p o m p i , p o m p ili cett. ; p o m p i even in A a B though the correct name is in the title), in. 5. 2 d erep ta R d i- cett., m. 20. 15 n ire u sf at C. 1. 18. 5 R and the corrupt text of Nonius suggest the probability of the acc. m ilitie m 3 and at in. 25. 12 R with Sir and φψ preserves the 1 CQ,, XXII (1938), 7. 3 Cf. TLL, vili. 957. 23-4.

2 Cf. ™rea>Epod. 15. 22 a R.

7

Introduction to Manuscripts and Editions

correct

while the other codices have the unmetric al naidum. Moreover since many editors have tended to succumb to the lure of class-division, it is worth noting that what may be our oldest manuscript offers a text that cannot be assigned to any one distinct group of readings. As early as the ninth century, and probably earlier, classes of readings must already have been conflated to produce the evidence presented by R. naiadum,

V = Blandinius Vetustissimus, now lost, apparently the oldest of four codices from the Benedictine monastery o f St Blanchin (Blankenberg) in Ghent, and used by the Flemish humanist Jacobus Cruquius in his editions of H. from 1565 onwards. The manuscript cannot be dated. A case has been made by P. von Winterfeld1 for the assumption that like B it was written in Irish script. The monastery was burnt down m 1566 by the ‘iconoclasts ’ (Cruquius on V. r. 1. 1) and the codices were destroyed. The readings of V and the other Blandinii are known therefore only from Cruquius’ very selec­ tive collations, and may be inferred in some cases for the poems not the Arr—contained in the codex Gothanus B 61, which seems to have been copied from V in the fifteenth century. Much has been written about V and assessments o f 1 , V. U* bution T varia « ^ £ % * * ^ * e distriC ontrasX « I I “ ? BuI“ « 8 » * « «his division. ΚΪ

6 SaW3 C

k

a

r

P

6

- Where

δ φψ. Here the codexes do divia S ^ Uert*s AaBCR pr. y λΐ ττ uerte ABC but R goes with Ag ^ cording to the simple prescription 2· 29 aaCBC at M R ö t λί SUCh plaCeS in the Epodes as 4 - 5 ^ s m R ^ e t ™sAaXl i6

Can the Horatian Manuscripts be Classified? 5· 11 71 8. 20

haec trem. AaBC Ài haec et trem. 5% φψ haec et rem. a{ h) a( k) uel sim. Aa δττί φψ om. BCR λ quid A aR 1 5% λΐ φψ quod BCM γ.

R

The falsity of Klingner’s classification is clearly seen when the manuscripts in his app. crit. are checked against the family label. They sometimes square, at other times they do not. In the O d e s, B not infrequently stands apart from the rest of ‘5 ’, although a promising assurance ‘5 = ABQ, (= ABDEM acc. in te rd . R) acc. in terd . λΓ heads the app. crit. Thus (I omit references to cod. M) C. i. 12. 32 (dividing into three, not the usual two, groups) qui B quod D pr. R pr. (?) quia AaER corr. δττ λΐ φψ *· J3· 6 manet B manent cett. ι· l 7- 9 (h )a ed ili{a )e BR δττ λΐ φψ (h)aedilia AaDE 19 disces B dices cett. r 2 i. 14 in preserved and correctly placed B om. AaD’vER1 transferred to 1. 15 5% λΐ φψ ι · 27· ingenuo AaDER λ gem o 1 ingenio B 5 pr. π genio φψ ΐ· 28. ΐ5 nox ABE δττ λΐ φψ mors aDE uar. R c 3°· i cnidi BR δττ φψ gn idi AaE λΐ l' 31· 10 ut BR1 5% λΐ φψ et AaET *· 35· 39 diffingas AaDER δ φ diffindas ττ deffingas λΐ defingas R ψ

Similar difficulties arise, though less frequently, over Klingner s other blanket siglum, Ψ, the supposed archetype of R (except when R goes with 2 !) δττ λΐ (except when λΐ go with 5 !) φψ. £c r e p a t 5 (acc. Al R) ’, we are told at 1. 18. 5; and yet 9 Ψ, that mainstay o f this class of readings, offer increpat along with δ and E (and ττ2). a ttin e n t at 1. 19. 12 is said to be in 5 Ψ, and yet a ttin e t (the more likely reading) is in φψ and R1. All these are instances from Book 1 only; many others could be adduced from other parts of the O des. In the hexameter poems the job of classifying is trickier > the evidence that Klingner claims for 4Class 5 is even rn°re scanty. BK offer some portions of the S atires and K only 2

17

BHA

Introduction to M anuscripts and E d itio n s

some others, G only offers p art of the Epistles, an d there is no evidence at all in the large area w here B and C as well as K fail us, for 4deest K, S. n. 2. 25~Ep. 11. 2. 116’. Cod. g, w hich is claimed as an occasional auxiliary (‘acc. interdum g ’) is best left out of account altogether since its well-known adherence to the readings of the Blandinius Vetustissimus implies the possibility, if not more, of a third line of transmission a p a rt from 2 and Y. When all fails we are told soothingly (S. 11. 2. 25 if.) Q, modo ad ree. 2, modo ad Y pertinent. uestìgia ree. 2 praeterea in g m σ χ u λ ’. But uncertain ‘vestiges’ cannot supply a badly needed criterion for distinguishing one of two undefined ingredients of a ‘m ixture’. In the Ars, at any rate up to 440, ‘ Class 2 ’ is said to be represented by BCK, apart from th a t dubious ally called Q, by Klingner (‘ = a y M acc. interd. R ’), p a rt o f K eller’s C lassi; λΐ, which in other poems not infrequently adhere to BC, are in the Ars usually on the side of the G reek-letter codices. Yet K, apparently also C, had access to more th an one source. I*1 any case BC stand by themselves so frequently th a t no evidential value can be said to accrue from a position w here K and B, or K and BC, disagree. Let us therefore allow for the shifting allegiances of cod. a (the other two m em bers o f the Q, class , y and M, can be disregarded for textual purposes) and R, and ask ourselves how often 2 really = B C K and, at the same time, Y — δττ λΐ φψ. The answer is, sometimes b u t by no means invariably or even in a majority o f cases. 37

49 re ru m 100 u o le n t 103 tu rn ” 7

M e n tis

BCK (?) (R) BCK (a) BCK BCK (aRJ) BCK (a) BCK BCK (aR) BCK BCK

212 226 a v e r te r e 259 e r m i 289 q u e 311 sequuntur BC(-qum-)K. 327 a l b a n i (a) BC{ a l b a m-)K 345 s o s is (alV) BCK

que reru m e t v o lu n t tu n c u ig e n tis o m .,

add. sec. man.

i t a v e r te r e e rtn ii ve s e q u e n tu r a lb in i s o s ii s

δπλίφ ψ δττ λΐ φψ δττ λΐ φψ δπ λΐ φψ δττ λΐ φψ (R1) δττ λΐ φψ (R) δπλίφ ψ (aR) δπ λΐ φψ δπλίφ ψ (aR) δπ λΐ φψ (aR) (R8, b i n i R1tt pr.) δπ λΐ φψ (a*R*, s o c i i s R1) δπλίφ ψ

(aR) (aV) (R corr.) (aR)

C a n th e H o r a t i a n M a n u s c r i p t s b e C la s s if ie d ?

This is clear evidence but beyond it the ground is less firm. In such places as 234, 237, 276, 288, 294, and 421, the se­ quence BGK is broken, in the first four C2and K (or K2) show themselves aware of the opposite reading, and in the fifth the K1 reading is not known—but, nevertheless, let them be counted for argument’s sake. nomine et 8 7 6 plausis 3 8 8 togatis 8 9 4 pr(a)esectum 834

B cq?)

837

(V ) B C BCTK1 BCK1 (V ) B C ( K 1 n .l.)

nomina an plaustrìs togatas perfectum perspectum

(aR )

δττ λ ΐ φ ψ C 2K

(aR )

δττ λ ΐ φ ψ Κ p o s t r a s .

(a R )

δ ττ λ ΐ φ ψ C 2K 2

(a R )

δττ λ ΐ φ ψ Κ 2

(aR )

δ π 1 λΐ φψ Κ 2 ττ2 (?)

A few more dubious cases of this kind may be adduced and beyond them there stretches the large and murky area where it is the scribes of δττ or λΐ or φψ that do the ‘contaminating’. That area will be surveyed below (pp. 24 ff.). There are then in the 476 verses of the A rs about twenty variants and a few instances of spellings to which the equations 2 = BGK, T = δττ λΐ φψ apply, though not always fully. There are many more, up to three times that number, where the distribution of readings in ‘Class 2 ’ alone invalidates that simple division, and by the same token renders its use in­ advisable anywhere. Of this fact Klingner must have been uneasily aware, for his procedure is by no means consistent. I append six passages in which K stands apart from B and G or from B or C singly. In three of these Klingner uses the class label 2 ( = BCK), in the other three he does not, although they are identical in character. It is noted that at 222 and 371 a reading (iocum , aulus) is labelled 2Y and yet, in one case, BK1 δττ and, in the other, BC1 differ. M S S (c e tt. d e n o te s th e r e m a in d e r o f K l i n g n e r (B 1 =

B(?)K1R2 δττ io c u m Έ Ψ a n Β Bl a d Ο Κ Ύ a tr e 3 n e c BC Serti. n e ΚΨ tie BK qu eC Y n e c s c i t 2 Bl n e s c it CT a u s u s BC1(?) a u lu s Έ Ύ lo c u m

th e M S S s e le c te d in th is e d itio n )

B la n d . V e t.) 222

330 339 358 371

371 19

locum Β Κ 1!*.2 S i r φ p r . ψ iocum C an B V p r . ad (at V c o r r . i r 2) K me B C S e m . ne K ue B K que C me seit B K V mscit C ausus B C 1(? ) aulus K

c e tt. c e tt. c e tt. c e tt. c e tt. c e tt. 2-2

I n tr o d u c tio n to M a n u s c r i p t s a n d E d i t i o n s

The same criticism is prompted by any other passages where the triad BCK is broken—5, 54, 92, 134, 178, 190, 202, 230, 249, 276 (uexisse), 277, 298, 305, 319, 360, 393, 420,^ 421, 4 24 ~5 >4 3 4 >4 4 i - 7 ^j which K took from a source not available to BC; and the instances in which the Greek-letter codices are separated give rise to even greater difficulties. For here in particular Klingner duplicates the class label so that the same siglum comes to denote different groups of manuscripts. Thus ut ψ ( δ π R a y ) que ΙΎ ( F A 'R ’ ( ? ) ) aera ΈΨ aere C F λ 'δ fallant F δ -rr c o i r . R 2 fallent ΈΎ

65 345

437

tu 5 π a R que B C K λ ΐ φ ψ (a)era 5 2Tca ( ? ) B C 2K R X 2l 2 fallant δ τ τ c o r r . φ ψ R 2 fa lle n t c e t t .

I conclude that there is no health in Klingner’s classifica­ tion. The distinction by titles of epodes is not sufficiently borne out by the shifting allegiances of manuscripts. Variants fall into classes but manuscripts do not. Class labels therefore are unsound. Nor can Klingner’s attempt to combine class labels with manuscripts’ sigla be upheld. This compromise is impracticable as long as all the indispensable manuscripts are use and their variations specified. The reason for that is not ar to seek. Our oldest manuscripts of H. are already crosserti ize m various degrees; they do not preserve unmixed ra tions. M. Lenchantin therefore was justified in rebutting the new doctrine; his argument deserved more attention than I/77r-he publlshed i t i n A th en a eu m , n.s. x v (1937), 129ff and R F I C , n.s. xvm (1941), 34ff. F. Villeneuve’s introconsult-1d° 1S

ed^don

the

O des

(1927) also may be

adTded tdat ’n SUC^ a tyPe ° f transmission a “ “° “ *· For a can illustrate only established g en “ “ “ Oipt tradition. A glance at the T herT t, i er€d m,KhnSner's P r a e fa tio will show what I mean, thinu was t 6 Τκ Γ S arcda'c Greek philosopher, everyÜ a to f B u t it is the purpose o f a “ “

7

from other lin T o f

“ ““ Can b e seP a r a te d 20

C a n th e H o r a t i a n M a n u s c r i p t s b e C la s s if ie d ?

I can see only three methods whereby the major differences of the Horatian paradosis are presented in a reasonable app. crit. One procedure is A. Meineke’s in his important edition of 1834—a listing by readings and a total omission of all references to manuscripts. This method has the virtue of a masterly brevity; it draws attention away from the symbols for manuscripts, and directs it where it belongs, to the variety of readings. I have been tempted to apply it, and have abandoned it chiefly because it loses the one solid advantage that has accrued in the study of H.’s text over a century— the assessment of the major codices. Another viable procedure is that adopted by Lenchantin in the Paravia series1 and by Villeneuve in the Bude series. The result is an unbiased if indistinct survey of the provenance of readings. The weakness of this procedure cannot however be concealed. Some manu­ scripts are more closely related than others and this relation remains unnoticed when codices are arranged according to their putative dates. The third procedure seeks to bring out these similarities, while allowing for the variability of some of the surviving sources. This is the procedure I have adopted. It has no especial virtue, apart perhaps from disclosing more evidence than the two others. This evidence is known and has already been adverted to; but it does not happen to have been presented clearly. A somewhat fuller account now follows, which leads on to a brief discussion of the archetype, or arche­ types, of our manuscripts. 3 . G la sse s o f R ea d in g s

Trying to ascertain the number of variants in any passage in H., we find that there are some where three variants have been transmitted. But the number of clear instances is small— in the A r s no more than perhaps four of them. 154 plusoris ( plus oris) R2 δ% λΐ1 φχψ plosoris aBCKRxV δ2 plausoris 12λ uar. φ2, Pseudacro: ‘plosoris ’ et ‘plausoris ’ legitur 190 spectanda aCRir2φψpost ras. exspectanda ΒΚψ in ras. spectata δπ1λΐ 1 2nd edition by D. Bo.

21

I n tr o d u c tio n to M a n u s c r i p t s a n d E d i t i o n s

196 amice aB G K δ2φ 2ψ 2 a m E i δ 1( ? ) π φ 1ψ»1 a m icis R λ ΐ 360 open B C R V λΐ ττ φ ψ H ie r. E p . 84. 8 . c o d d . u e t t . n e c n o n c o d . C a n ta b , s. xii. (C oll. E m m a n .) opere K 8 p r . opere in a 5 c o rr. H ier. co d d . recc.

Other cases, e.g. 168, 305, 327, 328, 402, etc., may not be transmitted readings but the quirks of individual scribes. Even the genuine cases are small beer, none of them equal in importance to such a passage as C. 11. 13. 23 descriptasj discriptas/discretas, where each reading yields some sense, and the third, recommended by Bentley, tends to be unjustly neglected by editors. The remaining variants, seventy or more in number, are bipartite. It has already been demonstrated that comparatively few of them fall into the simple patterns assumed by Klingner. But overstatement must not be allowed to obscure what affilia­ tions have been known for some time. The similarity between B and C was observed by Keller and Holder, and has been noted above. Most important o f all is the omission, in B and C, of verses 441—76. Some conclusive instances of common faults are listed by Keller ed.2, pp. xx f-> lxxxmff., 5 -um m issi for -um a m (a d ) m issi, 234 nomine: n o m in a , 288 tog a tis'.to g a ta s, 420 a d lucrum, iu bet unmetrical for iu b e t a d lucrum, etc. Such instances may be multiplied, e.g. at 54, 225, 230, 277, 307, 339, 396, 416. C, however, as Keller recognized, is not a copy o f B. Rather it seems to have been derived, after two centuries or so, from the same exemplar as B itself, or from an intervening copy. oreover the scribe of C was able to supply additional mater­ ial, either from evidence in the same exemplar not taken up by B, or from other sources; thus verses 2 and 283 are in G, but not in B, 7 a eg ri in C but the faulty a e g ris B, 63, 67 in iq u o m C °m · A ausus ( Ό hut aulus C corr., 378 p e r g i t BC uergit uar. cett. Sometimes C divides words wrongly where B has correct divisions, as 327 a lb a n is i Cpr. a lb a n i s i BC corr. u very many of the faulty word-divisions o f B— a sure sign that sc n p tio continua was not far away—are eliminated in 22

C la s s e s o f R e a d in g s

C, because its scribe was either better able to spell out the common exemplar, or again had access to other sources. Thus i p ecto re quinam, B but p icto r equinam correctly G cett. ; 38 I d m r (? ia m m ater, ? iam m atrem ) B but m ateriam C1 cett. in reverse order, 119 s i quere B sequere C cett., 137, 166, 252 ir i m etris B but trim e tris C cett., 298 barbas secreta B for barbä secreta G cett., 334 iucund§ tidonea B but iucunda et idonea G cett., 337 om nes su p er- B but omne super- C cett., 342 praeter cunctaura B but p ra e te re u n t au stera C cett., 430 rore m allet B1 but rorem sa liet G cett., etc. Likewise instances in B of apocope (usually corrupted), which may preserve an ancient spelling, are eliminated by correction; thus 264 nenia est ] uenias B, 304 ta n ti e st erg o ] ta n tis tergo B, 353 ergost B, 386 indicium est, ea] in d ic iu m s te a B, 409 quaesitum est. ego] quaesitum stego B. Yet there are enough passages where the C reading, even when it differs from B, points to a common source. Thus 134 dissilies C d is ilie s B d e silie s cett. ; 154 aulaea (the correct word and spelling) of G stands between aulae B and aulea cett. ; 202 non corichalco C1 resolves sc rip tio continua in one way, nunc corichalco B in another, nunc orichalco C2 cett. being the true reading; 279 p u lp u ta t ig n is is one of the few instances where G misman­ ages word-division, whereas B, unusually, gets the division right: p u lp u ta tig n is, cf. p u lp ita tig n is cett.; 311 sequontur C (with the scribe’s favourite vocalization), sequuntur B, sequentur cett. Cod. K has already been shown to be related to the BC tradition (above pp. 6,18). The relation however is not so close as that between B and G. I have already given examples of another textual tradition intervening (above pp. 19 f.). All these facts impose a restraint on an editor who is unwilling to go against the evidence. BC, and less definitely K, represent a well-marked paradosis. No harm is done if this is signified by a class symbol in those cases where BCK agree. But when B and G, and even more B, C, and K, disagree, this tradition cannot be recovered with any certainty and a general symbol lacks justification. Since this happens more often than 23

I n t r o d u c t i o n to M a n u s c r i p t s a n d E d i t i o n s

not, it is perhaps preferable, in this tradition, to eliminate the general symbol altogether. The same preference applies to the other class o f readings that was distinguished above. This is often represented by the Greek-letter manuscripts, conveniently so called although cod. 1 figures among them. O f the pairing of δττ, λΐ, and φψ there can be no doubt, although occasionally each codex indulges its own individual vagaries. Thus, apart from the dozens of instances where a pair joins one or two of the others, a few passages may be cited where each appears more or less isolated from its cousins. 65 ue 5 tt aR que cett. 203 pauco δ2ττ1aBCK paruo δ1ττ2 cett. 207 coibat δ corr. ir BG al. cohibat λΐ pr. φψ 393 rapides δ rapidis ττ pr. rapidos uel rabidos cett. 428 pulchrae δ pr. ir R pr. pu lc{h )re cett. 439 aiebat δττ KR2 a g {i)e b a t cett. λΐ (labelled λ' by Keller) adhere in the A r s usually to the group δττ φψ. But λΐ in separation are shown for example at 79 om. λ1!1 add. λ212 habent cett. 196 amicis λΐ R amice uel am ici cett. 222 iocum λΐ φ corr. etc. locum δττ φ pr. ψ R2 349 remuttit λΐ rem utit uel rem ittit cett. 402 tyrceus (-gus) λΐ alii alia 461 demittere λΐ ττ2 R dim ittere cett. φψ (labelled F by Keller) 79 archilochum φψ aR archilocum cett. 96 thelephus φψ telephus sim. cett. 187 procne (recte) φψ tantum progn {a)e cett. 207 catus φψ1 {cautus ψ2) castus cett. 233 propteruis φψ proteruis cett. 339 posset φ pr. ψ pr. δ1(?) poscat cett. δττ λΐ and φψ coincide in a sizeable number o f cases (above p. 18), and in those cases represent a distinct class o f the paradosis. The most convincing instance is the omission o f a whole verse (212) in δττλίφψ and R, repaired by second hands in all of them. The omission was caused by homoeo24

C la s s e s o f R e a d in g s

teleuton, produced in turn by a faulty ending of the final word in the preceding line; this clearly must have occurred in the common ancestor of the whole group—the confusion obligingly preserved by R and it, two manuscripts that show some affinity: 2 i i a c c e s s it n u m e r is q u e m o d isq u e lic e n tia m a io r (m a lo ru m R 1) 2 12 in d o c t u s q u i d e n im s a p e re t lib e rq u e la b o ru m (m a lo ru m π 2)

These cases are instructive but not large in number. For again and again either one or more of the three pairs, or even one of the partners, detach themselves from their family, betraying a knowledge of the neighbour’s property on the other side of the fence, and sometimes resisting but often succumbing to the lure. Thus the omission of 1. 211 was made good. Thus, misguidedly or not, readings were changed in numerous cases. 18 flu u iu s 5 % λ 1!1 φ χψ χ R 2 p lu u iu s (recte) δ 2 λ 212 φ2ψ 2 aB, etc. 5 6 ( h )e n n ii δττ2 λ ΐ φ ψ enni (recte) ir 1 ce tt. 7 6 iu n c tis δ 1ττ c o r r. λ ΐ φ χψ χ iunctus ττ p r. R 1 inclusa est (recte) δ 2

n i e t certi ττ λ ΐ φ ψ R x(?) effert (re c te )δ φ2 u a r . ψ 2 u a r. aB {efferet), R 2, e tc . 154 p lu s o r is (p lu s oris) 5% λ ΐ1 ' ™*hout Latin text reprinted. 46

(P ,

A S e l e c t L i s t o f E d i t i o n s a n d C o m m e n ta r ie s

1939

W. Steidle, commentary on A .P . 1-294, in Studien Würzburg, reprinted. 1941 F. Cupaiuolo, Naples. 1951 L. Herrmann, ed. and French tr., Coll. Latomus, vii , Brussels. 1958 W. Stegen, L e s É p . littéraires, Namur. 1964 E. Pasoli, with E p . book 11, Bologna.

z u r A r s P o e tic a des Η . ,

8. E x c e r p t a e x c o d ic ib u s B la n d in ü s C ruquiana Ed. H o r. 1597 [Bland. = Blandinius, Busi. = cod. Buslidianus e bibliotheca Col­ legii Trilinguis Louaniensis a J. Buslidio conditi, Diu. uel Carr. = codex D iu aei u el Carrionis, Bentlei Zulichemianus, nunc Leidensis 127 a , M art. = cod. M atthaei Martinii, Sii. = cod. Gualteri Siluii, Tons. = cod. e bibliotheca Tonsana.]

7, p. 639b Cru. a eg ri, vnus cod. Bland, habet aegris, sed arbitror s litteram ei adrepsisse à τω somnia proxime sequenti, non enim videtur ei aptanda, reliqui lib. scripti sequuntur lectionem vulgatam. 49, p. 640* rerum & . sic habet omnes scripti cod. 53, i b i d . G raeco f o n te c a d e n t . . .Omnes Bland, cum Busi. & Sil. habent, cadent, sed Tons. & Mart, cadüt. Diu. cadant. 54, ib id , d a b it, sic omnes lib. scripti, sed Bland, habent dabit, pro dedit, adnotatü. 59, i b id , pro d u cere, sic est in omnibus script, non etiä pro­ cudere, ut aliqui se inuenisse aiunt. 72, p. 64ο0 & iu s. sic omnes scrip, lib. non autem vis, vt vulgati aliqui. 92, i b id , s o r tita decenter. Bläd. antiquiss. cum alio habet decentem. 114, i b id , diuósne loqu atu r, an heros, hic versiculus variè legitur, vt videre est apud Glareanum, & Lambinum, & alios : mihi certè probatur codices Bland, ex quibus duo habent, (p. 641a) diuósne (o pro u, vt saepius in scriptis antiquis) loquatur an heros, tertius, diuùsne loquatur an heros. Sed non A .P .

47

Introduction to M anuscripts an d Editions

celabo lectorem, me ante annos non paucos, in bibliotheca onsana offendisse codicem scriptu, cui titulus erat Alphaa um ex scriptis Horatij, Catonis & Theodoli, praeter alias r>Sj ^U1 sa^s videbatur antiquus, ubi legi hunc de quo I VerSUirn Slc scriptu apertè : Intererit multum Dauusne ua ur an aeres. Dispiciat lector, haeres ne pro herili filio positus credi possit, cui seruus erat Dauus. i i 7 , p. 641 a A re n tis a g e lli, vnus Bland, habet vigentis. 5 4 > P- Ò41 s i p la u s o r is . Bläd. uetust. habet plosoris. 1 1 ' m er^us iuuen is. sic habet cod. Bläd. antiq. quem Crarn^ sam auctoritate Sosipat. Carisij lib. r. instit. e n im S V “ autem icuntur, inquit, non imberbes: sic arro De actionibus scenicis 5. Imberbi iuuenes. sic Taniia^T'^0 -! erbum Pr°tulit, nò imberbe. Ex Kalendis a r u m t R · ^ 6 f e a &r a r *a ’ imberba iuuentute. Titus histori­ arum 18 imberbes vulgariter, haec Caris. ' mnes quos vidi codices scriptos habet, actoris veritate US n- B (auri su p e r o r i sc r.) O uincta a B R V δ h i φψ? P o r p h . iuncta C ( ? ) K r c t S c h o l. cincta R e in a c h 209 pauco a B C K P o r p h . S c h o l. paruo R δ1^2λl pamoR ic h a r d s ; an raro? 206 quo] quodß 307 castus] catus φψ1 cautus ψ2 ao8 urbem i urbes co d d . v e tt.

(sc rip tu ra e u a m it in S ch ot,

‘De Arte Poetica' accessit numerisque modisque licentia maior. indoctus quid enim saperet liberque laborum rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto? sic priscae motumque et luxuriem addidit arti tibicen traxitque uagus per pulpita uestem, sic etiam fidibus uoces creuere seueris, et tulit eloquium insolitum facundia praeceps, utiliumque sagax rerum et diuina futuri sortilegis non discrepuit sententia Delphis. carmine qui tragico uilem certauit ob hircum, mox etiam agrestes Satyros nudauit, et asper incolumi grauitate iocum temptauit, eo quo illecebris erat et grata nouitate morandus spectator, functusque sacris et potus et exlex. uerum ita risores, ita commendare dicaces conueniet Satyros, ita uertere seria ludo, ne quicumque deus, quicumque adhibebitur eros, regali conspectus in auro nuper et ostro, migret in obscuras humili sermone tabernas, aut, dum u itat humum, nubes et inania captet, effutire leues indigna Tragoedia uersus, ut festis m atrona moueri iussa diebus, intererit Satyris paulum pudibunda proteruis. non ego inornata et dominantia nomina so um uerbaque, Pisones, Satyrorum scriptor ama o, nec sic enitar tragico differre colon, ut nihil intersit Dauusne loquatur et audax Pvfhias pmnnrtn lucrata Simone talentum,

25

^

^^

i« maior] malorum R 1 per homoeoteleuton 212 laborum l^ uriem *aR δ λ/ φψ Ρττ1λ1!1φ1ψ1) uersus sec. manu additus, cf. 211 , · r 331 nudauit uxuriam BCK ir Porph. 215-18 PMne canuerunt m ^ peerlkamp odd. necnon Porph. Schol. Mar. Viet. GL, vi. 82. » r(?)K 1R2 Stt φante «mauit Diam. GL, i. 487. 18, 49»· 9 . 222 CPr. inedebris r«. ψDiom. GL, 1. 491. io a *3 dlecebris fi"1·)! , - _at-i inerat λ (illec. RBt-ir2lpr. φψ illecerebris Mar. Viet. GL, vi. 82.8 ® spectator] spectatus C superscr.) erat om. rvφ pr. ψ pr. et om .S 4 uitat] -et i aa6 ita uertere] auertere BCK a3° dum] n or%n\ 235 pisones *33 proteruis] propteruis φψ 234 nomina] nomine «BCKRV pisonis δ1π λ/φψ *37 et B C V an aKpost ras. R «nt W

Q . Horati Flacci

an custos famulusque dei Silenus alumni, ex noto fictum carmen sequar, ut sibi quiuis speret idem, sudet multum frustraque laboret ausus idem: tantum series iuncturaque pollet, tantum de medio sumptis accedit honoris, siluis deducti caueant, me iudice, Fauni ne uelut innati triuiis ac paene forenses aut nimium teneris iuuenentur uersibus umquam, aut immunda erepent ignominiosaque dicta, offenduntur enim quibus est equus et pater et res, nec, si quid fricti ciceris probat et nucis emptor, aequis accipiunt animis donantue corona. syllaba longa breui subiecta uocatur iambus, pes citus ; unde etiam trimetris accrescere iussit nomen iambeis, cum senos redderet ictus primus ad extremum similis sibi jnon ita pridem f. tardior ut paulo grauiorque ueniret ad aures, spondeos stabiles in iura paterna recepit commodus et patiens, non ut de sede secunda cederet aut quarta socialiter, hic et in Acci nobilibus trimetris apparet rarus, et Enni m scaenam missos cum magno pondere uersus aut operae celeris nimium curaque carentis aut ignoratae premit artis crimine turpi. non quiuis uidet immodulata poemata iudex, et data Romanis uenia est indigna poetis, idcircone uager scribamque licenter? an omnes uisuros peccata putem mea, tutus et intra spem ueniae cautus? uitaui denique culpam,

240

245

25 °

255

2^°

265

λ1/1 w stricti σ fracti B C * K p o s t r a s . B p r .r r 1 M * . S'*3 tr'me,:r“l “i metris B accrescere] accedere ^ i ' ■m tL ■ 253 d is t. p o s t iambeis O . J a h n H . W e i l , senos cum c L · » ?ambeis^ lambls A le m m a P o r p h . i n c o d d . p l u r . cum senos] ita pridem c o r r a l i ■» d is tin c tio p o s t pridem in c e r ta , u . c o m m . non

IT

0

le m m a P m b h

^

“i T L T r p,id'm *·260 ^ magno*cum * ** pondere i

*6t nimium celeris ac- 55 paulol Paulumtt 266 intra] extra L a m b in u s *** Ut “

64

Β ίη ύ ε ?

et *

F ea

P e e r lk a m p

'D e Arte Poetica ’

non laudem merui, uos exemplaria Graeca nocturna uersate manu, uersate diurna. at uestri proaui Plautinos et numeros et laudauere sales:nimium patienter utrumque, ne dicam stulte, mirati, si modo ego et uos scimus inurbanum lepido seponere dicto legitimumque sonum digitis callemus et aure. ignotum tragicae genus inuenisse camenae dicitur et plaustris uexisse poemata Thespis, quae canerent agerentque peruncti faecibus ora. post hunc personae pallaeque repertor honestae Aeschylus et modicis instrauit pulpita tignis et docuit magnumque loqui nitique coturno. successit uetus his comoedia, non sine multa laude, sed in uitium libertas excidit et uim dignam lege regi; lex est accepta chorusque turpiter obticuit sublato iure nocendi. nil intem ptatum nostri liquere poetae, nec minimum meruere decus uestigia Graeca ausi deserere et celebrare domestica facta, uel qui praetextas uel qui docuere togatas, nec uirtute foret clarisque potentius armis quam lingua Latium, si non offenderet unum quem que poetarum limae labor et mora, uos, o Pompilius sanguis, carmen reprehendite quod non m ulta dies et multa litura coercuit atque praesectum deciens non castigauit ad unguem. ingenium misera quia fortunatius arte credit et excludit sanos Helicone poetas

270

275

280

285

290

295

270 uestri] nostri i e d d . u e tt. 276 plaustris] plausis B C ^ K 1 plautus uel plauctus D i o m . G L , 1. 487. 28 uexisse] uixisse a p r . B K ' R uexasse l uectasse C u n n in g h a m 277 quae] qui s' D o n . E x c e r p . d e c o m . v. 9 ( p . 25. 5 W . ) p a r s c o d d ., s ic u t c o n ie c e r a t B e n tle y peruncti] infecti D io m . lo c. c it . 29 ora] atris B C 283 o m . B 284 obticuit] obmutuit i nocendi] loquendi D o n . p a r s c odd. { p . 25.12) 288 uel] ut φ aar. togatas] togatis B C K 1 289 que B C K ue c e ti. 293 d e d i s t in e t , u . c o m m . 294 pra(e)sectum B C { K l n . l . ) V perfectum a K 2R δττ1 λ/ φψ S c h e i, perpectum (s s u p e r r sc r.) ir2 deciens B decies c e t i . 296— 9 p a e n e e u a n u e r u n t in C 5

65

BH A

H orati Flacci

Democritus, bona pars non ungues ponere curat, non barbam , secreta petit loca, balnea uitat. nanciscetur enim pretium nomenque poeta [e], si tribus Anticyris caput insanabile num quam tonsori Licino commiserit, o ego laeuus, qui purgor bilem sub uerni temporis horam ; non alius faceret meliora poemata, uerum nil tanti est. ergo fungar uice cotis, acutum reddere quae ferrum ualet exsors ipsa secandi. munus et officium nil scribens ipse docebo, unde parentur opes, quid alat formetque poetam, quid deceat, quid non, quo uirtus, quo ferat error. scribendi recte sapere est et principium et fons, rem tibi Socraticae poterunt ostendere chartae, uerbaque prouisam rem non inuita sequentur, qui didicit patriae quid debeat et quid amicis, quo sit amore parens, quo frater amandus et hospes, quod sit conscripti, quod iudicis officium, quae partes in bellum missi ducis, ille profecto reddere personae scit conuenientia cuique, respicere exemplar uitae morumque iubebo doctum imitatorem et uiuas hinc ducere uoces. interdum speciosa locis morataque recte fabula nullius ueneris, sine pondere et arte, ualdius oblectat populum meliusque m oratur quam uersus inopes rerum nugaeque canorae. Grais ingenium, Grais dedit ore rotundo Musa loqui, praeter laudem nullius auaris. Romani pueri longis rationibus assem discunt in partes centum diducere, ‘dicat

3°°

3°5

310

315

32°

325

*98 barbam] barbas B petit] fugit P o m p e iu s , G L , v. 162. 31 299 poeta «r m p poetae co d d . 300 si] qui R i b b e c k 302 purgor] purger S' r e e r lK a m p 305 ex(s)ors ipsa K (o m . ipsa) i?2 S c h o l. i n te x tu Ft . B o b . G L , vii 542 26 ex(s)ortita a B C R 1 5W . ττχ S c h o l. i n le m m . 308 deceat] doceat P t* * ' 3 ** sequentur a R δττ Κ Ι φιρ P o r p h . Quini. I . O . i . 5. 2 sequuntur ^3n!ur 3 1® uiuas] ueras s' e d d . p l u r . u e tt. uoces] uoltus P e e r l k a m p ^ ? -rj5 1 i* iocis K R 5x-rrλ/ φψ morataque] memorataque S' 3 » diducere] deducere s' e d d . u e tt. dicat] dicas s' ·

66

‘De Arte Poetica ’

filius Albini : si de quincunce remota est uncia, quid superat? poteras dixisse.’ ‘triens.’ ‘eu. rem poteris seruare tuam, redit uncia, quid fit?’ ‘semis.’ an haec animos aerugo et cura peculi cum semel imbuerit, speremus carmina fingi posse linenda cedro et leui seruanda cupresso? aut prodesse uolunt aut delectare poetae aut simul et iucunda et idonea dicere uitae. quidquid praecipies esto breuis, ut cito dicta percipiant animi dociles teneantque fideles ; omne superuacuum pleno de pectore manat, ficta uoluptatis causa sint proxima ueris : ne quodcumque uelit poscat sibi fabula credi, neu pransae Lamiae uiuum puerum extrahat aluo. centuriae seniorum agitant expertia frugis, celsi praetereunt austera poemata Ramnes; omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci, lectorem delectando pariterque monendo* hic meret aera liber Sosiis, hic et mare transit et longum noto scriptori prorogat aeuum. sunt delicta tamen quibus ignouisse uelimus. nam neque chorda sonum reddit quem uult manus et mens [poscentique grauem persaepe remittit acutum] nec semper feriet quodcumque minabitur arcus. uerum ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis

330

335

340

345

350

albini si R 2 δπ c o n . (bini si R 1 π p r . ) 7d φψ S c h e i. albani si a B G corr. K alba nisi C p r . 328 superat] superet s' superest s' u a r . poteras] o m . K 1 poterat a δ2ττ1 triens eu] triens heu K s' triens heus u e l hem s' triens est 5%2(?) 7d φψ trienem R 330 an B V p r . at V c o n . ττ2 ad a C K R δπ1 λ/ φψ et C u n n in g h a m P e e r l k a m p 331 speremus R δττ λ p r . I φψp r . speramus a B C K ψ C0Tr· 334 aut] et S e m . A e n . vi. 660 337 d e l. G u ie tu s B e n tle y , u ix recte 339 ne a K R δττ 7d φψ nec B C S e n t . A e n . xii. 83 uolet Ä1Β ρ τ .(? )τ τ λ/ φψuelit a 1B C ( ? ) K R 2 δ c o n . S c h o l. uelis a H poscat] posset δ1 φp r . ψp r . (exposcat su p ers c r . ) poscet s' 34 o o m . K l neu] NB ne s' extrahet s' P o r p h . c odd. p r a e te r P 345 (a)era a ( ? ) B C 2K R δ2ττ λ2/2 (a)ere C1δ1λ1/1φψ (a)er(a)e u e l (a)ereae codd. a l iq u o t H o r a t i i n e c n o n c o d d . P o r p h . p r a e te r P sosiis a 2R 2 (sociis R 1) δττ7d φψ P o r p h . S c h o l. u a r . sosis a P B C K V S c h o l. 349 d e l. A . P l a t t remittit] remutit δ1(·ρ) «Pp r . ψ s’ remuttit λ/ remugit u e l reddit s' 35° quodcumque] quo­ cumque s' quoicumque M a d v i g 3*7

67

5-2

Q . Horati Flacci

offendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit aut humana parum cauit natura, quid ergo est? ut scriptor si peccat idem librarius usque, 355 quamuis est monitus, uenia caret, et citharoedus ridetur chorda qui semper oberrat eadem; sic mihi qui multum cessat fit Choerilus ille, quem bis terue bonum cum risu miror, et idem indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus ; 36 uerum operi longo fas est obrepere somnum. ut pictura, poesis : erit, quae, si propius stes, te capiat magis, et quaedam, si longius abstes ; haec amat obscurum, uolet haec sub luce uideri, iudicis argutum quae non formidat acumen; 365 haec placuit semel, haec deciens repetita placebit. o maior iuuenum, quamuis et uoce paterna fingeris ad rectum et per te sapis, hoc tibi dictum tolle memor, certis medium et tolerabile rebus recte concedi, consultus iuris et actor 37 ° causarum mediocris abest uirtute diserti Messallae nec scit quantum Cascellius Aulus, sed tamen in pretio est: mediocribus esse poetis non homines, non di, non concessere columnae, ut gratas inter mensas symphonia discors et crassum unguentum et Sardo cum meile papauer 375 offendunt, poterat duci quia cena sine istis, sic animis natum inuentumque poema iuuandis, si paulum summo decessit, uergit ad imum. ludere qui nescit, campestribus abstinet armis, 380 indoctusque pilae disciue trochiue quiescit, o

erg° est] ergost B ergo i e d d . n o n n u lli 355 et] ut K 2 u a r . i B e n tle y , recte 356 oberrat] oberret a Scorr. 357 sic multum mi qui cessat B 358 terue B K < £ terque c e tt. 359 bonus] magnus H ie r . E p · 84. 8. 2 360 d e l. C . H a m m e r s te in L . M u e l l e r , p e r p e r a m operi (u . s u p r o p . 22)] opere K S p r . opere in a Sc o rr. H ie r . E p . lo c. c it, (c o d d . r e c c .) obrepere] ignoscere i H ie r . {c o d d . u e tt.) 361 d e d is tin e t, u . c o m m . 363 o m . K 1 abstes (aptes B ) co d d . adstes i absis P o s tg a te 371 nec scit B K V nescit c e ti. aulus] ausus B C 1 376 duci o m . B dici R 1 378 uergit]perg B C (uergit C u a r . )

353

fo r i,

‘De Arte Poetica’

ne spissae risum tollant impune coronae: qui nescit uersus tamen audet fingere, quidni? liber et ingenuus, praesertim census equestrem summam nummorum, uitioque remotus ab omni. tu nihil inuita dices faciesue Minerua : id tibi iudicium est, ea mens, si quid tamen olim scripseris, in Maeci descendat iudicis aures et patris et nostras, nonumque prematur in annum, membranis intus positis; delere licebit quod non edideris, nescit uox missa reuerti. siluestres homines sacer interpresque deorum caedibus et uictu foedo deterruit Orpheus, dictus ob hoc lenire tigris rabidosque leones ; dictus et Amphion, Thebanae conditor urbis, saxa mouere sono testudinis et prece blanda ducere quo uellet. fuit haec sapientia quondam, publica priuatis secernere, sacra profanis, concubitu prohibere uago, dare iura maritis, oppida moliri, leges incidere ligno. sic honor et nomen diuinis uatibus atque carminibus uenit. post hos insignis Homerus Tyrtaeusque mares animos in Martia bella uersibus exacuit, dictae per carmina sortes, et uitae m onstrata uia est, et gratia regum Pieriis tem ptata modis, ludusque repertus et longorum operum finis : ne forte pudori sit tibi Musa lyrae sollers et cantor Apollo. natura fieret laudabile carmen an arte quaesitum est. ego nec studium sine diuite uena nec rude quid possit uideo ingenium ; alterius sic altera poscit opem res et coniurat amice.

385

390

395

4°°

405

410

δ p r . s' 388-9 d e d is tin e t, u . com m . 393 rabidos B K V vi. 645 rapidos a C R 5(-es)ir (-is, -os u a r .) λ ΐ φψ 394 urbis B C K V S -π U φψ arcis a R h u a r . 40a tyrt (a) eus] a B C K 1 S c h o t.

385 ue] que

a

S e rti. D a n . A m . au ar.

dyrt(a)eus (div-, -c(a)eus) 408 natura] ingenio I o a n n . lo c . c i t . , L u i s i n n s

prosit

codd.

*in

u e t t.

uel

pyrt(a)eus (-ceus, -r(a)eus) u e l 1. 8 410 Possb f

Saresber. M e t.

c o d . i l l u s t r i s s i m i F e d e r ic i C o m e lij

sic] sed

P e e r lk a m p

69

L a m b in u s

s im . c e tt. P o rp h . {Io a n n . S a resb er.

a liq u o t lib r i veteres )

Q . Horati Flacci

qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam multa tulit fecitque puer, sudauit et alsit, abstinuit uenere et uino ; qui Pythia cantat tibicen, didicit prius extimuitque magistrum. nec satis est dixisse ‘ ego mira poemata pango, occupet extremum scabies; mihi turpe relinqui est, et quod non didici sane nescire fateri.’ ut praeco, ad merces turbam qui cogit emendas, adsentatores iubet ad lucrum ire poeta diues agris, diues positis in faenore nummis, si uero est unctum qui recte ponere possit et spondere leui pro paupere et eripere artis litibus implicitum, mirabor si sciet inter­ noscere mendacem uerumque beatus amicum. tu seu donaris seu quid donare uoles cui, nolito ad uersus tibi factos ducere plenum laetitiae; clamabit enim ‘pulchre, bene, recte’, pallescet super his, etiam stillabit amicis ex oculis rorem, saliet, tundet pede terram. ut qui conducti plorant in funere dicunt et faciunt prope plura dolentibus ex animo, sic derisor uero plus laudatore mouetur. reges dicuntur multis urgere culillis et torquere mero quem perspexisse laborent, an sit amicitia dignus; si carmina condes, numquam te fallent animi sub uulpe latentes.

4*5

420

4*5

430

435

414 cantat coddmalim certat, u. comm. 416 nec Paris. 7973 pr. (s. ix-x) S’ non uel num ζ nunc codd. potiores Schol. 4x7 relinqui est aC2R δ2ττ U del. H. Schutz alii agris] agri BC 422 si] sin ir l unctum] iunctum BC ante ras. punctum ir ante. ras. Porph. codd. praeter P 423 leui] uelit J . Getl artis s' atris codd. potiores a j t j i s R post ras. at,is (.r super t scr.) I 4*4-5 converso ordine Βζ 426 cui] 'quoi V qui B 429 de distinet, u. c™nm’ 43* conducti] quae conducti M ante ras. (?) quae conductae a i t chmann alii, perperam 434 culillis ir ante ros. cui. illis B cü illis K1^ ) culullis aC 8* Schol. cululis K 2 8»ττ λΐ φψ cucullis R2 (R 1 n.l.) 435 per­ spexisse] prospexisse s’ laborent aBCK δ con. ψ pr. laborant Ä δ *r.ir WW 437 ial(l)ent aBCKR15 «er.tr pr. U fal(l)ant Ä* δττ corr. b u t th e te x t is u n c e rta in . P la u tu s ’ urceus a t M i l · 831 co u ld n o t h av e b e e n q u ite so la rg e , b u t m u s t h a v e b e e n la r g e e n o u g h to c o n ta in e ig h t heminae, so m e th in g lik e h a lf a g a llo n . I c o n ­ c lu d e t h a t size is n o t a llu d e d to ; h e n c e th e r e is n o r e a s o n w h y H . sh o u ld n o t b e c o m m e n tin g o n th e sh ap e . T h e urceus th e n is h e r e lik ely to e a p itc h e r r a th e r t h a n a j u g ; b u t th is d o es n o t p r e v e n t M a r tia l M a r ^ ° th e r s fro m u sin g , in a n a p p r o p r ia te c o n te x t, th e sam e W° j (d o u b tless w ith a single h a n d le a n d lip fo r p o u r in g ) , a n d w h e n th e size is v e ry sm all urceus b eco m es urceolus. T h a t c o n ta in e rs, sm a lle r o r la rg e r, o f t h e sh a p e o f a s to ra g e -ja r w e re ca lle d urcei is sh o w n also b y a n in s c rip tio n . M y c o lle a g u e ,

102

Commentary M iss J . M . R e y n o ld s o f N e w n h a m C o lleg e, d ra w s m y a tte n tio n to C I L , XIII. 3. i , n o . 10008. 4 4 , w h e re a vessel fo r sto rin g h o n e y is in s c r ib e d urceus, i n c u rs iv e w ritin g . T h e ty p e is d e sc rib e d a n d illus­

t r a t e d o n p . 8 6 o f t h e sa m e v o lu m e . T h e r e a re n o h a n d le s. Its sh ap e w ill s u g g e s t w h y t h e p o t t e r c o u ld h a v e s ta rte d to m a k e a n a m p h o ra , a n d e n d e d u p w i t h t h a t k in d o f j a r o r p itc h e r. coepit I in stitu i', u n lik e E p . 11. 1. 149 coepit uerti iocus, w h ic h is likely to h a v e m id d le c o n n o t a t i o n , th is is a g e n u in e pass. inf. T h is use o f coepit, in s te a d o f coeptus est, is i n v e rse first k n o w n fro m L u c r. (w ith in a n i­ m a te g r a m m a t i c a l s u b j.) , in p ro se a b o u t th e sam e tim e ; w ith p erso n al su b j. i n p ro s e f r o m R h e t. H er. a n d S a il., in verse fro m H o r. E p . 1. 15· 27 urba n u s coepit haberi, cf. T L L , in . i 42 5 · 28 f f , 1424. 66 ff. ; H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r , 2 8 8 , G . B. A . F le tc h e r, A nnot. on Tac. (1964), p . 58. currente ro ta cur urceus: fo r th e u a n d r so u n d s see F ra e n k e l, H or. 25, 81 n . ; fo r curro, τ ρ έ χ ω a n d th e like, a p p lie d to r a p id ro ta tio n , see A . Y . C a m p b e ll, C Q , n .s. v i (1 9 5 6 ), 66. rota is s u ffic ie n tly d e fin e d b y amphora a s figularis, p o tte r s w heel . e x it m a y b e c o n s tr u e d i n tw o w ays. E ith e r urceus is g ra m m a tic a l su b j. ; t h e n e x it = p ro d it — o ff t h e la th e , fro m a w o rk sh o p (C ic. Parad. 5)> e tc ., e v e n t h o u g h th e p ro v e n a n c e m a y b e expressed in o th e r w a y s, e .g . currente rota a b o v e . I f th is is th e n o tio n , th e passage is a little o d d ly p la c e d a t T L L , v . 2. 1364. 10. O r amphora persists as s u b j., urceus is p r e d ., t h e n e x it = ‘com es o u t as a p itc h e r , cf. Pers. 5 · 78—9 u erterit ku n e dom inus: momento turbinis exit | M arcus D am a a p a s s a g e p e r h a p s in flu e n c e d b y th e H o r a tia n verse (F. V illen eu v e, E s s a i su r P erse (1 9 1 8 ), p . 4 7 2 ). B u t in sp ite o f w h a t m a y b e a n im ita ­ t io n o f t h is lin e , I d o u b t i f th e a b o r tiv e a m p h o ra co u ld b e ca lle d ‘ a n a m p h o r a ’ i n t h e s a m e w a y as M a rc u s D a m a w as D a m a before th e m om entum . T h e s a m e re a s o n is lik ely to d isq u alify th e n o tio n (also p r e d .) ‘ t h e a m p h o r a ta ils o f f in to a p i t c h e r ’. T h is h a s b ee n p ro p o sed b y E . V a n d v ik , S ym b . O si. xix (1939)» I I 2 > w h o co m p ares th e h y b r id m o n s t e r o f 1 if. 23 S u m m a ry a n d Precept. L in e s 14-2 2 w e re su p erficially u n c o n n e c te d , v a r ie d , a n d d e l i b e r a t e l y p u z z lin g ; cf. P . C a u e r, R M , l x i ( i q o 6 ), 238. T h e p r e s e n t v e rs e o ffe rs th e k ey . T h e u n ity o f th e w hole passage is im p re s s e d o n t h e r e a d e r in o n e b r ie f a n d m e m o ra b le p h ra se, a p r e c e p t. (B r e v ity o f p r e c e p t H . h im se lf ad v o c ates, 335 quidquid praecipies esto breuis, e tc .) T h e p re c e p t h in ts a t th e P la to n ic -A risto te l ia n d o c t r i n e o f a r tis tic u n i t y : A r. Poet. chs. 7—8, cf. a b o v e p p . 7^j~9 · denique ‘ i n s h o r t ’ a s S . 1. 1. 92 denique s it fin is quaerendi, 3. 34 deni(l ue k ipsum j concute, e t a l.

103

C o m m e n ta ry

K ψ2s', quoduis or quod uis cett., cf. Keller, Epil. 735 >the two pronouns are frequently confused in MSS, e.g. above io, Juv. 8. 183, 223. Bentley made a strong, and in my opinion convinc­ ing, plea for quiduis’, yet all recent editors ignore it—I do not know why. It is generally agreed that a grammatical obj. quod (uis) — quod ( instituis) would be miserably weak, lacking the generalizing force of quiduis, cf. S. 11. 3. 126-8 quare, \ si quiduis satis est, periuras . .. | undique? and also quidlibet, above 10 quidlibet audendi. . .potestas (quod-, quae- uar. IL), Cic. A tt. hi. 23. 4 id caput sane nolim nouos tribunos pi. forre; sed perforant modo quidlibet. On the other hand an adj. quoduis is highly suspect if the best that K.-H. can do to defend it is to make it pred. to something like the word opus, which moreover has to be understood from the context, quoduis may be used as an attrib. It is for the defenders of this reading to show that it is used in the relevant authors as a pred. and, what is more, as a pred. to a noun understood. dumtaxat: for discussion of the derivation, see M. Leumann, Μ Η , XXV (1968), 243-7. The word is a limiting particle, as Madvig, Cic. Fin? p. 177 showed, not, as some commentators still think, a con­ junction. The evidence may be seen in T L L , s.v. The word is prosaic, and very rare in classical verse. Of the six instances noted by B. Axelson, Unpoet. Wörter, p. 96, two occur in H.’s hexameter poems, cf. S. 11. 6.42. The word qualifies nouns, adj., or phrases. Its intermediate placing here resembles e.g. Cic. A tt. 11. 18. 2 in circulis d. et in conuiuiis. sim plex.. .et unum: mum corresponds to εν in the Aristotelian formula εν καί όλον or the like ; but simplex does not quite correspond to όλον, which is later (34) expressed by totum. Rather simplex makes unum more concrete. H. avoids abstract terminology; unum, ‘one’, is insufficiently explained by the preceding verses, hence he adds simplex of one kind ’, a thing which is not uarium. Its Greek counter­ part is άπλοϋς, with its opposite ποικίλος. In different connotations απλούς occurs in the Poetics; it does not occur in chs. 7—8. But the terminology antedates Aristotle. The concept of ποικιλία is probably at home in rhetorical practice (Steidle, Studien, pp. 28 ff.) and is opposed on Platonic principles, e.g. Rep. x. 604 e 1 πολλήν μίμησιν και ποικίλην εχει, contrasted at e 3 by τταραπλήσιον δν αεί αυτό αΰτω. For applications to historiography, see Steidle, op. cit. p. 28 n. 46, F. W.^Walbank, A hist. comm, on Polybius, 1. 43 ; cf. Diod. xx. x. 5 γάρ της Ιστορίας γένος άττλουν έστι καί σι/μφυές αύτω καί το σύνολον έμψύχςρ σώματι παραπλήσιον κτλ. sit quiduis: quiduis

104

Commentary (4) A literary argument: incoherent variety, like certain kinds of faulty style, is a virtue misunderstood; uniformity and unity; ‘art5 as regulator, 24-31

The poet has moved on, it seems, to matters wholly at variance with the preceding ‘section’. Some would call it a digression. The two sections are overtly brought together only in the last few lines, 29-31 : foolish variation derives from a desirable motive, avoidance of uniformity ; but without ‘art ’ avoidance of faulty uniformity produces faulty variety—a lack of unity. (H.’s own procedure thus mirrors his subject; being himself suspect of uariare.. .prodigialiter, he shows variety controlled by unity.) Nor is the intervening section only superficially related to his m ain theme. For while the preceding section largely dealt with ‘subject-matter’, the present deals with its companion, ‘style ’. In the end a new proposition is made (31), but it applies to poetry as a whole and art as a whole: the distinction between ‘w hat’ (subject) and ‘how’ (style) is no longer relevant. Like much of H .’s poetry, this section is best read twice over in quick succession: in its natural order, and from the final point backwards. The retrograde procedure takes the reader from the final proposition that lack of art causes the artist to jum p from the frying pan into the fire (31) to its application to variety of m atter in a painting (29—30), thence to stylistic faults which are virtues unattained, to the initial proposition that the poetic faults are poetic virtues misunderstood. The natural order takes the reader after an abrupt start (24) into a theory of style with a strong Peripatetic flavour (25-8), on to the recognition that the inorganic variety of the arts with which poetry has been compared is a virtue gone wrong from lack of artistry. ( a ) 2 4 -8

The stylistic theories glanced at seem to be the ‘virtues of style^, uirtutes dicendi : άρεταί λέξεοος, in 25-6, and the types of style , 105

Commentary g en era d ic e n d i :

χαρακτήρες της λέξεως, in 26—8. These are muchvented topics and I refer to the judicious survey by George Kennedy, T h e A r t o f P e rsu a sio n (1963), 273 fr. and his biblio­ graphy in nn. 16 and 25. Although the evidence for the ‘virtues’ is less ambiguous than that for the ‘ types’, I regard it as a mistake to underestimate the effect of both. Their relevance to the A r s was at issue between L. Spengel, P , ix (1854), 573 ff- and J. Vahlen, G es. P h il. S e h r. 1, 445 ff. ; neither discussion is fully conclusive.

24 m axima p a rs uatum: uates occurs only twice in the A rs. Here, except by metre, it is indistinguishable from poeta , and used with a decidedly ironic nuance; contrast 400 η. pa ter et iuuenes pa tre d ig n i: for the address, see above 5 n. P isones. 25 decipimur specie recti: not only an urbane extension of these strictures to H. (in spite of the fact that he later declines poetic status, 306) but also an indication that these are dangers every poet has to face. For deception by ‘semblance of right’, see A d H er. iv. 15, specie grauitatis falluntur nec perspicere possunt orationis tumorem, Quint. I. 0 . vili. 3. 56 cacozelon uocatur quidquid est ultra uirtutem quotiens ingenium iudicio caret et specie boni fallitur, omnium in eloquentia uitiorum pessimum; nam cetera parum uitantur, hoc petitur, Geli. vi. 14· 4 (Clt‘ below), Aug. Conf. 11. 12—13 quaedam defictiua species et umbratica, uitiis fallen tibu s, nam et superbia celsitudinem im itatur, etc. (Origen s Horn, in Exod. vm. 158 [cit. Keller and Holder, A.P. 1-4 n.; Migne, P.G. xn. 353 f., Berlin Corpus, Orig. vi (1920), 221 f.], is no more than superficially alike : Platonizing ontology is something H. avoided.) A technical fault therefore emerges as excellence attempted but unattained: ps.-Long. Subì. 5. 1 άφ’ ών γάρ ήμϊν τάγαθά, σχεδόν άττ* αυτών τούτων καί τα κακά χεννδσθαι φιλεϊ (adapted from Democr. β 172, Diels-Kranz, F r. d. Vorsokr.). δθεν.. .ά ρ χ α ΐ.. .καί τών έναντίων καθίστανται. Thus faults are considered ‘ deviations , •παρεκβάσεις, from the right road, όρθόν, rectum, that was aimed at; the worst faults are neighbours of their respective virtues. This assessment had become something of a commonplace in ancient writing on literature and rhetoric. The term τταρέκβασις is Aristo­ telian although Aristotle applied it to moral and political subjects, not to rhetorical and literary. For types of style vitiated by neighbouring faults, see Demetr. Interpr. 114, 186, 236, 302, ps.-Long. S ubì. 3· 3» 106

Commentary Ad Her. ιν . 15 est autem cauendum ne, dum haec genera consedemur, in fin itu m a e t p r o p i n q u a u i t ia ueniamus, e tc. in hoc genus plerique cum d e c li n a n tu r et ab eo quo profecti sunt a b e r r a r u n t, etc. (cf. ab o v e p a r a . 2 o f th is n o te ) , Q u i n t . LO. v ili. 3. 7 uicina uirtutibus uitia, x . 2. 16, xii. io . 73 (c it. 27 n .) , P lin . Ep. ix . 26. 2 ( de oratore) altis et excelsis adiacent abrupta. G e ll. v i. 14. 4 his singulis orationis uirtutibus uitia agnata sunt pari numero quae earum modum simulacris falsis ementiuntur (follow ed b y a c it. f r o m V a r r o o n uera.. .etpropria huiuscemodiformarum exempla). laboro, \ .. .fio: H . ’s a s to n is h in g p ra c tic e o f p a r tly d isp lay in g . . .

«

5

- 6

a n d p a r tl y c o n c e a lin g h is p e r s o n a lity is a t th e ro o t o f h is p o e try b o th in th e ly ric a n d t h e h e x a m e te r p o e m s ; n o b rie f n o te c a n do ju stic e to it. I n t h e Ars I o b s e r v e th e fo llo w in g ro u g h divisions in th e use o f th e first p e r s o n s in g . ( 1 ) A t 55—6 w e fin d th e o n e p o ig n a n tly p erso n al p a s­ sa g e i n th e Ars; h e r e H . ca lls h im s e lf a c r e a to r o f la n g u a g e , as in Ep. i . 19 a n d e ls e w h e re h e calls h im s e lf a c r e a to r o f R o m a n lyric. (2) In th e fin a l p a r t o f t h e p o e m h e sp e a k s o f h im se lf as a te a c h e r (o r critic) e n g a g e d i n a d d r e s s in g th is ars poetica to th e Pisos w h ile , to use th e la n g u a g e o f h is s e lf-im p o s e d c o n v e n ti o n ,‘ n o t h im se lf w ritin g p o e try . 3 0 1 -6 , 3 1 7 , 3 5 1 - 6 0 , 3 8 8 , 409 fi, 463 f. (3) 42 aut ego fallor a n d 272 ne dicam q u a lif y a f firm a tio n s i n a q u a s i-p e rs o n a l m a n n e r. (4) O c c a ­ sio n a lly w h e n H . c e n su re s a m a te u ris m o r lays d o w n th e la w h e id e n tifie s h im s e lf w i t h t h e p o e ts c e n su re d , o r h e so legislates as th o u g h h e w e re w r i t i n g i n t h e r e le v a n t g en res. T h e fo rm e r sw eetens th e m e d ic in e ; so h e r e laboro.. .fio, cf. 25 decipimur, 87—8, 265—74 (f°r 2 72> see (3))· T h e l a t t e r see m s to in v o lv e h im a s a p a r tic ip a n t. 234—44 · T h e p a l p a b l e f ic tio n is t h a t H . is p ro p o s in g to w rite S a ty ric d ra m a ( th o u g h i t d o e s n o t fo llo w t h a t h e r e g a rd e d S a ty ric d r a m a in R o m e as a fic tio n ) ; 2 4 4 me iudice is p a r t o f th is p re te n c e ; it does n o t differ fro m , say , 2 4 0 sequar. (5) I n th e se c tio n o n d r a m a H . occasionally id e n tifie s h im s e lf w i t h o th e r th e a tre -g o e rs , 1 0 2 -5 , * 53» l8 8 · T h e m o tiv e is t h e s a m e a s u n d e r (4) a b o v e . F ro m w h a t I h a v e s a id i t w ill b e c le a r w h y I re g a rd as in a d e q u a te th e d is c u s s io n o f t h is p r o b le m b y G . W illia m s, J R S , l i v (1964), 195. esse: laboro w i t h in f. o c c u rs f r e q u e n tly in H ., n o t o n ly in th e h e x a ­ m e te r p o e m s b u t also C. 1 1 . 3 . 1 1 . I t is first k n o w n fro m L ucil. fr. 349-50 ( M a r x ) , o c c u rs i n C ic e ro b u t alw ays n e g a tiv e ly = ‘n o t tr o u b le t o ’, p e r h a p s o rig in a lly c o llo q u ia l. A s a n a ffirm a tio n i t is sti p o e tic i n H . a n d l a t e r a p p e a r s i n S ilv e r p ro se : K ü h n e r-S te g m a n n , I· 6 6 7 , H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r , 346. breuis. . . | obscurus: t h e uirtutes orationis so -called w e re o ften free y c o n f la te d w i t h t h e genera a n d i t is n o t im p o ssib le t h a t H . fo u n d th e m so c o n f la te d i n t h e t r a d i t i o n to w h ic h h e a d h e re d . N e v erth eless th e

107

Commentary w o rd in g in breuis-obscurus h in ts a t th e fo r m e r w h e re a s th e w o r d in g in 2 6 -8 h in ts a t th e la tte r. F o r th e c o n c e p t o f b re v ity in a n c ie n t rh e to r ic see th e b a s ic s tu d y b y J . S tro u x , De Theophrasti Virtutibus Dicendi (1912). Is o c ra te s see m s to h a v e d e m a n d e d b re v ity (σ υντομ ία ) in th e n a r r a tiv e o f sp e e c h e s, b u t n e ith e r A risto tle n o r T h e o p h ra s tu s in a n a ly s in g d ic tio n c o n s id e re d b re v ity a v irtu e per se, Prol. 95 n . 1, 262. T h e S to ics c h a ra c te ris tic a lly d id , sin ce th e y c o n sid e re d ta lk ‘ g o o d ’ w h e n it e x p re sse d w h a t w as n ecessary , α υ τ ά τ ά α ν α γ κ α ία (D iog. L a e rt. v i i . 59) ; n o n e e d fo r th e m to tro u b le a b o u t o b s c u rity (S tro u x , op. cit. p . 3 9 ). T h e P e rip a te tic s o n th e o th e r h a n d m a d e c la rity a c r ite rio n o f g o o d style a n d th is is th e te a c h in g w h ic h H . accepts. T h e guess m a y th e re fo re b e m a d e t h a t H . s tr a d itio n in th is m a tte r u ltim a te ly d eriv e s fr o m t h e p o stT h e o p h ra s te a n P e rip a to s, w h e n th e school, w h ile a d h e r i n g to A risto tle s c rite rio n o f c la rity , σ α φ ήνεια, y e t a d m itte d b r e v ity as a v irtu e o f s ty le ’. I n la t e r w o rk s o n r h e to r ic i t m a y , in t h e m a n n e r o f Iso c rates, re m a in a tta c h e d to th e q u a litie s o f n a r r a tiv e (e .g . C ic. De Or. in . 202, Q u in t. 1. 0 . iv . 2. 6 4 ), w h ic h a re n o t h e r e re le v a n t. I n th e w id e r se ttin g o f stylistic criticism it is o ften a tta c h e d to v iv id ­ ness o f style— euidentia, repraesentatio—,a s a t Q u in t. LO. v ili. 3. 82 (b re v ity d e sira b le b u t o b sc u rity a b a d im ita tio n o f b re v ity ) o r a m o n g t e fig u res o f sp e e c h , 1 .0 . ix. 3. 58. ‘ L o n g in u s ’ sets i t in h is se c tio n o n co m p o sitio n , rh y th m , etc., Subì. ch. 4 2 . T h is is th e b a c k g ro u n d w h ic h o n e n ee d s to k n o w i f o n e w a n ts to j u ge w h a t H . h a s b e e n try in g to d o . H e av o id s u n d u e te c h n ic a lity . e h in ts a t lite r a r y th e o ry — specie recti·, b u t su c h w o rd s as uirtutes a n d genera w ill b e lo o k ed fo r in v a in . I n h is o w n p o e try h e w as a lo v e r o f conciseness— raro et perpauca loquentis, S. 1. 4. 18— a n d o n e m a y w ell e leve t a t th is m e a n t a fig h t a g a in s t o b sc u rity , est breuitate opus, h e

of sermo, S. ut currat sententia neu se itnpedtat uerbis lassas onerantibus auris (cf. Prol. 261 f f .) . I n t h e Ars breuitas ?

3S

S e n

r e

1 .

1 0 .

9

- 1

0

,

j

is E l a t e d to c la rity o n ly b y im p lic a tio n ; conciseness m is h a n d le d loses clarity , b ecom es o b sc u rity — a fa u lt fo r a v irtu e . B u t th is p re su p p o se s a T l ian c rite n ° n o f σαφ ήνεια. I f H . h a d d e fin e d h is te r m s a n d s a ira iw « u ° tlie r lim k tile d ile m m a , h e m ig h t h a v e s a id , p ro p . X’ 0 s^ urum autem aut longitudine aut contractione orationis'' (C ic. Z L c ' Ä t ’·* ΟΓ h e m iS h t h a v e la tin iz e d αν τε y à p ά δ ο λ ε σ χ ή ου

η Γ 5* υδέ α ν σ ύ ντο μ ο ς (A r. Rhet. n i. i 2 , 1414 a 25). T h u s D io n . ΗΛ eh . 18 (U s e n e r- R a d e rm a c h e r. i. L · . £ 9 ) e q u a te s t ò I s o c r a t « · '« ^ μΤ ' 01' m c e n s u rin 8 th e o p p o site f a u lt o f p ro lix ity . σ ~ .-X ty e ’_ l*e saYs> lacks σ υ ν τ ο μ ία : σ το χα ^ ο μ έν η γ ά ρ τ ο υ σαφούς 6 λ ιγ ωρει τ ο 0 μ ετρ ίου Μ & is H . Ì x à u d e ^ thye sPe c o n d

108

Commentary lim b . M o r e o v e r h e ta lk s in c o m m o n se n se te rm s, ju m p in g fro m breuis to obscurus a n d o m i t t i n g th e in te r v e n in g contractus o r th e like, o f w h ich obscuritas is a c o n s e q u e n c e (H . S c h ü tz a d /.) . ‘L o n g in u s ’ m akes th e p a in s ta k in g d is t in c ti o n b e tw e e n ‘ b r i e f ’ a n d ‘c o n s tric te d ’ w h ic h H . a v o id s : S u b ì. 42 ή ά γ α ν τ ή ς φ ρά σ εω ς σ υ γ κ ο π ή . . . · σ υ γ κ ο π ή . . . κολούει τ ο ν ν ο ϋ ν , σ υ ν τ ο μ ία δέ κ τ λ . 3 6 - 8 T h e t h r e e s t a n d a r d ty p e s o f sty le, genera dicendi, a re h a n d le d s im ila rly , w i t h a s t u d i e d d is r e g a r d o f th e n ic e tie s o f th e o ry b u t w ith a tte n tio n to its e s s e n tia ls . S u c h w o rk s as D e m e triu s ’ D e Interpr., th e A d H e r ., a n d C i c e r o ’s O rator te a c h t h a t e a c h g e n u s h a d its c h a ra c te r­ istic s ty le , a n d t o e a c h sty le c h a ra c te ris tic fa u lts a re a tta c h e d . T h ese w e re p e d a g o g ic d is tin c tio n s a n d C ic e ro (in th e Orator ) a n d Q u in ­ tilia n (1 . 0 . X u . 10. 6 6 ff.) sh o w th e m se lv e s w ell a w a re o f these lim ita ­ tio n s , cf. D . A . R u s s e ll, ‘L o n g in u s ’ O n the Sublim e, p p . x x x iv -x x x v i. D o u b tle s s H . w a s e v e n m o re a w a re o f th e m . B u t to h im th e genera h a v e t h e i r v a l u e a s c h a r a c te r is tic ty p e s o f style. T h e types, h in te d a t b y k e y - w o rd s b u t n o t la b o rio u s ly d e fin e d , a r e th e H ig h , 27, P o lis h e d , 2 6 - 7 , a n d P la i n , 28. T h e uicina u itia o f th e schools a re n o t s ta te d u n a m b ig u o u s ly . J u s t as breuis in t h e p re c e d in g verse is n o t c o n tr a s te d w i t h contractus b u t w ith th e c o n se q u e n c e o f u n d u e b re v ity , so th e s e v e rs e s c o n d e m n th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f a m ista k e n choice, n o t th e f a u lts th e m s e lv e s . N o r d o es H . o b se rv e th e c o n v e n tio n a l o rd e r o f th e ty p e s ; h e b e g in s , i n th e m id d le as i t w e re , w ith th e in te rm e d ia te o r ‘s m o o t h ’ s ty le . 3 6 leu ia : B e n tle y a n d P e e r lk a m p s tro n g ly b u t im p la u sib ly su p ­ p o r te d lenia, a c o n j e c t u r e in a la te M S (c o d . A c h . S t a t ) . T h e w o rd tenis is e m p lo y e d , i n a p p r o v a l o r d isp ra ise , to suggest a n ab sen ce o f fo rc e fu ln e ss a n d v i g o u r ; its sy n o n y m s a r e sedatus, placidus, summissus a n d so o n . T h u s i t su g g e sts a p la i n a n d s e d a te style m o re re a d ily th a n a n y o th e r , a l t h o u g h o c c a s io n a lly i t m a y d e sc rib e a n ‘in te rm e d ia te ’ P o s itio n , a s a t Q u i n t . 1. 0 . x n . 10. 6 7 , u t illu d le n e a u t a sc e n d it ad fo rtio ra a u t a d tenuiora s u m m ittitu r ; cf. ib id . 60. P la in n ess o f style h o w e v e r is p r e - e m p t e d fo r 1. 28. T h e w o rd leuis o n th e o th e r h a n d is th e c o u n t e r p a r t o f G re e k λείος, th e k e y -te rm fo r ‘s m o o th ’ o r p o l i s h e d ’, a n i n t e r m e d i a t e sty le. B e n tle y h im se lf m u st h a v e b e e n d is p o s e d t o s e c o n d t h o u g h ts , fo r h e cites o n e o f th e G re e k passages c o n ta in in g λ ε ίο ς i n h is Curae N o vissim a e. λ ε ίο v—leue a p p l i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r to p e r io d ic c o m p o sitio n , a v o id a n c e o f h i a t u s , c h o ic e o f ‘ e u p h o n i c ’ w o rd s— fe a tu re s o f th e polished style, i n D e m e tr i u s ’ D e Interpretatione, a n d o f t h e ‘in te rm e d ia te style in s o m e o f t h e L a t i n rh e to r ic ia n s . Is o c ra te s is th e p ro to ty p e o f this style i n o r a t o r y , b u t D io n . H a l. o c c a sio n a lly a p p lie s th e te r m also to th e

109

Commentary ‘plain’ Lysias, cf. P. Geigenmüller, Quaest. D ionys, de uoc. artis erit. (Thesis Leipzig 1908), pp. 82 f. Cf. Demetr. Interpr. 48 (λειότης yàp καί το εύήκοον oü πάνυ έν μεγαλόπρεπε ία χώραν εχουσιν εϊ μή που έν όλίγοις, 176,1785258 ολως yàp ή λειότης καί τό εύήκοον γλαφυρότητος ίδια, ού δεινότητάς έστιν, 299 smoothness of composition, practised by the Isocrateans, 300, Dion. Hal. Isocr. 18, D in . 6, L ys. 24, Comp. 22 (Usener-Radermacher, 11. 108. 1), al., Im it. 2. 2 {ibid. n. 204. 13) and its counterpart Quint. I.O . x. 1. 52 leuitasque (len- uar. 1.), (H esiodi) turborum et compositionis probabilis, daturque ei p a lm a in illo mediocri genere dicendi; contra in Antim acho, etc.; A d Her. iv. 11, and particularly 16 qui in mediocre genus orationis projecti sunt, s i peruenire eo non potuerunt, errantes perueniunt ad confine genus eius generis quod appellam us dissolutum, quod est sine neruis et articulis; Cic. D e Or. in. 171 201, Or. 20 f. (unlike H. divides the grand style into rough and smoothly periodic), n o , and Opt. gen. or. 5 (two other passages in which Bentley erroneously preferred lenitas to leuitas), Quint. I.O . vni. 3. 6 o rn a tu s.. .u irìlis et fo r tis et sanctus sit nec effeminatam leuitatem .. .am et: sanguine et uiribus niteat, cf. Fortunat. A r s R h et. in. 9 (cit. foil. n.). nerui: in Greek a distinction between νεΰρα, ‘sinews, tendons and πόροι, ‘nerves’, was established and νεί/ρα is not used exclusively for ‘ nerves’ until Galen. In Latin nerui denotes ‘sinews, tendons’ but need not in its physiological sense exclude ‘ nerves ’ (A. S. Pease, Cic. JV.D. η. 136 n.). The word is frequent in literary contexts and then always = ‘sinews, vigour’, e.g. Cic. D e Or. 11. 91 neruos in dicendo, B rut. 121, Quint. I.O . x. 1. 76. So too negatively, S. 11. 1. 2—3 s^ne neruis. . .quidquid | composui (opp. nim is acer). A d H er. iv. 16 (cit. prec. n.), Cic. D e Or. in. 80, Or. 62. Tac. D ia l. 18. Ciceronem a Caluo quidem

male audisse tam quam solutum et eneruem, a Bruto autem , u t ipsius uerbis utar, tam quam fractum atque elumbem, Fortunat. A rs R het. ni. 9 (Halm, R het. L . M in . p. 126) μέσορ quod est contrarium? tepidum ac dissolutum , id est uelut enerue. The collocation with anim ique recalls robur combined with nerui at Cic. Fam . vi. i. 3 quantum in cuiusque anim o roboris est atque neruorum’, contrast Ciris 43 firm am us robore neruos, Lucan m. 625 with Housman’s note.

27 {sectantem leuia nerui) deficiunt: cf. S. 11. 1. 12-13 c u p id u m .. .uires | deficiunt. anim ique spirit, vigour’, the pi. with reference to one person. Words denoting emotions or states of mind are frequently so used, cf. Kühner—Stegmann, 1.80, Draeger, H ist. S_yn.21.19, Krebs-Schmalz, Antibarbarus1, 1. 168. anim i in particular is used in various connota­ tions ranging from ‘spirit, courage’ (Cic. A lt. vn. 2. 4) to ‘ arrogance’ n o

Commentary (C ic. Clu. 1 0 9 ) o r ‘ a n g e r ’ (V irg . A. v m . 2 2 8 ). H e n c e animi o ften takes its c o lo u r f r o m t h e c o n te x t a n d th e n u a n c e is n o t alw a y s easily d e te r­ m in e d . T h u s Ep. i . 19. 2 4 -5 numeros animosque secutus j Archilochi m ay w e ll d e n o te ‘ h is g e n e r a l d is p o s itio n ’ as w ell as ‘his c h a ra c te ristic θυμός, h is a n g r y t e m p e r a m e n t ’ (F ra e n k e l, Hor. 342). B u t Q u in t. 1. 0 . X . I . 6 0 (a s k e tc h o f A rc h ilo c h u s) breues uibrantesque sententiae, pluri­ mum sanguinis atque nemorum suggests sim p ly ‘v ig o u r, s p ir it’ a n d animi d o e s n o t o c c u r . I n th e p re s e n t p a ssa g e it does, b u t th e n u a n c e o f nerui. . . animique re se m b le s Q u in tilia n ’s sanguinis atque nemorum. professus grandia: th is re c a lls 14 inceptis gravibus. . .et magna professis, th e c o n te x t o f g r e a t p o e tr y ; th e re fe re n c e th e re is to th e b eg in n in g o f a n e p ic . G r a n d e u r o f sty le is fre q u e n tly discussed b y th e rh e to ri­ c ia n s a n d l i t e r a r y c ritic s as th e q u a lity o f a genus dicendi, Q u in t. 1. 0 . X II. 10. 58 alterum (genus) grande atque robustum, quod αδρόν dicunt, constituunt. A d Her. ι ν . 11—12 ex em p lifies h o w th e rh e to ric a l schools d e a lt w i t h t h e c o n c e p t, C ic. Or. 20 o r 97 ff. a n d Q u in t, x i i . 10. 58, h o w a g r e a t o r a t o r a n d a v e r y in te llig e n t te a c h e r resp ectiv ely did . I t is th e a t t r a c t i o n o f th e De Sublimitate t h a t to its a u th o r ύψ ος is n o t a ty p e o f s ty le b u t th e e x p re ssio n o f a c e rta in k in d o f m in d a n d c h a r a c te r i n a n y s ty le (cf. D . A . R ussell, op. cit. p p . x x x v ii if .) . H . h e r e is c le a r ly u s in g th e e sta b lish e d a n a ly sis o f th e e le v a te d genus

dicendi. turget: g r a n d e u r a b e r r a n t, as i n H .’s turgidus Alpinus (S . 1. 10. 36). T h e m e d ic a l m e t a p h o r is fa m ilia r in th is c o n n e x io n : Ad Her. xv. 15 grani figurae quae laudanda est propinqua est ea quae fugienda quae recte uidebitur appellari si s u ffla ta nominabitur, nam ita ut corporis bonam habitu­ dinem tumor imitatur saepe, item grauis oratio saepe im p e ritis u id e tu r ea q u a e t u r g e t e t i n f l a t a e st, e tc .; Q u in t. LO. x n . io . (c^· χ · vitiosum et corruptum dicendi genus quod.. .aut im m o d ic o tu m o re tu rg e s­ c it. . . aut praecipitia pro sublimibus habet’, ibid. 80 sic erunt magna non nimia, sublimia non abrupta. . .g r a n d i a n o n tu m id a ; P lin . Ep. ix . 26. 5 t u m id a quae ego s u b l i m i a . . . arbitrabar, e t al. T h e m e ta p h o r is d eriv e d ;

7 3

2 ·

fro m G re e k l i t e r a t u r e , w h e re its a p p lic a tio n to sp eech o cc u rs as ea rly as th e fifth c e n tu r y : A ris to p h . Ran. 9 3 9 H · ^ π α ρ ελ α β ο ν τ η ν τ έ χ ν η ν π α ρ ά σ ο υ τ ό π ρ ώ τ ο ν εύθΰς | ο ίδ ο ϋ σ α ν Ο πό κ ο μ π α σ μ ά τω ν καί Ρ η μ ά τ ω ν ε π α χ θ ώ ν , | ίσ χ ν α ν α . . .α υ τ ή ν κ τλ . I t is a s ta n d a r d fe a tu re ° f l a t e r G r e e k c r itic is m , e.g. D e m e tr. Interpr. 221, p s.-L o n g . Subì.

3· 3- 4 , 28. i , P h ilo , De Plant. M e

1 5 7 , P h ilo s tr· V A ’ Ι · I 7· 2 8 T h e n e x t m is h a p re la te s to th e P la in S tyle, ab o v e 2 5 - n . (fin·)· A s b e f o re H . ta k e s fro m th e p ro fessio n al critics w h a t suits his im a g e ry . H e d o e s n o t c a ll th e p la i n style a genus. N o r does h e call i t fin e o r t h i n , subtile (genus) quod Ισ χ ν ό ν uocant (Q u in t. I.O. x n . 10. 5 ),

III

C o m m e n ta r y

and its corresponding fault dry or bloodless or meagre: qui non possunt in . . . attenuatione commode uersari ueniunt ad aridum et exsangue genus orationis, quod non alienum est exile nom inari (A d H er. iv. i6). The plain style is seen as ‘level’ or ‘lying in a low position’ a natural antithesis to loftiness, \j\\n\kov-sublim e, which had become the char­ acteristic feature of grandeur for the critics and rhetoricians from the first century b.c. (cf. F. Quadlbauer, W S , lx x i ( i 95^)> ^9 D. A. Russell, ‘Longinus’, Introd. ch. in). Thus A d H er. iv. 14 in attenuata figurae genere, id quod ad infumum et cottidianum sermonem demis­ sum est, Cic. Or. 76 summissus est et humilis, consuetudinem im itans. Height, said the theorists, involved risk, whereas security and safety were found in the valley; and the ‘valley’ may be a level type of style—as it is in this verse of the A rs—or, for a different kind of critic, it may be absence of high-mindedness, cf. Russell, Introd. ibid. Dionysius well represents the former type, ‘ Longinus ’ the latter. Dion. Hal. Dem osth. 2 (ed. Usener—Radermacher, 1. 130. 21 if-), con­ trasting Lysias’ caution with Thucydides’ daring; ps.-Long. Subì. chs. 32-3, especially 33.2. So too in Roman criticism: Qpint. L O . vili. 5. 32 q u ifiig iu n t.. . omnem hanc indicendo uoluptatem , n ih il probantes nisi p la ­ num et humile et sine conatu; ita dum tim ent ne aliquando cadant semper iacent, Plin. E p. ix. 26. 1—2 nihil peccat n isi quod nihil p e c c a t.. . debet enim orator. . · saepe accedere adpraeceps, nam plerum que altis et excelsis adiacent abrupta, tutius per plana sed hum ilius et depressius iter; frequentior currentibus quam reptantibus lapsus, sed his non labentibus nulla, illis non nulla laus etiam si labantur, etc. For more references see Ernesti, Lex. Tech. L a t. R h et., periculum . hum i: resemblances in phrasing indicate that H. again may be referring to rhetorical as well as poetic style : the plain style of the rhetoricians and the ‘pedestrian’ genres of poetry, that is, comedy, iambus, and satire. Cf. Callim. A et. iv, fr. 112. 9 αύτάρ εγώ Μουσεων ττε^όν εττειμι νομόν (and the passages there cited in Pfeiffer’s edition), and H. himself, S . 11. 6. 17 quid prius illustrem saturis m u s a q u e pedestri?, E p. ii. i . 251 (sermones) repentis per hum um (as opposed to ‘high’ epic), A .P . 95 et tragicus plerumque dolet sermone pedestri, A .P . 227-3° ne quicumque deus. . . | m igret in obscuras hum ili sermone tabernas | aut, dum uitat humum, nubes et inania captet. tutus, ‘cautious, on his guard’. Peerlkamp’s proposal, cautus, rides roughshod over an idiomatic usage. O f course, H. could have used cautus as he does C . 11. 10. 2—3 procellas | cautus horrescis’, but compari­ son with S . n. i. 20 recalcitrat undique tutus shows that this word is equally established, tutus oscillates between ‘safe’, ‘apparently safe , and ‘on one’s guard’, cf. Forcellini s.v., D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, pp. 86 f. The two words can even be combined to express

112

C o m m e n ta r y

prudent cau tion : A d Her. in. 13 quam. . Jute cauteque egerit. H. below 266-7 com bines them m ore pointedly: tutus et intra | spem ueniae cautus, ‘ on m y gu ard , to stay carefully within the limits o f pardonable offence’. timidusque procellae: th e gen. w ith adjectives is an area o f innovation in Augustan verse. For the gen. o f reference with timidus, KühnerStegmann, 1. 445 cite, after this passage, O v. Met. v. 1 0 0 deorum. Sen. Dial. v i i . 2 0 . 6 lucis, L act. Inst. in. 26. 6 doloris ac mortis. Spectacular n atu ral phenom ena have their place in discussions of the high style, as a t Cic. Or. 29 {Pericles) si tenui genere uteretur, numquam ab Aristophane poeta {Ach. 530 f.) fulgere tonare permiscere Graeciam dictus esset, Q uint. . . xn. 10. 64 -5 summam expressurus... facundiam et magnitudinem illi ( Vlixi) uocis et uim orationis niuibus copia uerborum atque impetu parem tribuit {Homerus, cf. Od. vni. 173)} e^c-j ps.-Long. Subi. 1. 4, 12. 4. In the style o f the Odes, π. io. 1-4 may he compared : neque altum | semper urgendo neque dum procellas ( cautus horrescis, nimium premendo j litus iniquum.

10

(b) 29-31

This is the key to the section 24 ff. H. has not forgotten that his subject (up to 23) was 4unity in v a riety cf. above 24-31 n. This subject he apparently abandoned at 24, but appearance ls deceptive. In a prosaic argument his proposition would be something like this. Limitless variety resembles the stylistic faults of which the literary critics tell us so much. It is a (laudable) attempt to avoid mere uniformity—the virtue of variety gone wrong; just as obscurity often results from a ( audable) attempt to avoid prolixity—the virtue of brevity g°ne wrong, etc. The craftsman sees a fault and seeks to escaPe it. But his technique is insufficient, and escaping in the opposite direction he arrives at the opposite fault. Unity of -ie perhaps coined by H. for the occasion. The meaning could be ‘monstrously’; but it could also be ‘marvellously’, like prodigiosus, for example at Ov. Am. in. 6. 17-18 prodigiosa loquor, ueterum mendacia uatum; | nec tulit haec umquam nec feret ulla dies. For the former {tutus) nimium may be called in evidence : uariare nimium, so to speak, would produce a monstrous variety. Yet the ‘marvel’ is preferable since it allows cupit full play. The ps.-Acro gloss, admirabiliter, is therefore likely to be right, and so is Lambinus’ note supra omnium hominum fidem. Cf. Homer’s speciosa. ..m iracula at 144. The interweaving of rem prodigialiter unam, and the widish spacing uariare------ prodigialiter, presumably give prominence to the marvel. 3 0 Here is the débàcle, enunciated in the factual and devastating manner of the last few lines, fio, deficiunt, turget, serpit. Now however the attempt and the performance are each assigned a whole verse, H. has again reached his subject, ‘unity’. Lack of unity has now turned into a laudable desire for variety, which however miscarries because it is uncontrolled. It has resulted in the same kind of carica­ ture with which H. has disconcerted, or amused, his readers at 13 (and indeed at 1). The dolphin and the boar change places the forest becomes the sea-animal’s habitat, and the sea that of the land-animal. The antithesis is emphasized by the same order of words as at 13. Similar reversals of the natural order of things are found in the lyric language of C. 1. 2. 5—12. The dolphins exchange places with the Θήρες as early as Archilochus’ celebrated χρημάτων άελτπΓον ούδέν. delphinum: the latinized acc. The original Greek acc., -na, offered a convenient choice of prosody and formation, of which the poets 114

Commentary a v a ile d th e m s e lv e s o n o c c a s io n , cf. N e u e -W a g e n e r , i. 4 6 1 , 493, T L L , V. i . 4 6 9 f. T h i s o c c a s io n d id n o t a rise h e r e ; in v iew o f th e stric t la y o u t o f t h e lin e , t h e s im ila r ity o f e n d in g s, delphinum -aprum , was o b v io u s ly c o n v e n ie n t. C o n tr a s t O v . M e t. 1. 302 siluasque tenent del­ phines, C la u d , x v iii. 3 5 5 adsuetum silu is delphina. 31 in u itiu m . ..c u l p a e f u g a : u itiu m ‘f a u l t ’, α μ ά ρ τη μ α , a te rm in lite r a r y t h e o r y a n d r h e to r ic c o n tra s te d w ith rectum o r uirtus: S. 1. 4. 8—9 [L u ciliu s) duru s componere versus. | nam f u i t hoc uitiosus, etc. E p . 1. 19. 17 d ec ip it ex em p la r u itiis im itabile. Cf. T e r . H eaut. p ro l. 2 9 -3 0 nouarum (fa b u la r u m ) . . . sine u itiis, A d H er. iv . 15 ne, dum haec genera consedem ur, in fin itu m a et p ropinqua u itia ueniamus, C ic. D e Or. 1. 116 a d e s t .. .n em o , q u in a c u tiu s . . .u itia in dicente quam recta uideat. Q u in t. 1. 0 . i. 5. 3 u n i uerbo u itiu m saepius quam uirtus inest, x . 1. 25 si uitia magnorum consequantur, e t a l. culpa, ‘ b l a m e ’, is c o m b in e d , in a m o ra l sense, w ith u itium a t S . 11. 6. 7, a n d is so m e tim e s in te rc h a n g e a b le w ith t h a t w o rd in l i te r a r y c o n te x ts , C . 1. 6. 11—12, laudes. . . Caesaris et tuas | culpa deterere ingeni, b e lo w 267—8 u ita u i denique culpam, o p p . laudem, 446 culpabit duros ( uersus ) ; cf. V a r r o , L .L . v m . 8 cur haec (e.g. uocabula). . . sin t in culpa. H e n c e t h e v a r ia tio n in th is verse. H . ta k e s u p th e ‘ d e c e p t i o n ’ o f 25, decipim ur specie recti, a n d trac es it to a la c k o f c r a f ts m a n s h ip , s i caret arte (th e g ra m m a tic a l su b ject h e re is n o t a p e r s o n b u t culpae f u g a , a p ra c tic e ; fo r th is tran sfere n ce T L L , h i. 4 5 1 . 32 a p t l y c o m p a r e s C ic. D iv . 1. 34 alterum (genus diuinationis ) quod arte careret ). Q u i n t i li a n (m o re fu lly c ite d 25 n .) m a y h av e H . in m in d , L O . v m . 3. 5 6 q uidquid est ultra uirtutem , quotiens ingenium iudicio caret et specie b o n i f a l li t u r . J u d g e m e n t d e p e n d s o n tra in in g in a n a rt. A g a in Q u i n t i l i a n r e m a r k s in th e in tr o d u c tio n to his A rs, L O . n . 12. 4, est. . . q u a e d a m u i r t u t u m u itio r u m q u e u ic in ia , qua maledicus pro libero, tem erarius p ro f o r t i , effusus pro copioso, accipitur / m aledicit autem in e ru d itu s apertius, e tc . T h e n e e d fo r a p a r ti c u la r ars o r τ έ χ ν η w as a c o m m o n ­ p la c e i n in t r o d u c t i o n s to p ro fe ssio n a l m a n u a ls (a b o v e p p . 75- ^)· ®“ t H . ’s w a y o f h a n d l i n g i t is n o t a t a ll c o m m o n p la c e . T h e d e m a n d is m a d e in a m a n n e r w h ic h is its e lf a r e m a rk a b le p iece o f artistry . (1) T h is v e rs e p r o v id e s th e k ey to th e cases o f m isju d g e d d ic tio n t h a t a r e c a s ti g a te d i n 2 5 —8. H . uses th e lig h te st o f touches. W ith th e p o ssib le e x c e p tio n o f 28, tim idus, as H e in z e p o in ts o u t, th e culpae fu g a is n e v e r s t a t e d b u t a lw a y s im p lie d . I t is o n ly b y ta k in g H . s h in t m th is v e rs e t h a t h is c o n te x t is fu lly a p p re h e n d e d . T h e c o n te x t is th e A r is to te lia n M e a n tra n s f e r r e d fro m m o ra ls to p o e try . I n th e m o ra fie ld H . h a d e a r l y s a tiriz e d its la c k , dum u ita n t stu lti uitia in contraria currunt ( S . i. 2. 2 4 ) ; n il m edium est (S . 1. 2. 2 8 ). I f allo w an ce for culpae f u g a is h e r e m a d e , a n A ris to te lia n M e a n b e tw e e n tw o Excesses 115

8 -2

Commentary arises w h e re , a s th e M a s te r h a d s a id , t h e E xcesses a r e o p p o s e d n o t o n ly to e a c h o th e r b u t to th e M e a n (E th . M e . n . 8 , 1108 b 13, E th . Eud. i i . 3, 1220 b 31). H e re is th e a p p lic a tio n to 2 5 - 8 : excess, culpae Ju g a

M ean

E xcess, o p p o site fa u lt

[25 - 6 5 p ro lix ] [2 6 -7 , ro u g h ] [27, low ] 28, h ig h , u n s a fe

b rief, c le a r sm o o th e le v a te d p la in

to o b rie f, o b s c u re fla b b y tu r g id lo w

M o re t h a n d islik e o f th e o ry a n d s c h e m a tism m u s t h a v e c a u s e d H . to av o id sp ellin g o u t th e culpae fu g a . T h e ‘ o p p o site f a u lt ’ se e m e d a g r e a te r a n g e r to h im t h a n th e fa u lt fro m w h ic h th e p r a c titio n e r w as a n y ­ w ay try in g t o e sc ap e, ars is n e e d e d to av o id th e ‘ o p p o site f a u l t ’ a n d h n d th e M e a n . A risto tle b a se d r ig h t j u d g e m e n t i n m a tte r s m o r a l o n p e rc e p tio n , α ΐσ θ η σ ις [E th . M e . 11. 9 , 1109 b 2 3 ). I n m a tte r s a e s th e tic xi. bases i t o n ars. F$ v erse to o h elp s to e x p la in 2 9 -3 0 a n d w id e n s th e c o m p a ss ° e w h o le in itia l c o n te x t, 1 -2 3 . S u b je c t-m a tte r a n d ‘ to n e ’ a r e o p e n to t e sam e d e c e p tio n s a s d ic tio n , w h ic h is b r o u g h t in ch iefly as a c rite rio n ecau se h e re species recti is b o th m a n ife st a n d e sta b lish e d te a c h in g .

Excess, culpae j u g a

-M ean

[2 9 -3 0 u n ifo rm ity ] O

n c e

a g

m

a k e s

t h e n t i o

b

t i o n

n

t h

e

τ έ χ υ η . f r o m p p . m p

4 4 - 5

o v e d

t h

L

a r g

e l y

i t y

a l l y e x

h

e

a A

e r e b

o

f

a

o

t h

e

t o

f

i t t a n

g h

i s

t h

e t h m

e

h

o

e t ’s

i t y

i s

p

r m

i s

l t s

w

h

a t

o

t e d

t h

a

c l a s s i c a l

t h

a

t

t h

c o m

e r m

u

n

a n

e

b

,

i n

g

τ ό

I v ,

Poetics,

i s

a

t

g

H

.

t h

e

p

y

a d

r o

i t

i s

t h

p o

e m

e

o p

b

t h

l a c i n

c r a f t c a n

t

o b

e

f

a t t e m

t h

i s

i n

w

a e h o

p

v e r s e

n

i n

e i s

u

a t t e r

b a s e d .

1 1 6

h

n d

l a t e r i t s f o

r

res una a s

o

t

s o

u

t o

c u

g

e t h

t o

t o p i c s

h a s

f r o m

e t i c

g

t i e s

t h

i t

a s

t i n

culpae fuga.

m

n

d

e l i c i t e d e

r

r e ;

o

r

e c e p

­

r e s c r i p

­

( 1 )

h i s

.

d

p

I t

F

a r t .

a t i o

m

t h

e

r e

a s

p o s i t i o n

u

d

t h

m

i s

o

n a s

p o n e n t s ,

i t y d

i s e t

f

s e

f r o

Y

i s

o

e l i c i t e d i t

l i t e r a t u

c o

r p

e

i f

.

u

b

v a r ie ty w ith o u t u n ity

o v e r l o o k e d .

o

t

t o p

H

r i s t o t l e ’ s n

a s

d i s c i p l i n e

n

t

i t s

c o

f a u

u n i f o

s e v e r e

f a c t i n

W

I t

e r

e

i n

.

g e t h e r .

g

t h

t o i n

u t

n

f

species recti

e

a r k

B

u

a n

i n

T m

l a c e

o

d i f f e r e n c e

F

u

e

d

o f f e r s

i q

n

e

y

( 3 ) u

o

a

t h

n

a i n

E xcess, o p p o s ite f a u lt

v a rie d u n ity

i q

e

e r

f m

u u

e t e r r e d

t e a c h

i n

i m

r t a n

c o

h

u

o

a s

o

n

j e c t u

t h

e r e

b

r o

u

ars,

o

n

w

g

p

g h

a

h

t

t

i c h

p t h

i n n

a

i t y

s t

n

o

S

t e i d

g

e n

t

b

r e ;

e

t

d

e

t

o e

u s

n

a n d

d

a r y

Prol.

1 3 7 ·

t h

Ars.

m t h

e r

t e r

s e c o

i n

t w

n

ars-

Studien,

l e ,

c f .

n

a n d

e r a l i z e d u

l a c e

a l o

m a n

o e

e t i f s o

v

t o

­

e r a l l

Commentary (5) A cautionary tale: the bronze-founder; mastery of parts does not guarantee mastery of whole, 32— 7

To unity, unum (14-31), is now joined wholeness, totum. The absence of these two qualities made the painting described at the beginning of the poem into a caricature (1-13). Aristotle too considered unity and wholeness fundamental. But in the P o etics the contrary sequence obtains: ch. 7 deals with totum, το δλον, and ch. 8 with unum , το εν; at the end of ch. 8 (I45I a 32) they are brought into the same locution, μιας- · · καί.. .όλης (ττράξεως). H.’s procedure however is different in three ways. ( 1) He speaks as a poet and critic. His concern is the wholeness o f a poem—words, order, subject—not only the logic of a ‘plot’. (2) He is realistic and particular, dealing with the instance of a smith working in bronze, not primarily with abstractions. (3) At this stage of the A r s he views whole­ ness only as a potential—the c a p a b ility of producing a coherent work of art. An artist must be able to envisage the totality of a work. Mere dexterity in dealing with parts is not enough. The smith fails because he cannot bring the parts into the relationship which Aristotle (ch. 9) defined as ‘necessary or probable’. The ability to set down totum (A . P . 34) distin­ guishes the true artist or poet from an artisan, f a b e r (32). 32 A e m iliu m circa lu d u m : th e p r o p e r n a m e a q u a si-a d je c tiv e as in th e a r c h a i c n o m e n c l a tu r e d iscu ssed 18 n . (a d fin .), a usage m e tri­ c a lly c o n v e n ie n t a n d m u c h e x te n d e d in v erse. H . h a s S te rtin iu m .. . acum en, E p . 1. 12. 2 0 ; uenena Colcha {Colchica f a u lty v a r ia n t) , C. 11.X3· 8 , R om ulae J . . .g e n tis , xv. 5. 1—2 ; S u lp ic iis .. .horreis, C . iv . 12. 18. F o r th e p l a c e , cf. P o r p h y r io n ’s n ., A e m ilii L epidi ludus gladiatorius f u i t quod nunc P o lyc le ti balineum est. T h e tra in in g school is said to h a v e b e e n non p ro c u l a C irco b y th e C o m m . C ru q . I ts lo c a tio n is discussed i n H. J o r d a n ’s p a p e r H , i x (1 8 7 5 ), 416. T h e id e n tity o f th is L ep id u s h a s n o t b e e n e s ta b lis h e d ; a c c o rd in g to p s.-A cro a n d C om m . C ru q . A e m iliu s w a s th e t r a i n e r ’s n a m e . I n a n y case i t is im p lie d th a t this n e i g h b o u r h o o d c o n ta in e d w o rk sh o p s o f b ro n z e -fo u n d e rs. A s r e g a r d s f a b e r im u s p s.-A c ro offers th re e riv a l ex p lan a tio n s. T h e firs t tw o a r e c e r t a i n l y fa lse ; Im u s is n o t th e m a n ’s n a m e n o r is his

117

C o m m e n ta r y

small stature

in q u e stio n . The th ir d is ta k e n fro m P o r p h y rio n : imus = in extrema parte ludi positum.·, see below .

The grammar of the sentence is relevant to the meaning. That this is not a plain statement of fact is shown by (a) the ‘potential’ future tenses in 33 and 35 (for instances see Kühner—Stegmann, i. 142-3) and (b) the hypothetical note in infelix . . . quia . . . nesciet. Both features are found for example at 6—8 Jore librum | persimilem, cuius . .. uanae j fingentur species, S. 11. 4. 22-3 peraget qui. .. \ finiet. When he speaks like that, I suspect, H.’s preference for particular cases is checked by his preference for generalizing—‘a certain kind of person or thing rather than ‘this or that person or thing’, fiaber imus is then unlikely to be Porphyrion’s ‘smith in the shop at the corner’. Rather what seems to be intended is ‘the kind o f smith who will (successfully) represent in bronze nails and flowing hair, but will be unsuccessful in carrying out a whole design, because. .. If then Porphyrion’s corner-shop cannot be located, we are left with either imus = ‘lowest in rank’ or, instead, unus, strongly sup­ ported by Bentley; for any other guesses no longer deserve recording. Now assume that imus has the meaning which is certainly on record in insignes et imos (C . in. 1. 15), but is here uncertain beside the indi­ cation of a locality, Aemilium circa ludum. Even so it would detract from H.’s point. Indeed Lucian Mueller (32 n.) and Immisch, p· 4 °> argue convincingly that H. is at pains to commend, not decry, excellence of detail in order to condemn presently the statue’s nullity as a whole. All honour to Bentley, then, for sponsoring the reading (correction intentioneile, according to Lejay, Hor. Sat. p. cxxi) unus which he found in one of his late MSS and inferred from erasures in two more, and further from a citation in John of Salisbury; unus is also in ps.-Acro ad I., codd. c 3 (s. xv). Even if S. 11. 3. 24-5 hortos.. . mercarier unus ( cum lucro noram = ‘only’, and is meant to be shameless bragga­ docio, Epod. 12. 4 sagacius unus odoror, and S. 11. 6. 57—8 unum j scilicet egregii mortalem altique dienti, certainly confirm the equation unus = praecipuus, o r rather praecipue. The idiom is established in verse as well as prose, cf. Bentley, SeyfFert-Miiller, Cic. Lael. pp. 9-11, H. Blase, Comm. Woelfflin (1891), pp. 87 ff., G. Landgraf, Cic. Rose. A m Λ ρ· 2θ, D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 171—2, a note on Prop, in· n · 4 ° una Philippeo sanguine adusta nota, with the reminder that Cleopatra ‘was not the only disreputable Lagid’. imus-unus is not the sort of palaeographical problem that requires comment, but in a note on H. the variants at 152 and S. 1. 4. 87 may be mentioned. Bentley’s unus is rejected on irrelevant palaeographical 118

Commentary g ro u n d s b y H . R . J o lif f e , T h e critical m e th o d s ... o f Bentley's Horace ( I 939 )> P· 1 12. 3 3 e x p rim e t. . . im ita b itu r aera: th e fo rm e r = ‘s q u e e z in g ’, h e n c e it is a p p lie d t o r a is e d w o r k in m e ta l, c a rv in g , sc u lp tin g , etc., a n d finally it d e n o te s ‘ r e p r e s e n t i n g ’ o r ‘ e x p re s s in g ’, w h ic h p u ts th e w o rd close to im ita ri ‘r e p r e s e n t ’ ; cf. T L L , v . 2. 1787 ff., VI1· 1 · 435 · 10 ff· F o r exprim o i n t h e c o n te x t o f b r o n z e s ta tu a ry , see E p . 11. 1. 248 expressi uoltus p e r aenea sig n a , P lin . Μ .Η . χ χ χ ι ν . 59 (Pythagoras Reginus) prim us neruos e t uenas exp ressit capillum que diligentius, ibid. 65 ( Lysippus ) statuariae arti p lu r im u m tr a d itu r contulisse, capillum exprimendo, e tc. m o lle s .. .c a p illo s: n a t u r a l is t i c r e p re s e n ta tio n o f flow ing h a ir w as a c h ie v e d i n H e lle n is tic a n d l a t e r s ta tu a r y . T h is fe a tu re w as m u c h a d m ir e d (cf. P li n y c it. p re c . n .) ; C a llis tra tu s re c u rs to i t in m o st o f h is d e s c r ip tio n s o f b r o n z e o r m a r b le sta tu e s, as a t Descr. 11. 3 ώς δ έ . . . έ ξ η τά 3 ο μ εν τ ή ν τ έ χ ν η ν . . . , ά φ α σ ία ττληγέντες είσ τη κ ειμ εν δ τ ε y à p χ α λ κ ό ς . . . π ρ ο ς τ ή ν τ ρ ιχ ό ς κ ίνη σ ιν μεθηρμό^ετο, ότέ μέν β ο σ τ ρ ύ χ ω ν ο ύ λ ω ν ιτλ ο κ α ϊς συνεξελιττόμενος, ό τέ δ ’ έθελουση τ η τ ρ ιχ ί ε κ τ ά δ η ν κ α τ ά ν ώ τ ο υ χ υ θ ή ν α ι συναιτλουμενος. mollis is a n e p ith e t l o r f lo w in g h a i r , cf. V irg . A . 11. 683“ 4 ntolles | lambere flam m a comas, T ib . 1. 8. 9 m o l l e s .. .coluisse capillos (o m itte d in th e list T L L , n i. 3 1 8 . 2 2 , cf. 17 49. 3 5 ) 5 e tc . I t also d esc rib es th e a r t th a t m akes b r o n z e o r m a r b l e s u p p le a n d lifelike, V irg . A . v i. 847 excudent alii sp irantia m o lliu s aera. 34 in fe lix operis su m m a : B e n tle y p ro b a b ly re m e m b e re d infelix studiorum , V ir g . G . m . 4 9 8 a n d th e lik e, fo r h e s e p a ra te d summa fro m th e r e s t o f t h e p h r a s e : in fe lix operis, sum m a: quia, e tc ., ‘failin g in his w o rk a s a w h o l e ’. N o th in g c o u ld b e b e tte r — if sum m a w e re used like a d sum m a m o r in su m m a . S in c e a p p a r e n tly i t is n o t, th e g ra m m a tic a l

p r o b le m o f t h e a b l . w a s fo r g o tte n a lo n g w ith B en tley ’s p u n c tu a tio n , O r e lli’s ( 3 r d e d . 1 852) is th e la s t re fe re n c e to it t h a t I h a v e seen. N o o t h e r in s ta n c e o f t h e a b l. i n p la c e o f th e g e n . a fte r infelix is m e n ­ tio n e d i n T L L , v i i . i . 1365. 8 to in d ic a te m odum infelicitatis. B u t h a lf a d o z e n in s ta n c e s o f t h e a b l. a r e c ite d u n d e r causa infelicitatis, as C ic. L in . v . 9 2 in fe lix una m olestia, f e l i x rursus cum, etc.. Sil. v i. 404^ infelix n im ia m a g n i u irtu te m a r iti, T a c . H . m . 3 4 · 1 ( Cremona) bellis externis intacta, ciu ilib u s in fe lix . T h i s t h e n is w h a t th e g r a m m a r o f th e p h ra se m u st b e i f sum m a is k e p t i n t h e t e x t ; th e a r tis a n fails th ro u g h , i.e. in, th e su m t o t a l o f t h e w o rk . T h e a b l. = ‘b y v irtu e o f ’, n o t ‘w ith re g a rd t o ’ ; i t is n o t a n is o la te d c a se. T h e w o rd sum m a u se d w ith th e g en . is p o p u l a r w i t h t h e h is to r ia n s , e.g. L iv . in . 6 1 . 12 paruaque certamina in su m m a m to tiu s p ro fece ra n t spei, x x x i. 37. 5 non in praesentis modo certaminis g loriam sed in su m m a m etiam b elli profectum fo re t, T a c . A nn. n . 45· 4 119

Commentary satis probatum penes utros sum m a b elli fu e r it, χ ιιι. 38. i n ih il in su m m a (m ) p a d s proficiebatur. ponere: cf. exprimere a n d im itari, 33. L ik e τ ίθ η μ ι , ponere m a y m e a n n o t

only ‘p la c e ’

a fig u re in a w o rk o f a r t b u t ‘m a k e ’ a w o rk o f a r t : th e fo rm e r as a t V irg . E . 3.4.6 Orpheaque in medio (poculi ) posuit, th e la tte r as a t H o r. C. iv . 8. 7 -8 (P a rrh a s iu s , S co p as) hic saxo, liq u id is ille colori­ bus I sollers nunc hominem ponere, nunc deum, P ro p . 11. 3. 4 1 —2 si quis uult fa m a tabulas anteire uetustas, \ hic dom inam exemplo p o n a t in arte meam. Ο ν . A .A . n i. 401 si Venerem Cous nusquam posuisset A pelles, e tc . F o r re p re s e n ta tio n in v erse, cf. P ers. 1. 7 0 -1 nec ponere lucum | artifices nec r u s . . . laudare, J u v . 1. 155 pone T ig ellin u m . totum h in ts a t th e ολον o f A risto tle a n d th e G re e k l ite r a r y critics, cf. ab o v e 32—7 n . B u t o fte n w h e n H . a llu d e s to te c h n ic a l te rm in o lo g y th e sim p le sense o f th e w o rd s satisfies a sim p le u n d e r s ta n d in g . So ponere totum h a s a sa tisfa c to ry m e a n in g b u t its u n d e r s ta n d in g is e n h a n c e d b y H e in z e ’s r e m a r k t h a t th e lo c u tio n u sh e rs in componere v35) j f ° r a sim p le v e rb follow ed b y a c o m p o u n d o f th e sa m e d e r iv a ­ tio n , s e e s o m e o f H o u s m a n ’s in stan ce s a t M a n . 1 .2 7 1 , in . 122 n n . T h e co n v erse id io m , sim p le v e rb p r e c e d e d b y c o m p o u n d , h a s b e e n d iscussed m o re fre q u e n tly , see C a lv e rt W a tk in s ’ s u m m a r y o f th e ev id en c e, HS, lx x i (1 9 6 6 ), 1 1 5 -1 9 .

35 -6 F o r th e in d ir, s ta t, a fte r m io , see K ü h n e r - S te g m a n n , 1.

714 f.

s

3 5 eg o . . . s i . . .curem: fo r th e

S teid le, Studien, p p . 32 f.

i s t p ers. sing, see 2 ^ - 6 , 55 n n ., o >

3 6 non m a g is. ..q u a m , h e r e a n d elsew h ere i n H ., is d isc u sse d b y L . F n tz s c h e , P , x x x m (1874), 7 1 8 -2 2 . . nas0 m u ereP rauo a p p e a rs as p r a m uiuere naso in so m e p o o r M S S a n d ί ” ^a r ^ ef ltl0 n s ° f H . B e n tle y re je c te d th e l a t t e r r e a d in g p a r tly a e ®et^ ca c ° p h o n y o f th r e e u so u n d s, -uo uiuere. B u t n e ith e r V irgil n o r H eschew s e v e n a s e q u e n c e o f id e n tic a l c o n so n a n ts ,

J

T °WS ’

I v · 35° quaerere regna, c ite d b y a less

H o n s ™ h Br n Ü t y H ? r ' a ΙΠ· 2 4 ‘ 4 4 n ·; H o r · E P - 1· i· 9 5 occurri rides, M an η n ’ ΧΧΠ ^r 9 28) ’ 4 n · 3 ) o n S. n. 1 . 2 sine neruis a n d o n < * ' ' 2 4 2 a£4uantem tempora, vo i. v . Addenda, p. 140, G . P . G o o ld , a r i S n " C T * \ H S ’ LXIX 8 6 ; h e n c e th e m a t t e r w o u ld S d ™ rh * ' “° T ls 1lif f e r · R o m a n p « « . d o n o t se e m to h a v e lee isla te d . . .e n 1011 to( ^ Is o c ra te a m a n d la te r rh e to r ic ia n s , w h o a o n e a r tn , § a m s c o m b m a tio n s like είττοϋσα σ α φ ή ; n o r d o th e y £ O bjected to th e a lle g e d ly o b sce n e v a r ie ty o f th e ty p e Q u i n L / O ντπ T ° n X -w ^ c - C r. 154 ( w ith S a n d y s ’s n .) , • 3· 44 7> T L L , in . 5. 79 ff. (cacemphaton ). F o r in s ta n c e s 120

Commentary fro m L a t i n v e rs e see a b o v e a n d P ease o n V irg . A . iv . 461, 662; N o r d e n , V ir g . A . v i. 8 8 , R . G . A u stin , V irg . A . 11. 27 n n . o n Dorica castra, w i t h G . L u c k ’s re m a rk s , Gnomon, xxxvii (1965), 53, o n th e n o m e n c la tu r e . T h e r e is n o re a s o n th e re fo re w h y prauo uiuere co u ld n o t b e r i g h t . B u t in th is k in d o f case d ec isio n m a y rest w ith th e b e tte r M S S . paruo fo r p r a u o s h o u ld n o t b e e n te r ta in e d ; m ale paruus o f a p u n y boy a t S . i. 3. 4 5 is a n o t h e r m a tte r . C a t. 43. 1 nec minimo puella naso shows t h a t a la r g e n o s e c o u ld h a r d ly h e lp in a b e a u ty c o n te st; naso . . . prauo is r a t h e r t o b e c o m p a r e d w ith w h a t C a tu llu s in th e la n g u a g e o f h is hendecasyllabi c a lls turpiculo. . .naso (41. 3). C ic. F in. v. 46 si quae in m em bris p ra u a a u t d eb ilita ta a u t im m inuta sin t re la te s in its la tte r p a r t to th e s t u n t in g o r m a im in g o f lim b s. T h e sam e p assa g e also shows prauus in t h e s e n s e o f ‘ c r o o k e d , d e f o rm e d ’ ; cf. S. 1. 3. 4 7 -8 distortis cruribus. . . | . . .p r a u is . . . ta lis, C ic. T .D . iv . 29 uitium ( appellant) cum p a rtes corporis in ter se dissident, ex quo p rauitas membrorum, distortio, d efo rm ita s.p r a u u m i n t h e m o ra l s p h e re is ‘c r o o k e d ’, d e v ia tin g fro m th e

s tr a ig h t p a t h , rectum , a s a t S . 11. 7. 7 -8 . 3 7 (m e) sp ec ta n d u m : t h e p r e g n a n t a ttrib u tiv e use o f th e g e ru n d iv e e x p re s s in g fitn e s s f o r th e a c tio n exp ressed b y th e v e rb , ‘w o rth y to be lo o k e d a t ’, sp ecta b ilem , a s a t C. iv . 14· 17 spectandus in certamine M artio, V irg . G . iv . 4 6 9 m anesque a d iit regemque tremendum, e t al. Cf. K ü h n e r S te g m a n n , 1. 7 3 2 -3 . nigris oculis nigroque capillo, n o t nigroue. C f. C. i. 32. 11-12 Lycum nigris oculis nigroque | crine decorum (w ith a m e tric a l v a ria tio n nigris— nigroque, n o t e m p lo y e d h e r e ) , C a t. 43 · 2 nec bello pede nec nigris ocellis (fo r 1. i , see a b o v e 3 6 n .) , P ro p . π . i2 . 23—4 qui caput et digitos et lum ina n igra p u e lla e | . . . canat, O v . A m . 11. 4· 4 I—3 seu P endent niuea p u lli ceruice c a p illi, | L e d a f u i t nigra conspicienda coma; | seu flauent, placuit croceis A u ro ra c a p illis.

(6) The poet’s advice, an apparent truism: choose a poetic task adapted to your talent, 38— 40

'The poets’, q u i s c r i b i ti s , are unexpectedly addressed. What they are told does not sum up ‘wholeness’ (to tu m , 32-7) in the same way as 23 and 31 summed up two different strands of 'unity’ (u n u m , 14—22, 24—30). Rather they are left to draw the conclusion from the bronze-founder’s tale: artisan, a maker of parts ; artist, a maker of a whole. Nor is the application to poetry explicitly stated. The need for artistic understanding 121

Commentary (απ-τέχνη) is n o t reiterated after si caret arte (in th e c o n te x t o f unity, 31) and ponere totum nesciet (in th e c o n te x t o f ‘ w h o leness’, 34-5) . Instead o f th e need for artistry w h ic h en a b les the poet to create a w hole, atten tion is c o n c e n tr a te d o n th e condition that makes such artistry possible. T h e c o n d itio n lies in the right choice o f his task: he w ill fail to o r g a n iz e a w h o le unless such organizing lies in his pow er. T h e success o f ars depends on the right choice o f aim , a n d righ t c h o ic e d ep en d s on the degree o f native talent. T h e u n tirin g a d v o c a te o f craftsmanship ends w ith a studied p arad ox b y in c u lc a tin g the need for talent, ju st as he reflected o n the id e a l o f u n ity in terms o f variety. A m ong the abstract topics o n w h ic h the w riters o f artes liked to advise in introducing their textbooks w e r e de materia , and de natura et doctrina, for exam ple Q u in t. 1. 0 . 11, chs. 19 and 21, cf. ii. 8. T hese are the abstract and rigid p recep ts w h ic h H . has drawn into the particularizing process o f his poetry. T he materia here (38) is that o f the in d iv id u a l p o e t a n d n o t o f the poet in the abstract. In relating ars a n d materia to ta len t (natura) he breaks dow n th e artificial distin ctions o f th e w riters o f textbooks. T he ultim ate achievem en t o f p o e tic art— a p o em in w hich words and thought h ave an in d issolu b le organ ic unity justifies the poet’s choice o f his task. B u t, p a r a d o x i­ cally, the choice o f task can be ju stified o n ly b y th e n a tiv e talent o f the chooser.

-a or -es occurs three times in H., twice in e th declension A.P. publica materies metrically excludes the -a tom , but C. in. 24. 49 materiem (-am uar.) mali and this passage do not. Possible differences of stylistic flavour (cf. N. Eriksson, Studien zu . Τα«tus (1934), p. 8) are insufficient grounds for bmgmg this passage into line with the two others. e word does not here denote subject-matter as opposed to cucuon—a division to be made presently—but the subject chosen by the writer, the task he is undertaking. Cf. Prol. 11-13, and for the of the word, TLL, vm. 459-61. A like though dlStl“Ction “ made in such textbooks as Cic. Inv. 1. 7 dicimus in qua omnis ars et eaJacuitas quae conficitur ex t h e

w

;

-

.

,

.

o

r d

1 3 1

^

122

Commentary arte uersatur. u t si m edicinae m ateriam dicamus morbos ac uulnera, quod in his omnis m edicina uersetur, item quibus in rebus uersatur ars et fa c u lta s oratoria, eas res m a teria m a r tis rhetoricae nom inam us, ibid. 9 quare m a te r ia quidem nobis rhetoricae u id etu r a rtis ea quam A risto teli uisam esse dixim us; p a rte s autem eae quas p le riq u e dixerunt, in u e n tio d isp o sitio e lo c u tio , etc. qui scrib itis: f r e q u e n tly w rite r s o f verse (th e ‘w rite r s ’ h e re h a v e b e e n so i d e n t i f i e d : p o etis, 9 ; u atum , 24), cf. 7 3 -4 res g e s ta e .. . | quo scribi p ossen t num ero, 1 1 9 -2 0 a u t fa m a m sequere a u t...fin g e \ scriptor, 3 0 6 -7 m u n u s et officium , n il scribens ipse, docebo, | . . . quid a la t. . .poetam, 309 scribendi recte , C . 1. 6. 1 -2 , S . 1. 4. 4 1 -2 , E p . 1. 2. 1 Troiani belli scriptorem, e t a l. aequam w i t h d a t . e x p re s s in g ‘ e q u a l t o ’ (h e re, slig h tly stra in e d ,

‘n o t m o r e t h a n ’) is f a m ilia r fr o m verse b u t n o t fo u n d in prose u n til L iv y , cf. T L L , 1. 1030. 59. 39 uersate d iu , qu id , e tc. : th e v e r b is fro m e a rly tim es fre q u e n tly u sed w i t h p r o n o u n , secum , o r w ith s u c h n o u n s as (in) corde, pectore, animo = ‘ t u r n o v e r i n o n e ’s m in d , p o n d e r ’. B u t it a p p e a rs less o ften w ith o u t s u c h a s u p p o r t, a n d n o t to m y k n o w le d g e b e fo re this passage a n d P r o p . 11. 4 . 1 6 (fo r in . 14. 32, see D . R . S h a c k le to n B ailey, Prop. 185) ; la t e r , f o r e x a m p le , V a l. F I. 1. 3 2? 72 5 ? Sii. x v . 541, x v ii. 569, S en. D ia l. in . 17. 5, Q u i n t . 1. 0 . x . 3. 5· F o r th e in d ire c t q u estio n , cf. V irg . A . V. 7 0 1 - 3 nunc h u c . . .n u n c illuc pectore curas | m utabat uersans, Siculisne resideret a m is , e tc ., ibid. x . 285—6, S ta t. Theb. v . 242—4? A ch. 1. 7 i 3~ i 6 · B o th id io m s to g e th e r I h a v e n o tic e d o n ly h e re . fe r r e recusent (u m e ri): fo r th e w o rd in g cf. S . 11. 7. 1 0 8 -9 pedes. . . ferre recusant \ c o rp u s; f o r t h e th o u g h t a n d w o rd in g E p . 11. 1. 259 quam (rem) uires f e r r e recusent. T h e m e ta p h o r is liste d b y A . O tto , Sprich­ wörter, p . 3 5 5 , um eri. C f. E p ic t. D iss. in. 15. 9 ά νθρω πε, σκέψαι "Πρώτον τ ί ε σ τ ι τ ό π ρ α γ μ α (i.e. φ ιλ ο σ ο φ ία ), ε ίτα καί τη ν σαυτοΟ φ ύσ ιν, τ ί δ ύ ν α σ α ι β α σ τ ά σ α ι κ τ λ . (w h ich , R o s ta g n i believes, derives fro m H .) .

(7) A promise: if you can master your subject, you will be able to express and arrange it, 40 (cui-41) (The technical topics o f an ‘ars poetica’ are thereby implied subject, diction, arrangement, which now follow in reverse order) T h e s e n te n c e fo r m s a n i m p o r t a n t lin k in th e s tr u c tu r e o f th e A rs. I t h a s t h r e e d i f f e r e n t b u t b y n o m e a n s in c o m p a tib le

aspects. (1) It may be read as a

p a r titio 123

setting out the partes of a

Commentary

literary discussion on arrangement (42 ff.)> style ( 45» 47 ^') and perhaps subject-matter (u g ff.), the discussion pro ceeding in reverse order to that of the p a r titio whic g°c from res (40) to fa c u n d ia (41) to ordo (41)· ^he topics may paralleled from rhetorical theory, e.g. Cic. Inv. 1. 9 C1 e above 38 η. I regard the topics of or do ο χ ιά J a c u n d ia a s certain, cf. 42 n., 4 6 -5 n. res however is no more than possible, no^ because res here can only denote the task selected by the poe (Vahlen, cf. Prol. 12, followed by Heinze and others), or t word is sufficiently flexible to be taken as the task selecte , as well as the topic of inuentio contrasted with style and arrange ment. Doubt, though not insurmountable doubt, is cause simply by the stress placed on lecta, the act of selection. ^ (2) The sentence may be read too as a ‘link passage o ^ ‘gliding transition’ smoothing the path between two ‘sections of the poem. Its beginning, cui lecta potenter e n t res , links t e sentence with sumite m ateriam , which itself followed on rxo the necessity of an ars that promises poetic unity. Its seco part (41) links the contexts of ars and selection of a task wl the specific problems of the ars poetica. (3) The sentence finally expresses a conviction—the dine ent aspects of a poem, its subject, arrangement, and sty e, will become one if certain conditions are fulfilled. The con tions are natura and ars, the former expressed by aequam uiribus and lecta potenter, the latter by the techniques which are here introduced. It is instructive to see the initial axiom of a modem criticism—the unity of style and content—expresse as a final act of grace which is granted, in spite of the disso­ ciation of res,facundia, and ordo, when the necessary conditions have been fulfilled. 4° tecta fo r (d)electa a s E p. 1. 9 . 4 legentis honesta N eronis, n o t collecta, th e p a r ts o f a c o m p o sitio n (D o e d e rle in ). G f. D . B o , H or. Opm (i960), 388, for in s ta n c e s o f s im p le v e rb s u s e d by H. f o r com ­ p o u n d s. potenter: the word needs explanation, not emendation (tot inter, A. Y. Campbell, C Q , xxxix (1945) 18). (i) Various attempts have

124

Commentary b e e n m a d e to e x p la in th e a d v e r b as th o u g h it d e sc rib e d th e ex e cu tio n o f th e a c t o f c h o o s in g : (a) ‘a c c o rd in g to o n e ’s ab ility o r p o w e rs’ (L e w is a n d S h o r t ) . T h is is th e s ta n d a r d e x p la n a tio n , w h ich goes b ac k to th e s c h o lia s ts : P o rp h . qui legerit id quod praestare possit; potenter fig u ra u it ώ σ ε ί δ υ ν α τ ώ ς (ώ ς εΐ δ υ ν α τό ς c o d d .), P s.-A cro secundum, quod potest, e tc ., C o m m . C r u q . p ro sua potentia, quantum possit ferre. D ictio n ­ a rie s d o n o t h o w e v e r r e c o r d th is m e a n in g , a p a r t fro m th e p re sen t p a ssa g e . T h e m a te r ia ls o f th e T L L c o n ta in m a n y in stan ces, all d e n o tin g , a s o n e w o u ld e x p e c t in th e a d v e rb o f potens, ‘pow erfully, e f f e c tu a lly ’ : C. in . 16. i o —n p e rru m p e re .. .sa xa potentius | ictu f u l ­ mineo, S e n . S u a s. ii. 18 m u lto potentius d ixit, V a l. M ax . i. i ext. i ( Proserpina) se ip sa potenter atque efficaciter defendit, m . 3 ext. 1, Q u in t. L O . V . 7 . 3 7 , v i. 4 . 18, X II. 10. 72 a d efficiendum quod intendit ( orator) potenter, p s .- Q u i n t . D eci. 2 7 4 (p . 123. 13 R ·), 276 (p. 127. 6 R .) , al. T h e a lle g e d m e a n in g , th e n , is iso la te d ; w h ic h p e rh a p s c o u ld b e b o rn e i f it a ro s e c le a r ly f r o m th e c o n te x t. ( b ) ‘w ith se lf-re stra in t’, as opposed to im potenter, ‘ in te m p e r a te ly ’ (W ilk in s). T h is m e a n in g too is n o t o n re c o rd e ls e w h e r e ; M a r k la n d trie d to in tro d u c e i t b y e m en d in g potenter t o p u d en ter, (c) ‘ w h o sp e n d s a ll h is p o w ers o n th e choice, i.e. w h o m a k e s e v e ry e ffo rt to ch o o se a r ig h t ’ (R e id ap. W ilkins). T h is in d e e d is th e u s u a l m e a n in g o f potenter, th o u g h th e d rift o f th e w hole s e n te n c e is d u b io u s . B u t (a ) a n d ( b ) p ro d u c e a sense w h ich is n o t o n ly d u b io u s le x ic o g r a p h ic a lly b u t ru le d o u t b y th e co n tex t. F o r w hy s h o u ld d ic t i o n a n d lu c id o r d e r (41) g ra c e a su b je c t chosen ac co rd in g to a b ility , i f t h a t a b ility is m id d lin g o r low ? O r w h y sh o u ld th e y grace i t i f th e c h o ic e is m a d e w ith self-re stra in t? T h e co n te x t calls for m a s te ry o f a s u b je c t. (ii) N o a t t e m p t h a s b e e n m a d e to e x p la in th e a d v e rb as c o m m e n t­ in g o n t h e c h o ic e m a d e , n o t o n th e m a n n e r o f choosing. T h is, a w e ll-w o rn L a t i n id io m , is so m etim e s o v e rlo o k e d ; g ra m m a ria n s call i t ‘a d v e r b o f j u d g e m e n t ’, i.e . o n th e w h o le o f a sentence, cf. K iih n e rS te g m a n n , 1. 79 5 , H o fm a n n —S z a n ty r, 827· male reprehendunt n eed n o t m e a n ‘ t h e y c r itic iz e b a d l y ’ b u t c a n m e a n (as it does a t C ic. T .D . 1Π· 34 ) ‘ t h e y a r e m is ta k e n in c r itic iz in g ’. H . h a s th e sam e usage a t 129 rectius, iS. 1. 10. 3 4 insanius , C. 11. 12. 11 melius. Cf. M a d v ig o n Cic. F in . IV. 6 3 , A d ve rs. crit. n . 5 0 7 , C . F . W . M ü lle r o n Cic. Off. 1. 128, L ö fs te d t, S j n . n . 3 8 4 n. 1. T h u s u n d e rs to o d th e g ra m m a r o f th e s e n te n c e m a k e s th e a tte s te d m e a n in g o f th e w o rd (above u n d e r (a) ) a p p lic a b le . T h e m e a n in g , I th in k , is ‘h e w ho is effective in his c h o ic e ’ o r 4h e w h o s e c h o ic e h a s m a d e h im m a s te r o f his su b ject . res ‘ s u b j e c t ’, is o p p o s e d to d ic tio n o r a rra n g e m e n t o r b o th as a t 3 11 a n d in e a r l i e r w ritin g s o f H ., cf. Prol. 181-2. 125

Commentary

41 facundia = (fluent) diction; contrast at 311 and often elsewhere The word was suitable for H.’s purpose since it must still have had an archaic or poetic tinge in his time. Cicero and Caesar avoid facundia, but the historians use it. It is unsuitable too as a rhetorical term; in the nomenclature of Cicero and the A d Her. elocutio or uerba are used to express the Greek term λέξις. I can find no vagueness in the term (G. Williams, JR S , l iv (1964.), 194); it is more expressive than uerba, and fits the hexameter, which elocutio does not. deseret: H. stresses the unity of thought and expression in poetry while yet speaking of ‘subject’ and ‘diction’. If the poet is master of his subject, diction and arrangement will not forsake him. The implication is not that facundia and ordo are easy, but that the poet, trained in the use of language, does not divorce the act of giving ordered expression to thought from the thought itself. Modern critics will say that in poetry the words are the thought; H. says that the right subject will elicit the right words (from the man who has been trained to use them). Cf. 311 uerbaque prmisam rem non im ita sequentur. A glance at an ancient textbook of rhetoric will show up the differ­ ence. So the definition A d Her. 1. 3 elocutio est idoneorum uerborum et sententiarum ad imentionem accommodatio, Cic. Inv. 1 . 9. There wording is inorganically ‘fitted to’ subject-matter. lucidus ordo: for ordo juxtaposed with res see Ep. 1. 19. 29 rebus et ordine dispar, Prol. 181-2. The word is used by the rhetoricians but is less heavily technical than dispositio. Cf. A d Her. 1. 3 dispositio est ordo et distributio rerum, quae demonstrat quid quibus locis sit collocandum, Cic. Ino. i. 9 dispositio est rerum imentarum in ordinem distributio. D e Or. π. 179 qui ordo . .. et quae dispositio argumentorum, et al. lucidus recalls the dilucidum (lucidum specially in Q u in tilm rij—planum-apertum—perspicuum^ of the rhetoricians. This is the σαφές of Theophrastus, a virtue of diction. The Isocrateans however declared clarity also to be a virtue èv τοίς ττράγμασιν, the facts of a narrative. This influenced later rhetorical theory, as J. Stroux has demonstrated. De Theophr. Virt. D ie· ch. 4. Cf. for example A d Her. 1. 15 rem dilucide narrabimus si ut quicquid primum gestum erìt ita primum exponemus, et rerum ac temporum ordinem conseruabimus ut gestae res erunt aut ut potuisse geri uidebuntur; hic erit considerandum ne quid perturbate.. .dicamus, ne quam in aliam rem transeamus, ne ab ultimo repetamus, ne longe persequamur, ne quid quod ad rem pertineat praetereamus. For H.’s own view on ordo see below 42-4 η· uerba.

I2Ö

Commentary Π. The Arts o f Arrangement and Diction in Poetry, 42-118 (1) Arrangement, 42-4

The first of the three ‘technical ’ divisions now follows, closely tied to the second, Diction; about the place o f‘Arrangement’ in the economy of the poem I write below. ‘A rrangem ent’, τάξις, in Latin dispositio or ordo, is altogether a rhetorical term. I t probably points to one of the oldest but also most enduring functions of Greek rhetorical teaching—to tell the learner how to deal with the set parts of a forensic speech, μόρια του λόγου, cf. F. Solmsen, AJP, lxii (1941), 35 ff., H. Caplan, [Cicero] Ad Herennium, p. 6 note (a). Treatment of ordo, as Quintilian noted (1.0. hi. 3. 1-10), could vary considerably, and this also applied to the place of ordo in the rhetorical syllabus. Often, and perhaps most naturally, ‘arrangem ent’ followed ‘subject-matter’. But Aris­ totle placed it after ‘diction’, at the end of his Rhetoric (in. 13-19). A rrangem ent and expression are hard to divorce and certain manuals made allowance for that in their placing of the topic; so one gathers from Quintilian’s report (loc. cit. 8—9) · He himself was carried from ‘arrangement to diction at the end of book vn although he had adopted the tradi­ tional sequence of topics, with ‘subject-matter first, and 'arrangem ent’ and ‘diction’ to follow. This flexibility needs to be remembered for the poet’s own placing. He makes ordo preced e facundia, and follow his introductory section on unity, in which content and form had already been closely joined. Rhetoricians had worked up a complicated set of rules for dispositio. But they were well aware that the most effective arrangement must take account of the prejudices and weak­ nesses of an audience and the contingencies ofindividual cases. All students o f the subject said so: philosophers, orators, and rhetoricians, e.g. Ar. Rhet. hi. 16, Theophrastus (ap. Demetr. Interpr. 222), Ad Her. hi. 16-18, Cic. De Or. 11. 307 ff. (and, almost as briefly as in the A.P., Cic. Or. 50), Quint. 1. 0 . vn. 127

Commentary

io. u f f .; and naturally, for undue completeness or false placing may kill a speech—and the case, ubi adsumendum prooemium, ubi omittendum·, so Quintilian begins rehearsing the knotty problems that face the orator. To deal with them calls for consummate ability : maxime proprium oratoris prudentiae, says Cicero ( De Or. n. 308); imperatoria uìrtus, Q uintilian (LO. v i i . i o . 13). In literary criticism the role of ordo is much less clear than in rhetoric ; yet evidence is not entirely wanting. Aristotle had linked his concept of unity with the Homeric technique of concentration on one main event of the great w ar; this in­ volved postponement to ‘episodes’ of other events (Poet. 23, 14 5 9 a 3 5 ) · The Alexandrians paid attention to the oeconomia of the Iliad and Odyssey, but their notions were largely rhetorical, cf. 42, 43, 140—52, 148 nn. H. is not restricting his remarks to epic narrative; he may be thinking of any kind of poetic ordering, his own included. The exemplary status of Homeric oeconomia was not even restricted to poetry, cf. 148 n. on in medias res. Other evidence is hypothetical. I t rests on inference from the layout of the Ars in comparison with the Poetics and Rhetoric. The Greek term for arrangement, τάξις, ‘is not found in the Poetics where the structure of the plot provides all that is required on that score’ (Prol. p. 99 n. 2). The triad arrangement-diction-content is indeed Aristotelian, b u t it comes from the Rhetoric, not the Poetics, and I have argued th at it was transferred to the literary field from the Rhetoric. I have conjectured {ibid. 93, 141 ff.) that this transference took place m ^e early Hellenistic age, and may precede Neoptolemus of Panum. (A further guess may here be added: H orace proA?^.PfCeS °n 0r^ n^s ' · · uirtus, that is αρετή τάξεοος. Such an άρε-τή may have been formulated on the model o f ‘the virtue of diction’, άρετή λέξεω5, already established by Aristotle and an ysed further by Theophrastus.) But whatever the date, e appearance of ordo, the label of the rhetoricians, marks an important change in literary criticism. A theory based on the 128

Commentary

consistency of the tragic plot now gives way to a rhetorical and literary order of things; the claims of ‘arrangement’ and ‘style’ now balance those o f ‘subject-matter’. 4 2 o rd in is ta k e s u p ordo (4 1 ). N o t in fre q u e n tly in H . th e last w o rd o f a lin e is r e p e a t e d a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e n e x t, cf. D . Bo, Hor. Op. m . 4 0 2 . B u t th is p a s s a g e d iffe rs fro m th e o th e rs th e re cited in its fu n c tio n : i t u s h e r s in t h e to p ic s o f th e (concealed) partitio o f 4 0 -1 , th o u g h i n re v e rs e o r d e r . uirlus: th e c o m m o n m e a n in g ‘ w o rth , e x c e lle n c e ’ is a p p lie d to sp e e c h b y C ic e ro a n d o th e rs , cf. D e Or. 11. 241 est autem haec huius genens (fa c e tia r u m ) u irtu s ut, e tc ., B ru t. 65 omnes oratoriae uirtutes in eis ( orationibus ) reperientur. B u t C ic e ro em p lo y s laus to re n d e r G reek α ρ ετή (λέξεω ς) in its te c h n ic a l c o n n o ta tio n as ‘v irtu e o f d ic tio n ’, w h e re a s Q u i n t i li a n also uses uirtus in th e m o re te c h n ic a l m ean in g , C O . \ . 5 . i oratio tris habeat uirtutes. E v e n i f th e re w as a n ά ρετή τ ά ξ ε ω ς m o d e lle d in G re e k th e o ry o n α ρ ετή λέξεως (ab o v e 4 2 -4 n.) uirtus s till s e e m s to h a v e a m e ta p h o r ic a l tin g e since i t im plies uir, m a n lin e s s ’. T h is c o n n o ta tio n (as in u i . . .co rp o ris.. .uirtute animi, S a il. C a t. 1. 5 ), r a t h e r a u s te r e fo r p o e try , p e rh a p s suggested th e c o m ­ p l e m e n t a r y w o r d uenus, ‘ c h a r m ’, a n d th e p a ir u ir tu s .. .e t uenus (a lli­ te r a tiv e lik e 4 1 4 uenere et nino) ; cf. Q u in t. L O . ix. 3. 28 ipsis sensibus cum g ra tia m tum etia m uires accommodat, 4. 43 cum uirtutes et ipsae taedium p a ra n t nisi g r a tia u a rieta tis adiutae; C ic. P art. O r. 31 nam u t dilucide probabiliterque narrem us necessarium est, sed assumimus etiam suauitatem. uenus ‘ c h a r m ’ a s 3 2 0 fa b u la nullius ueneris, sine pondere et arte, Q u in t. C O . X , i . 7 9 om nes ueneres, i . i o o sermo ipse R om anus non recipere uideatur illa m so lis concessam A ttic is uenerem·, iv . 2. 116, v i. 3. 18 co m b in e uenus a n d g ra tia . S in c e uenus (lik e uenustas, p s.-A cro ’s p a ra p h ra se o f H .’s uenus) m a y r e n d e r G re e k x à p is, i t is p e r tin e n t to re c a ll such passages a s D e m e tr . In terp r. 137 π ρ ώ τ η έσ τί χ ά ρ ις ή έκ συντομίας, o r 139

δ εύ τερ ο ς δέ τ ό π ο ς έ σ τ ίν ά π ό τ ή ς τά ξεω ς. τ ό y à p α ύ τό π ρ ώ τ ο ν μέν τεθέν ή μ έσου ά χ α ρ ι γ ίν ε τ α ι, έ π ί δέ τέλους χα ρίεν.

This is not much to go by, but perhaps sufficient to allow of the following suggestions: (1) W hat H. has described in terms of (Aristotelian) cunity’ before, he now describes in terms of (rhetorical) arrangem ent ’ ; compare particularly sed nunc non erat his locus O9) with the present passage, and the ‘partitio’, 40-1. The gliding transition’ from the preceding portion to this is not BHA 9 129

Commentary superficial ; it reveals that H. is talking about different aspects of the same thing. In his tradition ‘literary ’ and ‘rhetorical ’ aspects were combined. (2) The same polemical overtones are heard in both sections. Lack of unity and lack of arrangement are complementary. (3) As before H. chiefly talks of poetic forms large enough to call for ‘placing’. This does not mean that his words could not be applied to other genres than epic and drama. (4) H .’s practice mirrors his own teaching; he concen­ trates on the one thing needful at this place. It is the charm {uenus, 42) of his procedure that this demand acquires a different complexion elsewhere in the poem, specially 149'~50> Homer leaving aside quae | desperat tractata nitescere posse, and the qualification immediately following. 42 aut ego Jailor: th e o b v io u s m ista k e. N o t a b u t a fa irly o u ts p o k e n (a p p a r e n t) tru is m ; cf.

v a r ia n t r e a d in g haud {haut) ego f . b e i n g a n p o lite d is c la im e r, a s is s o m e tim e s t h o u g h t , a n d p e r h a p s h u m o r o u s in s is te n c e o n t h e P. C a u e r , RM, l x i (1 9 0 6 ), 2 3 6 - 7 , 1Der Grundsatz ist einfach genug, aber die Anwendung gelingt so wenigen ’. T h a t autfallor is a w a y o f in sistin g o n th e t r u t h o f w h a t is s a id is s h o w n b y Ciris 22 7 -8 nec leuis hoc faceret. . . cura subegit, ] aut fallor: quod ut 0 potius. . fallar th e o n ly o th e r p a ssa g e I k n o w t h a t la c k s a s e c o n d aut clau se . T h e s a m e in siste n c e is s h o w n b y t h e fu ll l o c u tio n w i t h d o u b le aut, a s aut ego fallor | aut ego laedor (Ο ν . Met. 1. 6 0 7 —8)5 ‘ I a m s u re ly w ro n g e d ’ a n d th e o th e r e x a m p le s c ite d T L L , v i. 184. 1 6 -1 8 . C o m p a ris o n is m a d e w ith ni fallor, b u t t h a t is less s tr o n g in em p h asis. 43 B e n tle y ’s re p o in tin g o f th is v e rse is s u p e r fic ia lly a t t r a c t i v e : a c o m m a a fte r dicat a n d th e tw o fo ld iam nunc e x p la in e d a s interdum, m e a n in g , ‘ t h a t h e sh o u ld so m e tim e s say a ll, a t o t h e r tim e s p o s tp o n e m u c h t h a t n e e d s to b e s a id to a n o t h e r o c c a s io n ’. B u t t h e a t t r a c t i o n is s u p e rfic ia l; th e p ro p o s a l c o u ld h a v e b e e n m a d e o n ly b y a c r it i c w h o to o k little in te re st i n t h e s u b je c t- m a tte r o f th is p o e m . T o a d v is e th e p o e t ‘t o p o s tp o n e w h a t n e e d s n o w to b e s a i d ’, iam nunc debentia dici, p u lls th e fo u n d a tio n o f h is c r e e d fro m u n d e r H . ’s fe e t. W h a t n e e d s to b e s a id n o w m u s t b e s a id n o w , a n d o n ly t h a t — ut iam nunc

dicat iam nunc debentia dici. Ps.-Aero’s paraphrase must rest on an excellent tradition. After giving the explanation for which I have just been contending, he

130

Commentary c o n tin u e s , u t V irg iliu s V I I I I libro narrat in Ita lia iam posito Aenea, quo­ modo fa b r ic a ta e s in t naues, quibus de Ilio nauigauit, cum in tertio non dicit. T h is re fe rs to th e s ta r tlin g a d d itio n , in ix . 83 if. o f th e Aeneid, to o u r

in f o r m a tio n o n t h e s h ip b u ild in g b efo re th e h e ro ’s e m ig ra tio n in b o o k in . W . K r o ll ( Studien ζ · Verst, d. röm. L it. (1924), p . 136) h as o b s e rv e d t h a t th e s a m e o p in io n is o ffered m o re fully b y S ervius D a n . o n ix . 83 : sane haec narratio tunc Hi iii c o d d .) lib ri erat, sed dilata est ut hic opportunius redderetur, a u t ne bis idem diceretur; potest ergo aut κ α τά t ò σ ιω ττώ μ ενο ν uideri a u t hysteroproteron. T h is rh e to ric a l w a y o f a c c o u n tin g fo r w h a t m ig h t w e ll b e a n e d ito ria l la c k o f a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n tw o b o o k s o f th e p o e m a d d s to th e u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e A r s ; fo r th is is th e H o m e ric —V irg ilia n c o n te x t o f H .’s p re c e p t o n ordo, o n w h ic h I h a v e r e m a rk e d in th e in tro d u c tio n to this section (p. 128 a b o v e ) . F o r o t h e r p o in ts o f c o n ta c t b e tw e e n th e A rs a n d th e lite r a r y c r itic is m u n d e r ly in g H o m e ric , V irg ilia n a n d o th e r scholia, see b e lo w 126, 148 n n . dicat: t h e la c k o f a g r a m m a tic a l su b je c t, if 45 is tran sp o se d , causes n o d iffic u lty . T h e p o e t in q u e s tio n is still cui lecta potenter erit res, 40. 4 4 pleraque: cf. 14 η . praesens in tem pus: th e L a tin id io m in th e acc. d e n o tin g , like G reek d s τ ο ττα ρ ό ν , ‘ fo r th e tim e b e in g ’ r a th e r th a n ‘a t th e m o m e n t , in p ra esen ti (a) ; cf. C. 11. 16. 2 5 -6 laetus in praesens animus quod ultra est I oderit curare. T h e o p p o site , in fu tu ru m o r th e like, m a y b e im p lie d a n d is a c tu a lly p u t in su c h passages as C ic. Cat. 1. 22, Liv. XXX. 17. i.

(2) Diction in poetry, 46/45-118: (a) Vocabulary, 4&-7^(b) Norms o f diction in poetic genres, 73"^5 ( ) >( ) ^ diction exemplified from drama, 89-11

In the initial portion of the poem H. has, by a poetic process, established the validity of certain pnncip es. ‘table of contents’, 40-1, is part of this poetic process, u 42—4 he has glanced at a topic which to contemporary re was familiar from literary criticism and rhetoric. Now moves to a second and larger topic: poetry is ma e ο wor The same poetic principles also inform this su jec · does not let the reader float freely ; by the placing o is P he reminds him of one of the basic divisions w ic were s by literary and rhetorical theory: after or 0 t ere I3 I

9-2

C o m m e n ta r y

facundia. [facundia (41), thus related to a section which is wholly concerned with diction, is indeed unobtrusive but not, what G. Williams calls it, JRS, liv (1964), 194, ‘vague’. For the word facundia, see above 41 n. T hat 46 if. do take up the facundia of 41 was seen by an early commentator, who was still in touch with H .’s literary tradition, the Carolingian compiler of the Tractatus Vindobonensis (on 46, p. 5. 24 o f J . Zechmeister’s edition), hactenus de ordine, nunc de facundia dicit, et continuatur ita:facundia non deseret hunc; et ut te non deseratfacundia, tenuis, etc. In the nineteenth century L. Spengel had to make the case afresh, P, xviii (1862), g6; it is still clearly stated by Steidle, Studien, p. 36. But JRS, liv (1964), shows that this lore is again lost.] The Peripatetic—Aristotelian character of this section has been fully discussed in my Prolegomena. Similar theories are of course found in rhetoric, notably in Cicero, De Or. h i . 149 ff·? Or. 80 ff., 149 if., cf. Fiske, Ludi, and Hor. 453 if., G rant and Fiske, Cic. ‘ Or.’ and Hor. ‘A.P.% 23 fr., Cic. ‘De Or.’’ and Hor. 4A.P.’, 107 ff. ‘Similar’ however is not ‘same’. The two tradi­ tions although they sometimes converged had developed differently within their own spheres; and, even more im por­ tant, Cicero’s and H .’s aims are at variance. To link H. closely with Cicero is to link him with something alien to his inten­ tion, ethos, and subject. Unlike Fiske, therefore, and unlike B. Otis (Gnomon, xxxvi (1964), 269), I do not regard the Ciceronian parallels as directly relevant to H ., although I have no doubt about their value as illustrative material. Even less can I be persuaded that H. himself had levered these theories out of their divergent contexts in Cicero in order to reassemble them in an ars poetica. For relevance to the Ars, Ar. Rhet. m. 2-8 (applied to poetry by the literary critics), cannot be matched by these Ciceronian chapters. (a ) V o ca b u la ry , 46/45-72

Again H. employs traditional material in order to express contemporary and personal views. The traditional material 132

Commentary

derives from Aristotle and his school, cf. ProL 945 Ar. Rhet. in, chs. 2-6, Poet. chs. 21-2. The distinction between Choice of words, εκλογή ονομάτων—delectus uerborum, and Composition, σύνθεσις ονομάτων—uerba continuata or coniuncta, is potentially present in Aristotle and becomes fully operative with his successors : Ar. Rhet. ni, chs. 2-6 and 8-9; Theophr. (probably from the περί λέξεως) ap. Dion. Hal. Isocr. 3 (U.-R. 1. 5 ^)> καθόλου δέ τριών όντων, ώς φησι Θεόφραστος, έξ ών γίνεται τό μέγα καί σεμνόν καί περιττόν έν λεξει, της τε εκλογής των όνομ A. Aeneadasque meo nomen de nomine fingo. fingo nouum, Fin. noua uer a fingunt Or. nouum facere uerbum), ap. Gc . recenti nomiate fictum Ep. 3 5 J er) uer a noua fingere, uerborum.. .fingendi et nouandi stu mm, Virg. A. 3 8 4 noue uerbum fictum. habebunt.. fidem TL , 3·9 Graeco fonte cadunt: si a Graeco fuerint in Latinum deriuata, ut transtulimus triclinium, an ea cenacu lum illud meabamus quia ibi cenabatur. dominantia nomina^ centimanus 7J o f

n e w

w

F

e s t u s ,

p

o

Q

e t i c

o

u

o

s ,

F

r o

i n

l a n

F

r d

g

n

n

t o

a g

e ,

c o

u

t e

t

p

i r g

m

b

a r e

i n

e d

S

o

u

i n

i t

w

i s

i v

.

1 5 .

u s e d

.

F

r o

n

s e e

,

π ΐ ·

ΐ

a n

d

s u

4 .

6 9 )?

t i o

n

b

r r o

o

t e m

g

c h

T

y

o

c o

h

m

e

f o

f

G

w

p

e d

o

t p

f

e r t s ,

·

b

u

a r r o

t

a l s o

,

m

C

·

1

i c .

i v

.

7

a r r o

x n ·

( Ρ ·

1 0 .

4

°

e r v .

p

o

r e e k

u

r m

G

r a r y

n

b

r e c i z i n v

d

e r

Graecofonte,

’

o

2

a n .

^

t a n

c e ,

a u

r e e k

t h

o

r i t y

e r s e .

,

s

=

T

w

h

i s

r e n

g

e l s e

L

e

o

d

c o

m

m

e n

d

u

t f u

b

s

diota (C.

t t e

r

i s

c o m

b

e d

d

a s

o

έ κ α

e r e d

r d

l a

a t i n

w

( 2 3 4 )

a s

t

r

v i .

m

e n

l

y

1 . d

~

τ ό γ χ ε ι ρ ο ς

b y

e d

·

a c c o r d i n g

a s

v i e w u

,

d e r i v a t i v e s

O

a l o

.

t h e

v i .

.

G

a n

b y

.

1 8

i t h

t o

m

1

‘ a c c e p

e

v

V

5 3

t h

t .

l i s t e d

.

i n

.

Q

2 1 1

e l l .

i n

l a r l y

b e l o w

( r e f s ,

V

,

G

a r t i c u

c i t .

t i l i a n

u

r

( b

o

t h e t h 9 .

m

e

p

8 ) b y

t o

o r p

o r

s

* υ

Ρ ι α

(

.

o r m

1

i n A

u

0

c i t y o

o

s u e

r a ü

g u s t a n

e

o n

ο ν ° Ρ

i i .

e t a p a u

.

a n

·

α

τ

b

e

5

IJ·

n

v

,

n e w o r

y

c o n

n e o l c ^

,

De Horatio verborum inventore. Them B e rlin 1 8 6 2 , K . Z a n g e m e is te r, De Horatii H

. ’s

n

o

t

a

p

a

r t ;

c f .

A

.

R

o

t h

m

a l e r ,

B e rlin 1 8 6 2 . H . m a y n o t h e r e h a v e d istin g u ish e d e w een ty p e s o f ‘ G r e e k d e r iv a t io n s ’. D oes th e la tte r stre tc t e w ' ' etiam Romanis inusitata.. .labore meo.. .ita de Graecis prou Latina moneta percussa sint. ν Ι Ι Ι ·

T

h

u

s

t o o

A

p u l .

3 ω

143

ο τ ό κ α

ί ί

φ

ο

τ ο

κ

α

.

·

Commentary

cadunt: p o etic a n d S ilv e r p ro se fo r riv e rs s p r in g in g f r o m t h e i r sources, T L L , in . 30. 56 ff.— w ith fo n te o ffers a c o n s is te n t im a g e o f a s tre a m ; it co u n te ra c ts th e ‘ fro z e n ’ m e ta p h o r f a n s = o r ig in , a s 3 0 9 scribendi recte sapere est et principium et Jo n s. F o r m o r e e l a b o r a t e im a g e r y o f p o etic la n g u a g e q u ic k e n in g L a tiu m , see E p . n . 2. 120—1, E ro i. 188 n . 4. parce detorta c o n tin u e s th e im a g e o f th e s t r e a m ; t h e lo c k is n o t o p en ed fu lly as i t w e re, p a n e re calls th e m o d e r a tio n e n jo in e d b y pudenter, 51. detorqueo is a p p lie d to d e r iv a tio n o f w o rd s a s e a r ly a s C a t o (Origines π , fr. 53, H . P e te r, H is t. Rom . R ei. i2, 70, M a r r u c in i. . . de M arso detorsum nomen ) a n d , like declino, fo u n d in th e g r a m m a ti c a l term in o lo g y o f H .’s tim e (F est. p. 269) a n d e a rlie r. B u t th e v iv id im a g e ry o f th e verse c o u n te ra c ts th e te c h n ic a l u sa g e . 539 So fa r th e th eo ry . N o w tw o v ig o ro u s r h e to r ic a l q u e s tio n s a n d a larg e assertion, ty in g (c o n te m p o ra ry ) p o e tic p r a c t i c e — th e c h i e f co n c ern o f E p . b o o k π— to p o e tic th e o ry . 53 quid autem: R . K assel, R M , c ix (1 9 6 6 ), 5 c o m m e n d s F . V ille n eu v e’s re n d e rin g ‘E h quoi! ’, a n d p u n c tu a te s quid autem ? — i m p la u s ­ ibly, I th in k . I n b rie f a rg u m e n ta tiv e tra n s itio n s w ith q u id , autem se e m s to b e u n u s u a l e n o u g h to m a k e a c tu a lly a g a in s t r e p u n c t u a t i o n , c o n tra s t quid? q u id ita? quid enim ? quid ergo? q u id turn?, e tc . M o r e o v e r th e sim ila r c o n te n t o f th e tw o q u estio n s, 53 q u id a u te m . . . a n d 5 5 eg0 c u r . . . , suggests sim ila rity o f w o rd in g : q u id a n d cur a g r e e i n m e a n in g . quid — cur has a c o llo q u ia l n u a n c e , cf. H o f m a n n —S z a n ty r , 45 ^ ’ autem, a p ro saic w o rd , o c c u rs o n ly th re e tim e s in H . (h e re a n d E p . ni- 199» 260), B. A xelson, Unpoet. W örter, 8 5 -6 . 54— 5 Caecilio. . .Varioque: fo r t h e w o rd in g , see G ic. F in . in . 15 (a b o u t th e y o u n g e r C a to ) si enim gjm o n i licuit, cum rem a liq u a m im e n is s e t inusitatam , inauditum quoque ei rei nomen imponere, cur non liceat C atoni?

T h e R o m a n re a d e r, tim elessly as it w e re , g ra n ts th e o ld c o m ic p o e ts th e p riv ileg e o f new coinages, w h ic h h e h a s j u s t ‘ ta k e n a w a y f r o m ’ V irg il a n d V a riu s. A t E p . n . 1. 247 too, Vergilius V ariusque poetae a r e p a ire d , b u t h e re Vergilio Varioque seem to e c h o m o c k in g ly C aecilio Plautoque in th e sam e p la c e o f th e lin e. V irg il w a s d e a d w h e n E p . n . 1 w as w ritte n , a n d a n y o f th e p r o b a b le d a tin g s o f th e A r s w o u ld n e c e ssi­ ta te th e s a m e co n c lu sio n fo r th e p re s e n t v erse. W h e th e r th e d e a t h o f V a riu s sh o u ld b e in fe rre d fro m t h e ju x ta p o s itio n in e ith e r p a s s a g e seem s to m e u n c e rta in . F o r V a riu s , see R - E , v m a . 4 1 0 —i 3, W . M o r e l, F P L , p p . 100-1 ; for th e v a r ia n t Varo , H o u s m a n , C Q , x i (1 9 1 7 ), 44 · H . s view s o n P la u tu s a r e a p p a r e n t fro m 2 7 0 ff., E p . 11. 1. i 7 o f f . ; fo r C aeciliu s, see E p . n . 1. 5g i n th e c o n te x t i n d ic a te d ib id . 6 0 - 1 . 55 ‘go so sh o rtly a f te r V irg il a n d V a riu s m a k e s a g a in s t a n

!4 4

Commentary in d e fin ite m e a n i n g (‘ p o e t s ’), a n d fo r p e rso n a l em p h asis as a t E p. n . i. 247 V ergilius V a riu sq u epoetae, 250 ego; cf. J . V a h le n , Ges. P hil. Sehr. 11. 748, G . W illia m s , J R S , liv (1964), 195. T h e p o e t w h o adsciscet noua, a t E p . η . 2. 1 19, is d e s c rib e d as qui legitim um cupiet fecisse poema (ibid. I 0 9)· pauca in c o m p a r is o n w ith th e ‘e n r ic h m e n t’ (ditauerit ) th ro u g h C a to ’s a n d E n n iu s ’ la n g u a g e a n d p e rh a p s , b y im p lic a tio n , th ro u g h t h a t o f V ir g il a n d V a riu s . T h is is a case o f H .’s self-b elittlin g ; th e c o n te x ts o f s u c h o t h e r cases as E p . 11. 1. 2 5 7 -8 paruum \ carmen, C. IV. 2 . 31 pa ru o s, d iffe r. 56 inuideor lik e G re e k φ θονοϋμ αι, a p p a re n tly , a g ra m m a tic a l c o in ­ ag e t r a n s l a t i n g h is th e o r y in to p ra c tic e . P o rp h . (on 55) inuideor posuit pro in u id etu r m ih i, p s .-A c ro mire, dum de fingendis uerbis loquitur, secundum Graecos ipse f i n x i t ‘ inuideor ’, e tc ., A u g . Regulae, G L , v . 512. 17-18 quam quam H o ra tiu s poeta ‘ inuideor ’ d ix it, sed hoc noua usurpatione. Prise. In st. XVIII. 138 (G L , n i. 271) H oratius in arte poetica. Cf. K iih n e rS te g m a n n , 1. 1 0 2 -3 , T L L , v ii . 2. 191. 68 ff. lingua C atonis et E n n i: cf. E p . 11. 2. 117 priscis memorata Catonibus atque Cethegis, w h e r e h o w e v e r a rc h a ism s, n o t neologism s, are th e subject. E n n iu s is n o t h e r e c ritic iz e d b y im p lic a tio n as a t 259 a n d E p . 11. 1. 50. H e is t h e g r e a t p o e t o f th e p a s t, w h o h a s a d d e d m u c h to th e store o f th e L a t i n l a n g u a g e ; H . in c o m p a riso n little. T h e vario u s assessm ents o f L u c iliu s in th e lite r a r y satire s m a y b e c o m p a re d , see Prol. 159,

i 6 5~ 6, i 7 1 - 4 .

57 serm onem p a triu m ditauerit: cf. E p . 11. 2. 121 Latiumque beabit diuite lingua, dita re is a n e x p re ssiv e w o rd , fre q u e n t in L a tin verse ; it carries in th is p a s s a g e so m e o f th e e m o tio n o f beabit diuite (lingua) in th e o th er. T h e firs t a p p e a r a n c e o f ditare in R het. Her. a n d L u cr. suggests a n a r c h a is m ; i n p ro s e fro m R h et. H er. a n d L ivy, n o t in C icero a n d C a e ­ sar, p o p u l a r i n C h r is tia n L a tin ity , T L L , v . 1555· ^ C o n tra st th e s e n tim e n ts a t L u c r . 1. 139 propter egestatem linguae et rerum nouitatem, 831—2 quam G ra i m em orant nec nostra dicere lingua \ concedit nobis patrii serm onis egestas, in . 260, C ic. A c. 1. 25, F in . h i. 3 j an Cie. Ac. 1. 25 noua sun t rerum nouarum fa cien d a nom ina, 4 1 plurim isque idem nouis uerbis (noua enim dicebat) usus est, F in . m . 3 imponendaque noua rebus nouis nom ina, 4 , 5 , 15, D e O r. m . 149, Or. 211 cum i d appellandum sit quod propter rerum ignorationem ipsarum nullum habuerit ante nomen, necessitas c o g a t.. .n o u u m fa c e re uerbum , V a r r o , L .L . v . 1 quemadmodum uocabula essent im p o sita rebus in lingua L a tin a , e t al.

Commentary p r o tu le r it: as Lucr. π. 656-7 B a c c h i n om in e a b u ti | m a u u lt q u a m la tic is p ro p riu m p ro fe rre uocam en, and E p . u. 2. 116 p r o f e r e t in lucem , sp e c io s a uocabu la reru m . lic u it sem perqu e lic e b it: for the polyptoton, see 70 n. The verb takes up licen tia (51), the key-word in such discussions, e.g. Cicero cit. above 54-5 n., D e O r . in. 153 lic e n tia , et al. Varro, in the terms of his theory, L .L . ix. 20, says u e rb u m q u o d nou u m e t ra tio n e in tr o d u c tu m q u o m in u s recipiam u s u ita re non d eb em u s. For Cicero’s position see, for ex­

ample, the passages cited 58 n. Similar considerations must have been well represented also in poetic theory. But the surviving evidence is scanty and we need to take into account the poetic practice of H. and his contemporaries. 59 sig n a tu m p ra e se n te n o ta : ps.-Acro hoc a n u m m is tr a c tu m e s t, etc. Thus Pliny, N . H . xxxm. 43 S e ru iu s re x p r im u s s ig n a u it a e s . . . ; s ig n a tu m e st n ota p e cu d u m , unde e t p e c u n ia a p p e lla ta , p ra e se n te n o ta = n o ta p r a e s e n tis tem p o ris (ps.-Acro n o ta m in e ip s iu s te m p o ris ), a concentrated phrase such as E p . π. 2. 171 u i c in a .. .iu r g ia = u ic in o ru m iu r g ia . In view of the frequent changes of the coin-face by the tre su iri m o n e ta le s the metaphor is in point. The image is applied to coinage of words as at Q uint- 1- 0 . I. 6. 3 u ten du m qu e p la n e serm on e u t n u m m o, c u i p u b l i c a f o r m a e s t, Fortunat. A r s R h e t. ni. 3 (R h e t. L a t. M in . ed. Halm, p. 122. 9-10) u i r p e r f e c t is ­ sim u s d ix it, u e rb is u ten d u m e st p u b lic a m o n eta s ig n a tis . p rodu cere nom en as E p . 11. 2. 119 a d sc isc e t n o u a q u a e g e n ito r p r o d u x e r it usu s, pro cu d ere is likely to be a slip, reported with approval from their

MSS by Renaissance scholars: de Nores, Lambinus, Luisinus. The last-named editor also changed n om en to n u m m u m —and convinced Bentley. But in spite of s ig n a tu m . , .n o ta , and such passages as Juv. 7· 55 (?UI) com m u n i f e r i a t carm en tr iu ia le m o n e ta , the numismatic metaphor is not wanted here. For neither is p ro c u d e re the u o x p r o p r ia for coining, nor can n u m m u m plausibly replace n o m en . For without n o m e n in this verse the subsequent simile lacks its natural base, and u e rb o ru m (61) would lack the connexion provided by n om en (59) ; also p r o d u c e r e aptly anticipates the imagery of 60 if. 60— 72 There follows what poetically is perhaps the most remark­ able piece of the A r s . A simile—words impermanent like leaves on a tree (60-2)—and another—words impermanent like the works of men (63-9)—open up a very different view of language: (1) old words die and new are born (61-2), (2) old words are reborn as current ones die off (7 0 —2). Language here is not the poet’s creation, but the com­ mon language which the poets share—Usage (71 n.) presiding over the change of words, as Nature presides over natural change. The similes lift the topic o f‘words’ out of its literary context; language is 146

Commentary r e la te d to th e u n a lte r a b le c o n d itio n s o f life : th e re c u rre n c e o f th e sea so n s a n d t h e im p e rm a n e n c e o f th e h u m a n lot. H e n c e th e su d d en rise o f p o e tic to n e , to s o m e th in g lik e th e ly ric in ten sity o f th e O des (say , C. i. 4 o r iv . 7 ). E p . 11. 2. 1 1 1 -1 9 la c k this d im ension. L a n g u a g e in m o tio n w a s a c o n c e p t fa m ilia r to a n c ie n t w riters o n g r a m m a r : V a r r o , L .L . ix . 17, says consuetudo loquendi est in motu. So was th e c o m p a r is o n o f la n g u a g e w ith h u m a n g en e ratio n s, ibid. v. 3 . . . neque omnis im po sitio uerborum exta t quod uetustas quasdam deleuit. (5) uetustaspauca non d ep ra u a t,m u lta to llit; quem puerum uidisti form osum , huncuides deformem in senecta, tertiu m saeculum non uidet eum hominem quem uidit prim um . 6 0 —2, in s p ir e d b y H o m e r , II. v i. 146—9 οΐη ττερ φ ύλλω ν γενεή,

τ ο ίη δέ κ α ί ά ν δ ρ ώ ν . | φ ύ λ λ α τ α μέν τ ’ άνεμος χα μ ά δ ις χέει, ά λ λ α δέ θ ’ Ολη I τ η λ ε θ ό ω σ α φύει, έαρος δ ’ έττιγίγν ετα ι ώ ρ η . | ώ ς ά νδ ρ ώ ν γεν εή ή μέν φύει, ή δ* α π ο λ ή γ ε ι. M im n e rm u s ’ ημείς δ ο ΐα τε φ ύλλα h e a d s th e lo n g lin e o f e x ta n t a d a p ta tio n s ; cf. Sim . fr. 85 B.4; fo r a p r o b a b le P in d a r i c tr a c e , see E . L o b e l o n P a p . O x y . 2622, xxxii (1 9 6 7 ), 6 5 , a n d H . L lo y d -Jo n e s, A ia ta , n.s. in , xix (1967)5 2I55 f° r B a c c h y lid e s (5 . 6 3 -7 ) a n d V irg il (A . v i. 3 0 9 -1 0 ), as w ell as fo r a p o s tu la te d e p ic D escent o f Heracles, see N o rd e n o n th e passage o f V irg il ( p p . 2 2 3 —4 ), L lo y d -Jo n e s, loc. cit. T h e sim ile is n o t u n k n o w n to C h r is tia n w rite r s , n o ta b ly H ie r. Comm, in Osee, lib. 11, p raef. 54 ( P a tr. L a t. x x v . 61) p o s tq u a m .. .a lia uenerit generatio primisque cadentibus f o l ii s uirens silu a succreuerit, A u g . Cio. D . x x n . 1. T h e H o r a t i a n sim ile is (to m y know ledge) u n iq u e in th a t it tra n s f e rs fr o m h u m a n i t y to sp eech th e c o m p a riso n w ith leaves falling a n d g r o w in g , w ith o u t a b a n d o n in g th e h u m a n aspect. T h u s th e c o m p a r is o n b e c o m e s th re e fo ld — leaves, w ords, h u m a n s w h ereas th e H o m e r ic s im ile is tw o -sid e d , as in d e e d a re th e fam o u s V irg ilia n v erses A . v i. 30 9 —10 (w h ic h in c e rta in o th e r respects seem close to H . ’s) quam m u lta in silu is autum ni frig o re prim o | lapsa cadunt fo lia . O r e l li a n d o th e rs h a v e n o te d t h a t th e co m p ariso n is n o t co m ­ p l e t e d : p r im a cadunt (61) is n o t, as a t 62, follow ed b y so m eth in g like florent modo n a ta . T h e y c o m p a re L u c r. iv . 3 7 5 -6 semper enim noua se radiorum lu m in a f u n d u n t | prim aque dispereunt', b u t th is passage illu stra te s o n ly t h e sen se r e q u ir e d fo r p rim a , ‘ e a r lie r ’, n o t th e incom pleteness o f th e c o m p a r is o n . N o r d o es it illu s tra te th e la c k o f a connective p a rtic le i n p r im a cadunt, a p h ra s e , as P le ssis-L ejay say, th a t sounds like th e b e g in n in g o f a p ro lo n g e d H o m e ric sim ile, b u t is n o t so co n tin u ed . R e c e n t e d ito r s te n d to b e sile n t a b o u t th e te x t b u t I do n o t believe t h a t i t c a n s ta n d . L e t th e m b rin g fo rw a rd v a lid exam ples o f this k in d o f s im ile . U n t i l t h a t is d o n e th e te x t sh o u ld b e considered u n so u n d . T w o w a y s h a v e b e e n a d o p te d to c o rre c t it. H o u sm a n vigorously

147

1 0 -2

Commentary a r g u e d (in J P , x v iii (1 8 9 0 ), 28) t h a t (a) p rim a cadunt w a s in c o m p le te , a n d (b) t h a t n o t ev en M e v iu s, le t a lo n e H o ra c e , w o u ld h a v e e m p lo y e d th e h u m a n sim ile a t th e sam e tim e as th e sim ile o f t h e le a v e s. H e so c h a n g e d th e stops th e re fo re as to re m o v e b o t h o b je c tio n s s im u l­ ta n e o u sly — ta k in g p rim a cadunt o u t o f its is o la tio n , a n d b e g in n in g a fresh im a g e w ith uetus interit aetas, w h ic h e a sily a c c o m m o d a te s th e h u m a n sim ile : u t siluae f o l i i s . . .m u ta n tu r in annos, j p r im a ca d u n t ita uerborum. uetus interit aetas | et iuuenum ritu florent modo nata uigentque. T h is is e le g a n t b u t n o t w h o lly c o n v in c in g . T h e r e is n o o b je c tio n to th e h u m a n sim ile in th e m a n n e r o f th e tra n s m itte d te x t, o n c e th e w o r d aetas h a s b e e n in tr o d u c e d : th e r e a f te r c o m p a ris o n is b e tw e e n g e n e r a t i o n s o f w ords a n d h u m a n g e n e ra tio n s ; le a v e s a re n o m o re t h a n h i n t e d a t b y th e v e rb florent. N o r is th e p o sitio n o f ita e n tire ly u n o b je c tio n a b le , fo r, in u t-ita (sic) clau ses o f H ., ita (sic) seem s to r e ta i n its first p la c e . F in a lly I d o u b t th e m e a n in g im p u te d to f o l i i s m u ta n tu r ‘ p a r t e d fr o m th e ir le a v e s ’ (J . S. R e id ap. W ilk in s, p . 6 0 n .) . F o r m u ta ri, h o w e v e r c o n s tru e d , = ‘ to b e c h a n g e d ’, a n d th e ‘c h a n g e o f le a v e s ’ c o n sists o f n ew g ro w th as w ell as o f d e c a y . H e n c e m u ta n tu r. . .in annos c a n n o t b e ta k e n u p b y p rim a cadunt i n th e s a m e sense a n d H o u s m a n ’s p a r a p h r a s e (p. 29) is m is le a d in g : ‘a s e a c h y e a r ’s leav es a r e s h e d f r o m t h e tre e s , so p e ris h th e e a rlie s t w o r d s ’. T h e e x p e c te d su b d iv isio n o f m u ta n tu r su g g ests a d i f f e r e n t w a y o f c o r re c tin g th e te x t : t h e s h e d d in g a n d th e g ro w in g o f le a v e s , toc μ έ ν . . . χέει, ά λ λ α δ έ . . . φύει. W h a te v e r o n e m a y t h i n k o f succreuerit i n J e r o m e (c ite d a b o v e ) a n d o f nam p r im a scilicet f o l i a cadunt, noua succres­ cunt in th e T ra cta tu s Vindobonensis o n th e A .P . (Z e c h m e is te r , p . 7)» a w o rd lik e succrescunt is lik e ly to h a v e b e e n i n th e t e x t : as to th is I a g r e e w ith R ib b e c k (a d I.), L e h rs (e d itio n , p . c c x ix ), a n d N e tt l e s h i p (JP > XII ( 18 8 3 ) ,5 1 = Lectures a n d E ssays, 1 , 177). T h e id e n t i ty o f t h e e n d in g s in cadunt a n d succrescunt w ill th e n h a v e c a u s e d th e o m is sio n o f o n e lin e . I d o u b t t h e d e ta ils o f N e ttle s h ip ’s r e s to r a tio n , a n d a d h e r e to R ib b e c k ’s a n d L e h rs ’s la c u n a , w ith o u t a tte m p t i n g to assess t h e m e r its o f s u c h s u p p le m e n ts a s p rim a cadunt. ( porroque cadentibus altera p r im is | succrescunt ) , o r ( u t noua succrescunt nouus et decor enitet il li ) | p r im a cadunt: ita , e tc . 6 0 silu a e f o l i i s . . . m utantur: t h e a b la tiv e is c a lle d i n s t r u m e n t a l b y so m e, lim ita tiv e b y o th e rs ; m o re c o n v in c in g ly a b l. o f re s p e c t. J . S . R e id , ap. W ilk in s a d I ., illu s tra te s i t b y m utari d u ita te . L e x S a lp . x x h > C ic. B a lb . 3 1 ; fin ib u s, L iv . v . 46. 11 ; uoluntate, C ic . F a m . v . 21. 1 ; t h e m e a n in g is c le a rly n o t ‘p a r te d f r o m ’ b u t ‘c h a n g e d w ith r e g a r d t o ’, th o u g h , a s h e says, th e n o tio n o f s e v e ra n c e co m e s in . f o l i i s m u ta n tu r c a n n o t h o w e v e r b e p a r a lle le d . A b la tiv e s w ith v e rb s i n s im ila r c o n 1 4 .8

Commentary te x ts a r e fo u n d a t S en . P hae. 7 6 8 -9 languescunt fo lio ut lilia pallido, | et gratae ca p iti deficiunt comae, Oed. 4 5 2 -3 uerno platanus fo lio uiret, V a l. FI. v i. 167 quot fo liis , quot floribus incipit annus. V a r ia n t read in g s in a n c ie n t q u o ta tio n s — siluae flores a n d fo lia in siluis — m a y ow e th e ir e x is te n c e t o a w ish to n o rm a liz e id io m a tic g ra m m a r, as do B entley’s c o n je c tu re s silu is f o l ia (in tro d u c in g a m e tric a l a n o m a ly in its p lace ), siluae f o l i i s . . . nudantur o r uiduantur. T h e g ra m m a tic a l su b ject, siluae, r a t h e r t h a n f o l i a , is illu s tr a te d b y H o u s m a n ( loc. cit.) fro m Epod. 15. 5 hedera ( a b l.) , O v . M e t. in . 729 fro n d e s (a c c .), r a th e r th a n hedera, fro n d es ( n o m .) . \p r o n o s \ . . . i n annos: o b e liz e d b e c a u se I see n o c h a n c e o f d efen d in g th e M S r e a d i n g pronos a n d y e t w ish to in d ic a te a slig h t d o u b t as to B e n tle y ’s o u ts ta n d in g e m e n d a tio n priuos. B en tley observed th a t such p h ra s e s a s in annos (dies, horas), ‘y e a r b y y e a r ’, etc., e ith e r exclude a n e p ith e t, o r else a d m i t a n u m e ric a l o n e, su ch as singulos. H e th erefo re e m e n d e d p ronos to priu o s, th e a rc h a ic sy n o n y m for singulos, k n o w n fro m o l d e r L a tin a n d p a r tic u la r ly L u c r. v . 2 7 3 -4 ( aer) corpore toto \ inn um erab iliter p riu o s m u ta tu r in horas, 733 inque dies priuos aborisci quaeque creata (lu n a ), a n d a t le a st five tim es elsew here in th e poem . H . m i g h t w e ll h a v e e m p lo y e d a L u c r e tia n rem in iscen ce in a passage c o n ta in in g o t h e r e c h o e s o f t h a t p o e t. W h a t gives m e p au se is th e tw o o c c u rre n c e s w h e re p riu u s is in th e M S S o f H . (S. 11. 5. 11, E p . 1. 1. 93). T h e s e c a n o n ly b e r e n d e r e d b y ‘o w n ’— a m e a n in g th a t survives, it a p p e a rs , i n t h e c o llo q u ia l la n g u a g e o f th e p h ra se , aliquid (alicui) p riu u m dare ( n o t o n ly P I. P s. 865 a n d L u cil. fr. 4 9 -5 0 b u t J u v . 8. 68 p riu u m a liq u id d a ). S o a d o u b t re m a in s w h e th e r H . em ployed th e o b s o le te p r iu i — sin g u li, a lth o u g h its p ro b a b le o c c u rre n c e a t Liv. v i i . 37· 2 m ilite s . . . [singulis) (?)priuis bubus binisque tunicis donati, e n ­ c o u ra g e s t h a t a s s u m p tio n . A s for th e M S re a d in g , w ords for th e r a p id i t y o f p a s s in g y e a rs n a tu r a lly a b o u n d , in H . a n d elsew h ere, b u t H .’s u se o f pronus c a n n o t ju stify its c o n ju n c tio n w ith in annos, cf. C. IV . 6 . 3 9 —4 0 celeremque (lunam ) pronos \ uoluere menses, o r C. in . 27· 18 pronus O rion. P s .-A e ro ’s n o te , declines et cito tabentes, instabiles, uolubiles, s h o u ld t h e n b e d ism isse d . N o r is G . S te g e n ’s c ita tio n (ad I.) in p o i n t . p s .- Q u in t. D e c i. x n i. 2 (e d . L e h n e rt, p . 248. 14) cito labitur dies, et p rocliuis in p ro n u m fe r tu r aetas. 61 p r im a : cf. L u c r . iv . 375—6, c ite d ab o v e 6 0 -7 2 n. prim a denotes th e leav es b e fo re th e c h a n g e (m utantur), j u s t as prim a is opposed to nona in th e p a s s a g e o f L u c r e tiu s ; cf. V a rro , L .L . ix . 73 tempore uere magis f t m in u s non esse p o test; ante et p o st potest, itaque p rio r est h o ra p rim a q u a m s e c u n d a , non m a g is hora. I n th e sam e v erse o f H . prim a is ta k e n u p by uetus aetas, p risc a (P rä d ik o w ) is n o im p ro v e m e n t.

149

C o m m e n ta ry uerboTum uetus. . .aetas: H o m e r h a s φ ύ λ λ ω ν a n d ά ν δ ρ ώ ν γ ε ν ε ή . aetas o ften = g e n e ra tio n , a m e to n y m y fo r th e p e o p le c o n c e r n e d , a s E p o d . 16. i altera, C. i. 35. 35, iv . 15. 4, E p . 11. 1 . 4 2 ; w ith g e n . E p o d . 16. 9 deuoti sanguinis , C. h i. 6 . 4 6 parentum , cf. T L L , 1. 1137. 3 ff- H . d o es n o t b rin g in aetas u n til th e in cisiv e p h r a s e ‘ g e n e r a t i o n o f w o rd s a p p e a rs ; for th e p u n c tu a tio n , see a b o v e 6 0 - 2 n . V o c a b u l a r y h a d b e e n ta lk e d a b o u t in h is to ric a l te rm s b efo re H ., cf. V a r r o a b o v e 6 0 -7 2 n. H .’s sim ile a n im a te s w o rd s : th e y liv e a n d d ie a s d o th e p e o p le w h o m a k e a n d u se th e m . interit: fo r th e d y in g a n d th riv in g o f w o rd s, see V a r r o , a b o v e 6 0 72 n .; Q u in t. 1. 0 . x . 2. 13 cum et uerba intercidant inualescantque tem pori­ bus m a y be in flu e n c e d b y H .’s w o rd in g . 62 iuuenum ritu : as C. in . 14. 1 H erculis r., in . 29. 3 3 - 4 flu m in is | r. a n d o fte n else w h e re in verse a n d p ro se, iuuenes ‘ th e y o u n g ’, n o t, I b eliev e, o n e o f th e ‘fo u r ages o f m a n ’, 156 ff .; it is c lo s e r to 1 1 5 -1 6 adhuc florente iuuenta \Jeru id u s. T h e h u m a n c o m p a r is o n , o n e o f th e tw in p illa rs o f th e tw o fo ld H o m e ric sim ile, h a s b e e n s h ifte d to th e close o f H .’s m o re s o p h is tic a te d sim ile, aetas, na ta , flo r e n t. . .u ig en tq u e (n o t uirentque, cod. B en tieii, B e n tle y , M e in e k e ) a p p l y t o w o r d s as w ell as h u m a n s , iuuenum ritu to h u m a n s , th u s p r o v id in g a lin k w i t h nos, in th e n e x t verse. 6 3 debemur morti m s nostraque a p p e a rs to r e n d e r θ α ν ά τ ω ττά ντες όφειλόμεθα fro m a s e p u lc h ra l e p ig ra m , A n ih . P a l. x . 1 0 5 . 2 ( D ie h l, A n th . L yr. Gr. 11, S im o n id e s, fr. 139), th e r e a s c r ib e d t o S im o n id e s , b u t c a lle d ά δ η λ ο ν in th e P la n u d e a n c o lle c tio n . H . h a s c h o s e n , n o t th e sim p le fo rm o f a c o m m o n p la c e , a s S o p h . E l. 1173 π α σ ιν γ ά ρ ή μ ΐν to u t ’ ό φ είλ ετα ι τταθεϊν, E u r . A le . 4 1 9 , a n d th e lik e , b u t th e p o i g n a n t S im o n id e a n ‘w e ’— debemur, όφειλόμεθα. (T h is is n o t n o te d b y W . J · O a te s , T he influence o f S im . o f Ceos upon H . ( P r in c e to n , 1 9 3 2 ), p · 104, w h o is y e t c e r ta in t h a t H . c o rre sp o n d s m o s t clo se ly t o S im o n id e s .) A n d n o th in g in th e G re e k e p ig ra m a n sw e rs to nostraque w h ic h , t h r o u g h a n a d r o it ‘z e u g m a ’, e x te n d s th e c o m p a riso n fro m m a n t o h is w o r k s ; cf. E p . 11. I. 89 nos nostraque, A .P . 444 teque et tua. debemus is a d e c id e d ly w e a k e r v a r ia n t w h ic h h o w e v e r a p p e a r s n o t o n ly in o n e o f th e o ld e st H o r a tia n M S S (co d . B ), b u t in a n u m b e r o f n in th - a n d te n th - c e n tu r y M S S o f P risc ia n . T h e r e a d i n g la c k s th e fo rc e o f òy£Ìhò\ssSsx-debem ur: ourselves d e b to rs a s w e ll as a d e b t . I t also lack s th e id io m a tic a m b ig u ity o f th e p a ssiv e , ‘o w e d t o ’ a s w e ll as ‘d e s tin e d f o r ’; th u s V irg . A . x i. 7 5 9 f a t i s (d a t.) debitus A r r u n s , x n * 794~5 indigetem A e n e a n .. . | deberi caelo, also v i. 713—14 a n im a e, quibus altera f a t o (a b i.) | corpora debentur, a n d s u c h f o r m u la e o n t o m b ­ sto n es as mea debita f a t i s reddere, debitum persoluit, cf. T L L , v . 1. x0 6 .

150

Commentary 30 ff. T h e s a m e v a r ia n t, debemur—debemus (a lo n g w ith debentur), o c c u rs i n a s im ila r p h ra s e , p r o b a b ly a n im ita tio n , O v . M e t. x . 32 omnia debem ur uobis ( f a tis ) . T h e ch o ic e b e tw e e n poscimur a n d poscimus, H o r. C. I. 3 2 . i , s h o u ld , I b eliev e , b e th e o p p o site: poscimus. O n e lo n g a n d e la b o r a te p e rio d m a rk e d b y siu e. . ,-ue. . .seu (fo r -ue, se e 65 n .). S u c h p e rio d s a re som etim es fo u n d in th e h e x a m e te r p o e m s , see S. 11. 2. 8 2 - 8 siue-seu, 118-22 seu-siue. T h e p re se n t passage re c a lls , b o t h in its ly ric n o te a n d its la y o u t, such p erio d s o f th e Odes as I. 2. 3 3 - 4 4 a n d iv . 2. 1 0 -2 4 , a lth o u g h its com pass is m o re re stric ted a n d th e d e s c r ip tio n illu s tra te s a m a x im , debemur morti nos nostraque. T h e s u b je c t is th e im p e rm a n e n c e o f g re a t h u m a n en terp rises; nostraque (6 3 ) lin k s th is ‘e x c u rs u s ’ w ith w h a t p recedes it, th e im ­ p e r m a n e n c e o f w o rd s ; m ortalia fa c ta peribunt (68) ends it, a n d sermo­ n u m .. .honos (69) b rin g s it b a c k to th e su b je c t o f lan g u ag e . T h re e e n te r p ris e s a r e set d o w n , a h a r b o u r b u ilt, a m a rsh d ra in e d , a n d a r iv e r r e g u la t e d . H . is n o t c e le b ra tin g m a n th e civilizer as is C icero a t O ff. π . 14 a dde ductus aquarum , deriuationes flum inum , agrorum irrigationes, moles oppositas flu c tib u s, p o rtu s manu fa c to s , a n d JV.D. n . 152. N o r is h e c e le b r a tin g th e p o w e r o f p o e tr y to su rv iv e h u m a n m a te ria l creatio n s, as h e d i d C. in . 3 0 exegi monumentum aere perennius', o r sim ilarly th e p o w e r o f p h ilo s o p h y , as S e n e c a d id , Brev. Vit. 15· 4 (c^· S tegen). H is p o i n t s e e m s to b e sim p ly to g iv e p o etic ‘b o d y ’ to th e id e a t h a t l a n g u a g e is a s p r o n e to c h a n g e as o th e r c reatio n s o f m an . F o r this p u rp o s e h e c o u ld b e c o n c re te a n d d esc rip tiv e b u t n o n e to o specific ; h e c o u ld r e m i n d c o n te m p o r a rie s o f sim ilar, n o t necessarily id e n tic a l, e n te r p ris e s . V irg . G. n . 1 6 1 -4 show s h o w H . m ig h t h a v e spoken, h a d h e w is h e d to id e n tify th e s e w orks. Y e t c o m m e n ta to r s p e rsist in re la tin g th is passage to R o m a n e n g in e e r in g fe a ts. C a e s a r in d e e d h a d p la n s o f th is k in d (P lu t. Caes. 58, e tc .). I f P o r p h y r io n is r ig h t, H . w as a llu d in g to th e m ; L. P reller, A u s­ gew ählte A u fs ä tz e (1 8 6 4 ), p p . 5 1 5 -2 2 , A. M ich aelis, Commentationes • . .in hon. T h ea d o rì M o m m sen i (1 8 7 7 ), PP· 4 2 5" 7> an c o n s id e rs 63 siue receptus-68 m ortalia a n in te r p o la tio n o f th e tim e o f C la u d iu s . J 63— 4 receptus j terra N e p tu n u s p e r h a p s re c a lls V ir g . G . n . 1 4 {T yrrhenus que) fr e tis im m ittitu r aestus (A u ern is ). T h e n u a n c e o f t h e se a ‘re c e iv e d ’ o n la n d is sen sed b y c o m p a r is o n w i t h s im p le r u s a g e , as E n n . A nn. 34 quos homines quondam L a u ren tis terra recepit, P I. R u d . 27 ut tuo recipias tecto. . .n o s, C aes. B .C . in . 102. 7 q u i. . .oppido ac p o rtu recepti non erant. T h e f a m ilia r m e to n y m y , N e p t u n e - s e a ( Q u i n t . · ν ιπ . 6. 23, c itin g 63 receptus—64 arcet), is a d r o itly m a n a g e d to c o n v e y th e a c tiv e fo rce o f arcet’ cf. E p . 1. 1 1. 10 N e p tu n u m p ro cu l e terra spectare fu ren te m , r a th e r th a n E pod. 7. 3 -4 ca m p is atque N ep tu n o super | fu s u m est. V eli. ii. 33. 4 m a y b e c o m p a r e d fo r s u b je c t a n d w o r d in g a l t h o u g h t e g r a m m a r d iffers : ( L u cu llu s ) quem ob iniectas moles m a ri e t r e c e p t u m su fo s s is montibus in te r r a s m a r e . . .P om peius X erxen togatum uocare adsueuerat. 64 classes aquilonibus arcet: t h e r a r e c o n s tru c tio n o f t h e o b je c t (a c c .) d e fe n d e d a g a in s t e n c r o a c h m e n t ( a b l.) , a s V irg . C a ta l. {P ria p .) 2. 5 , A v ien . A r. 1386—7 t e . . .procellis | arcebis ra pidis, a n d C od. lu s t. v i. 3 ° · 10 ( T L L , li. 44 6 . 4 1 ). aquilonibus p a r tic u la r iz e s t h e i d e a o f ‘ sto rn o , as a t C. in . 30. 3 non im ber edax, non aquilo im potens, cf. V ir g . A . ΐ· 3 3 undis Euroque. . T h e h a r b o u r is O s tia , a c c o rd in g to P o rp h y rio n , w h ic h (h e a d d s ) diuus C a e s a r .. .in s titu e r a t.. .facere·, b u t p ro je c ts a r e n o t h e r e i n p o i n t (see a b o v e 6 3 -9 n .) a n d th e re fe re n c e to O s t i a is n o t s a f e g u a r d e d y a p p ly in g it to A u g u stu s in s te a d , a s C a rc o p in o a t t e m p t e d (c it. a b o v e 6 3 - 9 n .) ; h is e x p la n a tio n is c o n v in c in g ly r e b u tt e d b y R · M eiggs» O stia, p . 486. T h e h a r b o u r , a c c o rd in g to p s.-A c ro , is t h e L u c r in e in C a m p a n ia , b u ilt u n d e r O c ta v ia n a n d k n o w n as p o rtu s J u liu s, c . V irg . G. ii. 1 6 1 -4 , S u e t. A u g . 16. 1, D io C ass, xlviii. 5 0 , a l. I n h is a u t o ­ b io g ra p h y A g r ip p a c la im e d t h a t h e h a d d e v is e d i t ( P h i l a r g . o n V ir g . G . u . 1 6 1 -4 ) ; its use h o w e v e r a p p e a r s to h a v e b e e n s h o r t- liv e d (S tra b o , v . 2 4 4 -5 ). V e t th e d e ta ils o f V irg ilia n g e o g r a p h y a r e a b s e n t fro m th is p a ssa g e , a n d s u c h d e ta ils w o u ld b e in d is p e n s a b le i f H . h a in te n d e d th e p assa g e to b e T ead in th e l ig h t o f A g r i p p a ’s e n g in e e r in g e x p lo its, ev e n in th e to r tu o u s m a n n e r o f I m m is c h ( p p . 9 1 —3) · 65 regis opus h a s c a u s e d m u c h d o u b t. I f it re s e m b le d C . 1. 2 . 15 monum enta regis ( = R eg ia , th e re sid e n c e o f t h e K in g , i.e . N u m a P o m p iliu s ), i t sh o u ld p o in t to a p e rso n w h o c o u ld b e n a m e d , e v e n 11 H . h a d a v o id e d n a m in g h im ; th u s O v . F a st. v i. 2 5 9 regis opus p la c id i = N u m a , A u s. M o s. 2 8 9 -9 0 c o n s tr a tu m .. .p o n tu m , | regis opus m a gni = X e rx e s. B u t specific re fe re n c e s t o C a e s a r, le t a lo n e A u g u s tu s o r 152

Commentary A g rip p a , a r e n o t in te n d e d i f m y a rg u m e n ts, 6 3 -9 n ., 64 n ., p rev ail. N o r c a n H . b e th in k in g solely o f th e en te rp rise s o f a n y one o rie n ta l m o n a r c h , as w o u ld b e im p lie d in L u c u llu s’ n ic k n a m e Xerxes togatus, 6 3 - 4 n . I f th e t e x t is s o u n d , th e n , regis o u g h t to be generic. T h is usage, th e ‘c o lle c tiv e s i n g u l a r ’ o f th e g ra m m a ria n s , h a s b een m u c h d e b a te d , cf. th e s t a n d a r d g r a m m a r s a n d s u c h discussions as R ie m a n n , Étude s u r . . . T ite L iv e 2, p p . 4 2 - 5 0 , L ö fsted t, Pereg. Aeth. p p . 178-9, A. H . S a lo n iu s , V itae P a tru m , p p . 7 3 -6 . T h e A u g u stan s, it is often n o te d , g r e a tly e x te n d e d a n d in v ig o ra te d th is u sag e. Y e t n o stu d y o f th e r e le v a n t a u th o r s h a s s u rv e y e d th e m o re re m a rk a b le instances. M a n y cases o f H . ’s g e n e ric u se o f th e sing, a re liste d in D . Bo, H or. Op. in , 3 6 0 -3 . B u t th e s e s c a rc e ly tra n s c e n d th e c o n v e n tio n a l categories a n d in f a c t t h r o w d o u b t o n th e p re s e n t passage, regis opus c a n n o t b e ‘th e w o rk o f t h e k i n g ’ o r ‘o f a k in g ’ in th e sam e g en e ric sense in w h ich R o m a n u s ‘ t h e R o m a n ’ (.A .P . 54) la y s stress o n th e collective n o tio n . T h e m e a n i n g s h o u ld b e ‘ (tru ly ) ro y a l w o rk ’, w h e th e r th e king is a n e a s te rn rex o r a R o m a n g ra n d e e , e.g. C. 1. 4. 13-14. pauperum tabernas \ regum que tu n e s , 11. 14. 1 1 -1 2 , S . 11. 2. 45. I d o u b t th e re fo re i f regis opus expresses this n o tio n , w hereas C. 11. 15· 1—2 regiae j moles ex p resses it p erfec tly . M e in e k e ’s e m e n d a tio n regium opus m a y w e ll h i t th e m a rk , cf. ps.-A cro hoc est regium opus, quod n u llu s Jacere p o test n isi rex. I h a v e o b elize d regis r a th e r th a n p u t regium in t h e t e x t b e c a u s e o f th e p a u c ity o f elisions in this p a r t o f th e first fo o t. I h a v e o n ly o n c e n o te d su c h a n elision in th e A rs, 234 non ego inornata. M y c o lle a g u e M r E . J . K e n n e y re m in d s m e o f th e ra rity o f a m i d d le s y lla b le e lid e d b e tw e e n tw o shorts, n o t to m e n tio n th e vow el {regi-') h e r e p r e c e d in g ; cf. J . S o u b ira n , U é lisio n dans la poésie lat. (1 9 6 6 ), 22 6 . 6 5 —6 sterilisu e. . . aratrum : like th e h a r b o u r o f th e p re ced in g verse, w o rk o n th e p a lu s o f th is p a ssa g e is s a id b y P o rp h y rio n to b e o n e o f th e p ro je c ts w h ic h diuus C a e s a r .. .in s titu e r a t.. .Jacere-, h e identifies it w ith th e p la n s fo r th e d r a in in g o f th e P o m p tin e M arshes, cf. P lu t. Caes. 5 8. 9, D io C ass. XLiv. 5. 1, S u e t. Caes. 44. 3, b u t C aesar is excluded b y th e a r g u m e n ts s e t o u t i n 63—9 n . A lth o u g h a g a in ps.-A cro ascribes th e o p e r a tio n s t o A u g u s tu s — u t P ontinam paludem exsiccaret th e re is n o e v id e n c e t h a t th is a r e a h a d b e e n m a d e in to a g ric u ltu ra l la n d in th e P r in c e p s ’ tim e . A c la im fo r A u g u stu s is n o t a m o n g those so often m a d e i n a n c ie n t h is to ry , fro m th e sec o n d c e n tu ry b . c . to th e fifth a . d . T h e m a rs h e s w e re i n fa c t n o t ex ten siv e ly d ra in e d u n til re c e n t en gineering te c h n iq u e s c o u ld b e a p p lie d . Cf. M o m m se n , C IL , x, 684, V . O rsoliniC a n c e lli, L e p a lu d i Pontine, e tc. (1934)) idem. Enciclopedia Italiana, s.v . P o n tin a Regione. 153

Commentary

65 -ue: a variant reading, -que, appears in some MSS as well as in the citations of Priscian and Servius. The two particles afe 0 course frequently confused by scribes, as at C. in. 4 · 3 (on w^ic“ accept Bentley’s view), Ep. 1. 8. 5, 11. 1. 69, A .P . 250. Either -ue or -que could be used to specify one of a set of possibilities, e.g. ο . n. 2. 82-6, Virg. A. π. 36-7, vu. 605 ; Housman, Manilius, v, ρ. 150· in the present passage, -que sandwiched between siue (63) and seu (07J is not tenable since it indicates one of three topics, not an adjunct to the preceding. Rather compare C. iv. 2. ioff. s e u .. .deuoluit. .., seu... · can it. .., siu e.. .d ic it. . ., . . .-ue (que uar.). . .plorat·, Man. in. 1 4 9 “ ·’ [Ov.] Hal. 68-71 (cf. J. A. Richmond’s edition, 1962, pp. 9 ^ 7 )>or’ in the same clause, Aetna 359—60 siue peregrinis.. .propriisue | · · · causis. f diu palu s\: palus for palus was noted

by ancient grammarians, who base the shortening, unique in classical Latin poetry, on this one example. F. Skutsch, Γέρα$.· Abhand.. . .August Fick gewidmet (1903)? ρ. 147 π. L called it iambic shortening. Vollmer, in the second edi­ tion of his text, p. 345 (followed by Klingner, p. 325), lists it under correpta uocabula iambica, contrasting honor, etc. with honös, Ep- 1. ip· 102, A .P. 69. But, as Housman said, reviewing Vollmer’s edition in CR, xxn (1908), 89, ‘he defends palüs (-udis) by the analogy 0 honor (-oris), and attributes both to Iambenkürzung; the same ^in­ fluence, I presume, which leaves honös long and shortens calcär . A. Kiessling (1889) had been more critical, but when Housman saw that Kiessling’s edition was to be revised by Heinze he knew that we should have paläs back again; ‘and we have’ (Housman, C.QIxxn (1928), 7). F. Sommer doubtfully suggested the analogy of lacus (Handbuch2, p. 363) and K. Meister (cit. Heinze) that of nominatives in -us o f ‘o’ stems; neither analogy is plausible. Finally in Gioita, vni (19 17) >Vollmer wondered if palus might not be a local pronun­ ciation of a local name for the Pomptine marshes; he convinced Immisch, who remarked (p. 91 n. 18), ‘zur Textänderung ist daher kein Anlaß’. On the contrary, nothing would be better than a wholly con­ vincing emendation. But the simplest change, J. M. Gesner’spalus diu for diu palus, involves a shortening of u in diu before the initial vowel of aptaque, for which the formula si me amas, in the conversational context of S. 1. 9. 38, is scarcely sufficient warrant. Thus Bentley holds the field with palus prius for diu pains, excellent indeed but too un­ certain to be put in the text. The passage still awaits emendation. 66 The metonymy in alit and graue sentit aratrum holds the poetic tone on the level set by debemur, etc. The territory, so long a swamp? *54

Commentary n o w is b u s y ‘f e e d in g ’ th e to w n s, a n d ‘e x p e rie n c e s’ th e w e ig h t o f th e p lo u g h . T h e o r d e r o f clau ses (‘ύσ τερο ν π ρ ό τε ρ ο ν 1) gives the sam e im p re s s io n : firs t th e re su lt, th e n th e h e a v y la b o u r t h a t len d s a n im a te fe a tu re s to t h e n e w so il, fo rm e rly sterile n o w fru itfu l. H e n c e th e im a g e r y is m u c h m o re c o n c re te th a n , say, L iv. v. 40. 5 plebis turba quam nec capere tam exiguus collis nec a lere. . .poterat ; th e H o ra tia n p a s­ sa g e is s e t in a m is le a d in g c o n te x t in T L L , i. 1710. 47. F o r graue. . . aratrum , see S . 1. 1. 28 th e p lo u g h m a n d u ro . . . aratro tu rn in g grauem terram , V ir g . G . 1. 162 graue robur aratri. Ο ν . M e t. v ii . i 18 pondus g r a u e . . . a r a tr i ; fo r th e m e ta p h o r in sentiet, C. ni. 23. 5 nec pestilentem sentiet A fr ic u m | fe c u n d a u itis, V irg . G. 1. 4 7 -8 tlla seges demum uotis respondet a u a ri | agricolae, bis quae solem, bis frig o ra sensit, a n d g en erally V ir g il’s te c h n iq u e o f h u m a n iz in g n a tu re . 6 7 —8 T h e c o u rse o f a riv e r in th e c o u n try sid e is c h a n g e d . B o th P o r p h y r io n a n d p s .-A c ro a p p ly th is to th e T ib e r, th e fo rm e r n a m in g A g r ip p a , t h e l a t t e r A u g u stu s as th e p erso n w h o hunc. . . deriuauit. H . h o w e v e r is n o t ta lk in g o f th e T ib e r, b ec au se, as C. F e a n o te d (ad I.), in iquum fr u g ib u s am nis is a riv e r in th e c o u n try , n o t in th e city. B esides, th e a n c ie n t c o m m e n ta to rs alleg e t h a t th e a re a co n cern ed w a s th e V e la b r u m a t R o m e . T h is, as a g a in F e a re m a rk e d , is d e m o n ­ s tr a b ly fa lse : th e re g io n h a d b e e n d ra in e d b y th e Cloaca M a xim a c e n tu r ie s e a r l i e r a n d A g r ip p a ’s s a n ita ry o p eratio n s, d a te d to 33 b .c . (D io C ass. XLix. 4 3 . 1, P lin . JV.H . x x x v i. 104), are ex clu d ed b y H . s w o r d in g . L a t e r w o rk b y A u g u stu s o n th e course o f th e T ib e r w as u n d e r t a k e n a f te r H . ’s d e a th , cf. C IL , v i, nos. 1235-6, S uet. A ug. 30. 1 ; A . M ic h a e lis (cit. a b o v e 6 3 -9 n .), p . 427. 6 8 doctus iter m elius c o n tin u e s th e m e ta p h o r : th e riv e r has le a rn e d a lesso n , a s E p . 1. 14. 29—3 0 riuus, si decidit imber, j multa mole docendus aprico parcere p ra to . T h e a c c u sa tiv e ‘r e ta in e d ’ w ith a passive v erb is p o e tic , a n d a p o e tiz in g a n d S ilv e r usag e in prose, see S . 1. 6 . 76—7 p u e ru m . . .docendum | artes, C. in . 6. 21 motus doceri gaudet Ionicos, 8. 5, 9. 10, T a c . A g r . 26. 2 A gricola iter hostium ab exploratoribus edoctus. K ü h n e r —S te g m a n n , i. 298, C . F . W . M ü lle r, Syn. des JVom. und A k k . 1 4 5 -6 . m orta lia f a c t a p erib u n t ta k e s u p (debemur morti nos) nostraque, 63 ; th e fo llo w in g v e rs e r e tu r n s to th e to p ic o f la n g u a g e . T h e rh e to ric is as p re c is e a n d d i r e c t as L u c r. v . 311 denique non monumenta uirum dilapsa u id e m u s . . . ?, b u t th e H o r a t ia n o v erto n e s a re ric h e r. S eneca m a y b e c o n tr a s te d . A d P olyb. 1. 1 quid enim immortale manus mortales fecerunt, septem illa m ira cu la , et s i qua his multo mirabilia sequentium annorum ex­ stru xit a m b itio , aliquando solo aequata uisentur. ^ fa c ta m a k e s th e tr a n s itio n fro m th e ‘d o in g ’ o r m ak in g o f 63

Ϊ 55

.to

C o m m e n ta r y

sp eech , sermonum, 69. T h e c o n te x t e x c lu d e s t h e c la s s ic a l n o tio n o f fa c tu m , d e e d (2 8 6 -7 n .) : th e m e a n in g m u s t b e t h e t h i n g m a d e , n o t d o n e . H e n c e m ortalia fa c ta = m ortalium opera, cf. S e n . E p . 9 1 . 12 omnia mortalium opera m ortalitate dam nata su n t; inter p e ritu ra u iu im u s . T h e u n u s u a l m e a n in g p ro m p te d e m e n d a tio n o f f a c ta , n o t a b l y B e n tle y s cuncta, w h ic h h e la te r fo u n d in th e c o d . G a le a n u s ; h e th e re fo re a sc rib e d th e a n tith e sis ‘ w o rk s - s p e e c h ’ to a n a sutus interp o la to r . Y e t it is in h e re n t in th e p a ssa g e as a w h o le a n d cu n c ta . . . nedum serm ones m a k e s a w e a k p ro g ressio n , sermones b e in g p a r t o f cuncta. S c a n n i n g t h e a rtic le *n E L L I fin d n o p a r a lle l sav e o n e , lo n g s in c e n o t e d : O v . H e r . x o. 60 non hominum uideo, non ego fa c ta bourn, a p p a r e n t l y m o d e l l e d o n H o m e r , Od. x . 98 ένθα μέυ ούτε β ο ώ ν o u t ’ ά ν δ ρ ώ ν φ α ίν ε τ ο έ ρ γ α . V ir g il s la n g u a g e , G. i. r x8, is m o re c o n v e n tio n a l: hom inum que boum que labores. peribunt, t h a t is, non stabunt, c o n tra s t stet (69) ; t h e fo r c e o f th e v e rb , as C. I. 16. 19—21 cur perirent (urbes) \ fu n d itu s im p rim e retque m uris \ . . . aratrum exercitus, PI. M o s t. 147—8 aedes meas q u in . . . ru a n t, \ c u m fu n d a ­ menta perierint. T h e te n se ‘g n o m ic ’ as E p . 1. 18. 4 scurrae d is ta b it am icus. 69 looks b a c k to 61, th e im p e r m a n e n c e o f w o rd s , n ed u m ta k e s u p th e im p lie d n e g a tiv e in p eribunt, 68. I t o c c u rs o n ly h e r e i n H . a n d is r a r e in a ll L a tin v e rse : J . H . W a ld e n , H S , 11 (1 8 9 1 ), 1 1 6 , B . A x e lso n , Unpoet. W örter, p . 96. H e n c e A ld u s’ im p la u s ib le serm onum haud for nedum (n e i) sermonum. serm onum : n o t uerborum b u t th e i r use, ‘d i c t i o n ’ ; p i. b e c a u s e th e v a rie ty i n th e use o f w o rd s is c o n tr a s te d w ith t h e v a r i e t y o f fa c ta · sermo — loquendi consuetuod: C ic. Off. 1. i n sermone eo debem us u ti, A tt. v ii. 3. 10 elegantiam s ., P e tr o n . 132. 15 s. p u r i . . .g r a tia . Q u i n t . L O . ΐ· 43 Quid est a liu d uetus s. quam uetus loquendi consuetudo ? T h e o n l y o t h e r in s ta n c e o f th is n o tio n o f th e p i. k n o w n to m e is V a r r o , M e n . 399 in sermonibus P lautus (poscit p a lm a m ) . sermones t h e r e s ta n d s b e s id e argum enta a n d ethe; i t is th e re fo re lik e ly to b e ‘ d i c t i o n ’, n o t ‘ c o n v e r s a ­ tio n s , c o n tra s te d w ith ‘ s u b je c t- m a tte r ’ a n d ‘e t h o s ’, cf. m y r e m a r k s Varron, F o n d a tio n H a r d t , i x (1 9 6 3 ), 1 7 6 . H . D a h l m a n n ( A A M G 953 )> n o · 3> 117 n . 2) p la u s ib ly c o m p a r e s Q u i n t . I .O . x . 1 ■ 99

erro M u sa s, A e lii S tilo n e sententia, P la u tin o dicit sermone locuturas fu is s e st L atin e loqui uellent. stet sta n d s firm , la s ts ’, o f b u ild in g s , e tc ., C. in . 3. 4 2 - 3 (d u m ) stet C apitolium j fu lg en s, E n n . tr a g . fr. 84 (J o c e ly n ) (A n d ro m a ch a ) cui nec o r a e . . .sta n t, fra cta e et disiectae iacent, C ic. L a el. 23 nec dom u s nec u rb s ulla stare poterit, V irg . A . 11. 5 6 Troiaque nunc staret; m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , aS gj?'

ic.

17^ cadat a n recto stet fa b u la talo, E n n . A n n . 5 0 0 r e s . . .R o m a n a , t . 2. 24 res p u b lica , V irg . A . iv . 539 g r a tia f a c t i (cf. A . S. P e a s e ,

Commentary honos et g ra tia : ά m e ta p h o r d e sc rib in g social sta n d in g , som e in ­ sta n c e s a t T L L , v i. 2. 2212. 4 9 -5 1 . F o r honos a p p lie d to w o rd in g , see 71, 243 ta n tu m . . .accedit honoris, E p . 11. 2. 112 ( nerba) honore indigna feren tu r. T h e a lte r n a tiv e fo rm a tio n s honos a n d -r a re n o te d b y Serv. Virg. A . i. 25 3 plerum que poetae ‘ r ’ in ‘ s ’ m utant causa metri; -os enim longa est, -o r b re v is. . . sed ecce in hoc loco etiam sine metri necessitate

s

dixit. u iu a x ‘r e te n tiv e o f life, e n d u r in g ’. T h u s th e ev erg reen ivy b u t n o t th e breue liliu m , C. 1. 36. 16; uiuacis oliuae, V irg . G . n . 181. T h e a d je c ­ tiv e, g o in g w i t h th e p r e d ic a te stet, p ro b a b ly q u alifies honos as w ell as gratia ; t h e b io lo g ic a l m e ta p h o r , 6 0 ff., is n o t fa r aw ay. Cf. O v. Pont. IV. 8. 4 7 —8 carm ine f i t uiuax uirtus, expersque sepulcri | notitiam serae posteritatis habet.

7 0 —1 T h e m e ta p h o r o f 6 0 —1 is n o w tu rn e d d iffe ren tly : old w ords a r e r e b o r n a n d c u r r e n t p e rish . 7 0 O n e , a lm o s t p e r fu n c to ry , v erse g lances a t a rc h a ism s; in th e F lorus th e p r o c e d u r e is th e o p p o site ; m o re o v e r old w ords, as w ell as n e w o n e s a b o v e , a r e h e r e seen as stag es in th e life o f la n g u a g e , ab o v e 4 6 /5 —72 n . C ic e ro ’s p o s itio n in rh e to ric a l th e o ry , a n d V a rro s in g r a m m a ti c a l th e o ry , m a y b e re m e m b e re d : V a rro , L .L . ix . 19 idem, ex sermone si q u id deperiit, non modo n ih il im pendunt ut requirant, sed etiam contra indices repugnant ne restituatur?, C ic. D e Or. in. 153 quae (i.e. prisca . . .a b usu cotidiani sermonis iam diu intermissa) sunt poetarum licentiae liberiora quam nostrae; sed tamen raro habet etiam in oratione poeticum aliquod uerbum d ig n ita tem , e tc. C o n tra s t G ell. i. 10, w h e re m e n tio n is m a d e o f C a e s a r’s d e t e r m in e d e m b a r g o o n in a u d itu m . . . uerbum. cecidere, cadentque: cf. cadunt, 61. T h is recalls a L u c re tia n p h ra se, in a lik e c o n te x t, in . 9 6 9 nec m inus ergo ante haec quam tu cecidere cadentque, a n d w i t h o u t th e d o u b le t v . 3 2 7 -8 , quo tot fa c ta uirum totiens cecidere neque usquam | . . . flo ren t? T h e p o ly p to to n as 58 licuit semperque licebit, E p. I· 2. 4 3 la b itu r et labetur, π . 1. 160 manserunt hodieque manent o r, still clo ser, C. 11. 13. 20 ra p u it rapietque. (F o r th e device, cf. H o fm a n n -

S z a n ty r , p p . 70 f.) H e r e h o w e v e r th e tw o v erb s a re n o t in th e sam e s y n ta c tic g r o u p , th e se c o n d c la u se spills o v er in to th e n e x t verse, a n d th e o r d e r is c h ia s tic : cecidete a n d cadentque in th e m id d le, t e ogica o p p o s ite s renoscentur (70) a n d sunt in honore (71) on opposite sides, m tw o d if f e r e n t ty p e s o f clau se. 71 su n t in honore, cf. honos et gratia (69) : this a g a in recalls u cretiu s, see v . 1273 ff· nam f a i t in pretio m agis (a es) aurumque iacebat | · · · I nunc iacet aes, a u ru m in sum m um successit honorem. \ sic uoluenda aetas commuta tempora rerum : | quod f u i t in pretio, f i t nullo denique honore, etc. o r in honore esse, see C ic. jV .D . 1. 16, O v . Fast. in . 138, M e t. x . 170, al., ot

157

C o m m e n ta r y

p erso n s, C ic. C a t. in . 2, C aes. B .C . in . 59. 3, a l. I n th e m o r e f r e q u e n t use w ith ad jectiv es o r p ro n o u n s , in is o p tio n a l. uocabula, u n lik e S', n . 3. 280, E p . 11. 2. 116, a n d m a n y o t h e r in s ta n c e s elsew h ere, h a s n o t rerutti ju x ta p o s e d o r im p lie d in t h e c o n t e x t ; h e n c e ‘ w o rd s ’ r a th e r th a n ‘ te r m s ’. s i uolet: usus — like u tilita s a n d consuetudo , a n d w h e th e r d e n o tin g ‘ n e e d ’, ‘p r a c tic e ’ o r ‘ u s a g e ’— is o fte n c r e d ite d w i t h a n a c ti v e fo rce. T h is su its w h a t H . w a n ts to d o in th is p a s s a g e : t o la y stre ss o n th e im p e rs o n a l o r ‘n a t u r a l ’ fe a tu re s o f la n g u a g e . C f. S . 1. 3 . 102 f a b r i cauerat usus, E p . 11. 2. 119 p ro d u x erit usus, b e lo w 7 2 ; L u c r . v . 1029 u tilita s expressit nomina rerum, V a rro , L .L . v i. 78 h is (u e rb is ) . . . consuetudo est usa, 82 consuetudo co m m u n is . . . etiam nunc seru a t, ix . 1 q u o a d p a tia tu r consuetudo, x . 74 non repugnante consuetudine com m u n i, C ic. D e O r . m · 39> 17° ) O r. 155 an d a b a t hanc consuetudo lic e n tia m ? , 159 eadem consuetudo non probau it. usus: if m y o b s e rv a tio n s, 69 a n d 7 0 -1 n n ., a r e j u s t , usus d o e s n o t h e re d e n o te th e n e e d fo r n e w te rm s e x p re sse d b y s i f o r t e necesse e st, e tc ., 4 8 ff. E v e n less d o es it d e n o te ‘n e c e s s ity ’, nécessité, n o t o n ly b eso in , as M . R u c h , R E L , x l i (1 9 6 3 ), 2 4 8 -5 4 , assu m es. H . is n o w t a l k i n g o f th e p ro cess t h a t le a d s to th e obscurata u ocabula , E p . n . 2. 1 1 5 , a n d to th e ir re v iv a l.

I su g g est, th e n , u sus = u sa g e , a n d so, a s f a r a s I k n o w , d i d a ll c o m m e n ta to rs fro m P o rp h y rio n to th e b e g in n in g o f t h is c e n t u r y , cf. P o rp h . hoc est ra tio loquendi: u sus n ih il enim a liu d e st q u a m re g u la serm o n is L a tin i, p s.-A cro id e st consuetudo siu e ra tio loq u en d i: r a tio en im u su e t consuetudine uincitur. W h a t m o v e d R . R e itz e n s te in { A i . T e re n tiu s Varro und Johannes M a u ro p u s von E u ch a ita (1 9 0 1 ), p . 5 4 n , 1) a n d R . H e in z e fo llo w e d b y R o sta g n i, I m m is c h (p . 77 n . 11), S te id le (S tu dien , p . 3 9 n . 7 4 ), a n d m o re r e c e n t w rite rs s u c h a s P . G r i m a l ( E ssa i su r l ’A r t P oétique d*H orace (1968), p p . 9 0 ff .)— to r e n d e r u su s by n e e d , re q u ir e m e n t, χ ρ ε ία ’? H e in z e o ffe rs t h r e e a r g u m e n t s : (1) u sag e w o u ld b e in e p t i n th e p re s e n t c o n te x t w h ic h , h e s a y s , d e a ls w ith th e c o in a g e o f n e w w o rd s ; th u s , to o , R e itz e n s te in , loc. c it. ; (2 ) u su s re su m e s necesse est (4 8 ) ; (3) H . d o e s n o t e m p lo y u sus — u s a g e b u t d o e s em p lo y usus = n e e d , n o ta b ly i n t h e p a r a lle l p a s s a g e , E p . n . 2. 119ese a rg u m e n ts se e m to m e p a r tly e r ro n e o u s a n d p a r t l y i r r e le v a n t . ( i ) A s is a rg u e d a t th e b e g in n in g o f th is n o te , th e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t d o e s n o t c o n c e rn th e c o in a g e o f n ew w o rd s. T h e p r o p o s itio n ‘o b s o le te w o r s w i re v iv e i f n e e d so w ills ’ w o u ld m a k e so m e se n se o u ts id e th is c o n te x t, e p ro p o s itio n ‘c u r r e n t w o rd s w ill p e r is h i f n e e d so w ills ’ f o \ ^ r^°i ?e n fe *n a n y c o n te x t. (2) usus d o es n o t r e s u m e necesse e s t V40 )· \ 3) H ., it is tr u e , does n o t e lse w h e re e m p lo y u su s = consuetudo 158

Commentary a n d i n tw o a p p a r e n t l y s im ila r passag es h e d o es em p lo y usus = n eed . B u t th e s im ila r ity is m is le a d in g : a t E p . n . 2. 119 th e c o n te x t is th e c o in a g e o f n e w w o rd s a n d genitor produxerit in th e sam e verse suggest th e m e a n in g ‘n e e d ’, χ ρ ε ία ; so d o e s fa b rica u era t a t S . 1. 3. 102. E lse­ w h e re i n H . usus = u se, o r (o n ce, S . 11. 6. 75) ex pediency. Y e t usus in th e la n g u a g e o f th e g r a m m a r ia n s a n d rh e to ric ia n s is a set te rm for ‘p r a c t i c e ’ a n d i n r e le v a n t c o n te x ts closely a p p ro a c h e s consuetudo, σ υ ν ή θ εια , ‘ u s a g e ’. T h e r e w as n o re a so n th ere fo re w hy H . sh o u ld n o t e m p lo y a n e s ta b lis h e d w o rd in a n estab lish ed m ean in g , a n d em p lo y i t o n c e o n ly . C f. V a r r o , L .L . x . 73 u su i(s ) species uidentur esse tres— una consuetudinis ueteris, altera consuetudinis huius, tertia neutra(e), 78 contra usum ueterem , C ic . In v . 1. 57 in usu dicendi, D e Or. 1. 109, Or. 160, Q u in t. L O . V. io . 5, 14. 33 uerbis quam m axim e propriis et ex usu, vili. 2. 2 omnia quae su n t in (sine, sin M S S ) u s u . . .reformidant. F . S olm sen w as r ig h t th e re fo re to r e je c t H e in z e ’s e x p la n a tio n , cf. H , lxvi (1931), 246 n. 2 ; usus in th is p a ssa g e = ‘u s a g e ’, consuetudo. 72 U s a g e is p ro c la im e d as th e p rin c ip le g o v ern in g la n g u a g e , σ υ ν ή θ ε ια w a s c e r ta in ly so p ro c la im e d b y th e Stoics (cf. D io d e s o f M a g n e s ia ap. D io g . L . v n . 59 = S V F , h i. 214. 13), p e rh a p s also b y th e P e r ip a te tic s (cf. S o lm se n , b e lo w o n norma, c itin g συνήθεια ap. D e m e tr . In terp r.) ; in d iffe re n t w a y s th e g ra m m a ria n s en u n c ia te d a s im ila r p r in c ip le , cf. S e x t. E m p . M a th . 1. 8 4 ff., V a rro a n d o th ers. D o e s t h e c o n c u r r e n c e o f H . a n d D e m e triu s p o in t to N eo p to lem u s, as S o lm se n s u g g e s te d ? T o o little is k n o w n a b o u t th e ea rly postA ris to te lia n L y c e u m to d o m o re th a n ask this question. I t needs to b e r e m e m b e r e d h o w e v e r t h a t H . is n o t in c u lc a tin g usage as a p t for one p a r ti c u la r s ty le o n ly — th e p la in — as d o A d Her. iv. 11 attenuata (oratio) est quae dem issa est usque a d usitatissim am p u ri consuetudinem sermonis, C ic. Or. 76 su m m issu s est et hum ilis, consuetudinem im itans, a n d others. I f w rite r s o n t h e H o r a t i a n tr a d itio n o f th e six teen th a n d sev e n te en th c e n tu r ie s h a d re m e m b e re d th is (for ex a m p le , W esley T rim p i, Ben jforison’s p o e m s j a stu d y o f the p la in style (S tan fo rd , 1962), th ey w ould h a v e a v o id e d so m e a w k w a rd tra p s . Consuetudo g o v e rn s la n g u a g e . T h is is reco g n ized b y C icero a n d V a r r o as v a lid w ith in c e rta in lim its, cf. C ic. D e Or. in. 170 Λ au^ uetustum uerbum sit, quod tamen consuetudo fe r r e possit, aut fa ctu m uel coniunctione uel nouitate, in quo item est auribus consuetudinique parcendum, V a r r o a b o v e 71 n . o n si uolet. T h e ro le o f consuetudo is stressed a t A d H e r. 11. 4 3 quam rem (i.e. nomen et uocabulum ) consuetudo optime p o test iudicare, Q u i n t . 1 . 0 . 1. 6. 3 consuetudo uero certissima loquendi m agistra, utendum que p la n e sermone u t nummo, cui publica fo rm a est (cf. a b o v e 5 9 n .) , 4 4 , 4 5 consuetudinem sermonis uocabo consensum eruditorum

159

C o m m e n ta r y sicut uiutndi consensum bonorum, G ell. χ ιι. 13. 16 consuetudo u icit, quae cum om nium domina rerum, tum m axim e uerborum est. U sag e , H . says, h a s a rb itriu m . . .e t ius, h i n t in g p e r h a p s a t P in d a r (ap. P la t. Gorg. 484 b ), νόμος ό ττά ντω ν β α σ ιλεύς. I d o n o t k n o w t h e ag e o f th e a n o n y m o u s L a tin ta g , u su s tyrannus, cf. C ic . L e g . h i. 2 le g e m . . · m utum m agistratum (A . O tto , Sprichw örter, 1 9 2 ); f o r th e w o r d in g , T e r . H eaut. 2 5 -6 arbitrium uestrum, uestra existim a tio ualeb it, C ic . O ff. i· 6 iudicio arbitrioque nostro, L iv. x x m . 23. 4 n ep e n es u n u m hom inem indicium arbitriumque de J a m a . . .senatoris fu e r it. Ο ν . H er. 12. 7 3"“4 ^us ! · · *e* arbitrium , Sen. M ed . 137—8, S u e t. C al. 14. 1, a l. iu s to o is r e c o g n iz e d in th e la titu d e a llo w e d to th e w rite r o r p o e t, e .g . V a r r o , L . L . ix . 5 eorum (i.e. oratoris et poetae) non idem iu s, 6 ego p o p u li consuetudinis non sum ut dominus, ut ille meae est, cf. potestas a b o v e 10. F o r norma loquendi, F. S o h n se n ( H , l x v i (1 9 3 1 ), 2 4 6 ) h a s a p p o ­ sitely c o m p a re d D e m e tr. Interpr. 87 a n d 9 1 , w h e r e σ υ ν ή θ ε ια is s a id

to b e th e s ta n d a r d , κ α ν ώ ν , fo r m e ta p h o r s a n d c o m p o u n d w o rd s , a n d g e n e ra lly o f a ll ο ν ο μ α σ ία . A lso ib id . 8 6 τ τ ά ν τ ω ν δέ κ α ί τ ω ν ά λ λ ω ν ή συνήθεια καί μ ά λ ισ τ α μ ετα φ ο ρ ώ ν δ ιδ ά σ κ α λ ο ς, 95» 2 75· quern penes: th is p re p o s itio n o c c u rs f r e q u e n tly in p h r a s e s e x p re s s in g p o w e r o r so v e re ig n ty s u c h as th is a n d L iv . x x m . 2 3 . 4 (c it. a b o v e ) ; th e o n ly o th e r in s ta n c e in H . is penes te es? (S. 11. 3. 2 7 3 ), ‘ a r e y o u in y o u r r ig h t m i n d ? ’, i.e . ‘i n y o u r p o sse ssio n ’. C f. P a u l . F e s t. 22 ( M .) apud et penes in hoc differunt quod alterum personam cum loco significat, alterum personam et dom inium ac potestatem . T h e a r c h a ic ‘ a n a s t r o p h e ’ o f

p re p o sitio n s o f m o re th a n o n e sy lla b le is c o m m o n a f te r r e la tiv e p ro n o u n s ev e n i n C ic e ro n ia n p ro se . H . lik e o t h e r A u g u s t a n p o e ts h a s i t w ith n o u n s a s w e ll; T a c itu s m a k e s m u c h o f th is a n a s t r o p h e , cf. K ü h n e r - S te g m a n n , 1. 586, H o f m a n n - S z a n ty r , 2 1 5 f.

(b) Norms of diction in poetic genres, 73—85 (88) T he tra d itio n . This is another topic which literary theory and rhetoric approached in different but comparable ways. In Greek τα μέτρα may denote ‘verse’, words included, not merely ‘rhythms’, thus Ar. R h et. m. 2, 1404 b 14, contrasting έν δέ τοϊς ψιλοϊς λόγοις ‘prose’. Hence writing on poetic composition or style, Aristotle (P o et. 6, 1449 b 34) defines λέξις not simply by σύνθεσις των ονομάτων but by σννθεσχς των μέτρων; this, Rostagni explains, is σύνθεσις των όνομάτων έν τοϊς μέτροις, words so put together as to fit a predetermined metre. But writing on rhetorical style 160

Commentary Aristotle assigns a chapter to prose rhythm, Rhet. in. 8; the context is the use of words, singly and in composition, cf. ProI. 94. Rhythm continues as a property o f ‘composition’ in rhetorical discussion, e.g. in the De Compositione, περί συνθέσεως ονομάτων, of Dion. Hal. Moreover when the topic of periodic or rhythmic speech is set in larger treatises its place in the sequence conforms to the Aristotelian, Rhet. m. 7-8; words, style, and rhythm are found in close vicinity in Demetr. De Interpr. 1-35, also Ad Her. iv, 26, Cic. De Or. in. 171 if., especially 184, Or. 149 if., 168 ff., Quint. I.O. ix, chs. 3-4. Yet W. Steidle has been right to deny that this passage is concerned with metre per se (Studien, pp. 46-8) ; that topic comes later in the Ars. H. here is concerned with poetic genres defined by metre and subject. Ps.-Acro (on A.P. 73) probably has this in mind: docet quomodo singulae res quibus metris scribendae sint. It is not then one poetic style that is in question but as many as there are genres. Research on poetic genres was a speciality of Alexandrian scholarship. Apollonius was not by any means the only writer on genres, είδη, though he was the Alexandrian specifically called ό ειδογραφος. A further Hellenistic feature seems to be the emphasis on literary history; and that includes the originators of poetic genres and metres. H .’s material contains some features in which the Alexandrians were known to differ from Aristotle, cf. below 75—8 n., 79 n. Research had not however ceased; adhuc sub iudice lis est, H. remarks àpropos of the origins of the fashionable elegiac genre, see 77 n. Too little is known about Alexandrian ειδογραφία to deter­ mine the details of the tradition on which H. has drawn. He mentions the chief genres in this order: epic, elegy, iambic verse, comedy, tragedy, and lyric; it will cause no surprise that his subdivisions for lyric verse are both highly selective and in a traditional vein (83, 84, 85 nn.). As for the division of the genres as a whole, generalizations are hard to establish. It is true, scholars have asserted for some time that the Horatian material is based in some way or other on the (AristoII

161

BHA

Commentary

telian and ultimately Platonic) distinction between ‘ narrative’ and ‘dramatic’; cf. J. Kayser, D e veterum a rte p o e tic a q u a est. sei. (Thesis, Leipzig 1906), H. Färber, D i e L y r ik in der K u n stth e o rie d . A n tik e (1936), H. Dahlmann, Varros S eh r, d e p o e m a tis , etc. A A M (1953), no. 3, pp. 146 ff. Nevertheless the late compila­ tions on which Dahlmann and his predecessors draw subsume their material under these (to them) irrelevant headings, whereas H., happily, does not. Nor for that matter does Quintilian (1 . 0 . x, ch. 1) and probably others, as P. Steinmetz points out, H , xcii (1964), 460 ff. The Horatian arrangement of the genres is partly chronological but chiefly according to metre, even to the extent of attaching comedy and tragedy (in that order) to Archilochus, because they concur in using iambic verse. To assert similarity between H. and the modes of the compilers, their schematism has to be projected on to the canvas of the A r s . Moreover H.’s order has to be changed, for drama in this section comes before, not after, lyric, unlike the arrangement of the compilations ; the discussion of tragedy and comedy, A .P . 89 ff., of which Dahlmann avails himself, is not part of the present section. That H.’s metrical arrange­ ment would have suited some Alexandrians and a writer like Neoptolemus is not without plausibility. But Dahlmann’s assumption, p. 153, that Neoptolemus too had the layout wrongly asserted for H.—I mean (a ) non-dramatic: epic, elegiac, iambic, lyric ; and (b ) dramatic : tragedy and comedy —is not only unproven but unwarranted. Nor does the Roman evidence help us much. There had been an interest in poetic genres at least since Accius’ D i d a ­ scalici z; but the much-quoted fragment about the difference of g e m a (Funaioli, G ram . R o m . F r . p. 27, fr. 8, cit. below 86 n. on uices) is no basis for a comparison with the A r s ; for the post-Horatian evidence see P. Steinmetz, H , x cii (1964), 462. H o ra ce .

What then does H. do with the traditional material, as far as we can recognize it? At 73 he introduces the metrical topic of the genres brusquely and unconnectedly as the 162

Commentary

difference of subject-matter seems to demand. It is only later that he reaps the poetic benefit of this procedure. [I cannot find the connexion with 71 usus asserted by Heinze and Immisch (pp. 94 fi), nor the particular contrast stated by K. Witte, Gesck. d. röm. Dicht, etc. 11. 1 (1931)» 24 6·] H. adopts a mock-serious lecturing style, just as he does in the subsequent passage on metre, 251 ff. But in both cases he amuses himself, and any reader who can be amused, by a jump from an elementary lecture to something, to his mind, really important—here it is the style and tone of different types of poetry. Nor is the humour empty, for in his opinion elemen­ tary expertise and higher criticism are intimately connected. H. seems to show some interest in literary-historical re search. But in fact he is mocking the reader, who is undeceive presently. H. is drawing the outlines of a normative poetics based on the (metrical) genres. Hence what begins as a historical essay ends in a demand for the appropriateness o writing which he has hinted at already in the earlier portions of the poem. Some commentators have missed references to oman poetic genres—mistakenly, for H. is concerned to point to t e original Greek genres for the benefit of his Roman readers. But as Steidle, Studien, p. 4 7 »remarks, there may well be some implied opposition to neoteric-Hellenistic tendencies, c . 7 7 n. on elegy. We need to note what H. omits, not on y w at he acknowledges. 7 3 - 4 ! the hexameter and epic poetry. The hexameterlS metre, called in fact by that name: Ar. Rhet. in. 8, 140 3 δέ Ρυθμών ό μέν ήρώος σεμνός κτλ. It is also the appropria e for narrative, Poet. 24, 1459 b 31 τό δέ μέτρον τό ήρωικον faro της πείρας ήρμοκευ. εί γάρ τις έν άλλω τιυί μέ-rpcp διηγημαηκήν μιμησιν ττοιοϊτο η 4ν πολλοϊς, άπρεπές σν φαίνοιτο *τό γαρ ηρωικόν στ τατον καί όγκωδέστατον των μέτρων έστιν κτ . appointed by nature, ibid. 1460 a 2 διό ούδείς μακραν δλλω ττεττοίηκεν ή τω ήρφω, άλλ’ ώσπερ εϊπομεν ^4 » *449 iambus) αυτή ή φύσις διδάσκει τό άρμόττον αυτή α ρει . name remained down to the compilations of late antiquity, as 1

163

1 1 -2

Commentary p assag e o f T e r e n tia n u s M a u r u s b a se d o n H ., 1 6 4 6 - 8 leges quippe

datas heroica carmina poscunt, quis acta Homerus heroum cum scriberet uersibus ostendit. res gestae does n o t h e re d e n o te th e p u b lic r e c o r d o f o ffic ia l a c tio n a s in E n n iu s ( Scipio, V a r i a fr. 2 V a h le n ) columnam quae res tuas gestas loquatur o r in th e Res Gestae Divi Augusti, a n d as TLL, v i. 2. |

|

7 3

1945. 53 if. m ig h t su g g est. B ecau se o f its c o n te x t i n t h i s a n d s im ila r p lace s, i t a p p lie s to p u b lic a c tio n s, a n c ie n t o r c o n t e m p o r a r y , a s a su b je c t fo r h e ro ic e p ic : Ep. 1. 3 . 7 - 8 quis sibi res gestas Augusti scribere sumit? I bella quis et paces longum diffundit in aeuum?, n . 1. 2 5 0 —1 nec sermones ego mallem | repentes per humum quam res componere gestas. T h e w o rd Jacta lack s p o litic a l c o lo u r b u t is o th e rw is e c lo se in m e a n in g , as in S. i. 10. 4 2 - 3 Pollio regum j Jacta canit pede ter percusso ( tr a g e d y , d is tin g u is h e d fro m Jorte epos), Ep. n . 1. 6 post ingentia Jacta deorum in templa recepti, b e lo w 2 8 6 -7 η. regumque ducumque, th e fo rm e r th e β α σ ιλ ή ε ς o f h e r o ic e p ic , a s a b o v e in regumJacta, V irg . E. 6. 3 cum canerem reges et proelia·, th e l a t t e r m a y re fe r to g e n e ra ls, le a d e rs in w a r (C . 11. 2. 21 magnos. . . duces, iv . 15. 29 uirtuteJunctos. . . duces. . . canemus, a n d duces i n th e h is to r ia n s ) a n d th u s to h is to ric a l ep ic. -que. . ,-que m a y h e r e h a v e e p ic to n e , i n so m e o t h e r p a s s a g e s it lack s it, cf. ab o v e 11 n. tristia bella (V irg . A. v n . 3 2 5 , Culex 8 1 , a l.) lik e w ise in p i. a n d a t e n d o f lin e V irg . E. 6. 7; cf. C. 1. 1. 2 4 - 5 bella. . .matribus j detestata. 7 4 quo.. .numero ‘v e rse , m e tr e ’, in sin g , as Ep. 11. 1. 158 numerus Saturnius, G ic. De Or. n i. 185 anapaestus, procerior quidam numerus, e v e n m o re fre q u e n tly i n p l. as 270 Plautinos., .numeros, 211 numerisque modisque, a n d th e *P la u tin e e p i t a p h ’ ap. G e li. 1. 24. 3 numeri innumeri. scribi lik e scriptor o fte n o f p o e try . possent ‘is (to b e) a c h ie v e d ’, n o t ‘m ig h t b e a c h ie v e d ’, an i d i o m n o t a lw a y s re c o g n iz e d , cf. C. m . 3. 4 0 - 4 d u m . . . s te t Capitolium ..· triumphatisque p o ssit j Roma Jerox dare iura Medis, Ep. 11. 1. 1 0 6 -7 per quae | crescere res p o sset, minui damnosa libido, ‘ is to b e m a d e to g r o w ’, n . 2 . 13 1 -5 qui uitae s e r u a re t munia. . . , p o sse t qui ignoscere sends . ■ -, p o sset qui. . .puteum aitare patentem, ‘k n o w s h o w t o . . . ’ . monstrauit ‘re v e a l, m a k e k n o w n ’, in G re e k κ α τέδειξε, A ris to p h . Ran. 1032 ff. Ο ρφ εύ ς. . . τελετά ς θ’ ή μ ϊν κατέδειξε, φ ό ν ω ν τ ’ όπτέχεσ θαι . . . , I · - · Η σ ίοδος δέ | γ η ς έ ρ γ α σ (α ς . . · , δ δέ θείος "Ο μ η ρ ο ς | . . . χ ρ ή σ τ έδίδαξεν κ τλ ., cf. ΐπτέδειξεν A r. Poet. 4, 1448 b 36 ("Ο μ η ρ ος) τ ά τ η ς κ ω μ ω δ ία ς σ χ ή μ α τ α τ ρ ω τ ό ς ύττέδειξεν ( a n d B y w a te r ’s n .) ; so to o in th e p assa g e o f th e Ars r e la te d to t h a t o f th e Frogs, b e lo w 4 0 4 (per carmina) uitae monstrata uia est, a n d 4 9 monstrare. . .abdita rerum', w i t h

164

Commentary in f., L u c r . v . 11 0 6 , a n d in th e s a tir ic a l p a ssa g e S. h . 8 . 5 1 -2 inulas ego p r im u s a m a ra s ) m o n stra u i incoquere, cf. T L L , v in . 1442. 82 if. H o m e ru s : A r is to tle d i d n o t a s c rib e th e 'i n v e n t i o n ’ o f th e h e x a m e te r to H o m e r , a n d A l e x a n d r i a n s c h o la rs t e n d e d to n a m e A p o llo , o r O r p h e u s a n d o t h e r m y th o lo g ic a l p e rs o n a g e s . T h u s a m e a s u re o f s c e p tic is m r e m a i n e d i n th e l e a r n e d t r a d i t i o n , w h ic h p e rs is te d a ll th e w a y d o w n t o t h e c o m p ila tio n s o f l a te a n tiq u ity . T h u s F rag. Berol. {G L , v i. 6 3 3 . 2 if.) hoc creditur ab A p o llin e inuentum uel ab eius sacerdote Phem onoe, et heroum idcirco a p p ella tu m quod H om erus ta li metro res gestas heroum sc r ip s it, M a l l i u s T h e o d o r u s (ibid. 5 8 9 . 20 ff.) inuentum p rim itu s ab O rp h e o . . .p e r m u lti a b H om ero {adserunt ), q u i p ro fecto . . .m etri h u iu s . . . a u t repertor a u t certe approbator f u i t . R o s ta g n i’s p o in t is th e re fo re w o rth

m a k in g t h a t H . d o e s n o t h e r e a t t r i b u t e th e h e x a m e te r to H o m e r , b u t r a t h e r its a p p l i c a t i o n i n e p ic p o e try . B u t th e r e m a y b e th e sa m e p o in t in 77 auctor, 79 A r c h ilo c h u m ; a n d 83 M u s a a n y w a y ev a d es th is q u e stio n . H . c o n c e r n s h im s e lf w i t h p o e ts e v o lv in g g e n re s in c e r ta in m e tre s, n o t w ith i n v e n t o r s o f r h y th m s . 75-8 : t h e e le g ia c c o u p le t, e le g y a n d e p ig ra m . T h is a c c o u n t ag re e s c lo se ly w i t h t h a t a t t r i b u t e d to t h e π ε ρ ί π ο ιη τ ώ ν o f th e A le x a n d ria n s c h o la r D id y m u s , a n o ld e r c o n te m p o r a r y o f H ., w h ic h a g r e e m e n t m a y , b u t n e e d n o t , b e a r o u t t h e w e ll-k n o w n re fe re n c e to th e p o e t’s o w n ti m e — adhuc sub iudice lis est (78)· D id y m u s is said b y O r io n {E tym o lo g icu m , c o l. 5 8 . 7 f f , ed . S tu r z (1 8 2 0 ), cf. E ty m . Gud. a n d E ty m . M a g n .) to d e r iv e ε λ ε γ ο ς fro m th e ευ λ έ γ ε ιν o f th e la m e n t, θρήνος, fo r th e d e a d , H . ’s querim onia', th is e ty m o lo g y is m e t elsew h ere. O t h e r e q u a ll y u n c o n v i n c i n g d e r iv a tio n s o f c o u rs e o c c u r (cf. A . S ev ery n s, Recherches su r la C hrestom . de Proclos, ix ( i 93 &)> 9 9 ®·)· T h e e^e §^a c c o u p l e t is n e x t lik e n e d to a t e a m o f h o rses, th e sec o n d h o rse n o t k e e p in g u p w i t h t h e first, H . ’s im pariter iunctis (75 n 0 > as th o u g h it w e re e x p i r i n g a n d d y in g a w a y c o n c u r r e n tly w ith th e fa te o f th e d y in g p e r s o n ’ : ο θ ε ν π ε ν τ ά μ ε τ ρ ο ν τ ω ή ρ ω ϊκ ώ σ υ ν ή π τ ο ν , ο υ χ ο μ ο δ ρ α μ ο ν ν τα τ ή τ ο ΰ π ρ ο τ έ ρ ο υ δ υ ν ά μ ε ι, ά λ λ ’ ο ϊο ν σ υ ν ε κ π ν έ ο ν τα και σ υ ν α π ο σ β ε ν ν ύ μ εν ο ν τ α ΐς τ ο ϋ τ ε λ ε υ τ ή σ α ν τ ο ς τύχο α ς. L a te r, D id y m u s c o n ­ tin u e s , e le g ia c v e rs e w a s a d d r e s s e d to a ll. A s fo r th e 'i n v e n t o r , th re e i n c o m p a t i b l e v ie w s a r e m e n tio n e d , o n e p a r ty fa v o u rin g A rc h ilo c h u s, a n o t h e r M i m n e r m u s , a n d a t h i r d C a llin u s o n g ro u n d s o f ag e . D id y m u s ’ d e s c r i p ti o n o f t h e m e tr e is h ig h ly m e ta p h o r ic a l a n d a p o e tic s o u r c e is n o t b y a n y m e a n s e x c lu d e d . F o r th e a n c ie n t v ie w o n ‘l a m e n t ’ a n d ‘ e le g y ’, see A . E . H a rv e y , ‘ T h e classific atio n o f G re e k ly r ic p o e t r y ’, C Q . n .s . v (1 9 5 5 ), 1 6 8 -7 2 . A c o n t e m p o r a r y n o te is, I b e lie v e , im p lie d in H ’s. c o n c e n tra tio n o n l a m e n t a n d v o tiv e e p ig r a m , to t h e e x c lu sio n , h e re as w ell as a t 402,

165

Commentary o f n a r r a tiv e a n d a m a to r y eleg y . C o n s id e rin g t h e a t t e n t i o n p a i d to lo v e lyric a few verses b e lo w (85) a n d th e p o p u l a r i t y o f lo v e elegy a t th e tim e, th e o m issio n c a n sc a rc e ly b e a c c id e n ta l, cf. P ro l. 2 0 5 , 225. 75 uersibus im pariter iunctis: O v id o fte n ex p resses th e id e a o f th e u n e q u a l p a ir, h e x a m e te r a n d p e n ta m e te r , s im p ly a n d e l e g a n t ly b y sa y in g t h a t th e verses th u s jo in e d are u n e q u a l. A m . n . 17· 21—2 carm inis. . . genus im par sed tamen apte j iungi tur herous cum breviore modo, n i. i . 37, A .A . i. 264, Pont. iv . 16. 11, 36, T r is t, π . 2 2 0 . H e la c k s H . s c h a ra c te ris tic e n e rg y a n d c o m p re ssio n : ‘in v e rse s unequally j o i n e d . T h is is ca lle d hypallage b y K .—H . T h e r e is a case fo r s a y in g t h a t H . ex p ressed su c c in c tly so m e s u c h im a g e r y a s t h a t c ite d f r o m D id y m u s ab o v e (7 5 -8 n .), w h ic h d o es n o t m a k e D id y m u s H . ’s ‘ s o u r c e ’ . T h e a d v e rb im pariter seem s to h a v e b e e n c o in e d fo r th e o c c a s io n : Q .. T e r e n tiu s S c a u ru s ap. C h a ris. In st. G r. 11. 13 (G L , 1. 2 0 2 . 2 6 if.) q u o tin g th is verse in com mentariis in artem poeticam libro X ‘ aduerbium inquit ‘fig u r a n ti’. [S c a u ru s is th e e a rlie s t k n o w n H o r a t i a n c o m m e n ­ ta to r , n o t e d ito r, o f th e tim e o f H a d r i a n ; fo r t h e c o m m e n t a r y , see W essn er, R - E , v a . 6 7 4 . 43 if.] A t a n y r a t e th e T L L d o e s n o t r e c o r d th e w o rd b e fo re th is p assa g e, a n d a f te rw a rd s n o t a g a in u n t i l B o e th iu s , w h o re q u ir e d i t a s a m a th e m a tic a l te rm . querimonia: a n a rc h a is m . I n P la u tu s a s w e ll a s in r e p u b l i c a n a n d s u b s e q u e n t p ro se it d e n o te s ‘c o m p la in t’ o r ‘ d i s p u t e ’. I t o f te n h a s a leg al fla v o u r ; a s l a t e a s th e J u s t in i a n C o d e it is u s e d fo r a s u it i n la w (H e u m a n n -S e c k e l, H andbuch z u den Q uellen des röm. R echts, s .v .), cf. querella. I n v erse a f te r P la u tu s querimonia is e x c e e d in g ly r a r e — a c c o r d ­ in g to th e m a te ria ls o f th e L a tin T h e s a u ru s o n ly a t C iris 4 6 2 , C arm . E p ig r. 2121. i i , A us. 391. 3 (p . 257 P .) , a ll d e n o tin g ‘l a m e n t ’. P e rh a p s H . p ic k e d u p th e o ld a n d fu ll-s o u n d in g w o r d in s p ite o f its p ro s a ic o v e rto n e s. H e u sed it h e re a n d C. 11. 20. 2 2 f o r ‘l a m e n t ’, C. I. 13. 19 fo r ‘q u a r r e l ’, a n d C. in . 24. 33 fo r ‘ c o m p l a i n t ’. 7 6 inclusa est: th e re a d in g s iunctis-iunctus—iuncta (est) a r e r ig h tly e x ­ p la in e d b y K e lle r, E p il. 742, a s a m e c h a n ic a l tr a n s p o s itio n fr o m 75 iunctis. F o r th e v e rb ‘f r a m e , e n s h r in e ’ (in r h y t h m o r v e rs e ), a n d its g ra m m a r, see S . 1. 10. 59 pedibus q u id claudere senis, π . i . 2 8 m e p e d ib u s delectat claudere nerba , C ic. O r. 2 2 9 num eris sententias. Ο ν . P o n t. iv . 16. 36, e t a l., T L L , m . 1309. 81 f f ; includo to o is u se d b y C ic. D e O r. n i. 184 w h e re th e m e ta p h o r is n o te d , a c o n tr a s t b e tw e e n uerba uersu includere a n d o r a tio .. .nere so lu ta ; fo r la t e r in s ta n c e s , see T L L , v n . i954 · 73 ffuoti sententia compos: v o tiv e e p ig ra m s, epigram m ata consecrationum , a s th e g r a m m a r ia n S a c e rd o s p a r a p h r a s e s ( G L , v i. 5 1 0 . 1 ); p s .- A c r o ’s s c h o liu m postea etiam laetae coeperunt scribi , p e r s u a d e d o l d e r c o m m e n -

166

Commentary ta to rs ( w r o n g ly as i t h a p p e n s ) t h a t th e lo v e ele g y w a s in v o lv e d . F ro m sensit se u o ti com potem esse th e sententia its e lf b e c o m e s uoti compos. C o m m o n ly i t is u o ti d a m n a tu s, reus, e tc . b u t uoti compos o c c u rs in A u g u s ­ ta n a n d S ilv e r L a t i n a l t h o u g h i t d o es n o t h a p p e n to b e re c o rd e d b e fo re th is p a s s a g e , T L L , in . 2137. 29 if. ; i t w as su ffic ie n tly e sta b lish e d to b e s h o r t e n e d u. c. i n in s c rip tio n s , T L L , ibid. 7 7 exig u o s elegos m a r k s th e c o n tr a s t to th e lo n g e p ic p o e m . T h e a d je c tiv e is p r o b a b l y lo a d e d , c a s tin g a s lu r o n C a llim a c h e a n p rid e in th e s m a ll a n d h ig h l y w r o u g h t p o e m . em ise rit ‘p u t o u t , p u b l i s h ’, as E p . 1. 20. 6 non erit emisso reditus tibi (sc. liber, cf. S u lp . S ev . ap. M a r t. Prooem . 2 ), C ic. Earn. v n . 33. 1 si quando a liq u id d ig n u m nostro nom ine em isim u s; T L L , v . 2. 508. 43 if. auctor ‘ o r i g i n a t o r ’ r a t h e r t h a n ‘ a u t h o r ’ ; p s .-A c ro q u is . . .inuenerit elegiacum m etru m . T h u s m o re o fte n w ith p rim u s, b u t cf. V e il. 1. 8. 1 certam en. . .a u cto rem Ip h itu m (h a b u it), e tc ., T L L , η . 1205. 31 ff. auctor is t h e n lik e ly to b e p r e d ic a tiv e , ‘ as o r ig in a to r ’. 7 8 g ra m m a tic i certant: n o t w ith o u t s a rc a s m as a t E p . 1. 19. 40 g ra m m a tica s am bire trib u s, a n d cf. π . i. 5 1 critici dicunt. adhuc su b iudice lis est: th e fa m o u s ta g s o u n d s le g a l, as it is m e a n t to d o . B u t i t o n l y s o u n d s le g a l. F o r m u la s ta k e n s tr a ig h t a n d u n c h a n g e d f r o m l a w , p h ilo s o p h y , l i te r a r y th e o r y , a r e r a r e in H . H is c u sto m a ry p r o c e d u r e is to m o d ify th e m so t h a t th e y c a rry n o m o re t h a n a s u g g e s tio n , le g a l, p h ilo s o p h ic a l o r lite ra ry . I n fa c t ev en th e slig h tly h a p h a z a r d c o lle c tio n o f p assa g es in T L L , v n . 2. 599· 59- ^2 m a kes o n e s u s p e c t t h a t sub iudice is a p o e tic is m ; a re n e w e d se a rc h i n th e m a te ria ls o f th e T h e sa u ru s, fo r w h ic h I a m o b lig e d to D r W . E h lers, co n firm s t h a t s u s p ic io n . T w o id io m s m a y b e d istin g u ish e d . E ith e r sub iudice m a y b e q u a l i f i e d b y a n a d j. o r n o u n , a n d c a n re p la c e th e m u c h m o re c o m m o n a p u d iudicem . S o e v e n la w y e rs o c c a sio n a lly w rite G a i. In st. tv . 104, 105, 109 sub uno iudice, A fric . ap. D i g · x l i v . i . 18 sub eodem iudice. B u t t h e b u l k o f th e in s ta n c e s co m e s fro m p o e ts, o r p o e tiz in g w r ite r s o f p r o s e . T h u s O v . M e t. x m . 190 sub iniquo iudice, V a l. M a x . tv . 6 . i m a g n o , L a u s P is . 29 legitim o. S il. x m . 6 0 3 sero; w ith a g e n itiv e , J u v . 4 . 12 s u b iudice m o ru m ; o r, w ith n o u n s in a p p o sitio n , O v . M e t. x i. t 5 6 indice sub T m o lo , L u c . x . 227 L ib r a , C a lp . E e l. 2. 9 T hyrsi, L ous P is. 6 5 p o p u lo . S ta t . T h e b . v n . 5 0 g m e. O r else th e re is n o a ttr ib u te o r a p p o s i t i o n ; t h i s id io m seem s e n tir e ly re s tr ic te d to verse a n d p o e tic p ro s e . I t o c c u rs firs t i n th e p r e s e n t H o r a tia n p assag e, n e x t in J u v . 7. *3 s i d ica s s u b iudice, a n d T a c . A n n . m . 3®· 3 quam ( A nniam ) fr a u d is sub iudice d a m n a u isset. Us o c c u r s i n a g e n u in e ly le g a l c o n te x t a t E p . 1. 16. 42 quo m u lta e . . .seca n tu r iudice lites. B u t a t S . n . 3. 103 litem quod lite resoluit th e w o r d s im p ly m e a n s ‘ c o n tro v e rs y , p ro b le m .

167

C o m m e n ta r y

79-82: ia m b u s, first in ia m b ic p o e tr y p r o p e r l y so c a lle d , t h e n in th e d ia lo g u e v erse o f d r a m a . 79 Archilochum: as a t Ep. 1. 19. 23 if. A rc h ilo c h u s is c r e d i t e d w ith a la rg e p o etic p o ste rity , th o u g h th e o ffsp rin g i n e a c h c a s e d if f e r s ; b u t th e Ars focuses o n ly o n g e n re a n d m e tr e , a n d m a k e s d o w i t h o u t th e d istin c tio n s o f th e m o re p e rso n a l a c c o u n t i n Ep. 1. 19. H . a g r e e s w ith th e te n o r o f p o s t-A risto te lia n (o rig in a lly A le x a n d r ia n ) s c h o la r s h ip , in c re d itin g A rc h ilo c h u s w ith th e Ια μ β ικ ή ιδέα , n o t , a s A r is to tle h a d d o n e a t Poet. ch . 4 , H o m e r o n a c c o u n t o f th e M argites. proprio is tra d itio n a lly u n d e r s to o d ‘ w h ic h th u s b e c a m e h is p r o ­ p e r t y ’ a n d R o s ta g n i claim s t h a t th e w o r d c o n f ir m s A r c h ilo c h u s as th e o rig in a to r o f ia m b ic v erse, in c o n tr a d is tin c tio n to e le g y . B u t S te id le , Studien, p . 4 8 n . 7, n o te s t h a t o w n e r s h ip is e x p r e s s e d b y Archilochum.. .rabies armauit iambo; so t h a t proprio g o es m o r e e a sily w ith rabies, cf. 81 aptum, 82 natum. T h e i a m b t h e n ‘ b e lo n g s ’ to in d ig ­ n a tio n . H e n c e a n e n d o rs e m e n t o f th e p o p u l a r e ty m o lo g y o f ία μ β ο ? fro m tónrrco, w h ic h c o u ld c la im A ris to tle ’s a d h e r e n c e . Poet. 4, 1448 b 32 ό τ ι iv τ ω μ έ τ ρ ω τ ο ύ τ ω ίά μ β ι^ ο ν ά λ λ ή λ ο υ ς . Epod. 6 . l i f f a n d Ep. i. 19, 3 0 -1 also d e sc rib e A rc h ilo c h u s t h e h a t e r . 80 T h e o r d e r c o m e d y - tr a g e d y is o n e o f th e f e a tu r e s d is tin g u is h in g th is p assa g e fro m th e m o re c u t- a n d - d r ie d a c c o u n ts o f m o s t o f t h e l a t e r h a n d b o o k s , in w h ic h th e m a j o r g e n r e o f t r a g e d y p r e c e d e s c o m e d y . T h e p r im a c y o f tra g e d y is n o t i n v a r ia b le h o w e v e r ; n o te , fo r e x a m p le , th e se q u e n c e c o m e d y —tra g e d y i n P o llu x 4 . 53 (1. 2 1 6 e d . B e th e ) a n d M a riu s V ic to rin u s ( GL , v i. 5 0 . 1 0 ). A ll H . n e e d h a v e in m in d h e r e is th e e a sy a n d n a t u r a l tr a n s itio n fr o m th e ‘a t t a c k ’ o f A rc h ilo c h u s ’ ia m b ic s to t h a t o f c o m e d y . A c c o r d in g to R o s ta g n i , H · w as also re m e m b e rin g A ris to tle ’s a sse rtio n t h a t tr a g e d y u s e d t r o c h a i c te tra m e te rs in its d ia lo g u e b e fo re i t c h a n g e d to i a m b i c tr im e te r s {Poet. 4 , 1449 a 2 1). F o r th is I see n o e v id e n c e i n t h e p r e s e n t p a s s a g e . E lse w h e re H . ’s c o n te x t d iv e rg e s, a s i t d o e s b e lo w 2 7 5 ff., a n d I h a v e a r g u e d t h a t th e o rig in s o f d r a m a a t E p. 11. 1. 145 ff. h a v e d i f f e r e n t , H e lle n istic , affilia tio n s, cf. Varron. F o n d a t i o n H a r d t , ix (1 963)» 187 fr. socci. . .coturni: th e ‘s o c k ’ o r s lip p e r o f c o m e d y s ta n d s f o r th e g e n re a s a t 9 0 ; so d o e s coturnus, th e b u s k in o f t r a g e d y , w i t h a lik e m e to n y m y , C. 11. 1. 11—i q grande mums | Cecropio repetes coturno, V irg · E. 8. i o Sophocleo . . .carmina digna coturno, cf. T L L , iv . 1 0 8 7 . 6 8 f f C f. b e lo w 2 8 0 magnumque loqui nitique coturno, b u t in c o m e d y Ep. 11. 1 · 74 quam non adstrictopercurratpulpita socco ( P la u tu s ) . T h e a n tith e s is is f u lly e sta b lis h e d , cf. O v . R.A. 375—6 grande sonant tragici: tragicos decet ira cotumos; j usi bus e mediis soccus habendus erit, Pont. iv . 16. 2 9 —3 0 . T h e 168

Commentary s p e llin g coturnus f o r cothurnus κόθορνος is su g g ested b y th e b e st M S S o f V ir g il, H . ’s c o d . R , a n d o th e rs . g ra n d es, pace R o s ta g n i, is n o t p r o le p tic w ith cepere: ‘so t h a t tra g e d y b e c a m e g r a n d i o s e ’. I fin d n o a llu s io n to A r. Poet. 4 , 1449 a 20 f. όψε ά π ε σ ε μ ν ύ ν θ η , τ ό τ ε μ έτρ ο ν εκ τ ε τ ρ α μ έ τ ρ ο υ ϊαμβεϊον έγένετο. grandes is a n a t t r i b u t e o f coturni d e n o tin g th e ir size a n d m e ta p h o ric a lly th e e l e v a t e d n a t u r e o f tr a g e d y , cf. th e in sta n c e s ju s t c ite d ; th e a d j. is a p p l i e d to s ty le f r o m C ic e ro o n w a r d ( T L L , v i. 2185. 52 if.), a n d is so u s e d a t 27 a b o v e . 8 1 —2 T h r e e c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e ia m b ic (trim e te r) a re a sse rted : its a p tn e s s fo r d ia lo g u e , fo r o v e r c o m in g th e h u m o f th e a u d ie n c e , a n d fo r e m b o d y i n g a c tio n . T h e firs t a n d t h i r d a re k n o w n fro m A risto tle : R h e t. h i. 8 , 1 4 0 8 b 3 3 ff. ό δ ’ ία μ β ο ς α υ τ ή έσ τιν ή λέξις ή τ ω ν π ο λ λ ώ ν , δ ιό μ ά λ ισ τ α π ά ν τ ω ν τ ω ν μ έ τρ ω ν ία μ β ε ϊα φ θ έ γ γ ο ν τ α ι λέγο ντες, cf. n i. i , 1 4 0 4 a 31 ff.. P o et. 2α , 1459 a 12 ff., a n d esp e cially 4 ,1 4 4 9 a 24 if. i a m b i c as t h e m e t r e ‘ a p t ’, οίκεΐον, fo r c o n v e rsa tio n , 24, 1460 a 1, i a m b i c a s κ ιν η τ ικ ό ν a n d π ρ α κ τ ικ ό ν . T h e s e a n d l a te r d o ctrin e s, T h e o p h r a s t e a n a n d o t h e r , a r e a d a p te d t o th e c o n d itio n s o f R o m a n r h e t o r i c b y C ic . ( D e O r. m . 182, O r. 189, 191), Q u in tilia n a n d la te r w r ite r s . H . ’s s e c o n d c h a r a c te r is tic m a y u ltim a te ly b e b a se d , as R o s t a g n i a s s e rts , o n th e s h a r p r h y th m ic a l c h a r a c te r o f th e m e tre ( A r is to tle ’s κ ιν η τ ικ ό ν ? ) b u t is in d e b te d to la te r discussion. F o r C icero l ik e H . g o e s b e y o n d A ris to tle in a sse rtin g . D e Or. h i . 182 sed sunt in sig n es p ercu ssio n es eorum num erorum et m in u ti pedes, a n d likew ise Q u in t. 1 . 0 . ix . 4 . i ß ß s u n t {iam bi) e duabus modo syllabis eoque Jrequentiorem q u a si p u ls u m h a bent, quae res len ita ti contraria est, cf. ibid, aspera. . . ia m b is m a x im e concitatur. N e it h e r C ic e ro n o r Q u in tilia n h o w e v e r m ak es H . ’s a d d i t i o n a l p o i n t , w h ic h is o w e d to o b s e rv a tio n in th e R o m a n t h e a t r e , a n d a m a r k a g a in s t d r a m a i n th e A ugustus {Ep. 11. 1. 182 ff., p a r tic u la rly 2 0 0 -1 ). 8 1 a lte rn is a p tu m serm onibus: th e p h ra s in g as E p . 11. 1. 146 uersibus a lte rn is opp ro b ria rustica f u d i t , th e ia m b ic s in d ia lo g u e o r c o n v e rsa tio n as A r . P o et. 4 , 1 4 4 9 a 2 6 - 7 π λ ε ϊσ τ α y à p ία μ β εϊα λέγομ εν έν τ η δ ια λ εκ τω τ η π ρ ο ς ά λ λ ή λ ο υ ς , C ic . D e O r. a n d O r. c ite d in th e p re c e d in g n o te . 8 2 ( po p u la res) uincentem strepitus as E p . n . 1. 203 tanto cum strepitu lu d i sp ecta n tu r. n a tu m rebus a g en d is, cf.

377

,. a n im is n atum inuentumque poema im a n d is.

B o th t h e m e t a p h o r , ‘d e s tin e d , d e s ig n e d ’, a n d th e c o n stru c tio n w ith d a t . g e r u n d i v e , a r e fu lly e s ta b lis h e d in a r c h a ic a n d classical L a tin ; f o r t h e c o n s t r u c ti o n see H o f m a n n —S z a n ty r, 377· rebus agen ir re c a s A r i s t o t l e ’s π ρ α κ τ ικ ό ν (c ite d 8 1 - 2 n .) . F o r th e im p lie d re e re n c e to t e d i a l o g u e o f d r a m a , see 179 a u t a g i t u r res in scaenis au t a c ta refer ur. 169

C o m m e n ta r y

83— 5: ly ric verse. H . selec ts f o u r o f th e m a j o r g r o u p s in to w h ic h th e A le x a n d ria n s seem to h a v e d iv id e d ly ric v e rse — h y m n s o r o t h e r c u l t p o e m s a n d εγκ ώ μ ια , n e x t επ ιν ίκ ια , ε ρ ω τικ ά , σ κ ό λ ια ; t h r e e o f th e m a re stro n g ly re p re s e n te d i n H . ’s o w n v e rse . T h e r e is s o m e e m p h a s is in th e w o rd in g (83 n .) , a n d p e r h a p s in th e f in a l p o s itio n , o n t h e H o r a tia n g e n re , th e ly ric. L . M u e lle r (ed. 1891, 83 n .) is p u z z le d b y t h e la c k o f a c o n n e c tiv e p a r tic le a t 83, b u t th e g e n re s a r e in tr o d u c e d w i t h o u t s u c h e x t e r n a l lin k s also a t 73, 75, 79, 80. 83 M u sa dedit: fo r ly ric v erse th e le a r n e d t r a d i t i o n h a d n o e a r ly re p re s e n ta tiv e o f th e s ta n d in g o f H o m e r o r A r c h ilo c h u s t o o ffe r. T h e few te n ta tiv e a ssig n m e n ts in P ro c iu s ’ a c c o u n t, f o r e x a m p l e , a r e re s tric te d to s u c h su b d iv isio n s as th e d i t h y r a m b . H e n c e h e r e th e d iv in e in s p ire r receiv es a m e n tio n ; h e n c e to o a p a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s is o n th e in s p ira tio n o f th e ly ric p o ets. T h e tw o p a s s a g e s t h a t s p r in g to m in d d iffe r in sco p e a n d p h ra s in g : E p . n . 1. 133 u a tem n i M u s a dedisset, a n d A .P . 4 0 6 -7 ne fo r te pudori | s i t tib i M u s a lyrae sollers e t cantor A polloT h è g r a m m a r , ‘ th e M u se h a s g iv e n to th e i n s t r u m e n t t o s i n g ’ e tc ., is o n ly p a r tly p a r a lle le d b y 323—4 G rats d ed it ore rotundo | M u s a loqui, C. ii . 16. 39 ff., S . ri. 3. 191 ( a n d s im ila r in s ta n c e s , T L L , v . 1. 1689. 2 ff.) in t h a t th e in d ire c t o b je c t h e re is im p e rs o n a l. T h e p a r a p h r a s e in p s.-A cro a n d S ch o l. V in d o b ., M u s a dedit referre d iu o s . . -fidibus (a b l.), is h o w e v e r im p la u s ib le . diuos puerosque deorum re c a lls G re e k fo rm u la s s u c h a s π α ϊ δ ε ς θ ε ώ ν P in d a r, Is . 3. 19, JVe. 9. 27, P y. 4. 13, a n d th e w h o le p h r a s e e .g . i n P la to , L eg. x . 910 a Θεοϊς κ α ί δ α ίμ ο σ ιν καί π α ι σ ίν θ ε ώ ν , P o ly b . in . 47 · 8 θεούς καί θεώ ν τταϊδας. Gf. C. 1. ΐ2 . 1—3 quem u tru m a u t heroa . . · quem deum?, iv , q. 1 3 - 1 4 seu deos regesque canit, deorum s a n g u in e m ’, a ls o A .P . 114 d iu u s . . .heros, 2 2 7 d e u s . . .heros. T h e tw o m e t r i c a ll y c o n ­ v e n ie n t v a r ia n ts a r e c o m b in e d fo r r h e to r ic a l e ffe c t a s b y S ii. i n . 6 2 3 0 nate deum diuosque d ature’, a t Apocol. 9. 5 S e n e c a is p u n n i n g , *censeo u ti diuus C laudius ex hoc die deus s i t ’, p u er, lik e G r e e k π α ϊ ς , is a p o e t i c a lte r n a tiv e fo r filiu s (C ic. A m . 70 deo ru m . . .filii) r a r e l y u s e d w i t h o u t im p lic a tio n o f ag e, as it is h e r e , a n d C . n . 18. 3 2 —4 aequa te llu s | pauperi recluditur j regumque pueris, iv . 8 . 22—3 Ilia e | M a u o rtisq u e p u e r, m o re o fte n w ith s u c h a n im p lic a tio n , e .g . th e D io s c u r i C . ι. 12. 2 5 , o r B a c c h u s C . 1. 19. 2. iuuenes a t C . 11. iq . 7 is s im ila r , t h o u g h t h i s is d e n ie d b y K .- H . W o rd s lik e h y m n s a n d e n c o m ia a r e a v o id e d a s a r e m o s t k i n d s o f te rm in o lo g y in th e A rs.

84. epinicia, th e songs o f v ic to ry s e le c te d a s in a n c ie n t h a n d b o o k s , a n d a p p a r e n tly in th e A le x a n d r ia n e d itio n o f S im o n id e s ( t h o u g h n o t 170

Commentary o f P in d a r o r B a c c h y lid e s ), a c c o rd in g to k in d s o f co n tests; tw o victors a r e p ic k e d o u t, b o t h a m e n a b le to R o m a n sen tim en t, th e b o x e r a n d th e ra c e h o rs e . T h e r u n n e r is c e e b ra te d as v icto r in G reek epinicia’, th u s P in d a r a n d B acc h y lid e s c e le b ra te th e h o rse tellin g ly n a m e d Φ ερένικος ( P in d a r , 01 . i . i8 fF ., P y. 3. 74, B acchy. 5. 3 7 -4 0 , 182-6). T h e s a m e s e le c tio n is m a d e in C. iv. 2. 1 7 -1 8 ; iv. 3. 3 -6 p re fe r th e b o x e r a n d th e c h a rio te e r. A .P . 84 equum, co u ld b e gen. pi. ( K .- H .) , b u t b o t h th e b a la n c e o f th e se n te n c e a n d th e p a ra lle l passages from C. i v m a k e fo r th e a c c . I n pugilem uictorem et equum certamine prim um th e s e c o n d w o r d is m o re lik ely to b e a q u a si-a d je c tiv a l ap p o sitio n b a la n c ­ in g p rim u m t h a n a p re d ic a tiv e w ith referre. N o u n s in -tor specially fu lfille d t h a t fu n c tio n fro m th e A u g u sta n s o n w a rd , cf. H o fm a n n S z a n ty r , p. 157, p a r a . 9 2 ; s u c h lo cu tio n s as exercitus uictor sta n d o u t { T L L , V. 2. 1397. 3 4 ). «5 iuuenum cu ra s: hoc est amores quos lyrici celebrant (P o rp h .), th e p re d e c e s s o r o f lo v e eleg y (a b o v e 75—8 η ·)> ερω τικ ά in A le x a n d ria n p a r la n c e , cura, a te ll-ta le w o rd in th is c o n tex t, is close in sense to amor, cf. E p o d . 2. 37. T h e w o rd , so fo u n d from P la u tu s o n w a rd , is f a m ilia r fro m lo v e ele g y { T L L , iv . 1 4 7 4 · 80 ff.). libera uina d e n o t e s d r i n k i n g s o n g s , σκόλια o r τταροίνια. Λυαΐος s u g g e s t e d λύειν t o t h e G r e e k s a n d a t a r e m o v e soluere t o t h e R o m a n s , cf. E p o d . 9. 38 dulci Lyaeo soluere’, s o L ib e r - ’Ελεύθερος s u g g e s t e d liberare. A f r e q u cordia L ib e r, E p . h

e

c o

n

t r a s t e d

e n 1 .

t h

t

m

5 . e

o t i f , 1 6

l i g

h

f f . t h

e . g . S . 1 . 4 · 8 9 condita cum uerax aperit prae­ dissignat, recludit, exim it, solutum. ‘ A s t h o u g h

e a r t e d

n

e s s

o

f

t h

l o v e r ’ s c a r e s ’ ( W i c k h a m ) . C f . S t a t . S ilo . flu eb a n t, 4 5 libertas reuerentiam remisit.

e

b

1 .

6 .

a n 4 1

q

u

e t

w

i t h

t h

e

y o u n g

non s^c Ubera uina tunc

86—8 T w o fo rc e fu l rh e to r ic a l q u estio n s p re se n t a resum e, a n d m a rk a n e w c o n te x t. I t is o n ly b y lo o k in g b a c k from this p o in t t h a t th e p r e c e d in g s e c tio n , lin es 7 3 -8 5 , falls in to place. T h e little passage b a la n c e s th e a b r u p tn e s s b y w h ic h th e re a d e r h a s b ee n sta rtle d a t 73. T h e r e w ith o u t w a r n in g a n e w a r g u m e n t w as p re se n te d to h im new in t h e m e th o d o f c o n v e n tio n a l te a c h in g . H o m e r h a d b ro u g h t to ­ g e t h e r o n e k in d o f m e tre a n d o n e k in d o f su b ject-m a tter, th u s c r e a tin g a ‘g e n r e ’ ; o th e r m e tre s a n d subjects follow ed. B ut it is only n o w , a t 8 6 , w h e n th e slow b u ild in g u p o f th e co n tex t has alre a d y e s ta b lis h e d it, t h a t th e se d ifferen ces a re g iven n am es : descriptas uices, g e n re s , a n d operum colores, styles. T h ese genres a n d styles, w e a re to ld b rie f ly a n d v ig o ro u sly (8 7 ), c a ll fo r ta le n t a n d te c h n iq u e . T e c h n iq u e — t h a t is, ta l e n t m a d e effective— a p p e a re d in th e in itia l p a r t o f th e p o e m ; t h e r e i t w a s p ro c la im e d as th e fo u n d a tio n o f all artistic e n d e a v o u r . T e c h n iq u e w ill re m a in a m a jo r m o tif th ro u g h o u t th e

171

Commentary p o e m . W h e re th e re is t h a t s o rt o f te c h n i q u e , ars i n t h e H o r a tia n sense, ‘a p p ro p ria te n e s s ’ w ill fo llo w . T h i s i d e a is s lo w ly m a d e to im p in g e o n th e r e a d e r ’s a tte n tio n : 8 6 descriptas seruare uices, a n d e a rlie r i n 74 possent, 79 proprio, 81 aptum, 8 2 natura', i n t h e n e x t s e c tio n cf. 92 n . In m o re m e c h a n ic a l la n g u a g e , t h e p r e s e n t t h r e e v e rse s a r e a lin k p a s s a g e ’ o r ‘g lid in g tr a n s i t i o n ’ : descriptas uices a s w e ll as operumque colores sum u p th e g e n re s o f t h e p r e c e d i n g p a s s a g e a n d p o in t fo rw a rd to th e sty listic d isc u ssio n o f th e fo llo w in g p a s s a g e ; cf. P . C a u e r, R M , l x i (1 9 0 6 ), 235. 86 descriptas.. .uices operumque colores: t h e w o r d s a r e d is tr ib u te d o v e r th e tw o lim b s o f th e p h ra s e , in s te a d o f operum descriptas uices et colores, i.e. descriptas goes w ith b o th t h e fo llo w in g n o u n s ( t h o u g h o f co u rse ta k in g its g e n d e r fro m th e a d jo in in g uices) a n d operum is m e a n t to a c c o m p a n y uices as w e ll a s colores a s G . T . A . K r ü g e r su g g e ste d (1 5 th e d . 1908) ; cf. som e o f th e in s ta n c e s n o te d b y H o u s m a n , M a n . i· 2 6 9 -7 0 n ., e.g . H o r. S. 11. 2. 1 2 1 -2 . T o u n d e r s t a n d numerorum (H e in ze) o r e v e n generum w ith uices a n d c o n n e c t operum o n l y w ith colores d e p riv e s b o t h th e p re c e d in g a n d s u b s e q u e n t s e c tio n o f t h e ir j o i n t re fe re n c e . descriptas c o d d . a n d sc h o l., discriptas b y c o n je c tu r e f r e q u e n t l y fro m th e s ix te e n th c e n tu r y o n w a rd , see a p p . e r it, describo is n o t h e r e d e s c rib e ’ (th e m e a n in g a lle g e d b y p s .-A c ro a n d m a n y o th e r s ) b u t d e fin e , la y d o w n , d e te r m in e , e s ta b lis h ’ ; discribo is ‘ d i s t r i b u te , a p p o r tio n , a s s ig n ’. T h e fa sh io n o f in c re a s in g th e d o m a i n o f discribo b y e m e n d a tio n w as s ta r te d b y B u e c h e le r i n 1858 ( t h e a r t i c l e r e p r i n t e d K l. Sehr. i. 1 3 5 -4 0 ), a n d still m a rs H e in z e ’s n o t e o n th is p a s s a g e . C ic e ro n ia n id io m h o w e v e r resists w h o le sa le e m e n d a t io n a n d p r e p a r e s d ie g r o u n d fo r H ., e.g. Fin. in . 74 natura, qua nihil est a p t i u s , nihil d e s c rip tiu s , Sen. 5 cum ceterae partes aetatis bene descriptae sint, extremum actum tamquam ab inerti poeta esse neglectum, w h e r e J . S . R e i d ’s n o te e x p la in s th e u n s u ita b ility o f a v e r b d e n o t i n g ‘a s s i g n m e n t ’. C f. V a h le n , C ic. Leg. m , 12 n ., K e lle r , E pil. 743, V e tt e r , T L L , v . 1. 664. 7, H o u s m a n , M a n . 11. 8 2 8 n ., in . 5 3 9 n . ( , seruare: n o t *p re s e rv e ’, e.g . 3 2 9 , 3 3 2 , b u t a s o f te n = obseruare, e e d , a d h e r e t o ’, Ep. 1. 16. 41 qui consulta patrum, qui leges iuraque servat, π. 2 . 1 3 1 -2 munia recto | more. ukes (sc. operum) is rig h tly p a r a p h r a s e d uarietates b y p s .- A c r o . aie Gic. ®r · m · 2 ϊ 3 if·. Q u i n t . L O . XI, c h . 3 ). V ir g . A . v i. 4 9 2 -3 tollere uocem \ exiguam is p r o b a b l y f o r m e d o n th e m o d e l o f tollere clamorem, a n d clamor follo w s s u it in t h e n e x t lin e . S ta t. S ilv . 1. 6 . 81 to llunt innumeras a d a s tra uoces is n o t fu lly r e le v a n t a n d th e m a te r ia l o f th e T L L offers n o f u r th e r in s ta n c e w i t h uox u n t i l G e ll. x v i. 19. 14 noce sublatissim a. B u t th e a r c h a i c c o m p o u n d attollere is u se d w ith uocem b y p o ets, p o e tic iz in g h is to r ia n s a n d S ilv e r w rite r s . T L L , 11. 1 1 5 1· 79 ®f* cites i t first fro m S e n . E p . 75. 2 nec supploderem p e d e m . . .nec attollerem uocem, sed ista oratoribus reliquissem . I n o te p a r tic u la r ly , fo r its re le v a n c e to H ., Q u in t. L O . Xi. g . 6 5 a tto llitu r autem (uox) concitatis affectibus, compositis descendit pro u triu sq u e rei m odo a ltiu s u el inferius. 94 ira tu sq u e C hrem es is o f te n id e n tifie d w ith C h re m e s, th e a n g r y f a th e r o f T e r . H e a u t. v . 4 (e .g . b y A . d i B e n e d e tto , E c h i te re n z ia n i in O r a z i o ’, R e n d . d e W A c c ____ d i N a p o li, xxxvii (1 9 6 2 ), 42 f·)· T h is is n o t

im p o s s ib le b u t t h e s im ila r ity is slig h t. T h e a n g r y fa th e r is a sto ck fig u re i n N e w C o m e d y a n d th e n a m e C h re m e s m u s t h a v e o c c u rre d f r e q u e n tly . H . k n e w h o w t o d i r e c t a tte n tio n to a specific sce n e o f 12

177

B II A

Com m entary

comedy when he wanted to, as he did at S. 3. 259 with the begin­ ning of Terence’s Eunuchus. The short-lived chagrin in the Heauton, as Wickham says, cannot easily be described by tumido delitigat ore. Again a similar scene at S. 1. 4. 48 ff. et pater ardens ] saeuit, etc. belongs to a different play. So does the Chremes of Epod. 1. 33 · S. i. 10. 40-2 alludes to work by Fundanius. tumido delitigat ore: impassioned bearing and style here obviously condoned, but elsewhere frequently frowned upon by literary critics. For example. Gell. 11. 23. 21 uersussunt hi Caecili. consarcinantis uerba tragici tumoris; Euanth. De fabulis 3. 5 (Donat. Comm. Ter. ed. Wessner, 1. 20) illud quoque inter Terentianas uirtutes mirabile quod eius fabulae eo sunt temperamento ut neque extumescant ad tragicam celsi­ tudinem neque, etc. ; Donat. Comm. Ter., Andria Praef. 1. 5 καταστροφή paene tragica, et tamen repente ex his turbis in tranquillum peruenitur] Ad. 638 pepulisti: elatum uerbum et tragico coturno magis quam loque­ lae comicae accommodatum; ibid. 789, on the other hand, im­ passioned speech is approved, even adm ired: pro rei magnitudine, etc., mira αύξησή quam imitatus Vergilius in Orpheo, etc. uide hic gradus doloris et iracundiae in tantum auctos ut iam crescere non possint, etc. And in his note on the next line of Terence, Donatus cites this Horatian verse to illustrate his point. delitigat: only here in classical Latinity; like denato ( C. in. 7. 28) and deproelior (C. 1. 9. 11) possibly a Horatian coinage. For formation and context desaeuit may be compared (a word not on record until Virgil), Ep. I. 3. 14 an tragica desaeuit et ampullatur in arte? S t Jerome, citing the present passage, probably from memory, put the more usual desaeuiet instead of the rare delitigat. To H .’s ear de must have been an expressive, and to his mind a meaningful, prefix ; the number of de compounds is large, see D. Bo, Bor. Op. in, 385. Moreover, H. s δτταξ λεγόμενα, as far as verbs are concerned, apart from four (ampullari Graecari, iuuenari, and scurrari), are all compounds, see D. Bo, op. cit. hi. 393-4. This is clearly an important aspect of the poet’s verbal imagination. 95—8 (1) In many editions these lines are marked off from 93"4 by a semicolon (earlier even by a full stop), but 93 et (comoedia) and 95 e t ( tragicus) should be seen to correspond. (2) Punctuation in the rest of the passage has in my opinion been settled by Peerlkamp and Vahlen, yet editors do not regard it as settled. I am persuaded by Vahlen’s argument ( H , xn (1877), 189-90) that Telephus and Peleus can scarcely be said to express their sufferings plerumque. To avoid that, Bentley’s and certain other editors’ punctuation should be abandoned. The clause 95 should not be allowed to run on to 96 178 n .

.

,

.

C o m m en ta ry Peleus ; a c o m m a a fte r 95 pedestri (as in H e in z e ’s a n d K lin g n e r’s

e d itio n s ) re s to re s sense as w e ll as b a la n c e w ith 93. O ccasionally, H . is s a y in g , c o m e d y raises its v oice a n d (i.e. w hen) C hrem es m akes his c o m p la in ts ; o c c a sio n a lly (cf. plerumque, 95 η.) a tra g ic personage (i.e. tr a g e d y ) lo w ers th e level o f style w h e n (cum) T ele p h u s an d P e le u s g iv e u p t h e ir h ig h -flo w n la n g u a g e . V a h le n n o te d also th a t p le ru m q u e . . .cu m a r e r e la te d a t 95—6 as th ey are a t 14-16. (3) F o r the p u n c t u a t i o n o f p a u p e r . . . uterque, erro n eo u s, I believe, in all re cen t e d itio n s , see 96 n . 95 tragicus: n o t a d je c tiv a l, w ith Telephus et Peleus (used, th e y say, lik e S. ix. 5. 91 D a u u s . . .com icus o r C ic. P is. 47 tragico illo Oreste aut A th a m a n te ), b u t a n o u n , th e tra g ic a c to r o r dramatis persona, as P lau t. Pers. 4 6 5 - 6 tragici et comici | num quam aeque sunt meditati (like tragoedi or comici, Poen. 5 8 1 , R u d . 1249), a n d p ro b a b ly P etro n . 132. 13 quidam tragici. plerum que: see 93 n . interdum. sermone pedestri lik e sermoni propiora o f sa tire , c o m p a re d w ith com edy a t S . i. 4 .4 2 , 45 if. ; cf. S . i i . 6 .1 7 saturis musaquepedestri, E p. 11. 1. 250-1 serm ones . . . | repentes p er hum um , A .P . 229 hum ili sermone. T h is is

H o r a t ia n la n g u a g e fo r A risto tle ’s εάν δέ ελεεινά, τα π ειν ώ ς (λέγειν), 28 ά π λ ο ΰ ν γ ά ρ είναι β ο ύ λ ε τα ι κ α ί ά π ο ίη τ ο ν τ ό π ά θ ο ς, ομ οίω ς δ έκ α ί τ ο ήθος, cf. Ρ. Shorey,

R het. in . 7, 1408 a 1 8 -1 9 . D e m e tr. Interpr.

C

P

,

i

( 1 9 0 6 ) ,

2 9 3 -4 ·

9 6 Telephus et Peleus: T e le p h u s is o n e o f th e fa v o u rite personages o f G re e k a n d R o m a n tra g e d y ; h e figures in th e list o f those few ab o u t w h o se h o u s e s α ί κ ά λ λ ισ τα ι τ ρ α γ ω δ ία ι συντίθενται (Ar. Poet. 13, J453 a 19), cf. S c h w e n n , R - E , iv a . 366, H . D . Jo c e ly n , The Tragedies o f E n n iu s, p p . 4 0 4 ff. P eleu s is a su b je c t o f tragedies b y Sophocles, E u rip id e s , a n d P a c u v iu s, cf. Lesky, R - E , x ix . 3°4 E p a u p er et exsul uterque: H e in z e com m ents, ‘uterque: a b e r pauper g eht m e h r a u f T e le p h u s , exsul m e h r a u f P e le u s’. B ut e ith e r th e tw o ad jec­ tives a p p ly to b o th o r th e y d o n o t. I am te m p te d therefore to go f u r th e r th a n H e in z e , a n d sa y th a t, a lth o u g h T ele p h u s left his c o u n try to fin d h is h e a le r, h e w as n o t like P eleu s exiled. E n n iu s regnum reliqui saeptus m endici stola (fr. 282 Jo c e ly n ) a n d . . . squalida saeptus stola (fr. 2 8 1 ), o r s im ila r G re e k passag es, d o n o t m ak e h im exsul. T ele p h u s is pauper, π τ ω χ ό ς , in A ris to p h a n e s ; it is P eleus w ho is exsul, e.g. έκβέβληκεν, E u r . T ro. 1128 a n d έκ β εβ λ ή σ θ α ι. . . έξεληλάσθαι, schob ibid, uterque s h o u ld th e re fo re g o w ith proicit a n d to signify this, the p u n c t u a t i o n p ro p o s e d b y M a rc iliu s, G esner, D oering, a n d especially P e e r lk a m p , s h o u ld b e re s to re d , a c o m m a before uterque, th u s: cum, pauper et exul, uterque | proicit. I n fa c t th is verse m a y be claim ed as a 179

12-2

Commentary v a r ia tio n o f a ‘d o u b le z e u g m a ’, uterque p r o ic it ~ p ro iciu n t, cf. C R , L v m (1 944), 4 3 -5 . et, n o t out, p r e d o m in a te s i n th is l o c u t i o n ; t h e r e is n o n e e d fo r B e n tle y ’s c o n je c tu re . I n o te t h a t in tw o o f t h e m o r e ex ­ tr e m e cases uterque o c c u rs, a n d is s u b d iv id e d in t h e s a m e m a n n e r as i t is h e re , cf. T a c . A n n . 1. 55. 9 a n d in . 6 3 . 16, a n d m y r e m a r k s C R , LVII! (3944.), 44. 9 7 proicit, lik e abicit, m a y e m p h a s iz e t h e n o tio n o f c a s tin g a sid e , a b a n d o n in g , S. 11. 3. 100—1 aurum | in m e d ia . . .L ib y a , 7 . 5 3 proiectis insignibus. T h e n u a n c e a t 462 d iffe rs. am pullas ‘b o m b a s t’ : id est irata nerba, in fla ta , g ra n d ia ; o m ittit orationem tum idam et inflatam (p s.-A c ro ). T h e s a m e n o tio n is c la im e d b y L . - S . - J . , b u t th e tw o re fere n ces c ite d c o m e fr o m L a t i n l i t e r a t u r e , C ic . A t t . 1. *4 - 3 nosti illa s λη κ ύθους a n d P lin . E p . 1. 2. 4 M a r c ì no stri λ η κ ύ θ ο υ ς ; a n d in b o th cases th e c o n te x t see m s to m a k e f o r ‘ c o s m e tic s , e m b e llis h ­ m e n ts , cf. D . R . S . B a ile y , Cic. L e tte rs to A ttic u s , 14 (1. 1 4 ). 3 n -> a lth o u g h J . H . Q u in c e y , C Q ^ l x i ii (1 9 4 9 ), 3 2 - 4 4 , e s p e c ia lly 3 8 ,4 2 , a n d ^*· T h ie ls c h e r, F estschrift F . D o rn seiff (L e ip z ig 1 9 5 3 ), 3 3 4 —7 1 ■> esP e" c ia lly 356, a r e in c lin e d to d e n y it. N e v e rth e le s s th is m e a n i n g is im p la u s ib le a t V irg . C at. 5 . 1, a n d is e x c lu d e d h e r e b y H . ’s c o n c e rn in th is p a s s a g e w ith b o m b a s t a n d s o n o ro u s l a n g u a g e ; a d e c is io n b e tw e e n e n u n c ia tio n (sonus raucae uocis) a n d sty le ( tu m o r tra g icu s), w h ic h w o rrie s R . E . H . W e s te n d o r p B o e r m a {C at. 5 . 1 n .) , is h a r d ly c a lle d fo r. T h a t λήκ υθοι ‘ b o m b a s t * e x is te d i n G r e e k is s h o w n b y th e c o m m e n ts o f a n c ie n t g r a m m a r ia n s a n d b y C a llim a c h u s , w h o a p p lie d μ ο ύ σ α λη κ υ θ ί^ ο υ σ α to tr a g e d y (fr. 215 w ith P fe iff e r’s n o t e ) ; b u t th e n o tio n is lik ely t o b e o ld e r. P o r p h y r io n c le a r ly h a s C a llim a c h u s ta g in m in d w h e n h e say s, hoc a C allim acho s u s tu lit, q u o d d icit — · U n f o r tu n a te ly th e r e s t o f th e sc h o lio n is lo s t, b u t t h e l a c u n a o f 14 le tte rs a fte r dicit in co d . P w o u ld a c c o m m o d a te o n e o f t h e v a r ia n t s o f th e C a llim a c h e a n fr a g m e n t, e i t h e r μ ο ύ σ α ν λ η κ υ θ ία ν o r λ. μ ., cf. P feiffer a d I., T h ie ls c h e r, op. cit. 360—2. A t E p . 1. 3 . 14 a n tra g ica desaeuit et am pullatur in a rte? t h e c o n te x t is id e n tic a l w i t h t h a t o f t h e A r s , a n d re q u ir e s th e sa m e m e a n in g , ‘b o m b a s t ’. T h e v e r b a m p u lla tu r, w h ic h o c c u rs o n ly h e re , re n d e rs G re e k λ η κ υ θ ί^ ειν , a n d is lik e ly to b e a H o r a t ia n c o in a g e Graeco fo n te . I t seem s n e c e s s a ry t h e r e f o r e to p o s it tw o m e ta p h o r ic a l n o tio n s in L a tin a s w e ll a s i n G r e e k , a s w a s s e e n b y C . Z a n g e m e is te r, D e H o r. vocibus sin g u la rib us. T h e s is , B e r lin 1862, 27 f. T h e o rig in o f o n e o f th e m , X ry a tä x o v -a m p u lla = b o m b a s t , is s td l o b s c u r e ; it h a s b e e n d isc u sse d b y Q u in c e y a n d T h i e l s c h e r i n t h e a rtic le s c ite d a b o v e . sesquipedalia tu rb a : g

l a n

c e

a

t

A

r i s t o

p

h

a n

t h e s ’

e

l o m

n

g

e a s u

w r i n

o g

r d t h

180

b e

e i n l e n

g g

d t h

e s c r i p o

f

t i v

t r a g

i c

e

;

p

e

w

o

r d

r h s

a

p

s

a

{R a n .

C o m m en ta ry 79 9 καί κ α ν ό ν α ς . . .κ α ί ττήχεις ε π ώ ν ), th e co m p o u n d w ords o f trag e d y (R a n . 83 6 fr.), a n d th e c o m e d ia n C ra te s’ επη (έττεί co d d .) τ ρ ιπ ή χ η (A th . X. 4 1 8 c ; Com. Gr. C ra t. L a m ia fr. 2 M ein ek e (11. 241), fr. 18 K o c k (1. 13 6 ). B u t th e re m u s t h a v e b ee n talk o f this k in d in H ellenistic p o le m ic a n d , as c o m m e n ta to rs n o te w ith re g a rd to G ell, x ix , ch. 7, s u c h c o m p o u n d s w e re a ty p ic a l fe a tu re also o f a rc h a ic R o m a n tra g e d y . 98 T h e si c la u s e q u a lifie s 95 tragicus plerumque dolet (as K .- Η . a n d so m e o ld e r c o m m e n ta to rs say) b u t m a y q ualify also 9 6 -7 T elephus. . . c u m . . .proicit. T h e p o s itio n m a y b e c o m p a re d to 19 sed. . .locus o v er a g a in s t 1 4 - 1 6 p leru m q u e. . .a d su itu r pannus a n d 16-18 cum . . .describi­ tur. M o re o v e r, h a v in g assig n ed to th is passage a n in te rm e d ia te posi­ t i o n b e tw e e n th e sim p le a n tith e sis c o m e d y -tra g e d y (89-92) a n d th e d isc u ssio n o f e m o tio n (99 ff.), H . so tu rn s th e sentence a t th e en d th a t t h e si c la u se b e c o m e s tra n s itio n a l. P s.-A cro rig h tly notes, hie uersus et superioribus et sequentibus iu n g i potest. P eerlk a m p , erroneously, used this tr a n s itio n a l c h a r a c te r to a tta c h 98 to 99 ff., p re ferrin g th e in ferio r r e a d in g euros fo r curat, th u s : si cu ra s. . . non satis est, etc. T h e r e is a d e lib e r a te s p o n d a ic rh y th m u p to th e fo u rth -fo o t ca e ­ s u r a , a n d a lo n g w o rd c o v e rin g th e m id d le caesura. N o te too th a t, a lth o u g h cor is g o v e rn e d b y tetigisse a n d does n o t go w ith curat, th e a s s o n a n c e curat cor o b tru d e s , re c a llin g such locutions as P acuv. tr. 2 7 6 la p it cor cura, a n d th e lik e, T L L , iv . 934. 31 ff. Is H . ech o in g a n a r c h a ic v erse in th is affe c tin g co n tex t? curat, t h a t is tragicus, is specified b y Telephus et Peleus. T h e v a ria n t r e a d in g curas w as p r o b a b ly p ro m p te d by a m isu n d erstan d in g o f the lo n g p e r io d ; i t m a y p o in t to a d iffe re n t division o f sentences; cf. above. tetigisse: th e m e a n in g as a t C ic. A tt. 11. 19. 1 minae C lodi. . .modice me tangunt, V irg . A . 1. 462 mentem mortalia tangunt, Liv. in. 17· 3 uos urbis • . .n u lla cura tangi. F o r th e ao ristic p erf. inf. see 455 tetigisse timent, S - i. 2. 28 su n t qui nolint tetigisse nisi illas, a n d 168, 3475 434 n n ·· m e tr ic a lly c o n v e n ie n t a lte r n a tiv e to th e pres, inf., as L u cr. in. 69, C a t . 6 9 . 2, o c c a s io n a lly i n V irg il a n d freq u en tly in O v id a n d Silver L a t i n . C f. N o r d e n , V irg . A . vi. 7 8 -9 n ., A . E ngel, D e Hor. sermone metro accommodato. T h e sis, B re sla u 1914, 46 f., H o fm a n n —S zan ty r, 351 f. F o r P e rs iu s ’ v a r ia tio n o f th is verse, cf. below 102-3 n. querella: fo r th e sp ellin g , see F . S o m m e r’s Handbuch der. . . Formen­ lehre 2, 2 04—5 w ith b ib lio g ra p h y . T h e (false) an alo g y w ith dim in u tiv es i n -e lla see m s to h a v e la rg e ly p re v a ile d in a n tiq u ity , if o n e m ay ju d g e f r o m th e fr e q u e n c y o f th is spelling in o u r oldest a n d m ost careful m a n u s c r ip ts , a n d fro m th e o p p o sitio n o f th e g ra m m a rian s. T h e 181

Commentary M S S o f H . a r e d iv id e d b e tw e e n -eia a n d -ella. I a d o p t t h e s p e llin g o f th e c o m p e te n t o r th o g r a p h e r o f c o d . R a n d o f t h e b e s t V ir g ilia n co d ices.

(ii)

S tyle a n d em otion ,

99-111 (113). Aristotle’s second point in R h et. hi. 7 is emotion, πάθος, 1408 a 16-25. I have argued, F rol. 98 f., that this is the fundamental theory underlying this section. Aristotle lays down that style should be τπχθητική, and that it should be apt, οικεία, by which he means appropriate to the emotions involved—angry language when there is a feeling of outrage, etc. Then reaction will be right; the listener sympathizes with the emotions thus expressed: συυομοτταθεϊ, a 23. Clearly that is H.’s doctrine in the central piece, 101—7j especially 106—7. I note 106 decent as restating Aristotle’s οϊκεία; later, 112, abson a echoes this demand. This passage however is instructive to those concerned with the tradition on which H. has drawn. Since the Aristotelian book and chapter underlying this tradition are preserved, it will be seen that H.’s material is more elaborate than that of the R h etoric. Evidence for this more sophisticated tradition exists only in scattered pieces in different contexts ; so a com­ parison with Ar. P o et. ch. 17 and with Roman rhetoric shows, note in particular Cic. D e O r. n. 189 f., hi. 217 ff., T . D . iv. 4 3 > Quint. L O . vi, ch. 2. W. Kroll, S o k ra tes , vi (1918), 88, 93j has noted the Peripatetic character of some of the Ciceronian passages. The value of these parallels, however, is no more than illustrative ; apart from the A r s itself there is no evidence in the extant tradition for a coherent theory of this kind. Yet the character of the theory does not differ in principle from the rest of the Aristotelian tradition on which H. seems to have drawn, it takes Aristotle’s argument a stage further—in the direction of Hellenistic thought on Greek poetic styles, as I have argued in my Prolegomena. The same sceptical conclusion applies to the rest of the literary tradition in this section, although there the Aristo­ telian R h etoric leaves us in the lurch. In the A r s the stylistic 182

C o m m en ta ry

doctrine of sympathy is buttressed on either side by theories supporting it. It is prefaced, with extreme brevity, by a demand for emotional ‘involvement’, H. translating the Greek term psychagogia, 99—100 n. It is followed, 108-11 (13), by some abstract observations on the nature of language. These observations make language dependent on the speaker’s reactions to external happenings. They are said to be a guaran­ tee of his sincerity ; sincere speech will in turn evoke an emo­ tional response that has similar psychological roots. For the theory, see 108-11 (13) n. As a whole then the passage on style and emotion had been divided by H. into three related divisions: 99-100 on psycha­ gogia, 101-7 on emotional style and sympathy, and i o 8 - i i (13) on the psychology of style. These may have come from one original context. But H. has treated them in his poetic manner. He has set them down as distinct, giving each his due, and he has left it to the reader to supply the links be­ tween animum auditoris agunto ( 100), the emotions of Telephus and Peleus, as well as other emotions which connect the audience with the dramatis personae (101-7)5 and finally a view of language that seeks to explain these connexions, 108 if. 9 9 —1 0 0 : fo rm a l p e rfe c tio n a n d em o tio n in p o etry . T h e d istin ctio n in l ite r a r y c ritic is m b e tw e e n pulchrum a n d dulce, καλόν a n d η δυ, is ta k e n fo r g r a n te d b y D io n . H a l., Comp. chs. 10 if. ; b u t his topics are te c h n ic a l, r h y t h m a n d th e like, w h e re a s H . is a tte m p tin g to d erive th e e ffe c t o f p o e tr y fro m th e e m o tio n s w h ich th e p o e t is expressing. R o s t a g n i h a s n o te d t h a t th e d u a lity is a t h o m e in th e Poetics, b u t it n e e d s to b e a d d e d t h a t A risto tle is n o t th e re co n cern ed w ith p o etic sty le b u t la rg e ly w ith tw o re la te d q u a litie s o f th e μύθος, th e coherence o f p lo t c o n s tru c tio n a n d th e p le a su re arising fro m th e p ain fu l em o­ tio n s o f ελεος a n d φ όβ ο ς; cf. c o m m e n ta to rs o n Poet. 145 !453 b 12, 2 3 , 1459 a 21, p a r tic u la r ly G . F . Else, A ristotle's Poetics: The Argu­ m ent, 4 0 2 , 44 7 ff., 651 ff. W h a te v e r th e ir difficulties, these term s, a n d Ψυ χ α γ ω γ ε ϊυ as w ell, d o o c c u r in th e Poetics. W e a re d ea lin g w ith a p o s t-A ris to te lia n th e o ry , w h ic h i n th is in stan ce ap p lied A ristotelian te rm s to th e d iscu ssio n o f style. C o m m e n ta to rs rig h tly n o te th a t th e to p ic r e a p p e a r s l a t e r in th e A r s , sp ecially 319 ff·, 333 ff> a *so a t som e le n g th E p . n . 1. 208 ff.

183

C o m m e n ta r y

9 9 non sa tis e s t. . . sunto: th e b e g in n in g o f t h e v e rs e r e s e m b le s a set fo r m u la , a n d su its th e sty le o f i n s t r u c t i o n ; S . i. i o . 7—8 c o n tin u e s less co n cisely , ergo non satis est risu diducere rictum \ a u d ito ris; et est quaedam tamen hic quoque uirtus, e tc . p u lc h ra ' w e ll m a d e ’ : a s j . T a t e , CQ,, xxii ( 1 9 2 8 ) , 6 7 , say s, s o m e th in g w h ic h satisfies ‘ th e c a n o n s o f a r t ’. H e re fe rs to E p . n . 1. 6 9 - 7 2 , a b o u t t h e po em s o f L iv iu s A n d r o n ic u s : sed e m e n d a t a u id eri ] p u l c h r a q u e e t e x a c tis m in im u m d i s t a n t ia m iror. J u s t so H . re fu s e s , a t .S', 1. 10. 6, to a d m ir e L a b eri m im os u t p u l c h r a poem ata. dulcia: th e o p p o s ite t e r m t o p u lch ra ; in J . M . G e s n e r ’s p a r a p h r a s e , quae afficiunt a n im u m a s o p p o s e d to quae p la cen t recto iudicio. dulce is to pulchrum , in th is p h ilo s o p h y o f a r t, as dulce is t o decorum i n H . ’s p a t r i o t i c p h ilo s o p h y : dulce et decorum est pro p a tr ia m ori. sunto: in rh y m e w ith 100 agunto, cf. 176—7 n . o n seniles—u irile s, also 24 1 —2 speret id e m . . . | ausus idem . T h e h o m o e o t e l e u t o n u n d e r li n e s th e q u a s i-le g a l la n g u a g e o f e n a c t m e n t to w h ic h R o s ta g n i d r a w s a t t e n t i o n . Cf. fo r c o n te n t a n d w o rd in g 3 3 5 q u id q u id p raecipies e s to b revis, e tc. 100 quocumque uolent: as E p . 11. 1. 2 1 3 et modo m e T h e b is , modo p o n it A thenis, p r e c e d e d 210 ff. b y i l l e . . .poeta, m e u m q u i p e c tu s i n a n i t e r a n g it, I in i ta t , m ulcet, f o l s is terroribus im p let, | u t m agus. a n i m u m .. .agunto lite ra lly r e n d e r ψ υ χ α γ ω γ ε ΐν . T h e ‘ a t t r a c t i o n ’ o f p o e try n o t a s in th e th e o ry in a p p o s ite ly c ite d b y H e in z e f r o m S e x t. E m p . A do. M a th . 1. 297 °1 δέ (ττονη τα ί) έκ π α ν τ ό ς ipuyaycoyH lv έθέλουσιν, b u t h e r e se t b esid e p u lch ra . C o n t r a s t a t 3 3 3 delectare’, prodesse, 33 4 iu cu n d a : idonea vitae, 343 dulci: u tile , N e o p t. P a r . (fr. m , Prol. 55) ap. P h ilo d . D e Poem , v , co i. 13. 10 ff. [μ ε τ ά τ ] η ς ψ ο χ α γ ω [ γ ί] α [ ς ] : ώ [φ ελεΐ]ν κ τλ.

Style and sympathy, όμοτταθεϊν. Since apart from the Ars no sizeable discussion of this topic is extant (Ar. Poet. ch. 17 comes closest to it) it cannot now be known how style, voice, and gesture were accommodated in this tradition. The stray passages mentioned above, 99—i n (13) n., can tell us only that they were so accommodated; H. uses ‘features’, uultus, to good effect, but he is likely to have been instigated to do so by his material. More however cannot be said, for Ar. Poet. ch. 17 is concerned primarily with plot-construction, not with diction, and the rhetoricians who glance at this topic are talking about oratorical delivery, although Gic. De Or. m exemplifies from tragedy. H. alone talks explicitly o f the style 184 1 0 1 —7 :

C o m m en ta ry

of drama. It may be remembered too that H .’s belief in poetic sincerity differs from the balanced view expressed in Poet. ch. 17, cf. the next note. 101 selects la u g h te r a n d tears as re p re se n ta tiv e o f th e w hole ra n g e o f e m o tio n , th o u g h o th e r em o tio n s are to u ch ed o n in 105-7. B ut 102 ff. s h o w t h a t e m p h a sis is la id o n th e ita clause, th e m isery o f tr a g ic h e ro e s . T h e m o st te llin g p a ra lle l com es fro m A r. Poet. 17, *455 a 29 ff. T h is to o m e n tio n s th e g estures, σ χ ή μ α τ α , o f th e trag ic h e ro , w h ic h t h e p la y w r ig h t w h e n h e com poses is advised to m im e in o r d e r to b e c o n v in c in g , π ιθ α ν ό τ α τ ο ι y à p ο! α π ό τή ς α υ τή ς «ρύσεως ο ί έν τ ο ϊς π ά θ ε σ ίν ε ίσ ιν κ α ι χειμαίνει ό χειμαζόμενος καί χα λεπα ινει ό ‘-’ΡΥ '^όμενος ά λ η θ ιν ώ τ α τ α . διό ευφυούς ή π ο ιη τ ικ ή έστιν ή μανικού· τ ο ύ τ ω ν y à p οί μεν ε ύ π λ α σ τ ο ι οί δέ εκστατικοί εισιν. F o r la u g h te r in th e r h e to r ic a l c o n te x t, see Q u in t. 1. 0 . vi, ch. 35 f° r tearfu l em o tio n , A r. R h et. in . 7, 1408 a 18 ελεεινά, a n d th e passages o f C icero a n d Q u i n t i li a n c ite d a b o v e . adflent is p r o b a b ly a n e m e n d a tio n b y th e an o n y m o u s o f W o rcester L ib r a r y , gram m aticus bibliothecae Vigorniensis, first a c cep ted b y various s c h o la rs in th e s ix te e n th a n d se v e n te e n th cen tu ries, a n d la te r c o n ­ firm e d w ith s tro n g a rg u m e n ts b y B entley a g a in st th e M S S adsunt (assunt) o r a d sin t (assint ) a n d M a rc iliu s ’ re p o rte d adflant. M a n y editors fr o m O r e lli to R o s ta g n i a n d D . Bo (1959) h av e refused th e e m e n d a ­ tio n , W ic k h a m a d d in g in s u lt to in ju ry by ascrib in g it to O relli. Y et n o n u m b e r o f in s ta n c e s o f adsunt in L a tin lite ra tu re c a n h e a l th e lim p i n ita fle n tib u s adsunt | hum ani uultus a fte r ut ridentibus arrident. T h e only o t h e r w a y h a s b e e n tr ie d b y H o u s m a n , th a t is to preserv e adsunt, a n d f in d t h e te a r s in hum ani uultus. B u t H o u sm a n ’s humiduli uultus ( J P , X V III (1 8 9 0 ), 129—30) fails, n o t o n ly because o f th e false note o f th e a d je c tiv e b u t b e c a u se hum ani uultus is re q u ire d u n c h a n g e d for ridenti­ bus as w e ll a s fo r flentibus. I d o u b t i f flere re p e a te d in th e n ex t line m a k e s a g a in s t adflent. F o r th e v e r b see T L L , adfleo’. it occurs tw ice in P lau tu s, Pers. 152, Poen. 110 9 , as B e n tle y k n e w w ith o u t t h a t assistance. T h e id e a (th o u g h n o t its a p p lic a tio n ) is c o m m o n p la c e ; so is th e an tith esis o f la u g h a n d c ry . B e n tle y a g a in c ite d O v . M e t. in . 459~ho cum r 'l$h arrides; lacrimas quoque saepe notaui | me lacrimante tuas. Sen. D e Ira, n . 2. 5 inde est quod arridem us ridentibus et contristat nos turba maerentium. F o r o th e r instances see K e lle r a n d H o ld e r ’s n o te. 1 0 2 h u m a n i uultus d ire c ts a tte n tio n to h u m a n featu res expressive o f e m o tio n , cf. C ic. D e O r. in . 216 om nis enim motus anim i suum quemdam a natura habet u u ltu m e t so n u m e t g e stu m ; corpusque totum hominis et

185

C o m m e n ta r y eius o m n is u u ltu s o m n e s q u e u o ces, u t nerui in fid ib u s , ita so n a n t u t a m otu a n im i quoque su n t pulsae. F a c ia l e x p re s s io n is t a k e n t o b e p r o m p t e d

b y e m o tio n , as is sp e e c h (104., 108 ff.). M o r e o v e r f e a tu r e s a r e s a id to ex p ress fello w -feeling, τ ό φ ιλ ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ν d e n o te s s o m e th in g s im ila r in A r. Poet. (13, 1452 0 3 8 , 1453 a 2 , 18, 1456 a 2 1 ) a n d R h e t. (n . 13, * 3 9 ° a 2o). B u t in H . ’s c o n te x t th is fe e lin g , w h ic h i n A r is to tle is a r e a c tio n to su ffe rin g , is e x te n d e d to j o y a n d , a t 108 ff., to a ll c o n tin g e n c ie s. 102— 3 dolendum est | p rim u m ipsi tib i: A r is to tle ’s οί έν τ ο ί ς π ά θ ε σ ιν m a y b e c o m p a r e d i n t h e p a ssa g e c i t e d 101 n . T h e r h e t o r i c i a n s w e re d iv id e d as t o th e d e s ira b ility o f fe ig n e d e m o tio n in o r a t o r y ; C ic . T .D . l v \ 43 re p o rts fr o m a P e r ip a te tic s o u rc e ( t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a rily A risto tle, fr. 8 0 R .) oratorem denique n o n . . .p ro b a n t (U dem P erip a tetici ) stne aculeis iracundiae , quae e tia m s i n o n a d s it ta m e n u e r b is a t q u e m o tu s im u la n d a m a r b it r a n t u r , u t auditoris ira m oratoris incendat actio. C ic e ro h im s e lf t h o u g h t o th e rw ise , O r. 1 3 2 , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y D e O r. n . 189 neque fie r i potest u t d o l e a t is q u i a u d i t , u t oderit , u t in u id ea t, u t pertim escat aliquid, u t a d fle tu m m isericordiam que deducatur, n is i om nes i l l i m o tu s quos orator adhibere uolet iudici, in ip so o r a to r e im p re s s i esse a t q u e in u s ti uidebuntur; h e t h e n e x p la in s w h y flictus dolor w ill n o t d o . C o n t r a s t h o w e v e r th e m o re sp ec ific a n d p e r h a p s less p e r s o n a l d is c u s s io n , ib id . m . 215—23, w h e r e a t 2 1 5 a n im i perm o tio is a llo w e d quae m a x im e a u t d e c la r a n d a a u t i m it a n d a est actione ; t h e n v a r io u s e m o tio n s a r e in s ta n c e d fro m tra g e d y ; th e y c a n b e e x p re sse d arte a c m oderatione (217) a n d e sp e c ia l im p o r ta n c e is a ssig n ed to f a c ia l e x p r e s s io n : ib id . 221 a n im i est enim om nis actio, et im a g o a n i m i u u ltu s , in d ic e s o c u li, actio b e in g quasi sermo corporis quo m a g is m e n ti congruens esse debet (2 2 2 ). H e e n d s b y say in g t h a t t h a t la n g u a g e is u n d e r s to o d b y a ll : iisd e m enim om nium a n im i m otibus concitantur e t eos iisd em notis in a liis agnoscunt e t in se ip si indicant. C f. Q u in t. I . O . v 1. 2 , e s p e c ia lly 26 u t m oneam ur ip s i, 3 4 nec aga m u s rem quasi alienam , sed a d s u m a m u s p a r u m p e r illu m dolorem , x i. 3·

73 t h e e m o tio n a l effec t o n th e s ta g e o f m a sk s. P e rs iu s c a s ts a n e w a n d s tro n g e r lig h t o n th ese n o tio n s b y jo in in g , s e n s itiv e ly , th e s e tw o v erses ο H . w ith 9 8 tetigisse querella, see P ers. 1. 9 0 -1 uerum , nec nocte p a r a tu m , | p lo ra b it qui m e uolet incuneasse querella. laedent h u r t ’, a s tr o n g w o rd to m a k e H . ’s p o in t. 103 turn tua in B C K , o u r b e s t t r a d i t i o n , t h o u g h tu n c tu a ( c e tt.) is

b y n o m e a n s e x c lu d e d i n c lassica l L a t i n v erse. I n d o u b tf u l in s ta n c e s i t m a y b e re m e m b e re d t h a t H . lik e o t h e r p o e ts b e f o re P e rs iu s a n d M a r ti a l u ses turn m u c h o ffe n e r t h a n tunc. C f. H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r , 5 2 0 , w h e re H o u s m a n ’s d iscu ssio n s, in h is L u c a n a n d J u v e n a l , o f turn b e fo re g u ttu r a ls , a n d t h e e v id e n c e fr o m t h e M a n i l i a n c o d ic e s

186

C o m m en ta ry (v , p p . 1 7 7 -8 ), a r e o v e rlo o k e d ; see also W . V . C lausen, Persius (ed. 1956), 1 . 9 n . 104 Telephe uel Peleu b rin g s th e re a d e r b ac k to th e events o f trag ic d r a m a a n d th e tw o personae a re ad d ressed as th o u g h th e y w ere re a l— a fic tio n u p h e ld in th e re st o f th e verse. m andata: fo r a s s ig n m e n t o f roles to dramatis personae, as 176-7 tiefo rte seniles | m andentur im e n i partes. T h e a d v e rb male m a y g ra m m a tic a lly go e ith e r w ith m andata o r loqueris, th e c o n te x t seems to m e to d e m a n d th a t it goes w ith th e p a r tic ip le as a t 441 male tornatos. . .uersus, E p. 11. 1. 233 u ersib u s. . .m a le natis. I n A r. Poet. 17, cited above 101 n ., th e p la y w r ig h t is to ld to m im e w h e n h e com poses. T h e gestures w ill be th o se t h a t a re r e le v a n t to th e em o tio n s o f his p ersonages; m im in g w ill m a k e h im feel th e ir e m o tio n s so t h a t h e c a n be m ost p lausible in w h a t h e le ts th e m say o r d o . I n th e A rs w e are still in th e co n tex t o f sty le, colores, cf. 106 uerba a n d h i —13. M o reo v er H . d ra m a tiz es th e tra g ic p o e t’s fa ilu re . H e in v o lv es h im on ly a t a rem ove as it w ere, sin ce th e p la y w r ig h t is u ltim a te ly responsible for ‘ assigning ill-fitting sp e e c h e s ’, m ale m andata. H . addresses th e dramatis persona, concen­ tr a tin g a t t e n tio n o n h im . T e le p h u s ’ o r P eleus’ w ords d o n o t c a rry c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e th e y a r e n o t in sp ire d b y th e em otion occasioned b y h is c a la m itie s . T h is fa ilu re w ill th e n b e im p a rte d to his audience. L a m b in u s , th o u g h a w a re o f this in te rp re ta tio n , con n ected male w ith loqueris, th e a d d re s s e e th e n b e in g n o t th e im a g in a ry m y th ic al hero b u t th e a c to r p la y in g th e p a r t, a n d H .’s top ic, c o n tra ry to his in d ic a tio n s , n o t sty le b u t gestures a n d a c tin g ; likew ise m ore re c e n tly R o s ta g n i a n d S te id le , Studien, p p . 64 ff. 105 au t dorm itabo a u t ridebo: a use o f th e first person sin g u lar unlike th o se m e n tio n e d a t 2 5 -6 n. H e re as a t 103, 153, 188, H . identifies h im s e lf w ith th e a u d ie n c e in th e th e a tre . W h e th e r th e hom oeoteleuto n w a s e m p h a s iz e d w o u ld b e k n o w n b e tte r if th e m ode o f p ro n u n ­ c ia tio n o f e lid e d vo w els c o u ld b e d e te rm in e d , cf. 87 nequeo ignoroque. F o r th e w o rd in g , see C ic. B ru t. 278 tantum a fu it ut inflammares nostros anim os, som num isto loco u ix tenebamus ; S teidle, Studien, p . 64 n . 64, cites T a c . D ia l. 21 in quibusdam antiquorum u ix risu m , in quibusdam autem uix s o m n u m tenere. m aestum a n d 106 iratum q u a lify uultum , as 105 tristia a n d 106 plena m inarum q u a lify uerba', b u t 107 lasciua m u st surely b e co n stru ed like seria in th e s a m e v erse, u sed as a n o u n w ith dictu, cf. seria, n o u n , 226, S . i . i . 2 7 , π . 2. 125. T h is m ak es o n e w o n d e r if ludentem, w h ich scarcely suits uultu m , is n o t, as G . T . A . K rü g e r proposed, used as a n o u n , a n d seuerum likew ise. 106 decent, 92 decentem, 112 absona: cf. 99“ 111 ( n 3) η · 18 7

Com m entary

108-11: the psychology of style. What conceptual reasoning

there is in this section was called Epicurean by Usener {E p icu re a , p. 380, de loquellae o rig in e). Kiessling and L. Mueller in their commentaries, and M. Pohlenz, N G G , N.F. m. 6 (1939), i 9 7 [ K l . Sehr. i. 85). Like Heinze however I fail to find a clear parallel in Lucr. v. 1056 if.; H. is not concerned with the early beginnings of speech. Heinze and others call the doctrine Stoic, citing Porph. A b s t. hi. 3. According to Rostagni it is a mixture of Stoic and Epicurean. The distinction between logos internal (ενδιάθετος) and external (προφορικός) seems to have been something of a commonplace from the second century B .c. onward; Theon of Smyrna, not very helpfully, ascribes it to νεώτεροι (p. 72. 25, ed. Hiller). It had been developed from Platonic (e.g. S oph . 189 f., 262 f.) and Aristotelian (e.g. A n . P o st. 76 b 24) beginnings in the context of certain con­ troversies between the schools, on which see Pohlenz, N G G , N.F. h i. 6 (1939), 191 ff. { K l . S eh r. 1. 79 ff.), D i e S to a 2, 1. 3 9 ? ii. 21. Labelling by schools of philosophy therefore calls for the specific disagreements that prompted those controversies ; but those are the disagreements with which H. is not con­ cerned. Indeed, if one may judge from his context of emotion and sympathy, there is a case for noting the Peripatetic nuance in H.’s presentation, as W. Kroll, S o k r a te s , vi (1918), 93, and Steidle, S tu d ien , p. 65 η. 68, have done. (Cicero’s rather splendid passage, D e O r. hi. 216, comes to similar conclusions as H., but is based on a different, musical, meta­ phor.) H. avoids the Roman counterpart of λόγος ενδιάθετος, re­ stricting himself to intu s (108). But what is ‘inside’ is emotion, a n im i m otu s ( 111), and it becomes clear only at 111 that philo­ sophers might have recognized this as λόγος προφορικός. His own concern is to link appropriateness of emotional styles with real emotion—a doctrine of poetic sincerity, a rarish thing in ancient literary criticism. Hence he relates emotion to language. That is what he requires for his purpose. As in an earlier passage where a metaphysic of nature was involved 188

Commentary (above 12—13), he seems to have been careful to blunt philosophic doctrine and sharpen his poetic point. 1089 N a tu r e as a c ra fts m a n is fa m ilia r fro m th e A ttic a n d H e llen ­ istic p h ilo s o p h e rs ; cf. F . S olm sen, ‘N a tu re as c raftsm an in G reek t h o u g h t ’, J o u r , o f the H is t, o f Ideas, x x iv (1953), 473-96· T o ‘fa sh io n ’ in p a r ti c u la r is o n e o f th e k ey term s in these contexts. H e re N a tu re is sa id so to fa s h io n o r a r ra n g e th e h u m a n m in d th a t it resp o n d s to th e e x te r n a l s tim u lu s o f h u m a n c o n d itio n s a n d th e n , th ro u g h lan g u ag e, exp resses t h a t e m o tio n . P o e try th u s expressing em o tio n w ill a d e ­ q u a te ly r e p r e s e n t th e h u m a n c o n d itio n s th a t h av e en g e n d e re d th e e m o tio n . T h e sty le o f s u c h p o e try w ill be a p p ro p ria te a n d convincing. H . says o f m a n k in d (nos) w h a t A risto tle said o f one o f tw o kinds o f c o m p e te n t d r a m a tis ts ; th e ευφυής is ‘im p re ssio n a b le ’, ευπλασ τος, w h e re a s th e μάνικάς succeeds b ecause h e is ‘e c sta tic ’, Poet. 17, 1455 a 33 · T h e rh e to ric ia n s o ffered th e id e a l o f th e ευφ αντασίω τος, Q u in t. I .O . v i. 2. 30. 1 0 8 f o r m a t . . .n a tu ra . . .nos: fo r m a t p e rh a p s corresponds to G reek ττλ ά τ τε ι o r δ ια τ ίθ η σ ι. C f., in a d m itte d ly v ery d iffe ren t contexts, Ar. Gen. A n . 1. 2 2, 730 b 29 ff. εοικε το ΐς ττλόπτουσιν, ου τοϊς τεκταινομένοις (ή φύσις)· ο ύ γ ά ρ δ ι’ ετέρου Θ ιγγά υουσ α δημ ιουργεί τ ό σ υ ν ισ τά μ εν ο ν , σ λ λ ’ α υ τ ή τ ο ϊς α υ τή ς μορίοις, S V F , π. 32 9 · 33 α^ΤΤ1 (ή φύσις) τ ά σ ώ μ α τ α τ ω ν gcocov καί τ ω ν φ υ τώ ν σ υ ν ισ τη σ ι. . .και τ ε χ ν ικ ώ ς α ττα ν τα δ ια ττλ ά ττει κ τλ. F o r o th e r instances, see Solm sen s p a p e r c ite d in th e la s t n o te . p riu s, fo r e m o tio n p re c e d e s, sp eech follows, post ( m ) · in tu s p e r h a p s re calls (λ ό γο ς) ενδιάθετος. 1091 0 a d omnem | fo rtu n a ru m habitum ‘w ith re g a rd to every co n d i­ tio n t h a t m a y b e f a ll’, ‘e v e ry case o f good o r ill luck , w hereas below , 112 , fo r tu n is in c lu d e s th is n u a n c e as w ell as such ‘h u m a n conditions as ag e , sex, e tc . o f H 4 f f . , cf. W . K ro ll, toc. cit. (above 108-11 n .). fo rtu n a e n o t in fre q u e n tly in p i. to stress th e v a rie ty o f h ap p en in g s, T L L , v i. i . i i 76. 7 1 ff. habitus = e x te rn a l condition, cf. Cons, ad Lin. 57 λ non h a b itu sic se gessisset in omni, habitus w ith fortuna stresses the k in d o f h a p p e n in g w h ic h H ., in te n t o n omnem, is w a n tin g to stress. F o r th is lo c u tio n cf. L iv . ix . 18. 2 ex habitu nouae fortunae n o u iq u e.. . in g en ii quod sib i uictor induerat, V a l. M a x . v. 1. 9 in pristinum fortunae h a b itum restituit. C u rt. n i. 12. 14 pro habitu praesentis fortunae. T h e c o m b in a tio n o f p l. fo rtu n a e w ith habitus seems to be u n iq u e , a t an y r a t e T L L , v i. 3. 2485. 35 ff. offers n o p arallel. i u u a t - n o a n g it ta k e u p th e em o tio n s from 105-7·

189

C o m m e n ta r y

no

deducit et angit, a r h y m in g d o u b l e t a s E p . i. 7. 2 0 sp ern it et odit, 22 f a s t id i t et odit. i n effert re calls (λ ό γο ς) π ρ ο φ ο ρ ικ ό ς. interprete lingua, a L u c r e tia n p h r a s e f r o m a v e r y d i f f e r e n t c o n te x t, Vi. 1149 a n im i interpres . . .lin g u a . C ic . L e g . 1. 3 0 interpres m en tis oratio expresses a n o th e r n o tio n .

ii. i .

112-13: superficially a ‘gliding transition’. In fact, as K .-H . observe, 112 generalizes and sums up the lively incursion into emotive language. Once again it is only at the end of a con­ text that its scope becomes fully apparent. At the same time the summing up is used as a transition to the next topic ; H. s postulate relates to ethos as well as to emotion. 1 1 a fo r tu n is fulfils th e s a m e f u n c ti o n : b o t h t h e s ty le o f π ά θ ο ς u p t o (114) a n d ήθος ( i i 4 f f . ) a r e s u b je c t t o t h e s a m e l a w o f a p p ro p ria te n e s s fo r tu n is c a n re fe r to e i t h e r ( a b o v e i o n . ) . I t is n o t th e re fo re , as H e in z e th in k s, id e n tic a l w i t h fo r tu n a r u m , 109. absona re calls 104 m a le . . .m a n d a ta , a n d n e g a te s 1 0 6 decent. 1 1 3 H e re , as a t 154, R o m a n a u d ie n c e s in t h e t h e a t r e a r e r e p r e ­ s e n te d as a so u rc e o f p o e tic in s tr u c tio n . A t 321 th e y a r e c r e d i t e d w i t h p a r ti a l in s ig h t. E lse w h e re t h e ir in su ffic ie n c y is n o t e d ; S . 1. 10. 7 ^ a n d E p . 11. 1. 185 c o n tra s t th e equites, m e n o f ta s te , w i t h t h e in d o cti . A lto g e th e r, th e n , interdum u u lg u s rectum uidet, est u b i peccet { E p . Π. i · 63) » re fe re n c e s to a u d ie n c e s a n d r e a d e r s d iffe r in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e d iffe rin g p u rp o se s o f a p o e m o r p a ssa g e . I n th is v e rs e t h e k n ig h ts jo c u la r ly (as a t P la u t. Poen. 8 3 2 ) g iv e a le a d to th e ‘ i n f a n t r y ’, p ed ites, a n d th e a r c h a ic fo r m u la equites peditesque is u s e d (C ic . L e g . h i. 7 censores . . .eq u itu m peditum que p ro lem discribunto, L iv . r. 4 4 . 1 , e t c . ; T L L , V. 2 . 710. 73 f f ) . I t is r e m a rk a b le t h a t B e n tle y e m e n d in g to patresque, a n d P e e rlk a m p c o m m e n d in g th e e m e n d a tio n , s h o u ld h a v e m is s e d th e p o in t.

(iii) S ty le a n d hum an types, 114—18. Aristotle’s third criterion for appropriate style in R h et. in. 7, 1408 a 25 ff. is what he calls ethos. The words for appropriateness here are σμόττουσα and οίκεΐα (1408 a 26, 31) and the desired language is called ηθική. Ethos in this chapter denotes a type of person either in γένος—physiological differences according to age, sex, country of provenance—or in έξις—disposition according to station 190

C o m m en ta ry

in life such as rustic and cultured; cf. Prol. 99. These distinc­ tions fit the conditions of the law courts better than those of the stage but they have some relation to ancient literature. Aristotle’s discussion of character in Poet. ch. 15 shows that they could be applied to the stage, although he there insists that goodness of character, τό χρηστόν, should be the fore­ most of four considerations; the other three—άρμόττον, δμοιον and ομαλόν—impinge in various ways on the άρμόττον of the Rhetoric. The tradition behind the treatment of ‘ character’ in the Ars again shows combined what in Aristotle is separated according to ‘rhetorical’ and ‘poetic’. Discussion from the Hellenistic age onward was chiefly determined by the rhetorical criterion of appropriateness, which was rarely questioned (e.g. Philod. Poem. v. 31. 35 ff.), although writers on literature and rhetoric respectively had their own axes to grind. Both the likeness and unlikeness of viewpoint may be seen in the ancient sources often adduced in this context and extensively cited by K.-H. and Rostagni. In the pseudo-Dionysian Art of Rhetoric, compiled perhaps in the first century a . d . , seven ‘special and rhetorical character­ istics ’ are distinguished : country, district, family relationship, age, temper, status, and occupation (Dion. Hal. Op. Rhet. 11. 1, 3 7 7 · 16 ff. edd. Usener and Radermacher, cf. Theon, Progym. 10, Rhet. Gr. 11, pp. 115Ì. ed. Spengel). On the other hand Plutarch’s comparison of Aristophanes and Menander, though employing appropriateness as a criterion, tones down classi­ fication. Attention is paid to types as a tool of criticism; Aristophanes is said to lack Menander’s gift for discrimination between ‘son, father, rustic, god, old woman, heros’ (853 d). I t is a reasonable conclusion of K. Ziegler (Tragoedia, R-E, v i a . 1974— 5) and others that this interest in typology of character goes back to the Hellenistic age, and reflects condi­ tions of dramatic production. This is clearly so in the case of New Comedy. Too little is known of Hellenistic and Roman tragedy to commend K. Latte’s view (H, l x (1925), 3 n.) that the typology does not apply to Greek (Hellenistic) tragedy, 191

Commentary

and indeed that H. had misrepresented his Greek ‘source’. The demand is that the farmer (e.g. in Euripides’ Electra) should be what he is, but that, say, the ‘m erchant’ (e.g. in Sophocles’ Philoctetes) might be more ‘true to type’. Again Latte argues that Greek tragedy does not pay attention to differences of country or district, and is therefore upset by verse 118, emphasizing distinctions between Colchian and Assyrian, or Theban and Argive, cf. his remarks op. cit. p. 3 n. i . But all H. is doing is to extend rhetorical τφοσωττοττοιΐα to the ‘characters’ of drama, cf. ps.-Acro cited below n 8 n. These demands differ from Ar. Poet. 6, 1450 a 20 ff., as I noted Prol. h i . H. shares the interest in character. His interest is more marked than Aristotle’s in the Poetics, where ethos comes second in importance to plot. This passage is the first in the Ars of a number dealing with this topic ; they are so spaced in the poem as to create one of its recurring motifs or patterns, cf. Prol. n o ff, 139 ff., 250 fr. Even at this early stage it is seen that the poem has several such patterns. H. cuts through the dreary classification of the textbooks, and of the textbook which probably he himself had used. On the other hand he eschews the casualness of Plutarch’s list of types. The poet forms a series of sharply focused instances, each a pair of contrasted types. The predominance in this passage of general, and the lack of individual, features must be remembered in constituting the text, cf. 114 n. **4 diuus (-os) is th e tra n s m itte d r e a d in g o f a ll e a r ly M S S . D a u u s (da(u )u s, dauos) is k n o w n fro m c o d . K 1 ( a n d V a t. L a t. 3 8 6 6 ), e le v e n t h CCntU ντο** a p ? earS as a c o r re c tio n in th e s e c o n d o r t h i r d h a n d s o f so m e M S S , is in a n in te r p o la te d S e rv iu s s c h o liu m (A e n . x n . 1 8 ), a n d w a s fre q u e n tly sp o n so re d in th e I t a l i a n R e n a is s a n c e . S o m e c r itic s av e o u g t t h a t th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n diu u s a n d heros is n o t so g r e a t as ose t h a t a r e m e n tio n e d in th e s e q u e l. O r e lli h o w e v e r e x ? am S’, c o rre c tly , th e H o r a tia n d is tin c tio n b e t w e e n d iu u s a n d C Iy T a n gOC*s k av e tra n q u illita s , b u t n o t th e t r a g i c h e r o e s / ‘ n? aestp a n t uel m ortalium aegrim oniis m a lis conflictantur. D a u u s oas e m e e s s u p p o rt b u t is n o lo n g e r f o u n d i n r e c e n t e d itio n s ,

Commentary w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f K lin g n e r’s, w h o professes h im self p ersu ad ed by M iss H . K o r n h a r d t , P , x c m (1938), 4 7 6 -8 2 . T h is is a good p a p e r b u t it fails in its m a in c o n te n tio n — to establish D auus an heros as here re p re s e n tin g c o m e d y a n d tra g e d y . T h e in stances cited b y h e r (5. 1. 10. 40, π . 5. 91, A .P . 9 4 -6 , 237) differ in scope, a n d spoil h e r ju s t o b s e rv a tio n t h a t in th is p assa g e H . is discussing types, n o t individuals. F iv e tim e s o v e r h e em p lo y s g en e ric w ords to describe genera hominum. W h y p r e v e n t h im fro m c o m p le tin g th e sextet by p la c in g a t the v e ry o u ts e t a p r o p e r n a m e , h o w e v e r typified? ‘G ods a n d h e ro e s’ in p o e try w e re t h o u g h t to re q u ire a n ‘a p p ro p ria te d ic tio n ’ o f th eir o w n ; so m u c h follow s fro m P h ilo d e m u s’ polem ic ag a in st this doc­ trin e , Poem . V. 32. i i . I f P lu ta r c h c a n m en tio n 6sos a n d la te r ηρω$ a m o n g h is ty p e s (a b o v e 1 1 4 -1 8 n .), h e clearly could, o r th o u g h t he c o u ld , p e rc e iv e a d iffe re n c e in style b etw een diuus a n d heros. W hy th e n n o t H .? E a r lie r e m e n d a tio n s, diuusne. . .an Irus, D auusne. . . herosne, D a u u sn e . . .E rosne, a re o p e n to th e sam e charge. M ost o f H . ’s in s ta n c e s seem to b e d e lib e ra te ly chosen to fit b o th types o f d r a m a . N o sp ecific d r a m a is in v iew ; th e reference to M e n a n d e r s H eros w h ic h w a s a lle g e d fo r som e tim e w ill n o t convince, even if D a u u s is r e a d , cf. A . H a lls trö m , Eranos, x (1910), 155* A. K ö rte , R M , l x v i i (1 9 1 2 ), 4 7 8 , N . T e rz a g h i, Athenaeum, 1 (1913); *7°· 1 15 f f . : a n ethologia, as b elo w in a m ore sustained form , 156-78. 1 1 5 m aturus, lik e C. iv . 4. 55 maturosque patres, sets th e to n e o f the m e ta p h o r c o n tin u e d in fiorente iuuenta feruidus, cf. 62 iuuenum ritu modo nata uigentque, L u c r. v . 8 8 8 -9 aeuo florente im entas | occipit) P ru d . P erist. v . 47 iuuentae fe ru id a e p ro b a b ly derives from H . 1 1 5 —16 florente iuuenta | feru id u s: th e ep ith ets are tra d itio n a l. F or a p o e t as e c o n o m ic in te c h n iq u e as H . to co m b in e tw o m etap h o ric al n o tio n s p ro d u c e s a to u c h o f co lo u r a n d im ag ery th a t co n trasts w ith th e s im p le m aturus. T h e e p ith e ts are la te n t im ag ery , a k in d o f poetic s h o r th a n d . T h e im a g e ry m a y b e sp elt o u t fully in a w hole poem , su ch as th e S o ra c te O d e , C. 1. 9 ; fo r a discussion in these term s see S. C o m m a g e r, T he Odes o f Horace (1962), p p . 270 ff. * 1 6 m atrona potens: sa rc a stic a lly re p e a te d b y J u v . 1. 61. 1 1 7 sedula n u trix: cf. Ο ν . M e t. x. 438 male s. n., et al. T h e stock c o n tr a s t tra v e llin g m e r c h a n t vs. fa rm er, as a t C. 1. 1. 11-18. F o r the a llu s io n see a b o v e , 1 1 4 -1 8 n . ; for th e w o rd in g O v. Fast. v . 499 a n gusti cultor agelli. uirentis, n o t uigentis ( u a r.l.), agelli. A lth o u g h Cic. F in. v . 39 says dicim us arboremque et nouellam et uetulam et uigere et senescere, th e tra 1-

tio n a l e p ith e t d e s c rib in g th e flo u rish in g n a tu re o f p lan ts, fields an d t h e lik e is u iren s ; e.g. C. 11. 5. 5—6 circa uirentes. . . j campos, V irg. 13

193

BHA

C o m m e n ta ry 7. 5 9 nemus, G. in . 1 4 6 -7 ilicibusque uirentem | . . .A lb u r n u m , A . v i. 679 co m a lle uirenti, V a l. FI. 11. 5 9 8 - 9 u ir e n tib u s . . .tu m u lis , S il. x56 0 —1 uirenti stram ine, A us. M o s. 416 rura uirentia. 118 Gf. p s.-A c ro nam Colchus non n isi saeuus inducendus est, A ssyriu s astutus, callidus, ne inducas A rg is natum tim id u m a u t T h e b is J a c ia s \in i\p e ritum . S in c e t h e p a irs a re a n tith e tic th e c o n tr a s t i n th e f o r m e r w ill b e fe r o x a n d m ollis. A ssyrius is o fte n u se d in w id e r c o n n o t a t i o n s i n L a t i n verse, e ith e r fo r S y ria n , as G a t. 6 6 . 12 u a sta tu m fin es iu era t A ssyrio s, V irg . E . 4 . 25 am om um , H o r . C . 11. 11. 16 nardo, o r P a r t h i a n , a s L u c a n v ili. 92 A ssy rio s. ..c a s u s , o r ‘o r i e n t a l ’, as V ir g . G . 11. 4 6 5 A ssyrio fu c a tu r lana ueneno (P h o e n ic ia n p u r p le ) . A w id e c o n n o t a t i o n m u s t b e

in m in d h e re .

(ΠΙ. Subject-matter and character in poetry, exem plified by drama and epic, 119-52)

The presence of a new traditional topic and its identification is dryly reported by the scholiast Porphyrion (on 119) hoc a liu d praeceptu m est. nam p o e ta sc rip tu ru s a u t secu ndum T h e tra d itio n .

consensum d ebet a liq u id describere a u t, s i h isto ria m ta m q u a m trita m non u tili a ttin g ere , debet conuenienter noua inducere.

I have analysed this difficult section in P r o l. 7-9, 100-10, 246. The first clearing of the ground had been done by J . Vahlen, Ges. P h il. Sehr. 11, 757 if., an analytical operation of considerable deftness, which modern scholars ignore at their peril, e.g. G. Williams, J R S , liv (1964), 194, arguing th at H. did not wish a break to be noticed here. I too had argued th a t this is true in a sense; precisely in w hat sense remains to be seen after it has been established what the features of H .’s traditional material were. A procedure that fails to distinguish between these two questions is open to the major logical incoherence which has marred H oratian studies for m ore than half a century, and which my P ro leg o m en a were w ritten to combat. H. s traditional material is here concerned w ith the subject-matter of poetry’; it is no longer concerned with diction and style. T hat alone shows the presence of a different topic. The same change is shown by another feature: Aris194

C o m m en ta ry

to tie’s Rhetoric, which so far, all the way from 73, has accom­ panied the reader, suddenly fails us, and is replaced, though less extensively, by the Poetics, particularly parts of chs. 9, 14. and 17. O f the six ‘elements’ constituting tragedy which Aristotle set out in Poet. ch. 6, we are now dealing with the ‘story’ or ‘plot’, pö6o$. But again it is Aristotle with a difference, for what we read in the Ars is an account of the subject-matter of poetry, not tragedy, genres are adduced for exemplification, and epic is adduced no less than tragedy. Other important differences from Aristotle need to be noted and I will attempt to specify them in my notes. The most striking is the replacement of μΰθος per se by a discussion o μϋθος through the medium of characters, personae. This I presume was a feature of H .’s Hellenistic material which the poet has seen fit to preserve—a marked increase in ethos , which has already been noted in the preceding section. Horace. The poet shapes this material in his own manner. He administers a shock to the reader who has happily sett e down to viewing diverse human types in the context of sty e from 114 onward. Some readers are shockproof, those w o are not are suddenly faced with the subjects, no longer t e styles, of poetic speech. But for all that, they are let down gently; for although the context has changed, talk is sti about people—only this time the characters are individuals, not types: the personae appearing in poetry. By com ming what has been called an ‘abrupt’ and a gliding transition H. makes the willing reader see something which is new but also something which is already familiar; talk of content is new whereas talk of characters is already familiar. e ormer is the sense which I attach to the proposition that there is a break here; the latter is the sense which I attach to the oppo­ site proposition, that there is no break here. At the same bme H. remains concrete, individual, and finds his way to e more remote abstractions of 128 ff. after he has rea y es a lished them in a more familiar idiom. 195

I3-2

Commentary

For the stages of the way I refer the reader to my notes below and to my discussion in Prol. 103 ff. ; J . H. Waszink’s clarifying remarks (in Mnem. Ser. iv, x x i ( 19 6 8 ) , 402-7) may be compared. Briefly, u g distinguishes traditional and ‘in­ vented’ subjects, the former pursued 120—4, the latter 1 2 5 - 7 with an especial injunction, in that case, to safeguard con­ sistency, or unity, of treatment. Now, 128-30, the two types of subject are confronted, and ‘invented’ subjects are de­ scribed as generalities (128 communia) to which individual features must be given (proprie dicere), just as three verses above ‘untried subject’ and ‘new character’ were interchangeable terms. This forming of a new character H. describes as hard and it is that difficulty which moves him to give preference to traditional subjects, where the characters are already formed. I have suggested and suggest again that before an elucidation of the crucial verse 128 is attempted, this verse m ust be seen as part of the whole section. The opposite way starts with an elucidation of 128, and attempts to make the rest of the sec­ tion conform. This has been proposed (not for the first time, as he thought) by one of the reviewers of my Prolegomena ; the outcome is, I believe, that the coherence of the whole section is put in jeopardy; see below 128 n. H.’s preference for traditional subjects has been described as a failure of creative imagination. This is a large subject, beyond the scope of this commentary. I t is however relevant to note that it may be described in a different way, H .’s way. For what follows, it seems to me, is a piece of H oratian irony to which attention needs to be drawn. Once again the poet has a surprise in store for the reader, who has just been told that it is easier to dramatize a song of Ilium than to venture on new subjects. Now he is told how to make traditional subjects his own. At 131 if. we learn that to do so the poet m ust avoid four faults: (a) a pedestrian and unselective account, 132; (b) a faithful rendering of the words of an original, 133 ; (c) an anxious reproduction of the whole of an original, 134^ ; (d) a larger initial promise than he can fulfil in the course of his 196

C o m m en ta ry

work—the demand for unity, already known from the first part of the Ars~, here, in terms of dispraise, reference to a ‘cyclic epic’ is made, 136-9. After so many paths blocked, what remains? Homer’s poetic procedure, 14° which the problems of traditional and new subjects, of poetic multi­ plicity and unity are solved. One wonders how much convic­ tion this private ownership of the publica materies carried for the Pisos, or those whom he addresses in the generic singular as ‘writers’ (120). Perhaps, even forgetting the Matine Bee, one may recall Iullus Antonius and Pindar (C. iv. 2). There are then three different motifs or patterns of thought in this section which H. is able to pursue at the same time. In musical language, the main subject is new, and pursue a the way from 119 onward: fama a n d fingere. But there is a descant known from the previous section: that is character . This motif reappears at 120, immediately after the new su ject has been established, and when the motif reappears it is seen to fit that subject. Finally there is the motif of unity , which played a dominant part in the initial section, but is now restricted to two strongly marked codas, 127 and I5 2> which are thus related to each other and to the first part o the Ars. (1) Traditional and new subjects (characters) in poetry, I I 9 -3 °

The new section opens with a command, in the brie sty e which the poet enjoins for precepts (335 n-)> au*· · -seQuere • · -finge. For the address, scriptor, see 120 n. H. contrasts t e subjects of the mythical tradition often describe as true and not distinguished from history in Hellenistic an oman theorizing, here calledfama, and subjects made up , orme , by the writer, here called ‘fiction’ (finge)· This is more c ear cut than the familiar Roman and Hellenistic tna , is ona ( = fama)-uerisimile-fictum {falsum,fabula), or in Gree ιστορία ττλάσμα-μΰθος, which itself replaced Aristotle’s speculative antithesis of οΐα αν γένοιτο (κατά το εΐκός η άναγκαϊον) an 197

C o m m e n ta r y

eh. 9. The comparison was made by Rostagni ; cf. his introd. pp. xlvii, lxvi f., F. W. Walbank, H is to r ia , ix (i960), 216 if., and my paper P ro c. C a m b . P h il. S o c. n.s. v (i960), 14 fr. Aristotle had encouraged the use of new sub­ jects, P oet. 9, 1451 b 23 ff. ; later in the same work he repeated this encouragement but forbade manipulation with the kernel of a received myth, e.g. the murder of Glytemnestra by Orestes should remain unchanged but the details are open to change, ib id . 14, 1453 b 22 ff. τούς μέν ouv τταρειλημμένους τά γενόμενα,

P oet.

μύθους λύειν ούκ εστιν, Λέγω δέ οϊον τη ν Κ λυταιμήστραν όπτοθανοΰσαν ύττό τού Ό ρ έ σ τ ο υ .. ., αυτόν δέ (i.e. the poet) εύρίσκειν δει καί τοίς τταραδεδομένοις χρήσθαι καλώς (cf. P r o l.

104 f. n. 3). 119 f a m a m sequ ere: ‘tradition’, that is the ‘mythical record’, not rumour as opposed to historical fact, Aristotle’s τταρειλημμένοι or τταραδεδομένοι μύθοι, Lucr. v. 328—9 f a c t a u ir u m . . . j . . .a e te r n is fa m a e m o n u m e n tis in s ita . It is surprising that, because of s e q u i, T L L , vi. i. 210. 18, while noting the difference of meaning in the previous column, should bracket Lampr. A l e x . 48. 8 with H. ; yet Lampridius conveys precisely the opposite, u u lg i m a g is f a m a m . . . q u a m h is to r ia m , q u a e ru m ore u tiq u e u u lg i u erio r re p e ritu r. s ib i co n u en ien tia : consistency, or appropriateness

to each other, either of successive incidents of a story or manifestations of a charac­ ter, as 316 red d ere p e rso n a e s e it co n u e n ie n tia c u iq u e . If the former, it recalls Aristotle’s το είκός ή τό άναγκαΐον [ P o e t. eh. 9) and τά μέρη συνεσταναι των πραγμάτων ούτως ώστε μετατιθεμένου τίνος μέρους ή άφαιρουμένου διαφέρεσθαι καί κινεΐσθαι τό δλον { i b i d . 8, 1451 a 32)* If the latter, it recalls his όμαλόν { i b i d . 15, 1454 a 26 ff.). Aristotle demands consistency in both: χρη δέ καί εν τοϊς ηθεσιν ομοίως ώσπερ καί Ιν τη των πραγμάτων σνστάσει άεΐ ^ητεϊν η τό άναγκαΤον η τό είκος κτλ. { ib id , a 33)· So does H. But it marks the difference between the two positions that H. formulates this demand from the viewpoint of character as the next few verses will show, Aristotle all the way to ch. 15 from the viewpoint of plot-construction. f in g e : Aristotle’s εύρίσκειν, the πλάττειν— πλάσμα of Hellenistic and subsequent literary theory. H.’s pair cuts across the triad of the theorists, s ib i c o n u en ien tia takes account of u e r is im ile . 120 The new context is emphasized by the address to all would-be poets (the Pisos of course included), which then seems to carry the

198

Commentary s u b s e q u e n t series o f in ju n c tio n s ; th e Pisos a re n o t h e re th e only ad d re sse e s. C f. V a h le n , Ges. P hil. Sehr. ii. 761· scriptor: o f p o e ts, cf. 38 n. T h a t verse also p arallels th e style of in ju n c tio n , sum ite m ateriam . . ., qui scribitis, etc. F o r e n ja m b e m e n t a n fin a l p o s itio n o fv o c ., th o u g h in m o re e x ten d e d form , see 103-4 turn . .. laedent, \ Telephe uel Peleu. T h is po sitio n seem s to m e m u c h su p erio r to th e a lte r n a tiv e p u n c tu a tio n s , e ith e r full stop a t e n d o f 119, a tta c h in g scriptor as n o m . to th e follow ing sentence (m u ch favoured m t h e la s t c e n tu r y b y c o m p e te n t ed ito rs, som etim es w ith th e false a r g u m e n t t h a t scriptor is re q u ir e d to define reponis), o r w ith o u t pum : tu a t i o n a tta c h in g scriptor as n o m . t o th e tw o verbs in 119 ( ·” ·> K lin g n e r, a n d V ille n e u v e , tra n s la tin g , ‘suivez en é c riv a n t’). j honoratum f : a n u n so lv e d p ro b le m . E a rly co m m en tato rs used to id e n tify th e w o rd w ith a H o m e ric e p ith et, τιμηεις o r e ie n o n se n sic a lly since th e τ ιμ ή d e n o te d b y honoratus w as w a t t e H o m e ric A c h ille s d id n o t receive, a n d th e n e x t tw o verses show th a t th is is th e s itu a tio n in H . ’s m in d . F o r th e sam e reaso n t is c e a r in d ic a tio n c a n n o t b e e v a d e d b y L a m b in u s a rg u m e n t (in a n o t er w ise a d m ir a b le n o te , l a te r e la b o ra te d in F . R itte r s co m m en tary ) t h a t it is th e w ill o f Z e u s th u s d esc rib ed (H orn. II. 1. 506 if., n . 4 , e tc ·) i o r in d e e d t h a t honoratus re n d e rs a tra d itio n a l e p ith e t like φοα ld°S· t w as th e n p ro p o s e d b y J . W . L . J e e p (in E. T . A. K rü g e r s com m en ta r y , 1 5 th e d . 1908), a n d a c c e p te d in T L L , vi. 3. 2948. 04 ., t a honoratus = f a m a celebratus, w h ic h in d e e d w o u ld m eet th e o je c tio n . Y e t th e o n e in s ta n c e c ite d in c o rro b o ra tio n fails to convince, for Lie. D iv . i. 8 8 A m p h ia r a u m . . .sic honorauitfa m a Graeciae, deus u t haberetur, so c o m b in e s f a m a w ith honorauit t h a t th e re c a n b e no d o u b t as to its m e a n in g ; a n d b esid es f a m a lack s th e c o n n o ta tio n re q u ire in t e rs. B e n tle y e m e n d e d honoratum to Homereum (cf. Sen. Tranq. n . 2. 12 H om ericus A ch illes). B u t q u ite a p a r t fro m its u nlikely fo rm avoi e m th e a lte r n a tiv e p ro p o s a l Homeriacum — this is ag a in st t e scope o t e p a s s a g e ; fo r fa m a , n o t H o m e r, is in q u estio n a n d H o m e r is la te r said to ta k e h is o w n lin e w ith re g a rd to t h e fa m a o f th e T ro ja n ar, e ow 131 if. N o r w ill P e e r lk a m p ’s cothornatum c o n v in c e ;fa m a , n o t th e stage, is H . ’s p o in t o f o rie n ta tio n . J . S. R e id ’s inoratus (in W ilkins note) is e x c lu d e d b e c a u s e o f inexorabilis in th e n e x t verse. T h is seems to eave tw o a v e n u e s t o e x p lo re ; o n e to le a d to a w o rd m ean in g notus in m g u p f a m a , th e o th e r to le a d to a w o rd n e g a tin g honoratus ite ra y u n d e r s to o d , t h a t is ‘la c k in g i n h o n o u r ’, n o t som ething e onore actum (A . Y . C a m p b e ll, H or. C a r m i ( 1945), ‘ H o ra tia n a A lia in calce lib ri. J . P . P o s tg a te ’s honore orbum ( C Q , iv (1 9 10)» I0 ^ r i g h t in sen se th o u g h sc a rc e ly in w ording.

199

') m a^

C o m m e n ta r y reponis: a c c o rd in g to P o rp h . o f r e p e a t e d t h e a t r i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e s . A re fe re n c e to th e th e a tr e is lik ely i n a p a s s a g e m i d w a y b e tw e e n th e m e n tio n o f s p e c ta to rs a t 113, a n d 125 siq u id inexpertum scaenae co m m it­ tis, 129 Iliacum carmen deducis in actus. A lth o u g h re = ‘ a g a i n ’ is n o t o b lig a to ry in L a tin a n d p a r tic u la r ly H o r a t i a n u s a g e , th e c o n tr a s t w ith 125 (ju s t c ite d ) fa v o u rs t h e n o tio n re = p o s t alios, a n d so Inum iseli, p. 100, h a s p ro p o se d . A t 190 f a b u la quae p o sci u u lt e t. reponi, th e c o n te x t d e n o te s r e p e a te d p e r f o r m a n c e b u t t h e w o r d in g is d o u b tfu l. A ch illem : th e la rg e n u m b e r o f p o s t-A e s c h y le a n tr a g e d ie s o n th e su b je c t o f A ch illes ru le s o u t a n y id e n tif ic a tio n w i t h a s p e c ific p la y ; fo r R o m a n v ersio n s see H . D . J o c e ly n , T h e T ragedies o f E n n iu s , p p . 161 f. F o r th e e n d in g s -em a n d - en, o v e r w h ic h h e r e a s e ls e w h e re th e M S S d iv id e , see H o u s m a n , J P , x x x i (1 9 1 0 ), 2 6 0 ; c o d . R 2 a n d th e b e st V irg ilia n M S S o ffe r -em . 1 2 1 -2 A ris to tle h a d re m a rk e d t h a t A c h ille s ’ e th o s w a s in c o n s is ­ te n t, u n s ta b le : fr. 168 (R o se ) ’Α ρ ισ το τέ λ η ς φ η σ ίν α ν ώ μ α λ ο ν ε ίν α ι τ ό Ά χ ιλ λ έ ω ς ήθος. T h is is n o t th e p o i n t m a d e h e r e , as G . F . E ls e h a s n o te d (A r. P oet.: T h e A rgum ent, p . 4 6 3 n . 3 0 ). H . m a y s a y f a m a b u t h e h a s in v ie w o n ly o n e a sp e c t o f th e f a m a o f A c h ille s , th e h e r o a n d h is u n y ie ld in g n e s s : H o rn . II. ix . 2 5 5 -6 , 385 ff., x x . 4 6 7 , x x i v . 3 9 if· C f. E pod. 17. 1 4 p eru ica c is. . .A ch ille i, C. 1. 6. 6 P e lid a e . . .cedere nescii. H is ira s c ib ility a n d u n g o v e r n a b le t e m p e r a r e a c o m m o n p la c e i n G r e e k a n d R o m a n m o ra liz in g ; e.g . ( o m ittin g A r . Poet. 15, 1 4 5 4 6 1 4 π α ρ ά δ ε ιγ μ α σ κ λ η ρ ό τ η τ ο ς b e c a u se t h e te x t is d u b io u s ) P la t . R ep . m . 391 c ύ π ε ρ η φ α ν ία ν θεώ ν τ ε καί α ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν , P lu t. Q uo m . a d u l.p o e t. 19 c κ α λ ό ν γ ά ρ είκός ο ύδέν είν α ι μ ετ’ ο ρ γ ή ς κ α ί α ΰ σ τ η ρ ώ ς λ ε γ ό μ ε ν ο ν κ τ λ ., C ic . T .D . n r. 18 itaque non inscite H eracleotes D io n y siu s a d ea d isp u ta t quae a p u d H om erum A ch illes q u eritu r. . Acorque m eum p e n itu s turgescit tristib u s i r i s . . (19) . . . sic ig itu r inflatus et tum ens an im u s in u itio est, rv . 52, S en . E p . 104. 31. B u t P lu ta r c h also says a b o u t A c h ille s , Q uom . adul. poet. 31 b - c τ ό γ ά ρ Ιπ ισ φ α λ ώ ς π ρ ό ς ό ρ γ ή ν ε χ ο ν τ α κ α ί φ ύ σ ει

τ ρ α χ ί/ν ό ν τ α καί θυ μ ο ειδ ή μή λ α ν θ ά ν ε ιν έ α υ τ ό ν . . .Θ α υ μ α σ τ ή ς έ σ τ ιν π ρ ο ν ο ία ς . l a i A series o f g r a p h ic a d je c tiv e s o r n o u n s j u x t a p o s e d w i t h o u t c o n n e c tiv e p a rtic le s. T h is is a f r e q u e n t a n d e ffe c tiv e p r o c e d u r e i n a n ethologia, e.g. b e lo w 1 6 3 -5 , 1 7 2 -3 , E p . 1. 1. 3 8 . T h e tw o l o n g w o rd s iracundus , inexorabilis s e t t h e to n e , th e se c o n d le a v in g t h e v e r s e w i t h o u t th e c o m m o n fo u rth -fo o t b r e a k a fte r w e a k m id d le c a e s u r a . im piger: A c h illes th e fig h te r, as H o rn . II. 1. 1 6 5 - 6 , ά λ λ α τ ό μέν π λ ε ίο ν π ο λ υ ά ϊκ ο ς π ο λ έ μ ο ιο j χεϊρες έμ αί δ ιέ π ο υ σ ι. S o m e e a rlie r c o m m e n ta to rs s u p p lie d s it a t t h e e n d o f th is v e rse .

Commentary I t seem s m o re lik ely t h a t th e adjectives q ualify th e tw o clauses in 122.

122 K . L a t t e re m a rk s ( H , l x (1925), 3), th a t this sounds like a v erse fro m a tr a g e d y a d a p te d b y H . iu ra . . .n a ta : cf. H o rn . II. 1. 295 f. ά λ λ ο ισ ιν . . . έτπτέλλεο, μή y à p εμ οιγε | σ ή μ α ιν ’ · ο ύ y à p eyooy’ ετι σοί ττείσεσθαι όΐω , et al. nata, n o t lata as a t E p . 11. 1. 153 le x . . .poenaque lata, w h ere nata is a n (erro ­ n eo u s) v a r ia n t , b u t ‘ c o m e in to b e in g , e x ist’ ; thus o f in a n im a te objects, S. i i . 3. 8 ira tis natus paries dis atque poetis, C. 1. 27. 1 scyphis·, o f verses E p . i i . i . 233 in c u ltis . . .uersibus et male natis', w ith a d o u b le e n te n d re , C. n i. 21. 1 0 nata mecum consule M a n lio {pia testa ) ; also th e ta g pro {ex) re nata. T h e u s a g e is n o t re s tric te d to verse. arroget arm is: w ith th e d a t. o f th e m a tte r to w hich som ething is assig n ed , as E p . 11. 1. 35 chartis pretium quotus arroget annus, C. iv. 1 4 .4 0 ; th u s in p o e try a n d la te r p ro se, first o n re co rd in Η . ; T L L , i i . 652. 25 ff. Ϊ2 3 ff . Cf. Q u in t. L O . Xi. 3. 73 u t sit Aerope in tragoedia tristis, atrox M edea, atto n itu s A ia x , truculentus Hercules. Q u in tilia n ’s list differs from H . ’s e x c e p t fo r M e d e a . T h e n am es are chosen to re m in d read ers o f tra g ic p e rs o n a g e s t h a t a re w ell k n o w n , n o t o f specific titles. As in th e case o f A c h ille s, em o tio n s c o n tra d ic tin g o n e chosen aspect o f a ‘t r a d i t i o n a l ’ c h a r a c te r a r e d e p lo re d . K . L a tte , H , l x (1925), is too r e a d y to id e n tify th ese ex a m p le s w ith e x ta n t G reek play s o r know n title s, f r e q u e n tly E u rip id e a n . 123 M e d ea fe r o x : so A vien. Orb. 1216, C la u d . 3. 153, atrox in Q u in t, (last n .). C o m m e n ta to rs re p o rt a n A le x a n d ria n v erd ic t o n th e tears o f th e E u r ip id e a n M e d e a (922, 1005 ff.) : these w ere o u t o f keeping w ith h e r c h a r a c te r , A rgum . M e d . μέμφονται δ ’ co/τω τ ο μή ττεφυλαχ ε ν α ι τ ή ν Οττόκρισιν Ttj Μ ήδεια α λ λ ά ττροττεσεϊν sis δακρυα κ τλ ., cf. Schol. M e d . 9 2 2 . T o o little is k n o w n o f th e M ed e a plays o f E nnius a n d A c ciu s to j u d g e th e re le v a n c e o f this criticism w ith re g a rd to R o m a n d r a m a tic c o n v e n tio n s. O v id ’s Heroides 12 offers a d ifferen t M e d e a , b u t th e r o a d fro m t h a t p o e m to his M edea d ra m a m ay be less straig h t t h a n is s o m e tim e s assu m e d . C e rta in ly S eneca’s M edea, like his o th e r h e ro in e s , h a s h e r eth o s m o re rig id ly set th a n h e r G reek c o u n te rp a rt. inuictaque b esid e fe r o x h a rd ly w ith o u t a critica l n u a n c e : u n ­ y i e ld in g ’ ; as a d d re s s to A chilles, Epod. 13. 12, hum o ro u sly com bined "with durus, S . 1. 7. 29. T h e c o n v e n tio n a l usage is religious, a n e p ith e t a p p lie d to g o d s a n d h ero es { T L L , v n . 2. 187. n ff.)> th e R o m a n p e o p le , a n imperator, b u t n o t fo rm a lly ac cep ted b y em p ero rs u n til C o m m o d u s {ibid. 186. 4 6 ). fle b ilis In o is c o n tra s te d w ith M ed e a. In o ’s sufferings w ere p ro ­ v e r b ia l, MvoOs α χ η , C P G , 1 .9 4 -5 , n . 463 (6 a ). A lth o u g h Schol. A ristoph.

201

C o m m e n ta r y

V esp. 1413 ( ε ίσ ή γ α γ ε 5 ’ Ε υ ρ ιπ ίδ η ς τ η ν Ί ν ώ ώ χ ρ α ν υ π ό τ ή ς κ α κ σ π α θείας) fits Η . ’s d e s c rip tio n , th e n u m b e r o f d r a m a t i z a t i o n s , G r e e k a n d R o m a n , o f th e le g e n d o f In o , A th a m a s , o r P h r ix o s , is c o n s id e r a b le , cf. E itre m , R - E , x ii. 2 2 9 7 -8 , s .v . L e u k o th e a . ß e b i l i s — la c r im o s a , a f r e q u e n t p o e tic u s a g e , i n p ro s e f r o m A p u le iu s ; T L L , v i. 1. 8 9 0 .

49 ΑΓι 24 p e r fid u s I x io n : e x p la in e d b y P o r p h . a s a r e f e r e n c e t o I x i o n s m u r d e r o f h is fa th e r-in -la w . T h e ty p e o f l e g e n d a s s o c ia te d w i t h I x io n is c a lle d π α θ η τ ικ ή b y A r . P o e t. 18, 1 4 5 6 a 1 ; f o r E u r ip id e s v e rs io n o f th e le g e n d see P lu t. Q u o m . a d u l. p o e t. c h . 4 ; t h e v e r s io n s o f A e sc h y lu s, S o p h o c le s a n d la te r , b u t n o t a p p a r e n t l y R o m a n , d r a m a t ­ ists a re b rie fly d is c u sse d b y W a s e r, R - E , x . 1 3 7 4 ff. L a t t e ’s d e n i a l o f l a t e r a d a p ta tio n s ( H , l x (1 9 2 5 )) is e r ro n e o u s . /0 u a g a (th u s also V a l. F I. v n . h i ) . D r a m a t i z a t i o n s , a p a r t fr o m t h e w e ll-k n o w n a p p e a r a n c e s (h e re h a r d ly r e le v a n t) in A e sc h . S u p p ■ a n d P r o m ., a r e a tte s te d fo r t h e f o u r th - c e n t u r y t r a g e d i a n C h a e r e m o n (N a u c k 2, p . 7 8 4 ) a n d i n R o m e f o r A c c iu s ( R i b b e c k 2, frs. 3 8 6 ff.)· T h e w a n d e r in g s o f Io also fo r m e d th e s u b je c t o f p o e m s i n t h e H e lle n is tic -n e o te ric m a n n e r , C a llim a c h u s a n d C a lv u s . t r is tis O r e s te s : L a t t e , H , l x ( 1 9 2 5 ), w o u ld lik e t o id e n tif y t h e p l a y w ith E u r ip id e s ’ O r e s te s ; a t a n y r a te , h e th in k s , i t su its E u r i p i d e s b e t t e r t h a n i t d o e s th e C h oeph oroe, l e t a lo n e S o p h . E le c . P e r h a p s s o ; y e t u n c e r t a i n t y p e rsists, n o t o n ly b e c a u s e o f th e l a r g e n u m b e r o f c o m ­ p e tito r s b u t b e c a u s e , a s R o s ta g n i p o in ts o u t, O r e s te s ’ t r i s t i t i a in E u r ip id e s w a s a p p a r e n t l y f o u n d w a n ti n g b y H e lle n is tic c r itic s , A ris to p h a n e s o f B y z a n tiu m ( A r g u m . O r e s t.) o b je c te d to its ‘ u n t r a g i c e n d in g : τ ό δ ρ δ μ α κ ω μ ικ ω τέ ρ α ν εχει τ η ν κ α τ α σ τ ρ ο φ ή ν , cf. i b i d , τ ο δ ρ δ μ α τ ω ν έ π ΐ σ κ η ν ή ς εύ δ ο κ ιμ ο ύ ν τω ν , χ ε ίρ ισ τ ο ν δ έ τ ο ΐς ή θ ε σ ιν π λ ή ν γ ά ρ Π υ λ ά δ ο ν π ά ν τ ε ς φ α ύ λ ο ι ή σ α ν . S . ιι. 3· 132 ff. a n d V irg · A .

IV. 47 1 ff., o fte n c ite d , a r e n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h O r e s te s ’ t r i s t i t i a b u t w ith h is m a d n e s s ; b u t see O v . T r. v . 22 t r i s t is O r e s ta . 125 s i q u id h e r e h a s a n a d v e r s a tiv e fu n c tio n , ta k in g u p 1 2 0 s i f o r t e a n d c o r re s p o n d in g to th e s e c o n d a u t c la u s e , 119. I n H . ’s s ty le lo g ic a p a r tic le s a r e r e d u c e d t o a m in im u m , t h e c o h e r e n c e b e i n g i n t h e fo r m o f s e n te n c e a n d th o u g h t. T h e p ro s a ic s in d o e s n o t o c c u r i n H . a t a l l , tw o λ c lau se s a r e r e la te d s im ila rly , fo r e x a m p le , 47 s i—4 8 s i f o r t e , 102 s i-1 0 4 s i . in e x p e r tu m m a y b e a c tiv e , q u o d n on e x p e r tu m e s t sc a e n a m , so K . —Η . ; o r p a ssiv e , ‘ u n tr ie d ’, a s V irg . A . iv . 415 n e q u i d in e x p e r tu m . . . r e lin q u a t. A t t h e o n l y o t h e r p la c e w h e r e H . e m p lo y s th e word i t h a p p e n s t o b e a c ti v e . E p . i . 18 . 8 6 - 7 d u lc is in e x p e r tis c u ltu r a p o te n tis a m ic i: | e x p e r tu s m e tu e t. H e r e h o w e v e r, a s R o s ta g n i h a s a r g u e d , t h e p a s s iv e se n se i n s i q u id 202

Commentary inexpertum scaenae com m ittis b e tte r fits th e p a ra lle l fa m a m sequere. . conuenientia fin g e, 119.

. 1 2 6 d efin e s a n ew s u b je c t b y a new dramatis persona, so th e in ­ sta n c e s 120 if. h a v e a lre a d y in d ic a te d , form are like u m fin g e expresses th e c r e a tio n o f n ew ‘p a r t s ’ o r c h a ra c te rs. T h e H ellen istic affiliation is se e n in Schol. A o n H o rn . II. x x . 4°> παραδεδομένοις δηλονότι χρ ώ μ εν ο ς κ α ί ο ύκ α υ τό ς π λ ά σ σ ω ν τ α ονομ α τα . T h e co m p ariso n was m a d e b y R . H e in z e , Virg. E p . T e c h n ik , 376 n. 2 ; for o th e r links w ith H o m e r ic sc h o lia see a b o v e 43 n ., a n d below 148 n. A ristotle uses π ε π ο ιη μ έ ν α (ο ν ό μ α τα ) w ith re g a rd to c h a ra c te rs (opp. γενομενα o r γ ν ώ ρ ιμ α ) , o r εύρίσκειν w ith re g a rd to μΟθοι {Poet. 14, 1453 b 25). T h e p ro c ess o f c r e a tio n is th e re d esc rib ed as th e co n stru c tio n o a p lo t in w h ic h h a p p e n in g s o r ac tio n s a re re la te d b y logical p ro b a 1 ity o r n e c e ssity ; th e in d iv id u a l fe a tu re s o f c h a ra c te rs a re su b seq u en t y a d d e d — fre e ly so in co m ed y , less freely for th e m ost p a r t in tra g e y. T h is j o b o f in d iv id u a liz in g is d esc rib ed as ‘th e subjoining o f n am es , ο ν ό μ α τ α {ibid. 9, 1451 b 10, 13, 15, 20, 22 ; 17, H 5 5 h 12-13). A lth o u g h th e m o re u s u a l H e lle n istic n o m e n c la tu re seem s to e t e w o rd fo r m a s k o r p a r t, ττρόσωττον, L a t. persona, i.e. τ α τ ο υ δράματος •π ρ ό σ ω π α , th e H o m e r ic sch o liu m , cited above, a n d o th ers show ο ν ό μ α τ α p e rsistin g . C ic e ro n ia n in stances o f persona a b o u n d , b u t th e v e rb s e m p lo y e d p o in t to th e d iffe ren c e o f m e ta p h o r n o t form are u t capere , suscipere, gerere, imponere, tenere, a n d th e like. ^ persona = dram atis persona as a t 192, 316, b u t m ask a t 27 seruetur = conseruetur, c o n tra s t sem ate 86 n. a d im um u s e d as n o u n = ad fin em as A d Her. h i. *8 - 30 u^ um a sum m o an ab im o an a m e d io . . . incipiamus, a n d th e tag o t e i e to n c ia n s a sum m o ad im um , T L L , v ii. 1. i 4° 3 - 22· o cu tio n ere ex p resses th e (A risto te lia n ) c o h e re n c e o f c h a ra c te r. I t 00 ac o t h e p o e tic u n ity o f 1 ffi, 8—9 u n i . . fo rm a e , 23 sim p lex. . .et unum, a n lo o k s fo rw a rd to 152 medio ne discrepet imum. 1 2 7 ab incepto: cf. 14 inceptis grauibus, 152 primo. , , processerit: h e r e n o t o f ‘a d v a n c e m e n t’ b u t, since a incep 0 a n im u m p re c e d e , o f p ro g ress in tim e , th e m e ta p h o r u n er yin g ae a e procedere. B u t th e w o rd also = ‘ co m e forth, com e o u t o a ouse a h e n c e is u s e d fo r th e a p p e a ra n c e o f actors o n th e stage, e.g. A m p h . 1 17 ego hue processi {prae- c o d d . N o n .) sic cum serui 1 sc ema, i. 6-7 quid processerim h u c. . . j dicam. T h e tw o notions com m e , ‘ p ro g re s s o n th e s ta g e ’, ‘in th e p la y ’, w o u ld suit th e passage we ·.. s ib i constet: c o n siste n c y o f c h a ra c te r, E p. i· 14· cons ar scis, T L L , IV. 5 2 8 . 6 6 ff. ; h e n c e th e uox propria here, w here talk c o n siste n c y .

203

Commentary

128 T h is verse h a s b e e n d e s c rib e d as o n e o f th e h a r d e s t i n L a tin lite r a tu r e . I t is c e rta in ly th e m o s t f r e q u e n tly d is c u s s e d o f t h e A rs a n d n o a g r e e m e n t h a s b e e n r e a c h e d o n its m e a n i n g o r f u n c tio n in th is p assa g e. T h e n u m b e r a n d d iv e rs ity o f t h e o p in io n s o f f e r e d a r e to o la rg e to b e a c c o m m o d a te d in a n o te . I th e r e f o r e o f f e r a f u lle r d is ­ cu ssio n in A p p e n d ix 1 a n d h e r e r e s tr ic t m y s e lf to e x p l a i n i n g th e p a ssa g e as I see it. difficile est proprie communia dicere: a p a r t fr o m est e a c h w o r d is c o n tro v e rs ia l; n o r is th e fu n c tio n o f t h e s e n te n c e a g r e e d . I w ill try th e re fo re , first, to d e te r m in e t h e c o n t e n t a n d f u n c ti o n r a t h e r t h a n th e w o rd in g ; uerba sequentur. H a v in g d is tin g u is h e d tw o p o e tic p r o c e d u r e s , f a m a m seq u i a n d fingere, H . g o es o n first to d e s c r ib e th e f o r m e r , n e x t t h e l a t t e r (120—4, 12 5 - 7 ) . C r e a tio n o f n e w s u b je c ts is a ‘v e n t u r e ’ ; 125 audes is a s tro n g ly e m o tiv e w o rd . T h e r e is a risk a t t a c h e d t o n e w s u b je c ts a n d w h ile a periculum m a y b e dulce a n d c a n b e fa c e d , th is c a n h a r d l y b e so h e re . F o r difficile c o m in g soon a f te r audes, a n d c o m in g w i t h o u t a n y q u a lific a tio n to th e c o n tr a r y , c r e a te s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e v e n t u r e is n o t e n c o u ra g e d . T h e p r e s u m p tio n b e c o m e s a n e a r - c e r t a i n t y w h e n th e a s p irin g p o e t is to ld ‘r a t h e r ’ to d r a m a t iz e Ilia c u m carm en — i.e . fa m a m sequi — t h a n c r e a te n e w s u b je c ts ; t h e w o r d s re c tiu s . . .q u a m seem to m e to c lin c h th e m a tte r . W e th u s g e t a n u n i n t e r r u p t e d r u n fro m 119 to 13 0 . 1 n o w p a r a p h r a s e t h a t p a s s a g e . E i t h e r fo llo w t r a d i ­ tio n o r c r e a te n e w s u b je c ts . I f y o u fo llo w t r a d i t i o n d o t h i s ; i f y o u v e n tu r e to c r e a te n e w s u b je c ts d o t h a t . (B u t [1 2 8 ]) c r e a t i o n o f n e w s u b je c ts is h a r d a n d (th e re fo re ) t h e m e th o d o f d r a m a t i z i n g a t r a d i ­ tio n a l s u b je c t is p r e fe ra b le to t h a t o f free c r e a tio n . I c o n c lu d e t h a t a n y a t t e m p t , a t 128, t o r e p la c e t h e c r e a tio n o f n e w s u b je c ts b y th e o t h e r m e m b e r o f th e p a i r — u s e o f t r a d i t i o n a l s u b je c ts — le a d s to lo g ic a l c o n to rtio n . N o w uerba sequuntur. F ir s t difficile. P r o v id e d m y p a r a p h r a s e is r i g h t , ‘ d iffic u lt’ is H . ’s w o r d ; i f s e d fa c ile ( P e e rlk a m p ) w e re t r a n s m i t t e d i n its p la c e , i t w o u ld h a v e to b e e m e n d e d . M o r e o v e r difficile s h o u ld h a v e its fu ll a n d w e ig h ty m e a n in g — ‘h a r d ’, a n d th e r e f o r e d e p r e c a t e d . ‘ H a r d b u t w o r th tr y i n g ’ is u n a c c e p ta b le i f th e c o n t e x t d e t e r m i n e d a b o v e c a rrie s c o n v ic tio n . N e x t proprie communia dicere. A ll I h a v e a s s e rte d so f a r is t h e r e q u i r e d sen se , ‘n e w s u b je c ts ’. O n e o f t h e p s .- A c r o n ia n s c h o lia h a s th e m e r i t o f o ffe rin g th e r e q u ir e d g e n e ra l sense, a l t h o u g h fe w w ill a c c e p t its v e r b a l e x p la n a tio n . I t id e n tifie s communia dicere w ith ‘ u n t o u c h e d s u b je c ts ’ ( t h a t is, fingere), s a y in g : ‘ communia dicere ’ idest intacta ; nam quando intactum est aliquid, commune est,· semel dictum ab aliquo f i t proprium . 204

Commentary H o w th e n c a n com munia dicere b e a r o r im p ly th e m e a n in g new s u b je c ts ’, a n d w h a t sense, i f a n y , does proprie m ake? ( T h e so c ia l m e ta p h o r , ‘ c o m m o n , o rd in a r y ’ as opp o sed to p ro ­ p r i e t y ’, e v e n i f it w e re p ossible o n linguistic grounds, is ex clu d ed by th e c o n te x t. S o is th e q u a si-le g a l n o tio n b y w h ich Isocrates contrasts th e d ee d s, πράξεις, o f th e p a s t, in h e rite d b y all as co m m o n p ro p e rty , κ ο ιν α ί, w ith th e ir tim e ly a n d a p p r o p ria te use in speech, w 1C 1S th e p ro p e r ty , ίδ ιο ν , o f th e ‘w ise’ (Pan. 9). T h e fully leg al n o tio n is tin g u is h e s c o m m o n p ro p e rty , commune , fro m personal, proprium ( eu m a n n - S e c k e l , H a n d le x ik o n . . . des röm. Rechts ; cf. TLL, ui. I 977· 1 ·)· S u c h w as t h e r o a d s ig n p o ste d b y o n e o f ps.-A cro s a u th o ritie s, it was th e re fo re ta k e n b y m a n y sch o lars o f th e I ta lia n R enaissance, an in d e e d b y m a n y o th e rs la te r . Y e t it is fa m a , n o t fingere, th a t b y e n i tio n m u s t b e ‘ c o m m o n p r o p e r ty ’ a n d th u s, u n h a p p ily , ps.- e r o s com m unia idest intacta w ill n o t d o as a v e rb a l e x p la n a tio n , 1 w e con tin u e to a d h e r e to th e p o in t m a d e earlier. T h e c o n tr a s t b e tw e e n κ ο ινά a n d ϊδ ια ap p e a rs in rh e to ric a so a p a r fr o m th e I s o c r a te a n c o n c e p t. T h e rh e to ric ia n s expresse t e corn m o n c h a r a c te r ’ o f th e ir g e n e ra l a rg u m e n ts b y κοινά, a n d distinguished th e m fro m ίδ ια , specific ones, cf. A r. Rhet. 1. 1, 1355 a ^ 7> x*· 1 > 1 3 9 1 b 27, ch s. 20 ff. As th e logic o f rh e to ric a l p ro o f d eveloped, the a p p lic a tio n to in d iv id u a l d a ta b e c a m e m o re co m p licated a n d the e x p e rts c a m e to w o rk o u t p ro c e d u re s o n h ow to speci y g en e ra th o u g h ts i n s p e a k in g ’, π ε ρ ί κοινώ ν δια νοη μ ά τω ν, π ω ς α υ τ α ιω σομ εν λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς (H e rm o g . Περί μεθόδου δεινοτητος 29, ρ . 445 e R a b e , a n d o th e r passag es assem b led in R ib b eck s co m m en tary (1 8 6 9 ), p p . 21 9 £ ). C ic e ro th eo riz es o n communes loci a n d theses f r e q u e n tly , a n d as fre q u e n tly uses communia a n d propria m t ese c o n te x ts , cf. In v . n . 48 fr., D e Or. in . 106 ff., 120, Or. 4 > I27 e a · Q u in tilia n to o discusses th e m a tte r. I t is possib e t a t °™a n r e a d e r s m a y h a v e fe lt re m in d e d o f th e ir rh e to ric a l exercises w e n e firs t r e a d th is p assa g e. Y e t th e re st o f th e sentence wifi surely h av e u n d e c e iv e d th e m : a u se r o f communes loci c a n scarcely e escri e a p u t t in g fo r w a rd ignota indictaque prim us. Y e t H . a p p e ars to 1 en 1 y com m unia dicere a n d (proferre) ignota indictaque.

, , , T h is le a v e s u s w ith th e w o rd s as term s in logic, inProduced by A ris to tle in to lite r a r y th e o ry a n d , I believe, em ployed y · 111 p a s s a g e . A ris to tle ’s re a s o n for so in tro d u c in g this te rm in ° ' c h . 9 w as in fa c t a lo g ic a l a n d p e rh a p s polem ic one. a es t h e g r e a te r g e n e ra lity o f p o e tic sta te m e n t in com parison wi to r ic a l in d u c e d h im to c a ll p o e try m o re philosophic t a n 1S ’ p o le m ic i n t e n t w ith r e g a r d to P la to ’s case a g a in st p o etry m ay

205

Commentary provided a motive for this mode of reasoning. He defines καθόλου, universal or general, as the kind of thing that is said or done by a kind of person in accordance with probability or necessity; καθ’ έκαστον, particular, is the opposite term. Generality o f statement too is the basis of the definition of καθόλου as distinct from καθ’ έκαστον in De Interpr. 7, 17 a 39 ff.; the qualification κατά το εΐκός ή το άναγκαΐον however is absent. In Prol. 103 f. I said that this was the idea underlying A.P. 128, but that the Greek wording behind the Latin communia and proprie was κοινόν (not καθόλου) and ιδίως (not καθ’ Ικαστον). These words, which are simpler and less cumbersome, were used by Aristotle as well, and at any rate κοινόν is put by him beside καθόλου as a convertible term (Bonitz, Index Arisi. 356. 20 ff., 399· 29 ff.). As early as the first generation after Aristotle the pairs are interchangeable, not only κοινόν associated with καθόλου but ίδιον associated with καθ’ έκαστον— Professor H. Cherniss reminds me of Theophr. Metaph. 20, 8 b 20—7, and of course later parallels can be cited. This is the Greek nomenclature behind H .’s wording. In Latin, commune and proprium are used freely by Cicero and later writers, in the context o f rhetorical or logical definition, to render Greek κοινόν and ίδιον, e.g. Cic. Top. 29 (on defining terms in rhe­ toric) sic igitur ueteres praecipiunt: cum sumpseris ea quae sint ei rei quam definire uelis cum aliis communia, usque eo persequi dum proprium efficiatur, quod nullam, in aliam rem transferri potest; Part. Or. 41, 123· Aristotle’s Poetics eh. 9 then remains the background to H .’s pro­ nouncement. A Hellenistic philosopher, intent on the moral lessons o f poetry, could, in more traditional fashion, suggest that the proper reading of poetry should consist in the application o f particular poetic instances to other similar ones. By chance the opinion of Chrysippus, the great Stoic systematizer, is preserved. ‘ Chrysippus rightly taught (says Plutarch, Quom. adul. poet. 34 b) that one ought to transfer what is useful (in poetry from one particular instance) to others like them ’, επί τά όμοειδή, SVF, ii, fr. 100. Plutarch, although not easily ready to accept Stoic doctrine, agrees. Poetic sayings have a general application, which should not be allowed to remain attached to one particular instance. The young must be taught by a training in ‘sharp hearing’, όξυηκοΐα, how to elicit moral generality from poetic particulars ; the term κοινότης needs to be noted although poetic utterance is accepted as particular, not general. At 34 c says, λόγον κοινοϋν καί δημοσιεύειν την χρείαν δυνάμενον ο ν χρή ιτεριοραν évi πράγματι συνηρτημένον άλλά κινειν επί πάντα τα 2θ6

Commentary δ μ ο ια , καί τ ο ύ ς νέους έθί^ειν τ η ν κ ο ιν ό τη τα σ υνορδν καί μεταφέρειν όξέω ς τ ό οίκεϊον, εν ττολλοϊς ττα ρ α δείγμ α σ ι ττοιουμένους μελέτην καί α σ κ η σ ιν ό ξυ η κ ο ΐα ς κ τλ . H e r e th e r e a d e r is advised to tak e th e d irec­ tio n fro m p o e tic p a r tic u la r s to m o ra l g eneralities. H . is ta k in g th e o p p o site w ay , fro m generalities to p a rtic u la rs. H e is th in k in g o f n e w su b je c ts o r ty p es o f c h a ra c te r as g en eralities w hich t r a d itio n h a s n o t y e t p a r tic u la riz e d , cf. Prol. 106-7. L ike A risto tle h e c a n ta lk in te rm s o f ‘g e n e r a l’ a n d ‘p a r tic u la r ’. B ut h e is n o t a p h ilo ­ s o p h e r a n d is a w a re o f th e p a r tic u la rity o f th e poetic process. So, u n lik e A ris to tle , h e k n o w s (a n d p e rh a p s his H ellenistic forebears k n e w ) t h a t to p u t u n iv e rsa ls in a p a r tic u la r m a n n e r is h a r d — difficile est proprie com m unia dicere. T h a t m a y a c c o u n t to a c e rta in e x te n t for h is s ta r tlin g a d v ic e , to p re fe r o ld subjects to new . tu = scriptor, 120 n . -que ‘ a n d t h e r e f o r e ’, as L . M u e lle r n o ted . T h e ad v ersativ e n u a n c e e m p h a tic a lly p ro p o s e d b y G . W illiam s, J R S , l i v (1964), 190, th o u g h im p lie d b y m a n y o f h is p red ecesso rs (see below A p p e n d ix x (i)), is p o ssib le o n g e n e ra l g ro u n d s , b u t is ex clu d ed b y th e co n tex t discussed a b o v e . P a ra lle ls fo r th e n o rm a l usag e a re scarcely called for a n d tuque a t C. 11. 12. 9, c ite d b y M u e lle r, is slightly d ifferen t in function, cf. F ra e n k e l, Horace, 219 n . 4. M u e lle r’s second instance, how ever, 183 -que, d o es a s im ila r jo b , a lth o u g h th e re is n o ch a n g e o f g ra m ­ m a tic a l s u b je c t as th e re is h ere. 129 rectiu s. . . deducis, as c o m m e n ta to rs say, = rectius fa c is si deducis. F o r th is id io m , see a b o v e 40 n. o n potenter (ii). T h e pres, tense c o n ­ tin u e s 120 s i . . .reponis, 125 si q u id . . .committis et audes b u t a t 131 ff· t h e fu t. is u s e d as fre q u e n tly as before. F o r th e tenses in rectius deducis. . . I quam si proferres, see C. n i. 16. 22 ff. n il. . .gestio. . .quam s t . . .dicerer. Ilia cu m carm en h a r d ly , w ith H e in z e a n d others, only a reference to T r o j a n m y th o lo g y b e c a u se carmen is n o t o n ly fa m a b u t a n a c tu a l p o e m ; cf. Im m is c h , p . 108, S teid le, Studien, p . 75 n. 8. B ut th a t does n o t n e c e s s a rily m a k e i t th e I lia d ; see 131 ff· a n d co m p are, as

L . M u e lle r su g g ests, A th . v n . 277 e εχαιρε δέ Σοφοκλής τ φ έτπκφ κ ύ κ λ ω ώ ς καί ό λ α δ ρ ά μ α τ α ιτοιή σ α ι κατακολουθώ ν τ η εν τ ο υ τ ω

μυθο-ττοιία. deducts n o t h e r e co m p o se o r sing ( K .- H . ein ilisches L ied anzustimm eri). T h e r e m a y b e a re m in d e r o f deduco, th e m e ta p h o r first reco rd ed fro m H ., t h e n fro m th e o th e r A u g u stan s ( T L L , v. 1. 282. 55 ff-)j tenui deducta poem ata filo a n d th e re s t; b u t th e acc. in actus seems to d e m a n d ‘s p i n ’ o r ‘ t u r n i n t o ’, diducis is a n em en d a tio n eloquently

207

C o m m e n ta r y

d e f e n d e d i n C . F e a ’s e d itio n (1 8 2 7 ). I m m i s c h , p . 1 0 0 n . 2 2 , lin k e d d id u cis w ith th e v e r b διαλύστε, w h ic h o c c u r s i n a c o m p a r a b l e , n o t id e n tic a l, a r g u m e n t i n P h ilo d e m u s ( b e lo w 131 if .) , b u t s e v e r a l s c h o l­ a rs h a v e rig h tly re fu se d th e c o n je c tu r e , e .g . C . J e n s e n , S B B A ( i 93 ^)> 2 4 n . 2 , S te id le , S tu d ien , p . 75 n . 8 . T h e m e t a p h o r o f s p i n n i n g is suffi­ c ie n t to a c c o u n t fo r de- a n d e x c lu d e d i-, a s i t d o e s i n s l i g h tl y d i f f e r e n t c o n te x ts in M a n . 11. 10, in . 3 9 6 (cf. H o u s m a n ’s n n . ) . in actus: th e n o tio n ‘ a c t ( o f a p la y ) ’ t h o u g h f u lly e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h a t tim e a n d so e m p lo y e d e ls e w h e re i n t h e A r s ( 1 8 9 , 194) w o u l d b e w e a k i n th is c o n te x t; t h e m e a n in g is m o r e lik e ly to b e ‘d r a m a t i c p o e m s , cf. T L L , I. 450. 61 ff. a n d n o te M a n . v . 4 6 8 —9 m ille a lia s rerum species in carm ina ducent; j fo r s ita n ipse etia m C epheus referetur in a ctu s. T h i s i n t e r ­ p r e ta t io n is also s u p p o r te d b y A r. P oet. 2 6 , 1 4 6 2 b 4 ( o n e p ic ) έκ y a p ό ττο ια σ ο ΰ ν μ ιμ ή σ εο ^ ττλείους τ ρ α γ ω δ ί α ! γ ί ν ο ν τ α ν B e c a u s e o f d if f e r ­ e n c e o f c o n te x t, Im m is c h , p. 108 n . 2 5 , p l a u s i b l y q u e s t i o n s t h e r e le ­ v a n c e o f a n o t h e r A r is to te lia n r e m a r k , w h i c h is o f te n c i t e d i n th is c o n n e x io n , Poet. 23, 1459 b 2 έκ y à p Ί λ ιά δ ο ς κ α ί ’ Ο δ ύ σ σ ε ια ς μ ια τ ρ α γ ω δ ί α π ο ιε ίτ α ι έκ α τέρ α ς η δ ύ ο μ ό ν α ι. ι 3 ° p roferres c o m b in e s th e n o tio n s o f b r i n g i n g to l i g h t o r c r e a t i n g , a s a b o v e 5 8 , E p . 1. 6. 24,11. 2. 116, a n d p r o d u c i n g w o rk s o f a r t , C. IV. 8 . 5 , m a k in g k n o w n , C ic . P h il. 1. 16, p u b l i s h i n g w o rk s o f l i t e r a t u r e , C ic. A tt. XV. 13. i eius (orationis ) custodiendae et p ro fe re n d a e a rb itriu m tu u m , o r p e r f o r m in g o n t h e s ta g e , P I. A m . 1 1 8 u e te r e m . . .r e m n o uam a d uos proferam .. ignota in d icta q u e r e s ta te s 119 fin g e , 125 in exp e rtu m , e t c . , 1 2 8 co m m u n ia (a s e x p la in e d a b o v e ) . F o r in d icta cf. C . in . 2 5 . 8 - 9 d ica m in sig n e , recens, adhuc in d ictu m ore alio, V irg . A . v i i . 733 ca rm in ib u s n o stris in d ictu s.

(a) How to make a traditional subject the poet’s own : Homer and the cyclic epic, 131—52

131 ff- The problem of originality is now raised, but it is raised within the setting of a tradition—the central problem of Roman poetic practice and theory. It is no accident that Alexandrian conceits make an appearance, for the Alexan­ drians, and especially Callimachus, had raised and solved that problem in a way which was relevant to the New Poets and the Angustans in Rome. Callimachus had barred the road to the forms which for H. were the most seriously poetic—great epic, drama, and the archaic type of lyric. H. writes with these 208

Commentary genres in view. As so often, therefore, when H. makes use of Callimachean language, he turns it upside down ; he employs it to affirm what Callimachus had denied. A Hellenistic tinge is noticeable not only in the stylistic character of these verses but in the technical precept that opens the section. For publica materies priuati iuris erit, etc. seem to echo Philodemus’ words spoken not many years earlier in a similar connexion (H V 2, IV. 195 and H V 2, vn. 87, the two fragments convincingly com­ bined by C. Jensen, Philodemos, Uberd. Gedichte, v (i923),pp.vf. n. 2 ; the immediately relevant part of one fragment had been compared with A .P. 131 by Heinze ad /.). Philodemus said αν τά κατ’ Εΐλιον [ή] Θήβας κοινώς παρ’ ετέρου λαβών ώσπερ διαλύσηι καί πως πάλι συντάξας ιδίαν κατασκευήν περιθήι. That this opinion is not an unusual one in Hellenistic letters is shown for example by Demetr. Interpr. 113, a comparison of prose and poetry, Θουκυδίδης μέντοι καν λαβή παρα ποιητου τι, ιδίως αυτω χρώμένος ίδιον τό ληφθέν ποιεί. The rhetoricians thought likewise, as Steidle (Studien, p. 80) has reminded us, cf. ps.-Dion. Hal. Ars, 10. 19 (ed. Us.-Ra. 11. 373) μίμησις yàp ού χρήσίς έστι των διανοημάτων άλλ ή όμοια των παλαιών έντεχνος μεταχείρισις. καί μιμείται τον Δημοσθένην ούχ ό τό {Δημοσθένους λέγων άλλ’ ο) Δημοσθενικώς κτλ. Philodemus however seems to do little more than rephrase the observation of an earlier critic. The identification of this earlier critic with Neoptolemus of Parium is not a foregone conclusion, but a matter on which it is wise to keep an open mind; cf. Appendix 2. The verses now following are negative; by a method of exclusion H. leads the reader to the creative (Homeric) ideal of poetic economy; this is reached at 140. The transitional character of 131—5, particularly 132 orbem, has been stressed by P. Gauer, R M , l x i (1906), 233-4. 131 In his first instance H. amusingly combines the language of Roman law with that of literary theory; the legal and poetic spheres were prefigured in the κοινόν (δημόσιον) and ίδιον of Alexandrian BHA 209

C o m m e n ta r ) )

c ritic ism , publica materies su g g ests b o th s p h e r e s , p r iu a ti iu ris is m o re d e fin ite ly le g a l. publicus, o ld e r poplicus, is ‘t h a t w h ic h b e lo n g s to th e p o p u lu s ’, h e n c e C ic. R ep. i. 39 est ig itu r . . .re s p u b lic a res p o p u li. T h e c o u n t e r p a r t to p u blicu s is p riu a tu s, e.g. D ig . i. 8 . i hae autem res quae h u m a n i iu ris su n t a u t publicae su n t aut p riu a ta e; fo r in s ta n c e s s u c h a s r o a d s (cf. b e lo w 132) a n d riv ers, see W . W . B u c k la n d , A T e x t-b o o k o f R o m a n L a w 3, p . 183; th e ager pub licu s is a n o th e r ty p e o f in s ta n c e . B u t i n O v . A . A . in . 480 a n d J u v . 7. 53, th o u g h s o m e tim e s c ite d in th is c o n n e x io n , p u b lic u s lack s th e H o r a t ia n m e a n in g . materies, a c c o rd in g to p s.-A c ro , b y poetica licentia pro m a te r ia . . . ; materies enim lignum est. T h e e v id e n c e h o w e v e r d o e s n o t su g g e s t a d iffe re n c e o f m e a n in g b e tw e e n th e tw o w o rd s , cf. T L L , v i l i. 4 4 8 . 2 9 ff·, a lth o u g h a n c ie n t g r a m m a r ia n s s a y o th e rw is e . T h e d if f e r e n c e p e r h a p s is sty listic ; fo r in s p ite o f t h e d iffic u lty o f e s ta b lis h in g t h e t r u e r e a d i n g in m a n y cases, materies a p p e a r s to h a v e a n a r c h a i c a n d p o e t i c fla v o u r , as is sa id in T L L , loc. cit. T h e M S S s u g g e st -a m a b o v e 3 8 , b u t -em C . in . 24. 4 9 . F o r th e g e n . iuris, see H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r , 6 2 ( b ) . 13 2 uilem p a tu lu m q u e: fo r th e w o rd s cf. P ro l. 109 n . 2 and J u v e n a l s carmen trìuiale, 7. 55. T h e y r e c a ll su c h C a l l im a c h e a n l a n g u a g e a s έχθαίροο t ò π ο ίη μ α τ ο κ υκλικόν, ο ύ δ έ κ ελεύ θω | χ α ί ρ ω τ ίς π ο λ λ ο ύ ς ώ δ ε κ α ί ώ δ ε φέρει | . . . σ ικ χ α ίν ω π ά ν τ α τ α δ η μ ό σ ια ( E p ig r . 2 8 ), ο ϊμ ο ν ά ν ά ττ λ α τ ύ ν ά λ λ α κελεύθους j ά τ ρ ίπ τ ο υ ς εί κ α ί σ τ ε ιν ο τ έ ρ η ν έλάσεις (A etia , 1. fr. 1. 2 7 -8 P f.). I n orbis Η . d e ftly uses th e n o tio n o f a c i r c u l a r p ie c e o f g r o u n d , h in tin g a t sam en e ss a n d c o m p le te n e s s o f m o v e m e n t (in orbem ire, a n d th e lik e ), b u t e q u a lly a t th e e p ic κ ύκλος (cf. C a l l im a c h u s ’ π ο ίη μ α κ υ κ λικ ό ν a n d b e lo w 136), to w h o s e u n r e m i t t i n g a n d te d io u s ly c o m ­ p le te n a r r a tiv e A ris to tle h a d o b je c te d , P oet. ch s. 8 a n d 2 3 ; P r o c lu s c a lle d i t th e α κ ο λ ο υ θ ία τ ω ν εν α ύ τ ο ΐς π ρ α γ μ ά τ ω ν ( C h rest . 20. 3 1 9 a 3 2» S e v e ry n s, p . 37 )· F in a lly t h e r e is also t h e A l e x a n d r i a n n u a n c e o f c o n v e n tio n a lity , cf. C a llim . a b o v e a n d P o llia n . A n th . P a lXI. 130. P o llia n u s is c o n c e rn e d w i t h sty le , n o t w ith s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a n d a r r a n g e m e n t. E q u a lly t h e sch o o l o f A r is ta r c h u s l a b e l l e d c e r t a i n s ty lis tic a lly o b n o x io u s p a ssa g e s κ υκ λικ ώ ς, t h u s e .g . Sch o l. A , H o rn . I I . XV. 6 1 0 ff. ά θ ε τ ο υ ν τ α ι σ τ ίχ ο ι ε '· . . .κ α ί κ υ κ λ ικ ώ ς τ α υ τ ο λ ο ­ γ ε ίτ α ι κ τ λ ., cf. A ris to n ic u s , S ig n . II . e d . F r i e d l ä n d e r (1 8 5 3 , r e p r . 1 9 6 5 ), p . 26 5 . S ta t. Silo. ii. 7. 51 trita u a tib u s orbita (c it. R o s ta g n i) is c o m ­ p a r a b l e fo r th e w o rd in g b u t n o t fo r t h e c o n te n t, c o n t r a s t i n g t h e g r e a t G re e k e p ics w ith a R o m a n . * 3 3 A s e c o n d in s ta n c e fo llo w s: a t r a d i t i o n a l s u b je c t fa ils to b e c o m e p e r s o n a l w h e n th e r e is clo se t r a n s l a t i o n ; c ite d b y J e r . E p . 57 * 5 »

210

Commentary B o eth . In Isa g . Porph. ii. 1 . 1 (ed. B ra n d t, p . 135. 6 if.), Tract. Vind. ad I. H . h o w e v e r is n o t h e re c o n c e rn e d w ith style b u t w ith th e effect o n th e p o e t’s su b je c t i f th e n ew w o rk re m a in s tied to th e w o rd in g o f a n o ld e r. E v e r since L a m b in u s c o m m en tato rs h av e c o m p a re d Cic. Opt. Gen. 14. T h e lik en ess is in d u b ita b le : nec conuerti ut interpres; non uerbum pro uerbo; germs omne uerborum uimque seruaui. Y e t ibid. 23, n a tu r a lly , e v e n rerum ordo is said to b e preserved since C icero is ta lk in g a b o u t a tr a n s la tio n o f A eschines a n d D em osthenes. H . o n th e o th e r h a n d h a s in m in d a G re ek su b ject so re -c re a te d th a t th e rerum ordo is b o u n d to d iffe r fro m th e G reek source. Cf. E p . 1. 19. 24-5 numeros anim osque secutus | . ..n o n res e t...u e r b a , ibid. 29 rebus et ordine dispar. O th e r cases, s u c h as th e proem s o f C icero’s p h ilosophical w o rk s, w o u ld b e m o re re le v a n t. F o r these a n d th e school exercises o f paraphrasis , see H . D . J o c e ly n , T he Tragedies o f Ennius (1967)» P p ,2 5 f f · fid u s w ith interpres is less u su a l in L a tin th a n m a y be suggested by th e p h ra s e , ‘a fa ith fu l tr a n s la tio n ’. T h e ad j., acco rd in g to T L L , vi. I. 703. 72 ff., in th is c o n n e x io n , denotes a n y p erson qui in certa condicione fid e m praestat, e.g . in re narranda. H .’s p o in t seem s to b e th a t th is is fid e s w ro n g ly sh o w n ; h e h as tra n sfe rre d th e e p ith e t from such in s ta n c e s as E p . 1. 8. 9 m edicis a n d C. iv. 9. 40—1 bonus atque f . | iudex. T h e p o e t in q u e s tio n , u n lik e th e H o ra tia n p o et, h as ‘tr u s te d ’ a n o th e r p e rs o n , n o t h im se lf: E p . 1. 19. 22 qui sibi fidet. 134 T h e t h ir d fa u lt is s tra ig h tfo rw a rd im ita tio n ; in artum is a t th e o p p o s ite p o le fro m p a tu lu m (132). U se o f a traditional th em e m u st be original. W h ile in o n e sense o f th e w o rd no lite ra tu re is m ore im itativ e t h a n A u g u s ta n p o e try , in a n o th e r n o n e is m o re creativ e th a n V irgil s o r H . ’s w o rk . T h a t is th e se n tim e n t w h ich in sp ired 0 imitatores, seruum pecus (E p . 1. 19. 19, cf. ibid. 12 ff.) a n d libera per uacuum posui uestigia princeps, e tc . (ibid. 21 ff.)· I d o u b t i f th e re is h e re a reference to th e fa b le o f th e fox (E p . 1. 7. 29 ff.) b u t desilies. . .in artum creates a v iv id im a g e w h ic h w o u ld s u it a fable. T h e im ita to r im prisons h im s e lf a n d c a n n o t esc ap e. F o r th e w ording, co m m en tato rs cite Cic. F a m . v ili. 16. 5 ne te sciens prudensque eo demittas unde exitum uideo nullum esse.

*35 pudor, m o re likely, as R o sta g n i says = ‘tim id ity , lack o f con­ fid e n c e ’ (cf. E p . ii. i . 258—9 nec meus audet | rem temptare pudor quam uires fe rre recusent a n d 1. 19. 22 qui sib i fid et ) th a n ps.-A cro s quia puden­ dum est inchoata deserere. operis lex: th e c o n c e p t o f a ‘p o e tic la w ’ h a s a L a tin stam p. I n

e a r lie r G re e k i t w o u ld b e th e άρετή o r φύσις o f a kin d o f a r t o r lite ra ­ t u r e ; i n la te r , νόμος w h e re i t o cc u rs is often felt to b e m etap h o ric al.

211

14-2

C o m m e n ta r y

e.g. Lucian, H is t. C on scr. 8 ποιητικής μέν καί ποιημάτων άλλαι ύιτοσχέσεις καί κανόνες ίδιοι, ιστορίας δ’ άλλοι, έκεΐ μέν yàp άκρατης ή ελευθερία, κα'ι νόμος είς, τό δόξαν τω ποιητη κτλ. Characteristically the Romans applied the notion of law over a wide non-legal range so that le x comes close to ra tio , ‘procedure’; the only field where the evidence is reasonably well known is that of the ‘law of nature . Other applications are still insufficiently documented. It seems how­ ever to be the case that the legal concept appealed to Cicero and H. Cicero applied it widely, e.g. le x u ita e , a m ic itia e , n e r i r e c tiq u e , p h ilo s o ­ p h ia e , h isto r ia e , o r a tio n is ( D e O r . m. 190 h a n c . . . a d l e g e m . . .fo r m a n d a o ra tio e s t ) , u ersu u m ( O r . 198 in i l l i s (sc . u e r s ib u s ) c e r ta q u a e d a m e t d e fin ita le x e s t) . At an early stage of his poetic career H. talks o f ‘law’ with regard to satire, S . 11. 1. 1-2 in s a t u r a . . . n i m i s a c e r e t u ltr a | le g e m ten dere o p u s, here the word denotes the procedure in single works but the lex clearly is the law of the genre and there is punning in the poem: le x oscillates between the poles of poetry and legality (P r o l . 174 ) · At E p . ii. 2. 109 the metaphor is thought to be sufficiently established to justify the adj. le g itim u m : a poem is ‘lawful’, so at A .P -

274 are metre and sound. In the present passage, even more than at ii. i. 1— 2 the law directs an o p u s ; the nuance is in u e te t: it forbids something, i.e. free movement within the genre. An unnecessary and unwholesome limitation is imposed by the work that the imitator has undertaken. M. Nicolau, RP, 3e sér. ix (1935), 350—2, suggests that the legal term le x o p e ris (sc. f a c ie n d i ) actually applies to regulations imposed on a contractor for public works. He cites Ulp. D i g · χχχιχ· 2. 15. io le g e m d a n d a m o p e ris ta le m n e q u id n o c e a t u ic in is . For le x in poetry, see Juv. 7. 102 s ic in g e n s reru m n u m e ru s iu b e t a tq u e o p e ru m le x . Quint. 1. 0 . X. 2. 22 su a c u iq u e (poetry and history, oratory) p r o p o s it a le x , su u s decor e s t, and the occasional references to c a r m in is le x and the like in Servius, Donatus, and other ancient commentators (cf. Steidle, S tu d ie n , p. 85 n. 39). *3® ~9 Fourthly, it is a fault to begin in the manner of a ccyclic writer’, that is, with a proem ill adapted to the rest of the work. Censure of this fault leads on to actual precepts ; Homer’s technique is presented as the ideal poetic technique. The link between faults and virtues is made by connecting the avoidance of a cyclic proem in this passage with the acceptance of a Homeric in the next ( 140 ff.) · The proem is not discussed p e r se but as the beginning of a poem ; its discussion, as Steidle (S tu d ie n , p. 85) has noticed, ushers in narrative technique. The proem must be an organic part of a work of poetry ; cf. above 14 ff. in c e p tis g r a u ib u s . The form of proems was a standard topic of rhetorical instruction. S.

212

C o m m en ta ry I t b e lo n g s to th e partes orationis, o n e o f th e o ldest subjects o f th e c u rri­ c u lu m , cf. Frol. 82. H e n c e th e m a te ria l o n th e rh e to ric a l side is c o n s id e ra b le . C ic e ro q u o te s a n A c ad em ic p h ilo so p h er asking, cur de p ro o e m iis et epilogis et de huius modi nugis— sic enim appellabat— referti essent eorum (i.e. rhetorum ) libri ( D e Or. 1. 86). I select for m en tio n P la to , Phaedr. 266 d - e , R het. ad A lex. 29, 35, 36 f., A r. Rhet. in , ch. 14; A d H er. 1. 6 -1 1 , n i. 7, 1 1 -1 2 , C ic. Inv. 1. 2 0 -6 , D e Or. π. 315-25, Q u in t. L O . IV, ch . 1. O n th e lite ra ry side how ever in fo rm a tio n is s c a n ty . W r ite rs o n rh e to ric like to refer to th e H o m eric proem s, see b e lo w 140 n . T h is show s th e sta n d in g o f those p ro em s an d , by c o n tra d is tin c tio n , th e lo w e r s ta n d in g o f th e cyclic p ro e m s; b u t i t show s n o m o re . P h ilo d e m u s (fr. v o f P ap . 1676, H V 2, xi. 149. 2 if.) d iscu ssed e p ic p ro e m s, a n d re fe rre d , as H . does, to th e b eg in n in g o f th e Odyssey. T . G o m p e rz rig h tly d re w a tte n tio n to this fra g m e n t a n d h e c o m p a r e d A .P . 140 fr.; b u t I w ish I co u ld be as c e rta in o f its m e a n in g as h e see m e d to be, S B A W , c x x m . 6 (1891), 53 f. L u cian , H is t. Conscr. 23 satirize s h ig h -flo w n , m elo d ra m a tic , len g th y proem s, a n d c o n c lu d e s lik e H . w ith th e risib le m ouse (cf. below 139 n .), b u t H . ’s e x a m p le , a t 137, is n e ith e r u n d u ly m e lo d ra m a tic n o r is it lengthy. A ris to tle a n d C ic e ro a r e closer to H .’s a rg u m e n t, A r. Rhet. in. 14» 1415 a 12 ff. c a llin g a n e p ic p ro e m a δ είγμ α τ ο υ λ ό γ ο υ , a n d C ic. D e Or. η . 3 2 5 stressin g th e n ee d for a n o rg a n ic connexion b etw een p r o e m a n d b o d y o f sp eech , cohaerens cum omni corpore membrum ; cf. Inv. I. 26 separatum , A d H er. 1. 11. H . is still m o re specific. C yclic poets p ro m is e (th e w h o le sto ry of) a m em o ra b le h a p p e n in g fortunam P r ia m i. . .e t nobile bellum — a fte r w h ic h th e (unselective) story will fall fla t. I n a b il i t y to selec t a n d dullness resultin g, th a t w as A ristotle s in d ic tm e n t o f th e cy clic e p ic ; in his view H o m e r’s p rin cip le o f selec­ tio n p o in te d th e w a y to u n ity as w ell as v a rie ty {Poet. chs. 8 a n d 23). A s else w h e re in th e A rs, th e tra d itio n o n w h ich H . relies seems to b r in g to g e th e r id e a s fro m th e Poetics a n d th e Rhetoric, in this case, it a p p e a r s , th e p rin c ip le o f H o m e ric u n ity a n d rh e to ric al in tere st in th e a r r a n g e m e n t o f lite r a r y w orks. 1 3 6 u t scriptor cyclicus olim : th e w o rd in g , I believe, im plies a p a r ti­ c u l a r in s ta n c e o f a cy clic p o em , w h ich H . proceeds to cite. F o r th e c o n t r a r y v ie w see 137 n. B entley, fro m in ferio r M SS, ad o p te d cyclius a lle g e d ly fo r re a so n s o f e u p h o n y . B u t A ristotle a n d C allim achus use κυκλικός in th is lite r a r y c o n te x t a n d th a t too is th e form in th e G reek g r a m m a tic a l tra d itio n ; κύκλιος o n th e o th e r h a n d q u alified w ords like χ ο ρ ό ς . P o llia n u s ’ u se o f κύκλιος (in A nth. Pal. xi. 13°) f°r t ^ie )vr^te r® o f th e e p ic cy cle seem s to b e ex c ep tio n al a n d late th e tim e o f H a d r i a n ; fo r h is u sag e a g a in co n sid eratio n s o f eu p h o n y w ere claim ed

213

Commentary

for a long time. But Porph. on 146 has cyclicus poeta like the best Horatian paradosis. 137 ‘fortunam Priami cantabo et nobile bellum ’ is erroneously ex­ plained by ps.-Acro as the beginning of a poem of Antimachus (cf. below 146-7 n.). The line used to be identified with the beginning of the Lesser Iliad, “Ιλιον άείδω καί Δαρδανίην εΰττωλον, | ής ττερ1 πολλά ττάθον Δαναοί θεράποντες ’Άρηος (Kinkel, Ep. Gr. Fr. i. 3 9 » Allen, ed. Hom. v. 129)unconvincingly, since the similarities are in fact slight. The sort of thing H. has in mind is a proem corresponding to ‘ ήγεό μοι λόγον άλλον, όπως Άσίης άπό γαίης J ήλθεν ές Ευρώπην πόλεμος μέγας’ (ap . Ar. Rhet. in. 14, 1415 a τη), optimistically ascribed by some editors to Choerilus. No convincing Greek counter­ part has been found, but the remains of cyclic epic verse are scanty. I should not be inclined therefore to jump to Rostagni’s conclusion that H. himself has fabricated an example embodying his Aristotelian creed. Aristotle was struck by Homer’s achievement, tco μηδέ τόν πόλεμον. . .Ιπιχειρήσαι όλον {Poet. 23, 1459 a 3 ι ~'2'), and censured the Cypria and Lesser Iliad for being περί ένα. . . καί περί ένα χρόνον καί μίαν πραξιν πολυμερή [Poet. ibid, a 37 ff-, cf. ch. 8). That H. had in mind some such strictures as Aristotle’s I have no doubt, but the wording of the preceding verse seems to make it sufficiently clear that H. latinized one specific proem of a cyclic epic not now extant, which he contrasted with the beginning of the Odyssey, below 141—2. nobile, according to T L L , 11. 1848. 45, only here in classical Latinity an epithet of bellum, cf. Claud. Eutrop. 1. 336—7 quid nobile gessit | . · ·? quae bella tulit?, Cypr. Gall. Exod. 530 nobilis duelli. X38 tanto. . .hiatu: Pers. 5. 3fabula seu maesto ponatur hianda tragoedo, and Juv. 6. 636 grande Sophocleo carmen bacchamur hiatu traduce the grand style (cf. Greek χάσκω) ; the nuance here is a larger promise than the writer can keep. Prop. 11. 31. 6 carmen hiare lacks either nuance. quid dignum, as S. 11. 3. 6 dic aliquid dignum promissis, promissor: probably a Horatian coinage, attaching a comic dignity to the poetaster ; the suffix -{t)or proved a fertile source of new words. Quint. 1.0 . i. 5. 6 is likely to have this passage in mind : occurrat mihi forsan aliquis: quid hic promissor tanti operis dignum? Likeness with the first part of the poem assists understanding: an account of all Priam’s fortune and the great war is announced but the author defaults, cf. 14 inceptis grauibus. . .et magna professis, 45 promissi carminis auctor, Ep· n. i. 52 quo promissa cadant {Enni). *39 parturient is the transmitted text, -iunt in one out of numerous quotations (Jer. Adv. loo. 1. 1) and some Renaissance MSS, 214

Commentary s u p p o rte d b y B e n tle y a n d su ch lively critics as P eerlk a m p a n d L. M u e lle r. T h e fu t. ten se h o w e v e r sh o u ld re m a in in possession. I f the verse sto o d b y itself, -iu n t m ig h t b e p referred . B u t th e tense is in ­ flu e n c e d b y th e c o n te x t. p a r tu rie n t . . . m us an sw e rs th e p re c e d in g q u estio n ( quid dignum . . . fe r e t? ) w ith a G re e k p ro v e rb , tran sp o sed to th e fut. tense to su it the ten se o f th e q u e s tio n . F o r th e p ro v e rb see CPG , i. 378. 4, 11. 733- 4 ώ δινεν o pos, ε ίτ α μΰν άπέτεκεν a llu d e d to b y th e first tw o w ords in L u c ia n , Conscr. H is t. 23, in a sim ila r th o u g h n o t id e n tic a l setting. Im m is c h , p . 112 n ., h a s d ra w n a tte n tio n to th e p arallel, b u t his c o n c lu sio n s a r e im p la u sib le . L u c ia n objects to πρ ο ο ίμ ια λ α μ π ρ ά καί τ ρ α γ ικ ά κ α ί cis υ π ε ρ β ο λ ή ν μακρά w h e re th e b o d y o f th e n a rra tiv e is p u n y , H . o b je c ts to a p ro e m (how ever short) an n o u n c in g a large s u b je c t w h e n its e x e c u tio n m u st fall sh o rt o f th e ex p e ctatio n ra ise d ; cf. 136—9 n ., 137 n ., a n d b e lo w 143 non fu m u m ex fulgore. P h aed ru s, IV. 23 (24) h a s m a d e a s h o rt fa b le o u t o f th e p ro v e rb , th e m o ra l being qui, m agna cum m inaris, extricas nihil. T h e p ro v e rb m ad e in to a skit, in S o ta d e a n m e tre , o n th e m in u te b o d y o f A gesilaus a n d ascribed to th e E g y p tia n K in g T a c h o s , is c ite d b y A th en , xxv. 616 d ώ δινεν opos, Zeus δ ’ έφ ο β εϊτο , τ ό δ ’ ετεκεν μΰν. T h is, if h isto rical, d ates th e p ro v e rb b a c k to th e f o u r th c e n tu r y b . c ., b u t I should b e lo a th to spin H e llen ­ istic lite r a r y affilia tio n s o u t o f its m e tric a l form , as Im m isch , p . 25, is in c lin e d to d o . O n e m ig h t n o te h o w ev er th a t the p ro v e rb m akes b e tte r sense i n L u c ia n ’s c o n te x t th a n in H .’s a n d L u c ia n m ay th e re fo re p re s e rv e its o rig in a l a p p lic a tio n . T h e age o f th e p ro v erb , its G re e k p ro v e n a n c e , a n d th e lite ra ry contexts in L u cia n a n d th e A rs m ig h t p o ssib ly p o in t to a co m m o n H ellen istic source. T h e v erse e n d in g ridiculus m us recalls, w ith im p lied com plim ents to V irg il, exiguus m us o f th e Georgies (1. 181). I t reproduces th e m ono­ sy lla b ic e n d in g , w ith th e c o n c o m ita n t stress o n th e final syllable o f th e p re c e d in g w o rd (if a stress p a tte r n is accepted) a n d th e hom oeote le u to n -ü s -üs. Q u in t. 1 . 0 . v m . 3. 20 cites th e V irg ilian line an d , n o tin g th e a p p o s ite a d j., c o m m e n ts et casus singularis magis decuit, et clausula ipsa unius syllabae non usitata addidit gratiam, im itatus est itaque utram que H o ra tiu s: i nascetur ridiculus m us’. I n his n o te o n V irg . . v m . 83 conspicitur sus (cf. in . 390 sub ilicibus sus) Servius says, Horatius ‘et am ica luto s u s ’ (E p . 1. 2. 26). sciendum tamen hoc esse uitiosum, mono­ syllabo fin ir i uersum nisi fo r te ipso monosyllabo minora explicentur animalia, u t . . . ( 4 .P . 139). gratiores enim uersus isti sunt secundum Lucilium. I t is

p o ssib le b u t fa r fro m c e rta in th a t th e reference to L ucilius indicates a r e m a r k b y th e s a tiris t o n E n n iu s’ m etre, cf. F. M a rx , Lucil. lr. 1209 n . I t is h o w e v e r lik ely t h a t verses e n d in g in a m onosyllab e 215

Commentary w e re a fe a tu re o f a r c h a ic L a tin h e x a m e te r s ; in H o m e r th e y a r e u sed fo r a v e ry d iffe re n t e ffec t. V irg il m a y h a v e s e le c te d c e r t a i n ty p e s for m e tric a l e x p e rim e n t. T h e b u r le s q u e ty p e is n o t t h e o n l y ty p e . Cf. L. M u e lle r, D e re m e tr .2 p p . 2 5 3 - 5 , an(d th e c a re f u l a n a ly s is b y J o s e p h H e lle g o u a rc ’h, L e m o m s jlla b e d a n s l ’hexam ètre la tin , e tc . ( 1964)» PP- 55 f· 1 4 0 - 5 2 : H o m e r ’s n a r r a tiv e a r t. I n r h e t o r i c a l n o m e n c l a tu r e th is is th e field o f ά ρ ετα ί δ ιη γ ή σ ε ω ς , u irtu te s narra tio n is, in s tr u c tiv e ly d iscussed in J . S tr o u x ’s b o o k , D e T h eo p h ra sti V ir tu tib u s D ic e n d i, e h . ιν . F o r n a r r a tin g th e t r u e o r a lle g e d fa c ts o f a c a s e I s o c r a t e s m a d e th re e d e m a n d s w h ic h a c h ie v e d d o c tr in a l s ta tu s i n r h e t o r i c a l th e o r y ; c o n ­ ciseness in th e s e le c tio n o f f a c tu a l m a t e r i a l , σ υ ν τ ο μ ία έν τ ο ϊξ τ τ ρ ά γ μ ασ ιν, c la rity , σ α φ ή ν εια , a n d c o n v in c in g t r e a t m e n t , ττ ιθ α ν ό τ η ς. T h e e x ta n t so u rc es a r e fa irly n u m e r o u s ; fo r e x a m p le s I r e f e r to A n a x . R het. ch s. 30 f., p s .- C o r n u tu s , R h e t. 365 ff. (R h e t. G r. 1. 2, e d . C . H a m n ie r, p p . 7 1 -4 , 3 6 5 - 7 0 ) , o r t h e b r i e f s u rv e y , C ic . D e O r. 11. 3 2 6 —30, a n d th e m o re s u b s ta n tia l, Q u in t. 1 . 0 . iv , c h . 2 . C o m p le te d isc u ssio n s o n th e lite r a r y sid e a r e lo st, b u t r e le v a n t e v id e n c e is f o u n d i n th e H o m e ric o r o th e r sch o lia , a n d o c c a s io n a l r e m a r k s e ls e w h e re . F r o m th ese o n e g a th e rs t h a t th e l ite r a r y c r itic s a p p l i e d t h e r h e to r ic a l c a te g o rie s to p o e try a n d p a r ti c u la r l y to t h e c r itic is m , t e x t u a l a n d a e s th e tic , o f th e H o m e r ic p o e m s ; see th e s tu d ie s c i t e d b y M a r i e - L u is e v o n F r a n z , D ie ä stk. Anschauungen der Ilia ssch o lien , T h e s is , Z ü r ic h γ 943 · P ro e m s a n d n a r r a tiv e te c h n iq u e s w e re i m p o r t a n t f e a tu r e s o f th o se d iscu ssio n s. T h e m a te r ia l in t h e A r s m a y t e n t a t i v e l y b e b r o u g h t u n d e r th e fo llo w in g h e a d s : (a) 140—2, p r o e m s , cf. a b o v e 1 3 6 -9 1 1 ·; ( ) I 4-3~ 5 > c la rity a n d u n ity o f n a r r a t i v e ; (c) 146—5 0 , b r e v it y , a n d a r r a n g e m e n t o f n a r r a tiv e d e t a i l ; (d ) 151—2, c o n s is te n c y i n f ic tio n a l n a r r a tiv e , cf. a b o v e 119 η. H . h a s ra is e d th e se p re c e p ts to a p o e tic le v e l b y t h e e x p e d ie n t o f c o n c e n tra tin g th e o rie s i n t o im a g e s , a n d o f so f o r e s h o r t e n i n g t h e i r s e q u e n c e t h a t a u n ifie d p ic tu r e o f a p o e tic i d e a l a rise s. T h e o u tlin e ru n s fro m t h e re je c te d , cyclic, p r o e m to its v a lid c o u n t e r p a r t , th e H o m e ric (a). T h e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n c y c lic a n d H o m e r i c is t h e n re s ta te d a n d d e v e lo p e d in th e im a g e s o f s m o k e a n d f ire , c o n t i n u e d m ^ e ro m a n tic c o n c e p t o f H o m e r ’s speciosa. . .m ira c u la ( b) . T h e n a g a in s o m e th in g c o n c re te is o ffe re d , tw o in s ta n c e s , i m m e d ia t e l y re je c te , 0 cy clic n a r r a tiv e te c h n iq u e , c o n tr a s te d w i t h th e H o m e r ic ^ ro .c * - , g r a p h ic a lly d e s c rib e d a s a d euentum f e s tin a t a n d in m edias res [c ). e c o n c lu d e s w ith th e m o st t h e o r e tic a l a s s e r tio n o f t h e se rie s, I p 1 2’ r e tu r n in g in a c irc le to th e firs t v e rs e o f t h e s e c tio n , 1 1 9 · o m e r as m ix e d t r u t h a n d fic tio n ; h is n a r r a t i v e fo rm s a u n i t y (d ) ·

216

Commentary 1 4 0 rectius u n lik e 129 = ‘m o re in a c co rd a n ce w ith (poetic) p rin ­ c i p l e ’, as a t 30 9 scribendi recte, 428 ‘pulchre, bene, recte'. W h a t H . says a b o u t H o m e r is r e la te d to th e m o tif o f u n ity in th e first p a r t o f the p o e m , cf. a b o v e p . 130 (4). hie q u i n il m o litu r inepte is c o n tra ste d w ith 138 hic promissor. H o m er n e e d n o t b e id e n tifie d e ith e r b y n a m e , as a t 74 above, o r b y pedes­ t r i a n d e s c rip tio n , as T roiani belli scriptorem, E p. 1. 2. 1. H e re h e is id e n tifie d b y p ra is e a n d b y q u o ta tio n (1 4 1 -2 ). T h is is significantly lik e L u c re tiu s , p ra is in g b u t n o t n a m in g E p icu ru s, e.g. v . 4 ff. eiu s. . . qui talia nobis | . . .praem ia liquit, etc. B ut in his b re v ity a n d m a tte ro f-fa c t w a y o f ta lk in g , H . differs fro m L u cretiu s. A ristotle’s descrip­ tio n , w h ic h does c o n ta in H o m e r’s n am e, m ay otherw ise be com ­ p a r e d , Poet. 8, 1451 a 22 ff. ό δ ’ Ό μ η ρ ο ς ώ σ περ καί τ α ά λλα διαφ έρει καί τ ο ϋ τ ’ εοικεν κ α λώ ς ίδεϊν, ή τ ο ι δ ιά τέχν η ν ή διά φύσιν, w h ic h is fo llo w ed b y th e H o m e ric p rin cip le o f u n ity . Cf. 23 ,1459 a 3° o n th e sa m e p rin c ip le , καί τ α ύ τ η θεσπέσιος άν φανείη "Ομηρος π α ρ ά τ ο υ ς ά λ λ ο υ ς κ τλ . F o r th e w o rd in g R o stag n i com pares S trab o vi. 276 τ ο μυθοοδέσ τατον δοκοϋν είρήσθαι τ ω π ο ιη τ ή οΰ μ άτην φαίνεσθαι λεχθέν, a n d s im ila r expressions in th e H o m e ric scholia. 14 1—2 A p a r a p h r a s e in tw o verses ra th e r th a n a close tran slatio n o f H o rn . O d. i. 1 -3 . E p . 1. 2. 19-22 h as a d ifferen t p a ra p h ra se . H o m er to o k p r id e o f p la c e in discussions o f proem s. I n A r. Rhet. in, ch. 14 the tw o H o m e r ic p ro e m s a re q u o te d to g e th e r w ith a th ird , som etim es id e n tifie d w ith C h o e rilu s ’, cf. 137 n . P hilod. (above 136-9 n.) m akes re fe re n c e to th e p ro e m o f th e Odyssey. Q u in t. 1. 0 . x. 1. 48 holds th a t H o m e r h a d e s ta b lish e d legem prohoemiorum, a n d explains how H o m e r s p ro e m s satisfy Q u in tilia n ’s o w n rh e to ric a l categories. H .’s criterio n d iffe rs as in d ic a te d a b o v e 1 3 6 -9 n . 141 H o m e r ’s έπ εί Τ ρ ο ίη ς ιερόν πτολίεθρον επερσεν is sum m ed u p b y domitor Troiae a t E p . 1. 2. 19, b u t h ere re n d e re d captae post tempora Troiae, moenia, fo r tempora, is th e w o rd in g o f w h a t is otherw ise a q u o ­ t a t i o n o f th e tw o H o r a tia n verses in th e Periocha Odyssiae w hich goes u n d e r t h e n a m e o f A u so n iu s; B entley, fin d in g th e re ad in g in the firs t h a n d o f o n e a n d th e second h a n d o f a n o th e r u n im p o rta n t M S o f H ., sp o n s o re d i t ; b u t i t is b e tte r ex p lain e d as a n in terp o latio n , p e r­ h a p s fro m th e Periocha. N o n e o f B entley’s instances parallels the w o rd in g , o r lik en s th e lo c u tio n to V irg il’s post eruta . . . | Pergama (A x i. 2 7 9 -8 0 ) . B e n tle y also co n sid ered funera for tempora a n d P eerlkam p e m e n d e d to Troiae p o st moenia captae, g ra m m a tic a lly b u t n o t otherw ise p la u s ib le . N o c h a n g e is, I th in k , re q u ire d . F o r tempora after prepos., see O v . M e t. v m . 3 6 5 -6 citra T ro ia n a . . . \ tempora, for th e v aria tio n T roiana a n d Troiae, c o m p a re C. 1. 28. 11—12 Troiana. . . | tempora

217

C o m m e n ta r y

testatus with Ον. above, and at Met. xi. 757-8 nouissimae Troiae \ tempora (cit. Keller ad I. and Epil. 748). 142 mores, here and Ep. 1. 2. 20, is said by m any to render the Homeric text o f Zenodotus, νόμον for νόον (Schot. A, Od. i. 3). So it may. But νόον is close to what later ages would describe as ήθος and Quint. 1.0 . vi. 2. 8 remarked ήθος, cuius nomine. . .caret sermo Romanus; mores appellantur, etc. Hence mores may be a moralizing Roman way o f rendering νόον. uidit flatly renders Homer’s ίδεν. . .καί. . .lyvco, Ep. 1. 2. 20 has inspexit. *43— 4 Imagery instead of Aristotelian argument about unity and diversity. The cyclic poets make a large blaze o f their subject at the outset but the fire quickly dies down, and all that remains is the smoke of an inarticulate story. The Homeric procedure is the oppo­ site. There is the smoke of the proem, which leaves it doubtful what the reader is in for; then a good fire (the ‘oneness’ o f Achilles’ or Odysseus story), which in turn produces the unexpected and bril­ liant fairy tales’, the Θαυμαστά of his episodes. Aristotle has the basic ideas of unity and diversity, main narrative and episodes (note Poet. 23> I459 a 37 διαλαμβάνει την ιτοίησιν) ; he also marks the fantastic element. But the place where he attends to θαυμαστόν is outside the argument on unity. H., or his authority, has brought these two topics together; interest in ‘ the fantastic’ is a Hellenistic and Roman feature and the analysis uerum—uerisimile-falsum is post-Aristotelian ; see above 119 n. and below 151-2 n. *43 fumum ex fulgore: Rost agni’s reference to Lucian, Tim. 1. 1 καττνός. . . ποιητικός εξω του ττοπάγου των όνομάτων, is not entirely m point here; cf. Aug. Coif. 1. 17 nonne ecce illa omnia fumus et uentus?. . is not talking of insubstantial poetic fog but is concerned with poetic oeconomia. He is alluding to a Roman proverb (Otto, Sprich­ wörter^ p. 137 η. 667, TLL, vi. i. 1542. 7 ff.) : where there is smoke there is fire. As Palinurus in PI. Cure. 53 f. remarks, flamma fumo est proxuma) but fumo comburi nil potest, flamma potest. In telling their story the cyclic poets do not get the fire really going. exfumo dare lucem as in Livy’s metaphor, x. 24. 13, where however it is app ied to war : quem ille obrutum ignem reliquerit ita ut totiens nouum ex wiprouiso incendium daret, fumum and lucem dare are parallel : farnus and lux. But lucem is ‘light’ not fire; the metaphor is switched midway; the cyclic procedure ‘befogs’ the reader, is uncear. m es, κοπτνός, nebula, at 230 n., differ, parum claris lucem dare, below at 448, ts -clarify', without this imagery. *44 to r miracula cf. θαυμαστόν, Ar. Poet. 24, 1460 a 12 ff., for the

218

Commentary w o rd , Ο ν . M e t. π . 1 9 3 -4 sparsa. . .in u a rio . . .m iracula caelo | uastarumque uidet (P h a e th o n ) . . .sim ulacra ferarum , M in. Fel. Oct. 20. 3 ut temere crediderint etiam alia monstruosa, mera {mi- co d d .) m iracua. S cy lla m . . .C h im a e ra m . . .e t quicquid fa m a e licet fingere. T h e hig h ly la u d a to r y e p ith e t, speciosus, re cu rs w ith fa b u la below 319-20,^ w it uocabula rerum , E p . 11. 2. 116, cf. 150 nitescere. B rillian t fantasies sue as m e ta m o rp h o s e s , paradoxa a n d th e like, w ere am o n g t e p o p u a r H e lle n is tic a n d R o m a n g en res, a n d ‘ta le s’, o r fabulae, w ere am o n g th e a p p r o v e d g en res o f H e lle n istic a n d R o m a n lite ra ry t eory (c . a b o v e 119 η .) . H . seem s to b e say in g t h a t ro m a n tic fiction, so ta r fro m b e in g e x c lu d e d fro m th e H o m e ric poem s, is effective y set in th e s tric t a n d c le a r u n ity o f th e po em s as a w hole. dehinc, a lth o u g h th e te m p o ra l sense c a n n o t b e excluded, m ay be s p a tia l, c a r r y in g o n th e im a g e ry o f ex f u m o . . . lucem: dehinc, i.e. ex luce, miracula p ro m a t. Cf. T L L , v. 389. 29 ff.

145 T h e v erse consists alm o st en tire ly o f G reek nam es, like V irg. G . in . 55 0 , IV. 336, A . V. 826. -que et does n o t conform to th e ra re ty p e o f c o n ju n c tio n n o te d 196 a n d 214 n n . -que a ttac h es Scy am c ose y to A n tip h a ten a n d th u s re m o v e s b o th to g e th e r from th e t ir p a r t o e s e n te n c e in tr o d u c e d b y et. F o r th e use o f cum, c . irg. · x· I24 A ssaraci duo et senior cum Castore Thym bris, xi. 604. B ut th e spacing is m o re recherché, fo r -que (et) a n d cum seem to b e use to space

m y th o lo g ic a l p e rso n a g e s in tw o d iffe ren t w ays a n a p p a re n t o r er, a jb A n tip h a ten Scyllam que a n d bje cum Cyclope Charybdis, b u t also a n a t u r a l o r d e r , ale a n d b /d : tw o c ru e l m onsters, A n tip h ates, th e king o th e L a e s try g o n ia n s {O d. x ) , a n d th e C yclops (0 . ix ), an S c y lla a n d C h a ry b d is {O d. x ii). B entley was re a d y to divorce bey fr o m C h a ry b d is , a n d re p la c e h e r b y C irce, in o rd e r to avoi s p a c in g o f th e tw o asso c ia te d n am es over th e w hole verse, or G re e k e n d in g A ntiphaten see H o u sm a n , J P , x x x 1 Η θ 10)» 245 ' C harybdin th o u g h lik e ly is n o t e q u a lly c e rta in , cf. ousm an, 6 0 5 n . ; T L L , Onom. 11. 382. 53 ff· r .· , 1 4 6 - 7 nec red itu m . . .a b ouo a re re la te d to 148 semper, .fe stin a ta s 143 non fu m u m ex fu lg o re a re re la te d to sed ex fu m o are ucem, 1. a n tith e s is . B u t in s te a d o f sed (143)) presents a n asyn e on. 1 4 6 -7 th e re fo re H . is n o t ta lk in g o f H o m eric poem s b u t o f ^ o n s im ila r g ro u n d s to A risto tle ’s, h e rejects th e m as u n p o e 1C> 9 h is to r ic a l; cf. Poet. chs. 8 a n d 23, cited ab o v e 137 n · o r w er c ritic is m s re s tr ic te d to e p ic v erse. P s.-C o rn u tu s, M e t. 5 IP· 3 5) R h e t. G r. 1. 2 e d . H a m m e r ) , d ep lo re s ‘sta rtin g to o fe r b ac k , εαν . . . ττόρρω θευ α ρ χ ή , καθάττερ έυ το ϊξ π ρ ο λ ό γ ο ις τιεττοιηκεν E u p m i b ^ i scholars had paused to consider the layout o f these verses, y g

219

Commentary n o t h a v e b e e n r e a d y to a sc rib e to H . c e r t a i n v ie w s o n t h e ‘ H o m e r ic Thebaid; cf. A p p e n d ix 3. 146 ‘ H o m e r does n o t b e g in th e ta le o f D io m e d e ’s r e t u r n w ith th e d e a th o f M e le a g e r.’ T h e sty listic p o i n t m a d e i n t h e p r e c e d i n g n o te h elp s to re je c t th e fo llo w in g e x p la n a tio n : H o m e r d o e s n o t b e g in his ta le o f D io m e d e fro m t h e d e a th o f M e le a g e r. T h e v e r s e is r a t h e r a co m p re ssed ex p ressio n fo r “ n o r d o es h e a c t lik e th e w r i t e r w h o b e g a n , e tc .” ’ (W ilk in s a d L, cf. D a c ie r, H . S c h ü tz , a n d o t h e r s ) . W h o w a s th e p ro lix w rite r w ho p ra c tise d g e n e a lo g y i n a u n i l in e a r , c y c lic , n a r r a ­ tiv e ab interitu M elea g ri, D io m e d e ’s g r e a t- u n c le ? T h is c a n n o t n o w b e k n o w n w ith o u t n ew e v id e n c e ; P o rp h . a n d p s .- A c r o a d I. m e n tio n th e n a m e o f A n tim a c h u s , w h ic h p ro d u c e s m a n y d iffic u ltie s o f i n t e r p r e t a ­ tio n . D id th e p o e m te ll o f D io m e d e ’s r e t u r n f r o m T r o y to G re e c e , o r to A e to lia a fte r th e c a m p a ig n o f th e E p ig o n i a g a in s t T h e b e s ? T h is q u e s tio n c a n n o t b e a n sw e re d w ith a n y c e r ta in ty , cf. A p p e n d ix 3 · N ev erth eless th e w o rd reditus = ν ό σ τ ο ς su g g e sts a c o m p a r is o n w ith th e re tu r n o f Odysseus o n th e H o m e r ic s id e , j u s t a s t h e r e is a c o m ­ p a ris o n w ith th e Ilia d in th e n e x t v erse. H e n c e t h e r e is a b a l a n c e —-no m o re — in fa v o u r o f a r e tu r n fro m T ro y . S o t h a t t h e v e rs e w o u ld t h e n im p ly s o m e th in g lik e th is: w h e n H o m e r te lls o f a ν ό σ τ ο ς (a s h e d o e s in th e Odyssey) h e d o es n o t s t a r t th e n a r r a t i v e w ith a lo n g a c c o u n t o f th e h e ro ’s an c esto rs, as d id t h e c y c lic p o e t in th e c a s e o f D io m e d e . R o m a n re a d e rs m a y h a v e h a d so m e in te r e s t i n t h e A e to lia n h e r o b ec au se o f his close re la tio n w ith I t a l i c m y th o lo g y , k n o w n fr o m V ir g il a n d O v id , a n d e a rlie r fro m L y c o p h r o n a n d T i m a e u s , cf. B e th e , Diom edes, R - E , v . 8 2 0 if. a n d H ü ls e n , D io m e d is C am pi, ib id . 829· 147 'N o r d o es h e b e g in th e t a l e o f th e T r o j a n W a r w i t h t h e tw in e S g 3 a n o th e r g e n e a lo g ic a l sto ry t r a c in g th e T r o j a n w a r t o t h e b i r t h o f H e le n a n d (?) th e D io sc u ri. T h is is o fte n r e f e r r e d to t h e C yp ria , o n e o f th e o ld cy c lic epics. B u t in s p ite o f th e h a r m o n i z in g n a r r a t i v e s o f K . - H . a n d R o sta g n i a d a n d i n s p ite o f t h e a r g u m e n t s o f M .- R · S u lz b e rg e r, E tudesH oratiennes (B russels, 1 9 3 7 ), p . 2 2 5 , t h e r e f e r e n c e is h ig h ly su sp e c t, as w ill b e seen fro m th e e v id e n c e s u r v e y e d b y A . R z a c h , R - E , XX. 2379 ff. F o r n e ith e r w a s th e r e m u c h i n t h e C ypria o f th e sto ry o f th e a c tu a l bellum T ro ia n u m , n o r d o e s th e p o e m s e e m to h a v e c o n ta in e d th e c e le b ra te d tw in egg. T h e r e a r e o t h e r p e r h a p s m o re d e b a ta b le p o in ts a g a in s t th e id e n tific a tio n , cf. S te id le , S tu d ien , p . 91 n . 41. For th e gem inum ouum, see B e th e , R - E , v . 1 1 1 3 ; contrast

.n . i. 26-7 with the present verse: eodem | pugnis. fi

n

it

C astor g a u d et equis, ouo p ro g n a tu s 6

v,U^ j ° U r sc a n W e v id e n c e allo w s o f n o p la u s ib le a t t r i b u t i o n , I a r to b e p e rs u a s d e d t h a t H . h a d n o sp e c ific e x a m p le s i n

Commentary m in d , as L . M u e lle r a n d a m o n g o th ers S teidle, Studien, p . 91 n. 41, h a v e th o u g h t possible. 1 4 8 sem p e r. . .festin a t: for th e im p lie d antithesis, see 146-7. a d euentum ‘ issue, o u tc o m e ’ as show n b y C icero’s definition, Inv. 1. 42 euentus est exitus alicuius negotii, a n d o th e r instances, T L L , v. 2. 1018. 31 ff., p s.-A cro a d I. H o m e r h u rrie s to th e issue: this is th e c o u n te r p a r t to th e a v o id a n c e o f irre le v a n t d e ta il p rio r to th e c h ief e v e n ts o f th e n a r ra tiv e , c o m m e n d e d 146-7. F o r th e b a c k g ro u n d o f r h e to r ic a l th e o ry , see a b o v e 140-52 n. P hilod. Poem, v , cols. 3 -4 is a w a re o f a th e o ry a p p ly in g th e rh e to ric a l term s συντομ ία a n d έ ν ά ρ γ ε ια to p o e try . P s.-P lu t. D e vita et poesi Horn. 162 discusses th e la y o u t o f th e I lia d a n d O d yssey in sim ilar term s, cf. W . K ro ll, Stud. Z. Verst, d. r im . L it. (1 9 2 4 ), 134 f. T h is discussion clearly derives from a t r a d itio n close to H . ’s, cf. ου γ ά ρ πόρρω θεν έμβαλών τ η ν α ρ χ ή ν τ η ς Ί λ ιά δ ο ς έ π ο ιή σ α τ ο κ τλ. τ ό δ ’ α υ τ ό καί έν τ η ’Ο δύσσεια ττεττοιηκεν, ά ρξά μενος μεν dorò τ ω ν τ ε λ ε υ τ α ίω ν . . . χρ ό ν ω ν κτλ. N o te too such te rm s as ε ν ερ γ ό τερ ο ι καί άκμ αιότεραι (πράξεις), α ρ γό τερ α , συντόμω ς, δ ειν ό τερ α κ α ί π ιθ α ν ώ τ ε ρ α . T h is w a y o f looking a t p o etry is A lex an ­ d r i a n a n d is p e r p e tu a te d in th e H o m eric a n d V irg ilian scholia. Schol. o n II. v . 8 m ak es referen ce to th e th re e άρεταί δ ιη γή σ εω ς (1 4 0 —52 n .) to illu s tra te th e selection o f d e ta il in th a t passage. Schol. A , II. i. i asks δ ιά τ ί ευθύς ά π ό τ ω ν τελευτα ίω ν τ ο υ πολέμου η ρ ξ α το ; T h e a n s w e r is, ό π ο ιη τ ή ς οίκονομ ικώ ς. . .η ρ ξα το μεν α π ο τ ω ν τ ε λ ε υ τ α ίω ν , δ ιά δέ τ ω ν σ π ο ρ ά δ η ν α ύ τ ω λεχθέντω ν περιέλαβε καί τ ά π ρ ο τ ο ύ τ ο υ π ρ α χ θ έ ν τ α . T h u s Schol. Τ , II. ι. ι p u ts this p ro c ed u re d o w n to α ρ ε τή π ο ιη τ ικ ή ; sim ilarly Schol. L , II. 1.8 w here th e expression εξ α ν α σ τ ρ ο φ ή ς, ‘b y in v e rs io n ’, is used. T e rm s like κεφαλαιω δώ ς a n d κ α τ ά τ ό σ υ μ π έ ρ α σ μ α (sum m atim , th e la tte r n o t in this m e an in g n o ted b y L .—S ,— J . ) a n d κ α τ ά τ ό σ ιω π ώ μ εν ο ν (ex silentio ) are w orking tools o f th e sch o liasts, e.g . a t II. 11. 553, ix . 224» a n d often elsew here, n o t a lw a y s c o n v in c in g ly , a p p lie d . Cf. W . B ach m a n n , D ie ästh. Anschau­ ungen Aristarchs , etc. n (1904), 8—9. V irg il’s co m m en tato rs n o ted th a t th e p o e t w o rk e d in th e sam e tra d itio n , Serv. D a n . o n V irg. A . 1. 34 u t H om erus om isit in itia belli Troiani, sic hic non ab initio coepit erroris. T h u s to o D o n . T er. A n . p ra ef. 11. 2 hunc enim orbem et circulum poeticae u irtu tis non modo secuti su n t tragici comicique auctores sed Homerus etiam et V ergilius tenuerunt. F o r th ese a n d o th e r links w ith H o m erie scholia see

43 > 126 n n ., a n d M . M iih m e lt, ‘G riech . G ra m m a tik in d e r V ergile r k lä r u n g ’, f eternata, x x x v n (1965), 1 1 5 6 in m edias res: th e se n te n c e c o n tin u es b u t th e tail-en d o f this verse has b e c o m e p ro v e rb ia l— a n d trite . I n its co n tex t th e saying is m e m o ra b le , t h e w o rk - a -d a y G re e k critics h a d often expressed it b u t lacked 221

Commentary H o r a tia n p a n a c h e . T h e m a t t e r m a y b e p u t i n t w o d i f f e r e n t w ays. E ith e r o m issio n a n d s u m m a r y p r o c e d u r e a r e s tre s s e d , a s w h e n at Schol. A , II. XVI. 432 Z e n o d o tu s is c e n s u r e d fo r o v e r lo o k in g this H o m e ric te c h n iq u e . O r sim p le in v e r s io n is s tre s s e d , a s Schol. I L 1. 8 έξ α να σ τρ ο φ ή ς (p rec. n .) , o r Schol. A , I I . x v . 5 6 δ τ ι ώ ς έττίτταν π ρ ο ς t ò δεύτερον ττρότερον ά π α ν τ α . A r is ta r c h u s w o r k e d w i t h b o t h p n n cip les a n d o fte n c ritic iz e d h is p re d e c e s so rs in th is m a n n e r —-m o re o ften in fa c t th a n w e c a n n o w k n o w : c o n t r a s t t h e b l a n d w o r d in g o f Schol. O d. Xi. 177 w ith P a p . O x y . 1 0 8 6 ( v m . 1 9 1 8 ), co l. 1. 1 (cf. S . E . B assett, H S , x x x x (1 9 2 0 ), 4 7 , A . G u d e m a n , R - E , 11 a . 638. 19 if., a n d m y re m a rk s , C ( f , x l (1 9 4 6 ), 2 1 ). I n L a t i n l i t e r a t u r e in medias res a n d th e lik e c o m m o n ly d e n o te ‘i n v e r s i o n ’, w h e th e r in th e s tru c tu re o f a w h o le w o rk o r o f a p h r a s e o r p a r a g r a p h . T h u s C ic . A tt. I. 16. i respondebo tib i ύ σ τ ε ρ ο ν π ρ ό τ ε ρ ο ν 'Ο μ η ρ ικ ώ ς , Q u i n t . 1 . 0 . v ii. 10. i i ubi ab in itiis incipiendum , u b i m o r e H o m e r ic o a m e d iis uel u ltim is , P lin . E p . n i. 9 . 28 succurrit q u o d p r a e t e r i e r a m . . . sed quam quam praepostere r e d d e tu r , fa c it h o c H o m e r u s m u ltiq u e illiu s exem plo, S erv . Virg. A . p ra e f. 92 ff. (e d . H a r v a r d ) hanc esse a rtem p o etica m u t a m e d iis in c ip ie n te s p er narrationem p rim a reddam us, e tc . quod e tia m H o r a tiu s sic praecepit in arte p o etica . . . (43—4 ). unde constat p erite fe c is s e V ergilium · M ü h m e lt, loc. cit. (p re c . n .) , c o m p a r e s D o n . T e r . A n . P r a e f . n . 2 hanc esse uirtutem poeticam u t a n o u issim is a r g u m e n t i r e b u s in c ip ie n s in itiu m fa b u la e . . . narratiue reddat spectatoribus, e tc . B u t H . se e m s to h a v e i n m in d n o t o n ly th e ύ σ τερ ο ν ττρ ό τερ ο ν o f H o m e r ’s d r a m a t i c u n i t y b u t , to j u d g e fro m 150, also H o m e r ic b r e v ity a n d c o n c is e n e s s . 149 non secus ac: th e m o s t u s u a l g r a m m a r in th is lo c u tio n . I t is s a d t h a t n o re c e n t e d ito r feels p e r s u a d e d b y t h is i n s t a n c e a n d b y C. in . 25. 12 (non secus) u t e v e n to q u e s tio n t h e o d d i t y ( o ra tionis scabritiem a c c o rd in g to M e in e k e ) o f t h e o n ly r e m a i n in g i n s t a n c e o f non secus in Η ., I m e a n C. n . 3. 1—2 rebus in arduis | . . .n o n secus in bonis, w h e re B en tley in tro d u c e d ac bonis fro m o n e o r tw o l a t e M S S , and H ousm an in tro d u c e d u t bonis, in C R , 1v (1 8 9 0 ), 341. rapit, a fa v o u rite w ith H ., = rapide f e r t o r a g it, a k in d o f < ρ υ χ α γ ω γ 1α > cf. C ic . O r. 128 quod ( τ ο π α θ η τ ικ ό ν ) cum rapide fe r tu r , su stin e ri nullo pacto potest. T h e lis te n e r is p ro p e lle d in to th e m id d le o f t h e s to r y a n d a c c e p ts i t a s th o u g h h e k n e w th e b e g in n in g — a t e llin g m e t a p h o r i n th e c o n te x t o f b re v ity a n d fa s t n a r r a tiv e . 150 H e re lin k s a re m a d e , n o t o n ly w ith th e b e g i n n i n g o f th is sectio n (see 1 5 1 -2 n .) b u t w ith t h e first p a r t o f th e p o e m : c o m p a r e rm nquit w ith 4 1 - 3 o n ordinis uirtus, a n d w ith 1 ff. o n a w o r k o f a r t , th e p a r ts o f w h ic h d o n o t c o h e re — u n i t y u n a t t a i n e d . d e sp e ra t: a v ig o ro u s C ic e ro n ia n w o rd i n a C ic e r o n ia n c o n s t r u c ti o n ;

Commentary th e w o rd is r a r e in v e rse : ‘d eest poetis p ra e te r singulos locos Bue. E ins. S ta t. I u v ., b in o s: S en. Sil. A u so n ., tern o s: H o r. L u c a n i M a rt., q u in q u e : Ο ν ., f r e q u e n ta t Cic. (7 7 ies)’, T L L , v . i. 739. 39 fr. tractata: o f p o e tic h a n d lin g also E p . ii . i. 209. nitescere: cf. 41 lucidus {ordo), 144 speciosa ( miracula )— concepts o f p o e tic s o p h is tic a tio n , n o t A risto te lia n m e ta p h o rs ; th e on ly m e ta p h o r o f lig h t I h a v e n o tic e d in th e Poetics is a censorious one (24, 1460 b 4 -5 ή λ ία ν λ α μ π ρ ά λέξις. H o m e r h ere becom es a so p h isticated , H o ra tia n p o e t. relinquit e n c o u ra g e s th e view ab o v e ta k e n o f 148. 151—2, as b o th H e in z e a n d R o sta g n i h a v e no ticed , b rin g to g e th e r th e tw o s tr a n d s fro m th e b e g in n in g o f this section, i i q , fa m a m sequi a n d fingere. T h e fo rm e r is id en tified w ith uera, th e la tte r W1Ù1 falsa', fo r th is p a i r see a b o v e 119 η . H o m e r is c red ited w ith b o th . R o sta g n i h a s m a d e a n o th e r i m p o r ta n t p o in t. H . is ty in g uera a n d fa ls a to th e a c h ie v e m e n t o f a n o v e r-a ll u n ity . E v en speciosa miracula h e accepts o n ly i f th e y b e c o m e p a r t o f th e b o d y p o e tic ; see S teidle, Studien, p p . 91 f. A n d th is is n o m e re th e o ry . As h e does th ro u g h o u t th e Ars, H . h e r e h a s a tte m p te d to d o w h a t h e prescribes: these verses n o t only c o m p le te th is se c tio n w ith its im a g in a tiv e touches so th a t it becom es a u n ity , b u t j o i n i t w ith th e ea rly m otifs o f th e p o em , cf. 150 n. 151 H e in z e h a s (m istak en ly , I believe) sep a rated this verse from its A ris to te lia n c o n te x t. H . is re sta tin g d o c trin e w hich is re la te d to A ris to tle ’s. H o m e r , a c c o rd in g to Poet. 24, 146° a 18 19j ^ as ta u g h t o th e r s ’ (i.e. o th e r p o ets) ‘ to m ak e false statem en ts in th e rig h t w a y ’, δ εδ ίδ α χ ε ν δε μ ά λ ισ τ α “Ο μηρος kocì τούς άλλους ψευδή λεγειν ω ς δει. B ut as Η . p u ts t h e m a tte r i t c o n tra d ic ts th e A risto telian co n cep tio n to a c e r ta in e x te n t. I n Poet. ch . 9 a ll p o e try is a p u rv ey o r o f uerisimilia, ο ϊα α ν γ έ ν ο ιτ ο καί τ ά δ υ ν α τ ά κ α τ ά τ ό είκός ή τ ο α να γκ α ϊον ( 145 1 a 37“ 8 ). T h is c u ts ac ro ss th e sim ple d istin c tio n b etw een fa ctu al tru th a n d p o e tic fa lse h o o d . H . is closer to th e H ellenistic se p a ra tio n o f uera fro m uerisim ilia o r fa ls a m e n tio n e d in 1 1 9 ° . Y et A ristotle h im self a llo w e d a n e x c e p tio n to his ru le, in ch. 21, 1460 a 11—b 5, on w hich R o s ta g n i a n d G . F . E lse {Ar. Poetics, etc. p p . 621 ff.) h av e w ritte n c o n v in c in g ly . H . tak es ‘ p o e tic lie s ’ fo r g ra n te d , ju s t as h e takes v ariety fo r g r a n te d in th e in itia l sec tio n o n u n ity : h e tre a ts fa ls a as a n artistic p ro b le m . I n th e n e x t v erse h e acknow ledges th a t H o m e r has so fitted th e m in to t h e u n ity o f h is sto ry as to leave visible no jo in t betw een fa m a m sequi a n d fingere, cf. ab o v e 119, 125-7. u e r is . . . remiscet: th e a b i. a p p e a rs to h a v e b ee n the case in original u se w ith s u c h v e rb s o f jo in in g as misceo a n d iungo, b u t th e d a t. ap p ears e a r ly a n d , w h e re a d istin c tio n b etw e en th e tw o ca n b e m ad e, is seen

223

C o m m e n ta r y

to b e th e p re v a le n t u sa g e in cla ssic a l L a t i n , cf. H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r , p . 1 15. T h e few in sta n c e s o f th e r a r e c o m p o u n d a r e in f a c t in d is tin c t; C. IV. 15. 30 L ydis rem ixto carm ine tib iis, p ace H e in z e , is n o c e rta in in s ta n c e o f th e a b l., n o r is S e n . Const. 7. 4, a n d S e n . E p . 71. 16 naturae remiscebitur is d a t. ita -sic: as a g a in s t 225—6 ita - i ta - it a . C f. V ir g . A . x ii. 10 sic adfatur regem atque ita turbidus infit as a g a in s t E . 1. 22, A . in . 4 9 0 a n d o th e r in stan ce s o f re p e a te d sic o r ita. 152 p r im o . . . m edium , m e d io . . .im a m , t h e w o rd s in e m p h a t i c (ch iastic) o rd e r, p o in te d ly s ta te t h e b a s ic la w o f u n i t y a t t h e c lo se o f th e se c tio n ; cf. 119 sibi conuenientia, 1 2 6 -7 a d im u m | . . .a b incepto . . ■sibi constet, b u t also 8—9 u n i . . .fo rm a e, 2 3 s im p le x . . . et u n u m , e t a l. F o r th e w o rd in g cf. 148 in medias res, C ic . F in . v . 83 m ira b ilis et a p u d illos (i. e. Stoicos) contextus rerum; respondent extrem a p r im is , m edia utrisque, omnia omnibus, Q u in t. 1 . 0 . v ii. io . i i (c it. 148 n . ) , E u a n t h . D e F a b . 3. 7 (D o n a t. Comm. T er. ed . W e ssn e r, 1. 2 0 ) m edia p r im is atque p ostrem is ita nexuit u t . . . aptum ex se totum et uno corpore u id ea tu r esse com positum . Cf. A r. Poet. ch s. 8 a n d 23, a n d th e p a ssa g e s c ite d a b o v e 8 - 9 a n d 23 n n . ne b elo n g s to a la rg e g r o u p o f in s ta n c e s i n w h i c h t h e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n fin a l (ne) a n d c o n se c u tiv e (u t non ) p ro v e s to o n e a t a n d tid y ,

cf. H o f m a n n -S z a n ty r, p p . 641 ff. a n d th e e v id e n c e d is c u s s e d fro m d iffe re n t p o in ts o f v iew b y R . G . N is b e t a n d W . G . K i r k , A J P , x l i v ( I 9 2 5 )> 27 ff., 26 0 ff. H e r e a n te c e d e n t ita - s ic c o u ld l e a d t o a s im p le u t non o f re s u lt, b u t ne e m p h a s iz e s t h a t t h e r e s u lt is d e s ig n e d b y H o m e r ; cf. b elo w 2 2 5 -7 i t a - i t a - i t a . . .n e , E p . 1. 13. 1 2 -1 3 sic p o situ m seruabis onus, n e fo rte sub ala | fa sc ic u lu m portes librorum . prim o a n d medio, though, in d is tin c t i n fo r m , a r e lik e ly to b e d a tiv e s w ith discrepet (like th e e q u a lly in d is tin c t cases b e lo w 2 1 9 , S . 1. 6 . 9 2 > π . 3. 108, C . i. 27. 5 6 ), sin ce th e first i n d u b i t a b l e a b l . w i t h t h a t v e r b is n o t re c o rd e d b e fo re A p u l. A p o l. 6 9 qu a n tu m lin g u a eius m anu discrepet ( T L L , v . i . 1348. 73) w h e re a s th e first i n d u b i t a b l e d a t . b e lo n g s to th e C ic e ro n ia n p e r io d : N ig id . ap. G e li. vii. 6 . 10 ( T L L , v . i . i 34 6 · 74)> fo llow ed clo sely in tim e b y th e r e m a in in g H o r a t i a n i n s t a n c e E p π . 2 . 1 9 3 -4 quantum sim p le x . . .n ep o ti I discrepet. T h e p o s itio n is n o t s ta te d c le a rly in T L L .

IV. Dram a, 153-294 T h e tr a d itio n .

Until

n o w o u r so u rc e s h a v e r e n d e r e d

discussion

o f t h e lite r a r y tr a d itio n a t a n y r a t e p o s s ib le . I n t h e p r e s e n t s e c ti o n t h e s o u r c e s l a r g e l y

f a il u s . T h e

224

s tric tly

rh e to ric a l

Commentary material becomes on the whole irrelevant; it has no business with drama as a poetic genre. As for Aristotle, I have sug­ gested, Prol. 110-19, that the Poetics can still do useful service, for it can remind the reader of the placing of some of the subjects which H. has taken from the tradition. That applies to the discussion of characters with which Ar. Poet. ch. 15 deals after the plot, and H. at a comparable place from 153 to 178, although the content is manifestly under the influence of Rhet. π, chs. 12-14. It applies to the miscellany of rules as well—in the Poetics chs. 17-18, before Aristotle proceeds to thought and diction ; in the Ars 179-219> if not only the chorus but music is here included. After that place the Poetics is little use to the student comparing the two major works on literary criticism that have come down to us from antiquity. The passage on metre in drama has some slight Aristotelian paral­ lels, cf. Prol. 118 f. But the historical remarks (so far as they are historical and not educational) on the dramatic genres, 220-50 and 275-94, are closely tied to the Hellenistic position and very little to the Aristotelian, cf. Prol. ibid. These affi­ liations apart, what I think we can gather is again a matter of placing. In the Poetics observations on the genre of tragedy form the main substance of the book and virtually alone account for its arrangement. H. on the other hand seems to be relying on a scheme of things in which a more general dis­ cussion of style and content preceded detailed observations on the dramatic genres: Prol. 99 ff., 138· Horace. Up to 152, drama, though often adduced by way of example, has not been the main topic. From 153 to 294 it is. The three introductory verses, 153—5? se* a new theme and this is not abandoned until the end of the section. Whether the new context is meant still to exemplify the preceding section, or whether this is a fourth large group of subjects I find hard, and not very profitable, to determine, cf. Prol. 7-10. Having brought ‘character’ into the discussion of other topics, H. now discusses character study in drama per se. 225

BH A

C o m m e n ta r y

Some readers profess themselves surprised by the weight given to mores, e.g. G. Williams, J R S , liv (1964), 194, an odd pro­ position for H. to embrace so devotedly’. Why odd, one wonders. What could be more Roman than this passion for mores ? And what more Horatian, in \O d es, S a tir e s , and E p is tle s alike, than this perceptive eye for typical human features? A further motif is continued in the section on character— appropriateness. Here it is called decor (157)5 the fitting detail, in a setting remarkable for descriptive appropriateness in focusing the four ages of man. After (1) character, 156—78, there follow miscellaneous rules, all but one negative and getting briefer each time : interdicts against (2) horrors enacted on the stage, 179-88, (3) plays longer than five acts, 189-90, (4) an unmotivated deus ex machina, 191— 2, and (5) more speaking parts than three, 192· The next paragraph is the exception—an injunction not an interdict, and longer than (i)-(5 ): (6) the appropriate function (apte 195) of the chorus, 193-201. The treatment of music (7) follows, 202—19, remarkable for its absence of a ruling, positive or negative, though there can be no doubt of H.’s sentiment. As I noted in P ro l. 115 f., H. looks back nostalgically to a golden age of the art ; τό ττρέττον and per­ haps a ruling are implied. If H. had adopted a simple unilinear arrangement, he would have placed next, (8) metre of drama, (9) tragedy, (10) comedy, and (11) Satyric drama in Greece and (12) Rome. As it is, the layout is as follows: after music, and separating music from its counterparts, rhythm and metre, there follow (8) the epilogue to tragedy, Satyric drama, 220—5° > (9) the metre of dramatic dialogue, 251—74, which turns into a harangue against the Roman neglect of a rs, so that the established major genres can now be set against the back­ ground of an antithesis—Roman potentiality vis-à-vis Greek perfection; (10) Greek tragedy, 275-80, and comedy, 281-45 (11) Roman tragedy and comedy, 285—94. These are clear indications of H.’s imaginative and poetic ordering of topics ; 226

Commentary

for comments on this arrangement, see the remarks intro­ ducing the sections at 251, 275, 281, 285. In the latter part of this large section H. has made full use of the motif of ars, technical mastery. It is brought to the fore with great delicacy; in the end it becomes the dominant feature and paves the way to the next large part of the poem (at 295) in which ars is set against natura. In the present section a further major motif appears, Roman versus Greek closely entwined with the theme of ars : exemplaria Graeca. (i) Introduction, 153, Characters, 154-78 153 One vigorous line introduces the new series of instructions. For the imp., cf. 38, 119. There is no telling whether the line introduces the first topic only; q u id , rather than quae, does not (as Immisch p. 122 suggests) settle the question. Diintzer and several nineteenth-century editors placed a comma after this verse and a full stop after 155; thus, too, many recent editors. Kiessling in particular argued that the transition from epic to drama is made clear only if the si clause shares the first sentence. This is implausible, and refuted by H.’s use o f a u d i to introduce a new topic. Whether or no the indirect question precedes the imp., such sentences are self-contained with a full stop after a u d i or the indir, question. They do not drag after them a tail two lines long: S . i. i. 14—15 ne te morer,audi q u o rem deducam. & p . i. 2. 5 cur ita crediderim, msi quia te ueuuci, concipit iras, V a l. M a x . vii. 2. 5 s i q u id irae conceperant, e t al. m utatur in horas: lik e t h e p u ella in fa n s, E p . ii. 1. 100 q u o d cupide p e tiit, m ature plena reliquit. 1 6 1 —5 iuuenis: th e ν έο ι o f A r . R h e t. 11. i 2 . T h e age envisaged is

a b o u t s ix te e n , cf. 161 n. W h ile t h e ty p o lo g y is v e r y s i m il a r to t h a t in A risto tle a n d his successors, t h e c o lo u r is R o m a n . 1 6 1 I p r i n t im berbis (inb -) w i t h B R a n d th e m a j o r i t y o f t h e M S S in s p ite o f th e h o m o e o te le u to n -is iuuenis-. B la n d . V e t. a n d so m e e le v e n th -c e n tu ry M S S o ffe r im berbus, G a f te r c o r r e c tio n . A t E p . H· *· 85 -es is i n a ll M S S . B o th fo rm s w e re k n o w n , p s .- A c r o inberbus et inberbis sicut inerm us e t inerm is, cf. K e lle r , E p ii. 750. C haris. 1, G L , i- 95 (p . 122. 9 ed . B a rw ic k ) p re fe rs -u s b u t also c ite s -is f r o m L iv y . T L L ,

234

C o m m en ta ry v ii . i. 4 2 4 . 63 ff. o ffe rs th e e v id e n c e , fro m w h ic h -is a p p e a rs as th e

c u r r e n t p o s t- C ic e r o n ia n fo rm , -us in L u cil. a n d V a rro , w h e reas C ic e ro ’s u s a g e is d o u b tfu l. tandem is s a id s y m p a th e tic a lly , as befits a n ethopoeia. Cf. S ta t. S ilv . V. 2. 6 8 - 9 quem non corrupit pubes effrena, nouaeque | libertas properata togae, M a r t . ix . 27. 11 iam paedagogo liberatus. custode remoto, t h a t is a t th e ag e o f c. 16 w h e n th e toga uirilis re p la c e d th e praetexta', p s .-A c ro e.g . PI. M e r . 91 m ih i paedagogus fu e ra t, quasi u ti m ihi fo r e t | custos. P seud. 86 5 h is discipulis priuos custodes dabo, C ic. Rep. iv. 3 ad m ilitia m eun tib u s d a r i . . .custodes a quibus prim o anno regantur, V irg . A . v . 5 4 6 custodem . . .com item que im pubis Iu li, H o r. A .P . 239 custos fam ulusque dei S ilen u s a lu m n i, S . 1. 4. 118—19 ( H .’s fa th e r) ‘ dum custodis eges, uitam . . . tueri I . . ,p o s s u m \ 1. 6. 8 1 -2 ipse m ih i custos incorruptissimus omnis ] circum doctores aderat.

1 6 2 T h e p a s s io n f o r h o rses, h u n tin g , a n d ath letics is n o ta b ly a b se n t fro m A ris to tle ’s a c c o u n t, a lth o u g h co m ed y offers su ch featu res. P s .-A c ro c ite s p a r t o f T e r . A n . 56—7 quodplerique omnes fa c iu n t adulescen­ tu li, I u t a n im u m a d a liq u o d studium adiungant, aut equos \ alere aut canes a d uenandum ( a u t a d philosophos) ; cf. Phor. 6—7 adulescentulum j ceruam uidere fu g e r e et sectari canes.

F o r s o m e c h a r a c te r is tic re m a rk s , see P olyb. x x x n . 15· 8 f., P lu t. A em . P a u l. 6. 9 f., C ic . F in . 1. 69 s i . . .gym nasia, si campum, si canes, si equos, si ludicra exercendi a u t uenandi, consuetudine adamare solemus, etc., H o r . C. n i . 12. 7 ff., 24. 54 ff., T ib . iv . 3 (S u lp ic ia ), e t a l.; H . B liim n e r . D ie röm . P rivataltertüm er (M ü lle r’s Handbuch, iv . 2. 2, 1 9 1 0 >

PP· 5*2 ff. 1 6 3 —5 H . h a s c o n c e n tr a te d th e d e sc rip tiv e featu res b y su b d iv id in g th e v e rse s a n tith e tic a lly , u n c o n n e c te d in th e m id d le o f th e lin e, e x c e p t fo r th e la s t. T h is d ia le c tic sch em e is n o t a p p lie d in A ristotle. * 6 3 in u itiu m fle c ti: cf. A r. R het. 11. 12, 1389 b 3 (ά π α ν τ α ε π ί τ ο μ ά λ λ ο ν κ α ί σ φ ο δ ρ ό τε ρ ο ν ) ά μ α ρ τά ν ο υ σ ι, a n d a 6 εΰμ ετά β ο λο ι, th e m o r a l m e t a p h o r is n o t in A r. T h e m e ta p h o r, fleetere, w as c u r re n t since E n n . A n n . 2 5 9 dictis nostris sententia fle x a est (cf. T L L , v i. 1. 892. 80 ff.) a n d th e a r c h a ic d id f flexa n im u s, P a c u v . tr. 177 0 flexanim a atque omnium regina rerum oratio, a p p lie d to lite ra r y a n d m o ra l subjects. So w as the im a g e r y o f w a x , k n o w n fro m G re e k p h ilo so p h y . F o r th e im a g e ry J u v . 7 · 2 3 7 - 8 a n d o th e r s m a y b e c o m p a re d . T h e v irtu e o f th e passage d o e s n o t, h o w e v e r, lie i n th e m e ta p h o r b u t in its w o rd in g , w a x en so as to b e m o d e lle d in to th e likeness o f v ic e ’. T h e pass. inf. flecti, ‘ e p e x e g e tic ’, e x p la in s th e sc o p e o f cereus. F o r this ty p e o f inf. w ith

235

Commentary ad j. o r n o u n see H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r , 3 5 0 f. ; s o m e G re e k in ­ flu en ce is u n d e n ia b le , b u t d e v e lo p m e n t in L a t i n l i t e r a t u r e , p a r ti c u ­ la rly A u g u s ta n v erse, is th e i m p o r t a n t f e a tu r e . C f. b e lo w 165 c o rre s p o n d in g ly relinquere pernix. monitoribus: o n e o f th e d e s c rip tiv e n o u n s in - ( tjs )o r , h a l f a d o z e n in th ese verses; cf. (in a d d itio n t o censor ) prouisor, dilator, laudator, cashgator. S o m e o f th ese a g e n t n o u n s w e re a r c h a i c o r p o e tic , b u t n e w ones seem to h a v e b e e n a d d e d s te a d ily . T h e u s a g e is c o m p le x a n d th e m a te r ia l in su fficie n tly k n o w n . T h r e e lin e s o f d e v e lo p m e n t m a y b e d istin g u ish e d , (a) P o ets a n d p o e tiz in g w r ite r s o f p r o s e u s e r a r e in ­ stan ce s o f th ese fo rm a tio n s, o r fa s h io n n e w o n e s , e .g . p ro u iso r ( 164 n . ) , dilator (172 n .). (b) T h e d e s c rip tiv e co n c ise n e ss o f th e s e n o u n s seem s to h a v e in d u c e d C ic e ro a n d o th e r w r ite r s o f c la s s ic a l p ro s e t o e x te n d th is u s a g e ; so m e o f th e se n o u n s r e a p p e a r i n v e rs e , e.g . assentatores (420 η .) , cf. G . B. A . F le tc h e r , A n n o ta tio n s on T a c itu s (1 9 6 4 ), p - 64 ’ a p ro p o s o f T a c . H ist. 1. 72. 1, ibid. 73, H is t. ix. 76. 5. (c) A d m in is tr a tiv e la n g u a g e v e ry e a rly h a d praetor, lictor, e tc . B u t l a t e r o ffic ia l j a r g o n d re w in c re a sin g ly o n th ese n o u n s ; so m e o f t h e m h a d l i t e r a r y a n t e ­ c e d e n ts, e.g .p ro u iso r (164 n .). asper a t th e e n d o f th e lin e is c o n tr a s te d w ith cereus a t its b e g in n in g ·' h o w e v e r easily in flu e n c e d fo r th e w o rse , th e iuuenis is i m p a t i e n t o f o v e rt g u id a n c e . Cf. a b o v e 161 tandem custode rem oto, a n d A r. R h e t. 11· I 2 J 1389 a i i ff. o n th e φ ιλο νικ ία o f th e y o u n g , a ls o b 5 είδε να ι α π α ν τ α ο ιο ν τα ι καί δ ιϊσ χ υ ρ ^ ο ν τ α ι. 164 A r. R het. ιι. ΐ2 , 1389 a 14—15 φ ιλ ο χ ρ ή μ α τ ο ι δέ ή κ ισ τ α δ ιά τ ό μηττω ένδειας π ε π ε ιρ α σ θ α ι, b 1 μ ή π ω π ρ ο ς τ ό σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν κ ρ ινειν μηδέν. I n th e A rs a n a n tith e tic p a i r : t h e y o u n g a r e slo w t o m a k e m o n e y , (b u t) r e a d y to s p e n d it. prouisor h e re , i t seem s, fo r th e first tim e ; n e x t in l i t e r a t u r e k n o w n fro m T a c . A n n . x ii, 4 . i } in a sty le e v e n m o re e l e v a te d . B u t i n th e fo u r th a n d fifth c e n tu rie s a p r o v in c ia l g o v e r n o r w a s c o m m e m o r a te d in a n in s c rip tio n as p ro u iso r. . .prouinciae, D e ssa u n o . 1263 ( C 1L , x iv . 2 9 I 7)> a n o th e r a s ordinis prouisor, D e ssa u n o . 1276 ( C I L , x . 3 8 6 0 ). S e e a b o v e 163 n . o n m onitoribus (c). t sub lim is ‘ h ig h - m in d e d ’, lik e G re e k μ ε γ α λ ό ψ υ χ ο ς , b u t also feelin g s u p e r io r ’ o r ‘ d e sirin g s u p e r io r ity ’, a d o u b le e n t e n d r e w h ic h e v e n th e m a te ria ls o f th e L a t i n T h e s a u r u s c a n n o t p a r a l l e l ; c o n t r a s t superbus, o n e o f p s .-A e ro ’s ‘s y n o n y m s ’. I t is lik e ly to b e a p e r c e p t i v e tra n s fe re n c e fro m su ch G re e k te rm s a s A r . R h e t. 11. 12, 1389 a 12 φ ιλ ό τ ιμ ο ι. . . μ ά λ λο ν δέ φ ιλ ό ν ικ ο ι· υ π ε ρ ο χ ή ς γ ά ρ έ π ιθ υ μ ε ΐ ή ν ε ό τ η ς , ή 5 έ νίκη υ π ε ρ ο χ ή τ ις . C f. a 3 0 μ ε γ α λ ό ψ υ χ ο ι · ο ύ γ ά ρ υ π ό τ ο υ β ίο υ π ω τ ε τ α π ε ίν ω ν τ α ι κ τ λ ., b 11 φ ιλ ε υ τ ρ ά π ε λ ο ι · ή γ ά ρ ε ύ τ ρ α π ε λ ία π ε π α ι 236

Commentary δευμένη ύ β ρ ις έσ τίν. T h e th o u g h t th e n is A risto telian b u t th e p o w er o f c a tc h in g in a single w o rd th e c h a rac te ristic ally m ix ed sta te o f y o u th fu l id e a lis m a n d c o n c e it is H o ra tia n . sublim is is a n o b le a n d a n tiq u e w o rd , a t h om e in R o m a n tra g e y (H . H a ffte r, C iotta, x x ii (1935), 251 ff., H . D . Jo c e ly n , E n n . tra g , fr. 3 n .) , p e r h a p s also in E n n ia n ep ic (N o rd en , V irg . A . Vi. 719 n.) a n d , p ro b a b ly p a r a tr a g ic , in co m ed y (cf. HafFter, loc. d b ). I t never q u ite sh e d th e tra c e s o f th is an cestry . F ro m V a rro o n w a rd it is 0 ten u se d as a p o e tiz in g w o rd fo r ‘h ig h ly p la c e d ’ : R .R · π· 4 · antiqui reges et sublim es u iri. S u b lim is ‘e la te d ’ o ften re ta in s th e m e ta p h o ric a l c h a ra c ­ te r o f ‘e le v a tio n , h e i g h t ’, cf. V a rro , M en. 1 sublimis speribus, V irg. X. 1 4 3 -4 quem . · .sublim em gloria tollit, x n . 788 sublimes armis animisque refecti. O v id to o m a k e s som e p o etic c a p ita l o u t o f its co n n o tatio n s, n o ta b ly M e t. iv . 4 2 0 -1 (e la te d b y , p ro u d o f), Pont. in. 3. 103 mens tua sublim is supra genus em inet ipsum (g re a t, elevated) a n d , o f p o etry , m. I. 15. 23 carm ina s u b lim is. . .Lucreti. Silver L a tin continues t ese v a rio u s n o tio n s . Iro n ie s lik e A p u l. M e t. iv . 10 sublimis ille uexillanus noster o c c u r. B u t H .’s d o u b le e n te n d re is n o t to m y know ledge re p e a te a n y w h e re in L a tin . cupidus: cf. A r. R h e t. 11. 12, 1389 a 3 ff. επιθυμητικοί κτλ. am ata relinquere pern ix: cf. A r. R het. 11. 12, 1389 a 6 -7 ευμεταβο^ οι ε και α ψ ίκ ο ρ ο ι π ρ ο ς τ ά ς επιθυμ ίας καί σφ οδρά μεν έπιθυμοϋσιν, τα χέω ς ε π α ύ ο ν τ α ι. T h e c h a n g e a b ility o f th e boy, 160 n ., is still re m e m b ered . A n ex p ressiv e p h r a s e ; c o n tra s t A r.’s p ro saic τα χέω ς δε π α ύ ο ν τα ι. am ata m a y b e a n y th in g d esire d (cf. 164 n e u t. utilium ), u t m ay a so h i n t a t A r .’s ά κ ο λο υ θη τικ ο ί είσι περ ί αφροδίσια (επιθυμία) κ α ί ά κρ α τεϊς τ ο ύ τ η ς (ibid, a 5)» cf· cupidus, pernix occurs m p o etry , h is to rio g ra p h y , a n d S ilv er p ro se . F o r th e inf. see 162 n. 1 6 6 aetas anim usque: th e p a ir as 156 aetatis cuiusque. . .mores 157 n a tu r is . . . et annis, E p . i. i . 4 non eadem est aetas, non mens. Virg· · ΙΠ· 100 h a d a p p lie d anim os aeuumque notabis to horses. 1 6 7 opes et am icitias, e tc .: c o n tra st 164 utilium tardus prouisor. opes h e r e d efin e s am icitiae as ‘ useful co n n e x io n s’ n o t th e o n y aspec s o R o m a n am icitia, cf. C ic. L a el. 55 ; co n tra st A r. Rhet. n. 12, 13 9 1 2, th e y o u n g μ ή π ω π ρ ο ς τ ο συμφέρον κρίνειν μηδέν, ώ στε μη ε φ ίλο υ ς. T h e w id e ra n g e o f am icitia is instructively discussed by r . t \ . B ru n t, Proc. Cam. P h il. Soc. (1965), pp· 1 ff· . . .· inseruit honori: cf. C ic. Off. n . 4 posteaquam honoribus insermre coep meque totum rei publicae tradidi, a lth o u g h W ilkins dem es t e re o f th is p a r a lle l. W h a t is in p o in t h e re is n o t th e φ ιλοτιμία ot th y o u n g b u t th e see k in g o f p u b lic office a n d position, n 1 e e p · honores (e .g . C. 1. 1. 8, in . 2. 18, 5. 1. 6. u ) , honor denotes this type o f

237

Commentary

position, Ep. i. 18. 102-3 honos an dulce lucellum | an secretum iter et fallentis semita uitae, Cic. Brut. 281 cum honos sit praemium uirtutis iudicio . . . ciuium delatum ad aliquem, Verr. 1. 11 quaestura primus gradus honoris. Cf. T L L , vi. 3. 2927. 47 ff 168 The animus uirilis differs from the others in showing steadiness and cautious ‘commitment’, cf Ar. Rhet. 11. 14, 1390 a 1-2 ούτε Tritai τπστεύοντες ούτε ττδσιν οπτιστοΟντες κτλ. For the idiomatic perf. inf. commisisse see 98 n. tetigisse, caueo with inf occurs in archaic literature and Silver prose ; in classical writing it is largely restricted to verse, but see Cic. A tt. hi. 17. 3. mox mutare, the reading of the best MSS, is much superior to permutare, uar.l. Keller, Epil. 750, cites Serv. Virg. G. 1. 24 Horatius m ox. . . ( C. ni. 6. 47-8) idestpostea', ps.-Acro in his note on the present verse paraphrases postea . . .mutare. In C ( f , xxi (1927), 62 H. J. Rose said that at A.P. 168 and 184 ‘mox simply means later’; he was right (as regards those and such other passages as 221), but ancient gram­ marians like Servius and ps.-Acro were aware of H.’s usage. Keller, ibid., makes an attempt to explain the textual variant as a gloss p {post explaining mox) misread as p = per. 169 Cf. Ar. Rhet. 11. 13, 1389 b 16-17 K°ù τ& ττλείω φαύλα είναι των πραγμάτων. senem circumueniunt incommoda, for the military metaphor, cf. Enn. trag. fr. 16 (Jocelyn) multis sum modis circumuentus, morbo exilio atque inopia, Sali. Iug. 7. 1 his difficultatibus circumuentus. Sen. D ia l. η. 8. 3 damna. . . quae sapientem, etiamsi uniuersa circumueniant, non mergunt, Apul. M et. ix. 38 tot malis circumuentus senex; al. T L L , in. 117 9 ·

82 ff.

uel quod. . . (171 uel quod), in the prosaic calculating concinnitas adapted to hexameter verse by Lucretius, e.g. 1. 742—6 primum quod .. .deinde quod, 11. 435-6 uel cum. . .uel cum, m. 807 flf, iv. 314—15 ) even in such elevated passages as i. 931 ff., n. 3-4. X70 Cf. Ar. Rhet. 11. 13, 1389 b 26-9 των προς τον βίον επιθυμούσι. καί ανελεύθεροι · §ν γάρ τι των αναγκαίων ή ούσία, αμα δέ.. . ισασιν ώς χαλεπόν τό κτήσασβαι καί ράδιον τό άποβαλεϊν, Ι3 9 ° a *5 δουλεύουσι τω κέρδει. quaerìt, cf. Ar.’s τό κτήσασθαι but also a pun, quaerere-inuenire—uti as S . i . 1. 37-8 (formica ) non usquam prorepit et illis utitur ante | quaesitis sapiens, etc., Ep. 1. 7. 57 et quaerere et uti· im en tis. . . timet uti a picture of ανελευθερία. *7 * timide gelideque: cf. Ar. Rhet. n. 13, 1389 b 31 ff. κατεψυγμένοι γάρ είσιν. . .ώστε προωδοπεποίηκε τό γήρας ττ| δειλίςτ καί γ®Ρ ° φόβος κατάψυξίς τί$ έστιν. ministrat ‘manages an archaic, poetic and Silver prose usage.

238

Commentary 1 7 2 -4 T h e q u a litie s a re now singly expressed, in descriptive ad jec­ tives o r n o u n s in -{t)or. 172 dilator: th is expressive n o u n , p ro b a b ly a H o ra tia n coinage, is fo u n d h e r e o n ly in classical L a tin ity . A ugust. Serm. XL. 5, cit. I L L , V. i . 1 166. 2 5 , is lik ely to b e in sp ire d b y H .: 0 male dilator, 0 crastini male appetitor. . , . t spe lo n g u sf : B e n tle y im p u g n e d th e p h ra se a n d so u g h t to em en d it.

L . M u e lle r o b e liz e d it. M o d e r n ed ito rs d o n o t; p re su m a b ly they u n d e r s ta n d it, th o u g h th e y d o n o t say how , o r if th ey do th ey tail. A . Y . C a m p b e ll, in B u ll. Lond. In st. Class. St. v ( i 958)> 6 5> read ily a d m itte d t h a t e m e n d a tio n s h a d failed, b u t his ow n a tte m p t {specu­ lator) w ill c o n v in c e few . W ilk in s (1892) honestly con esse p u zz e m e n t. T h e w o rd s m u s t a p p ly to th e senex him self; a n d w hile spe m ay b e ‘e x p e c ta tio n ’ r a th e r th a n ‘h o p e ’, th e spes c a n n o t b e * a t ° thers — τά ςέ λ ττίδ α ς χρ ο νΐ3ει (T . G . T u c k e r, C Q ,,v 11 ( i 9 I 3)f 10 ) ’ ra e n ’ A r. sa id , h a d th e ir h o p es d isa p p o in te d , Rhet. 11. 13, χ 39» 4 δ υ σ ελπ ιδες δ ιά τ η ν εμ πειρ ία ν, u n lik e th e y o u n g (12,^13 9 a ^ w h o a re εϋέλπιδες, ώ σ π ε ρ y à p oi οίνωμενοι κτλ. καί 3ωσ1 ^ ειστ® έ λ π ίδ ι. T h is w o u ld d e m a n d w o rd s d e n o tin g ‘slow to conceive hopes , o r in d e e d ‘ w ith o u t h o p e s ’, th e v e ry opposite o f t e spes onga o en q u o te d fro m C. 1. 4. 15 uitae sum m a breuis spem nos uetat incohare longa , i i . 6 - 7 spatio breui I sP em longam reseces. B entley th erefo re proposed spe lentus, b u t h is p a ra lle ls d o n o t b e a r o u t th e m e an in g posi e , W ilk in s sa id , lentus = ‘te n a c io u s o f h o p e ’. A n d w ords d en o tin g ‘d is a p p o in te d ’ o r th e like d o n o t fit th e ductus o t e ra^ S , le tte rs. P e e r lk a m p , fo r ex a m p le , conSj d e" f f b . 3) fail o th e r a tte m p ts s u c h as spe serus o r spe lapsus (Uaes. zj.u . . 00 ó) fo r th e s a m e re a so n . T h e r e re m a in s th e possibihty canvassed >y P e e rlk a m p a n d H e in z e : spe longus = spei longus, o m g ΟΏ^ h o p e s ’, a tta c h e d as a n a ttr ib u te to dilator = qui m ongu differt. B u t g ra n te d t h a t th e L a tin w ill b e a r this construction ( w h ^ I d o u b t) , th e senex, h o w e v e r a tta c h e d to life, c a n sca^ce I , e „ ~ to re c k o n w ith a lo n g life. N e ith e r S oph. fr. 63 ( au c ) y à p οΰδείς ώ ς Ò γ η ρ ά σ κ ω ν έρα n o r Cic. Sen 24 {Lg ^ 7 W ) qui se annum non putet posse umere b ea rs o u t this re g > f semble compter sur une vie sans f i n ’, is w h a t J . H a r y i s 1 , , C ic e ro n ia n re m a rk ( M usée Beige, x x v ( i 92 I)> 22^ ’ , I_1f r t n f this b e c a u s e to m y m in d h e ta lk s so u n d sense o n the secon p B en tley . T h e M S re a d in g it o f « n con,p a r e d w ith th e p assag es o f S ophocles a n d C icero “ e d e fe n d e d b y re fe re n c e to A r. Rhet. n. 14, *389 a 32 ff· 239

φ1χ US λ

l anS u a Se *n a fa r fr o m t r a d i t i o n a l s p ir it. C P G , 11. 744 ώ τ ί ω ν π ισ τ ό τ ε ρ ο ι όφ θαλμ οί. T h u s H e ro d . 1. 8 ώ τ α . . . ά π ισ τ ό τ ε ρ α ό φ β α λ μ ώ ν e t a l. C f. L u c r. V. 1 0 2 -3 (n o te d b y M r E . J . K e n n e y ) , S e n . E p . 6 . 5 e t a l. 182 ipse sib i tradit: a m o re d ir e c t w a y o f e x p r e s s in g t h e i m m e d ia t e c h a r a c te r o f sense im p re ssio n s t h a n (say ) C ic . D e O r. 11. 357 quae fidelib u s: p ro v e rb ia l i n G re e k ,

essent a sen m tradita atque impressa·, ib id , s i etia m com m endatione oculorum a m m s traderentur.

182 non ta m e n -8 4 , a n d th e in s ta n c e s t h a t fo llo w , c o r r e s p o n d t o th e re je c o n o ea rso m en ess b y w a y o f s p e c ta c le ’, τ ό φ ο β ε ρ ό ν , δ ιά τ ή ς οψεω ς, a n , e v e n m o re , ‘th e m o n s tr o u s ’, τ ό τ ε ρ α τ ώ δ ε ς , r e je c t e d b y o e . 14, 1453 b 8 -1 0 . B u t t h e m o tiv e d iffe rs. A r is to tle re je c ts

C o m m e n ta ry

them because they do not provide the pleasure akin to tragedy, H. because of a sense of fitness: 183 n. digna, 188 n. incredulus odi. 182 intus ‘indoors, offstage’, i.e. inside the house which fronted the stage according to the Graeco-Roman convention, intus is contrasted with promes in scaenam, coram populo, palam, 183-6, and it is the conven­ tional term in comedy, e.g. PI. Cas. 751 gladium Casinam intus habere ait, 756 perspicito prius quid intus agatur. 183 digna geri: not ‘worthy to be done’ but displaying the deriva­ tion from the root of decet, decus, i.e. * demos, ‘fitting’: ps.-Acro quae debent intus agi', T L L , v. 1. 1143. 15 paraphrases that notion by ‘decens, aptus, conueniens’’, yet subjoins the present instance under the wrong heading, 1152. 69. This meaning as well as the inf. appear frequently, e.g below 282-3 uim \ dignam lege regi, S. 1. 3. 24 improbus hic amor est dignusque notari, 4. 3 siquis erat dignus describi quod malus ac f ur, 24-5 utpote pluris | culpari dignos, Ep. 1. 10. 48. promes . . .tolles still an address to the putative poet, 119 η., 153 η· 184 ex oculis cf. 181 oculis. mox, probably = postea, 168 η. facundia praesens, as commentators say, = f praesentis nuntii, but the presence of the reporter or report is emphasized; he or it, not the action, is presented. *85 Dramatic incidents in this verse and the next are again too readily identified with known plays, e.g. by K.-H. ad I. and K. Latte, H , l x (1925), 3. For tragic versions of the Medea legend, see Lesky, R -E , X V . 54 fi, Eur. Med. ed. D. L. Page, pp. xxx ffi Ar. Poet. 14, *453 b 28— 9 refers to the killing of the children, but Aristotle’s point is unconnected with H.’s; Keller’s ref. to Aristotle in his app. crit. is misleading. Enn. tr. 234—6 (Jocelyn) seems to imply that the murder of the children was not shown on the stage, as Eur. Med. 1251 ffi certainly implies. Whether conclusions may be based on artistic repre­ sentations (for which see Lesky, op. cit. 61 ffi) is a different matter. In Seneca’s (presumably recited) tragedy the question does not strictly arise ; but as far as it does, Seneca did not pay attention to this Horatian rule, cf. Sen. Med. 967 if. ne in virtually the whole of the transmission, although Bentley had to sponsor it against vulgate nee, continued by independent neue 189, and nec, 191, 192. It is more likely to begin a subord. clause than a new independent one, proposed by Peerlkamp. *86 A stock example of a horrific play, hackneyed and insipid to Persius’ mind, 5. 8— 9 si quibus aut Procnes aut si quibus olla Thyestae | feruebit saepe insulso cenanda Glyconi. For Atreus and the cena Thyestae, see 91, where narrari need not imply that acta refertur. In Senecas 247

Commentary tr a g e d y th e d o o rs o f th e h o u s e a r e s a id t o b e o p e n e d a t 9 0 1 -2 ; A tre u s d escrib es th e cena s u p p o s e d to b e h e l d o ff s ta g e , 9 0 8 ff. 187 T h e v erse is a r r a n g e d i n c h ia s tic o r d e r w i t h u e rta tu r in th e c e n tr e : b o th d ra m a s c o n ta in e d m e ta m o r p h o s e s . T r a g e d i e s o n th e th e m e o f P ro c n e a re d isc u sse d b y G . R a d k e , R - E , x x iii. 2 4 7 f. ; cf. P ersiu s, c ite d i n th e p re v io u s n o te . C a d m u s ’ m e ta m o r p h o s is is m e n ­ tio n e d a t E u r. B a c . 1330 ff. ; fo r t h e te n u o u s tr a c e s o f h is C a d m u s tra g e d y , K . L a tte , R - E , x. 1468. 11 f f , E u r . fr. 4 4 8 ( N a u c k 2). B ut E u r. fr. 93 0 (N a u c k 2) οΐμ ο ι, δ ρ ά κ ω ν μ ο ν y i y v e r a i τ ό < y ’) ή μ ι σ ν ) τέκνον, π ε ρ ιπ λ ά κ η θ ι τω λοιττω τ τ α τ ρ ί, c ite d b y H e r m o g e n e s fo r its b a d ta s te (κ α κ ό ζη λ ο ν), is n o t b y h im a s s ig n e d to t h e C a d m u s·, cf. N a u c k a d I. B u t e v e n i f i t w e re , as K .—H . a n d R o s t a g n i r e m a r k , it is lik ely t o c o m e fro m a m e s s e n g e r’s s p e e c h . Procne, a lth o u g h th is s p e llin g , u n lik e P ro g n e , h e r e o c c u r s o n ly in ΦΤ a p a r t fro m R e n a is s a n c e M S S o f t h e A r s ; h e n c e ‘ P r o g n e non P rocn e , p ro n o u n c e d S. G . O w e n , O v id , T r is t, p . x v , r e f e r r i n g t h e r e a d e r to th is v erse a n d tw o o th e rs, a n d w a s p u n i s h e d a c c o r d i n g l y b y H o u s m a n C R , x y l i (1 9 0 3 ), 390, c f CQ_, X X II (1 9 2 8 ), 3 ff. T h e M S S o f V irg il in c a p ita ls a ll h a v e Procne a t G . iv . 15, cf. H o u s m a n , C ( f i, x x n ( i 9 2^)>

9·

188

osten dis: c f 181 ocu lis su b iecta , Q u i n t .

1. 0 . ix . 2. 4 0

o sten d itu r,

c it. 181 n. incredulus odi: cf. E p . 11. 1. 8 9 liu id u s o d it. F o r o d i a s a (s tr o n g e r ) te r m fo r ‘re je c t, s p u r n ’, see E p . 1.7. 2 0 sp e rn it et o d it, a n d F r a e n k e l , H o r . 263. P s .-A c ro m a y b u t n e e d n o t b e r i g h t i n a s s u m in g t h a t t h e a d j. gives th e re a s o n fo r o d i : id est non credens sic debere f ie r i, ac p e r hoc spern o a tqu e contem pno. A d iffe re n c e o f p r in c ip le b e tw e e n H . ’s v a r io u s in s ta n c e s in th is s e c tio n is im p la u s ib ly a s s e rte d b y R o s t a g n i a n d K . Z ie g le r, R - E , v i a . 1973.

(3)

T h e ‘fiv e- act la w ’, 189-90

The evidence such as it is has been discussed with divergent results by various scholars, especially by R. T. Weissinger, A Study of Act Divisions in Classical Drama’ (I o w a S tu d ie s ix, *9 4 °) and W. Beare, T h e R o m a n S ta g e 3 (1964), ch. 25, both of whom seem to me to assert too much, a ctu s is ‘part of drama , but the principle of the division is not certain. It is at any rate likely that it corresponds to the ‘prologue, episode, and exodus’ in the suspect ch. 12 of Ar. P o e t.; that is, the original principle of division was the presence of choruses. A different 248

C o m m en ta ry

type of division would be obtained on the basis of Poet. ch. 7 with its ‘beginning, middle, and end’. The divisions in classi­ cal tragedies differ in number, notably in Sophoclean and Euripidean. Division of plays into ‘parts’, i.e. something like acts, is known from Hellenistic theory, and that presupposes such divisions applied to classical tragedies (Eur. A n d. hypoth. εν Tco δευτέρω μέρει, V ita Aesch. ed. Wilamowitz, § 6 Icos τρίτου μέρους). The division does not suit Old Comedy. As for New Comedy, the Bodmer papyrus of Menander’s D yscolus has four indications of ΧΟΡΟΥ which account for five parts or acts. E. W. Handley ( T h e D yskolos o f M en . (1965), p. 4) thinks it ‘probable that for Menander that number was the rule’. This reasonable guess is now borne out by Menander’s A s p is and S a m ia from the same papyrus codex (where ΧΟΡΟΥ is preserved before the places that would cor­ respond to the beginnings of ‘Acts ’ ii, iii, v, and iv, v respective­ ly ; the Sorbonne papyrus is equally marked before ‘Acts ’ iv and v) ; the indications in A s p is and S am ia are discussed by Rodolphe Kasser in P a p . B o d m er X X V (1969), p. 22. What is certain however is that the Mytilene mosaics illustrating scenes from Menander (of which Professor Handley kindly reminds me) do not go beyond the number five; one of the mosaics has μέρος ex', four β', two y', one 5 ', two ε', cf. G. Daux’s publica­ tion, B u ll . C orr. H e ll, xci (1967), 474-6. For what it is worth it may also be remembered that Apuleius, F lor. 16. 64, reports happenings ‘in the third act’ of a comedy by Philemon. This evidence is descriptive, whereas H., and perhaps his Hellen­ istic authorities, are prescriptive : a successful play must have neither more nor less than five acts. Beare, T he Rom an Stage3, pp. 208, 215, does not put this point clearly. The presence of act divisions in Hellenistic theory and practice, and the possi­ bility of a Hellenistic precedent for H.’s prescription, make it hazardous to assert (Beare, op. cit. p. 209) that ‘the case for the law rests on Latin evidence alone’. In the generation before H. both Varro and Cicero show themselves sufficiently conversant with act divisions of various kinds to apply them 249

Commentary

metaphorically to topics other than dram a, cf. T L L , i. 450. 78 fr., 451. 3 ff.). As for Plautus’ technique, the small but important remains of the new papyrus o f M enander’s Δι$ έξοατατών allow instructive comparisons with the B acch ides in this regard, cf. E. W. Handley, M en an der a n d P la u tu s: a Study in Comparison (Inaug. Lect. London 1968), p. 14 with nn. n and 12. Terence seems to have worked according to a model of continuous action (see above 154 η. and G. C. Conrad, The Technique o f Continuous A ction in R o m a n C om edy, 1915 ) j some modern scholars claim the plausibility of act divisions in his comedies, but Donatus and Euanthius found it hard to apply such divisions (see G. E. Duckworth, The N a tu re o f Roman Comedy, 98—101, H. D. Jocelyn, T h e T ra g ed ies o f Ennius, pp. 18 f. and the refs. ap. Beare, p. 209). Nothing definite can be known about the structure of republican tragedy. The fivefold division however fits Senecan tragedy and the struc­ tural principle is not invalidated by the reasonable surmise that Seneca’s plays were written for recitation. 189

neue.. .neu: cf. S. π . 5. 8 g neu desis operae neue immoderatus abundes, productior: th e q u a s i-a d j. is e s ta b lis h e d in C ic e ro i n th e s e n s e h e r e r e q u ir e d ; th e c o m p a r . C ic . Or. 178, T .D . in . 3 8 , a n d in S ilv e r Latin, cf. G . B. A . F le tc h e r, Annot. on Tac. 4 1 .

actu = quam actum: fo r a n ac c. o f e x te n t th u s c a s t in to a n a b l . ° f c o m p a ris o n , see K ü h n e r - S t e g m a n n , ix. 4 6 6 f. F o r t h e w o r d in a w id e r sense^ a p p lie d to d r a m a , see 129 n . ; h e r e i t d e n o te s e a c h o f t h e (five) a c ts o f a p la y , G r e e k μ έρος; b u t π ρ α ξ ις w i t h th is c o n n o t a t i o n , asse rte d b y R o s ta g n i, 1 8 9 -9 0 n ., is u n k n o w n to m e e x c e p t i n la te G re e k le x ic o g ra p h y , actus is so u s e d b y V a r r o a n d C ic e ro (a b o v e 189—90 n .). T e r. Hec. 3g primo actu placeo p e r h a p s n e e d n o t d e n o te m o re th a n th e ‘b e g in n in g o f th e p l a y ’, cf. Ad. 9 in prima fabula', th e ex p ressio n is in d is tin c t. *90 is c le a r e n o u g h in its g e n e r a l p u r p o r t : ‘i f a p l a y is to s u c c e e d ; c^· * 53~ 5 > spectare ‘w a tc h a p e r f o r m a n c e ’. T e r . And. p r o l. 2 7 , Heaut. p ro l. 29, Hec. p ro l. 3 a n d 20. T h e w o r d in g is h o w e v e r d u b i o u s , (*) et spectanda a C R tp P o rp h . p s.-A c ro o r et exspectanda B K , exs- i n r a s . ψ ; et spectata δττ λ ΐ; (2) reponi jo in e d to posci. A s fo r ( 1), ex is a d i t to g r a p h y 0 et; -andus a n d -atus are f r e q u e n tly c o n fu s e d , e .g . a b o v e 3 7 , S. iIO' 39> ef· K e lle r, Epil. 751 f.; th u s e ls e w h e re , e .g . O v . Am. n . 11. l 5 >

250

C o m m e n ta ry a n d th e e m e n d a tio n s a t A m . n . 9. 1 a n d A .A . 1. 114 discussed by G . P . G o o ld , H S , L x ix (1 9 6 5 ), 35 f., 61. A t firs t s ig h t spectata looks c o n v in c in g a n d -anda a tau to lo g y , so for e x a m p le W ilk in s a d I. I n fa c t posci o n g ro u n d s o f q u a lity c a n n o t be e x p la in e d e x c e p t o n th e a ss u m p tio n o f a p re v io u s p e rfo rm a n c e a n d i t is spectata t h a t is a lr e a d y in h e r e n t in posci', n o th o u g h t h e re o f a r e c ita tio n b e fo re th e a c c e p ta n c e o f th e p lay . T h a t m ak es for spectanda a n d fo r r e p e a t e d p e rfo rm a n c e s a s a t S . 1. 10. 39 nec redeant iterum atque iterum spectanda theatris. I t also m ak es fo r spectanda p la c e d caro κοινού in b o t h c la u se s as s u g g e ste d b y K .- H . a n d illu stra te d (th o u g h for sp e d a ta ) w ith m a n y in sta n c e s fro m th e E pistles in R ib b e c k ’s e d itio n , p p . 225 f. A s fo r (2 ), reponi, 120 reponis Achillem differs in m ean in g . I t is t r u e , pono ‘ p u t o n ’ (a d r a m a tic p e rfo rm a n c e ), is th e w o rd used b y A s in iu s P o llio , C ic . F a m . x . 32. 3 ; b u t it w o u ld b e w e ak n e x t to posci, o f te n = d e m a n d a so n g o r p o e m , e.g. O v . Fast. iv . 7 2 1~2 P arilia poscor: | non poscor fr u s tr a . P ro p , iv.· 1. 74 poscis ab im ita uerba pigenda lyra. H e r e posci is a d e m a n d fo r a d ra m a tic p e rfo rm a n c e , cf. postu­ lantib u s, A p u l. F lo r. 16. 64 (re c ita tio n o f a co m ed y b y P h ile m o n ). H a v in g b e e n d e m a n d e d o n c e , posci, i t sh o u ld b e d e m a n d e d a g a in — n o t reponi b u t reposci, th e p ro p o s a l re p o rte d b u t n o t a p p ro v e d by L a m b in u s , a n d la t e r p ro p o s e d afresh b y W y tte n b a c h a n d R ib b e c k ; P e e r lk a m p to o fa v o u re d it b u t re w ro te th e w hole lin e g ra tu ito u sly . H e n c e T e r e n c e ’s iterum referre, H ecyram a d uos refero, a n d refero dem o (H ec. p r o l. 1. 7, p r o l. 2. 21, 30) o r sim ila r n o tio n s are, th e n , h e re e x p re s s e d b y reposci. F o r sim p le v e rb a n d c o m p o u n d in such collo­ c a tio n as posci-reposci, cf. A .P . 101 ridentibus a rrid e n t.. .flentibus adflent, E p . i. i . 9 8 p e t i i t . . .repetit, 7. 55 it, redit. F o r sc confused w ith n in th e s e tw o v e rb s , see P ro p . 1. 17. 11 reponere: reposcere B aeh ren s’ ‘n e c e s s a ry c o r r e c ti o n ’ (D . R . S h a c k le to n B ailey, Prop. 5 1 ), b u t O v. M e t. XXII. 235 reposco: repono s', B en tley , e d d .

(i) The ‘ deus ex machina9, 191-2 (inciderit)

The mechanism of the stage-device known as μηχανή or m ach in a is discussed in Pickard-Cambridge’s Theatre o f D ionysus, pp. 127-8, al. (see μηχανή, Index), its relevance to the struc­ ture of the tragic plot in A. Spira’s Unters, zu m D eu s ex machina hei S o p h , und E u r ., Frankfurt, i960. The device was suspect because of its potential violation of dramatic coherence: Ar. P o e t. 15, 1454 b i ff., Antiphanes fr. 191 (Kock). Hence by comparison—ώσπερ oi τραγωδοποιοί and the like—the 251

Commentary

illustrates artificial and illogical solutions of difficul­ ties, a knot cut but not untied ; thus the activities of gods and divine personages (Plato, C ra t. 425 d, Polyb. m. 48. 8-9, Cic. N . D . i. 53). A witness out of the blue, ώσπερ crrrò μηχανής (Demosth. x l . 59), is half-way between comparison and meta­ phor, and Anaxagoras’ cosmic Reason μηχανή (Ar. M e t . A, 985 a 18) is metaphorical. Ar. P o e t. ib id , restricts the device to events εξα> του δράματος in the past or future which could not be known to the d ra m a tis p erso n a e but only to divine omni­ science. H. too wishes to restrict the m ach in a ; it should be used only if the dramatic knot cannot appropriately (see dignus below) be untied without it. m achina

191 nec codd. {non in Flor. Ffostr.). In ind ep en d en t clauses of prohibition classical poetic usage occasionally varies neu w ith nec, e.g· Gat. 61. 119 if. (126 ff.) ne taceat. . .nec. . .neget. dignus: scarcely a dram atic knot ‘ w orth y’ o f divine intervention (to which phrase in the context o f Greek tragedy I cannot attach any meaning) but one to which such an intervention ‘ is appro­ priate’, cf. 183 η. As elsewhere H . refuses to specify; his refusal has evoked surprise (e.g. CR, x x x iv (1920), 10). Since this in­ struction simply dem ands appropriateness, it is possible that H . echoes something like the Aristotelian ruling, b u t it does not follow that the reminiscence is ‘distorted’ (Bywater, Ar. Poet. 15, 1454 b 2 n. on αλλά μηχανή). uindice, not in its legal sense, as for exam p le D acier thought, cette expression est heureuse, elle est prise du D ro it R om ain , qni appelle uindicem un hom m e qui m et un esclave en lib erté’. Rather note Proclus (cit. Orelli) on Plato Alcib. 1 105 a (ed. Creuzer 142, ed· Westerink p. 64) ώσττερ έν ταϊς τραγω δίαις εκ μηχανής πολλάκις θεοι/ς τινας εισάγουσιν οί ττοιηταί τω ν παρόντω ν π ρ α γμ ά τ ω ν 5ιορθωτας) to set right present embarrassments’, διορθωτής is the G reek term for the Rom an office o f corrector, uindex happily renders som e such notion, combining protection and the obviating o f difficulties, cf. PI· Trin. 644—6 honori posterorum tuorum ut uindex fieres, | tibi pater. . .facilem fecit. . .uiam | adquaerundum honorem, Ο ν . Her. 9. 13 (H ercules) respice uindicibus pacatum uiribus orbem. nodus is not before this passage known as a term for the dram atic knot ; it appears to be a translation o f Aristotle’s δέσις. T h e untying o f the knot, which is beyond hum an power to d eal w ith, m akes it

252

C om m en tary dignus uindice. C o m p a re explicare in P o rp h . ad I. T h e critics o f the

tra g e d ia n s used th e sa m e la n g u a g e w h en th e y said, as Cic. does in the p assa g e n o te d 1 9 1 -2 n ., cum ex p lica re argumenti exitum non potestis, confugitis a d deum. N e x t a fte r H . nodus seem s to a p p e a r in A puleius. R . K assel ( R M , c v (1962), 96) h a s m ad e sense o f A p u l. Flor. 16. 63, o n th e s u b je c t o f P h ile m o n ’s com edies, argumenta lepide implexa (Kassel, inflexa M S ) a r e n o w seen to d e n o te th e ty in g o f th e d ra m a tic knot, a n d K a ss e l is su re ly r ig h t in sponsoring C olvius’ excellent e m en d a tio n (ed . 1588) ac nodos (adgnatos M S ) lucide explicatos. L a te r still is D on. Ter. A n . P rae f. 11. 1 (p . 37. 19 ff. W essner) (periculumque C harm i. . .et) totus error inenodabilis usque a d eum finem est ductus, ibid. p. 38. 3 {dum) nodum fa b u la e soluat, ibid, o n 404 haec scaena nodum innectit erroris fabulae. I n sp ite o f th e p a u c ity o f a n c ie n t instances nodus w ith this c o n n o tatio n m u st h a v e b e e n su fficiently established to be c o n tin u ed in a R o m an ce la n g u a g e : dénouement is disnodamentum.

(5) The rule of Three Actors, 192 (nec.. .laboret)

The evidence has been surveyed by Pickard-Cambridge, D ra m . F e s t? (1958), 135-56 with bibliog. {ibid. 138 f. on κωφά -πρόσωπα and παραχορήγημα) ; for Menander add E. W. Handley, T h e D y s k . o f M . (1965), pp. 25-30, for Roman comedy H. W. Prescott, C P , xvm (1923), 23-34, C. M. Kurrelmeyer, T h e Econom y o f A ctors in PI. (Graz, 1932), H. D. Jocelyn, T h e T ra gedies o f Ennius (1967), pp. 20 f. In fact two rules are conflated breu itatis causa·, the number of speaking actors to be restricted to three; if a fourth persona appears at all, it should be m uta. (Cf. Martial’s parody, vi. 6 comoedi tres su n t, s e d a m a t tua P a u la , Luperce, | quattuor·, et κωφόν Paula ■προσώπου a m a t.) These precepts differ from the brief factual remark in Ar. P o e t. ch. 4; they may have a Hellenistic basis, cf. P ro l. 114 and Schol. Aesch. Cho. 899 ϊνα μή δ' λέγωσιν. Η.’s prescriptive procedure is best explained as an attempt to normalize the technique of Roman drama by the example of Greek. Ancient commentators and gram m atici were aware of the differences between H.’s rules and Roman practice: ps.-Acro, loqu en tes. . . non a m pliu s quam tres, licet aliter reperiatur in comoediis e t tragoediis·, qu a rta sem per

Diom. G L , i. 491. 2 adds (after asserting quia m u ta, i.e. in the Greek theatre), a t L a tin i scriptores 253

Com m entary complures person as in f a b u la s in trodu xeru n t, u t sp ecio sio res fre q u e n tia faceren t.

nec: cf. 191 n. persona: cf. 126 η. laboret: cf. 25 n. (6) The Chorus, 193-201

The first three verses, like Ar. P o e t, (see 193 π.), extend an actor’s part to the chorus—thus in a sense making up for the restriction at 192, and also establishing a link between the two precepts. The demand is the Aristotelian one: an organic connexion between choral passages and the action of the play. The remaining six verses, 196 ff., prescribe the sentiments proper for the chorus. 193—5 therefore restate Aristotle’s view, cf. P ro l. 115 and my notes below; 196 fr. have no Aristo­ telian precedent but express the moralistic view of poetry that is found throughout the A r s . The two groups together show the same complexion of Aristotelianism restated which I re­ gard as the Hellenistic feature of the Horatian tradition. Presumably we owe it to H. himself that the two diverse elements appear as a unity with a Roman colouring and Augustan moral rhetoric. That Roman archaic tragedy contained some choruses even in lyric metre is suggested by our scanty evidence. F. Leo s arguments concerning these matters (particularly G esch. der röm. L it. 71, ιοί f., 193 ff., 229) remain fundamental for future discussion. But his conclusion that lyric choruses were always replaced by recited metres is implausible in Ennius’ tragedies and, as Leo himself admits, it fails for pre-Ennian tragedy and Pacuvius; for discussion and bibliog. see H. D. Jocelyn, T h e T ragedies o f E n n iu s (1967), Introd. pp. 19, 30 f , fr. xcix n. Jocelyn, op. c it. p. 19, rightly notes that H. would have spoken differently if there had been no Roman tragic choruses. Roman playwrights and critics were aware of the problems of dramatic structure posed by the Greek tragic chorus; this is shown by a fragment from Accius’ D id a sc a lic a a p . Non. 178. 20 (Funaioli, 254

Commentary

p. 26, fr. 6) sed E u rip id is, qui choros temerius in cf. below 195 n. The problem does not arise for Seneca’s tragedies if they were recited, not performed on the stage ; but the structural aspect concerned him as much as his Greek predecessors. It is a fair guess that H.’s precept applied to contemporary conditions because it is similar in principle to those parts of the A r s which more clearly show contem­ porary preoccupations. More than that cannot be said since there is next to no evidence. G ra m . R o m . F r .

f a b u lis ,

1 9 3 actoris partes ‘th e ro le o f a n a c to r ’ : partes as a t 177 {seniles) m a n d e n tu r. . .p a rtes, 3 1 5 p a r te s . . .ducis. T h is is a lm o st a tra n s la tio n of, th o u g h n o t n e c e s s a rily a d ire c t b o rro w in g fro m , A r.P o e t. 1 8 ,1456 a 2 5 6 καί τ ο ν χ ο ρ ό ν δέ εν α δει ύ π ο λ α μ β ά ν ε ιν τ ω ν υ π ο κ ρ ιτώ ν . qfficium que u irile: w h e r e officium v aries partes as it does 3 1 4 -1 5 iudicis officium a n d p a rtes ducis. T h e w o rd in g com es close to σ υ ν α γ ω ν ί^εσ θ α ι, w h ic h A ris to tle h a s in th e seq u e l o f th e passag e ju s t c ite d , see b e lo w 195 n . T h e r e is a d o u b le e n te n d r e h e r e : ‘a full a c to r’s p a r t ’ a n d ‘ to th e b e s t o f h is a b i l i t y ’, s i uir esse uolet (O tto , Sprichwörter 373 ), pro u ir ili pa rte.

* 9 4 defendat c o n tin u e s th e m e ta p h o r in 193: le t th e ch o ru s n o t a llo w its e lf to b e e d g e d o u t o f it. A lso cf. »S'. 1. 10. 12 defendente uicem . . . rhetoris atque poetae. neu n o t nec h e r e c o n tin u e s a ju ssiv e su b ju n ., as a t C ic. M a n . 69 ut m a n ea s. . .neue pertim escas, cf. H o fm a n n -S z a n ty r, 3 3 8 ; th is c o n tin u a ­

tio n p ro v id e s v a r ie ty a n d is m u c h e m p lo y e d in verse, e.g. C. 1. 2. 5 ° —i hic am es d ic i. . .princeps, | neu sinas, e tc ., »S’. 1. 10. 9 -1 0 ut currat sententia neu se | im pediat, ii. 5. 24, E p . i. 18. 1 0 9 -1 0 ; a fte r im p . S . 11. 5 · 2 4 , E p . i. i i . 23. A lso neue, C. 1. 2. 4 7 · intercinat: a n ά π α ξ λεγό μ ενο ν in L a tin lite ra tu re ( a p a r t fro m P o rp h . o n 202, c it. T L L ) , p r o b a b ly c o in e d b y H . Graeco fo n te , to re n d e r, as R o s ta g n i a n d o th e rs su g g e st, so m e th in g like εμβόλιμα άδουσ ιυ, in th e s e q u e l o f th e A ris to te lia n p a ssa g e c ite d 193 η .: 1456 a 29 ff. διό έ μ β ο λ ιμ α φ δ ο υ σ ιν π ρ ώ τ ο υ ά ρ ξα ντο ξ Ά γ ά θ ω ν ο ξ τ ο υ το ιο υ το υ . κ α ιτ ο ι τ ί διαφ έρει η εμ β ό λιμ α ά δειν η εΐ ρησ ιν έξ ά λλο υ els ά λλο ό ρ μ ο τ τ ο ι ή έ π ε ισ ό δ ιο ν ό λ ο ν ; F o r m u sical in te rlu d e s as ac td iv is io n s o n th e R o m a n sta g e see D o n a tu s o n T e r . A n . (ed. W essn e r ) P ra e f. 11. 3 anim aduertendum u b i et quando scaena uacua sit ab omnibus personis, ita u t in ea chorus uel tibicen obaudiri possint; quod cum uiderimus ib i a c tu m esse f in itu m debemus agnoscere. m e d io s . . . actus: o b j. in s te a d o f p re p . + acc., cf. 4 2 4 η . Η . fa v o u red this

255

Commentary id io m as L am b in u s show ed C. n . 7. 2 3 - 4 n ., cf. D . B o, H o r. O pera, 111, 116 Γ. S u ch lists ten d to differ b e c a u se e d ito rs a r e in c o n s is te n t i n t eir use o f tm esis. T h e id io m is fa m ilia r fro m T a c itu s , e.g . A n n . n . 9 · flum en Visurgis R o m an o s C h e ru sc o sq u e interfluebat; th e p o i n t h o w e v e r is n o t t h a t th e co n stru c tio n ‘b e c o m e s v e r y c o m m o n in T a c itu s (W ilkins ad I.). R a th e r a g a in st th e te n d e n c y o f a h ig h ly d e v e lo p e d la n g u a g e th a t fav o urs th e a n a ly tic e x p e d ie n t o f p re p o s itio n s , 1 v er prose a n d T ac itu s in p a r tic u la r a d o p t th is a r c h a ic a n d d i r e c t m a n n e r o f speech from p o etry , cf. E . L ö fste d t, Syn. i2, 291 ff. o n s im ila r c o n ­ stru ctio n s w ith th e a b l. C a u tio n h o w e v e r is e n jo in e d b y in s ta n c e s w ith o u t p rep o sitio n in o rd in a r y p ro se , cf. G . B . A . F le tc h e r , A n n o t. on Tac. (1964), p . 63, o n C a e s a r’s u sag e , a p ro p o s o f T a c . H is t. 1. 61. 1 Italiam irrumpere.

195 T h e ch o ru s, A risto tle sa id i n th e p a ssa g e c ite d a b o v e 193 n -j m u st tak e th e p a r t o f a n a c to r. H e c o n tin u e s , καί μόριον εΤναι του δλου καί συναγωυί^εσθαι μή ώσπερ Ευριπίδη άλλ’ ώσπερ Σοφοκλεϊ. τοϊς δέ λοιποις τά άδόμενα ονδέν μάλλον του μύθου ή άλλης τραγω­ δίας έστίν. T h e re ifollow th e re m a rk s a b o u t εμβόλιμα c ite d a b o v e 194 n. I d o u b t if th a t is th e s e n tim e n t e x p re sse d b y A ris to p h . A ch. 443, as D a c ie r re p e a ts fro m th e sc h o liu m o n th e v e rse o f t h e A c h ., b u t it is ce rtain ly th a t o f th e s c h o liu m A ch . 4 4 3 ούτος (Εύριττίδης)

γάρ εισάγει τούς χορούς ου τά ακόλουθα φθεγγομένους τη ύποθέσει. . .ούτε κτλ. F o r R o m a n critic ism cf. A c c iu s c ite d 193-20i n . F o r th e lim ita tio n s o f A risto tle’s c ritic ism , see R o s ta g n i’s n o te . U n lik e A risto tle, H . does n o t specify his criticism . proposito conducat: cf. Schol. c ite d in th e p r e c e d in g n o te α κ ό λ ο υ θ α . . · τ η υποθέσει, A r., cited in th e sam e n o te , μ όρ ιον τ ο ϋ δ λ ο υ . haereat apte: th e v e rb b rin g s o u t th e o rg a n ic c o n n e x io n . C h o r a l passages m u st b e ‘ in h e re n t’ in th e p lo t; th e s im p le v e r b as a g a in s t inhaerere, e.g. Cic. Fin. 1. 68 ( uirtutes) semper uoluptatibus inhaererent, apte co n tin u es th e m o tif o f ‘a p p r o p r ia te n e s s ’, h e r e r e s ta ti n g th e sense b u t n o t th e w o rd in g o f th e A ris to te lia n p assa g e. 1 9 6 - 2 0 1 P rin cip les for th e h a n d lin g o f c h o r a l p a ssa g e s e i t h e r in d ialo g u e o r so n g a r e la id d o w n . T h e y w e ll e x e m p lify th e s ta te o f affairs in th e A rs. T h e w hole p assa g e m ak es sense in G re e k a s w e ll as R o m a n term s. T h e in sta n c e s o f p ie ty a n d c o n v e n tio n a l g o o d sense a re clearly ta k e n from G re ek tra g e d y . T h e y a r e fitte d o n t o th e A n s to te lia n d o c trin e o f A .P . 1 9 3 -5 , fro m w h ic h h o w e v e r t h e y d iffe r m th e ir m o ralizin g . S o m e o f th e in sta n c e s c a n b e p a r a lle le d i n th e tra g ic sch o lia a n d in m o ra l th e o ry (b e lo w 196 η . ) ; H e lle n is tic p ro v e n a n c e is n o t th erefo re u n lik ely . I n o n e c a se o r p o s s ib ly tw o q u o ta tio n from a c tu a l ch o ru ses seem s to b e in t e n d e d , a n d i t is 256

Commentary p o ssib le b u t c a n n o t b e p ro v e d th a t these q u o ta tio n s w ere p a r t o f th e H e lle n is tic c o n te x t (below 198, 199 n n .). O n th e o th e r h a n d these d e m a n d s c a n b e r e a d in R o m a n a n d A u g u stan term s, a n d as p a r t o f a H o r a t ia n p o e m sh o u ld b e so re a d . O n e m ay c o m p a re th e officia re c o m m e n d e d as s u b je c t-m a tte r for p o etry , below 312 if. O n e m ay also r e c a ll th e id e o lo g y in h e r e n t in v irtu e (196), (a n c ie n t R o m an ) sim p lic ity o f life (1 9 8 ), ju s tic e a n d law , peace a n d tru st (199-200). 1 9 6 bonis fa u e a t: c o m m e n ta to rs appositely cite Schol. E u r. Phoen. 202 ε π ίτη δ ε ς δ 5 ουκ είσιν ε γ χ ώ ρ ιο ι αι ά π ό τ ο υ χοροί/, ά λ λ α ξέναι καί ίερ ό δο υ λο ι, ό π ω ς έν τ ο ϊς έξης άδεώ ς άντιλέγοιεν π ρ ο ς τ η ν Έτεοκλέους α δ ικ ία ν κ τλ . {Phoen. 526)· αεί γ ά ρ ό χορός παρρησισ^όμενος το υ δ ικ α ίο υ π ρ ο ίσ τ α τ α ι. π ώ ς ο υ ν εμελλον το ν βασιλέα έλέγχειν, εΐ υ π ’ α υ το ί) έβ α σ ιλ εύ ο ν το ; Cf. A r. Prob. x ix . 48, 9 22 b ε ο τι y à p ό χορός κ η δ ευ τ ή ς ά π ρ α κ τ ο ς - εύνοιαν γ ά ρ μόνον π α ρ έχετα ι οίς π ά ρ εσ τιν. -que et: th e a r c h a ic e q u iv a le n t o f G reek τε καί w h ich survives in classical R o m a n p o e try a n d a rc h a iz in g prose, cf. H o fm a n n -S z a n ty r, 5 1 5 , m y re m a rk s J R S , x l i (1951), 48, G. B. A. F le tch er, Annot. on T a citu s (1 9 6 4 ), p p . 81 f. T h e A u g u stan s, a n d H . in p a rtic u la r, avail th e m se lv e s o f its tw o fo ld a d v a n ta g e s: one, m etrica l, a d d in g a syllable (uerumque prudens et) o r p ro v id in g a len g th en in g o f th e p re ced in g syllable [faueatque et) o r a v o id in g h ia tu s {teque et) ; th e o th e r, stylistic, jo in in g clo sely t h e p a r ts o f a clause o r sentence. T h e c o n ju n ctio n is used f r e q u e n tly w h e n m o re t h a n tw o p a rts a re jo in e d , cf. 145, 156, 199, e t al. F o r jo in in g tw o p a rts , i t occu rs o n ly five tim es in H ., a n d n o t e a rlie r t h a n th e E p is tle s : o n c e in E p. 1, tw ice in C. iv , a n d th ree tim es in th e A r s , cf. 214, 4 4 4 n n . consilietur: the verb does not occur again in the sense of dare consilium until late Latin writing: T L L , iv. 440. 24. C. m. 3. 17 differs. amice lik e (coniurat) amice b elo w 41 1 ; th e v a ria n t amicis, w ith o u t r e g a r d to th e e a rlie r obj. bonis, is fa u lty , amici p e rh a p s a n in te rm e d ia te stag e. *97 am et j peccare tim entes\ : so p rin te d because I disbelieve this re a d in g w h ic h is o ffered b y m o st M S S ; a n d in sp ite o f th e fact th a t th e f a u lty paccare a n d pecare p o in t to pacare o r placare, I c a n n o t fully e s ta b lis h e ith e r th e e m e n d a tio n p{l)acare timentes o r th e m o re likely o n e p {l)a ca re tumentes, {a) am et peccare timentes, ‘b efrien d those afraid to c o m m it a f a u lt ’, n ee d s to b e reje cted because it alm o st du p licates *96 bonis fa u e a t, a n d d u p lic a te s i t clum sily a n d m o reo v e r in the w rong P la c e : e v e n a t 196, w h e re P e e rlk a m p p u t it (ex ch an g in g the tw o h a lv e s o f th e v erses), it w o u ld b e la m e n ta b ly w eak. M e n ‘a fraid to d o w r o n g ’ a re s c a rc e ly c o m m e n d e d in H .’s eth ics; cf. E p. 1. 16. 5 2 -3 , w h ic h (P ro fesso r G o o d y e a r re m in d s m e) m akes a g a in st th e read in g , 17

257

BHA

C o m m e n ta r y

not, as Rostagni, Schütz and others have thought, for it. ib) emet (or placare, H. Fuchs, H , lx x ( i 935)> 24^) timentes, choose to pacify the fearful’, may call to mind Ep. i. 4. 12 inter spem curamque, timores inter et iras (cf. Doederlein, Keller, E pil. 753) K .-H .). doubt, as others have done, whether ‘pacify’ is a tenable verb wit ‘fearful’; Sen. Ep. 59. 8, pace Keller (app. crit.), does not bear out the locution: nihil stultitia pacatum habet; tam superne illi metus est quam infra; utrumque trepidat latus. A more plausible verb than pacare or placare is wanted; recreare ‘encourage’ (A. Y. Campbell, Hor. Carm.1 (1946), ‘ Horatiana Alia’ in calce libri ) is the right notion besi e timentes, and possibly the apt verb, cf. Cic. Cat. in. 8 et al. (c) Bentley argues for pacare tumentes, which he found, doubtless as an emendation, in one of the late MSS which often instigated his feats of erudition (cod. Pulmanni). tumentes could express other emotional disturbances than anger, cf. S. 11. 3. 213 purum est uitio tibi, cum tumidum est, cor., Stat. Theb. ix. 79. So Cicero had used the word, e.g. T .D . iv. 29. But next to iratos it is likely to point to the same emotion, cf. Norden, Virg. A. vi. 49 n. on rabie. . .corda tument·, ira and tumor, as Bentley s citations show, are often conjoined, as at Virg. A . vm. 40 tumor omnis et irae. If that is so, p(l)acare tumentes after regat iratos probably makes too explicit and wordy a doublet to be considered Horatian. 198 dapes laudet mensae breuis: one of the variations of μέτρον αριστον familiar inter alia from choral moralizing in Greek tragedy and from the precepts of Roman men of letters. The metaphor mensae breuis sharpens the language of what might well be its Greek source, ‘a modest board’, cf. H.’s uiuiturparuo bene, etc., in particular Ep. i. 14. 35 cena breuis iuuat. άρκεΐ μετρία βιοτά (βορά Nauck dub.) μοι σώφρουος τραπέ^ης, began a Euripidean chorus, T G F 2 fr. 893 Nauck (Athen, iv. 138 c); its sequel enlarges on the principle of μέτρον: tò 5’ άκαιρον άτταν (?τόδ’} | ύπερβάλλον τε μή -ττροσειμαν. Wilamowitz noted the striking similarity of wording (H , x l v (1910), 391, repr. Kl. Sehr. iv. 258). He suggested that Athenaeus got this fragment from a moral tract of Chrysippus, cited a little later (159 a) · The fragment must certainly have come from a Stoic author to Philo. Quod omnis probus liber, 145 (vi. 41 edd. Cohn and Reiter). Wilamowitz finally asserted its provenance from ‘the literary tract which H. followed in the A rs’. This derivation, however probable, is quite unprovable. What needs to be noted is the convergence of a literary tradition with Hellenistic moral theory.

pacare

* 9 9 (l^udet.. Alle salubrem) iustitiam legesque et apertis otia portis:

Wilamowitz loc. cit. (last note) suggested that this too was based on a Greek choral passage, ‘ aber davon scheint jede Spur verloren ’. A few 258

Commentary y e a rs e a rlie r T . Z ielin sk i (P , l x (1901), 1) h a d co m p a re d iustitia-legesotia w ith th e ir G re e k c o u n te rp a rts Δ ίκη-Ε ύνομ ία-Ε ίρήνη, H esiod’s th r e e H o ra i, Theog. 902, a n d h a d guessed a t p ro v e n a n c e fro m a G re e k tr a g ic c h o ru s i n w h ic h th e th re e d ivinities h a d b e e n p raised in song. K . - H . a n d R o s ta g n i a r e p ro b a b ly rig h t n o t to re je ct this possi­ b ility i n v iew o f P in d . 01 . x m . 6 -7 Ε υνομία. . ,κ α σ ίγ ν η τα ί τε, β ό θ ρ ο ν π ο λ ίω ν ασφ αλές, | Δ ίκ α καί όμότροφος Είρήνα, τ ά μ ι’ άνδράσι πλούτου . salubrem ( 198) : w ro n g ly su sp ec te d b y P eerlkam p, p ro b a b ly extends to leges a n d otia as w e ll as to iustitiam . ‘H e a lth y ’ = ‘ b e n e fic ia l’ is said by L ew is a n d S h o rt to b e m o re u s u a l in th e case o f salutaris th a n o f salubris. B u t salu b ris is w ell esta b lish e d in th a t sense, even in prose, e.g. Cic. D om . 16 (sententiam ) rei p . saluberrimam, Or. go, L iv. ii. 3. 4. I n fact

b o th a sp e c ts o f th e w o rd fit a n d a re p ro b a b ly m e a n t to fit th e context. L a w a n d o r d e r ( u n d e r th e new regim e) ‘b en e fit’ in d u stry a n d social life a s m u c h as th e y ‘g iv e h e a l t h ’ to crops a n d h u m a n beings. V irgil c a lle d O c ta v ia n auctorem fr u g u m tempestatumque potentem, cf. H ö r. C. xv. 5· 17 -2 0 , Ο ν . F a st. i. 7°4 Ρα χ Cererem nutrit, b u t also th e fulsom e rh e to r ic o f th e c o n te m p o r a ry in scrip tio n o f H alicarnassus (Inscr. Brit. M u s. 894, 11. 9 f f , E h re n b e rg a n d Jo n e s, D ocum ents. . . o f Augustus and Tiberius2, n o . 9 8 a , p . 8 4 ), n o t in ap p o sitely cited b y K .- H . a t C. iv. 5· 17, είρ ηνεΰο υσ ι μεν y à p γ η τ ε καί Θάλαττα, πόλεις δ ανθοϋσιν ευνομία ό μ ο ν ο ία τ ε κ α ί σ ω τ η ρ ία κτλ. apertis. . .portis: t h e o p e n c ity gates, a token o f peace. Ps.-A cro, idest pacem quia in pace portae patent, u t ‘panduntur portae ’ (V irg. A . u. 27) et contrario ‘ quae moenia clausis | ferrum acuant p ortis ’ (V irg. A . vni. 385—6) ; S erv . o n A . 11. 27, th e first o f A ero’s tw o passages, signum pacis est, u t S a llu stiu s ‘ apertae portae, repleta a m a cultoribus ’ (M a u ren b re ch er, S ali. H is t, i, fr. 14). C. in . 5 . 23—4 m ay b e set beside S allu st: portas que non clausas et a m a | . . .coli. A lso cf. O v. M e t. x v . 598? Sii. xvx. 694 portis bella b it apertis (Carthago)? F o r sim ilar phrases w ith moenia, see G . B. A . F le tc h e r, A nnoi, on T ac. (1964), p. 44· 2 0 0 —1 w e re tra n s p o se d to th e p lace before 198 b y L. M u eller in o r d e r t o b r in g to g e th e r a ll references to ac tio n a n d plot. T h is is e rro n e o u s , see b elo w . a o o tegat com missa: th e re q u e st for secrecy b ro u g h t ab o u t by the c o n tin u o u s p re s e n c e o f th e ch o ru s in G reek trag e d y : instances n a tu r­ a lly a b o u n d . B u t th e R o m a n m o ra l code too is involved, cf. S. 1.3. 95 {si) prodiderit com missa fide, 4. 84—5 commissa tacere j qui nequit, E p. x. 18. 38 commissumque teges et uino tortus et ira, ibid. 70, e t al. deosque precetur et oret: a fa m ilia r d o u b le t; for H .’s use o f this o r sim ­ ila r lo c u tio n s , see S . 11. 6. 13 hoc prece te oro, Ep. 1. 13· 18 oratus multa 259

172

Commentary p rece , E p . ι. η .

95 (te) obsecro e t o b testo r, 9. 2 cum r o g a t et p rece co g it. I n sp ite o f th e s e t c h a r a c te r o f t h e l o c u tio n P e e r lk a m p p u n c t u a t e d a f te r precetu r, e lic itin g o u t o f fo r tu n a (2 0 1 ) a n o b j. o f oret. F o rtu n a , h e a d d e d , w a s a d e ity i n h e r o w n r i g h t , n o t a g ift o f th e g o d s . S o sh e w a s o fte n , b u t h e re th e d e g re e o f p e r s o n if ic a tio n is r e s tr ic t e d to re d e a t a n d a b ea t. F o r in th is p a s s a g e , a s R o s ta g n i s a w , H . g la n c e s a t A r is to tle ’s ‘ re v e rs a l o f fo r tu n e ’, p e r ip e ty , P oet. ch s. 9 ff. M o r e o v e r h e r e f o r tu n a — ‘g o o d f o r tu n e ’. 201 u t . . .su p e rb is: th is re c a lls a ‘ h a p p y e n d i n g ’ o n t h e n o n - t r a g ic O d y s s e a n p a t t e r n c r itic iz e d b y A r. P o e t. 13, 1453 a 3 3 ; s e t ή S n rλ ή ν τε τ η ν σ ύ σ τ α σ ιν εχουσα καθάπερ ή ’ Οδύσσεια, και τελευτωσα έξ εναντίας τοϊς βελτίοσι κ α ί χείροσι b e s id e u t red ea t m is e r is , a b e a t f o r tu n a su perbis. H . m a y h a v e t h o u g h t i t d e s ir a b le t o m o r a l i z e tr a g ic p e r ip e ty b u t i t d o e s n o t fo llo w fro m th is v e rse t h a t h e d i d . F o r h e d o e s h e r e n o m o re t h a n la y d o w n th e lin e th e c h o r u s is t o ta k e . E x p lic itly th e n th is is n o t a s ta te m e n t o n th e p lo t (cf. 2 0 0 -1 n .) b u t o n w h a t t h e c h o r u s s h o u ld s a y o r sin g .

(7) M u sic in D ra m a , 202—19

Of the many strands recognizable in Plato’s writing on music in the R e p u b lic or L a w s only two have some relevance to H. (1) The assumption is made R e p . iv. 424 c, ascribed there to Damon, and perhaps of Pythagorean origin, that changes in music are to be resisted as corrupting the social fabric; changes in music are accompanied always by important changes in the body politic. (2) Certain musical instruments, notably the a u lo s , and technical elaboration of all instruments, are vehicles of this corruption, and should there­ fore be banned (see below 202 n.). But although these assump­ tions can be recognized in H., his context and, I believe, the context in which they were set in the tradition on which he has drawn, are not Platonizing. The context of Cicero’s D e L e g ib u s equally differs from H .’s; Cicero preserves the Platonic mould, although he relaxes Plato’s most uncompromising demand, see Cic. L e g . 11. 37-9; cf. Quint. I . O . i . 10. 31. T h e tra d itio n .

W h a t I regard as th e true affiliations, A r isto te lia n a n d H ellen istic, I h ave set ou t in P r o l. 11 5 -1 7. A t P o e t. 6, 1449 h 3— 4 m usic, like d iction , is said to b elo n g to th e m e d iu m in w h ic h

260

Commentary

the tragedian works : εϊτα μελοποιΐα καί λέξις · έν toótois yàp ποιούνται την μίμησιν. Thus music is one of the six constituent ‘parts’ of tragedy (ib id . 1450 a 10) and in fact ‘the greatest of its sweetenings’, μέγιστον των ήδνσμάτων (b 16), cf. P ol. vili. 5, 1340 b 16-17 ή δέ μουσική φύσει των ήδυσμάτων έστίν. As a poetic ingredient however it sinks to the penultimate place in the scale and, apart from a brief remark at the beginning of ch. 24, Aristotle does not return to it. Yet, as I pointed out P ro l. 115-17, there is an Aristotelian precedent. Music is discussed in educational terms, as a social and historical phenomenon, in P o l. vm, chs. 5-7; some of these social and historical implications are found also in this section of the A rs. But the Horatian sentiment echoes more significantly the feelings of Aristoxenus and perhaps other early Peripatetics. The sentiment may be described as resignation and a yearning for lost simplicity. ‘ So, Aristoxenus said, let the few of us by ourselves remember what music was like; for now the theatres have become utterly barbaric and that vulgar music has pro­ ceeded to destruction and ruin’ (a p . Ath. xiv. 632 b, Wehrli fr. 124; cit. P ro l. 116 n. 3). In his literary criticism H. rejects scholastic matter that resists the poetic process; equally he steers clear of musical theory and recalcitrant philosophical argument. A neglect of this technique is liable to prejudice our view of H.’s poetry a neglect that has, for example, inspired G. Williams’ unjusti­ fied censure of this passage ( Tradition an d O riginality, etc. 3 3 ^" 4 1) ; for details see below 202 and 203 nn. H. selects one or two concrete instances and builds them up into patterns suggesting the progression from simplicity to corruption. Again he starts without an overt transition although a link with the preceding section on the chorus is quickly sensed and soon (204) made explicit. The same attitude as in the foregoing precepts is noticed: appropriateness of artistic pro­ cedure is related not only to aesthetic but moral principles. The present section however differs from the earlier ones, H orace.

261

Commentary

it avoids legislating, and simply traces the historical process by which music is said to have lost its early innocence and goodness. This process is, m ore A risto te lic o , related to moral and political change (cf. E p . n. i. 93 ff., iöifF., for similar changes). The loss of a simple musical ethos is regretted in terms remin­ iscent of Aristoxenus and perhaps other Greek theorists, but is more historical and less sentimental. A comparison with Cic. {L eg . π. 37-9, mentioned above) shows not only that H. draws on a different tradition but suggests a different approach. H. presents two types of society and two types o music ; without argument or preaching he leaves the contrast to exert its own inherent effect. Once more he changes from instruction to a picture; and the picture is one of prevailing conditions. He goes in m edias res, starting tib ia n on, u t nunc. The villain of the piece is tib ia , corresponding to the Greek αύλος. I avoid the variously misleading terms ‘ flute, clarinet, oboe , and render tib ia by ‘pipe’. 20a M u c h re s tric tiv e c ritic ism o f G re e k m u s ic w a s tie d to th e re je c tio n , fo r d r a m a , d ith y r a m b , e tc ., o f th e α υ λ ό ς ( tib ia ) , o r a t a n y r a te its m o re s p e c ta c u la r v a rie tie s. E ith e r e n c r o a c h m e n t o f th e autos o n ‘s o n g ’, o r o f m u s ic o n p o e tr y , a r e o p p o s e d , a s i n t h e c e le b r a t e d ‘h y p o r c h e m a ’ o f P ra tin a s , a n d in t h e c o n te x t ap. A th . x iv . 6 1 6 e rx. w h e re t h e p ie c e is p re s e rv e d . O r else o b je c tio n is m a d e to t h e c o m ­ p le x itie s o f th e n e w m u sic fo r th e aulos, a s i n t h e r e v e a lin g p ie c e o P h e re c ra te s (fr. 145, K o c k , Com. A t t . F r . 1. 188). This p ie c e is c i t e d b y p s .- P lu ta r c h {D e M u s . eh . 3 0 ), w h o say s, a c c u s in g ly , α ύ λ η τ ικ ή α φ ά ττλο υ σ τέρ α ς είς ττο ικ ιλω τέρ α ν μ ετα βέβ η κ ε μ ο υ σ ικ ή ν τ ό y à p π α λ α ιό ν κ τλ . P h ilo s o p h e rs o p p o se d t h a t k in d o f m u s ic o n id e o lo g ic a l g r o u n d s , e.g . P la to , Rep. in . 399 d , cf. L a w s , in . 7 0 0 - 1 , e s p e c ia lly 701 a 3 θ ε α τ ρ ο κ ρ α τία , A r. P o l. v ili. 6, 1341 a 2 1 —2 ο ΰ κ ε σ τ ιν ό α υ λ ό ς η θ ικ ό ν ά λ λ α μ ά λ λο ν ό ρ γ ια σ τ ικ ό ν κ τλ ., p s .- P lu t. D e M u s . e h . 15, A t h . x i v . 6 1 6 e ff· A risto x e n u s’ p a r t in th e se d iscu ssio n s is c o n je c tu r a l. V a r r o d is c u s s e d th e te c h n ic a l a d v a n c e s i n th e m a k in g o f tib ia e o n w h ic h H . fr o w n s , see b e lo w 203 n . K e lle r (a p p . c r it.) say s, ra s h ly , ‘ Varronem seq u itu r Flaccus' ; Im m is c h , p . 123 n . 4 0 , is m o re c a u tio u s . W h e re p o e try is c o n c e rn e d H . h a b i t u a l l y d e c rie s t h e o ld , n o t th e n e w ; h e r e h e d e c rie s t h e n e w . T w o m o tiv e s m a y a c c o u n t fo r th is . M o ra ls a r e c o n c e rn e d : w h a t u n d e r lie s t h e m u s ic a l d e c lin e is s a i d t o

262

Commentary b e a m o ra l d e c lin e . O n th is to p ic H . often accepts th e fa m iliar R o m a n p a tte r n o f d e g e n e ra tio n . M o re im p o rta n t p erh ap s, H ., i e m an y p o ets b e fo re a n d a fte r h im , re g a rd e d m usic as a n ac co m p a n im e n t oi p o e try . T h e n e w m u sic h o w e v er d id n o t m erely w a n t to assist po etry , as th e o ld h a d d o n e — 204 adesse choris erat u tilis\ u ltim a te y it m v a e ev en th e sty le o f s p e e c h : 2 17 fa cu n d ia praeceps. 9 tibia non u t nunc is n o t sim p ly ‘so m eth in g o f a v erb al stratag e m , n o r is i t w ith o u t ‘r e a l re le v a n c e to th e co n tem p o rary R o m a n scene (G . W illia m s , T ra d itio n and O riginality, etc. p. 337)· T h e sectl0£ be' gin s w ith th is a b r u p t c o n tra s t b e tw e e n p a st a n d presen t, soon show n to b e a c o n tra s t b e tw e e n a g o ld e n age o f in n o cen t sim p ìcity mi e c o r r u p t s o p h is tic a tio n o f c o n te m p o ra ry m usic n o t * a t * w as h im s e lf a s tra n g e r to so p h istic a tio n . F o r nunc co m p are ic . eg. n. 39 quae solebant q u o n d a m compleri seueritate iucunda Liuianis et aeuianis modis, n u n c u t eadem exsultent et ceruices oculosque pariter cum mo orum flexionibus torqueant (V a h le n , Ges. Phil. Sehr. π. 7b5 η · 2 4> m m isc , p p . 132 f.) ; V a r r o ’s re p o rts o n th e history o f a ύλός-tib ia seem to h av e stressed t h e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e old a n d th e sophisticate m o ern in s tru m e n ts (apud antiquos, cit. 203 n .) . T h e C iceronian passage s ows t h a t i t w a s p re c ise ly th e c h a n g es in th e m usic o t e rs cen B.c. t h a t a re lik ely to h a v e suggested to H . c e rta in sim i a n ies W1 th e e a rlie r G re e k d e v e lo p m e n t, a n d m ay h av e m o v ed h im to d o w n th is c o m p o s ite p ic tu re o f G re ek a n d R o m an . orichalco uincta: G . W illia m s ( Tradition a n d Originality, etc. p . 3371 re p ro v e s H ., w h o , h e th in k s, ‘h a s (n o t surprisingly, since m ^S1CTV v e ry e so te ric s u b je c t a f te r th e fifth ce n tu ry B.c.) m ista en e in g o f “ b o u n d b y c o p p e r ” , fo r th is m u st refer to a use o , to o c c lu d e th e h o les, w h ic h re p re se n te d , like th e increase m n u m b e r o f h o les (fo ra m in e pauco), a n increase in t e „„„„ th e in s tr u m e n t (fa r m o re th a n in its volum e) associate wi o f P ro n o m u s o f T h e b e s in th e fifth ce n tu ry b .c . r T h is a r g u m e n t seem s to fa il o n several counts. (1) eP , k e y w o rk t o a c t as keys, i.e. o n a n an c ie n t m stru m en ■ d iffe re n t m o d a l scales, m u st h a v e b een w ell k n o w n , ere eso teric a b o u t it. (2) D r J . G . L an d els o f R e a d in g U n w e r s ^ llas a c q u a in te d m e w ith th e fo rth c o m in g p u b licatio n , m e , B ritish School a t A thens, t x m (1968), o f th e a d os recently ac q u ired y h is u n iv e rs ity . T h e R e a d in g in stru m e n t, D r L andels th e first in s ta n c e k n o w n to h im (excepting possi y . p ip e s ’ in th e B ritish M u se u m , a n d a n in stru m e n t from 0 N a tio n a l M u s e u m a t A th e n s), o f a n aulos w ith m e a g d o es n o t seem to b e keyw ork. I f this in te rp re ta tio n 1 263

C o m m e n ta r y

would be of considerable interest, since the literary evidence for such casing is inconclusive; cf. Landels on Pindar, P yth. 12. 25—7 ail and employs again 248-50: the spectators must be detained, yet poetic quality and the right ‘tone’ must not be sacrificed. This is a hard thing to manage because of the atmosphere of rusticjollification which H. assumes for early drama. 223 illecebris: a different aspect in a different genre of 99 dulcia sunto. g ra ta nouitate: according to L. Mueller, not a ne ® ,· tQ change of subject-matter from tragic to Satyric raf“a’ j Qf the Rostagni as already to Dacier, not a new genre u imnlied in original if neglected element of (Aristotle s ) ^ is unlikely the proverb ούδέν προς τον Διόνυσόν. The ‘different’ because another item in the programme wou e essed by not ‘new’; the latter because ‘renewal’ would not b e nouitas : as elsewhere Rostagni is attempting to squa what it account with the Aristotelian, n o u ita s, Presu m a b ly m e a m whatsit says; Ovid’s use of the word supports that, PJrtlcu1^ ? . q{ th* dulcique anim os nouitate tenebo. Thus unlike t ^ ne . · appr0ved preceding section or the new subjects of 125 « , provided it fulfils the conditions of the ars. Innov

279

Commentary

from being discouraged by H.: cf. E p . ii. i. 90-1 qu°dsi tam Graecis nouitas inuisa fuisset j quam nobis. morandus: as 321 (fabula) ualdius oblectat populum meliusque moratur, cf. above 154 plausoris. . .aulaea manentis. To hold the attention of the kind of spectator envisaged in the next verse and yet proceed accord­ ing to ars poetica is the measure of the poet’s Problem­ e n fmctusque sacris: for the dramatic contests in relation to the rites of the Athenian festivals, see Pickard-Cambridge, Dram. Fest. pts i and 11, for the City Dionysia in particular, ibid. pp. 62-5. potus: cf. ps.-Acro (on 222— 3) ^ eo satyram admiscuit tragoediae quia spectator erat *grata nouitate ’ retinendus, qui spectator ueniebat post ^sacrifid a iam pransus, iampotus. Plato, Laws, vi. 775 b (cit. Wilkins) legislates that intoxication be restricted to (Dionysiae) festivals when the god presented the wine. exlex: cf. Non. 10. 10 inlex et exlex est qui sine lege uiuit. The word is known first from Lucilius (Marx, frs. 83, 1088, the latter instance fitting the last foot of a hexameter as here), but used by him, and later by Sisenna, Varro, and Cicero, as a term in serious political contro­ versy, cf. TL L, v. 2. 1540. 6 if. The nuance here is wholly different, it is the freedom from restriction enjoyed on these occasions, cf. above 209-11, 85 n. libera uina. 225—33 now turn from the imagined Greek setting to the Roman world, and place a proviso on the amusement that may be provided for the modern audience. First in a beautifully articulated period (225-30) the reader is led step by step—ita, ita, ita: ne—to an ideal of a Satyric play which is as much removed from the gross humour of realistic comedy as from tragic grandeur. Next Tragedy becomes a Roman matrona who knows how to dance on a festive occasion. 225 uerum: a strongly adversative word, very selectively used m classical Latin (Hofmann—Szantyr, 495) but favoured by H. in the hexameter poems; in the lyrics only C . iv. 12. 25. It introduces the picture of the Roman Satyri. Cf. uerum below 303, 351, 360. ita. . . (227) ne: cf. 151 n. risores, one of H.’s words in -or, is known, according to the materials of the TL L, only from this passage, the grammarians, and the late Latin Querolus; Firm. M ath. v. 2. 11 risores is a false reading. Like dicaces that follows, the word oscillates between noun and adj., dicax has the function of a noun at S . 1. 4. 83 qui c a p ta t risus hominum famamque dicacis, ‘of a wit’. Both words here are attributes of Satyros. Cicero describes dicacitas as wit, a type of facetiae, peracutum et breue (D e Or. 11. 218), contrasted with ‘humour , aequabiliter in omni sermone fissum ; the whole of Cicero’s discussion 280

C o m m e n ta r y

p ro v id e s a liv ely c o m m e n ta ry to H .’s verses a n d m a y h av e b een in his m in d . C f. ibid. 2 4 4 scurrilis oratori dicacitas magno opere fugienda est, 247 ipsius dicacitatis moderatio et temperantia et raritas dictorum distinguent oratorem a scurra, a n d his distin ctio n b etw een ingenuus a n d illiberalis iocus. Off. x. 104. commendare (conueniet) is a h a r d in ju n c tio n for dicaces Satyri. 2 26 conueniet: th e fu t. as fre q u e n tly in in ju n ctio n s, e.g. 42. H o ra tia n S a ty rs to o m u s t b e ‘a p p r o p r ia te ’, n o t o n ly o rig in al a n d am using. uertere seria ludo ‘t u r n seriousness to je s t’ ; g ra m m a tic a lly u n e x ­ p la in e d . uertere is th u s u se d also a t C. 1. 35. 4 uertere funeribus triumphos, p e rh a p s a b l. o n th e m o d e l o f mutare, conuertere (P o rp h . o n C. I. 35. 4, cf. D . Bo, H or. Op. in . 103), co n stru e d as C. 1. 17· 1-2 Lucretilem | m utat Lycaeo Faunus. T h e g e n re σ π ο ν δ α ιο γέλ ο ιο ν is n o t in p o in t, th e τ ρ α γ ω δ ία π α ρ ο ύ σ α , n o t in fre q u e n tly ad d u c ed b y co m m en tato rs, is re le v a n t i f rig h tly u n d e rs to o d . L a u g h te r, D em etr. Interpr. 169 says, w h ic h is c o m b in e d w ith g ra ces (o f style) in S aty ric d ra m a an d com ­ ed y , is a n e n e m y o f tra g e d y in spite o f th e m a n y graces trag e d y com ­ m a n d s , ‘ sin ce n o o n e c a n im a g in e a p layful tra g e d y ’, τ ρ α γ ω δ ία ν π α ρ ο ύ σ α ν , ‘fo r in t h a t case σ ά τυ ρ ο ν γρ ά ψ ει α ντί τ ρ α γ ω δ ία ς ’. W h e n tra g e d y s ta rts je s tin g , i t is n o lo n g e r tra g e d y b u t S aty ric d ra m a . H ., o n th e o th e r h a n d , is say in g t h a t S atyric d ra m a m u st re ta in som e o f th e d ig n ity o f tra g ic style, fo r its m a jo r personae are those o f trag e d y . 2 2 7 ne: see 225 n . d e u s . . .heros: th e tw o m o st ex alted kinds o f tra g ic personae, cf. 114 d iu u s . . .a n heros o r, in ly ric verse, 83 diuospuerosque deorum. adhibebitur: K . - H . a n d R o sta g n i press th e w ord h a rd e r th a n I am in c lin e d to d o . Is i t m o re th a n ‘su m m o n , b rin g to a p la c e ’ (here, th e s ta g e )? F o r w h ic h n o tio n see th e dictionaries. 2 2 8 regali conspectus in a u ro . . . et ostro: a locution re m in iscen t o f epic v erse, fr e q u e n tly e m p lo y e d in vario u s form s b y V irgil a n d postV irg ilia n p o e ts. K . - H . d o u b tfu lly consider th e n o tio n ‘reclining o n e m b ro id e re d p u r p l e ’ ; this m a y b e co m m en d ed b y 229 migret b u t is, ^ su § g est, e x c lu d e d b y su ch passages as D ioscor. A nth. Pal. v n . 37. 4 -5 (°S με τ ο ν έκ Φ λ ιο ΰ ν τ ο ς .. .) ές χρύσεον σ χή μ α μεθηρμόσατο | και λ ε π τ ή ν ένέδοσεν ά λ ο υ ρ γ ίδ α (th e w o rd in g is co m p ared w ith H . by G . W illia m s , T ra d itio n and O riginality, etc. 343; for σ χή μ α see th e c o m m e n t b y G o w a n d P a g e , T he Gr. A n th ., Hellenistic Epigrams, n , 2 55 ) j V irg . G. in , 17 T yrio co n sp ectu s in ostro, A . iv. 134 ostroque in sig n is et auro, v . 1 3 2 -3 auro | ductores longe effulgent ostroque decori, XII> 126 ductores a u ro . . .ostroque superbi, e tc .; som e la te r instances a r e c ite d b y K e lle r2. C f. also C. iv. 9. 14-15 aurum uestibus illitum | m ira ta regales que cultus, L u c r. v. 1427-8 ueste . . . j purpurea atque auro

281

Commentary signisque ingentibus apta, Virg. A. xi. 72 xiestes auroque ostroque rigentis. It is true, aurum atque uestis, ‘trinkets and clothes ’, familiar from comedy, imply nothing of the kind, and equally auro et purpura at Livy xxxrv. 3. 9, are shown by an earlier passage {ibid. 1. 3) to be dissociated; but

the above passages and others suggest the richly embroidered purple cloak of royalty. A similar cloak probably was the long syrma of tragedy, cf. Bieber, R -E , iv a . 1786 f. Its use on the tragic stage was traditionally ascribed to Aeschylus, see below 278 n .p a lla e . . . honestae. For the possible cultic origin of the dress of republican Roman tragedy, see H. D. Jocelyn, The Tragedies o f Ennius, 21. Cf. Juv. 8. 228-9 longum. . . Thyestae | syrma uel Antigones aut personam Melanippes, also Sen. H .F. 475 auro decorum syrma barbarico of Bacchus, Oed. 4 23 > Stat. Ach. I. 262-3 ΰ decet aurata Bacchum uestigia palla | uerrere. nuper in the tragedy or tragedies preceding the Satyric drama. 229 joins in one pregnant locution two different concepts: uses language befitting the cottage’ and ‘behaves as though he had moved from a palace to a cottage ’; m igret. . . humili sermone accomplishes this feat of wording, tabernas ‘cottage as in pauperum tabernas, C. 1.4· 13 5^ut at Ep. i. 14. 24 taberna is shown by the context to be a ‘tavern , m many other places, such as S. 1. 3. 131, 4. 71, it is ‘shop’. K.-H. cite Diom. GL, i. 489. 29 ff. (ed. Leo ap. Kaibel, CGF, p. 59) on 5 ^e realistic Roman comedy, comoedia togata, of Titinius, Atta, and Afranius, to which the name fabula tabernaria had been applied: et humilitate personarum et argumentorum similitudine comoediis pares, m quibus non magistratus regesue sed humiles homines et priuatae domus inducuntur, quae quidem olim. . .tabernae uocabantur’. Whatever the source of these remarks they reveal the literary background H. took for granted. Earlier evidence than Diomedes is cited by W. Kroll, R-E, v ia . 1660-2. humili sermone, though not the sermones. . . | repentis per humum of H.’s hexameter poems, Ep. n. 1. 250-1. 230 In the preceding verse the tragic persona has left his palace {migret) and H. barred his road to the cottage. But now he is also warned against migrating into unduly high quarters—unlike the stylist, above 28. Such advice, however different from the genus medium of the rhetoricians, amounts to a middle road. nubes et inania ‘clouds and empty space’, inane in poetic language being the ‘air’ or ‘ether’, Virg. A . x i i . 906 la p is. . .uacuum per inane uolutus; Lucretius’ inane, τό κενόν, is not in question here. This recalls the popular Greek idea of ‘high’ discourse, μετεωρολογία, parodied e.g. by Aristoph. Nub. 316-17 ούρανίαι Νεφέλαι. . · | ctnrep

γ ν ώ μ η ν .. .ήμϊν τταρέχοασιν, 319—20 ψυγή μου ιτεττότηται | 282

Commentary και λ ε π τ ο λ ο γ ε ίν ή δ η 3ητεϊ καί περί κ α π νο ύ στενολεσχεϊν, 424 τ ° χ ά ο ς t o u t ! καί τ ά ς Νεφέλας καί τ η ν γ λ ώ τ τ α ν . B ut Η . is h in tin g at a q u a lity o f fo rm a l sp ee ch w h ich recalls ps.-L ong. Subì. 3. 2 (Callis­ th e n e s 5) τ ι ν α . . . δ ν τ α ο ύ χ ύ ψ η λ ά α λ λ ά μετέωρα p reced ed a t 3· ι by a w a rn in g t h a t , in tra g e d y , π ρ ά γ μ α τ ι ό γ κ η ρ ω . . . τ ό π α ρ ά μέλος οίδεϊν is u n f o r g iv e a b le ; Q u in t. L O . xii. io . 16 inflati illi et inanes, ibid. 17 n ih il inane a u t redundans. B o th conceits a re co m b in ed in H . an d , p r o b a b ly u n d e r his in flu e n c e , Pers. 5. 7 grande locuturi nebulas Helicone legunto. A lso see T L L , v u . 1. 827. 75 ff. captet in la t e r R o m a n rh e to ric denotes th e ‘picking u p ’ o f tricks or devices o f sty le, as a t S en. Contr. 1. 6. 11 sententiam uirilem, Sen. Ep. 100. 5 electa uerba su n t [F abiani), non captata, Q u in t. 1. 0 . vi. 3. 47 ilia obscura [dicta) quae A te lla n i e more captant, x. 1. 32 Sallustiana breuitas. H e re h o w e v e r th e r e is also th e oxym oron, ‘get h o ld o f som ething in s u b s ta n tia l, s n a tc h w h a t a m o u n ts to n o th in g ’. 231 T h e v erse d e n y in g triv ia lity to th e S atyrs starts w ith th e kind o f la n g u a g e t h a t is d e p lo re d , effutire, from fu tis , ‘w a te rin g c a n 5, is ‘to p o u r o u t, s p o u t, b a b b le 5; ps.-A cro, p r o p r ie .. .est ‘inepte loqui’. T L L , V. 2. 22g. 8 0 if. show s t h a t th e w ord w as a t h om e in com edy an d L u c ilia n s a tire , n e x t in C icero a n d L u cretiu s for h asty a n d un co n ­ s id e re d sp ee ch . le u is . . .uersus is o p p o se d to th e grauitas o f trag e d y as 226 ludo to seria. indigna — quam non decet as in indignari, ‘consider im p ro p e r5 a t Ep. l-

3· 35 (b e lo w ). F o r th e inf. w ith indignus, see 183 digna gerì, 283 regi,

a n d o th e r pass, infs., b u t a c t. E p . 1. 3. 35 indigni fraternum rumpere fo ed u s, so effutire in th is verse. T h e p a ra lle l w ith αναξιος need n o t im p ly a G re cism . tragoedia is p erso n ifie d w ith m o re gusto th a n comoedia, above 93. T r a g e d y 5 is a w o m a n , b u t as becom es h e r status in these verses she feels a little u n e a s y in th e c o m p a n y o f th e Satyrs as w ould a R o m an matrona o b lig e d to d a n c e a t a religious festival. A very different Tragoedia a p p e a rs a t O v . A m . m . 1. 11 a n d she is Romana T . at th a t, ibid. 29.

23 2 f e s t i s . . . diebus: ps.-A cro, sunt enim quaedam sacra in quibus sa lta n t matronae sicut in sacrificiis M atris deum. T h is co m m en t p ro b ab ly m o v e d W ilk in s in h is useful n o te to refer f e s t i s . . . diebus to th e Hilaria, H i C u m o n t, R - E , v m . 1598. T h a t how ever w as surely n o t the only o c c a s io n , cf. H . o n M a e c e n a s’ L icy m n ia (not, it is tru e, a typical R o m a n m atrona), C. 11. 12. 17 a n d ps.-A cro’s n o te th e re ; also Serv. on V irg . G. i. 350, c ite d in W ilk in s’ n o te, m akes against his co n ten tio n : saltationem aptam religioni nec ex ulla arte uenientem. W h ü e accom plished

283

Commentary

dancing is for the stage and for entertainers (cf. R -E , iv a . 2247)9 even Sallust objects only to Sempronia’s dancing a little too well, Cat. 25. 2 elegantius quam necesse est probae. For other social aspects see Macr. Sat. in, ch. 14, especially 5 ff. taceo quod matronae etiam saltationem non inhonestam putabant, etc. moueri: middle voice, ‘dance’, as E p. 11. 2. 125 where an acc. follows (as in Persius, below) nunc Satyrum, nunc. . . Cyclopa mouetur, cf. K.—H· ad I. Ov. Am. h i . 1. 37 imparibus tamen es numeris dignata moueri, addressed by Elegìa to Tragoedia, uses moueri differently, and is perhaps independent of H. But the likeness between Ep. 11. 2. 125 and Pers. 5. 123 is marked: tris tantum ad numeros Satyrum moueare Bathylli. iussa: commentators compare Ov. Tr. n. 23-4 ipse. . . Caesar matresque nurusque | carmina turrigerae dicere iussit Opi. 233 pudibunda: poetic (first known from Culex 399 (TV) and this passage) and later also in prose (Plin. N .H . x. 44, ah). The position of pudibunda too should be noted; the two antithetic pudibunda Ά,ηά proteruis collide. For the latter, cf. Hes. fr. 123. 2 (ed. MerkelbachWest) καί γένο$ ουτιδανών Σατύρων καί άμηχανοεργών, Ον. Her. ν. 139 (Satyri,) turba proterua, et al. 234—43 The middle style. The verses read like an application to the new Satyric drama, and to Silenus above all, of more general principles, particularly those laid down at 47 ff. (so T. Fritzsche pointed out as long ago as 1885: P> xuv, 89-90). But having made the two passages so alike, H. clearly wanted readers to notice that he has not made them the same. Not only is the application different, but here H. aims at an Aristotelian Mean and, moreover, he offers a doctrine joining rhetorical and poetic categories in the manner which, I have suggested, characterizes his literary tradition in so many places. The rhetorical categories are offered in the first part of ch. 2 (up to 1404 b 25) of Ar. Rhet. in, although the idea of the middle style is not there emphasized. The poetic categories are partly con­ tained in Aristotle’s references to poetry, especially tragedy, and partly in the position assigned to the three dramatic genres, Satyric drama standing between tragedy and comedy. 234—5 may be either ‘I will favour not only ordinary words’ but others less ordinary, though in moderation (235-9); or ‘I will favour not only ordinary words’ but their uncommon composition (240). K.-H. argue in the former sense, recent commentators, rightly I think, in the latter. Not all translators make this explicit, however; and older commentators muddled the argument by referring 240-3 to the content, not the style, of the plays; so still Wickham, 240 n. * 3 4 eSo: H.’s imaginary ‘I ’ (cf. 25-6 n.). He identifies himself with 284 w o r d s ,

Commentary a n y w r ite r o f S a ty ric d r a m a , 235 Satyrorum scriptor, th o u g h every­ o n e k n o w s t h a t h e is n o t. T h is use o f th e is t perso n does n o t differ fro m 24.0 sequar a n d 2 4 4 me indice — a sure sign th a t th e division p ro ­ p o sed b y G . W illia m s (see ab o v e 2 5 -6 ) is in ap p o site, for he needs to assig n 2 3 4 ff. a n d 2 4 0 if. to o n e o f his categories, a n d 244 to th e o th e r. inornata: th e g e n e ra l n o tio n o f fo rm alized a n d a rtistic speech as ‘ e m b e llis h m e n t ’ b e lo n g s to th e rh e to ric ia n s from Iso crates (e.g. Euag. 190 d ) to C ic e ro ’s ornare a n d fa r b ey o n d . I n o te t h a t κοσμεϊν as a general t e r m is n o t u se d in th e Poetics ; th e very re stric ted kin d o f fig u ra tiv e s p e e c h c a lle d κόσμος (A r. Poet. 2 1 , 1457b 3 4 ,2 2 , 1459 a 14; p re cisely w h a t k in d is n o t k n o w n ) is a d ifferent m a tte r. I n th e Rhetoric o n th e o t h e r h a n d th e g e n e ra l te rm a p p e a rs in a co n tex t close to Poet. 2 1 -2 (w h ic h is re fe rre d to) a n d to this passage o f th e Ars; A r. M e t. in . 2 , 1404 b 5 ff. τ ω ν 5’ ονομ ά τω ν καί ρ η μ ά τω ν σαφή μέν ττοιεί τ ά κ ύ ρ ια , μή τ α π ε ιν ή ν δέ α λ λ ά κεκοσμημενην τ ά λ λ α ονόματα ό σ α ε ίρ η τα ι έν τ ο ΐς π ε ρ ί π ο ιη τικ ή ς, τ ό y à p έξαλλάξαι πο ιεί φαίνεσθαι σ ε μ ν ο τ έ ρ α ν . . . δ ιό δεϊ π ο ιε ΐν ξένην τή ν διάλεκτον. Cf. ibid. 14°5 a 14 κοσμεϊν a n d 7, 1408 a 1 3 -1 4 ύ η δ ’ ε π ί ΤΦ εύτελεΐ όνόμ ατι έπη κόσμος. T h e u se o f th is te r m th e re fo re in th e co n tex t o f a poetic genre suggests th e m ix tu r e o f rh e to r ic a l a n d p o e tic categories to w h ich atten tio n has b e e n d r a w n ab o v e . dom inantia: th e o n ly o c c u rre n c e in classical L a tin (excluding, th a t is, a l a t e m e d ic a l w rite r. C ael. A u re lia n u s) o f this w o rd in th e sense o f G re e k τ ά κ ύ ρ ια . T h is is lik ely to b e a H o ra tia n coinage Graeco fonte to express ‘re c o n d ite m a tte r s ’ (ab o v e 4 9 ). I t is th e use in a specific sense o f a p a r tic ip le o th e rw ise occasionally em ployed in poetic a n d la te L a tin in th e g e n e ra l sense o f ‘d o m in a tin g ’, T L L , v. 1.1906. 29 ff. As B y w a te r says, A r. Poet. 21, 1457 b 1 n ., κύριον in A r. is (a) ‘ the e s ta b lis h e d a n d fa m ilia r n a m e fo r a th in g ’, as d istin ct from glosses, m e ta p h o r s , a n d a n y o th e r ‘stra n g e u se ’ o f lan g u ag e, a n d ( b) m ore sp ec ific ally , th e lite ra l te r m d istin c t from th e m e ta p h o ric a l ; for la te r G re e k u sa g e , see L . - S . - J . s.v., a n d P. G eigenm üller, Quaest. Dionys, de vocab. artis crit. (T h esis, L e ip z ig 1908), 15 f., 21 f. W h ic h o f th e tw o H . h a s i n m in d is n o t c e rta in . E ith e r m e a n in g w ill fit his co n tex t ; th ere w a s n o n e e d fo r h im to m a k e this nice distin ctio n . C icero a n d others ex p ress a s im ila r n o tio n b y proprium : e.g. D e Or. in. 149 w here (nerba) quae propria su n t et certa quasi uocabula rerum, paene una nata cum rebus ipsis a r e c o n tra s te d w ith m e ta p h o rs a n d coinages. P o rp h . explains dom inantia b y sa y in g su n t quae rerum propriis uocabulis nuncupantur, u t libri, capsa, p a g in a . H .’s w o rd is a n im ag in ativ e to u c h re n d erin g the

κυριευειν o f τ ά κύρια in L a tin . I n his n o w fa m iliar m a n n e r H . does

285

Commentary

what he teaches, offering dominantia in the place of the common word for‘familiar’ or ‘literal’, cf. Steidle, Studien, p. 120 n. 28. nomina (uerbaque) the two comprehensive classes of words as in the passage cited above from Ar. Rhet. in. 2, 1404 b 5 ff· : τ“ υ ^ όνομάτων καί ρημάτων. . .τά κύρια. S. ι. 3 · ιο 3~4 not a c^ear instance. 235 Pisones: Mueller observes that in H.’s letters the addressee is commonly addressed once only ; he attributes this exceptional use of the address to the length of this letter, in the middle of which, or nearly so, H. repeats Pisones. That is commonly the case (though not at Ep. ι. 10. i : 44), but in the Ars this procedure is replaced by a much more complex network of addresses, both to the Pisos and the reader, cf. Vahlen cited above 6 n., and 6, 24, 291—2, 366, also U 9 > 153 et al. Rather what needs to be noted is the function of these addresses in each case ; H. likes to give prominence to certain words or parts of a poem by the placing of the addressee’s name, cf. Fraenkel, Hor. 206 n. 1 and the other observations listed in his index under ‘name of the person addressed carefully placed’. One can readily see why the poet as a pretended Satyrorum scriptor and advocate of a new Roman genre might wish to give prominence to this particular precept. Beyond that nothing can be known; no personal predilection of the Pisos provides part of the poem’s substance. But then what do we know about the personal predilections of the Pisos? Satyrorum scriptor: like Greek Σάτυροι for the play, e.g. Aristoph. Th. 157 όταν Σατύρους τοίνυν ποιης. scriptor here means no more than ‘if I wrote’, iqo scriptor is dissimilar. amabo ‘in that case I should favour. . 14. 44 censebo, 19. 9 mandabo. . .adimam.

. ’, cf. below 317 iubebo, E p . I·

236 goes from the choice of words to the style, color. Satyric drama must not be realistic in style and ethos unlike comedy, the reverse of tragedy. enitar with inf. as C. ni. 27. 47; the appearance of this construction, apart from H., in Terence, next in Sallust, the declamations of ps.Qpintilian, Gellius, and late prose ( T L L , v. 2. 598. 67 ff), suggests an archaism. tragico. . . colori, cf. colores above 86 n. differre with dat. in H. is certain here and S. 1.4.48 ; for discrepare, see 152 m 337 (nec sic differre) ut nihil intersit: ps.-Acro, ut sit inter seueritatem tragoediae et lenitatem [len- codd.) comoediae medio temperamento figurata. But H.’s poetic point is that he avoids the mechanical description of a middle style and, probably not without amusement, produces this 286

Commentary to r tu o u s q u a lif ic a tio n ‘ a n d n o t so to d i f f e r . . . t h a t th e re is n o th in g b e tw e e n . . . D a u u s (n o e v id e n c e h e r e fo r th e sp ellin g -uos in spite o f K e ller, E p il.

756) a p p e a r s as a ty p ic a l slav e o f co m edy, S. 1. 10. 40, 11. 5. 91. W h e th e r h e b e lo n g e d to th e c o m e d y w h ich ps.-A cro claim s to identify (238 n .) is u n k n o w n . et f ° r th e f a u lty an, w h ic h seem s im p o rte d fro m 239, is o n ly in B land. V e t. a n d B C .

2 3 8 P s.-A c ro , non d icit de P yth ia Terentiana (th a t is, th e Eunuchus) sed quae a p u d L u c iliu m ( Caecilium O re lli) tragoediograpkum inducitur an­ cilla p e r a stu tia s accipere argentum a domino, nam fe fe llit dominum suum et accepit ab eo talentum . L ik ew ise C o m m . C ru q ., a d d in g in dotem filiae. R ib b e c k a c c e p te d O r e lli’s e m e n d a tio n Caecilium, a n d p lace d th e sc h o liu m a m o n g th e fra g m e n ts o f C aecilius, C R F 3, fr. 287. T h e M S r e a d in g w a s h o w e v e r d e fe n d e d b y J . B ecker, R M , n.s. v (1847), 38 f. F o r th e r e a r e in d ic a tio n s t h a t L u ciliu s offered so m eth in g resem b lin g a sce n e, o r scen es, fr o m a c o m e d y in Book x x ix o f th e Satires, cf. C . C ic h o riu s , U nters, z u L u cii. 17 1 ff. I t is th e n possible still th a t p a r t o f t h a t S a t i r e w a s b a s e d o n a c o m e d y to w h ic h referen ce is m a d e h ere, j u s t as H . b a s e d p a r t o f S . n . 3 (259 ff.) o n a scene fro m T e r. E un. B u t th e s e g u esses a r e re n d e r e d d u b io u s b y tragoediographum. emuncto . . . Sim one: a g a in emungo d e m o n stra te s w h a t, H . says, should b e a v o id e d ; a ll c o m m e n ta to rs re m a rk o n th e stylistic c h a ra c te r o f th e w o rd . I t is a v u lg a ris m t h a t b e lo n g s to th e la n g u a g e o f co m ed y (a n d p u tire), T L L , v . 2. 5 4 3 . 78 ff. G re e k ά πο μ ύσ σ ειν m a y b e c o m p a re d , ■roll. π . 78 ή δ η δε τιν ες τ ω ν κ ω μ ικ ώ ν τ ό έπ ί κέρδει έ ξ α π α τ α ν όατομύττε ιν είττον. M e n . (e d . K o e rte ) fr. 427 γ έ ρ ω ν ά(ττε)μέμυκτ’ άθλιος, λέμφος. S im o is k n o w n as a senex fro m PI. M o st, a n d T e r. A n . . * 39 custos fa m u lu sq u e dei Silenus alum ni: in e x ta n t S aty ric d ra m a b ile n u s is t h e f a th e r o f th e S a ty rs ; th e o ld e r c h a ra c te ristic s o f Silenuses w e re less p a t e r n a l . T h e ev id en c e, lite ra ry a n d a rch ae o lo g ic al, for this p i o n y s i a c d e m o n w a s p re s e n te d a n d discussed b y E. K u h n e rt, S a ty ro s u n d S ile n o s ’ in R o s c h e r’s Lexikon, ι ν (1 9 0 9 -1 5 ), 444 ff., w o r e r e c e n t d isc u ssio n a n d b ib lio g ra p h y in A . Lesky, Trag. D icht. e tc . (1 9 5 6 ), 8, 23 ff. a n d th e 2 n d ed. (1962) o f P ic k a rd -C a m b rid g e , U ith . 1 16 ff. S ile n u s as te a c h e r o f D ionysus is fa m ilia r fro m S aty ric d r a m a ; S . t h e sag e to o is k n o w n fro m th e fifth c e n tu ry b .c . o n w a rd ; P la t o ’s fa m o u s c o m p a r is o n o f S o cra te s w ith sta tu e tte s o f Silenus W » # . 2 1 5 ) m a y h i n t a t th is n o tio n . F o r H .’s w ise a n d idyllic S., f h o d . ιν . 4 s h o u ld b e c o m p a re d , φ α σ ί δέ καί π α ιδ α γ ω γ ό ν καί τροφ έα συνεττεσθοα κ α τ ά τ ά ς σ τ ρ α τ ε ία ς α ύ τ ω (sc. Δ ιονύσ ω ) Σειληνόν, είσηΥ η τή ν κ α ί δ ιδ ά σ κ α λ ο ν γ ιν ό μ ε ν ο ν τ ω ν κ α λ λ ίσ τω ν έπ ιτη δευ μ ά τω ν, 287

Commentary

καί μεγάλα σνμβάλλεσθαι τω Διονύσω ττρός αρετήν τε και δόξαν (cit. Ordii). In Latin literature this type of Silenus appears in Nemes. Eel. 3. 27 and 59, the prophet and sage in Cic. T.D. 1. 114 an 25 · 135-65 ps.-Long. Subì., ch. 40, Anth. Pal. vn. 50, Agrippa ap. Don. Vit. Verg. § 44, and H. Of these Anth. Pal. must here be jettisoned; though the writer talks of Euripides’ misleading simplicity, he does not talk of plain words in a less plain composition. So must Philodemus because his context is unhappily lost: ττόημα.. ,γί[νεσθαι έ]ξ Ιδιωτικών [τε καί ε]ύτελών, συ[γ]κει[μένων] δέ καλώς, χ[ρ]τισ[τόν]. This, apart from the Romans, leaves us with Aristotle on the one hand, and Dionysius and Longinus on the other—two different doctrines. For Dionysius and to a lesser extent Longinus are concerned with euphony, rhythm, ìatus, and what was known as rhetorical composition, σύνθεσις. his was part of rhetorical teaching and may be as old as the rhetori­ cians interest in euphony and the effect of composition. Aristotelian 288

Commentary te a c h in g m a y h o w e v e r h a v e m a d e a n im p a c t o n su ch la te r critics as L o n g in u s as w e ll. A ris to tle h a s b e e n c ite d ab o v e 4 7 - 8 n . H e h a s his o w n n o tio n o f s ty le ; h e is ta lk in g o f fa m ilia r w o rd s in a n effective c o n te x t ; r h e to r ic a l compositio does n o t e n te r. A g rip p a a n d H . arg u e on th e b asis o f th e A ris to te lia n tr a d itio n , u n c o n c e rn e d h e re as to e u ­ p h o n y a n d th e re s t. B o th en v isag e a p o sitio n in te rm e d ia te b etw e en tw o e x tre m e s o f sty le a n d a p o in te d style co n c ealed b y a r t. A g rip p a calls V irg il nouae cacozeliae repertorem, non tumidae nec exilis (sc. th e tw o e x tre m e s ) sed ex com m unibus uerbis atque ideo latentis (i.e. cacozelia c o n c e a le d ) ; h e h a s a n a x e to g rin d — V irg il’s alleg ed affectatio n . So A ris to tle e m e rg e s as H . ’s closest ally. T h e A risto te lia n p o sitio n in R h et. h i , c h . 2 m a y b e s ta te d as follow s. A n e le m e n t o f stran g en ess in e v e ry d a y la n g u a g e (1 4 0 4 b i o ) , r e g u la te d b y a p p ro p ria te n e ss (b 1 7 18), its p o e tic c h a r a c te r m a d e a c c e p ta b le b y see m in g n a tu ra ln e ss (b 19), c o m p o s itio n c o n c e a lin g its a rtis try b y th e use o f o rd in a ry w o rd s , firs t a c h ie v e d i n E u rip id e s ’ p o e try (b 2 4 ~ 5 ). C o m p a re H .’s p o s itio n . S a ty r ic d r a m a re q u ire s la n g u a g e less h e ig h te n e d th a n th a t o f tr a g e d y , e v e r y d a y la n g u a g e b u t n o t th e re alism o f co m e d y (2 3 4 -9 ), th e p o e tic le v e l o f th e style m a d e a c c e p ta b le b y a n a tu ra ln e ss co n ­ c e a lin g a r t a n d su g g e stin g t h a t i t is in a n y o n e ’s re a c h (2 4 0 -2 ), a c h ie v e d b y e ffec tiv e c o m p o sitio n consisting o f o rd in a ry w ords (2 4 2 -3 ).

240 ex noto fic tu m : th e a d j. as in n o tu m . . .uerbum ab o v e 47, b u t h e r e u s e d a s a n o u n , cf. th e m o re estab lish ed de medio, below 243, w h ic h p e r h a p s assisted th e tra n sfe re n c e , cf. A risto tle, in th e passage m e n tio n e d a b o v e , R h e t. h i. 2, 1404 b 2 4 -5 έάν τ ις έκ τή ς είωθυίας δ ια λ έ κ τ ο υ έ κ λ έ γ ω ν σ υ ν τ ιθ ή . carmen sequar: fo r th e i s t p e rs o n see a b o v e 234 n . ego. T h e v e rb = p u rs u e , a im a t ’ as E p . 11. 2. 143 uerba sequi. . .modulanda, P ers. 5. 14 uerba togae sequeris. H e n c e . . . fictu m carmen sequar — carmen fingam , 3 3 1—2 sperem us carm ina fin g i | posse, 382 uersus. . . fingere, a n d th e like, cf. T L L , v i. i . 773. 82 ff. L . M u e lle r d efin ed carmen b y c o n te n t a n d a r r a n g e m e n t, n o t d ic tio n , W ic k h a m b y p lo t. B ut th e sense th a t is in te n d e d m u s t b e n a t u r a l ly in h e r e n t in th e c o n tex t. 2 4 0 —1 s i b i . . . I speret: as V irg . A . x ii . 241 “2 m i h i . . . | sperabant Ο ν . M e t. π . 631 sperantemque sib i, cf. J . V a h le n , Op. A c. 11. 248. 241 speret idem is m o c k in g ly e c h o e d b y ausus idem in th e sam e p la c e o f th e n e x t v e rs e ; fo r t h e ‘r h y m e ’ , see 1 7 6 -7 n · T h ese m e n h o p e, d a re , to il— a n d fa il. T h e y a r e d e c e iv e d b y th e a r t c o n c ealin g a r t H . s id e a l o f a r t b e c o m in g n a tu r e . Im p re ssiv e ly p u t, w ith a ra re p erso n al to u c h , E p . π . 2. 1 2 4 -5 , a f te r th e h a r d w o rk p re sc rib e d in th e p re ­ c e d in g v erses, ludentis speciem dabit, et torquebitur, ut qui | nunc Satyrum

19

289

BKA

C o m m e n ta r y nunc agrestem Cyclopa mouetur. Cf. A r. R h e t. in . 2, 1404 b 18 ff. λανθάνειν. . . και μή δοκεϊν λέγειν πεπλασμ ένω ς α λ λ ά πεφυκότως, followed by κλέπτεται δ’ ευ εά ν τις κτλ.· δττερ Ε υριπίδης ποιεί και υπέδειξε πρώ τος, A n th . P a l. vn. 50· 3“ 4 (o n E u rip id es) λείη μέν γ ά ρ ίδεΤν καί έπίρροθος· | ήν δέ τις α υτή ν | είσβαίνη, χ α λ ε π ο ύ τρηχυτέρη σκόλοπος. For instances from. C icero an d D ionysius, see R ostagni,

240 n . sudet m ultum : a w e ll-e sta b lish e d m e t a p h o r f r o m a t h l e t i c tr a in in g , cf. th e a th le te , b e lo w 4 1 3 , su d a u it et a ls it (w h e re a t 4 1 6 th e p o e t fails to p u t in th e tr a in in g r e q u ir e d ) , E p . 11. 1. 1 6 8 -9 , metaphorical a s h e r e , creditur, ex medio quia res accersit, habere \ sudoris m in im u m (comoedia). fru stra q u e : ‘ a d v e rsa tiv e ’ -que, in g r a m m a ti c a l p a r l a n c e ; fo r a s im ila r u se o f et, see T L L , v. 2. 893. 4 ff. C f. H o f m a n n —S z a n ty r , 4 8 1 ; th e c o m p le x cases d iscu ssed b y F r a e n k e l, H orace, 2 1 9 n . 4 d iffe r. I n fa c t, it is n o t -que b u t th e c o n te x t t h a t is a d v e rs a tiv e a n d th is is t h r o w n in to s tro n g re lie f b y th e s im p le c o n n e c tiv e p a r ti c le : ‘s w e a t a n d fa il · C . W ila m o w itz ’s e n lig h te n in g re m a rk s , E u r . H e r. 5 0 9 n . 242 ausus idem: cf. 241 n. speret idem . series iuncturaque p o llet: T h e tw o n o u n s to g e th e r , 4t e x t u r e a n d c o m ­ b i n a t i o n ’, re a liz e so m e o f th e p o te n tia litie s o f th e s im p le G re e k ‘ σύνθεσ ις’. T h e y a r e a s o p h is tic a te d v e rs io n t h a t s e e m s to e c h o in uerbis serendis (45) a n d iunctura (4 8 ), as h a s o fte n b e e n n o te d . T h i s v ersio n b efits a s o p h istic a te d p o e t. T h u s tw o p r o n o u n c e m e n ts o n d ic tio n a r e tie d to g e th e r ; o n e is g e n e r a l (4 6 ff.), th e o t h e r sp ec ific . B u t ju s t like c a llid a . . .iunctura 46—7, th is lo c u tio n a t t a c h e s a n e s p e c ia v ir tu e a n d effectiv eness to iunctura, w h ic h A ris to tle ’s s im p le έάν τ ις . . · σ υ ν τιθ ή d id n o t possess. T h e s a m e is t r u e fo r t h e e m p h a s is p la c e d o n σύνθεσ ις b y th e rh e to ric ia n s . H e r e as a t 4 7 —8, H . ’s iunctura h a s n o th in g to d o w ith e u p h o n y , r h y t h m , a n d th e o t h e r fe a tu r e s o f t h a t ‘ c o m p o s itio n ’ w h ic h C ic e ro ca lls coniunctio (e.g. D e O r. in . 175) a n t* Q u in tilia n iunctura (e.g. 1. 0 . ix . 4 . 22 in o m n i porro com positione tria su n t genera necessaria, ordo iunctura num erus). F o r H . ’s iunctura a n d P e rs. 5. 14» see ab o v e 47 n. 243 ta n tu m , re p e a te d fro m th e p r e c e d in g v e rse , is h ig h ly e m p h a t i c . p la c e d rig h tly in th e r ig h t c o n te x t o r d i n a r y w o rd s w ill re c e iv e ‘ s ta n d in g ’. de medio sum ptis, a n o c c a sio n a l s y n o n y m (w ith de o r e) i n r h e t o r i c a l th e o r y fo r uerba u sita ta o r s im ila r te rm s , C ic. D e O r. in . 177’ ^ r ' 163, al. { T L L , v ili. 594. 5 f f ) . accedit honoris, cf. 70—1 cadentque | quae nunc sunt in honore uocabula, E p . n . 2 . 1 12—13 ( quaecumque) honore indigna fe r e n tu r \ uerba mouere loco. *44- 5 ° T h e n ew p o e tic M e a n h a s a t h i r d a s p e c t— th e to n e o f th e

Commentary S a ty rs w h o fo r m th e c h o ru s o f th e d ra m a . T h e M e a n th e y m u st a t t a i n lies b e tw e e n tw o to w n is h e x tre m e s to w h ic h th e ir ru stic ity m a y in c lin e th e m , th e s e n tim e n ta lity fit for th e y o u n g m e n o f th e F o ru m a n d th e v u lg a r ity o f th e c ity p leb s. . ®44 silu is d e d u c ti . . . F a u n i: th e a b l. a fte r deducti w ith o u t th e p re p o ­ s itio n c o m m o n in p ro se , as a t E p . i. 2. 48, a n d a fte r m a n y co m ­ p o u n d s w i t h a , de, ex, cf. D . B o, H or. Op. m . 98 if. T h e S atyrs, like th e p r im itiv e m e n , siluestres hom ines (3 9 1 ), b elo n g to th e co u n try sid e , a re agrestes, 2 2 1 . H . m a k e s th e tw o fo ld id e n tific a tio n , c o m m o n a t th e u n e , o f (g o a t-lik e ) S a ty rs w ith th e G re ek g o a t d e m o n P a n a n d , in t u r n , o f P a n w i t h th e I t a l i c F a u n u s . L ike P a n th e F auni b elo n g to th e c o u n tr y s id e i n A u g u s ta n v e rs e : C. in . 18. 1 ffi, cf. 1. 4. x i, V irg. G. 1. 10, O v . F a st. ii. i Q3, h i. 315. H . ev e n m ak es F a u n u s c o m m u te b eU veen P a n s A r c a d ia a n d I ta ly , C. 1. 17. 1—2 uelox amoenum saepe ucretilem | m u ta t Lycaeo F aunus. E lsew h e re th e tw o a re co n jo in ed , E p. I- *9 - 3~4 u t m a le sanos | adscripsit L ib e r Satyris Faunisque poetas. m e ìndice se e m s to re so lv e a n y d o u b ts as to th e id e n tity o f Satyrorum scriptor (2 3 5 ) ; k is H . t h e c ritic , cf. S teidle, Studien, 127 f. *45 U r b a n i z e d S a ty rs o r F a u n s a re d e p lo re d . K . L a tte , H , lx U 9 2 5 ) , 8 , h a s c o m p a r e d H . ’s S a ty ri-F a u n i w ith th e S a ty r o f D ioscoci es e p ig r a m o n S o sith e u s, th e A le x a n d ria n w rite r o f tra g ic a n d a ty r ic d r a m a o f th e tim e o f P to le m y P h ila d e lp h u s : A nth. P al. v n . 7°7 (n o . XXIII, G o w a n d P a g e , T h e Gr. A n th ., Hellenistic Epigram s, 1, P· ( 8, 5 - 6 κήμέ τον έν καινοίς τεθραμμένον ήθεσιν ήδη | ή y a y εν ε!$ μνήμην ττατρίδ’ άναρχαίσας. F o r th e te x t see G o w a n d P age, 11, 256, W .° c o n s id e r e m e n d in g ττατρίδος άρχαΐσας, a n d s u p p o rt G . H e rm a n n ’s p o i n t t h a t b o t h d r a m a t ic g e n re s m a y b e a llu d e d to. T h e tw o genres 3· so m a y h a v e b e e n in D io sco rid e s’ m in d a t A n th . P al. v n . 411 (n o . XXI, G o w a n d P a g e , 1. 87) τα δ ’ άχροιώτιν αν’ ύλαν [ παίγνια. a t t e r e g a r d e d N e o p to le m u s o f P a riu m , H . ’s re p u te d a u th o rity , as a n e a r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f S o sith e u s, a n d su g g ested t h a t H . h a d h e re b een r a w in g o n a n A le x a n d r ia n fe a tu re o f his ‘s o u rc e ’. T h is is a t a n y ra te a -p o s s ib le d a t e fo r N e o p to le m u s (cf. Prol. 44, 149), a n d a p lau sib le ° u g h n o t in e v ita b le p ro v e n a n c e o f H .’s u rb a n iz e d S atyrs. u elut in n a ti triu iis: as i n th e p re c e d in g verse classical prose w ould a v o u r a p r e p o s itio n ; th e case is lik ely to b e d a t., cf. T L L , v n . 1. tb ^ ’ ^ le c e r t a m in sta n c e s o f th e a b l. a re la te L a tin . H . im agines e w o o d la n d S a ty rs b e h a v in g ‘ as th o u g h th e y h a d b een b o rn in a c o m m o n ( R o m a n ) s t r e e t ’ : triuium suggests plebecula, cf. C ic. M u r. 13 non d eb e s. . . arripere m aledictum ex triuio (O tto , Sprichwörter, 351 f.). ue u t m a k e s in n a ti in to s o m e th in g re se m b lin g a h y p o th e tic a l clause, Ue u t st in n a ti essent, fo r w h ic h th e h isto ria n s a n d po ets som etim es 291

19-2

C o m m en ta ry v e n tu re d uelut w ith o u t si, e.g . S ail. lu g . 53. 7, cf. H o f m a n n - S z a n ty r , ®75· H . reso u rcefu lly fa v o u rs th e p a r tic ip le i n th e p la c e o f a w h o le clause, see fo r uelut(i ) S. 11. 1. 33- \ u o t i u a . . .u e lu ti descripta tabella | uita senis, π . 3. g8 ueluti uirtute paratum (cf. H o f m a n n - S z a n ty r , 3 8 5 ). ac paene forenses e ith e r m a y e n la rg e o n in n a ti trìu ììs a n d = uulgares, as in p s.-A cro’s n o te a n d G re e k α γ ο ρ α σ τ ικ ο ί, cf. C ic . C lu. 4 0 pharm a­ copolam circumforaneum, C a e l., C ic. F a m . ν π ι. i . 4 subrostrani, L iv. ix. Ί®· 13 forensis f a c t i o . . ., omnem forensem turbam excretam , P a u l. F est. 45 canalicolaeforenses homines pauperes dicti quod circa canales f o r i consisterent. r e h e forenses m a y b e th e e lo q u e n t a n d w e ll-in fo rm e d fr e q u e n te r s o th e F o ru m , as V a rro , M e n . 147 forenses decernunt u t E xistim a tio nomen meum in sanorum numerum referat, V itr. v i. 5. 2 fo r e n s ib u s . . .e t disertis, a n especially Q u in t. 1 . 0 . x . 1. 55 m usa illa rustica et pastoralis non Jorum modo uerum ipsam etiam urbem reform idat. T h e w o rd is in d is tin c t u t concinnitas m akes in fa v o u r o f th e la t t e r n o tio n . T h e n e x t tw o

verses 00k as th o u g h th e y to o k u p th e tw o lo c u tio n s i n c o n v e rse o r e r . 246 c o rre sp o n d in g to paene forenses, a n d 247 to triu iis in n a ti’, so it w as p ro p o se d b y D o e d e rle in (e d . 1858) a n d K r ü g e r ( 1 5 th ed . 1908), & C e a r ^ ^7 o th ers. W ith o u t th is a n te c e d e n t th e l a t e r d iv isio n w ou e u n c o n v in c in g a n d a b r u p t. W ith th e a n te c e d e n t t h e l a te r lviSion as th e fu rth e r fu n c tio n o f e x p la in in g th e in d is tin c t forenses. m a t is so. Satyri triuiales a n d forenses a r e d is tin g u is h e d as tw o styles w ere b etö re, a w a y o f ta lk in g re m in isc e n t o f th e ‘d o u b le z e u g m a ’ 1 cussed abo v e 96 n. A d isju n c tiv e aut fo r a c,p a ce W ilk in s, is n o t o n ly h p frJr^ K 11^] t b s ^ § u re sp eech , b u t w o u ld b e o b je c tio n a b le o etore th e d o u b le aut 246—7. y nm'y ’ *uersibus.· o n e o f th e tw o n e w e x tre m e s to b e For ’ eneI · aS · lte ra ry c o im o ta tio n s : S te id le , Studien, p p . 123 f. f o r th e w o rd in g m m m m teneris, cf. P ru d . P erist. n i. 24. seem ^oF a llu d e s to th e S a ty rs as y o u n g m e n — a f e a tu r e , i t PaDDo-jilp a t^ nCf w ^ e re th e y a r e c o n tra s te d a s h is τ έ κ ν α w ith rrciToóc T ’ S ? .1' ,In d a g - 4‘7 ΤΓαΐδ«5 5’ έμούς, 1 4 7 -8 το ιο ϋ δ ε Pl V T πυ λ λ εφ> ^ «νδρ εία ς ύττο κ τ λ ., E u r. Cycl. apD osite vprhcC· adulescentiari T* κ

^ εανιεΫεσθαι a n d μειρακιεύεσθαι w o u ld b e ^ a^ n’ V a rro , M e n . 5 5 0 h a s tu quoque adhuc Ä S m ° re d a r i n S ^ ^ fr. 138 ia d p io α ττα ξ λ ε γ ό μ ε ν ο ν nU^ arum S acere- H .’s v e r y a p t iuuenentur is a n S 2 iZ tZ ° ’ff seen. T h e w o rd is

" η 17 b S COÌna^ e’ o n a G re e k b asis, a s i n m a n y ·°Τ6νεΓ th e L a tin a n te c e d e n ts m a y also b e

de medio sumptum ( 3 4 0 ! ^ . f i t ? ^ re c o m m e n d e d ‘o r d i n a r y ’ k in d , a u précepte ( / M a ro u z ^ a u R P ^ th e re fo re > o f exem ple j o in t U v iaro u z eau , R P , n .s. L ( x926), IIO - n ) . I t m a y also s u it

292

Commentary n im iu m teneri u ersu s ; c o n tr a s t erepent in th e c o n te x t o f im m unda dicta o f

th e fo llo w in g lin e . a 4 7 re je c ts t h e o th e r e x tre m e , s m u tty jo k es, th e la n g u a g e o f th e g u t t e r ; dicta m a y h a v e b o th c o n n o ta tio n s . T h is is th e w o rld o f mimus a n d com oedia. im m u n d a . . . ignom iniosaque a r e a p tly stro n g w o rd s a p p lie d to talk . I h a v e f o u n d n o o t h e r in s ta n c e . erepent ‘ to n o is e , s h o u t, u t t e r , p r a t t l e ’, cf. 231 effutire , a n d S. n . 3. 33 s iq m d S te rtin iu s ueri crepat, E p . 1. 7. 8 4 sulcos et uineta crepat mera, L u cr. π . 11 7 0 -1 crepat, a ntiquum germs u t pietate repletum \ perfacile angustis tolerarit fin ib u s aeuum . C f. t h e lik ely c o llo q u ia l n u a n c e in C. x. 18. 5 (p iisp o st uina grauem m ilitia m a u t pauperiem crepat? ( increpat in th e w eak er M S S ), a n d a b o v e 2 4 6 n . o n iuuenentur. 2 4 8 - 5 0 a g a in d e liv e r a H o r a tia n ju d g e m e n t w h ic h a p p e a rs to be m a d e d e p e n d e n t o n th e r e a c tio n o f th e a u d ie n c e . B u t u n lik e 113 equites p ed itesq u e a n d 153 ego et populus mecum, these verses p ro c la im

° /λ

t ^ie k n iSh t s ’ an o n ly t h e im m u n d a dicta a re ta k e n u p . I c o n c lu d e th a t, a lth o u g h t e uia m edia b e tw e e n t r a g e d y a n d c o m e d y w as ta k e n seriously b y H .,

i t w a s t h e p r o x im ity o f c o m e d y fro m w h ic h h e w a n te d to rem o v e th e e w S a ty r ic d r a m a . T h e ‘ c o m ic ’ c h a r a c te r o f th e exodia w as p a r t o f t e l i te r a r y s c e n e a n d th u s H . ’s p ro c e d u re su p p o rts th e p ra c tic a l n a t u r e o f h is p ro p o s a ls . 2 4 8 offenduntur: o f ta s te , cf. 352, 3 7 6 ; in th e fo rm e r p la c e as h e re o f p o e tic ta s te , th u s in th e in s ta n c e s c ite d fro m o th e r a u th o rs b y o te id le , S tu d ien , p . 124 n . 4 9 . eq u u s-p a te r-re s: H . ’s e p ig ra m m a tic m a n n e r gives especial sta n d in g to th e s e j u d g e s , w h o fu lfille d th e so cial q u alifica tio n s, a n d a re n ow s u p p o s e d to h a v e ta s te as w e ll. H . n o tices social aspects in a c c o rd a n c e W ith th e v a r y in g sc o p e o f h is p o e m s; see below 366 ff. o n th e p o etic a t t e m p t s o f a y o u n g nobilis, a n d c o n tra s t fo r e x a m p le Epod. 4. 5 -6 w ith S . i. 6 . 10 ff. T h e p o e t c o u ld n o t h a v e w ritte n as h e d id if c u l t u r e d l e i s u r e ’ h a d n o t b e e n w ith in th e p u rv ie w o f this class; see, ° r e x a m p le , C . N ic o le t, V o r d r e équestre à V époque républicaine, 1 (1966), p a r t 11, e h . 7, ‘ L e s c h e v a lie rs e t les ac tiv ités lib erales ’. equus, pater, res are tim o r o u s ly j u x ta p o s e d , b u t i n fa c t equus (e q u e stria n status) d e p e n d e d ° n res ( th e c e n s u s , cf. J u v . 3. 1 5 4 -5 de puluino sur g a t equestri, | cuius res

293

Commentary legi non sufficit) a n d pater ( a f r e e - b o r n f a th e r , cf. b e lo w 3 8 3 n .) . F o r th e l a t t e r c o n d itio n a n d its r e la x a tio n s , see M o m m s e n , Röm. Staatsrecht, in . I. 4 5 1 , 5 0 0 , 51 7 if., A . S te in , Der röm. Ritterstand (1 9 2 7 ), eh . 3, C . N ic o le t, op. cit. (1 9 6 6 ), e s p e c ia lly p p . 101—2 n . 73. T h e lo n g s ta n ­ d in g o f a n e q u e s tr ia n fa m ily is n o t in p o in t, w h e r e a s i t is i n s u c h p a ssa g e s a s C ic . Plane. 3 2 , O v . Tr. iv . 10. 7 - 8 . E m e n d a ti o n s in te n d e d to in tr o d u c e s e n a to rs [pater, et quibus est, G . W a d d e l , Animad. crit. etc. ( ! 7 3 8 ), p . 85 o r, m o r e id io m a tic a lly , patres, equus et quibus et res, P e e r lk a m p ) a ls o in tr o d u c e a false n o te ; h e r e a s e ls e w h e re , a p p r o v in g ly o r n o t, H . sets th e eques a p a r t f r o m t h e re s t. T h e th r e e f o ld d iv isio n o f S ta t. Silv. iv . i . 2 5 - 6 (c it. R i t t e r ) is e q u a lly o f f t h e p o i n t . a 49 ciceris. . . et nucis: t h e fo o d o f th e p o o r asse. . . constat. M a r t. 1. 103. 1 0 ; d is tr ib u te d b y d o n a t i o n , S. 11. 3. 182. A g a in th is m a n n e r o f ta lk in g su its t h e p a s s a g e ; a t S. 1. 6 . 115, p r a c t i s i n g lo w liv in g a n d h ig h th in k in g , H . h im s e lf r e tu r n s h o m e ad porri et ciceris. . .la ganique catinum, nucis also c o m p ris e s c h e s tn u ts , a lm o n d s , e tc . fricti: th e u s u a l w a y o f p r e p a r i n g c h ic k - p e a , n u t s a n d t h e lik e ; ci. P I. Bac. 767 tam frictum ego illum reddam quamfrictum est cicer, Poen. 320 frictas nuces. T h e l a t t e r p a s s a g e sh o w s t h a t , a s W ilk in s n o te s , fricti is lik e ly to b e a t t r i b . οπτό κ ο ιν ο ΰ w i t h nucis as w e ll a s ciceris. M y c o l­ le a g u e P ro fe ss o r U . L i m e n t a n i te lls m e t h a t f r ie d , o r r a t h e r ro a s te d , c h ic k - p e a s s u rv iv e d as a s t a n d a r d d is h i n r u r a l L a t i u m a s l a t e as 1935, a n d m a y s till d o s o ; cf. Ig n a z io S ilo n e , Vino e pane ( M i l a n , i 955 > i s t e d . 1 9 3 5 ), p . 138, Pera quasi sempre un piattino d i c e c i a b b r u s to liti

nel sale. aequis.. .animis: th e r e n d e r i n g ‘equanim ity’ is u s u a lly r e a s o n ­ a b l e n e x t to accipio, e.g . S a il. Cat. 3. 2, a n d w i t h o t h e r v e r b s to o is o fte n sh o w n to b e so b y t h e c o n te x t, as C ic. Att. 11. 4 . 2 animo aequo, immo uero etiam gaudenti ac libenti (c it. O r e l li ) . I n m a n y in s ta n c e s h o w e v e r aequus w ith animus, mens, e tc . is ‘f a v o u r a b l e ’, e .g . T e r . A n . p ro l. 24 fauete, adeste aequo animo, Hec. 2 8 aequo animo attendite, C a e s. Civ. in . 6. i quodeumque imperauisset se aequo animo facturos, V irg · ix . 234 audite o mentibus aequis. T h i s a d d s a liv e lie r c o m p le x io n to accipiunt.. .donantue corona. W ilk in s ’ a d v o c a c y is t h e r e f o r e ju s tif ie , a lt h o u g h h is in s ta n c e s ( oculis aequis, aequus Iuppiter) a r e to o f a r fr o m 2

5

0

t h i s p a ssa g e .

donantue corona: (n o t - que) . I n A th e n s a v ic to r io u s p o e t ’s su c c e ss m t h e c o m p e titio n w a s m a r k e d b y a c r o w n o f iv y , see P ic k a r C a m b r id g e , Dram. Fest. 9 9 n . 7. H . h o w e v e r m a y n o t b e r e f e r r i n g to a c tu a l c u s to m , e ith e r G re e k o r c o n te m p o r a r y R o m a n , corona, i n s p i t e o f Ep. n . 2. 9 6 , is m o s t lik e ly t o b e m e t a p h o r ic a l b e c a u s e (a) H - s w a y o f ta lk in g see m s t o o v e r s ta te t h e in flu e n c e o f th e equites o r a n y

294

Commentary o t h e r g r o u p o n th e a w a r d o f th e p riz e , cf. th e w o rk s c ite d b y S teidle, S tu d ien , p . 1 2 5 ; (b) E p . 11. 1. 181 p a lm a negata, like corona a b o v e , seem s

to c o n tin u e r e p u b li c a n a llu sio n s to p o e ts ’ victories, w h e n ‘th e re is no c le a r e v id e n c e fo r p o e tic c o m p e titio n s d u rin g re p u b lic a n tim e s’ (H . D . J o c e ly n , T h e T ragedies o f E n n iu s, p p . 22 f.) ; V a rro , L .L . v . 178 a n d P lu t . Cato M i n . 4 6 . 4, c ite d b y R o s ta g n i, ta lk o f gifts o r p rize s for a c to rs , n o t p la y w r ig h ts . T h e ‘c r o w n ’ w as su fficien tly e sta b lish e d as s y m b o liz in g p o e tic v ic to ry fo r H . to refuse to ta k e it fro m L u ciliu s: S. I. 10. 4 8 —9 detrahere. . . j haerentem capiti cum m ulta laude coronam. T h is d o e s n o t p r e v e n t us fro m c o n tra s tin g th e e n d o f this section w ith t h e i m a g i n a r y G re e k p riz e -g iv in g o f th e hircus a t its b e g in n in g , 220.

(9) The metre o f dramatic dialogue; ‘ars’ in Greek and Homan poetry, 251-74

The tradition. T he Greek literary tradition on the subject of metre is virtually unknown. It is true there are a few relevant remarks in Hephaestion and his scholiasts. But they are sadly depleted, and in any case represent technical writing by experts in metre. They do not represent literary theory. The only glimpses we get o f that theory are in ch. 4 of the Poetics, and in the discussion o f prose rhythm in Rhet. in, ch. 8, neither o f m uch use. N o Hellenistic writing on this subject is pre­ served. Thus there is no Greek evidence against which to set H .’s metrical study; tenuous reflections of earlier work in the late grammarians do not supply sufficient evidence. That is regrettable, for his discussion of the Greek trimeter and the Latin senarius seems to presuppose not only Greek practice but Greek theory.

Horace. H . writes not as a historian of archaic Roman poetry but as a poet-critic. His lack of fairness in dealing with the old Rom an playwrights has often been deplored. But he is not even attempting to understand the principles of their tech­ nique. H e is establishing a different and more exacting set of principles. H ence the charges o f careless workmanship or lack o f insight. As for the placing o f this section I have pointed out 295

C om m entary e a rlie r

(1 5 3 -2 9 4 1 1 .)

th a t

o r d e r , w h ic h m i g h t b e

H.

h a s a v o id e d th e m e c h a n ic a l

re m in is c e n t o f p ro s a ic e x p o s itio n :

m is c e lla n e o u s r u le s , c h o r u s , m u s i c , m e t r e , t h e t h r e e d r a m a t i c g e n r e s o f S a ty r ic d r a m a , c o m e d y , t r a g e d y . H i s o w n a r r a n g e ­ m e n t d e m a n d s m o r e f le x ib le a n d less s u p e r f i c i a l r e a d i n g . I t le a d s fr o m m is c e lla n e o u s r u le s , c h o r u s a n d m u s i c t o S a t y r i c d r a m a , t r e a t e d as a n o t h e r t e c h n i c a l p r o b l e m , h o w t o c o p e w i t h a n ex o d iu m t o t r a g e d y . O n l y t h e n d o e s h e m o v e o n to m e t r e , a g a i n d is c u s s e d a s a p r o b l e m o f t e c h n i q u e . T h i s p r o b I o t i is k n o w n a s a r e c u r r i n g m o t i f f r o m e a r l i e r s e c t i o n s , t h a t o a r j- τ ε χ ν η . A n d i t is a rs w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r a n a s s e s s m e n t o f m e t r e , firs t i n t h e d i a l o g u e o f d r a m a , n e x t i n a ll its v a r io u s f o r m s . M e t r e c a r r i e s a n c i e n t p o e t r y , a n d R o m a n a c i e v e m e n t h e r e is f o u n d w a n t i n g , G r e e k w o r k s b e c o m e exem p la ria . T h u s R o m a n v s. G r e e k a r s b e c o m e s t h e d o m i n a n t

t e r n e f r o m 2 6 3 o n w a r d a n d a f t e r 2 7 4 t h e s u b j e c t o f m e t r e is a o w e d t o f a ll a w a y . ( T h e s t r u c t u r a l i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e m o t i f R o m a n v s. G r e e k ’ w a s firs t e m p h a s i z e d b y P . C a u e r , R M , L xr ( 1 9 0 6 ), 2 3 8 f.) T h e t w o m a j o r g e n r e s o f d r a m a , c o m e d y a n d r a g e y , a r e s e t a g a i n s t th is b a c k g r o u n d ; so t h e r e a g a i n a r e W° *®P1CS> t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d t e c h n i c a l o n e s o f t h e g e n r e s a n d t h e c o n t i n u i n g m o t i f o f a rs. A n d i t is t h i s m o t i f w h i c h a. es t e m w i t h t h e f i n a l l a r g e s e c t i o n o f t h e p o e m , w h e r e i t re m a in s a d o m in a n t fe a tu re . t ^l e s u h j e c t u p i n t o a l i t t l e s k e t c h o n m e t r e , f an H

a if ν|€

^

P p r s ° m f i e d a s its m a i n a g e n t . I n h i s c u s t o m e^ n s a b r u p t l y ; t h e l i n k s w i t h w h a t p r e c e d e s

t h e m ilH V.C am p b ell, B u ll. In s t. C lass. L o n d . v (1 9 5 6 ), 6 6 - 7 ) . (a) H . W e il, R P , x i x (1 8 9 5 ), 2 0 -2 first su g g ested a tta c h in g non ita p rid em to t h e p r e c e d in g c o n te x t. T h e m e a n in g , as Im m isc h o b jecte d , w o u ld s e e m to b e ‘ n o t fo r s u c h a lo n g tim e ’ r a th e r th a n ‘ n o t so long a g o ’. T h r e e p u n c t u a t i o n s m a y b e c a n v a sse d : a fu ll sto p a fte r 253 iam beis (W e il), o r a f te r ictus (L e ja y in P le ssis-L e ja y ’s sm all e d itio n o f H .) , o r a f te r 2 5 4 pridem . A b re a k a f te r iam beis w o u ld b lu n t th e con­ tr a s t b e tw e e n trim etris a n d senos. A b re a k a fte r ictus w o u ld re m o v e th e p h r a s e p rim u s a d extrem um sim ilis s ib i fro m senos. . .ictus, w h ic h it se e m s to q u a lify . A fu ll s to p a fte r 254 w o u ld leav e non ita pridem a t th e clo se o f t h e s e n te n c e — a c o llo c a tio n u n e x a m p le d in th e m a n y in ­ s ta n c e s o f p rid em t h a t I h a v e seen. W e il’s sug g estio n seem s to b e ru le d o u t o n th e s e g r o u n d s . (b) is t h e v u lg a te : a fu ll s to p p re c e d e s non ita pridem . B u t H ., o f all R o m a n s , w o u ld n o t s u g g e st t h a t th e a lle g e d c h a n g e fro m a ll-ia m b ic s e n a r iu s to c la s s ic a l tr i m e t e r w as m a d e ‘n o t so lo n g a g o ’. F o r th a t t e c h n i q u e m u s t b e G re e k n o t R o m a n , a n d h e k n ew his A rch ilo ch u s. K l i n g n e r ’s a r g u m e n t ( B V S A , l x x x v i i i (1937), 35 n. 2) does n o t e lim in a te th is d iffic u lty . N o r c a n non ita pridem refer to 252 iussit (R ·- H .) . T h e w o rd s th e re fo re seem to b e c o rru p t. T h e re q u ire d se n se is e i t h e r ‘la te r , a f te r w a r d s ’, m ox in T e re n tia n u s M a u r u s ’ a c c o u n t o f th e s a m e m e tr e , 2 1 9 6 (w h ic h seem s in flu e n c e d b y th e H o r a t i a n t h e o r y ) , o r else th e v e ry o p p o site o f th e M S S re a d in g , a l o n g tim e a g o ’. B u t n o p la u s ib le e m e n d a tio n o n these lines has o c c u r r e d to m e . I h o p e i t w ill o c c u r to o th ers. 255 P aulo ( n o t p a u lu m π ) p la c e d b e tw e e n tardior a n d grauiorque p r o b a b ly a p p lie s to b o t h ; th e re s tr ic te d n u m b e r o f spondees ch a n g e o n ly a little o f th e lig h tn e ss a n d s p e e d o f th e p es citus. T h is m a rk s an i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s itio n b e tw e e n a n e n tire ly ia m b ic r u n a n d th e s lo w n e s s ’ o f th e s e n a riu s o f R o m a n tra g e d y ce n su red a t 2580". p a u lo w i t h a c o m p a r a tiv e ( th e ty p e paulo maiora canamus ) p ro b a b ly b a s a c o llo q u ia l n u a n c e , cf. H . C . G o to ff, P , c x i (1967), 67 n. 4. 2 5 6 sta b ile s: o f r h y t h m , Q p in t. 1. 0 . ix . 4 . 83 quo quique (pedes) sunt tem poribus pleniores lo n g is q u e sy llab is m ag is stabiles, hoc g ra u io re m fa c iu n t o r a ti o n e m , b re u e s c e le re m ac mobilem , ibid. 97 ( dochmius) stabilis ln cla u su lis et seuerus, 111 (p a e o n s ta rtin g w ith lo n g syllable) merito laudatu r: n am et p r im a m sta b ilem et tres celeres habet. in tura p a te rn a recepit: th e s p o n d e e is b e in g ‘ a d o p te d ’ in to th e ia m b ic fa m ily , a n d c a n n o w e n jo y th e rig h ts , iura paterna, o f th e ia m b u s ’ p a trim o n iu m , a s th o u g h h e w e re a n a tu r a l son, cf. W . W . B u ck lan d , A T e x t-b o o k o f R o m a n L a u P , 122: ‘ th e adoptatus a c q u ire d th e rig h ts o f

Commentary a n a t u r a l s o n ’. T h e w itty a d j .p a te r n a s h o u l d n o t b e w e a k e n e d b y th e c o n je c tu r e alterna, cf. W ilk in s a d I. ; f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , se e T L L , i. 8 i o . 31 ff., adoptare a n d recipere b e in g c o n s t r u e d a lik e . 257 com modus ‘o b l i g in g ’, a s C. xv. 8 . 1 -2 donarem p a te ra s grataque com m odus | . . . m eis aera so d a lib u s, E p . π . i . 2 2 7 w h e r e t h e a d j . is u se d i n t h e s a m e a d v e r b i a l f u n c tio n , p a tie n s ‘ t o l e r a n t ’, a s S . 11. 5. 43 p a tie n s, u t a m icis aptus. non u t = non ita u t, n o t o n th e te r m s t h a t ’ ( W i c k h a m ) , ‘ e x c e p t t h a t h e w o u ld n o t ’, cf. E p . 1. 16. 6 s e d u t, a n d R . G . N i s b e t ’s r e m a r k s A J P ,

XLiv (1 9 2 3 ), 29. 2 5 7 - 8 de sede secunda | . . .a u t q u a r ta : p a i r i n g o f i a m b i c f e e t— th e a u j u y i a i a n d δ ιΐα μ β ο ι o f th e G re e k s , a b o v e 2 5 3 n . — a n d t h e r e s u ltin g d iffe re n c e i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e fe e t is a t o p i c m u c h d is c u s s e d b y th e g r a m m a r i a n s , e.g . S a c e r d . G L , v i. 5 1 8 . 2 4 ff. in secunda uero e t qua rta p a r te (n a m de s e x ta n u lla ra tio est q u o n ia m in o m n i metro p es nonissim us indifferens est) illo s p o n ere debem us q u i e x b reu i in cip iu n t, ia m b u m , tribrachyn, a n a p a estu m , ib id . 5 2 6 . 2 0 ff. q u a m u is H . usque a d trim etru m praeceperit, cum de sexto p e d e u el sep tim o iam bico n u lla m fe c e r it m entionem , T e r . M a u r . 2 1 9 6 ff., p a r t i c u l a r l y 2 2 0 9 —10 d u m p e s secundus, q u artus et nouissim us j sem p er d ica tu s u n i ia m b o seru ia t. F o r t u n a t . G L , v i. 2 8 6 . 19 sed ia m b u s, u t a it H . , spondeum in p a r te m (p a te r n a tu r a K e l l e r fro m H ., im p la u s ib ly ) recipit, q u i p e s o m n ia p a en e m etra o rn a t a tq u e d isp o n it; I u b a ap. P ris e . G L , n i. 420. 7 f f ideo in secundo et quarto e t sexto loco ia m b u s non recipit n is i a b reu i in cip ien tes, q u ia in h is lo cis fe r iu n tu r p e r coniugationem ped estrem m etro ru m ; e t u u l t ex tre m a p a r s p e d u m ia m b ico ru m celerior esse quomodo et ip s i ia m b i. M a r . V ie t. G L , v i. 8 1 . 2 8 ff., e t a l. H . o m i tt e d

a m e n t i o n o f t h e f in a l fo o t. C r itic s s u c h a s P e e r l k a m p r e m o v e a g o o d w o r d fr o m H . ’s te x t (se e b e lo w o n so cia lite r ) i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a n u n n e c e s s a r y m e n t i o n o f th e l a s t fo o t. socialiter ‘i n t h e p a r t n e r s h i p ’, w h i c h P e e r l k a m p u n c r i t i c a l l y re ­ p l a c e d b y sexta u e sed, cf. p r e c e d i n g n o t e . T h e a d v . q u a l i f i e s non u t . · · cederet. W ilk in s ’ p ro p o s a l, a t t a c h i n g so cia liter to co m m o d u s e t p a tie n s, d e p r iv e s th e non u t c la u s e o f a n a m u s i n g p o e tic t o u c h . T h e w o r d is n o t b a s e d o n th e n o t i o n o f a p a r t n e r s h i p in b u s in e s s , so cieta s ( f o r w h i c h see M a n ig k , R - E , h i a . 7 7 2 . 3 4 f f ) b u t o n a s s o c ia tio n o r p a r t n e r s h i p h* t h e fa m ily , socius h a d t h e g e n e r a l s e n s e o f ‘a s s o c i a t e ’ ; a n d tu r a p a te r n a w o u ld h a v e im p lie d a s h a r in g t h r o u g h o u t , so cia lis is u s e d s e v e r a l tim e s b y O v i d fo r p a r t n e r s h i p i n m a r r ia g e , e .g . 7 r. π . 161 L iu i a sic tecum s o d a le s com pleat annos ; S e n e c a u s e d i t to d e n o t e a s h a r e i n t h e societas h u m a n a . T h e a d j. o c c u r s a s e a r ly as C ic e r o i n t h e p o l i t i c a l s e n s e o f a llia n c e , w h ic h is n o t h e r e a p p l i c a b le . T h e a d v . , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m a t e r ia ls o f t h e L a t i n T h esa u ru s, is r e s t r i c t e d t o t h i s p a s s a g e i n c la s s i-

300

Commentary c a l L a tin (R o s ta g n i c o m p a re s G re e k κοινω νικώ ς), b u t it re ap p ea rs in S t A u g u s tin e a n d o th e r C h ris tia n w riters. Cf. sociabilis in Livy a n d l a te r p ro s e , sociabiliter in la te L a tin . hie ‘h e ’, th e iam bus p e rso n a liz e d (n o t ‘h e r e ’, i.e. ‘in these p la c e s’, F . S c h u lte ss, R M , l v ii (1902), 468) n o w m ark s th e tra n sitio n to m e tr e i n R o m a n d r a m a , w h ic h w ill p re sen tly a tta c h itself to the m a jo r m o tif o f te c h n ic a l sufficiency, G re e k vs. R o m a n , tragicus iambus m R o m e , a n d t h e n e g le c t o f th e re stric tio n in th e second a n d fo u rth fe e t, a r e n o te d in m o st o f th e m e tric a l passages cited above, a n d in o th e rs .

a 59 (A cci) nobilibus trim etris sounds like a q u o ta tio n ; it m ay b e one o f th e c o n te m p o r a r y crìtici sp e a k in g , cf. E p . 11. 1. 56 a lti co n cern in g the sa m e A c ciu s, in a b u rle s q u e p assag e, cf. Prol. 194. V icto riu s’ mobilibus h a d b e s t b e fo rg o tte n . L ik e Im m is c h (p. 163), I a m u n co n v in ce d by K . - H . ’s r e n d e r in g o f nobilibus , ‘ w h ich ev erybody kn o w s’. F o r nobilis d e s c rip tiv e o f p e rs o n s o r t h e ir w orks, see B entley, C. 1. 29. 14 n. rarus: p re d ., p o in ts to th e o p p o site ex trem e to t h a t o f 251 ff. T h e p u r e ia m b ic t r im e te r w as a ll lightness a n d sp e e d ; i t could do w ith a little g ra v ity . A c c iu s a n d E n n iu s o n the o th e r h a n d neglect the ‘ s ta tu to r y r ig h ts ’ o f th e ia m b u s, 2 5 7 -8 . L. M u e lle r notes th a t th e d is tr ib u tio n o f sp o n d e e a n d ia m b u s in S eneca’s tragedies largely c o n fo rm s to H o r a t ia n p r e c e p t a n d p e rh a p s A u g u sta n tech n iq u e . So a lr e a d y B e n tle y , 2 6 0 n ., ‘'Q uod cum ex Senecae Tragoediis ja m licet cognos­ c e , tum ex F ra g m en tis quae ex O vidii, Varii, Gracchique Fabulis hodie su p ersu n t'.

260 T h e g r a m m a tic a l s u b je c t in th e criticism o f E n n iu s (260-2) is hie: th e ia m b u s , w h e re i t a p p e a rs (n o t h ie . . . ram s, th e ra rity o f the *;> K . - H . ) , ‘p ro s e c u te s ’ E n n iu s. B e n tle y ’s e m e n d a tio n a n d re p u n c tu a tio n o f th e v e rse , a lre a d y p ro p o se d b y M arciliu s a n d co m m en d e d by D a t i e r , a r e th e re fo re b esid e th e m a r k ; cf. P e e rlk a m p ad I. I n H .’s l i te r a r y c ritic is m pondus is a la u d a to r y te rm , below 320, E p . 1. 19. 42, H· 2. 112 ; a n d as la u d a to r y i t m a y h a v e b een in te n d e d b y th e critic ■who a p p a r e n t l y a p p lie d i t to E n n iu s (cf. 259 n .), b u t L ucilius, S. 1. I 0 · 54 ) ridet uersus E n n i grauitate m inores : fo r this sounds like a n iro n ical q u o t a t i o n i n th e m a n n e r o f E p . 11. 1. 50-1 E nnius et sapiens et fo r tis et alter H om erus, \ u t critici dicunt. Cf. Ο ν . T r. π. 424 Ennius ingenio m a x im u s, arte rudis, Q p in t. L O . i. 8. 8, o n a rc h a ic p o e try in gen eral, u eteres. . . L a t i n i . . .plerique p lu s ingenio quam arte ualuerunt. A rchaism q u ic k ly re v e rs e d th e se ju d g e m e n ts . P a r o d y to o is su g g ested , n o t b y th e seq u en ce o f four spondees, w h ic h o c c u rs f a ir ly o fte n in th is p o e m (G. E . D u c k w o rth ‘M etrica l P a t t e r n s i n Η . ’, Τ Α Ρ Α , x e v i (1965), 92), b u t b y its co m b in a tio n w ith

301

Commentary th e a r c h a ic o r d e r cum magno pondere w h ic h B e n tle y d e f e n d e d a g a in st m agno cum in so m e d e tt. N o t o n ly V ir g il, as c o m m e n t a t o r s sa y , w o u ld p ro b a b ly h a v e w r itte n magno cu m pondere b u t C ic e ro , in a lin e e q u a lly fu ll o f sp o n d ee s, h a s obuertunt nauem m agno cum pondere nautae (A ra t. 132, c it. K e lle r). 261-2 sp ecify c e r ta in a r c h a ic f e a tu re s t h a t , i n A u g u s t a n criticism , a r e in te r p r e te d as la c k o f c a re a n d la c k o f skill. T h e s e s in g ly o r c o m ­ b in e d in s p ire H . ’s c e n su re s o f L u c iliu s in S . 1. 4 a n d 1 o a n d o f a rc h a ic p o e try in E p . u . 1. C f. P rol. 156 if. 261 F o r c ritic is m o f h a s ty w o rk , operae celeris n im iu m , a n d sh o d ­ d in ess, curaque carentis , th e in s ta n c e s c ite d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g n o te m a y b e c o m p a re d 262 ig n o ra ta e. . .a rtis : cf. p a r ti c u la r l y a b o v e 8 7 cur ego s i nequeo ignoroque poeta salutor, a n d th e p o e m s m e n tio n e d a b o v e , a r s - τ έ χ ν η was a w a tc h w o rd a m o n g th e C a llim a c h e a n s a n d t h e N e w P o e ts in R o m e . H e n c e a m a te u ris m — o r s e e m in g a m a te u r is m — b e c o m e s a n u g ly c h a r g e ’. p r e m i t . . .crim ine: ci. L iv . in . 13. 1 p rem eb a t r e u m . . .a tm e n unum w “ · O r d i i ) , Ο ν . A .A . ili. 12 (H elenes sororem) quo p r e m a t. . .crim in e, M e t. XIV. 401 crim inibus que p rem u n t ueris (C ircen ), crim ine tu rp i e n d s a h e x a ­ m e te r also a t L u c r. in . 4 9 , O v . M e t. x iii. 3 0 8 (c it. K e lle r ) . 263— 74 o n e o f th e c e n tr a l p a ssa g e s o f t h e p o e m . I p r i n t i t as a s e p a r a te p a r a g r a p h , fo r w ith o u t d r o p p i n g t h e m e t r i c a l to p ic , H . e x p lo re s th e p o e tic s ta n d a r d s o f R o m a n a r c h a i c t r a g e d y , u s in g t e fo il o f G re e k a r tis tic su ffic ie n c y , j u s t as h e d o e s i n t h e l e t t e r to A u g u s tu s . 263-4 is a ‘g lid in g t r a n s i t i o n ’. T h e d e v ic e o f a n ( a p p a r e n t ) a p o ­ lo g y o r a d m is s io n (‘ I a d m it t h a t , e tc .’ , W ilk in s ) b r id g e s th e g u l b e tw e e n th e n a r r o w to p ic o f d ia lo g u e m e t r e a n d th e w i d e r o f R o m a n c r itic a l s ta n d a r d s . I n re v e rse o r d e r , H . im p u te s t o R o m a n ‘ju d g e s th e p re c e d in g tw o fo ld a lle g a tio n a g a in s t a r c h a i c R o m a n d r a m a t i s t s . 26 3 la c k o f a r tis tic p e r c e p tio n , cf. 2 6 2 ignoratae a rtis; 2 6 4 u n d u e p e rm issiv e n e ss, u en ia . . .in d ig n a , cf. 261 curaque carentis. B u t w h a t w a s a d is ju n c tiv e a u t-a u t a b o v e (261—2) is a s im p le et h e r e : u n d u e p e r ­ m issiv en ess follow s la c k o f p e r c e p tio n . 263 im m o d u la ta is n o t k n o w n a g a in b e fo re C a lc id iu s ; i t w a s p e r h a p s c o in e d b y H . o n th e b a sis o f s o m e th in g lik e G r e e k a p p u ö p o s , a n ex p re ssiv e lo n g w o rd c o v e rin g th e m id d le o f t h e lin e . I t m o v e s t a fr o m th e r e s tr ic te d to p ic o f ia m b u s a n d s p o n d e e to a n y k in d o m e tr ic a l in su fficie n cy . T h e v e rse is c o m m o n ly a n d n o t u n r e a s o n a b l y in te r p r e te d as a p a r o d y — a m e tr ic a lly in c o h e r e n t h e x a m e t e r o n a n o c c a sio n w h e n H . is d a m n in g m e t r i c a l in c o h e r e n c e i n p o e ts a n d

302

Commentary c ritic s . W ila m o w itz p u t th e m a tte r s tro n g ly ; a t Gr. Verskunst, 9, h e s u g g e s ts t h a t ‘ H o r a z m it non q u ivis,. . .in n e c k isc h e r A b sic h t einen s o lc h e n N ic h t v e r s g e b a u t h a t ’. I n w h a t w a y ‘ N ichtvers ’, im m odulatum ? T h e a b s e n c e o f a m id d le c a e s u ra , i t is p la u s ib ly sa id , th o u g h W ila m o ­ w itz u ses t h e (to m e d u b io u s ) t e r m ‘th e c a e su ra w h ic h m ak es a G re ek o r L a t i n v e r s e ’. T h e im - o f im m odulata is sc a rc e ly m e a n t to fulfil th e f u n c tio n o f a s e p a r a t e w o r d , cf. N o rd e n , V irg . A . vi. 426 n . 3. A t P rol. 2 6 7 n . i I s u g g e s te d t h a t ju d g e m e n t o n th e p re s e n t verse a n d o n 8 7 , w h e r e p a r o d y is n o t u n lik e ly , is c o n tin g e n t o n 377, w h e re no s u c h p u r p o s e is a p p a r e n t . T w o verses in th e Sermones (11. 3. 134, 181) s h o w th is a n d o t h e r a n o m a lie s , b u t c a n n o t b e e x p la in e d as m e tric a l p a r o d ie s e ith e r . I n s u c h a n a c c o m p lis h e d c ra fts m a n a s H . th e re m ay b e m o r e m o tiv e s t h a n t h a t o f p a r o d y to a c c o u n t fo r th ese an o m alies. M e t r i c a l p a r o d y m a y a c c o u n t fo r A .P . 87 a n d 2 6 3 ; fo r th e th ird i n s t a n c e i n th is p o e m see 377 n . I n a w e ll-k n o w n n o te (L u c r. vi. 1 0 6 7 ) L a c h m a n n d is tin g u is h e s tw o ty p e s o f verses w ith o u t m id d le c a e s u r a — o n e i n w h ic h elisio n to n e s d o w n th e c a e su ra , e.g. 87 nequeo ignoroque, a n d a n o t h e r in w h ic h th e r e is n o su c h elision, e.g. th e p r e s e n t v e rs e , u id et im m odulata. O n ly th e la tte r h e considers a tru e a b s e n c e o f m i d d le c a e s u r a . T h e r e la tio n o f elision a n d c a e su ra is still a n o p e n p r o b l e m . B u t c o m p a r is o n o f th e p re se n t u n e lid e d verse w ith t h e e lis io n s a t 87 a n d 377 su g g ests t h a t fo r H . a t a n y ra te elision plays a s e c o n d a r y p a r t i n th is m a tte r . T h e m e tric a l effect does n o t differ in th e t h r e e in s ta n c e s o f th e A r s : nequeo ignoroque, uidet immodulata, n a tu m in u en tu m q u e. q u i u i s . . . iu d e x : th o s e w h o ju d g e , th e a u d ie n c e , cf. 265 omnes

not p r i m a r i l y p ro f e s s io n a l c ritic s . A t 8 6 - 7 th e critics w e re n o t b la m e d , h e r e p a r t o f th e f a u lt lies w i t h th e a u d ie n c e . T h e fu n c tio n o f criticism re c e iv e s f u r t h e r n o tic e in th e fin a l p a r t o f th e p o e m , w h e re H . a v o w e d ly ta lk s a s a te a c h e r , a n d w h e re c ritic ism is assigned a n im ­ p o r t a n t p la c e . C f. E p . n . 2. 109—10 a t qui legitim um cupietfecisse poema, | cum ta b u lis a n im u m censoris sum et honesti. F o r a n u n tu to r e d sense o f p o e tic r h y t h m , see b e lo w 2 6 5 -7 n . 2 6 4 P e e r lk a m p , fo llo w e d b y H . S c h ü tz , re p la c e d et b y nee a s s u m in g 2 6 3 - 4 to b e a n i n te r lo c u to r ’s o b je c tio n to w h ic h 265 replies i n th e s a m e s e n s e as 11 re p lie s to th e o b je c to r o f 9 -1 0 . T h is is n ow r i g h t l y d is c o u n t e d : uenia ind ig n a is H . ’s o w n c o m m e n t o n R o m a n p o e t r y a n d its r e c e p tio n ; i t is th e b asis fo r his a p p e a l to in fo rm ed c r itic is m . et: p r o b a b l y ‘a n d th e r e f o r e ’. R o m a n is : i t is n o t u n t i l 2 6 8 t h a t Graeca p o in ts th e an tith esis. in d ig n a p o e tis: t h e n o u n a c c o rd in g to som e c o m m e n ta to rs first

3°3

at.

Commentary w ith data, n e x t u n d e r s to o d a s a b l . w i t h in d ig n a . T h i s is n o t im p o ssib le b u t u n n e c e s s a ry , n o r n e e d th e s u p p o s e d a b l. p o e tis b e s e v e re d fr o m th e d a t . R o m a n is, indigna is quae non decebat ( L e ja y ) . P o e ts c a n b e u n w o r th y w ith o u t a n in d ic a tio n w h a t th e y a r e u n w o r t h y o f, e .g . E p . n . i. 231 indigno non com m ittenda poetae ; so c a n a n i n d u l g e n c e , uenia, b e. 2 6 5 id ein o n e, a c c o r d in g to P e e r lk a m p ’s i m p la u s ib l e su g g e stio n , b e g in s H . ’s a n s w e r t o a p r o te s t. T h e w o r d i n t r o d u c e s a q u e s tio n in c o n v e rs a tio n a l to n e , idcirco, a v o id e d a l t o g e t h e r b y s o m e p o e ts (L u c r., C a t., T ib ., M a r t .) , is r a r e ly u sed b y o th e r s , cf. t h e s ta tis tic s T L L , v n . I. 172, B. A x e ls o n , U npoet. W ö rter, 8 0 n . 6 7 . T h e t h r e e o t h e r p assa g es, a ll in th e h e x a m e te r p o e m s , b e lo n g t o t h e s a m e m a tte r - o f - f a c t c o n ­ te x ts as th is p a s s a g e . uager: fo r th e i s t p e rs. sin g , see a b o v e 2 5 - 6 n . H . la y s d o w n th e la w , b u t in h is w o r d in g h e id e n tifie s h im s e lf w i t h th o s e w is h in g to b e p o e ts a n d w illin g to b e t a u g h t. S o a ll t h e w a y d o w n t o 2 7 4 ; a t 272 h e says ego et uos. C f. 3 5 siq u id componere curem , e t a l. T h e v e r b lik e th e a d j. uagus m e ta p h o r ic a lly d e s c rib e s f r e e d o m fr o m s t r i c t p r i n c i p l e ( K . - H . c ite S . ii. 7. 74 u a g a . . .fr e n is natura rem otis) ; th u s C ic e ro c a lls o r a to r y , u n lik e d ia le c tic , n o t b o u n d b y s tr ic t lo g ic a l p r i n c i p l e uagum illu d orationis et f u s u m et m u ltip le x . . .g en u s {B ru t. 1 1 9 ), cf. D e O r. 1. 2 0 9 ne uagari et errare cogatur oratio (sp e e c h i n te rm s u n d e f in e d ) . R ep . π . 22 non uaganti oratione sed defixa in u n a republica. licenter: fr e e d o m fr o m th e leges o f ars p o etica. C f. E p . Π· 2. i o g le g itim u m . . .poem a, A . P . 10 q u id lib et a u d e n d i. . .p o testa s, 51 dabiturque licentia sum pta pudenter, 5 8 licu it sem perque licebit, e t a l. A lt o g e t h e r si licet

a n d s im ila r w o rd s a r e u se d to r e m i n d H . ’s r e a d e r s o f p r in c ip le s m th e w o rld s o f n a t u r e , m o r a lity — a n d a r t. 2 6 5 a n omnes —2 6 7 ca u tu s? A s e n te n c e w h ic h h a s g iv e n m u c h t r o u b l e , B e n tle y ’s a n d P e e r lk a m p ’s n o te s sh o w th e lin e s o f e a r l i e r d isc u ssio n . W h a t w as n e e d e d h o w e v e r w a s n o t e m e n d a t io n b u t a t t e n t i o n to s u b je c t- m a tte r , th e lite r a r y th e o r y w h ic h H . is o p p o s in g . T h e p o e t h im s e lf o ffers su ffic ie n t g u id a n c e : t h e r e see m s to b e a n o ffe r e ith e r to a b a n d o n th e p rin c ip le s o f a rs a lto g e t h e r {licentia), ‘o r ’ ( n o t ‘ a l t h o u g h ’, ‘so t h a t ’, ‘a n d ’) re c o n s id e r h is d e n ia l t h a t e v e ry o n e is a j u d g e o f p o e tic r h y t h m (2 6 3 ). S h o u ld h e n o w r a t h e r b e lie v e omnes u isu ro speccata . . .m ea, a n d c o n fo rm to p r e v a ilin g s t a n d a r d s , a n a lm o s t l i te r a l re v e rs a l o f non quiuis uidet im m o d u la ta p o em a ta iu d e x ? H is a n s w e r is t h a t a v o id a n c e o f u n in fo rm e d c ritic is m is in s u ffic ie n t. C o m m e n ­ t a to r s h a v e a lw a y s r e m a r k e d t h a t H . c le a rly d is a g re e s w i t h C ic e ro s a c k n o w le d g e m e n t o f a n a t u r a l a n d u n t u t o r e d se n se o f p o e tic r h y t h m , D e Or. in . 196 a t in his {numeris) s i p a u lu m m odo offensum e s t , . . · theatra tota reclamant, cf. n i. g 8 ; O r. 173 in uersu quidem theatra tota exclam ant si 304

Commentary f u i t una sylla b a a u t breuior a u t longior, cf. P ar. Sto. 3. 26. S teidle, Studien,

Ρ· I 3 2 η · 9 j h a s s h o w n t h a t G re e k c ritics sh a re th is view . T h e y h o ld a d o c t r i n e a s s e r tin g th e s a m e n a t u r a l a p p re c ia tio n o f rh y th m . H e c ite s P h ilo d . H V 2, iv . 113 (e d . H a u s r a th , fr. 47, J e n s e n , Philodemos, etc. p . 150) a n d p a r ti c u la r l y D io n . H a l. Comp. 11. 55 f., like C icero re ­ fle c tin g o n t h e r e a c tio n o f a u d ie n c e s in th e th e a tre s , a n d in fe rrin g fr o m t h e i r im p u ls iv e c ritic ism in th e th e a tre s t h a t th e re exists φ υ σ ικ ή τ ις α π ά ν τ ω ν . . .η μ ώ ν ο ίκ ειότη ς π ρ ο ς έμμέλειάν τε καί εϋρυθμ ία ν κ τ λ . Η . c ritic iz e s th is k in d o f assertio n . 2 6 6 tu tu s is e x p la in e d b y th e re st o f th e sen ten ce. et I t a k e t o b e e x p la n a to r y . 2 6 7 F o r ca u tu s c o m b in e d w ith tutus (2 6 6 ), see a b o v e 28 n . tutus. in tra spem ueniae: w ith cautus th is p ro d u c e s a concise a n d vivid im a g e , l i te r a lly ‘ c a re fu l w ith in (i.e. n o t to stra y b ey o n d ) h o p e o f p a r d o n ’. T h i s n o tio n o f intra seem s to b e d e riv e d fro m intra fines a n d t h e lik e , T L L , v n . 2. 37. 19 ff. T h e r e a r e s u c h in sta n c e s as O v . TV. in . 4. 2 5 - 6 in tra j fo r tu n a m debet quisque manere suam·, b u t C ic. F am . ix. 2 6 . 3 non m odo non contra le g e m . . .sed etiam intra legem, is n o t as sim ilar as L e ja y ’s n o te m ig h t su g g e st, cf. T L L , v n . 2. 37. 66 ff. T h e c h a ra c ­ te r is tic H o r a t i a n audacia I c a n n o t p a ra lle l. denique: cf. a b o v e 23. cu lp a m ‘ c e n s u r e ’, cf. a b o v e 31 n. T h e p o e t th e n w o u ld m ere ly a v o id b e in g f a u lte d . 2 6 8 non la u d em m erui: H . m itig a te s his h a r s h c o n d e m n a tio n o f R o m a n p o e tic s ta n d a r d s b y ta lk in g in term s o f p erso n al d o u b t. W o u ld he b e ju s tif ie d i n a c c o m m o d a tin g h im se lf to th e d o m estic scale o f c ritic is m ? T h e a n s w e r is t h a t h e w o u ld n o t. H is m o tiv e w o u ld be w ro n g , a v o id a n c e o f (u n in fo rm e d ) ce n su re, n o t p o e tic ac h ie v e m e n t, w h i c h h e c a lls la u s: in th e sty le o f th e Odes, C. iv . 8. 28 dignum laude u iru m M u s a u eta t m ori. T h is m o tiv e h e ascrib es to th e G reeks a little l a t e r i n th e p o e m , 3 2 4 (G rats) praeter laudem nullius auaris, w h e re the id e a liz e d G r e e k s c a le o f v a lu e s is c o n tra s te d w ith th e R o m a n . I n th e p r e s e n t p a s s a g e t h e R o m a n s a re s a id n o t to c a re e n o u g h for p o e try to ta k e t h e t r o u b l e w h ic h a lo n e e a rn s laus\ h en ce exemplaria Graeca. Q u i n t . L O . XU. i . 8 non praecipue acuit a d cupiditatem litterarum amor la u d is? A u s o n iu s ’ c o u p le t, n i. 4 .3 3 (e d . P e ip e r, p . 23, cit. K e lle r), in d i­ c a te s th e lik e ly p r o v e n a n c e o f th e a n tith e sis culpa—laus, i.e. m o ra ls. deliquisse n ih il nu m q u a m laudem esse p u ta u i, j atque bonos mores legibus antetuli. uos: cf. 2 7 0 n . uestri pro a u i. T h e ad d ress, I believe, is rig h tly ex­ p l a i n e d b y R o s ta g n i a g a in s t m a n y c o n te n d e rs : n o t on ly th e Pisos b u t th e R o m a n s. exem p la ria G raeca: a f u r th e r w id e n in g o f th e h o riz o n : Rom anis (264) 20

305

BUA

Commentary n o

w

i t

f i n d s

is

o

f

i m

i t s

c o

p l i e d

t h

a n c i e n t

c r i t i c i s m

G

b

u

t

a

t h e

m

~ * s

m

P

i t

h

a t

a t

a r t .

( a )

t h )

a c q

a r t i s t

o

e x p r e s s e s

t h

u

r

o

n e

i d e a l

‘ f o

a

r y

6 ) t h

’

f

,

’ ,

f o

r

a

p

e e h

I t

e

‘ p

2 8

a

s t a t e .

o

e t i c o

G

w

n .

t h

s p a r s e n e s s

a v

t h i s

d o w

a r y e

a v

( c )

r n

i n

t r u h

T im .

(

o

r d

t o

t t e

s e t s

d

r m

a y

g l o

y

t r a o

r e e k s

‘ p

a n m

x

w

G

r i t e r

( 4

e

l y

i r e d

o l o g i c a l

e

i t h

t h

w

T im aeus

c o s m

e

b

(

W

exemplar,

o f f e r ,

- k ^ t i n

l a t o ’s

t e r p

h a v e

t o

w

n

r e e c e ,

exemplaria s o

u

a

t h m d

o

t

a l o

r e o

i g

m

c ) .

i t

i s

.

n

e x p r e s s i o n

n

v

e r

’

o

s o

f

t h

l y

h

e

e

a y

p o e t i c

’s

d e m

e s

b

w

u

t

o r d

i u r g e

R ep.

i c .

e t i m

w

i t a t e s

i c e r o

t h

e

c h a n c e

a v

i m

C

m

n

e

C

I n

i s

o

c o p y i s t

d

f

a s t e r y

s

e o

r a a n

H

m e d

r e e k

a t i s

I n

i d

o

a

n

.

m

1 1

o r a l

a r a l g m , E p . 1 . 2 . 1 8 utile proposuit nobis exem plar V lix e m ,! . 1 9 . 1 7 decipti exemplar u itiis imitabile·, o r a p o e t i c , E p . 11. 1. 5 8 Plautus a exemplar Siculi properare E p ich a rm i ; b e l o w 3 1 7 n . exem plar uitae morumque. H i s u s e o f exemplum a l s o m a y b e r e c a l l e d . A l e x a n d r i a n

p

c r i t i c s o u g

s e e m

s t a n

r e a t

m

m

o e c o m

o ^

e

I

T

s .

t

2 ° >

fi j

e

r h

■

rn ?

p r o p o s e d

p

r a c t i t i o

n

,

f o r

A

r e e k

a

a ^

τ

t h

s p i r i t

o

e

f

R

o

m

t h

uersate.

F

o

Ι 3 2 4 ·

1

f f - j

3

κ α ν ό ν ε ς

e r s u

a n

e r e

a n

d

h

R

e y

f

c l a s s i c a l

o

w

t o

d

o

m

a n

s ,

a r e

t o

h

i s s i v e n e s s ,

i s

d

t h

e

r y

,

a l m

a r e

n

e x

t h

o

v e r s e

r i t e r s ; i n

s p

s e

b

i r i t

t h

h o

u

f

e

N

e w

m

o

r o

u

s

t

t h e i r m

w

P

t h e r i t e r s

o e t s

I n

s ,

t o

s p i t e

t o

u

o

c h

TLL,

b o o k s ,

s h o w

u f r o

c l a s s i c a l

spem ueniae. s t

c o p i e s t

o

e l p

p e r m

a

w

i f f e r

v

r e a l i s t i c a l l y

f

i n .

2 .

t h

a t

C h a n d Ie d ’ d a Y a n d n ig h t. °

f

t h

e

f 1" 1 0 1 1 8

Γ

h

s t a n

exemplaria

r

o

n e w

u

T

H

o

r a t i a n

o n e

° P

exemP aria Graeca

η

k

g

Graeci.

s ’ ,

e . e s s e n c e

It putere diurno- S in c e EP- B ook 1 is

th e p re s e n t p a ssa g e w o u ld b e a n e c h o o f ^ P 311* a p p e a rs to p re c e d e th e m o re se rio u s use

6

o u ts ta n d in g e rn l mTita !io n a n d self-in iita tio n a r e a m o n g th e tim es alluskin a Ü B a d n > esp e cially A u g u s ta n , p o e tr y . S om e-

to V M clearly

dtd’ ° ften il is not· In

Ύ ™ ° ? Γ against its

t h e r e

s i n c e

s u c h

e f f e c t

t h a n

o d

N

^ a

o

a n r

j V f o r m

^

o n

ΐ

a o

’ ^

e

t n

“

h f

^ tK > n

w

o b

W o

r

^

k

d

C

a t t d *

34

o

v

e r t

e

o

* 1 )

f l i P

a l l u f

k

e c h m

a ^n

P

P^sem

a

n

t

s i o

n

s e e m

i n

g

e e p

°

l i k

t a ^ n s

C

a t u

w

e * y i t

i s .

a n

s

b

e

t h

e

t o

i t h

t o H

J'“« “

l l a n

b .

e

t e c e d i n

d

t ,

e d

d e s i r e d

a c c i d

u s e s

e n

t e n

a

p

e n

t a l ,

a

t t e r n

i t to a n e n tire ly d ifferen T 1^ ^ ? 60 ^ a n o th e r Po e m ’ 311(1 pUtS d iffe re n t m a tte r USe' ^ p e t i t i o n s o f w h o le verses a re a m c U r n lZ a T

poede and often emudonT rbant ί S “T ' 1’“ !·UK of the obscuri·, f o r

306

H

.

c f .

P

.

L

is liir8ely

e j a y

’ s

l a r g

e

Commentary e d i t i o n o f th e S a tir e s , i. 6. 128 n ., fo r a d js. w ith m a m s , H e in z e , 7 th ed., C. π . 13. 2 n . T h e m i d n i g h t o il e v e n m o re th a n w o rk b y d a y is a n a f f e c ta ti o n f a m i l i a r fr o m th e K u n stfle iß o f th e C a llim a c h e a n s a n d t h e i r R o m a n s u c c e s s o rs , cf. C a llim . E p ig r. 27 ( = A n th . P a l. ix . 507), 3—4 χ α ίρ ε τ ε λ ε ττ τα ί j ρ ή σ ιες, Ά ρ ή τ ο υ σ ύ μ β ο λ ο ν ά γρ υ ττνίη ς, C in n a , fr. i i . 1 - 2 ( M o r e l , F P L , p . 8 9 ) haec tib i A ra teis m ultum inuigilata lucernis [ ca rm in a , a n d t h e o t h e r p a ssa g e s c ite d b y S te id le , Studien, p . 134 n . 15, P fe iff e r, C a llim . loc. c it., G o w a n d P a g e , T h e Greek A n th ., H ellenistic E p ig r a m s , 11. 2 0 9 . H . h a s a v o id e d th e e m p h a sis o f s u c h p h ra s e s as n o x lu cu b ra ta . u e r s a te . . .u e rsa te m a r k s t h e e m p h a s is . ‘ uersare ’ is n o t th e uox propria

f o r ‘ t u r n i n g a r o l l ’. 270— 2, as w a s s a id a b o v e , a d d s R o m a n c o m e d y to th e in d ic tm e n t, t h e s ty le o f its w i t a s w e ll a s its m e tre . D e fe n d e rs o f P la u tu s w ill say, f a ir ly e n o u g h , t h a t th is sh o w s la m im e méconnaissance de la métrique de P la u te que celle d ’A c c iu s et d 'E n n iu s (L e ja y a d I.). B u t H . is n o t w ritin g l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y ; h e w r ite s a s a p o e t e n u n c ia tin g in h is p o e try th e p r i n c i p l e s o f a n e w p o e tic s . 270 a t i n t r o d u c e s a n o b je c tio n . H . p u ts in d ir e c tly —-not b y d ire c t i n t e r l o c u t i o n — w h a t o t h e r s m a y s a y o f his stric tn e ss: ‘b u t y o u r a n ­ c e s to r s (y o u m i g h t s a y ) . . a form o f H o r a t ia n b re v ity . P e e r lk a m p ’s d iv is io n i n t o d ia l o g u e o f t h e s e c tio n 2 6 3 -7 4 is p a r tic u la r ly im p la u ­ s ib le i n th is l i n e a n d th e n e x t ; th e r e is n o in d ic a tio n o f a n (im a g in a ry ) c h a n g e o f s p e a k e r b e f o re 271 n im iu m . u e stri , t h e r e a d i n g o f a ll k n o w n m a jo r M S S , c o n tin u e s th e a d d re ss o f 2 6 8 uos. n o stri w o u ld s u it d ir e c t in te rlo c u tio n , w h ic h h a s a lre a d y b e e n r e j e c t e d ; H . h im s e lf w o u ld s c a rc e ly re fe r to h i s proaui. W h o m is H . a d d r e s s i n g ? N o t th e P iso s, a s h a s o fte n b e e n th o u g h t. B u t th e la st a d d r e s s t o t h e P iso s (2 3 5 ) is n o lo n g e r in v ie w : ne dicam stulte w o u ld b e a b o o r i s h w a y o f r e f e r r i n g to t h e i r an c e sto rs, uestri lik e uos (268) d e n o t e s n e i t h e r t h e a n c e s t r a l P isos n o r c ritics as d iffe re n t fro m po ets ( I m m i s c h , t a k e n to ta s k b y S te id le , Studien, p p . 133 f·) ^>u': w hom i t m a y c o n c e r n — h is R o m a n re a d e r s . T h is is th e s a m e p o le m ic a g a in s t a r c h a i c s t a n d a r d s w h ic h a n im a te s a ll h is c r itic a l w ritin g fro m th e firs t l i t e r a r y s a t i r e to t h e A u g u stu s. P la u tin o s . . . num eros: a s t r a i g h t d e n i a l o f th e a r c h a iz in g ta ste o f th e p r e c e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n , n o t a b l y t h a t o f C ic e ro a n d V a rro . T h e a c id r e m a r k s o n P l a u t u s , E p . 11. 1 .1 7 0 - 6 , m a y b e re m e m b e re d . C o m m e n ­ t a t o r s n o t e t h a t t h e c o n ju n c tio n o f P la u tin e r h y th m s in th is verse a n d h is w i t in t h e n e x t re c a lls t h e c e le b r a te d e p ita p h o n P la u tu s , G e ll. 1. 2 4 . 3 scaena est deserta, dein R is u s L u d u s Io c u s q u e | e t N u m e r i in n u m e ri s im u l om nes co n la crim a ru n t. 307

20-2

Commentary 271 sales e x te n d s th e c e n su re to P la u tu s ’ w it. I t is in s tr u c tiv e to see H . a n d C icero d iffe rin g o n th is to p ic in s p ite o f t h e i r a d h e r e n c e to a sim ila r th e o ry ; cf. C ic. Off. 1. 104 (c it. b e lo w 273 n .) . T o L u c iliu s a t S . i. 4. 7 th e e p ith e t fa cetu s is g r a n te d , a l t h o u g h h e is durus componere uersus ; a t S . i. io . 65 th e s a m e a r c h a ic s a tir is t is com is et urbanus, b u t n o te ibid. 7 ff. nim ium patienter b eg in s th e re p ly to th e o b je c tio n : ‘ t o o i n d u l g e n t l y ’ ; fo r th e u sag e , cf. 257 p a tien s, E p . 1. 1. 4 0 p a tientem . . .aurem . 272 ne dicam o fte n e m p h a siz e s w h a t i t a p p a r e n t l y a p o lo g iz e s fo r: T e r . A d . 3 7 5 -6 est hercle inepta, ne dicam dolo, atque | absurda, C ic. D eiot. 2 crudelem Castorem, ne dicam sceleratum et im p iu m , O v . H e r . 15 (16). 285 nim ium sim plex H elene, ne rustica dicam , cf. T L L , v . 1. 9 7 6 . 58 ff. stulte is a h a r d w o rd e v e n i f th e m itig a tin g ne dicam is t a k e n m o re serio u sly t h a n I a m in c lin e d to d o . sapientia p r im a (est) | stu ltitia caruisse (E p. i. i . 41—2 ): stu ltitia alw a y s im p lie s o b tu se n e ss, e.g . E p . 1. I· 47 ne cures ea quae stulte m iraris et optas. T h e r e p r o a c h o f 262 ig n o ra ta e . . · artis, th e a lte r n a tiv e th e re o f incuria, is still in m in d , a n d lik e w ise it is d is tin g u is h e d fro m nim ium patienter. T h e s e n u a n c e s c o n f ir m w h a t I su g g ested a b o v e (270 n . uestri) ; H . c a n ta lk in g e n e r a l t e r m s a b o u t a n c ie n t R o m a n stu ltitia b u t w o u ld n o t sa y to th e P iso s t h a t th e ir a n c e sto rs w e re stu lti. ego et uos b rin g th e i s t a n d 3 r d p e rs o n s o f 2 6 3 ff. t o g e t h e r ; fo r th e is t p ers. see a b o v e 265 n . uager a n d 2 5 - 6 n . 273 re su m e s, c h ia stic a lly , sales o f 2 7 1 . urbanum is t h e h a l l m a r k o f e le g a n t w it lepidum , come— as o p p o s e d to c r u d e j o c u l a r it y . T h u s C ic e ro ’s an aly sis o f ty p es o f w it, Off. 1. 104 (cf. a b o v e 271 n .) duplex omnino est iocandi genus; unum illiberale p e tu la n s, fla g itio su m obscenum, alterum elegans urbanum , ingeniosum fa c e tu m , quo genere non modo P la u tu s noster et Atticorum antiqua comoedia, sed etiam philosophorum Socraticorum lib ri referti sunt, etc ., a n d m o re e la b o r a te ly D e Or. 11. 2 3 5 f f , i n p a r t i ­ c u la r 270 Socratem opinor in hac ironia d issim ulantiaque longe lepore et hum anitate omnibus praestitisse, genus est perelegans et cum g ra u ita te salsum cumque oratoriis dictionibus tu m urbanis serm onibus accom m odatum . T h i s in

th e n e w R o m a n s e ttin g p e r p e tu a te s t h e P e r ip a te tic a n d u ltim a te ly A ris to te lia n p o sitio n . H . em erg es h e re as th e m o re p e r c e p tiv e l i te r a r y c ritic m th e assessm ent o f P la u tin e w it, w h ic h C ic e ro classe s w ith o o c ra te s iro n y a n d A ttic c o m e d y ; a n d u n lik e C ic e ro , H . k e e p s to h is A ris to te lia n p n n c ip le s . C f. A r. £.JV. iv . 7, 1 127 b 25 o n S o c ra te s , a n d 1 1 ■ ? ,j on ^ ty p e s o f α γρ ο ίκ ο ς, β ω μ ο λ ό γ ο ς, a n d ε υ τ ρ ά π ε λ ο ς , e sp e cia y 1128 f 9 f. ol δ έμμελως π α ί^ ο ν τ ε ς ε υ τ ρ ά π ε λ ο ι π ρ ο σ α γ ο ­ ρεύ ο ντα ι, ο ον ε ΰ τρ ο π ο ι, a 14 ff. καί οΐ β ω μ ο λ ό γ ο ι ε υ τ ρ ά π ε λ ο ι π ρ ο σ α ρ ευ ο ντα ι ω ς χα ρ ίεντες· ο τ ι δε 8 ια φ έρ ο υ σ ι κ α ί ο υ μ ικρόν, έκ τ ώ ν

3°8

Commentary είρ η μ έν ω ν δ ή λ ο ν , a 22 f. ( p a r tic u la r ly re le v a n t to C icero a n d H .) ιδοι δ ’ α ν Tis κ α ί έκ τ ω ν κ ω μ ω δ ιώ ν τ ω ν π α λ α ιώ ν καί τ ώ ν κ α ινώ ν · τοϊς μέν y à p ή ν γ ε λ ο ϊο ν ή α ισ χ ρ ο λ ο γ ία , toTs δέ μ άλλον ή υ π ό ν ο ια · διαφέρει 5’ ο υ μ ικ ρ ό ν τ α υ τ α π ρ ο ς εύ σ χ η μ ο σ ύ ν η ν , R het. n i. ιδ , 1419 b 6 ff. ε ιρ η τ α ι π ό σ α είδη γ ε λ ο ίω ν έ σ τιν έν t o ì s π ε ρ ί π ο ιη τ ικ ή ς (n o t now e x t a n t ) , ώ ν τ ό μέν ά ρ μ ό τ τ ε ι έλευθέρφ τ ό 6 ’ ου, ό π ω ς τ ό ά ρ μ ό ττο ν α υ τ ω λ ή ψ ε τ α ι. ε σ τ ι δ ’ ή ειρ ω νεία τ ή ς β ω μ ο λ ο χία ς έλευθεριώτερον- ò μέν y à p α υ τ ο ΰ ένεκα π ο ιε ί τ ό γ ε λ ο ϊο ν , ό δέ β ω μ ο λ ό χο ς ετέρου. H .’s a n d C ic e ro ’s d is tin c tio n o f inurbanum a n d lepidum dictum clearly derives fro m P e r i p a t e ti c t h e o r y ; b u t H . d iffers fro m C ic e ro in its a p p lic a tio n to th e ty p e o f h u m o u r r e p r e s e n te d b y P la u tu s. seponere p o e tic a lly (as w ith o th e r c o m p o u n d s d e n o tin g se p a ra tio n s u c h a s secerno b e lo w 3 9 7 ) w ith a b l., c a lle d d a t. b y som e, w h ere c la s s ic a l p ro s e w o u ld p re fe r a b ; c o n tra s t dicto w ith C ic. D e Or. 1. 22 seposuisse a ceteris dictionibus. C f. D . Bo, H or. Op. in . 100. dicto: w ittic is m , cf. t h e dicta o f S a ty ric d ra m a , 247. 274 r e tu r n s w it h o u t a s tr a in to r h y th m a n d m e tre , fro m w h ich H . h a d d ig re s s e d b y w a y o f P la u tin e m e tre a n d P la u tin e h u m o u r, cf. 2 7 0 numeros. leg itim u m q u e sonum ‘la w f u l’, b ec au se th e w hole section h as b ee n c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e leges o f ars rhythmica, w h ic h n e e d to b e ‘k n o w n ’, a n d w h ic h , to H . ’s e a r, P la u tu s d id n o t k n o w . T h e a d j. as in E p . 11. 2. 109 le g itim u m . . .poem a. callem us: a n a r c h a ic , p o e tic , a n d S ilver w o rd , ra re ly used b y C icero, ‘to d e v e lo p t h e r i g h t to u c h o r skill f o r ’, a n d h e n c e ‘u n d e r s ta n d ’. B e c a u s e o f th is p r a c t i c a l n u a n c e th e w o rd is v e ry a p t h ere ; cf. callida 47 n . d i g i t i s . . .e t aure: th e s c a n n in g w ith fin g e r o r foot is m e n tio n e d in a w e ll-k n o w n p a s s a g e o f Q u in tilia n , 1 . 0 . ix . 4. 51 tempora. . .m etiuntur et p ed u m et d ig ito ru m ictu. T h e te a c h in g m e th o d , T e r . M a u r. 2 2 5 4 -5 quam (m o ra m ) p o llic is sonore uel plausu pedis j discriminare qui docent artem solent, is a d if f e r e n t m a t t e r ; i t p r o b a b ly resem b les th e pollicis ictum o f C. IV. 6 . 3 6 , Ο ν . F a st. ii . 108 ic ta . . .pollice chorda, cf. F ra e n k e l, Horaee, 404· S a v e fo r d ig itis h o w e v e r Q u in tilia n ’s re m a rk is n o t in p o in t, for h e d e a ls w i t h t h e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n r h y th m in m usic a n d th e v e rb a l a rts . T h e w r itin g s o f t h e rh e to ric ia n s , C icero ’s a n d Q u in tilia n s e s p e c ia lly , a r e fu ll o f r e m a r k s o n th e rh y th m ic sense o f th e ea r. Cic. O r. 2 0 3 say s ( uersuum ) m odum notat ars, sed aures ipsae tacito eum sensu sine arte definiunt. H . ’s p o i n t o n th e o th e r h a n d is t h a t ars a n d auris m u st g o to g e th e r.

3 °9

C o m m en ta ry

(io) Greek Tragedy (-280) and Greek Comedy, 275-84

The tradition. H. draws on an account of the origin of tragedy which ultimately belongs to the early Peripatos or Alexandria, see above 220-50 n. and 220 n. This account seems to have been designed partly to contradict and partly to supplement ristotelian teaching. The literary evidence for Thespis is set out by Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb2, etc. (1962), pp. 69 if., and more fully by E. Tièche, Thespis (1933); cf. also K. Ziegler, ‘Tragoedia’, R-E, v i a . 1929 if. and H. Patzer, Die nfänge^ der gr. Trag. (1962), pp. 21 if. For Alexandrian theorizing on the origins of drama, see the papers by Pohlenz, atte, Solmsen, and Meuli, mentioned above 220-50 n., and t e partly divergent discussion of Patzer. The account in the rs contains some features not now found anywhere else, see particu arly 276 η. on plaustris, and 277 η. The account of esc y us, with the one important exception of 280 magnum oqui, concerns costume and style of performance; for the 1 erary evidence, probably Hellenistic in origin, see Pickard5 .” 1. n ®e’ Dram. Fest. (1953), 214 fr., who interprets some 1 in ogmatically negative fashion; archaeological as well ÌS discussed by T. B. L. Webster, Gr. Com, r#' rod!J'Ct^ n; ^956), pp. 5 ff., 35 ff.; P. Arnott, Gr. Scenic ΡινÔà η ( lf 2) USGS actual stage practice to query some of Pickard-Cambridge’s assumptions. that am ComedJ *s deab with in three sentences. These assert nersonal was instituted later than tragedy, that chorus US·? ln COmedy Was checked by law, and that the The a rm iT c ^ W^ en **was depnved of its ‘right of injury’. concerning1the L d of t0 ^ ° Ur earlieSt information dental « Ι ΐ ^ ° f.old Attlc comedy. This must be acciagree with H \ m tde confused later accounts, which For the evidè US10ns’ must S° back to Hellenistic sources. * * ” · «ckardbelow 283-41! ^ 3 ff., 103 fr., and the works cited

Commentary

At a first reading these verses look like a rather sketchy and odd essay on the history of Greek tragedy and comedy. The very sketchiness however helps to draw attention to the true character of this piece. H. has selected and reorganized some information on the history of Greek drama which bears out certain basic contentions of his. The history of tragedy is taken to the point when the genre acquired grandeur; this is thought to be the effect of Aeschylus’ work. Earlier in the A r s H. has considered as axiomatic the great and serious nature of tragedy. The history of comedy is taken to the point where the genre lost its political ethos of public censure. Thus the two major forms of Greek drama are brought close to the Roman scene. So that the abrupt beginning of the section on Roman drama is more apparent than real, 285 n i l in te m p ta tu m n o stri H orace.

liq u e r e p o e t a e .

The scope of the piece may be defined by two facts. One is its quasi-historical character, which sets its aside from the precepts 153 ff.5 1j g ff. including Satyric drama. The other ls its position between two sections on Roman drama, both highly critical of its techniques. Immediately after the homily on metre, which provokes the reference to e x e m p la ria G raeca , Η. shows how the exemplary Greek genres and their salient features were established. The exemplary Greek genres thus established form the background for the final judgement on Roman drama. With a severe economy of selection and expression H. has concentrated his account of tragedy on the features that made for grandeur, σεμνότης—the (alleged) evolution of the genre from Thespis to Aeschylus. Old comedy based on lib erta s won high renown, n o n s in e m u l t a la u d e ; but the very manner of its public criticism destroyed the genre. He does not mention new comedy ; but its non-political character may be implied by contradistinction. « 75 » n o t 2 2 0 , is H . ’s c o m m e n t o n th e ‘in v e n tio n ’ o f trag e d y . ig n o tu m a s a t 13 0 d e n o te s s o m e th in g n e w in p o e try , in th e e a rlie r p a s s a g e (o n tr a g ic p lo ts ) ignota indictaque c o m b in e d w ith prim us, in

3 11

Commentary th is (o n a n e w g e n r e ) ig n o tu m w ith inuenisse s tre ss t h e in n o v a tio n . camenae d e n o te s t h e g e n r e , a s B e n tle y , in t h e P h a la r is , re m in d e d B o y le, tragicae g e n u s . . . camenae o f tr a g ic p o e t r y o r p o e m s , as S . n . 6 . 17 saturis m usaque pedestri o r serm ones, C . iv . 9. 6 - 8 o f ly r ic v e rse , e t al. 2 7 6 dicitur: H . le a v e s th e r e s p o n s ib ility fo r th is s t a t e m e n t to his a u th o ritie s . T h e s p is a s th e e a r lie s t t r a g e d i a n is n o t k n o w n f r o m A ris to tle ’s Poetics, th o u g h T h e m is tiu s , O r. 2 6 . 3 1 6 d q u o te s A ris to tle o n T h e s p is ; as th e list in P ic k a r d - C a m b r id g e , D ith A 6 9 ff. sh o w s, h e f ir s t a p p e a rs in th e e n tr y o f th e M a r m o r P a r iu m o f t h e m i d d le o f t h e t h i r d c e n tu r y B.c., re fe rr e d to a b o v e 2 2 0 n . (o n uilem ob h irc u m ). T h e s p is a p p e a r s in a s im ila r w a y in th e r o u g h ly c o n t e m p o r a r y e p ig r a m s o f D io sc o rid e s, A n th . P a l. vii. 4 1 0 a n d 4 1 1 , b u t t h e te x t o f t h e f o r m e r is d u b io u s , see G o w a n d P a g e , T h e G r. A n th ., H e llen istic E p ig ra m s, 11. 251 f. I n o te th a t th ese tw o re fe re n c e s o f t h e t h i r d c e n tu r y b .c . a r e t h e o n ly o n e s c e r ta in ly a n t e d a t in g H . ; o th e r s h a v e b e e n a s s u m e d , a n d a r e d iscu ssed in th e w o rk s c ite d a b o v e 275—8 4 n . p la u stris, th e w a g o n o f T h e s p is , w h ic h o w e s its fa m e t o th is p assa g e. A p a r t fr o m a u th o r s th e m s e lv e s d e p e n d e n t o n H ., s u c h as D io m e d e s, D o n a tu s , a n d p r o b a b ly S id . C. 9 . 2 3 6 , t h is in f o r m a t i o n d o es n o t a p p e a r i n a n c ie n t so u rc e s. T h e v e h ic le is o f te n s a id to o w e its e x iste n c e to a n e rro n e o u s c o n n e x io n w ith ‘th e jo k e s f r o m t h e w a g o n ’ a t th e A n th e s te r ia a n d L e n a e a , e.g. S u d a a n d P h o t, τ ά έκ τ ω ν α μ α ξ ώ ν , P ic k a r d - C a m b r id g e , D ith P 8 2 , D ra m . F est. 7. B u t t h e f a c t t h a t a p ie c e o f in f o r m a tio n is u n iq u e , o r c o m b in e d w ith o th e rs t h a t a r e e rro n e o u s , d o e s n o t falsify it. T h e o b v io u s p a r a lle l w ith th e s t r o llin g p la y e r s o f l a t e r a g e s (P . A r n o tt, Gr. Scenic Conventions, p . 6) c a n n o t b e r u le d o u t. T o H . th e w a g o n p r e s u m a b ly s u g g e ste d t h e in f o r m a l, p e r h a p s r u r a l, c h a r a c te r o f e a rly tra g e d y , w h ic h is a f e a tu r e o f s o m e A le x a n d r ia n a c c o u n ts . uexisse poem ata ‘ h e c a r r ie d t h e tra g e d ie s a b o u t (o n h is w a g o n ) , p s .-A c ro tam m u lta scripsisse quae posset p la u stris aduehere. s', D o n a tu s , also B e n tle y r e a d q u i ( — eos q u i ; w i t h canerent g o v e r n in g p o em a ta ) fo r quae a t 2 7 7 , th e re la tiv e p r o n o u n tr a n s p o s e d t o t h e b e g in n in g o f th e n e x t v erse as e.g. a t E p . 1. 17. 5 2 —3. T h is is e le g a n t b u t p r o b a b ly to b e re s is te d . F o r it re m o v e s th e g ro te s q u e e le m e n t t h a t is a p a r t o f R o m a n S a tire . T h e le g e n d a ry p a s t i n p a r t i c u l a r ev o k e s a c e r ta in g e n ia l w h im s ic a lity fr o m H ., e.g . a t >9. 1. 3 . 9 9 ff., E p . n . 1. 139 ff· 2 7 7 quae: B e n tle y qui, see a b o v e o n uexisse poem ata. canerent agerentque: o n th e a s s u m p tio n t h a t agere re fe rs to th e one a c to r th e n e m p lo y e d a n d canere t o th e c h o r u s , c o m m e n ta to r s t a lk o f g r a m m a tic a l a ttr a c tio n o f ageret i n t o t h e p i. o f canerent. B u t canerent

312

Commentary ageretque w o u l d b e r is ib le p ro sin e ss, a n d in a n y case th e ch o ru s sh a re d in actio m a w i d e r sen se . H . S c h iitz ’s e x p la n a tio n strikes m e as p l a u s i b l e : H . g e n e r a liz e d th e singers a n d p erfo rm ers, w ith o u t l a b o u r i n g t h e d is t in c ti o n b e tw e e n th e tw o classes. T h e in stances cited b y H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r , 16, d iffe r. p eru n c ti fa e c ib u s ora: t h e in t e r n a l acc. w ith th e p a r t, is ra re e n o u g h m t h e h e x a m e t e r p o e m s to b e n o te d , cf. b e lo w 384, a n d D . Bo, Hor. p . in . 1 18. T h i s is t h e p r im itiv e disguise t h a t in H . ’s a c c o u n t p re ­ c e d e s th e u s e o f m a s k s , 2 7 8 .f a e x is τ ρ ύ ξ , w in e-lees, a n d th e w o rd m a y h i n t a t τ ρ ύ ξ ( th u s P o r p h .) , a n d a v in ta g e -fe stiv a l. (T h e re le v a n t r e a d ­ in g m A n th . P a l. v i i . 4 1 0 . 3, G o w a n d P a g e c it. ab o v e 276 n., is u n o r t u n a t e l y d u b io u s .) T h is is th e k in d o f d e ta il t h a t c a n b e freely e l a b o r a t e d a n d t h e A le x a n d r ia n s e la b o r a te d it. Suda, s.v. Thespis, re fle c ts a f u lle r a c c o u n t : firs t w h ite le a d , n e x t p u rs la n e h u n g o v er th e fa c e , t h e n ‘m a sk s o f lin e n o n l y ’, εν μόνη οθόνη, cf. P ic k a rd -C a m r i d g e , D i t h 2 71 n o . 14, 79 f.. D ra m . F est. 177. O th e r kinds o f e a rly m a k e - u p a r e m e n tio n e d w ith o u t re fere n ce to T h esp is, P ic k a rd C a m b r i d g e , D i t h . 2· 74. 2 7 9 —8 0 P o r p h . o n 2 7 8 A eschylus p rim u s tragoediis cotumos et syrma et p erso n a m d e d it; horum en im triu m auctor est. T h is s u m m a ry o m its pulpita (2 7 9 ) a n d , e v e n m o r e i m p o r ta n t, magnum que loqui (280). C o n tra st A r. ■roei. 4 , 1 4 4 9 a !5 ff. κ α ί τ ό τε τ ω ν υ π ο κ ρ ιτ ώ ν π λ ή θ ο ς έξ ένός εις δύο π ρ ώ τ ο ς Α ισ χ ύ λ ο ς ή γ α γ ε καί τ α τ ο υ χ ο ρ ο ύ ή λ ά τ τ ω σ ε καί τ ό ν λ ό γ ο ν π ρ ω τ α γ ε ο ν ισ τ ε ϊν π α ρ εσ κ εύ α σ εν . B u t A risto tle is n o t h e re d e a lin g w i t h ό ψ ις .

278 p o s t hunc: th e r e is n o m e n tio n o f C h o e rilu s a n d P h ry n ic h u s o r t h e y o u n g e r tr a g e d ia n s : T h e s p is in a u g u r a te d a n d A eschylus co m ­ p l e t e d t h e g e n r e . T h is is n o t th e p ic tu re in A r. Poet. ch . 4. B ut even w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e e x te r n a l fe a tu re s o f th e g e n re th e re w as a te n d e n c y t o a s c r ib e t o A e sc h y lu s w h a t b e lo n g e d to v a rio u s in n o v a to rs o v er a lo n g p e r io d o f tim e ; t h e te n d e n c y is n o tic e a b le in th e a n c ie n t L ife o f A e s c h y lu s . C f. P ic k a r d - C a m b r id g e , D ra m . F est. 175, c itin g Anec. Par. c d . C r a m e r , 1. 19 ε! μέν δή π ά ν τ α τ ις Α ίσ χ ύ λ ω β ο ύλετα ι τ ά περί τ η ν σ κ η ν ή ν ε υ ρ ή μ α τ α π ρ ο σ ν έμ ειν . T h is te n d e n c y goes b ac k a long w a y a n d th e s e a t t r i b u t i o n s w e re c o n tro v e rsia l in A le x a n d ria n sc h o la r­ s h ip . H . ’s a t t r i b u t i o n s a r e p a r t o f t h a t p ic tu re . personae: H . d o e s n o t a llo w fo r in te rv e n in g stag es b etw e en T h esp is a n d A e s c h y lu s i n t h e in tr o d u c tio n o f th e m a sk ; c o n tra st Suda, s.vv. Χ ο ιρ ίλ ο ς a n d Φ ρ ύ ν ιχ ο ς . B u t th e E p ito m e o f H esy ch iu s is m o re speci^ C’~S-V‘ Α ισ χ ύ λ ο ς (cf. W ila m o w itz , A esch. ed . m ai. p . 1 4 ,0 0 .4 1 ) : π ρ ώ τ ο ς εύ ρ ε π ρ ο σ ω π ε ία δ ειν ά κ α ί χ ρ ώ μ α σ ι κεχρισμένα εχειν τούς τ ρ α γ ικ ο ύ ς .

Commentary p a lla e . . .honestae: ‘th e c lo ak o f d is tin c tio n ’ is s h o w n b y o t h e r evi­ d e n c e to b e th e syrma o r fu ll-le n g th tra g ic c o s tu m e ; cf. a b o v e 228 n. r e g a li .. .a u ro . . .e t ostro. T h e t r a d itio n a s c rib in g th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th is g a r m e n t to A esch y lu s is first fo u n d in th is p a ssa g e , la t e r also in A th . I. 21 d ; P h ilo str. A poll, v i. 11, Soph. 1 .9 ; V ita A esch. (W ila m o w itz , A esch. ed . m a i. p . 5 ), § 14 τ ώ σ ύ ρ μ α τι έ ξ ο γ κ ώ σ α ς ; syrm a P o rp h . o n 2 78: cf. P ic k a rd -C a m b rid g e , D ram . Fest. 214 ff. O u r o ld e st w it­ ness, lo n g b efo re H ., d o es n o t sa y A esch y lu s in tr o d u c e d a d istin c tiv e co stu m e for his heroes, b u t w h a t h e says is n o t in c o m p a tib le w ith su ch a v ie w : A risto p h . R a n . 1061 ίμ α τ ίο ις η μ ώ ν χ ρ ώ ν τ α ι π ο λ ύ σεμνοτεροισιν. repertor: o n e o f th e m a n y n o u n s in ~ (t)or i n H . ; th is is a rc h a ic , p o etic a n d S ilv er p ro se b u t n o t C ic e ro n ia n o r C a e s a ria n . 27 9 instrauit: a n a r c h a ic a n d p o e tic w o rd , n o t fo u n d in C ic e ro b u t in la te r pro se, ex p ressin g re a listic a lly ‘to s p re a d s o m e th in g o n ’, w ith d a t. p u lp ita h e r e as elsew h ere in H . is ‘p la tfo rm , s t a g e ’, n o t h o w e v e r stag e b u ild in g s— scaena, a b o v e 2 1 5 , E p . 1. 19. 40, n . 1. 174· T h e p rim itiv e th e a tr e is m a d e o f w o o d n o t sto n e : tig n is is b e a m s, w h ic h m ay b u t n e e d n o t b e u p rig h ts ; th e y a re u p rig h ts in C a e s a r’s c e le ­ b ra te d b rid g e across th e R h in e , B .G . iv . 17. 3 if., b u t d e fin e d b y a n a d j. as cross-b eam s, in T re b o n iu s ’ e la b o r a te e a rth w o rk , B .C . 11. 15· 2 trauersaria tigna iniciuntur. T h e c o n te x t o f th is v erse su g g ests t h a t th e tigna m o re likely th a n n o t a re u p rig h ts : ‘h e s p re a d a p la tf o r m u p o n b ea m s o f n o g re a t size ( modicis) ’. I in fe r t h a t H . is d e s c rib in g a p r im i­ tiv e ra ise d stag e o f m o d e st size. (P ru d . P e n si, x . 1016 ta b ulis superne strata texunt p u lp ita seem s to b e b ase d o n H .) T h e p assag e h as b e e n looked a t ask a n ce b y sc h o la rs d e m a n d in g a rc h a e o lo g ic a l ev id en ce fo r a ra ise d stag e in th e fifth c e n tu r y b . c ., p e rh a p s a san g u in e e x p e c ta tio n in th e c a se o f p e r is h a b le w o o d e n stru ctu re s. H e n ce W . D ö rp fe ld a n d E . R e isch , h a v in g fo u n d n o s u c h a rc h a e o lo g ic a l e v id en ce, c o n c lu d e d , in D a s gr. Theater (1 8 9 6 ), p . 34&> t h a t th is p assage p ro v id es n o evid en ce e ith e r ; h a l f a c e n tu r y l a te r P ic k a rd -C a m b rid g e still felt c o m m itte d to t h a t p ro c e d u re , a n d ev e n d e n ie d th e p ro b a b le m e a n in g o f tignis, cf. Theatre o f D ionysus, p- 72, B u t H . w as n o arch aeo lo g ist. T h e passage is n e ith e r e v id e n c e fo r a ra ise d fifth -c en tu ry stag e, n o r n e e d it im p ly t h a t H . in fe rre d fro m th e ra ise d stages o f his d a y th e ex isten ce o f a ra ise d A e sc h y le a n stag e, ‘o n ly a m o d est o n e ’ (P ic k a rd -C a m b rid g e , loc. c it.). A s in th e re s t o f th is p assage th e p o e t selects tra d itio n a l, p e rh a p s A le x a n d ria n , m a te ria l for his ow n p u rp o se . T h is tra d itio n m u s t h a v e su g g ested th e existence o f a p rim itiv e ra ise d stag e in th e tim e o f A e sc h y lu s a n d , n o t u n re a so n a b ly , H . a c c e p te d it. H e m a y w e ll h a v e b e e n r ig h t. C f. th e 314

Commentary c a u tio u s r e m a r k s o f T . B . L . W e b s te r, Greek Theatre Production (1956), p . 7.

280 c o m b in e s w i t h o b v io u s d e lib e r a tio n (th o u g h i t h as n o t seem ed o b v io u s to a l l c o m m e n ta to r s ) e x a lte d sp ee ch a n d e x a lte d stan ce, m a g n u m lo q u i a n d n iti coturno. T h is a p p a r e n tly is a fe a tu re o f th e a n c i e n t l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n c o n c e rn in g A eschylus. H . p u ts it in a k in d o f p u n , b u t t h i s is b y n o m e a n s fa r-fe tc h e d , fo r it sim p ly expresses th e h a r m o n y o f s c e n ic a n d p o e tic effec t. M . P o h le n z n o tic e d (,N G G , 19 2 0 , 148 n . 2, also K . - H . a d I.) t h a t p re cisely th is im p lic a tio n — in t h e c o m ic f o r m , g r a n d e u r o f sp e e c h b e fittin g g r a n d e u r o f co stu m e— is f o u n d i n A r i s t o p h ., w r itin g R a n . 1060-1 a b o u t A eschylus, κάλλω ς εΐκός τ ο ύ ς η μ ιθ έο υ ς τ ο ϊς ρ ή μ α σ ι μεί^οσι χ ρ η σ θ α ι- | καί γ ά ρ το ϊς ιμ α τ ίο ις ή μ ώ ν χ ρ ώ ν τ α ι π ο λ ύ σ εμ νοτέρ οισ ιν. docu it: A e s c h y lu s e s ta b lis h e d a sty le o f p o e tr y a n d p e rfo rm in g , cf. a b o v e 7 4 n . m o n stra u it H o m erus, docuere 288 differs. - q u e . . . -q u e : th e a r c h a ic f o r m u la (see a b o v e 11 n .) effectively s e rv e s h e r e t o j u x t a p o s e s p e e c h a n d sta n c e . m a g n u m . . .lo q u i: t h e n e u t. a d j. m agnum , o r p i. magna, like μ έγα o r μ ε γ ά λ α i n G r e e k , e a sily p asses fro m ad j. to a d v . use, cf. T L L , v m . Ϊ4.8. 5 5 ff. T h e w o rd s c o u ld m e a n ‘sp e a k lo u d ly ’, as PI. M il. 8 2 2 -3 an d o r m it. . . ? — non naso quidem , | n a m eo m agnum clamat, V irg . A . ix . 7°5 m a g n u m strid en s contorta p halarica uenit. T h is view h as b ee n ta k e n ; in d e e d t h e g r a m m a r i a n G a v iu s B assus (D e Origine Vocabulorum, ap. G e ll. V. 7. i ) d e r iv e d , e q u a lly w ro n g ly , th e use o f th e a tric a l m asks f r o m a n a lle g e d ‘m e g a p h o n e e f fe c t’, a n d th e w o rd persona fro m per-sonare, cf. P ic k a r d - C a m b r id g e , D ra m . F est. 193 f. B u t th e a n c ie n t l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n o f te n c o m b in e s th e g r a n d e u r o f A eschylus’ style a n d d é c o r (e .g . i n A r is to p h . c ite d in th e la st n o te ), a n d tin s is w h a t H . s e e m s t o h a v e i n m i n d . T L L , v ili. 135. 26 s e p a ra te s th is passage fro m t h e a d v . u s e 148. 55 ff., e rro n e o u s ly , I su g g e st; c o m p a re for ex a m p le & I. 4. 4 4 (os) m a g n a sonaturum ( T L L , v m . 148. 69). A r. Poet. 4, 1449 a 2 0 s im p ly says o f tr a g e d y όψ έ ά πεσ εμ νύνθη , a lth o u g h T h em istiu s i m p u t e d m o r e d e f in ite o p in io n s to h im , cf. ab o v e 276 n . T h e l a t e r l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n , firs t i n th e L y c e u m a n d A le x a n d ria , w as less r e t i c e n t t h a n t h e P oetics. n i t i . . . coturno: K . S c h n e id e r , R - E , S u p p . vxn. 195 f., co n fid en tly a s c rib e s t o A e s c h y lu s a coturnus w ith a sole. T h e m a tte r seem s less c e r t a i n . T h e a n c ie n t tr a d i t i o n is u n a n im o u s i n asc rib in g th e in tr o ­ d u c t i o n o f t h e h ig h -s o le d tra g ic b o o t (κόθορνος, cf. όκρίβας, έμβατης) to A e s c h y lu s ; th e e v id e n c e is asse m b le d b y P ic k a rd -C a m b rid g e , D r a m . F e st. 2 1 6 , 2 3 0 n . 3. A rc h a e o lo g ic a l re m a in s h o w e v er suggest t h a t th is k i n d o f b o o t is c e r ta in ly R o m a n (coturnus b eco m in g a 315

Commentary m e to n y m y fo r tra g e d y , a b o v e 80 n . ) , p r o b a b ly a lso H e lle n is tic , th o u g h n o t, i t a p p e a rs , b efo re c. 200 b .c . ; t h e r e is n o e v id e n c e fo r i t fro m th e fifth c e n tu ry . ‘T h a t A esc h y lu s d id s o m e th in g t o im p r o v e th e fo o t­ w e a r o f his a c to rs is q u ite p r o b a b l e ’, says P ic k a r d - C a m b rid g e , loc. a t. T . B. L . W e b s te r co n sid ers so m e p o ssib ilitie s, Greek Theatre Production, p p . 37 £ , 44, M is c e li.. . .in memoria d i A u g u sto R o sta g n i (1963)» Ρ· 533· I t re m a in s h a r d to e x p la in , i f th e a s c r ip tio n a lso g o es b a c k to th e H e llen istic ag e, h o w a k in d o f fo o tw e a r t h e n n e w ly in tr o d u c e d co u ld h a v e b e e n d a te d b a c k m o re t h a n th r e e c e n tu rie s . 281 successit. . .h is: t h a t is, T h e s p is a n d A e sc h y lu s, o r tr a g e d y in its e sta b lish e d fo rm . N o c o m ic w r ite r is n a m e d ; c o m e d y a r riv e s in th e w a k e o f tra g e d y . S in c e H . p e r h a p s a c c e p te d a c o m m o n o rig in for tra g e d y a n d c o m e d y , it sh o u ld b e n o te d t h a t t h e w o rd successit n ee d o n ly d e n o te th e in s titu tio n a l fo r m o f u e tu s . . . comoedia , w h ic h w as k n o w n to h a v e c o m e in a f te r t r a g e d y : A r. P oet. 5, 1449 b 1 £ καί y à p χ ο ρ ό ν κ ω μ ω δ ώ ν όψ έ π ο τ έ ό α ρ χ ώ ν εδω κεν, ά λ λ ’ εθ ελ ο ν τα ί ή σ α ν . S uda s.v. C h io n id e s, Χ ιω ν ίδ ή ς ’Α θ η ν α ίο ς ., .δ ν κ α ί λ έ γ ο υ σ ι π ρ ω τ ­ α γ ω ν ισ τ ή ν (?) γεν έσ θ α ι τ η ς α ρ χ α ία ς κ ω μ ω δ ία ς, δ ιδ ά σ κ ε ιν δ ’ ετεσ ιν η π ρ ο τ ω ν Π ερσικώ ν. T h e y e a r 486 B.c. is a llu d e d to ; fo r th e m a n n e r o f c o m p u ta tio n see K ö r te , R - E , x i. 1226 f. w ith b ib lio g r a p h y ; th e d o c u m e n ts a r e liste d b y P ic k a r d - C a m b r id g e , D ra m . Fest. 70 ff., 103 ff· 28 2 laude: as a b o v e 268 n . laudem , 271 laudauere , cf. E p . 11. 1. 168 ff. in uitium libertas excidit: libertas is th e free sp e e c h u sed i n όνομαστι κ ω μ ω δεϊν ; th u s S. 1. 4. 3 ff. si quis erat dignus describ i. . . m ulta cum libertate notabant, a n d th e (a ssu m e d ) p a r a lle l w ith a r c h a ic R o m a n c o n d itio n s, E p . n . 1. 145 F escennina. . .licen tia , 146 opprobria rustica, 147—8 libertasque. . .lu s it, 149 in rabiem coepit uerti iocus', i n a d iffe re n t c o n te x t Q u in t. 1 . 0 . χ ιι. 9. 1%freq u en ter etiam species libertatis deducere ad temeritatem solet. ‘ F re e d o m o f sp e e c h e x c e e d in g in to d e f e c t’ m a k e s a v ig o ro u s im a g e o u t o f th e A ris to te lia n id e a o f fa u lts b e in g v irtu e s o v e rd o n e . 2 8 3 dignam : cf. digna 183 n . leg e. . .le x is e m p h a tic . T h e in s ta n c e s o f ‘p o l y p t o to n ’ i n t h e lists o f D . Bo, H or. O p. in . 4 0 2 ff., sh o w w h a t H . c o u ld d o w ith w o rd s re p e a te d b u t d iffe re n tly in flec te d . E p . n . 1. 1 5 2 -3 c o n c e rn s th e sa m e m a tte r : quin etiam lex | poenaque lata, b u t th e r e is n o s u c h rh e to r ic a l effect. 2 8 3 - 4 lex etc.: a n u m b e r o f m in o r G re e k so u rc e s p u r v e y in fo rm ­ a tio n sim ilar to th is ; th u s th e la te Prolegomena to c o m e d y , t h e L ife o f sto p h a n e s. Suda s.v. A n tim a c h o s, a n d th e sc h o lia to A ris to p h a n e s , n a o th e m a c o n n e x io n is e sta b lis h e d b e tw e e n a d e c re e o r d e c re e s ( exj ψ ή φ ισ μ α ) re s tric tin g p u b lic c e n s u re o f c itiz e n s b y t h e c o m ic

316

Com m entary c h o ru s a n d t h e d e c li n e o f t h e c h o r u s i n m id d le a n d n e w co m ed y . F o r th e e v id e n c e , se e A . K ö r t e , R - E , x i. 1 2 3 3 -6 , P . G eissler, Chron. d. altattischen K o m . ( 1 9 2 5 ) , p . 17, K . J . M a id m e n t, G Q , x x ix (1935), 9 ff. O c c a s io n a lly a d e c r e e is s p e c ifie d , m o re o fte n i t is n o t, a n d th e a c c o u n ts a r e c o n f u s e d a n d u n i n t e l li g e n t. Y e t th e b a s ic in fo rm a tio n o n a d e c re e i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e r i g h t o f p u b lic c ritic is m o n th e co m ic sta g e c a n n o t h a v e b e e n i n v e n t e d b y th e s e la te c o m p ile rs ; it m u s t go b a c k to a ti m e w h e n t h e fa c ts w e r e r e a d i l y a v a ila b le , p re s u m a b ly th e e a rly H e lle n is tic a g e . T h a t h o w e v e r d o e s n o t m a k e th e a lle g e d c o n ­ n e x io n b e tw e e n le g a l e n a c t m e n t a n d d r a m a t ic o u t p u t m o re t h a n a n im p la u s ib le h i s t o r i c a l s h o r t h a n d fo r a c o m p le x lite r a r y a n d social p h e n o m e n o n . T h e t r a n s i t i o n fr o m o n e ty p e o f c o m e d y to a n o th e r w as n o t ‘c a u s e d ’ b y a d e c r e e . I n s t i g a t e d b y th e s e G r e e k m o d e ls , R o m a n g ra m m a ria n s , p e rh a p s V a r r o , s e e m t o h a v e b r o u g h t so m e le g a l p ro v isio n s a g a in s t Fescennina licentia i n t o c o n n e x io n w i t h t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f R o m a n c o m e d y ; H . m a k e s r e f e r e n c e t o t h is c o n n e x io n a t E p . n . 1. 145 f f , cf. P rol. 174 for th e m ala ca rm in a o f S . n . 1. 8 2 - 3 . I n th e p re s e n t p a ssa g e H . is n o t a t t e m p t i n g t o v ie w i t h t h e l i t e r a r y s c h o la rs o n th e ir ow n g ro u n d . H e is n o t g o in g i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f choregia w ith w h ic h th e c o m p ilers g r a p p le u n s u c c e s s f u lly ; th is p o i n t is r ig h tly m a d e b y S te id le , Studien, Ρ· 140, a g a in s t H e i n z e ’s p r o n o u n c e m e n ts . W h a t in te re sts H . is t h a t th e p o e ts o b e y e d a l a w r e s tr ic t in g ex cessiv e p e r s o n a l criticism o n th e s ta g e — a n d t h e c o m ic c h o r u s g re w s ile n t sublato iure nocendi', a c o n ­ v e n ie n t m y t h to a c c o u n t f o r t h e loss o f p u b lic c ritic is m t h a t m a rk s th e d iffe re n c e b e t w e e n t h e tw o m a j o r ty p e s o f a n c ie n t c o m e d y , p o litic a l a n d n o n - p o l i t ic a l . H e n c e to o t h e d iffe re n c e in h is tr e a tm e n t o f p o s t-c la s s ic a l t r a g e d y a n d c o m e d y . T r a g e d y r e ta in e d its ch o ru s, h o w e v e r u n r e l a t e d to t h e p l o t ; so t h a t H . fin d s i t w o rth w h ile to le g is la te fo r it, 193 ff. H e m a k e s n o s u c h a t te m p t fo r c o m e d y . A ll c o m ic p r o d u c t i o n w a s ‘ n e w c o m e d y ’ in t h a t sense, a lth o u g h a ch o ru s n e e d b y n o m e a n s b e a b s e n t fr o m it. T h is b r ie f sec tio n o n co m ed y th e re fo re e n d s o n a n e g a tiv e n o te , chorusque . . . obticuit, e tc. O n th e o th e r h a n d t h e p r e c e d i n g h is to r ic a l sk e tc h o f tra g e d y e n d s o n a p o sitiv e n o te , m a g n u m q u e lo q u i n itiq u e coturno. T h e s e fe a tu re s in .s v iew a r e f u n d a m e n t a l to l a t e r R o m a n d e v e lo p m e n ts. turpiter: G . L . H e n d r i c k s o n , A J P , x x i (ig ° ° )> I 3 2> h a s m a d e a ca *e fo r c o n n e c tin g t h e a d v . n o t w i t h th e a d ja c e n t obticuit b u t w ith nocendi, to e x p re ss s o m e t h i n g lik e α ι σ χ ρ ο λ ο γ ί α λυττεϊν. H e a p tly c o m p a re s Cic. O r. η . 2 3 6 haec en im rid e n tu r. . .q u a e n o ta n t. . .tu rp itu d in em . . -non turpiter. C f. a ls o K . - H . T h e w o r d - o r d e r is a m b ig u o u s. obticu it, a n a r c h a i c a n d p o e t i c w o rd , le n d s e m o tio n to th e alleged

3*7

Commentary in c id e n t. E u a n th iu s , D e F a b . 2. 4 {C om . G r. F r. p . 6 4 . 57, D o n . ed. W e ssn er. 1., 16. 18) la ta lege silu eru n t is p r o b a b ly b a s e d o n H . A s in the w h o le p a s s a g e o n c o m e d y , H . se e m s to a c k n o w le d g e t h a t u n re s tra in e d p u b lic c ritic is m is c o m p a tib le o n ly w i t h c e r t a i n s o c ia l a n d p o litica l c o n d itio n s . O n e m a y p e r h a p s r e c a ll T a c i tu s ’ r e m a r k s o n a re la te d to p ic , D ia l. ch s. 3 6 ff. iure nocendi: a lth o u g h iu s h e r e is n o m o r e t h a n ‘fa c ility , o p p o r­ tu n ity fo r a n a c t i o n ’, t h e w o r d c a r r ie s e n o u g h o f th e le g a l c o n n o ta ­ tio n o f ‘ r i g h t ’ to p r o d u c e t h e a m b i g u i ty o f a p u n w ith nocendi. T h e re is as little a ‘r i g h t o f i n j u r y ’ a s th e r e is a ‘ r i g h t o f p e r is h in g ’, below 4 6 6 s it iu s liceatque perire poetis.

(ii)

R o m a n d r a m a , 2 8 5 -9 4

For obvious reasons no distinction between a Greek literary tradition and the poet’s use of it can be made in this section. H. now sets Roman drama against the background of Greek. The new subject seems to come in abruptly, but has in fact been prepared in the preceding section (see above 275-84 n.). After the adaptation of the Greek dramatic forms (265 n.), national themes follow. There is high praise for this attempt and a patriotic note can be sensed. But satisfaction is shat­ tered, just as it was when Roman adaptations of Greek tragedy came up for judgement, E p . 11. 1. 164—7; U m a e l a b o r i s found wanting. Thus the simple plan according to literary genres is at the end of this large section conjoined with the motif of a r s , the true concern of an a r s p o e tic a . This motif, in the strongly contrasted form of Greek a r s vs. Roman igno­ r a ta a r s , was sounded in the preceding context on metre, 263 (258) ff. Now a whole constituent part of this poem closes with an appeal, which is given personal resonance by a renewed and solemn address to the Pisos as P o m p iliu s sa n g u is. Traditional Roman nobility is asked to take poetry seriously. 2 8 5 n il in c lu d e s G re e k d r a m a t ic fo rm s a d a p te d b y R o m a n p o ets. N e ith e r a d a p ta tio n s o f G re e k m y th o lo g ic a l tr a g e d y n o r o f G re e k n e w c o m e d y a r e sp ec ifie d in th e n e x t fe w v erses. intem ptatum : E p . 11. 1. 164 tem p ta u it quoque rem , s i digne uertere posset is c o m p a r a b le b u t so u n d s m a tte r- o f-fa c t in c o m p a r is o n . T h e re a so n

318

Commentary lies p a r tl y in th e s p o n d e e s o f th is lin e a n d p a r tl y in th e w o rd in g . intem ptatum s e e m s to b e a n e w w o r d in A u g u s ta n p o e try . I t is k n o w n o n ly fr o m tw o p la c e s b e f o r e t h i s : th e P y r r h a O d e , C. i. 5. 12—13 miseri quibus | in tem p ta ta n ites, a n d V irg . A . x . 3 9 - 4 0 haec intem ptata m anebat | sors rerum , fo r th e v a r i a n t r e a d in g a t A . v ili. 206 is less lik ely th a n in tr a c ta tu m ; t h e n fo llo w o th e r p o e ts a n d w rite rs o f S ilv e r p ro se , cf. T L L , v n . 1 .2 1 1 2 . 15—16. K .—H . su g g est t h a t th e w o rd w as m o d e lle d b y H . o n G r e e k ά π ε ί porros o r th e like. I n v iew o f th e d a te s o f th e p o e m s , a n d H . ’s fo n d n e s s fo r n e w , o r p r o b a b ly n ew , c o m p o u n d s w ith in - (cf. G . Z a n g e m e is te r , D e H or. voc. singularibus (cit. a b o v e 53 η ·), 14 ff·) t h a t is a t a n y r a te p o ssib le , notin’ h a s g r e a te r w a r m th t h a n t h e uictor o f E p . xi. 1. 156. N o te also th e v e rb liquere·, o f th e n in e o t h e r o c c u rre n c e s in H . o f t h e s im p le v e r b in s te a d o f th e co m ­ p o u n d , s e v e n c o m e i n t h e O des a n d tw o in p a r o d ie c o n te x ts o f th e B ru n d is iu m p o e m a n d t h e B o re (»S. 1. 5 . 3 5 , 9 . 74). M a r tia l p a ro d ie s th is v e rse , a n d p e r h a p s 2 8 7 , a t 11. 14. 1 n il intem ptatum Selius, nil linquit inausum .

2 8 6 —7 u estig ia ( Graeca ) | . . .deserere: th is is n o t q u ite th e C a llim a c h e a n m e t a p h o r o f t h e u n t r o d d e n p o e tic p a t h , n o te d in S te id le ’s Stu d ien , p. 1 4 1 , cf. P ro l. 109 n . 2, 181, P feiffer o n A etia 1. 1. 25; b u t i t d o u b tle s s h in ts a t it. a u si: t h e c r e a tiv e v e n t u r e , a b o v e 9 η . ; n o ta b ly o f th e p io n e e r, a b o v e 125, S', i i . i . 6 2 - 3 est L u c iliu s ausu s | p rim u s in hunc operis componere carm ina m orem . celebrare: th e g r e a t g e n r e s as C. 1. 7. 6, 12. 2. dom estica f a c t a : t h e n o t i o n is ‘h o m e ’, w i t h its e m o tio n a l o v e rto n e s; th e c o n tr a s t is externa, a lie n a , pereg rin a , a n d h e r e Graeca com es in th e s a m e c a te g o r y . T h e G re e k s , exem plaria Graeca a few verses e a rlie r, a re n o w extern i a s i t w e re , f a c t a i n L a t i n v erse (lik e acta fo r a d iffe re n t m e tr ic a l a n t e c e d e n t , c o n t r a s t O v . M e t. x iv . 108 w ith x v . 750) o ften h a s a fu ll p o e tic s o u n d : ‘a c h ie v e m e n ts ’ ; fo r H . see S. 1. 10. 4 2 -3 P ollio regum | f a c t a ca n it pede ter percusso, E p . ii . 1 .6 ingentia f , 130 recte f. refert, 2 3 7 sp le n d id a f . ; cf. a b o v e 73 res gestae·, 68 m ortalia f d iffers in

m e a n in g . I n th e n e x t v e rs e , h o w e v e r, n o t o n ly serio u s d r a m a b u t a lso c o m e d y , togata, is i n d i c a t e d , cf. 2 8 8 n . 288 H . c a lls d r a m a o n R o m a n to p ic s e ith e r praetexta o r togata. T h e v e rse is m o r e d iffic u lt t h a n i t see m s b e c a u s e th e m e a n in g o f th ese te r m s is n o t a g r e e d . A c c o r d i n g t o L . M u e lle r th e y a re tw o n a m e s fo r t h e s a m e o b je c t, s e r io u s R o m a n d r a m a , th e fo rm e r o n G re e k m y th ic a l s u b je c ts , th e l a t t e r R o m a n ‘ h is to r ie s ’. T h is d is tin c tio n is im p la u sib le , a l th o u g h i t m u s t b e a d m i t t e d t h a t 2 8 7 celebrare domestica fa c ta a n d 2 8 9 u ir tu te . . . a rm is p o i n t to s e rio u s d r a m a ; th e s e w o rd s p a r tl y p re c e d e 319

Commentary a n d p a r tl y fo llo w praetextas a n d togatas. N e v e rth e le s s th e c le a r division u e l. . . uel, im m e d ia te ly a f te r G re e k tr a g e d y a n d c o m e d y , m ak es it e x c e e d in g ly h a r d n o t to a c c e p t th e s a m e d is tin c tio n h e re , celebrare domestica fa c ta th e re fo re m u s t a p p l y to b o t h to p ic s, tr a g e d y a n d com ­ e d y o n R o m a n th e m e s , o r else b e tie d m o r e closely to praetextas', 289 uirtute a n d arm is a r e in a n y c a se c o n tr a s te d w ith lingua, a n d b elo n g to a d iffe re n t c o n te x t. F ro m th e {toga) p ra etexta o f R o m a n m a g is tr a te s t h e a d j . seem s to h a v e b e e n a p p lie d to f a b u l a t o d e n o te a serio u s d r a m a o n n a tio n a l th e m e s. A sin iu s P o llio , a t C ic. F a m . x . 32. 3 a n d 5, uses th e s h o rt form praetexta b e fo re H . ; P a u lu s , F e s t. 223 M . praetextae, m a y a t a n y ra te re p re s e n t F e stu s a n d p o ssib ly V e r r iu s F la c c u s, praetextata o n th e o th e r h a n d is th e te c h n ic a l te r m o f th e g r a m m a r ia n s , fo rm e d , it h a s b een su g g e ste d , o n th e m o d e l o f p a llia ta a n d th e lik e , togata, i n V a rro , fr. 306 (F u n a io li, G R F , p . 3 2 2 ), is a c o m e d y o n a R o m a n th e m e ; C ic. Sest. 118 ca lls s u c h a p la y b y A fr a n iu s b y t h a t n a m e . N o w togata w a s n o t a v e ry a c c u ra te te rm , fo r th o u g h i t d is tin g u is h e d th e R o m a n g a rm e n t fro m th e G re e k p a lliu m , fe w o f its p e rs o n a g e s a c tu a lly w o re a toga. H e n c e , W . K r o ll ( R - E , v i a . 1661. 10 ff.) c o n c lu d e d , la t e r R o m a n sc h o la rs tr ie d to im p ro v e n o m e n c la tu r e , a n d u se d togata as a g e n e ra l te r m fo r R o m a n p la y s o n n a t i o n a l su b je c ts, w h e th e r se rio u s o r not. C e rta in ly D io m . G L , 1. 4 8 9 . 14 ff. c ite s a n d c ritic iz e s th e p re se n t v erse o f th e A r s fo r th e com m unis error o f its n o m e n c la tu r e : praetextate1, h e p ro n o u n c e s , is a k in d o f togata, a n d H . sh o u ld h a v e c a lle d his togata b y th e n a m e o f tabernaria. F o r s im ila r e v id e n c e , see K ro ll, l° cB e a re , R o m . S ta g e3 ( 19 6 4 ), A p p e n d ix D . T h e e a r lie r h is to ry o f these n a m e s th e n is o b s c u re , b u t D io m e d e s ’ c ritic is m o f H . show s t h a t tr a d itio n a lly praetextas in th is v e rse w a s u n d e r s to o d a s se rio u s d r a m a o n R o m a n th e m e s, a n d togatas as c o m e d ie s o n R o m a n th e m e s ; w h ic h c o n firm s th e m o s t n a t u r a l i n te r p r e ta tio n , praetexta w a s firs t a tte m p te d b y N a e v iu s (L e o , Gesch. der röm. L it. 1. 8 9 ff., F ra e n k e l, R - E , S upp· v i. 6 2 7 . 19 f f ), la t e r b y t h e w e ll-k n o w n a r c h a ic tr a g e d ia n s ; it r e m a in e d a liv e g e n re d o w n to th e tim e o f d r a m a , a c te d o r re c ite d , i n th e first c e n tu r y a . d . a n d p r o b a b ly la te r . L e o ’s f u r th e r su g g estio n (op. cit. p. 9 2 ), im p u tin g t o N a e v iu s th e c r e a tio n also o f togata is o p e n to c o n s id e ra b le d o u b t (cf. F r a e n k e l, op. cit. 631. 38 ff.). O f th e th re e s t a n d a r d a u th o rs o f t h a t g e n re , T itin iu s is u n d a t e d , A fra n iu s a n d A t t a lin k th e g e n e ra tio n s o f th e G ra c c h i a n d S u lla . S e n . E p . 8. 8 ta lk s o f t h e g e n re w ith f a m ilia r ity , b u t o f c o n te m p o r a r y togatae in his tim e o r in t h a t o f H . n o th in g is k n o w n . docuere ‘p r o d u c e d ’, d iffe rs fr o m th e n o tio n o f th e v e rb a t 2 8 0 . I t re n d e rs G re e k δ ιδά σ κ ειν ( T L L , v . 1. 1729. 4 5 ff.), a s i n C ic e ro a n d

320

C o m m e n ta r y p r o b a b ly A c c iu s , cf. G ic. B r u t. 2 2 9 (A ccius, fr. 20, F u n a io li, op. cit. p . 30) A cciu s isdem a ed ilib u s a it se et P acuuium docuisse fa b u la m . 289 I f V i r g i l ’s excudent a lii a n d L u c r e tiu s ’ p a tr ii sermonis egestas a re a t a ll c o m p a r a b le , H . d r a w s p re c is e ly th e o p p o s ite c o n c lu sio n fro m s im ila r fa c ts, cf. S te id le , S tu d ien , p . 142. R o m e , H . is a sse rtin g , h a s th e p o te n t i a l i ty to m a t c h h e r s ta tu s i n th e w o rld b y h e r p o e try . Cf. E p . ii. i . 3 2 - 3 u en im u s a d su m m u m fo rtu n a e , e tc ., 61 R om a potens. 289 fo r e t: a c o n v e n ie n t m e tr ic a l s ta n d - b y fo r esset, o n ly h e re in th e A r s , r a r e i n t h e O des a n d th e o t h e r E p istles, b u t fr e q u e n t in Satires 1. -que (c o d d . B C K ) r a t h e r t h a n -ue (re ll.) is su g g ested b y th e c o m ­ b in a tio n uirtute—a rm is. S o I h a d w r itte n w h e n I n o tic e d t h a t P eerlk a m p a n d L . M u e l l e r h a d s p o n s o re d -que ; b u t th e y h a v e b e e n ig n o re d . Cf. L iv . v i i . 6 . 3 a n u llu m m a g is R om a n u m bonum quam arma uirtusque esset? — a ls o s u c h lo c u tio n s as u i et arm is, arm is anim isque, T L L , 11. 593 · 17 a n d 29. poten tiu s: th e w o r d se e m s to h a v e b e e n fe rtile g ro u n d fo r p u n n in g — ‘ p o w e r ’ i n its d i f f e r e n t c o n n o t a t i o n s : V irg . A . 1. 531 terra antiqua, potens a rm is atque ubere g laebae, O v . F a st. n i. 281 armisque potentius aequum est. M e t. v i. 6 7 8 . H e r e th e p o te n c y o f a rm s a n d p o e try a re c o n jo in e d ; fo r t h e l a t t e r cf. C. h i. 30. 1 0 -1 2 d ica r. . .e x hum ili potens, IV. 8. 2 6 - 7 lin g u a p o te n tiu m | uatum . 290 lin g u a L a tiu m : cf. E p . 11. 2 . 121 L a tium que beabit diuite lingua. unum , fo r t h e e n j a m b e m e n t, see n e x t n o te . 2 9 0 -1 u n u m I quem que: p r e s u m a b ly th e lin e d iv isio n serves to p u t e m p h a s is o n ‘o n e a n d a l l ’, as R o s ta g n i su g g ests. T h e sa m e e n ja m b e ­ m e n t o c c u rs a t S . 1. 9. 5 1 —2 est locus u n i | cuique suus, E p . 11. 2. 1 8 8 -9 m ortalis in u n u m \ quodque ca p u t, th u s o b v ia tin g O re lli’s e x p la n a tio n o f m a litio sa ironia i n th is p a s s a g e , unus quisque is n o t in th e class la b e lle d tm e sis i n s u c h p a s s a g e s a s 4 2 4 - 5 inter-\noscere a n d ev e n less t h a n S . n . 3. 1 1 7 -1 8 unde-\octoginta. 291 lim a e labor et m o ra : t h e ttóvos a n d άγρυττνίη o f th e C allim a c h e a n s , t h e t r o u b l e a n d t i m e d e m a n d e d b y a ri- τ έ χ ν η , a m o tif k n o w n fr o m a ll p a r t s o f th is p o e m . B u t h e r e it is n o t o n ly a d e m a n d fo r w h a t t h e R o m a n s la c k b u t a ls o ex p resses c o n fid e n c e th a t it is a g o a l w o r t h a t t a i n i n g , f o r e t . . .p o te n tiu s . . L a tiu m . T h e file, lim a, re calls th e fin e a r ts c o n s id e r e d a t t h e b e g in n in g o f th e p o e m ; lim atus h o w ­ e v e r d e s c rib e d a n i d e a l o f s ty le b e fo re H ., e.g . C ic. B ru t. 93 lim atius dicend i. . .g e n u s, D e O r. 1. 180 (homo) oratione m axim e lim atus. T h u s S . ΐ· io . 6 5 —6 f u e r i t lim a tio r id e m | quam ru d is e t Graecis intacti carminis auctor. T h e A u g u s tu s e x p re sse s a s im ila r s e n tim e n t to th e A rs\ E p . ii. i . 166—7 n a m s p ir a t tra g icu m sa tis et fe lic ite r audet, | sed turpem p u ta t inscite m etuitque litu ra m . 321

B H A

C o m m e n ta r y 2 9 2 (uos 0) P om pilius sa n g u is: th e fo u r th a d d re s s b y n a m e in th e p o e m (cf. a b o v e 6 n .) a n d e a sily th e m o s t so le m n , in v o k in g th e royal lin e o f N u m a P o m p iliu s . T h is d o e s n o t e x c lu d e b u t r a t h e r in ten sifies a g e n e ra l a p p lic a tio n , a s R o s ta g n i n o te s. P o r p h . a d I. quia C alpus filius est N u m a e, a quo C a lpurnii P isones traxerunt nomen. F . M ü n z e r , R - E , hi. 1365. 12 r e m a r k s t h a t th e p le b e ia n gen s C alpurnia, e sp e c ia lly th ro u g h th e P is o n ia n fa m ily , a t t a i n e d in flu e n c e i n t h e firs t c e n tu r y B .c.; he assu m es t h a t th e fa n c ifu l g e n e a lo g y b e lo n g s to t h a t tim e . F o r o th e r refs, see ibid. T h e first P iso to p u t a p o r t r a it o f N u m a o n h is co in s w as C n . P iso, cos. 23 b .c ., w h o is a m o d e r n , a n d I th in k u n lik e ly , c a n d i­ d a te fo r th e p la c e o f th e p a te r o f H . ’s d e d ic a tio n , cf. 24, 3 6 6 , 3 8 8 , a n d Prol. 239. T h e n o m . o f th e a d d r e s s , P o m p iliu s, a n d th e v o c a tiv e p a r tic le 0, a d d to th e a r c h a ic s o le m n ity (o v e r-so le m n ity , it w o u ld see m ) o f p h ra sin g , see J . S v e n n u n g , A nredeform en, e tc . ( L u n d , 1 9 5 8 ), p . 2 7 0 , H o f m a n n S z a n ty r, 25. S o to o d o es sanguis, cf. V irg . A . v i. 8 3 5 (tu) sanguis meus; b u t th e e p ic p o e t’s s o le m n ity b e fits th e s u b je c t. P e rsiu s m a g n ifie s w h a t in H . is a s tu d ie d in c o n g r u ity b e tw e e n th e e le v a te d a d d re s s a n d th e p e d e s tr ia n s u b je c t o f labor b y h is o w n s tro n g ly d e ris o ry n o te , 1. 61—2 uos, 0 pa triciu s sanguis, quos uiuere f a s est j occipiti caeco, posticae occurrite sannae. B e h in d t h e V ir g ilia n p a t t e r n s ta n d s E n n iu s , A n n . 113 f· ( V .2), 0 pater, 0 genitor, 0 sanguen d is oriundum , tu, etc. carmen reprehendite: th e c r itic a l sense o f th e N e w P o e ts. D o u b tle ss H . m e a n s w h a t h e say s, b u t th e s o le m n ity is so g r e a t t h a t a h u m o ro u s b a th o s is in e v ita b le a n d c a n sc a rc e ly b e u n in te n tio n a l. I t w ill n o t b e a c o in c id e n c e e ith e r t h a t th e v e ry to n e o f h is p r o n o u n c e m e n t p u ts la b o rio u s a r t i n its p la c e , w h e re a s , in th e s e q u e l, h e a v y iro n y d e v a lu e s ingenium b e y o n d a ll re c o g n itio n . 2 9 3 m u lta dies looks b a c k to 291 mora, a n d m u lta litu ra to lim ae labor , m u lta is e m p h a tic a lly r e p e a te d a s C. 11. 16. 2 3 - 4 ocior cernis e t. . .ocior E uro, a n d in th e sty le o f s a tire , S . 11. 3. 325 m ille . . .m ille . F o r m ultus sin g , see 2 0 3 n . ; fo r dies fern, in H . a n d o t h e r h e x a m e te r v e rse , see T E L , V. i . 1024, E . F ra e n k e l, d o t t a , v in (1 9 1 7 ), 6 0 ff. (r e p r. K l. B eitr. i. 63 ff. dies h e r e a p p r o a c h e s t h e sense o f d u r a ti o n , spatium temporis·, F r a e n k e l, K l. B e itr. 1. 6 4 n . 2, c o m p a re s L u c r . in . 9 0 8 , iv . 1031, V irg . A . ix . 7 uoluenda dies. m u ltu s(-a ) dies is ‘ n o o n ’, ‘ a f te rn o o n fro m P la u tu s o n w a rd s (P I. P s. 1158, L iv . in . 60. 8, S ta t. S ili'. ΐ· 5 · 4 5) ; th e n o tio n ‘m u c h t i m e ’ is n o t k n o w n b e fo re th is p a ssa g e , la te r o n ly r a r e ly i n p o e tr y o r p o e tic p ro se , as S ii. in . 382, x m . 853, ps·Q u in t. D eci. M a i. 6. 11 (e d . L e h n e rt, p . 121. 5 ). coercuit ‘ k e e p w ith in b o u n d s , c h e c k , c o n t r o l ’. T h e v o c a b u la r y o f lite r a r y c ritic is m is b o u n d to b e m e ta p h o r ic a l, e.g . th e v e rb s 322

C o m m e n ta ry e m p lo y e d b e lo w 4 4 5 —9 a n d E p . 11. 2. 1 2 2 -3 d ra w o n law , politics, th e a r m y a n d a g r ic u l tu r e , coercere is a p p lie d to th e ‘ flo w ’ o f his y o u th fu l r h e to r ic b y C ic. B r u t. 3 1 6 u t nim is redundantes nos et supra flu en tes. . . reprimeret et q u a si extra ripas diffluentes coerceret. B u t it m a y connote ‘p r u n i n g ’, e .g . Q u i n t . 1. 0 . ix . 4. 5 cur uites coercemus m anu? Q u in t, e m p lo y s b o t h m e ta p h o r s , cf. 1 . 0 . ix . 2. 76 nerba ui quadam ueritatis eru m p e n tia . . .coercere, x . 4. 1 exaltantia coercere, x 11. 1. 20 (w ith reference to C ic. B r u t. 3 1 6 c ite d a b o v e ) abscisurum a n d coercuisse. T h e corres­ p o n d in g t e r m i n th e n e x t v e rse is castigauit. 294 deciens ‘ m a n y ti m e s ’, as b elo w 365 d. repetita placebit, E p. i. 18. 25 decem u itiis w i t h K ,—H . ’s n o te ; cf. T L L , v . 1. 168. 55 ff. ; for the s p e llin g , see K e lle r , E p ileg . 418 o n C .S . 21. T h e w o rd co u ld be οπτό κ ο ιν ο ί/ w i t h praesectum as w ell as w ith castigauit b u t is m ore likely to q u a l i f y p raesectum , th u s c o n tin u in g m ulta dies et multa litura, cf. ad unguem b e lo w . ca stig a u it, o f te n o f m o r a l ‘c o r r e c tio n ’, b u t in a lite ra ry co n tex t p a r a lle le d o n ly fr o m S y m m . E p . 1. 4. 1 { T L L , in. 533· 1 I)· p ra e s e c tu m . . .a d unguem : pfectum a n d p fe c tu m a re easily confused in m in u s c u le s c r i p t ; c o m p a r e also perspectum co d . t t (second p in ras.), p erfectu m , i n m o s t o f th e M S S , p s.-A cro , Tract. Vind., could b e tak en fo r t h e t r a n s m i t t e d te x t, w h e re a s praesectum m a y look like a clever C a r o l i n g i a n e m e n d a t io n . B u t praesectum is in som e o f th e b est M S S, n o t o n ly B a n d a p p a r e n t l y C , w h ic h o fte n fo rm a g ro u p , b u t B land. V e t .; c o n t r a r y t o a p p e a r a n c e s th is re a d in g m a y b e m u c h th e older. a d u n g u em r e c a lls G r e e k εις ό ν υ χ α , δ ι’ övuyos, w h ich do n o t how ever c o n t r i b u t e to t h e p r e s e n t p r o b le m ; fo r ev id en c e see E rasm us, Adagia, Ι· 5 · 9 1} C a s a u b o n o n P e rs. 1. 65, O . J a h n , ibid., W y tte n b a c h on ut. Q uom odo sent, p ro fectu s, 86 a ; also A . O tto , Sprichwörter, 357p r a e s e c tu m . . . a d unguem ‘b y th e w e ll-p a re d n a il , is a t rst sig t a t t r a c t i v e ; ungues ponere (2 9 7 ) is th o u g h t to p o in t b ac k to it, a n d th e r e a d i n g is a c c e p te d w ith little o r n o a rg u m e n t b y all re c e n t edi­ to rs . T h e y h a v e th e s u p p o r t o f th e b e st critics in th e H o ra tia n h e ld ; B e n tle y , b e fo re h im L a m b in u s , a n d l a te r M ein ek e a n u n ro , a p r i n t p ra esectu m , m is ta k e n ly , I th in k — if, as th e y assum e, t a t w or q u a lifie s a d un g u em . I t m a k e s sense n e ith e r to th e sto n em aso n n o r o th e L a t i n i s t. T a k e first t h e s to n e m a so n o r w o rk e r in m arb le. Fs.-A cro c o m m e n ts , ‘a d u n g u e m t r a c t u m a marmorariis qui luncturas marmorum ungue p e rte m p ta n t. a lib i (S . i. 5. 3 2 -3 ) un&uem f a t u s omo . a

I

unguem a u tem a d perfectionem , a d examen, hoc est ad P^rf ec u1f l m ™ L ik e w is e p s .- A c r o a n d P o rp h y rio n o n S . 1. 5. 3 2> c 0 ' tT *' ' ’ Corp. G loss, v . 5 6 0 . 9 (e d . G o e tz ) a d unguem : ad plenum , a d perfection ^

S o f a r th e r e f o r e fr o m h a v i n g to p a r e h is nails, th e m aso n needs th

323

21*2

C o m m en ta ry ^ t e s t i n g a tru e j o in , i f h e tests i t t h a t w a y . N o r is th e ca se saved by i ins assertio n t h a t a re c e n tly p a r e d n a il is ‘ m o re sensitive to irre g u a n ties . T h e L a tin is t is serv ed n o b e tte r b y th is re a d in g , ad unguem, to a n ic e ty , a c c e p ts a n a t t r i b u t e a s u n c o m m o n ly as in annos (a b o v e, 60) ; in b o th cases th e a ttr ib u te o ffered b y th e M S S should p u t t e e d ito r o n his g u a rd . C f. S . i . 5 . 32—3 a d unguem ) fa c tu s homo, U ii. Xi. 2. 13 dolari a d unguem , A p u l. Socr. p ro l. 3 (107 H .) ad unguem coaequatum, A u s . E el. 3. 3 (e d . P e ip e r, p . 90) explorat a d unguem, M acr. òat. i. i h 38 a d unguem, u t aiunt, emendatum, B o eth . M u s . v. 2 (p. 352. 2 ° e . rie d le in ) a d unguem expolitae, et al. E n n o d iu s w a s fo n d o f this m o e 0 sP eech ) O tto , Sprichw örter , 357, cites six in sta n c e s: ad unguem p o lita conuersatio; p o liti sermonis·, ducta uita', docti', fabricantur (tw ice ). T h e r e a re o th e rs , esp e c ia lly B ie t. 3 (7) . 6 (p . 7. 21 e d . Vogel, p . 444· 2 1 H a rte l) nobilitatem m etalli, n isi a d unguem m anus ducat artificis, in unguem m a y b e c o m p a re d : V irg . G. 11. 2 2 7 - 8 omnis ( uia) in unguem j . p a t r e t Ceis. v m . 1. 3 suturae in unguem com m ittuntur, ‘fit to g e th e r e x a c t y , V itr. iv . 6. 2 in unguem . . .coniungantur. I t is t r u e T e r . M a u r. 344 says p o lm it usque fin em a d unguis extim um , ‘to th e tip o f th e n a il’,

o t e n ic e st n ic e ty ; b u t e v e n i f T e r e n tia n u s w e re a so u rc e o f classica a tim ty , th ese w o rd s w o u ld n o t e x p la in praesectum a d unguem. N o r o see w h y B e n tle y sh o u ld h a v e d r a w n e n c o u ra g e m e n t fro m Sid. p . I x · 7- 3 non impacto digitus ungue perlabitur. F o r th is o n ly show s th e m e ta p o r in a c tio n , a s does P ers. 1. 6 3 -5 ( n o t u n in flu e n c e d b y H .) a r m in a m o 1 j . . .numero flu ere, u t p e r leue seueros I effundat iunctura ungues. ese p assag es d o n o t p a r a lle l p raesectum . . .a d unguem . , n 1S e ltlo n ° f ) 8 i i C a rlo F e a m a d e t h e a rc h a e o lo g is t’s p o in t o u m a s o n ry a g a in st B e n tle y a n d b r o u g h t th e r e a d in g perfectum “

° r e ,te x t; h e w as follow ed b y O re lli, S c h ü tz , K e lle r (E pil. a r f n *7 -W 0t^ ers' e x p la n a tio n w a s, ‘ quod non castigauit adeo,

It

exP ° 1 um i euigatum, perfectum d ici p o ssit usque a d experimentum unguis ft /C r° WOV ^ ^ av e a g re e d , fo r h e p a r a p h r a s e d cum ia m perfectum maeretur- a n d perfectum seem s to h a v e b ee n a te r m fo r a tr u e jo in ;

P. °,n ' I- 5· 3 2 iuncturas marm orum tum demum p e rfe c ta s dicunt si f,UlS suPer f ius non offendat. W h e th e r perfectum th u s u sed is w h a t they J 51·0 nhra o' ^S th p

λι

or. n o ^ ^ m ak es te n a b le g r a m m a r . W h a t gives one th e w o rd i n th e m id s t o f v e r y vigorous S0’ W^ y SCI-ib e s s h o u ld c o r r u p t th e c o m m o n perfectum to ° r 1I*a r *n e ^s

a n o ld gloss*0*1 ^ raesectum *s ^ ar an _12 1 j Idem, M elancholie und M elancholiker (1 0 6 6 ), a n d the w o rk s c ite d b y L u c a s, op. cit. p p . 2 8 6 -7 . . ue™ temporis: sp rin g , a c c o rd in g to C elsus 11. 13 (cit. a b o v e 300 n.) is t e m o st p ro fita b le season fo r a d m in is te rin g h e lle b o re . P orph. omnes em m uerno tempore purgationem sum unt, quod uocatur καθαρτικόν. sub ..h o r a m : o fte n lik e ώ ρ α = ‘s e a s o n ’ in p o e try a n d S ilv er a n d a te L a tin , I L L , v i. 3. 2964. 1 ff. F ir s t k n o w n fro m H ., th u s C. 1. 12. i5 ~ ib u a r u s q u e mundum | temperat horis { h p p ite r ), in . 1 3 . 9 , ^ . 1. 16. 16. e c irc u m s ta n tia l p o e tic ism clashes w ith th e re a listic purgor bilem: th is su its H . ’s p a te n t iro n y . 303 non alius fa cere t meliora poem ata su p p resses su c h a p ro tasis as ist purgarer a n d ru sh es to se lf-in d ic tm e n t. T h is iro n ic d im in u tio n o f m s o w n s ta tu s H . h a s p ra c tis e d th ro u g h o u t h is c a re e r fro m S. 1. 4· 13 h . o n w a rd s, e v e r-c h a n g in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e s c o p e o f the CW m st;ances are as a m u sin g ly a n d d is a rm in g ly am b ig u o u s ntK e p re s e n t ° n e · O t h e r u sers o f th e d r u g t h a n H . h a v e suffered ,· Cp S ra n ^ e ec ts· T h e c u r e m a y h a v e p u t C h ry sip p u s in a p ro d u c ­ i t ra m e o n u n d , see a b o v e 3 0 0 n . o n tribus A nticyris; b u t th e poor . f . D' 2 ‘ e m e rg e d w h o lly d isillu sio n e d , a n d th e ‘a k a d . ^ s o ffsp rin g affec te d g e n e tic a lly , p r o d u c in g a n epic p o e m d r u n k w ith h e lle b o r e 5, P ers. 1. 5 0 -1 Ilia s A t t i | ebria ueratro. u e r u m f b u t in d e e d 5, cf. a b o v e 225 n . 304 m l ta n ti est is often elliptic in colloquial usage (Doederlein

< “

'ι · S° . t at * e Sentence has to be completed from the context, l is WOrth 80 ( a · . . . ) * . T h u s Cic. A t t . II. 1 3 .2 q u a r e ...

lh a ri)

m ratus tlb l Possu m dicere n ih il esse tanti (sc. quanti philoso-

H e n rp h*. 3’ 4 2 'Λ 5 S e n · Contr- vii. 3. 10, S en . B en. n . 5. 2. sanum fi Γ ’ aS j ° e and for rhetoric, Cic. D e O r., especially 1. 45 ff·, in. Φ O r. 14 ff., Quint. 1 . 0 . XII, ch. 2. 309

scribendi recte: a c c o rd in g to p rin c ip le s o r ru le s t h a t m a y b e stated , as in legitimum. . .poema E p . n . 2. 109, legitim um . . .sonum ab o v e 274· rectum, τ ό ορθόν, is w h a t is r ig h t, n o t o n ly in m o ra l b u t in aesthetic th e o ry , cf. 140, 319, 363, a n d th e species recti a b o v e 25, S. 1. 4· 13- > sapere, m o re s tro n g ly t h a n sapientia, keeps a lin k w ith sapor, ‘taste a n d th e lik e, cf. 4 6 n . callidus, 218 sagax. T h e a r c h a ic w isd o m o f the o ld ‘p o e ts ’ h o w e v e r is c a lle d sapientia, 396. O th e rs professing o th er artes also d e m a n d e d ‘p h ilo s o p h y ’, n o ta b ly C icero a n d Q u in tilia n in th e ir rh e to ric . T h is does n o t, as h a s b e e n th o u g h t, m a k e H . a C icero ­ n ia n . T h e d e m a n d s o f th e tw o w riters d iffer, as th e seq u el w ill show. principium etfons: th e first n o u n , like G re ek ά ρ χ ή , stresses b eg in n in g a n d p rin c ip le , th e second ‘d e r iv a tio n ’ fro m th e fo u n ta in h e a d . N o rd e n

338

Commentary {op. cit. 4 98 n . 2) h a s s h o w n t h e p a i r i n g to b e G re e k also, S tra b o , 1.

18 π η γ ή κ α ι α ρ χ ή φ ρ ά σ ε ω ν . . .ρ η τ ο ρ ικ ή ς ύ π ή ρ ξ ε ν ή π ο ιη τ ικ ή . C . P lu t. Quomodo a d u l. ab a m . 5 6 b o n e th o s, α ρ χ ή ν καί π η γ ή ν τ ο υ βίου. I n L a tin E p . ι. ΐ 7 · 45 a tq u i reram caput hoc erat, hic fo n s , C ic. D e Or. 1. 42 ab illo fo n te et capite Socrate, 11. 1 1 q, al. 310 rem . . .ostendere: t h e v e r b is ‘ r e v e a l’, cf. 7 0 η . monstrauit Homerus. W o r d s a r e s e p a r a t e d fr o m s u b je c t- m a tte r , a lth o u g h in goo p o e try th e tw o c o a le s c e i n s e p a r a b l y . P rio rity is g iv e n to res d e riv e , as m o ra l p r in c ip le s , f r o m w h a t H . c a lls Socraticae chartae. Socraticae. . . chartae ( s p e lt ch a - i n B C K ., P o r p h . c o d . M , s. x , ca- c e t i . , R , th e b e s t o r t h o g r a p h e r , h a s ca-, b u t cha- in all o th e r places m H o ra c e ). P o r th e s e w o r d s , cf. P ro l. 131 n . I a d v o c a tin g th e n o tio n ‘m o ra l t h e o r y ’, a l t h o u g h t h e w i d e r n o tio n o f Socratici M in o r S o cratics as w e ll as P la to n is ts , A ris to te lia n s , a n d S toics c a n n o t a n n e e d n o t b e e x c lu d e d . L u c iliu s in a n u n k n o w n c o n te x t em p lo y e sim ila r w o r d in g (fr. 7 0 9 ( M a r x ) \n e c sic u b i Graeci ? t ubi nunc Socratici carti? {charti G , ca rth i L ) . T h e u n i q u e a n d a r c h a ic cartus p re serv es th e g e n d e r o f G r e e k ό χ ά ρ τ η ς . W h e n th e w o r d r e a p p e a rs in V a rro , C icero , C a tu llu s , i t is f e m in in e , cf. V a r r o ap. C h a r . G L , 1. 104 V arro . . . a i t uocabula ex Graeco su m p ta , si suum genus non retineant, ex masculino in fe m in in u m L a tin e transire et ‘ α ’ littera term inari u e lu t. . χ ά ρ τ η ς , charta. H . is c e r t a i n l y n o t c o r re c tin g t h e style o f th e a rc h a ic

p o e t, as R o s ta g n i s u g g e s ts . F o r e v e n i n its c o r r u p t s ta te th e L u c i ìa n verse c a n b e s e e n to b e so d i f f e r e n t fr o m H . as to r e n d e r ev en a n allu sio n d u b io u s . T h i s a p p lie s e m p h a tic a lly t o th e fa r-flu n g guesses o f G . C . F is k e , ‘ L u c iliu s a n d H . ’, W ise . S t. v i i (1 9 2 0 ), 4 6 0 f. I f a n y th in g , th e L u c ilia n c o n t e x t m a y b e clo ser to P ro p . n . 34 1 )· 27 Socraticis. . .lib r is , a s F . M a r x s u g g e s te d {ad I. L u c il.). T h e P ro p e r tia n p assag e s h o u ld b e a d d e d to th o s e se t d o w n Prol. 131 n. x as a n o th e r po ssib le in s ta n c e fo r t h e n o t i o n *m o r a l p h ilo s o p h y . poterunt {ostendere ) : e m p h a t i c f o r ostendent, cf. possent, 74 n · R o sta g n i, fo llo w in g H e in z e , ig n o re s th is id io m i n s a y in g ‘p o te ru n t. .^.e n o n g ia ostendent, a p p u n t o p e r c h è si t r a t t a d ’u n e se m p io so lta n to . T h e c o n tra r y is th e c a s e . . 311 u erb a . . .r e m . . .se q u e n tu r: o n e o f s e v e ra l in sta n c e s in w h ic re p e a ts a to p ic , o r e x p re s s e s a s e n tim e n t, a lre a d y p re -e m p te d m a d iffe re n t p a r t o f t h e p o e m so t h a t lig h t fa lls o n i t fro m d iffe re n t q u a r te rs , c f P ro l. 2 4 4 fr., 261 ff. H e r e , as N o r d e n loc. c it.p o o f. h a s seen, 40-1 m a y b e c o m p a r e d , cu i lecta potenter erit res | n e c fa c u n d ia deseret hunc nec lucidus ordo. I n b o t h c a se s H . in c u lc a te s h is c r e e d — th e p o e t m u s t h a v e so m e th in g to s a y ; i f a r i is a t h is c o m m a n d , t h e re s t w ill follow . B u t, in th e c o n te x t o f ars, a t 4 0 , u n i t y is t h e t h i n g a im e d a t a n d th e re st w ill

339

2 2 -2

Commentary fo llo w fro m th e r ig h t c h o ic e o f task , w h a te v e r i t b e. I n th e c o n te x t of a rtife x, in th is p a ssa g e , th e p o e t’s e q u i p m e n t is to t h e fore a n d the

c h o ic e o f p o e tic ‘s u b s ta n c e ’ is p re s c rib e d . T h e E ld e r C a to sa id rem. tene, nerba sequentur ( H . J o r d a n , p . 8 0 ; for a p o ssib le G re ek b a c k g ro u n d o f th e sa y in g , see D io n . H a l. Lysias, ch . 4 , e sp e c ia lly p . 13. 7, e d . U s . - R a .) . H . a p p lie s th e praeceptum paene diuinum (J u l. V ic i., H a lm , R h et. L a t. M in . 3 4 7 . 17) to a d ifferen t p u rp o s e , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e s u rp ris e d t h e o ld C e n s o r ; so p e r h a p s did A sin iu s P o llio [ap. P o rp h . a d I.) m ale hercule eueniat uerbis nisi rem sequuntur. H . ’s res h a s tw o a s p e c ts : th e p rin c ip le s , s o o n re v e a le d as m o ra l, w h ic h th e p o e t g e ts fro m h is e a r ly s tu d y o f p h ilo s o p h y , a n d the s u b je c t- m a tte r ’ o n w h ic h h e w ill d r a w i n w r itin g p o e try . C icero ’ a n d Q u in tilia n ’s d e m a n d s fo r p h ilo s o p h ic a l r h e to r ic h a v e a sim ilar tw o -sid ed n ess. prouisam (rem ): a te c h n ic a l t e r m o f t h e G re e k l i te r a r y critics, m a d e to fit la n g u a g e n o t so te c h n ic a l. T h e m ateria, instrum enta, etc. o f the tex tb o o k s m a y b e c o m p a r e d . T h e G r e e k t e r m is ττρονοούμενα (-η σ ά μ ενα ), d is c o v e re d b y C . J e n s e n i n P h ilo d . P oem . v . 3 , in n o n e o f th re e in s ta n c e s fu lly p re s e rv e d b u t lin e s 14, 2 4 , 25 c o n firm e a c h o th e r , sin ce c le a rly th e s a m e w o rd is u s e d ; cf. J e n s e n , p p . 1 1 5 h P h ilo d e m u s is a tta c k in g a th e o r y — h a r d ly N e o p to le m u s ’, as J e n s e n (a t first) a n d R o s ta g n i t h o u g h t— w h ic h b u r d e n s th e p o e t w ith a n u n n e c e s s a rily e n c y c lo p a e d ic s to re o f k n o w le d g e . T h is re c a lls c e rta in fe a tu re s (n o m o re ) o f th e p h ilo s o p h ic ‘ p r o v is io n ’ d e m a n d e d b y H· fo r th e p o e t, a n d b y C ic e ro a n d Q u i n t i li a n fo r th e o r a to r . T h e o n ly p a r a lle l fo r th e lite r a r y use o f p ro u isu m t h a t I c a n fin d in th e collec­ tio n s o f th e L a t i n Thesaurus is Q u in t. 1. 0 . x . 7. 8 u t . . .nostram uocem prouisa et fo r m a ta cogitatio excipiat. B u t o f c o u rse t h e g e n e ra l n o tio n o f p ro v isio n s ’ w a s w e ll e sta b lis h e d : E p . i . 18. io g —10 prouisae f r u g i s . . . | copia, also fru m e n tu m prouisum in th e h is to ria n s , a n d prouisum g e n e ra lly in C icero a n d o th e rs , e.g . L o el. 6 m u l t a . . .prouisa prudenter. H . m a y h a v e e x te n d e d th e m e a n in g u n d e r H e lle n is tic in flu e n c e . non inulta: p e rso n ifie d as a t E p . 11. 2. 113 uerba mouere loco, quamuis inuita recedant, e x te n d in g w ith o u t s tr a in th e m e ta p h o r i n C a to s sequentur.

3 1* - *6 re v e a l th e k in d o f sapere d e m a n d e d o f t h e p o e t— m o ral p rin c ip le a n d a k n o w le d g e o f ty p ic a l h u m a n fe a tu re s d e riv e d fro m e th ics. H . show s n o n e o f C ic e ro ’s d e sire to m a k e r h e to r ic in to a n in te lle c tu a l d is c ip lin e b y b a s in g i t o n p h ilo s o p h y a n d th u s to h e a l th e b r e a c h b e tw e e n sp e e c h a n d th o u g h t ; th u s C ra ssu s a t D e Or. in . 5 6 -8 1 , th o u g h th e sa m e s p e a k e r re s tric ts th e o r a t o r ’s p h ilo so p h y to m o ra l th e o r y a t 1. 69 qua re hie locus de u ita et m oribus totus est oratori

Commentary perdiscendus; cetera si non didicerit, tamen poterit, etc. E ven less does h e show Q u in tilia n ’s e d u c a tio n a l fe rv o u r, 1 . 0 . x n , ch. 2. T h e a b stra c ­

tions o f m o ra l th e o r y a r e a v o id e d ; H . m akes th e re a d e r c o n tem p late th e affectio n s a n d o b lig a tio n s in th e so cial se ttin g : love o f co u n try , fam ily, frie n d s (cf. P la to , R e p . in . 3 8 6 a , god s, fam ily, fr ie n d s ), o b lig a­ tions o f s e n a to r, j u d g e , m i lita r y le a d e r . T h e p h ilo so p h ers system atize such tr a d itio n a l m o r a l q u a litie s a s a r e set o u t in th e A rs a n d in Lucilius’ lo n g f r a g m e n t o n th e v irtu e s (frs. 1326-38, cit. Prol. 131 n. 2). T h u s P a n a e tiu s , r e s ta te d b y C ic . O ff. 1. φ p a tria . . .parentes . . . liberi totaque d o m u s. . .bene conuenientes propinqui, h as b e e n c o m p a re w ith L u ciliu s (F . M a r x a d I.) a n d m a y b e c o m p a re d w ith A .P . 3 x 2 13. B u t th e re is n o th in g sp e c ific a lly S to ic in H .’s a c c o u n t o f socia relatio n sh ip s a n d o b lig a tio n s o f m a g is tra te s , cf. Prol. 136 n. 4· n p a rtic u la r I fin d n o tr a c e o f th e ev e r-w id e n in g circles 0 socxa officia t h a t a r e a s ig n ific a n t f e a tu r e o f S to ic ac co u n ts. I f th e re was sue a n o rd e r o f th in g s , H . h a s b r o k e n i t u p a n d re a rra n g e d it w ith a lig h t to u ch : p a tria a w a y fr o m parens a n d fr a te r , w h o h o w ev er a re closely co n n ected t h r o u g h th e απτό κ ο ιν ο ύ p o sitio n a n d th e assonance amore. . .am andus', am icis a w a y fr o m hospes. R a th e r th e m u t i p i c i t y o f re la tio n sh ip s is b r o u g h t o u t : q u i d . . . quid, q u o . . . quo, q u o d . . . quod·, H . is fo n d o f m a r k in g a v a r ie ty o f asp ects in th is w ay, e.g. above 3 0 7 -8 u n d e . . .q u id . . . j q u id . . .q u id , quo. . .quo, o r b p . 1. 1 41- 3 · 312 didicit: t h e t r a i n i n g o f t h e s tu d e n t; a t 318 h e em erg tra in e d , a n d is r e a d y to a p p ly t h e Ρ ™ Ρ find in g a S toic uir quid debeat h a s b e e n m a d e m u c h o f b y £ , . · owecp i t is bonus in th is v erse. B u t i f ‘h e o w e s ’ is m o r e t h a r 1 ‘w h a U s o w e ^ ^ as aw aren ess o f p r in c ip le , a t m o s t so m e th

g

si sit a d proelium m iles cohortandus, e x m edus sapie trahet?. . .quae certe m e l i u s persuadebit a lu s qui p n

praeceptis orationem persuaserit sibi, etc. P

Cf. ab o v e ι ο ί u t ridentibus arrident, e tc. { l a p atres conscripti is 3*4 conscripti. . . officium : t h e o r ig in o f hat

115 ·, ty p es o f c h a r a c te r w h ic h d o u b tle ss a r e P a n a e tiu s’

i m n r ^ 0 m f ^ a d n d re ss- B u t n e ith e r is p u t w ith th e d o c trin a l t S ; A ? ? r h a t w o u ld ju s tif y c a llin g th e m P la to n ic o r S toic. C eris o e la n im p lic a tio n s h o w e v e r a re n o tic e a b le . F o r this reason P p r tI C^ ’ P r°l- r4 ° η . I , 2 5 1 -2 , t h a t th e p a ssa g e is b ased o n a N 1C * e o ry s d e v e lo p e d fro m th e r e le v a n t ch . 15 o f th e Poetics, P Xa y t 454 a 16—17 tv μέν κ α ί τ ρ ω τ ό ν ex p ressin g th e ‘ o r ie n ta tio n ’ o f th e e ir r n a T ^ m a y b e c o m p a r e d , e sp e cially th e sc ru tin iz in g o f th e e te rn a l m o d e l b y th e a rtis t-d e m iu rg e o f T im . 28 a . C ic. T im . 4

342

Commentary renders t h a t p a s s a g e b y s p e c ie m ., .in tu e b itu r atque id sibi proponet exemplar ; a b o u t P h id ia s h e says. O r. 9 nec nero . . .cum faceret louts fo rm a m . . .c o n t e m p l a b a t u r a liq u em e quo sim ilitudinem duceret, sed ipsius in mente insidebat species p u lc h r itu d in is . . . quaedam, q u a m in tu e n s m eaq u e d efixus a d illiu s sim ilitu d in em artem et m anum dirigebat. T h e m e ta ­ p h o r h a s to b e n o t e d t h o u g h i t d o e s n o t n ecessarily sta m p t e o ra tian p assag e as P la to n ic . C f. n e x t n o te . .. exemplar uitae m orum que: fo r exem plar, see a b o v e 268 n. . ne er suggests t h a t th is is a h e n d ia d y s fo r morum uitae, cf. h o w e v er a . Silv. hi. 3. 203—4 uiam m orum longaeque examina^ uitae^ | . . .poscam, n an y e v e n t n o r e a lis m is i n t e n d e d ; likeness to life w ill b e in tro uce presently, uiuas hinc ducere uoces. S o m e th in g like L a m inus p a r a p hrase m u s t b e n e a r th e m a r k : ueram et perfectam speciem uitae umanae morumque intueri. B u t a l t h o u g h exem plar m a y r e n d e r re e ττσρσ δείγμα, n o a t t e m p t is m a d e t o r e p r o d u c e P la to s th e o ry o ® ^ s' N or is M id d le P la t o n ic d o c t r i n e e x p re sse d in th e c le a r te rm s _ot u c . Or. 9 (cit. p re c . n .) , w h ic h p la c e s th e ‘F o r m ’ in th e a rtis t s m in d . H . him self h o w e v e r (as h a s n o t e s c a p e d c o m m e n ta to rs) assists o u r searcn at E p. i. 2. 1 7- 18 l H om erus) rursus quid uirtus et quid sapientia possit | utile proposuit nobis e x e m p la r V lixem . H o m e r s O d y sseu s o ers a e e m odel for m o r a lity t h a n t h e m o ra lis ts , ibid. 3 - 4 quid sit p u c rum ur , quid utile q u id non, I p la n iu s ac m elius Chrysippo e t Crantore dici ( orne ;· T his g e n e ra lity o f th e e x e m p la r r a t h e r suggests to m e t e ™ 0 e _ n o tio n o f κ α θ ό λ ο υ [Poet. c h . 9 ). F o r th e a p p ro v e d m o ra e ^ u r? , th e e x e m p la ria o f 312 ff. A ris to tle ’s μ ιμ ησ ις β ελ τιό ν ω ν m a y e ci Cf. A r. Poet. 2 , 1448 a 1 ff. έπ εί δέ μ ιμ ο ύ ν τα ι oi μιμούμενοι ιτρατσοντας, α ν ά γ κ η δέ τ ο ύ τ ο υ ς ή σ π ο υ δ α ίο υ ς η φ α ύ λο νς ε ν α ι ( — · · γ ά ρ καί ά ρ ετη τ α ή θ η δ ια φ έ ρ ο υ σ ι π ά ν τ ε ς) ή τ ο ι β ελτιονα ς η κ χείρονας ή καί τ ο ιο ύ τ ο υ ς , ώ σ π ε ρ o i γρ α φ είς κ τλ ., a *7 · a n d c o m e d y : ή μέν γ ά ρ χ ε ίρ ο υ ς, ή δέ β ελ τίους μιμεισ τω ν vöv, 15, 1 4 5 4 b i o ff. εκείνοι (g o o d p o rtra it-p a in te rs ) ^ τες τ η ν ιδ ία ν μ ο ρ φ ή ν ό μ ο ίο υ ς π ο ιο ϋ ν τ ε ς κοΛλίονς γρ α φ ο υ σ ιν. This k in d o f μ ίμ ησ ις, r a t h e r t h a n th e H e lle n istic μίμησις ß l° u , j Rosta g n i re fers, see m s w o r t h c o n s id e rin g te n ta tiv e y as a a for H .’s exem plar uitae morum que. iubebo: cf. docebo , 3 0 6 n . 3*8 doctum b e c a u s e , a t 3 1 2 , didicit. imitatorem, μ ιμ η τ ή ν , e.g. A r. Poet. 25, 1 4 6 ° ^ ^

, , , » ‘ -ς μιμητής à π ο ιη τ ή ς ώ σ π ε ρ α ν ε ί ζ ω γ ρ ά φ ο ς ή τ ις άλλος ε . ^ ó y K n μ ιμ εΐοβα , . . ή . . o f a ή ν ή Ισ τ ιν , ή ο ΐά φ ο π ,ν «co 5ο « ., η οΐα είναι δει % uiuas h in c 'ducere uoces: cf. V ir g . A . v i. 848 uiuos ducent de marmore

343

Commentary u u ltu s ; n o t a n a m b ig u o u s u e r a s . . . uoces (s'), t h e v u lg a te u p to B en tley ’s tim e , re je c te d b y h im . T h e p r o v e r b ia l u iu a uox (A . O t t o , Sprichwör­ ter, 378) sets th e sp o k e n w o rd v is-à-v is th e w r itte n o r re a d . H e re on th e o th e r h a n d th e uerba b r in g to in d iv id u a l life th e g e n e ra l types of m o r a l th e o ry (res) : uiuae uoces a r e th e w o rd s , a p t a n d tru e to life, th a t w illin g ly follow res (3 x 1 ). u iu o s . . .u o ltu s ( P e e rlk a m p ) th e re fo re misses

th e m a rk . 3 I 9 ~ 3 2 I f res a n d uerba a r e n o t as c lo se ly a sso c ia te d as 3 1 0 - π p o s tu la te d , th e p o e m w ill n o t b e ‘a p p r o p r i a t e ’. T h is p ro b le m of u n ity is p re s e n t th r o u g h o u t t h e p o e m , b u t is h e r e p u t in th e g en e ral te rm s t h a t su it th e c h a p te r o n ‘ th e p o e t ’. S o m e c o n se q u e n c e s o f this d isso c ia tio n o f res a n d uerba a r e n o w c o n s id e re d , 3 1 9 -2 2 , a n d n e x t the r o o t o f th e tro u b le is d ia g n o s e d , 3 2 3 ff. I n e a c h ca se th e co n tex t b e g in s a b r u p tl y a n d th e r e a d e r is le ft to r e la t e th e se co n c lu sio n s to th e p rem isses o f 309 ff. 3 1 9 interdum d o u b tle ss in t h e f a m ilia r sen se o f modo ‘a t tim e s ’, as 9 3 ; th e tw o a lte r n a te a t S . 1. 9 . 9. speciosa locis: a d iffic u lt lo c u tio n ; th e te x t h a s b e e n d o u b te d a n d no a g r e e m e n t o n th e m e a n in g o f th e w o rd s h a s b e e n re a c h e d . (1) P o rp h y rio n re a s o n a b ly c o m m e n ts o n th e m e rits o f res, b u t the s h o rtc o m in g s o f d ic tio n a n d c o m p o s itio n a c c o r d in g to h im are w a n tin g i n th is fa b u la , w h e re a s H . se e m s t o b e sa y in g th e o p p o site. P e e r lk a m p th e re fo re r e w ro te th e lin e , ( h a u d ) speciosa locis, m orata sed apte. Y e t, q u ite a p a r t fro m h is u n a c c e p ta b le w o r d in g , sin ce morataque recte see m to b e so u n d , -que m u s t r e m a in a g u id e to th e sense o f the verse. H e n c e n o a n tith e s is is lik e ly to b e i n t e n d e d a n d th e first p a r t p r o b a b ly c o n ta in s la u d a t o r y la n g u a g e . P o r p h y r io n ’s t e x t m a y h a v e b e e n c o r r u p t o r h e m is u n d e rs to o d t h e p a s s a g e . W h a t t h e n does speciosa m e a n ? A rc h a ic R o m a n d r a m a , i n H . ’s sc a le o f v a lu e s, w ould q u a lify u n d e r res b u t fail u n d e r d ic tio n a n d c o m p o s itio n . D oes speciosa d e s c rib e th is s ta te o f a ffa irs? N o t w ith o u t so m e o b liq u en ess, fo r th e w o rd is so m u c h c lo s e r to uenus, p ond u s, ars, w h ic h th e v ery n e x t lin e d en ie s to th e fa b u la . T h e a d j. is a h ig h ly a p p r o v in g te rm in H . (e x c e p t o f c o u rse w h e n o u tw a r d a p p e a r a n c e o n ly is d e n o te d as a t E p . i. 16. 45 introrsus turpem , speciosum p elle decora), see 144 H o m e r s speciosa. . .m iracula, E p . 11. 2. 116 speciosa uocabula rerum. T h e sam e a p p ro v a l w o u ld b e d e n o te d h e r e , lim ite d th o u g h its ra n g e is b y locis. B u t I d o u b t i f t h a t lim ita tio n w o u ld b e su ffic ie n t u n le ss an iro n ic a l u n d e r to n e c a n b e fe lt— ‘m a k in g a s p le n d id sh o w w ith its lo ci’, a n d h e n c e oblectat p o p u lu m . W ith th is e x p la n a tio n speciosa m a y p e r h a p s s ta n d , th o u g h m isg iv in g s r e m a in b e c a u s e t h e w o rd its e lf m a y n o t re m o v e th e v erse fa r e n o u g h fro m 3 2 0 . 344

C om m entary (2) W h a t d o e s lo cis m e a n ? S c h ü t z , fo llo w e d b y W ilk in s, e q u a te s it w ith th e s o u rc e s o r h e a d i n g s o f (d ia le c tic ) a r g u m e n t, th e τ ό π ο ι o f A risto tle’s T o p ic s, cf. C ic. T o p . 7. O t h e r s h a v e e q u a te d i t w ith e p i­ g ram s, sententiae, γ ν ω μ α ι, Q u i n t i l i a n ’s uberes loci popularesque sententiae (v. 13. 4 2 ), locis speciosis ( v i i . i . 4 1 ) , e t a l. F in a lly K . - H . d e riv e locis from loca, ‘p la c e s , p a s s a g e s ’, E p . i i . i . 223. O f th e se o n ly th e sec o n d n o tio n is a t a ll a c c e p t a b l e ; t h e firs t is r u l e d o u t b e c a u s e loci, i.e. sedes argumentorum, c a n n o t w i t h o u t c o m m e n t b e c o m e th e ‘p sy c h o lo g ic a l p rin c ip le s ’ d e m a n d e d b y S c h ü t z a n d ( w ith less c o n v ic tio n ) b y W ilkins ; th e t h i r d b e c a u s e i t m a k e s th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n 319 a n d 320 a m a tte r o f d e g r e e n o t o f q u a l i t y . T h e m e a n in g m a y t h e r e f o r e b e , ‘m a k e a s p le n d id sh o w w ith its (edifying) m a x i m s ’. B u t d o u b t lin g e rs . morataque recte: fo r t h e a d v . , se e a b o v e 309 scribendi recte, morata looks b a c k to t h e ty p e s o f c h a r a c t e r 312 ff. a n d to 3 16 personae. . . conuenientia cuique. P o r p h . a d I. bene in s titu ta ; unde in consuetudine dicere colemus bene m o ra tu m eum q u i rectos mores ediderit. Cf. C ic. D iv . 1. 66 0 poema [E n n i) tenerum e t m o ra tu m a tq u e m olle, Q u in t. 1 . 0 . iv . 2. 6 4 in oratione m orata debent esse o m n ia cu m d ig n ita te quae poterunt, E n n o d . D iet. 7· 9 bene m orata oratio. I t s e e m s to m e h a z a r d o u s to s e p a ra te these in ­ stances fro m t h e H o r a t i a n , a s is d o n e in T L L , v m . 1476· 35 anc^ 43 ff· 3 20 fa b u la m a y b e ‘ t a l e ’, e .g . t h e I l i a d a t E p . 1. 2. 6 fa b u la qua Paridis p ro p ter n a rra tu r am o rem , o r ‘d r a m a ’, a s a b o v e . H e re 321 c o n ­ firms th e l a t t e r . nullius: h e r e , a t 3 2 4 , a n d E p . 1. 17. 22 th e a r c h a ic - tu s is p re se rv e d , u t nullius E p o d . 16. 6 1 , E p . 1. 1. 14— a ll in h e x a m e te rs . F o r o th e r in stances o f -iu s , see D . B o , H o r. O p . in . 88. aeneris-pondere-arte i n d i c a t e d if f e r e n t a s p e c ts o f th e p o e tic suffi­ ciency w h ic h is m is s e d w h e n c o n t e n t a n d fo r m a r e n o t in b a la n c e . nullius ueneris ‘w i t h o u t c h a r m ’, cf. 42 n ., E rn e s ti, Lex. Tech. R het. voi. i u n d e r Χ ά ρ ις, v o i. η u n d e r V en u s, P . G e ig e n m ü lle r, Quaest. D ionys. U 908) u n d e r ά φ ρ ο δ ίτ η a n d χ ά ρ ις . $tne pondere ‘ l i g h t w e i g h t ’ ; p o n d u s , c o n t r a r y to C a llim a c h e a n a n d n eo teric p o e tic s , is a r e c o m m e n d e d q u a lity a t E p . n . 2. n i f f . quaecumque p a r u m sp len d o ris h a b eb u n t, | et sine pondere erunt et honore wdigna fe re n tu r, E p . 1. 19. 4 2 n u g is addere p o n dus. B u t a t 2 6 0 a b o v e a ( ° u . k e n t e n d r e d e f le c ts t h e p r a is e , p o n d u s b e in g ‘h e a v in e s s ’ as w ell as Weig h t . I n t h e h i g h l y H o r a t i a n c o n te x t o f P ers. 5. 19—20 all pondus a n dr> ic ^ iv e a p p a r e n t s o lid ity to sm o k e , dare p o n d u s . . .fum o. ^ i t i n g έλα φ ρ ώ ς, w h e n l a r g e p o e m s a r e c o n c e rn e d , is d e p lo re d b y P h ilo, d e ?m uts as — m u c h as is w r i t i n g ε ύ τε λ ώ ς {Poem . v . 4. 31 f·)· C a lliac Us ° ΰ λ α χ ύ ς m a y b e c o n t r a s te d , a n d so m a y h is a n d th e R o m a n

345

Commentary C a llim a c h e a n s ’ p o le m ic s a g a in s t th e la r g e a n d w e ig h ty epic. These p o e ts d id n o t fin d c h a r m a n d a r t w h e r e th e c r itic a l scales registered w e ig h t. A s fo r pondus, to satisfy th e sc o p e o f th is p a s s a g e w e m u s t e x p e c t the th e o ris ts to re c o g n iz e w e ig h t as a q u a l i t y o f d ic tio n a n d o f subjectm a tte r , pondus uerborum a n d p o n d u s sententiarum . T h is is th e case in r h e to r ic ; see E rn e s ti, op. cit. u n d e r β ά ρ ο ς a n d pondus, a n d G eigen­ m ü lle r, op. cit. u n d e r th e s a m e h e a d in g s . I n th e u n r e a l d istin c tio n s o f a n c ie n t th e o ry , b o t h uerba a n d sententiae o r res m u s t h a v e th e ir due w e ig h t to p lease a n a u d ie n c e . D e m o s th e n e s w a s p ra is e d fo r his care in w e ig h in g uerborum . . .pondera (C ic. O r. 26) ; A n to n iu s in u e r b is . . . eligendis, neque id ipsum tam le p o ris causa quam p o n d e r i s . . .n ih il non ad rationem et t a m q u a m a d a r te m dirigebat (C ic . B ru t. 140). H e n c e th e two k in d s o f pondus te n d to a p p e a r in clo se p r o x im ity ; th u s C ic. D e Or. n. 73 om nium sententiarum g ra n ita le, om nium uerborum ponderibus est utendum, O r . 197 et uerborum et sententiarum ponderibus utem ur. na m qui audiunt haec duo anim aduertunt et iucunda sib i censent, uerba dico et sententias. Part. O r. 19, Q u in t. 1 . 0 . x . i . 9 7 , e t a l. Y e t th e r h e to r ic ia n s a r e c o n te n t to

c e n s u re th e v io la tio n o f a p p r o p r ia te n e s s i n t h e i r v a rio u s styles, thus fo r uerba sine re, th e p a ssa g e s c ite d 322 n ., a n d c o n v e rse ly fo r res sine uerbis Q u in t. 1. 0 . x . x. 130, 2. 2 3 . H ., o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , b y o n e o fh is d ia le c tic a l tu rn s , allo w s u s to s h a r e h is o w n in s ig h t i n t o p o e try . R o m a n a u d ie n c e s d esire th e r i g h t th in g , p o e tic d r a m a t h a t h a s so m eth in g to say, t h a t o ffers m o re t h a n e m p t y w o rd s h o w e v e r p re tty . B u t they d e sire th e r ig h t th in g in th e w ro n g w a y . T h e y m is ta k e , as i t w e re, res fo r uerba, e n jo y in g p o e try t h a t is p o e tic a lly u n fo r m e d (sine arte), w o rd s la c k in g th e uenus a n d p ondus w h ic h a lo n e c a n c o n v e y th e su b ­ je c t, o r in m o d e rn p a r la n c e — th e y e n jo y p ro s e a n d th in k it p o e try . 32 1 A s in th e m id d le s e c tio n p o p u l a r a p p r o v a l is c o n sid e re d a c r ite rio n o f v a lu e , b u t a lim ite d one. ualdius: ualde h a s a c o llo q u ia l n o te , w h ic h s h o u ld n o t b e o v e rra te d , fo r th e w o rd o c c u rs n o t o n ly i n C ic e ro ’s le tte rs a n d d ia lo g u e s b u t in th e sp ee ch es. I t is r a r e in v erse a n d th e c o m p a r a tiv e is v e ry r a r e , cf. E . W ö lfflin , L a t. u nd rom an. K om paration, 9 f., B . A x e lso n , Unpoet. W örter, 36 f., J . B. H o fm a n n , L a t. U m gangssprache2, 75 £ , 192 w h e re th is p a ssa g e m a y b e a d d e d to th e o n ly o t h e r in s ta n c e i n H . o f th e c o m p a r a tiv e , E p . x. 9. 6 ; th e p o s itiv e d o e s n o t o c c u r i n H . P r o b ­ a b ly K . - H . m a k e to o m u c h o f th e n u a n c e ‘ m o re s tro n g ly ’ in b o th p assag es. p o p u lu m : c o n tr a s t 113 η ., 153 η . ego et p o p u lu s mecum. H e r e the populus h a v e a v e ry p a r ti a l v ie w o f t h e H o r a t i a n t r u t h ; th e y a re said to p re fe r p o e tic ‘s u b s ta n c e ’, h o w e v e r in a r tis tic , to m e lo d io u s trifles.

346

C om m en tary moratur: m örataque tw o v erses a b o v e is u n lik e ly to b e a d elib erate assonance, m oratur a p p lie s th e sa m e te st as 154 aulaea manentes, 223 grata m u lta te m orandus. I f th is k in d o f fa b u la is a rc h a ic tra g e d y , H .’s view m a y b e b o r n e o u t b y c o n tin u e d p e rfo rm a n c e s o f E n n ia n a n d o th e r o ld d r a m a . 322 inopes rerum : th e a d j. is e sta b lish e d in C ic e ro n ia n rh e to ric as d e n o tin g ‘w e a k s ty le ’ ; b u t th e g e n . (c u rre n t w ith inops in b o th prose a n d verse) q u a lifie s th e asse ssm e n t, th is b e in g a r t w ith o u t substance (for rerum cf. rem, 3 1 0 ). A t th e o p p o site e n d o f th e scale H . sets u p sm all a n d d e lic a te p o e m s, w h ic h su g g est th e A le x a n d ria n a n d neo­ te ric fash io n s o f p o e try . S in c e h e id e n tifie d res w ith m o ra l th e o ry a n d w ith eth o s, inopes rerum is lik ely to h i n t a t th e ab sen ce o f these qu alities. nugaeque canorae: H . a t tim e s talk s o f his o w n verse as nugae o r th e like, n e v e r w ith o u t a n e le m e n t o f iro n y o r ap o lo g ia, S. 1. 9. 2, E p. 1. 19. 42, π. 2. 141, cf. S . i. 10. 37, al. H e re th e n o tio n d iffers: nugae a re d e c lin e d as a n id e a l d if f e r e n t b o t h fro m th e p o e try o f os rotundum th a t n o w follow s, a n d th e m orata recte fa b u la w h ic h h e h a s a lre a d y re jected . F o r canorae b o th H e in z e a n d R o s ta g n i m e n tio n th e H ellenistic critics w h o fo u n d th e c r ite r io n o f g o o d p o e try in ευφ ω νία n o t δ ια νοή μ α τα , cf. C. J e n s e n , P hilod. über die Gedichte, v . 146 ff. I f t h a t is th e im p lica­ tio n h e re , th e tw o w o rd s to g e th e r , nugae canorae, a n d th e co n tex t, su g g est i t ; i nunc et uersus tecum m editare canoros {Ep. π . 2. 76) does n o t. Cf. C ic. D e O r. 1. 51 q u id est enim tam fu rio su m quam uerborum uel opti­ morum atque ornatissim orum sonitus inanis, nulla subtecta sententia nec scien tia ? , Q u in t. 1. 0 . ix . 3. 74, ibid. 100 sunt qui neglecto rerum pondere et uiribus sententiarum , si uel inania nerba in hos modos deprauarunt, summos se iudicent artifices, etc ., ix . 4 . 113 s i quidem relicto rerum pondere ac nitore contempto tesserulas, u t a it L u c iliu s (cf. frs. 84—5 M a rx ) struet, etc.

3 2 3 -3 2 A t th e b e g in n in g th e r e is a n o th e r a p p a re n t h ia tu s in th o u g h t. N o a t t e m p t is m a d e to d e fin e p o e try w h ich is n e ith e r morata recte fa b u la a n d n o m o re , n o r uersus inopes rerum a n d no m o re. In ste a d o f d e s c rib in g th e c o a le sc e n c e o f res a n d uerba in a b s tra c t term s, H ., as u n e x p e c te d ly a n d im p re ssiv e ly as a t 268, sets u p th e G reek poetic id e a l, a n d th e n as a c o n tr a s t, e q u a lly u n c o n n e c te d , a satiric sketch o f R o m a n tu itio n in a r ith m e tic follow s. C o n c e n tra tin g as ever on focal p o in ts o r m o tifs, H . le a v e s th e re a d e r to d iv in e th e relatio n s betw een th ese p o in ts. T h u s h e r e , (1) th e id e a l o f G re e k ingenium a n d p o etry , (2) R o m a n c o n c e rn fo r p r o p e r ty b u ilt in to th e ir e d u c atio n . A logical lin k b e tw e e n th e tw o w o u ld c a ll fo r u n p ro m isin g topics. In ste a d o f o fferin g a n a r g u m e n t H . b ru s q u e ly in te r r u p ts th e little sketch ( 33° a fte r th e firs t w o rd , semis'), a n d w ith g r e a t force (3) asks th e q u estio n to w h ic h th e w h o le o f th is se c tio n te n d e d — can w e re ally ho p e for

347

Commentary serio u s p o e tr y fro m m in d s tr a in e d to th in k serio u sly o f nothing b u t m a te r ia l g a in ? T h e q u e s tio n re m a in s u n a n s w e re d , th e antithesis u n re s o lv e d ; b u t its re s o lu tio n is less in d o u b t t h a n t h a t o f a sim ilar a n tith e s is , E p . ix. i . 9 3 -1 1 7 , cf. Prol. 198 if. I n th e p re s e n t passage h u m o u r tu r n s o u t to b e m is le a d in g ; 3 3 0 - 2 sh o w th e u n d erly in g serio u sn ess. 3 2 3 G rais: th e v erse e x p re sse s p e r s o n a l c o n v ic tio n . I t gives great p ro m in e n c e to ‘th e G r e e k s ’ : G rais h e a d s its first d iv is io n a s i t heads th e se c o n d . T h e so le m n w o rd G rais o c c u rs o n ly h e r e in th e A rs, not Graecus as o n th e o th e r th r e e o c c a sio n s, 53 Graeco fo n te , 268 exemplaria Graeca, 28 6 uestigia Graeca — a fa c t w h ic h d o e s n o t p re d isp o se one in fa v o u r o f A . E r n o u t ’s su g g e stio n o n H . ’s u se o f th e s e w o rd s, ‘avec lui d is p a r a it 1 a n tiq u e d is tin c tio n é ta b lie e n t r e Grains e t G raecus\ R P > XXXVI (1 9 6 2 ), 216, r e p r . P hilologica, h i (1 9 6 5 ), 89. H . uses b o th bu t o b se rv e s a sty listic d is tin c tio n . in g e n iu m . . . ore rotundo: t h e first re q u ir e s n o c o m m e n t in th e context o f a n c ie n t lite r a r y th e o ry . I t re c a lls th e firs t w o rd o f th e fin a l p a r t of th e A rs (295) ; i t is th e re , b u t n o t h e r e , o p p o s e d to ars. ore rotundo is n o t s e lf-e x p la n a to ry , th o u g h p rim a fa c ie th e r e is a n e x p e c ta tio n th a t th e r o u n d e d q u a lity is r e la te d to ars, as L a m b in u s , E rn e s ti, a n d m ore re c e n tly R o s ta g n i h a v e u r g e d ; cf. L a m b in u s o n S . n . 7 .8 6 , ‘ro tu n d u m v a le t id e m , q u o d c u ltu m , p o litu m , p e r f e c tu m ’. N o n . 60. 8 ff. (Μ .) est rotundum collectum et p er om nem circuitum sine offensione asperi a u t anguli leue, 164. 2 rotunde p o situ m eleganter, concinne uel collecte. T h is is b o rn e out

b y a n u m b e r o f G re e k a n d L a t i n p a ssa g e s c ite d b y L a m b in u s a n d E rn e s ti. C f. P la to , Phaedr. 2 3 4 ε τ ο ν λ ό γ ο ν ε ττα ιν εθ ή ν α ι. ..ο ύ κ έκείνη μ όνον ό τ ι σ α φ ή καί σ τ ρ ο γ γ υ λ ά ( th e c o r re s p o n d in g G reek te r m ) , και α κ ρ ιβ ώ ς εκ α σ τα τ ω ν ο ν ο μ ά τ ω ν ά ττο τετό ρ νει/τα ι, Dion. H a l. D em osth. 19. 1010 (e d . U s .—R a . i. 1 6 8 ), w h e re a p assa g e o f Is o c ra te s is c ritic iz e d a s fo rm le ss a n d u n c o n c e n tr a te d : h e is to ld to m a k e h is w o rd s σ τ ρ ο γ γ υ λ ό τ ε ρ α . T h e r o u n d e d q u a lity o f style is th e re fo re a m a t t e r o f te c h n iq u e , as i t is i n th e ju d g e m e n ts o f Cic. Or. 4 0 praefractior nec satis, u t ita dicam, rotundus. B r u t. 2 7 2 uerborum . · · a p ta et quasi rotunda constructio. C f. ab o v e 26, 31 n n . rotundum m a y be effo rtless a s H e in z e says, b u t i t is th e effo rtlessn ess o f a r t t h a t has b e c o m e n a tu r e . F o r ore, cf. A ris to p h . fr. 471 (K o c k ) χ ρ ώ μ α ι y « P α ύ τ ο ϋ τ ο υ σ τ ό μ α τ ο ς τ φ σ τ ρ ο γ γ ύ λ ε ρ , a n d fo r th e o r ig in o f th e m e ta ­ p h o r, D e m . Interpr. 20 (c it. O r e lli) , a r o u n d e d r h e to r ic a l p e r io d is in n e e d o f σ τ ρ ο γ γ υ λ ο ύ σ τ ό μ α τ ο ς. H . th e n jo in s w ith ingenium n o t sim p ly th e c o m p le m e n ta r y te r m ars, b u t th e o u tc o m e o f ars in p o e try , th e m a s te ry t h a t c a n fo rg e t a r t, a flo w in g style. dedit ( M u s a lo q u i): cf. 83 n . M u s a dedit {referre).

348

C o m m e n ta ry 32 4 praeter laudem n ullius auaris is b e a u tifu lly tu rn e d : th e y m a y be auari (a fa u lt), b u t th e g a in th e y w a n t to m a k e is laus (a v irtu e by d efin itio n ). T h is is a n o x y m o ro n also b ec au se uatis auarus | non temere est animus, E p . 11. 1. 1 1 9 -2 0 ; th e p o e t is sa id n o t to b e sw ayed b y g ain , ibid. 120 ff., P rol. 199. auaritia, p r o p e r ly sp ea k in g , is a h id eo u s a b e r­ ra tio n in H . ’s a n d a ll c o n te m p o r a r y m o ra liz in g . As for laudem, cf. 268 non laudem m erui. T h e G re e k s, n o t o n ly o n e o r tw o o f th e ir poets, c a n be said to b e in v o lv e d b e c a u s e i t is a m a tte r o f values— a n essay in n a tio n a l p s y c h o lo g y a n d R o m a n self-criticism , cf. above 323-32 n. auaris th u s b e c o m e s a c o n c e p t lin k in g H .’s g lo rifica tio n o f th e G reeks w ith his c ritic is m o f R o m a n v a lu e s, φ ιλ ο τιμ ία in tu r n is a p o p u la r to p ic in G re e k m o r a l th e o r y ; m a n y passages a re in p o in t b u t especially O re lli’s c ita tio n o f X e n . M e m . in . 3. 13 o n th e A th en ian s. R o stag n i c o m p a re s C ie. T .D . 1. 3 ff. fo r th e c o n n e x io n b e tw e e n laus a n d artistic excellence. nullius: cf. 32 0 n . T h e g e n . b e lo n g s to n e u t. nullum as O v. M et. 1. 17 nulli sua fo r m a m anebat, a l. I n th e c o m p a r a b le lo c u tio n nullius egentem, E p. i. 17. 22, i t is m a sc . 325—3 ° H .’s c h a n g e o f p o e tic m o o d a t th e b eg in n in g a n d en d o f this little p a r a g r a p h h a s b e e n n o te d ab o v e, 3 2 3 -3 2 n. 325 R om ani p u eri n o t o n ly o m its a n ad v e rsa tiv e p a rtic le (as com ­ m e n ta to rs n o te ) b u t scores a n esp e cial effect b y th e com ic bath o s a fte r th e h ig h flig h t o f t h e la st tw o verses. T h is effect persists in th e sk etch t h a t follow s, th e so rt o f th in g th e g e n re sermo c a n acco m m o ­ d a te . assem: a u n i t d iv id e d in to 12 unciae. V olus. M ae c. 7 ( M etrol. Scr. Rei. ed. H u lts c h . 11. 6 2) d iu id itu r item as in duodecim partes duodecimas, uocantur singulae unciae, L ib . de A sse i {ibid. p. 72) quicquid unum est et quod ex integrorum diuisione remanet, assem ratiocinatores uocant, 4 {ibid. p . 73) cuiuslibet integrae rei in duodecim partes diuisae semper duodecima p a rs uncia dicitur.

32 6 D iv isio n in to a h u n d r e d p a rts , o ften (as in O re lli s uel minutis­ simas) r e g a rd e d m e re ly as a n a p p r o x im a te d e sc rip tio n o f ‘ lo n g ca lc u ­ la tio n s ’, longis rationibus i n H . I t is tru e , R o m a n c o m p u ta tio n o f fra c tio n s w as la rg e ly d u o d e c im a l; y e t in te re st w as c o m p u te d in p e rc e n ta g e s , centesimae, cf. H u lts c h , ‘A r ith m e tic a ’, R - E , π. 1115· 52 ff., J . T r o p f k e , Geschichte der E lem en ta r-M a th. i3 ( 193°)? 15^ ff·» I 95· T h is fa c t, a lo n g s id e H . ’s c e n s u re o f c o m m ercialism , re n d ers a lite ra l m e a n in g o f centesimae m o re p ro b a b le , cf. K .- H . ad I. dicat: B e n tle y dicas. B u t th e id io m a tic use o f th e 3rd p erso n m akes d ec isiv ely a g a in s t t h a t c h a n g e , C. 1. 27· 1 0 - 1 1 w h e re a p erso n p re sen t is a d d re sse d , dicat O puntiae | fr a te r M egillae. 349

Commentary 32 7 ß liu s A lb in i: p s .-A c ro ’s c o m m e n t, faeneratoris cuiusdam amari filiu s looks lik e im p ro v isa tio n . quincunce ‘five tw e lfth s ’. remota est ‘is d e d u c te d ’, p e r h a p s a w a y o f a v o id in g s u c h prosaic w o rd s as deducere C ic. L eg. 11. 53, O jf. 1. 5 9 , L iv . v i. 35. 4, detrahas V o lu s. M a e c . 8, sublata L ib . de A sse 14, e t a l. G . T . A . K rü g e r sug­ g ested t h a t remouere lik e 3 2 9 redit w as p r o b a b ly d e r iv e d fro m , a n d still h in te d a t, o p e ra tio n s o n a n a b a c u s . F o r remouere as a fin a n c ia l term see 3 2 9 n . 32 8 superat: in tr a n s ., r a t h e r th a n th e lite r a l superest (d e tt.), is a m o re id io m a tic m a n n e r o f e x p re s s in g a n u m e r ic a l ‘r e m a in d e r ’. Cf. P ro p . XV. 2. 57 sex superant uersus , G e rm . 5 7 3 quantum su p eret. . .noctis, cf. M a n . n i. 4 2 3 quodque h is exsuperat dem ptis. L ib e r de Asse 14 has remanet fo r th e to ta l a f te r s u b tr a c tio n . B e n tle y ’s s u b ju n . superet (dett.) is o f co u rse p o ssib le a n d o c c u rs in t h e in s ta n c e c ite d a b o v e 326 n. dicat (qua pereat sa g itta ) b u t i n th is liv ely s k e tc h d i r e c t sp e e c h is not c o n v in c in g ly re m o v e d . poteras: th o u g h poterat (α δ 2·^1, B e n tle y ) w o u ld b e p o ssib le after dicat, th e 2 n d p e rs o n show s th e t e a c h e r tu r n i n g to th e p u p il -a re a listic to u c h . ‘Y o u m ig h t h a v e to ld m e b y th is t i m e ’ (W ilkins) h in ts a t a m o m e n t’s h e s ita tio n ; th e ‘im p e rf. o f n e g le c te d d u ty (A. P a lm e r ) , a m u c h -f a v o u re d id io m , e.g. b e lo w 3 7 6 p o tera t duci quia cena sine istis, S . 11. x. 16 et iu stu m poteras et scribere fo r te m , n e g a tiv e ibid. 6—7 peream m ale s i non | op tim u m erat. triens : ~ = -, L ib . de A sse 14 su b la ta uncia de quincunce remanet triens. eu: a lo n g -e s ta b lis h e d G re e k c o llo q u ia lis m (o f th e k in d ‘ bravo, bon ) as th e o ld c o m ic w rite rs sh o w ; g r a m m a r ia n s a c k n o w le d g e i t b u t after a r c h a ic c o m e d y , u n lik e euge, i t h a p p e n s to b e r e c o rd e d o n ly fro m this p assa g e, cf. T L L , v . 2. 9 8 1 . 8 2 ff., 1033. 4 8 ff-> J · B - H o fm a n n , L a i U m gangsspr.2, p p . 23, 26. C o n tr a s t b e lo w 4 2 8 n . 3 2 9 r e m . . . seruare: fo r th e v e r b , see 8 6 n . T h e e x p re ssio n is m u ch m o re e m p h a tic a t E p . 1. 1. 65—6 rem fa c ia s , rem, j s i possis, recte, si non, quocumque modo, rem, th o u g h 3 3 0 show s t h a t t h e s e n tim e n t h e r e is no less s tro n g . redit: p s.-A c ro a d d itu r; c o m m o n ly a dditur b u t also applicatur, con­ fe r tu r , e.g. V o lu s. M a e c . 8 ; th e v e r b o fte n m e a n s ‘co m es in as re v e n u e ,

b u t d o es n o t n e c e ssa rily d o so h e r e . H . D ü n tz e r e x te n d e d th e fin an c ial n o tio n to 32 7 remota est, i.e. ‘ d is b u r s e ’ (P , i x (1 8 5 4 ), 3 8 2 ), w h ic h does n o t see m to b e o n re c o rd . f i t is th e t o t a l ’, lik e esse a n d fa c e re te c h n ic a l i n c o m p u ta tio n , cf· T L L , v i. i. 100. 71 ff., w h e re th is p a s s a g e s h o u ld b e a d d e d . 3 3 0 sem is: i.e. s~ == 350

C om m en tary an: th e r e a d e r is p u lle d u p s u d d e n tly b y this rh e to ric a l q u estio n on R o m a n m a te r ia lis m . (P e rs. i. 7 9 -8 2 uses a sim ila r ty p e o f in d ig n a n t q u estio n in a n e n tire ly lite r a r y c o n te x t.) T h is like m a n y questions in tro d u c e d b y an re sts o n a n a ss u m p tio n to b e u n d e rsto o d from the co n tex t, a n ellip se fro m w h ic h H . o b ta in s p o e tic c a p ita l, see 323-32 n. an is ‘a r g u m e n t a t iv e ’ ( K ü h n e r —S te g m a n n i i . 519 f·, D . Bo, Lexicon H o t., an) ; it su g g ests a r e a s o n fo r a n assertio n b y d en y in g its logical o p posite, o fte n in th e fo rm an uero, an existimas, an censemus, etc. H e re an a p p e a rs o n ly i n a s m a ll b u t o u ts ta n d in g p o rtio n o f th e paradosis, B, B lan d . V e t. a n d tw o o th e r B la n d in ia n codices. A chilles S tatius re sto red i t b y e m e n d a t io n ; B e n tle y d efen d ed it a n d it is now es­ ta b lish ed in a ll r e c e n t te x ts. O th e rw ise , ad c e tt., at s' (thus th e v aria n ts e.g. S. i. i . 8 8 ), et a w e a k a t t e m p t b y C u n n in g h a m a n d P eerlk a m p to av o id B e n tle y ’s d ec isio n . aerugo: G re e k iós- A p p lie d to e n v y , th is m e ta p h o r does n o t a p p e a r to b e r e c o rd e d b e fo re S . 1. 4 . 101 ( T L L , 1. 1066. 4 ) ; H . m ay h av e ta k e n i t fro m G re e k , w h e r e A e sc h . h a s it in a n im pressive verse, Ag. 83 4 ; K —H . also c ite A n tis th e n e s , cf. b elo w 331 n. B u t ìós also a tta c h e d to a v a r ic e ; K .—H . c ite P lu t. Superst. 1, a n d a g a in H . is the first to b e k n o w n to use it so in L a tin , la te r M a rtia l, Sen. E p ., H ier. E p. i . robigo, r u s t (o f in d o le n c e ) , is a p p lie d to ingenium b y O v . TV. v. 12. 21. et: e x p la n a to ry , cf. a b o v e 266. cura peculi m a y h i n t a t V irg . E . 1. 32 nec spes libertatis erat nec cura peculi (H e in z e th in k s th e r e a d e r w o u ld re m e m b e r th a t th e V irgilian sp e a k e r is a slav e, h e n c e c o n sid e r th is cura illib e ra l). F o r φ ιλ α ρ γυ ρ ία as a disease, see p s .-L o n g . S u b ì. 44. 6 νόσ η μ α μικροττοιόν. 33 * im buerit: A n tis th . ap. D io g . L a . v i. 5 h as κατεσΟίεσθαι in a sim ila r m e ta p h o r , ώ σττερ O tto t o ö ìoO t ò v σίδηρον, ούτω ς ελεγε τους φΟονηρούς όττό τ ο ϋ Ιδ ίο υ ή θ ο υ ς κατεσθίεσθαι. speremus o r -a m u s M S S . E i t h e r m o o d is g ra m m a tic a lly possible b u t th e re is a s lig h t p re fe re n c e in fa v o u r o f th e su b ju n . n o t as a lectio difficilior ’, b u t b e c a u s e o f its fre q u e n c y in qu estio n s w ith this type o f an, c o n v e n ie n tly s e t o u t in D . B o ’s L e x . H or. u n d e r an. carm ina fin g i: fo r th e lo c u tio n see 240, E p . n . 1. 227, C. iv. 2. 32; belo w 382 uersus. T h e m e t a p h o r in ‘fic tio n ’ differs, cf. 8, 119»

33δ· 33 2 cedro. . . cupresso: cf. P o r p h . libri enim qui aut cedro inlinuntur aut arca cupressea inclusi su n t, a tineis non uexantur, V itr. 11. 9. 13; f°r *he la s tin g c h a r a c te r o f cy p ress w o o d , see T h e o p h . H .P . v . 4. 2, Plin. N .H . XVI. 2 1 2 . C e d a r o il a s im a g e r y fo r e n d u r in g w orks o f lite ra tu re , n o t in f re q u e n t i n L a t i n v e rse a f te r H . ( T L L , in. 73^· 57 ff*)> η 0 *

351

Commentary a tte s te d b e fo re h i m ; its re a lis tic c h a r a c te r is H o r a t i a n (w h ic h does n o t p ro v e H o r a t ia n o rig in ) e sp e c ia lly in th e h ig h ly m e ta p h o ric a l s e ttin g o f th is se n te n c e . cedro et leui: a n iso la te d c a se in th e A r s o f a fin a l lo n g v o w e l elided b efo re s h o rt, a c c o rd in g to A . M ic h a e lis , op. cit. (a b o v e 6 3 - 9 0 . ) , 428. T h is o v er-sim p lifies a c o m p le x p h e n o m e n o n , cf. 137, 330, 419, 427, n o t to m e n tio n ‘p ro d e lis io n ’ b e fo re est. seruanda ‘p r e s e r v e ’, conseruanda, cf. 8 6 n .

(3) The poet’s scope: instruction and delight, 333-4®» c^‘ above 308 ‘ quid deceat, quid non’

In rhetorical theory docere, m o u e re , and d ele c ta re are the fin e s (τέλη) of the craftsman, cf. E. Norden, o p . c it. p. 502. That poetic theory in the Hellenistic age, and in particular H .’s probable ‘source’, imputed these aims to the poet is shown by Neoptolemus of Parium a p . Philod. P o e m . v. 13. 8 ff, cf. P r o l. 55 (Neopt. no. 10), 128 f., 135: καί -προς αρετήν δειν τω τελείφ ποιητή μετά της ψυχαγωγίας του τούς ακούοντας ώφελεϊν καί χρησιμολογεϊν, the supplements are noted P r o l. 55. H. is seen therefore to work with traditional concepts in this part of the poem as well, cf. above 295—476 n. Moreover he adopts the same ‘ Peripatetic’ compromise as Neoptolemus, although naturally this compromise means to him his unique blend of seriousness and humour, hardly what it meant to the Hellenistic litte r a te u r . Whether Neoptolemus like H. linked p r o d e s s e with instruction and d elec ta re with ‘fiction’ is not known. The scope in poetry of τό θαυμαστόν was certainly a topic of discussion as early as Ar. P o e t. 24, 1460 a r i ff, 25, 1460 b 22 f f ; Plut. D e a u d . p o e t. 16 f. is well known, for other evidence see Rostagni, 333-46 n. The outstanding feature of this section however is attention to the way the poet actually works. Here as elsewhere a r t i f e x impinges on a r s : b r e u ita s for instruction, cf. 335 n., verisimilitude for ‘fiction’, cf. 33^ nT hat this kind of topic could be shifted between a rs and a r t i fe x is shown by Philodemus’ remark, P o e m . v. 4. 13—16. In the artificial language of Hellenistic and Roman literary theory, to bring together moral content and imaginative 352

Commentary range is, in a sense, the aim of poetry and explains the promise of classical status. 33 3 -4 a u t . . . o u t . . . I a u t . . . e t . . . et: the style, R ostagni points o u t, is a g a in d e lib e r a te ly ex cathedra ; th e p re c e p t 119 a u t . . .aut m ay be c o m p a r e d . P re c isio n is a p t for this k in d o f su b ject a n d H .’s style p ic tu re s th e s u b je c t. 333 prodesse: ώφελεϊν in G re ek , e.g. N e o p t. loc. cit. delectare: G re e k η δ ο ν ή , τέρττειν, etc., cf. N eo p t. op. cit. no. 11, al.; I. B ek k er, Artec. 116 e q u a te s τέρ πειν w ith ψ υ χ α γ ω γ ε ΐν , cf. B yw ater on A r. P oet. 6 , 1 4 5 0 a 33. H e n c e delectare m a y re n d e r either w ord. N eo­ p to le m u s h a p p e n s to use ψ υ χ α γ ω γ ία , loc. cit. I n E rato sth en es’ extrem e p r o n o u n c e m e n t th e sam e te rm is used, ap. S tra b o 1. 15 π ο ιη τή ν π ά ν τ α σ τ ο χ ά 3 ε σ θ α ι ψ υ χ α γ ω γ ία ς , ού διδασκαλίας. 334 iucunda is r e la te d to delectare as ήδύ to τέρ πειν in G reek theory. idonea dicere uitae is a v a lid b u t r a th e r ro u n d a b o u t w ay o f p u ttin g the m a tte r a n d it is in stru c tiv e to n o te th e N eoptolem ic co u n te rp a rt [το ύ ς] ά κ ο ύ ο ν τ [α ς ] ώ [φ ελεΐ]ν καί χ ρ η σ ι[μ ο ]λ [ο γ ε ΐ]ν . T h e last w ord, a p p a r e n tly a n e o lo g ism , w o u ld b e called u n c e rta in , w ere it n o t for P h ilo d e m u s ’ re fe re n c e to it a few lines below (23-4), ώφελήσεως καί χ ρ η σ [ ιμ ] ο λ ο γ ία ς . T h e closeness to th e H ellenistic original needs to b e n o te d . 335 praecipies c o n tin u e s prodesse a n d idonea dicere uitae, 333 41 ^ 1C fu t. te n s e as o fte n in p re c e p ts th ro u g h o u t th e poem , e.g. 3 -4 , 40-1, 68, e tc . esto breuis: fo r breuitas in lite ra ry th eo ry , see above 25 n. I t has often b e e n n o te d t h a t this in ju n c tio n expresses H .’s o w n practice, in this v e ry p a s s a g e a s e.g . 23, 45, 92, 9 9 -1 0 0 , 102-3, 119" 20· T h ere are of co u rse o t h e r a s p e c ts o f H o r a tia n terseness. S . x. 10. 9 -1 0 est breuitate opus, etc. d o es n o t o n ly a p p ly to teac h in g b u t to the style o f sermo. A b o v e 26—7 a r e c o m m e n ts o n th e difficulty in p reventing brevity d e g e n e r a tin g in to o b sc u rity , 148-9 co n cern the ra p id ity o f H om er s n a r r a tiv e . S . 1. 4 . 18 expresses H .’s p erso n al predilection. 3 3 5 —6 u t cito dicta I percipiant animi dociles teneantque fideles, in spite o f K .—H . ’s c o m p a riso n w ith S. 1. 10. 9 -1 0 curra^ sententia neu se | im ped ia t iter bis lassas onerantibus aures, th e adv. cito is, as L am binus n o te d , m o re lik e ly to q u a lify percipiant animi th a n dicta : the m ind seizes b r i e f s p e e c h fa st a n d th e n re ta in s it. T h e predic. force o dociles a n d fid eles is n o o b stacle . T h e im age is developed o u t o f the a r c h a ic m o d e o f in stru c tio n p lace d in th e h e a re r’s m ind : ω Περση, σ ύ δέ τ α ΰ τ α τ ε ω ένικάτθεο θυμω , o r σ ΰ δε τ α ϋ τ α μετά φρεσι βαλλεο σ ή σ ι. C f. L u c i i .'fr. 610 (M a rx) tu s i uoles per aures pectus inrigarier. 23

353

BH A

Commentary 3 3 7 B e n tle y c o n s id e re d th e v e rse u n a t t r a c t iv e a n d a m b ig u o u s , a n d p ro p o s e d its d e le tio n ; P e e r lk a m p a n d L. M u e lle r a g r e e d w ith o u t a r g u in g th e case. B e n tle y ’s a r g u m e n ts w ill n o t b e a r s c r u tin y , b u t it is t r u e t h a t th e verse is o tio se i n a sen se , in t h a t i t sec u res a p o in t n e g a tiv e ly w h ic h h a s a lr e a d y b e e n m a d e in p o sitiv e te rm s — n o t a se rio u s o b s ta c le w h e n th e im a g e r y a d d s to t h e fu lln ess o f th e p ic tu re . T h e w o rd in g is H o r a tia n . superuacuum o c c u rs in p o e tr y , h is to rio g ra p h y , a n d S ilv e r L a tin for superuacaneum, H . a n d L iv y a p p a r e n t l y b e in g th e first to b e k n o w n to u se i t ; P a u l. F e st. 2 9 4 (M .) superuacaneum superuacuum. I t is a m e ta p h o r fo r ‘s u p e r n u m e r a r y , p o in tle ss, i d le ’ . T h u s E p . 1. 15. 2 - 3 m ih i B a ia s | M u s a superuacuas A n to n iu s [ fa c it) , ‘p o in tle s s ’ b e c a u s e th e c u re is n o t a v a ila b le a t B aiae . So to o C. 11. 2 0 . 2 4 ( sepulcri ) m itte superuacuos honores, p o in tle ss b e c a u s e h is p o e try w ill n o t d ie . pectore: as S . n . 4. 90 m e m o ri . . .pectore, E p . i. 2. 6 7 - 8 adbibe puro | pectore nerba, puer, a l.; see also a b o v e 335—6 n . a n im i a n d pectore a lte r n a te as a t C . i i . 19. 5 - 6 , L u c r . 1. 924—5 p e c tu s . . .m ente, 11. 4 5 -6 a n im o . . .pectus, v . 103 in p ectu s templaque m entis, al. m anat: p s .-A c ro , id est e fflu it. . .pectus enim, quod ia m u a rieta te. . ■ p len u m est, ea quae superuacua audierit, non retinet. 3 3 8 —4 2 t a k e u p delectare (333) j u s t as praecipies (3 3 5 ) to o k u p prodesse (3 3 3 ). R e fe re n c e is m a d e to th e H e lle n is tic a n d R o m a n d o c ­

t r i n e d is tin g u is h in g l ite r a r y fo rm s a c c o rd in g to th e i r a s s u m e d d e g re e o f fa c tu a l t r u t h : Ισ τ ο ρ ία [J a m a , uerum ), ττλά σ μ α (fictu m o r argum entum , uerisim ile), a n d μύθος ( fa b u la , f a l s u m ) , w h e re ττλ ά σ μ α a n d μϋθος in ­ e v ita b ly g e t e n ta n g le d , a n d m a y b e c o n fla te d . R o s ta g n i h a s d r a w n a t t e n t i o n to th e i m p o r ta n c e o f th is d o c trin e to a n c ie n t l i te r a r y h isto ry ; fo r d iscu ssio n a n d b ib lio g r a p h y , see R o s ta g n i a d I., a n d a b o v e 1 19» 1 5 1 n n . T h e p r e s e n t p a ssa g e d iffers fro m th e tw o e a rlie r in t h a t ‘f ic tio n ’ is h e r e tie d to e n te r ta in m e n t a n d delectare, w h e re a s uerum^ is tie d to in s tr u c tio n a n d prodesse, b o t h th e re fo re to g e n e r a l to p ics a p p r o p r i a t e to th e poeta se c tio n . T h u s o n c e a g a in th e sec tio n s o f th e p o e m a r e s e e n to im p in g e o n e a c h o th e r , a n d th u s to b e re la te d . A lth o u g h tliis th e o r y w a s w e ll k n o w n i n R o m a n l ite r a r y th e o r y as e a r ly a s th e R h e t. a d H er. a n d p r e s u m a b ly e a rlie r, it h e r e a p p e a r s m clo se c o n n e x io n w ith N e o p to le m u s ’ t r i a d , prodesse—delectare-prodesse et delectare. T h is c o n n e x io n c o n s titu te s n o t in d e e d a c e r t a i n t y b u t a b a la n c e o f p r o b a b ility in fa v o u r o f H e lle n is tic r a t h e r t h a n R o m a n p r o v e n a n c e fo r th e H o r a t i a n t r a d i t i o n . T h e e a rlie s t a c tu a l m e n tio n o f th e t r i a d ίσ τ ο ρ ία -τ τ λ ά σ μ α —μϋθος t h a t is a t p r e s e n t k n o w n o c c u rs in A s c le p ia d e s o f M y rle a (ap. S e x t. E m p . M a th . 1. 12. 2 5 2 ) w h ic h d a te s i t a t a ll e v e n ts b a c k to t h e s e c o n d c e n tu r y B.c.

354

C om m entary 3 3 8 fic ta a s a w o rd L a tin iz e s G re e k π λ ά σ μ α , th e label for the in te r m e d ia te g e n re b e tw e e n historia, t h a t is gesta res, an d fa b u la , quae neque ueras neque ueri sim iles continet res, A d Her. 1. 13· In the sam e work, a n d i n C ic . In v . 1. 27, it is c a lle d argumentum, a n d defined as ficta res, quae tam en fie r i p o tu it, cf. Q u in t. 1. 0 . n. 4. 2 argumentum. B ut in H ., who uses fix e d d o c tr in e fo r his o w n p o etic purposes, n o clear distinction is m a d e b e tw e e n th e tw o genres w h ich a re non uera: fictum an d fa b u la . u o lu p ta tis causa: A r. Poet. 24, 1460 a 11 ff. describes τ ό θαυμαστόν,

th e r e a lm o f ά λ ο γ ο ν , as ήδύ. I n H ellenistic term inology m arvellous a n d i r r a ti o n a l h a p p e n in g s w ere assigned to μύθος, ‘ ta le ’, in its new, n o n -A r is to te lia n , sig n ifican ce. A n d τ ό ήδύ follow ed suit, cf. Schol. D io n . T h r . p. 4 4 9 . 14 (ed. H ilg a rd ) ικανός δέ ό μύθος δ υ σ ω π ή σ α ι δι’ ή δ ο ν η ς . . . ή δε π ο ιη τ ικ ή εχει μέν τ ό π ρ ο σ α γ ω γ ό ν έκ τή ς ήδονής. In r h e to r ic a l th e o r y , u n d e r s ta n d a b ly e n o u g h , all th re e kinds o f n a rra ­ tiv e, historia, argum entum , a n d fa b u la , w ere claim ed as sources o f d iv e rs io n a n d e n te r ta in m e n t, Cic. Inv. 1. 27 quod delectationis causa non in u tili cum exercitatione dicitur et scribitur. p ro xim a ueris, G re e k είκότα. A d H er. a n d Cic. Inv. (cit. above u n d er fic ta ) ueri sim iles a n d quae . . .fieripotest, Q u in t. 1. 0 . (cit. ibid.) argumen­ tum , quod f a l s u m sed uero sim ile, p s.-A cro ad I. uerisimilia. T h e criterion o f p r o b a b ility in m a tte rs o f fictum o r fa b u la w as know n to the L atin

sch o liasts as i t h a d b e e n to th e G re e k ; for evidence from ancient V irg ilia n ex egesis, see R . H e in z e , Virg. E p. Technik 3, p. 246 n. 1. H . av o id s a p ro s a ic te r m lik e uerisimilia a n d rep laces it by som ething d e s c rib in g a c o n c re te , sp a tia l n o tio n , ‘close to th e t r u t h ’. T h e occur­ re n c e o f th is lo c u tio n in d id a c tic verse p ro b a b ly suggests th a t it is a t h o m e t h e r e : G e rm . Phaen. 26 plaustraue, quae facies stellarum proxima uero (Z , uera O , uerae B a rth ), A etna 177 Aetna sui manifesta fides et p ro xim a uero est. 339 ne B e n tle y , as a g a in s t nec B C a l., rig h tly since neu follows in the n e x t v erse, th o u g h th e re B a lo n e offers non ( n ) . B entley com pared 185 ne. I n b o t h in sta n c e s ne m a y be ita ut non. T h e ellipse pro b ab le in ne fo r te (1 76 n .) n e e d n o t n ecessarily b e assum ed. quodcum que uolet : u elit u a r.l. E ith e r is possible, cf. H o fm a n n -

S z a n ty r, 562 ; th e fre q u e n c y in la te L a tin o f th e subjun. in such a re i. cl. (u rg e d b y F . K lin g n e r, B V S A , lx xx v iii , 3 (1936), 43 n. 1) does n o t its e lf m a k e a g a in s t th is co n stru c tio n w h en th e rei. cl. is set in a fin a l o n e . B u t th e g e n e ra liz in g n o tio n o f th e fu t. indie, m ay well be a im e d a t, cf. C. 1. 28. 2 5 -9 . S cribes w ould b e tem p ted to tu rn uolet in to th e n o r m a l g r a m m a r o f uelit. p o sc a t. . .credi w ith o b je c t cl. a n d in f.; for th e inf. cf. C. 1. 4. 12 seu 355

23-2

Commentary poscat agna se. immolari·, fo r th is c o n s tru c tio n a f te r o t h e r v e rb s o f

a sk in g , see K ü h n e r - S t e g m a n n , x. 6 8 1 f. fa b u la : s c a rc e ly ‘d r a m a ’ a s 3 2 0 , b u t , a s K .—H . su g g e st, ‘ta ll s to r y ’, fa ls u m , cf. a b o v e 3 3 8 -4 2 n. 3 4 0 neu , th o u g h p a r a lle l to t h e g e n e ra l case i n tr o d u c e d b y ne a n d c o n tin u in g , in extrahat, th e p e r s o n ific a tio n o f f a b u la , in tr o d u c e s in fact a n in s ta n c e o f s u c h a fa b u la . L a m ia e: th e c h ild -e a tin g o gress o f a n c ie n t f a ir y ta le s, see S c h w e n n , R - E , XII. 544. 35 i f , P o r p h . haec a d infantes terrendos solet nom inari. T h is is a n in s ta n c e a d r o itly se le c te d a n d p re s e n te d fro m a w e ll-sto c k e d n a r r a t i v e s to re ; S ex t. E m p . M a th . 1. 2 6 4 show s th e tr a d i t i o n a l b a c k ­ g r o u n d in o ffe rin g as e x a m p le s o f μΰθος th e T i t a n s , P e g a su s, G o rg o , as w e ll as m e ta m o rp h o s e s ; so d o e s p s .-L o n g . Subì. 9. 14 in . his a c c o u n t o f τ ό μυθικόν in H o m e r , a n d ibid. Z o ilu s o n th e χ ο ιρ ίδ ια κ λ α ίο ν τ α o f C irc e . H . tells as it w e re th e s to ry i n o n e v erse, uiuum puerum extrahat aluo— th e g ru e s o m e d e ta il, n o t p e r h a p s su rp risin g ly , re s tr ic te d to th is v erse, cf. S c h w e n n , R - E , x i i . 545. 4 9 — a n d th e co m ic pransae, ‘ fo r l u n c h ’, t h e c o n c ise p a r t , as S. 1. 5. 25, 6. 127. extrahat + a b l., fo r w h ic h c o n s tru c tio n m a n y in s ta n c e s a r e c ite d b y D . B o, H o r. O p. m . 100. 3 4 1 —6 T h e a t t e m p t to e n su re success fo r t h e r i g h t k in d o f p o e m c o n tin u e s , H . m a k in g a n e w a p p e a l. So fa r t h e g ro u p s a p p r o a c h e d h a v e b e e n ego et pop u lu s mecum (1 5 3 ), th e p o pulus w ith o u t H . (3 2 1 ), th e nucis em ptor (2 4 g ), k n ig h ts o f sp e c ia l s ta n d in g (2 4 8 ), th e a n c ie n t R o m a n s (2 7 0 ) a n d P o m p iliu s san g u is (2 g 2 ). T h e ca se m o st like th e p r e s e n t is 113 equites peditesque a n d th e d iffe re n t p a r tie s im a g in e d a t 2 4 9 -5 0 . H e r e H . b u ild s u p th e th r e e sc h o la stic ty p e s o f p o e tr y in to a c o n te s t b e tw e e n m o ra lists, a e sth e te s, a n d c o m p ro m is e rs. T h e c o n te s t is p ic tu r e d as a R o m a n v o tin g p r o c e d u r e , w ith th e c o m p ro m is e rs fin a lly w in n in g e v e ry v o te , a n d w ith H . g iv in g , a t 3 4 5 -6 , h is o w n asse ssm e n t o f th e re s u lt, so t h a t a f te r a ll ego is a d d e d to populus. 3 4 1 - 2 centuriae seniorum a n d R a m n es s u rv iv e d as n a m e s to H . ’s d a y a n d b e y o n d . H o w e v e r jo c u la r ly a n d a r c h a ic a lly , th e y p o i n t to a c tu a l v o tin g a r ra n g e m e n ts in th e c e n tu r ia te a sse m b ly . W h a t L iv . 1. 43 · 5 ca lls th e discrimen aetatium is a n e n d u r in g f e a tu r e o f th e o rig in a l ‘ S e r v i a n ’ a r m y a n d civic o rd e r, cf. L iv y , ibid. 1 -2 octoginta confecit centurias, quadragenas s e n io ru m a c i u n i o r u m . . . ; se n io re s ad urbis custodiam u t praesto essent, iu u e n e s u t fo r is bella gererent. T h e a g e lim it w as 4 6 , M o m m s e n , R .S t. i. 3 . 5 0 8 , in . 262. T h e a g e g r o u p s s u rv iv e d fo r v o tin g p u rp o s e s : L iv y , ibid. 1 2, a p a ssa g e ro u g h ly c o n te m p o r a r y w ith H ., a n d m u c h d e b a te d , sin ce it in v o lv es l a t e r c h a n g e s i n th e c e n tu r ia te o r d e r ; fo r d iscu ssio n a n d b ib lio g r a p h y see E r n s t M e y e r,

356

Commentary R öm . S ta a t und Staatsgedanke 4 (1964), p p . 497~ 5° 4- T h e centuriae seniorum t h e n c o rre s p o n d to th e ‘pedites ’ o f 113, b u t only to the seniores a m o n g th e m . T h e ir ad v ersaries are n o t th e iuniores o f the ‘p edites ’ b u t y o u n g R o m a n k n ig h ts— th e fam ous sex centuriae o r sex suffragia p r e s e r v in g th e o ld E tru sc a n trib a l designations o f Ramnes Luceres T it i e[ n se )s \ cf. M o m m se n , op. cit. hi. 106-8, R osenberg, R -E , i a . 138 f. [Ramne s) , K lo tz , R - E , 11 a . 2024 [Sex Suffragia). M om m sen, op. cit. h i. 2 5 4 n . 3, says th e Ram nes h e re re p re se n t the centuries o f k n ig h ts. S o th e y d o , b u t H . neglects th e seniores a n d singles o u t the

y o u n g , w h o m h e h a d n e g le c te d in th e first g ro u p . T h u s he obtains a d o u b le g r o u p in g t h a t serves his p u rp o se o f a h u m orously overstated c o n tra s t, n o t o n ly b e tw e e n ‘pedites ’ a n d equites, b u t strait-laced b o u rg e o is a n d y o u n g m e n o f fashion. T h ese tw o groups ap tly approve o f th e tw o in v a lid e x tre m es, th e o n e o f prodesse, th e o th er o f delectare. T h e a n tith e s is 3 1 9 -2 4 m a y b e re c a lle d , m orata. . .recte fa b u la and nugae. . .canorae. 341 a g ita n t: P o r p h . ea quae nugatorie dicuntur exagitant senes. B ut the use o f th e sim p le v e rb is illu stra te d b y C. 11. 13. 4° libidos agitare lyncas, in . 12. 1 0 - 1 1 agitato | grege, i.e. ‘chase, sta rtle , a tta c k ’. A t Cic. M u r . 2 1 insectatur [legationem) follows agitat [rem militarem). T h e nuance b elo w 4 5 6 a g ita n t p u e ri (uesanum poetam) differs slightly. expertia fr u g is : i.e . poem ata (342). fr u x in a m etap h o ric al sense is not

k n o w n b e fo re th is p assa g e w ith o u t a defin in g gen ., an d occurs in H. h e r e o n ly , T L L , v i. 1. 1454. 3 if·, 37 ff· 3 4 2 F o r ce lsi. . .R a m n es, cf. Pers. i. 4 Troiades, 31 Romulidae, and p a r ti c u la r l y 20 ingentes trepidare T itos w ith L ydus, M ag. 1. 9 KC^ Τ ίτ ο υ ς (έκ άλεσ αν) τ ο ύ ς έκ π ρ ο γ ό ν ω ν εύγενείς, ώ ς φησι Περσιος ^ ‘Ρ ω μ α ίο ς, a n d Cecropides, Teucrorum proles, Troiugenae in Ju v e n a l s E ig h th S a tire , celsi, a n expressive a rc h a ic w o rd , w ith its n o u n R am nes f r a m e s th e lin e : ‘e r e c t’ a n d ‘d isd a in fu l’, in H . h ere only. As W ilk in s says, it m a y b e p re d . o r a ttrib . Cf. V a rro , M en. 9 cedit citus celsus tolu tim , C ic. T .D . v . 42 celsus et erectus et ea quae homini accidere p o ssunt om nia p a n ia ducens. D e Or. 1. 184, Liv. v n . 16. 5 celsique et spe h a u d dub ia fe ro c e s in proelium uadunt. praetereunt: cf. M a r t. 1. 25. 2 -4 profer opus, [ quod nec Cecropiae dam nent P a n d io n is arces j nec sileant nostri praetereantque senes. B ut K - . m e n tio n t h a t praeterire d e n o te s re je c tin g a c a n d id a te in a n election, C ic. T . D . v . 5 4 cum sapiens et bonus ui r . . .suffragiispraeteritur, Plane. 8,

C aes. B .C . 1. 6, al. T h is su its H .’s setting. » · τ austera poem ata: still stro n g ly m e ta p h o ric a l in H . s tim e, nstances o f th e m e t a p h o r b e fo re H . seem to a p p ly to persons [ T L , 11. *559· 59 ff·) e x c e p t fo r th e o x y m o ro n C ic. D e Or. in. 103 ut suauitatem habeat 357

C om m entary austeram et solidam , non dulcem atque decoctam. H . also h a s austerum. . . laborem , S . ii. 2. 12. 3 43“ ® H . n o w a d d s h is v o ice to t h a t o f th e seniores a n d iuniores. 343 omne tu lit punctum co m p le te s th e m e ta p h o r o f v o tin g ; cf. E p . n. 2. gg iscedo Alcaeus puncto illiu s. P o rp h . o n 343 p u n c tu m . . .ideo quod a m q u i suffragia non scribebant sed puncto notabant ; p s .-A c ro o n 343 usus e s , ?.C uer 0 eJ j.am d cero in F undaniana, o n n . 2. 99 suffragio, iuxta legem tabellariam·, C ic. P lane. 53) M u r . 72, T .D . 11. 62, cf. M o m m se n , R .St.

III. 404.

’

m iscuit u tile dulci, cf. 3 3 4 sim u l e t. . .et·, ibid, n o te s o n iucunda and idonea, .m ta e. dulci a b l., as is sh o w n b y S . 11. 4 . 5 5 , 65. o r th e te n se o f tu lit a n d m iscuit3 see 373 n , 344 delectando: cf. 333 delectare, monendo: cf. 333 prodesse.

1 J hlS *S-^lu m o ro u s in sty le, b u t in fa ct th e p ro m ise o f w id e and as m g a m e in th e n e x t verse m e a n s w h a t it says. T h e a p p a re n tly a , .η * ™ u^ e a n d dulce re v e a ls w h a t else w h e re i n th is po em a n d m th e Odes w o u ld b e c a lle d glory. Sosiis. th e p u b lish e rs o r b o o k sellers g e t t h e c a sh , w rite rs th e fa m e ; e a rn in g s y th e a u th o r , k n o w n fro m th e first c e n tu r y a .d ., a r e not e re in ic a te d . F o r th e n a m e cf. E p . 1. 2 0. 2 Sosiorum pum ice mundus, o r p . o n p . i . 20. 2 S o sii illo tempore fr a tre s erant bibliopolae celeberrimi UΓ 1 Sa^ S antea ■ · · «rant, a n d th e re is n o o th e r in fo rm a tio n o n em . e e n g th o f th e first v o w e l, i n s p ite o f p s .-A e ro ’s assertio n , n o c e rta in . D io C assiu s tra n s lite ra te s th e n a m e s o f C . Sosius an d Rosius S en ec io b y Σ όσιος o r Σ ό σ σ ιο 5, cf. R - E h i a . 1176, 1180; \ C ^ I ‘\ n , l ^ ennameili P· 4 2 5· B u t n o te Sosis i n p s.-A e ro ’s re p o rt a n d c o d d . B C K al. (K e lle r, E p il. p. 764). mare transit: th e ac c. a s E p . 1. 6 . 59, cf. D . B o, H or. O p. in . ι ι η . , l ’ 2 0 ; r3 sales to A fric a o r S p a in a re fo re c a st w h e n th e book e e n w e r e a d a t h o m e ; th e y a re p ic tu re d th e r e as flig h t o r exile. p . ’ I 3- a o so u n d s a d iffe re n t n o te . C f. M a r q u a r d t - M a u , D as • T**. ef n . ' 028. E . A u e rb a c h , L iterary L anguage a n d its Public j f n l(l u lD (E n g . T r. 1 965), cites th is a n d s im ila r p assa g es a t p . 238, • orn m e n ts o n th e w id e ra n g e o f th e lite ra r y p u b lic in th e first im p e ria l c e n tu r y ’. ^ , 3 4 6 i° nS uin : p ro le p tic , u n lik e S . 11. 2 . i i 8 , E p . 1. 3. 8,11. 1. 159; n o t

e m p W « L ' le n g t t lf

rcd“ ndant

358

strongly

Commentary (4) (‘poeta perfectus’ and ‘poeta uesanus’, 347-476, cf. above 308 ‘quo uirtus, quo ferat error’)

In a sense this section corresponds to the ‘table of contents’, 308 q u o u i r t u s , q u o f e r a t error, u irtu s is perfection or ideal, the fulfilment of the true nature of a thing or person, Greek αρετή. This is the notion underlying the s u m m u s orator of Cicero : O r. 3 {q u o d e lo q u e n tia e g e n u s ) s u m m u m et p e r fe c tissim u m iudicem , 7 in su m m o o ra to re fin g e n d o ta le m in fo rm a b o q u a lis fo r ta s s e nemo f u i t , non e m m qu a ero q u is f u e r i t , s e d q u id s i t illu d quo n ih il esse p o ssit p ra esta n ­ tiu s ,

etc., 8 n i h i l esse

in u llo genere ta m p u lc h ru m quo non p u lc h riu s id

etc. Quin­ tilian’s p e r fe c tu s o ra to r, I . O . xii, may be compared. Greek influence would at this stage of Roman development suggest the Greek notion of αρετή, or τέλος, which H. has in mind at 308 quo u i r t u s . . .fe r a t. E. Norden, H, xl (1905), 504 n. 2, quoted Stoic writings for τέλειος ρήτωρ and his counterpart, Ατελής. He was able to note Philod. R h e t. 1, p. 5,11, p. 127 ; αρετή (or τέλος) as a literary term however was not noted by him because he wrote before Jensen had made available large portions of Philodemus’ P o em . v. There not only τέλειος appears in literary nomenclature, e.g. 7. 29 f. τ[έ]λ[ει]ος δέ καί αγαθός ποιητής, but αρετή of poem or poet, thus Praxiphanes 9. 28-30 Πρα[ξ]ιφάνης.. .λέγει περί της αρετής έν [τ]ώι πρώτωι περί ποιη[μά]των, Neopt. 13· 8-10 προς άρε [την δεϊν τ]όοι τελείωι ποι[ητήι] κτλ., also Philod. 22. 35^23. i τής αρετής έστηκότες ύπόκεινται σκ[οπ]οί, et al. But for an understanding of H. it is essential to clarify what is meant by the statement that this ‘section’ corresponds to 3 ° 8 quo u ir tu s q u o f e r a t error. In making this statement, H, x l ( I 9 ° 5 ) j 502 ff., Norden was intent on laying bare the doctrinal structure hidden behind the A r s . So he subdivided 347 if., (1) 3 4 7 “ 4 0 7 on the postulate of perfection, (2) 408-52, followed by the satirical epilogue 453-76, on how to fulfil this postulate. Norden pointed to certain structural similarities with rheto­ rical criticism. But that procedure, by analogy, may tell us s i t u n d e i l l u d u t e x ore a liq u o q u a si im a g o ex p rim a tu r,

359

Commentary

something about the Horatian tradition, little about H. For the poet that literary tradition is no more than a stimulant, which prompts his reactions. In the final part of the poem, perhaps more than anywhere else, he is concerned to be specific and particular, not general and abstract. Hence he breaks up the large and lumpy abstractions which his tradi­ tion offered him. That procedure enabled him to instil life into the small constituent parts thus resulting. A unity arises not from subject headings but from the inward relation of these elements. For that reason, at P r o l. 258—60, I have fol­ lowed the Horatian hints rather than the hints of the literary tradition, and have separated off eight contexts, each with a traditional core to it, and all related to the announcement, d o ce b o . . . q u o u ir tu s , q u o f e r a t error. Below I number H .’s ‘sub­ sections ’ according to the small contexts which he has created. Disconcertingly to the reader who demands a prosaic argu­ ment, H. does not aid him by placing each context under the heading of an overriding abstraction. Thus he does not say, as does Norden, loc. c it. p. 502, ‘347—407: although faultless­ ness is unattainable (347-65) yet mediocrity condemns the poet (366-78, 379-90). For poetry is something majestic and sacred (391-407).’ The matter is more complex, and more interesting, than that. The unity of this and other pieces of poetry can be described but it cannot be restated by a some­ what trite logicality. This is no harsh criticism of Norden, whose contribution to unriddling the A r s is second to none. (a) Two notions o f poetic fault, 347—60

As an approach to the ideal of p e r fe c tu s p o e ta the notion of faults is considered. What is the kind of perfection to be aimed at? Which faults (d e lie ta , u itia ) are venial, which nullify a poet? To let an exclusion of αμαρτήματα precede άρετή seems to have been a method adopted elsewhere in technical discussion ; cf. ps.-Long. S u b ì . 1 ff., Quint. 1 . 0 . x ii . 1.19 ff. But the early chap­ ters of Longinus deal with actual faults, not with oversight. T hat problem, as Norden realized {lo c. c it. pp. 504 f. n. 3), 360

Commentary

is dealt with in a later place of Longinus, ch. 33, which needs to be compared with the present section. 347 su n t, e tc .: th is is n o t a n in te rlo c u to r’s p ro test, answ ered at 35 1 ff·, as K e lle r th o u g h t. delicta: a ls o 4 4 2 , like culpa , is a stro n g e r w o rd a n d less term inological th a n u itiu m , cf. 31 in u itiu m ducit culpae Juga, 354 peccat. I am u n ab le h e re to fin d th e d iffe re n c e in m e a n in g b etw een delicta a n d peccata asse rte d b y R o s ta g n i ; th e d iffe ren c e lies in th e context. {delie)ta ta {m en ): Q u in tilia n says a t 1. 0 . ix. 4. 41 uidendum. . .ne syllaba uerbi p rio ris u ltim a et p rim a sequentis consonet. C iting Q u in tilian , N . I. H e re s c u { R P , 3™ sér. x x iv (1946), 7 4 h ) concludes th a t the se q u e n c e -ta ta - is a delictum w h ich H . exem plified in th e m an n er a sse rte d b y J . M a r o u z e a u , R P , n.s. L (1926), n o an d elsew here— I exem ple j o i n t au pre'cepte. T h is strikes m e as unlikely ; see 36 n. above. tamen a c c o r d in g to W ic k h a m is ex p lain e d n o t by any single p re ­ c e d in g s ta te m e n t b u t b y th e g e n e ra l p ic tu re o f perfection d ra w n in th e la s t se c tio n . T h is is tru e , ex cep t th a t a n id e a o f perfection is set u p in t h e la s t tw o verses, a n d p erfec tio n is now considered from a d iffe re n t v ie w p o in t, tamen th e re fo re as m u c h as th e verse as a whole m ak es a tr a n s itio n fro m o n e co n te x t to an o th er. ignouisse: fo r th e p erf. inf. see above 98 n. tetigisse, uelim us: a n u n e m p h a tic a n d un sp ecified ‘w e ’, cf. 331 speremus, and c o n tra s t 11 s c im u s . . .petim usque damusque, w h ich is m ore personal, and 2 4 -5 m a x im a p a rs u a tu m . . .decipimur, 2 7 2 -4 ego et uos \ scimus. . . callemus, w h ic h a r e m o re specific. 348— 5° A p o e tic a lly effective, ‘in c o m p le te ’, com parison brings in tw o o t h e r a r t s to c la rify H . ’s p o in t b y ju x ta p o sitio n a n d illustration. O f th e s e , a r c h e r y is o ften u sed in p h ilosophy, specially Stoic, to illu s tra te a c h ie v e m e n t a n d fa u lt. T h e p ro p o sitio n in the preceding v erse is g e n e r a l— ‘ th e re a re v e n ia l fau lts ’— a lth o u g h the reference to p o e try m a y b e assu m e d . T h e n th e weaknesses a re explained in the cases o f t h e s tr in g p la y e r a n d a rc h e r, b u t n o t ap p lied to the m ain to p ic . S o t h a t w h e n H . re tu rn s to p o e try all em phasis can fall on the u e w n o tio n o f h ig h a c h ie v e m e n t (ubi plura nitent, 3 5 1), w hich alone m a tte rs . T h e n e g a tiv e a sp e ct (th ere a re v en ial faults in poetry as w ell) c o m e s th e re a fte r , u n d e rs ta te d since this n eg a tiv e conclusion has a lr e a d y b e e n im p lie d , a n d subserves th e positive. nam , e x p la n a to r y a n d ellip tic , in tro d u c e s th e illustrations, b u t the v e n ia l c h a r a c te r o f th e offence re m a in s unexpressed u n til we com e to 351- 3 , w h e r e th e a p p lic a tio n to p o e try is m a d e a n d this notion has its p r o p e r p la c e .

361

Commentary {som ni) reddit ‘ r e n d e r ’, cf. a b o v e 1 5 8 η ., sc. sem per fr o m th e cor­ r e s p o n d in g c la u s e 3 5 0 , b u t cf. 3 4 9 n . m anus et mens, th e tw o n o u n s a r e c o m b in e d in v a r io u s w ays else­ w h e re , e.g . C ie. D e Or. 1. 194 ab a lien is mentes, oculos, m an u s abstinere, L iv . XXXIX. 16. i si a fa c in o rib u s m anus, m entem a fr a u d ib u s abstinuissent, b u t h e r e fo rm a n a llite ra tiv e p a i r lik e 4 2 u ir tu s . . . e t uenus. 349 T h e v erse is h ig h ly su s p e c t. (1) persaepe. L . M u e lle r observes t h a t th is is th e o n ly in s ta n c e in th e E p istles a n d A r s ( a p a r t , t h a t is, fro m A . P . η persim ilem , w h ic h h e o v e rlo o k e d ) o f a n a d j. o r adv. c o m p o u n d e d w i t h e r = ‘v e r y ’ ; B. A x e lso n , Unpoet. W örter, 38, notes th e e x tre m e r a r i t y o f th e se c o m p o u n d s in A u g u s ta n v erse. I n H . all th e o th e r in s ta n c e s o c c u r in t h e S a tires a n d o n e i n th e Epodes : perfa cilis perm agnus p erm u lta perpauca perraro, a n d persaepe its e lf in Epod. 14. i i , S . i. 2. 8 2 , 3 . 10. T h is o b s e r v a tio n w o u ld b e insufficient g r o u n d s fo r a b la c k m a r k w e re i t n o t fo r its c o in c id e n c e w ith the w ro n g sense— ‘v e ry o f t e n ’. C o m m e n ta to rs r e n d e r th e w o rd b y 'n u r z u ° ft \ K . - H . , ‘ tro p so u ven V , L e ja y ; w h a t is r e q u ir e d is ‘o c c a s io n a lly ’, cf. 35 0 nec semper, 351 p a u c is a s c o n tr a s te d w ith 3 5 4 usque, 356 semper, 357 m u ltu m , w h ic h seem s to i n v a lid a te t h e tr a n s m i t te d te x t. B ut persaepe resists e m e n d a tio n . (2) A . P la tt, C R , iv (1 8 9 0 ), 50, o b je c ts to th e w h o le v e rse b e c a u se i t d e sc rib e s n o t a s m a ll b u t a se rio u s fault. M o re o v e r th e o m issio n in 348 o f semper is in to le r a b le i f th e q u a lify in g w o rd is p o s tp o n e d u n til 3 5 0 ; persaepe, 349, c a n n o t ta k e its p lace. B u t i f 350 im m e d ia te ly follow s 3 4 8 , semper c a n οπτό κοινοϋ q u a lify b o th neque. . .re d d it, 348, a n d nec. . f e r i e t , 3 5 0 . I c a n n o t c o u n te r th e se o b je c tio n s. T h is v erse, e v e n m o r e th a n 178, is likely to b e s p u rio u s . I t is b e st e x p la in e d a s a n o ld d e s c rip tiv e in te r­ p o la tio n . 35 ° T h e p e rs o n ific a tio n o f chorda, b e g u n a s a c o r o lla r y o f manus et mens, is c o m p le te i n m in a b itu r arcus — a p t i n b o t h ca ses, th e in s tru m e n ts as i t w e re re fu s in g c o m p lia n c e . quodcumque m in a b itu r h e r e d iffe rs fro m E p o d . 9 . 9 a n d C. 1. 28. 25 in t h a t a n i n f h a s to b e u n d e r s to o d fro m fe r ie t. M a d v ig , A d v . C rit. 1. 6B fo u n d i t in to le r a b ly h a r d to s u p p ly se percussurum esse, a n d p ro p o se d cuicum que {quotcumque, h e th o u g h t) , o n t h e b asis, as h e a s s u m e d , o f M S e v id e n c e . T h is m a y b e s m o o th e r. T h e r e is h o w e v e r, W ilk in s n o te d , n o s u c h e v id e n c e in a n y o f th e m a jo r M S S , b u t t h e a lte r a tio n w o u ld b e slig h t. W h a t m a k e s a g a in s t i t is t h a t n o fu ll a c c . + in f. n e e d b e u n d e r s to o d (fo r in sta n c e s o f th e inf. see 7 'L L , v m . 1030. 11 i f ) anc* quodcumque ‘w h a te v e r a i m ’ is p r e fe ra b le to th e p e r s o n a l o b j. T h e ellip se is easy a n d re q u ire s n o c o m m e n t. T h o s e w h o th in k o th e rw ise m a y c o n s id e r L . M u e lle r’s e x a m p le s.

362

Commentary 35 * uerum : cf. 225 n . T h e p a rtic le does n o t h e re in tro d u ce an in te r lo c u to r ’s o b je c tio n , n o r in d e e d H .’s answ er to a n assum ed in te r lo c u to r in 3 4 7 -5 0 . nitent: cf. 15 0 η . 35 2 offendar: cf. 248 n ., 376 n ., a n d th e sam e v e rb in a sim ilar a r g u m e n t a t C ic. D e O r. 1. 259. m aculis h e r e first a tte s te d i n a p p lic a tio n to style, cf. Q u in t. 1. 0 . v ili. 3. 18 in oratione nitida notabile hum ilius uerbum et uelut macula , 5. 28 also w ith uelut. B u t th e w o rd is fre q u e n tly a p p lie d to religious an d m o ra l p o llu tio n , T L L , v m . 25. 84 if. q u a s . . .J u d it is re a listic , th e m e ta p h o r no t b e in g d ead as in the ta g , ‘ h e h a s b lo tte d his c o p y -b o o k ’. I n T L L , vi. 1. 1563. 61 this use is r ig h tly c a lle d a tro p e , b u t th e passage is o d d ly placed u n d e r ‘res liquidas s i m ’ ‘quae a nasis effunduntur ’. o u t . . . . I J u t ) as th o u g h th e re w ere a logical ju x tap o sitio n . incuria: i n a tte n tio n re sp o n sib le for a m o m e n ta ry slip, n o t the in a b ility to ta k e tro u b le im p u g n e d 261, 2 9 0 -1 . T h is permissiveness, as N o r d e n h a s sh o w n loc. cit., is e m b e d d e d in speculations on the perfectus a r tife x : p s.-L o n g . Subì. 33. 4 (on H o m e r an d o th er g reat w rite rs ) ο ύ χ α μ α ρ τ ή μ α τ α μ άλλον α υ τ ά έκούσια καλώ ν ή π α ρ ο ρ ά μ α τα δι α μ έλεια ν είκή π ο υ καί ώ ς έτυχεν υ π ό μεγαλοφυΐας ά νεπ ισ τά τω ς "Π·αρενηνεγμένα, Q u in t. L.O . x . ι. 24 [neque) omnia quae optimi auctores dixerint utique esse perfecta, nam et labuntur aliquando et oneri cedunt. . . ; nonnum quam fa tig a n tu r , 2. 9 cum in his quos maximos adhuc nouimus nemo sit m uentus in quo n ih il a u t desideretur aut reprehendatur, xii. 1. 20, see below 359 n · L o n g in u s h o w e v e r re g ard s risks as a necessary concom itant o f g re a tn e s s (33. 2 ), cf. P la to , R ep. vi. 497 d τ α . . .μ εγά λα π ά ν τ α

ε π ισ φ α λ ή . S o d o es, as O . Im m isc h , p. 190, a n d D . A. R ussell (ps.L o n g . a d I.) n o te , P o m p e iu s G em inus, th e addressee o f D ion. H a l.’s essay : P o m p . 2 . 15 (ed. U s .- R a . 11. 231) Iv ols καί σφάλλεσθαί εστιν ά ν α γ κ α ΐο ν . T h e s e a r e id eas flo atin g a b o u t d u rin g th e first cen tu ry ; th e y m u s t h a v e b e e n w ell k n o w n to H . O n e needs therefore to be a w a re o f h is d e lib e r a te coolness to w ard s these aspirations. H e is w illin g to m a k e a llo w a n c e s fo r o ccasio n al lapses in H o m er ; he is not w illin g to s h a r e r o m a n tic a d m ira tio n o f ‘necessary fa u lts’. T his is why O . I m m is c h ’s ‘ Erhabenheitslehre ’ does n o t rin g tru e in the A rs; H .’s d islike o f th is k in d o f ro m a n tic ism m a y b e one o f several m otives for h is ‘ A r is to te lia n is m ’. Y e t H . goes his ow n w ay. A suprem e crafts­ m a n h im se lf, h e re co g n izes m istakes w h e n h e sees them . T h e read er o f th e Poetics is h a r d ly a w a re th a t su c h lapses occur, provided he follow th e p h ilo s o p h e r’s a d v ic e . T h e se m a tte rs look different to a p o e t.

363

Com m entarj 3 5 3 h u m a n a . . . natura: th is sim p ly a m o u n ts to errare (o r errasse) hum anum est, cf. A . O t t o , Sprichw örter, 165 (3 ). T h is k in d o f excuse c o n firm s th e im p re ssio n o f th e la s t v erse, fo r H . a rg u e s i t is h u m an , n o t n o b le , to err. q u id ergo est? L a m b in u s s a id , ‘ q u id erg o ? ’ nonnulli lib ri habent ‘ quid ergo e s t? ’, ego n ih il muto·, c o n tr a s t C ru q u iu s c ite d a b o v e p . 50. B entley re s to r e d est fro m t h e M S S (o n ly so m e I ta li in fa c t o ffe r quid ergo?). A lth o u g h th e r e a r e a few in s ta n c e s o f q u id ergo? p r e c e d in g a n affirm a­ tiv e c la u se , c lassica l n o t o n ly C ic e ro n ia n u sa g e e n d o rse s q u id ergo? in a r g u m e n t b e fo re q u e s tio n s , b u t q u id ergo est? b e fo re a n affirm ativ e c la u se , cf. T L L , v . 2. 7 6 4 . 82 ffi, 765. 27 ff., 37 f f , 57 ff. T h e p re se n t p a ssa g e (w ith a m is p r in t in th e re f.) is r ig h tly liste d ib id . 765. 49. 354~f>° T h e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n h a b i t u a l a n d o c c a s io n a l m istakes is n o w m a d e , th e fo rm e r in t e r p r e t e d as p o e tic n u llity se t o f f b y a few successes, th e la tte r as e x c e lle n c e a c h ie v e d w ith a fe w m in o r faults. T h is as b e fo re ta k e s th e fo r m o f a c o m p a r is o n b e tw e e n o th e r a rts (ut) a n d p o e tr y (sic). B u t a g a in th e c o m p a ris o n p re fe rs essen tials to e x te r n a l n e a tn e ss. T h e o t h e r a rts c o n tr ib u te o n ly th e w a r n in g ex­ a m p le o f th e h a b i t u a l b o tc h e r ; t h e n e w a n d d e c isiv e a sp e c ts a p p e a r o n ly w h e n H . r e tu r n s to p o e try . T h is is a f e a tu r e o f m a n y H o ra tia n c o m p a riso n s . 3 5 4 scriptor. . .lib ra riu s: L . M u e lle r n o te s t h a t scriptor in H . = ‘p o e t ’, a n d h e n c e to b e c o m e ‘s c r i b e ’ re c e iv e s t h e q u a lify in g lab el librarius, ‘w r ite r o f b o o k s ’ ; H . a v o id s th e p ro s a ic scriba. C ic e ro has b o th , scriptor b e in g sc rib e o r a u t h o r , r a r e ly a s a t A rch. 18 u se d o f p o e ts. C f. F est. 3 3 3 (M .) s c rib a s proprio nom ine a n tiq u i e t lib ra rio s et p o e ta s uocabant; a t nunc dicuntur scribae quidem lib ra ri qui rationes publicas scribunt in tabulis, e tc . peccat idem : fo r th e v e r b see a b o v e 347 n. delicta, fo r th e acc. S. i· 3. 115 tantundem que u t peccet idem que, 140 s i q u id peccaro, C . n i. 2 7· Ι 9 ~ 2 θ q u id . . . [ peccet, C ic. N . D . 1. 31 X en o p h o n . . .eadem fe r e peccat, cf. K ü h n e r - S t e g m a n n , i. 279 f. usque: th e o ld a d v e r b ia l u sa g e , ‘ t h r o u g h o u t ’, p re s e rv e d in p o e try a n d a fa v o u rite w ith H . 355 quam uis est: p s .-A c ro , pro eo quod est ‘ quam uis s i t ’ propter cacenfa to n , etc. T h e e x p la n a tio n is d o u b ly im p la u s ib le , b e c a u s e o f th e c lo u d in ess o f th e t e r m cacemphaton (see a b o v e 3 6 n .) , a n d i n v ie w o f the fa c t t h a t o f th e 18 c e r ta in cases o f quam uis + v e rb 13 h a v e th e in d ie ., few o f w h ic h a re o p e n to p s .-A c ro ’s e x p la n a tio n . C f. N . d i L o re n zo , B o ll. FU . Cl. Xu (1 9 0 6 ), 13 ff. u t citharoedus: (B e n tle y ), et c. re ll. c o d d . W h ile n o c e rta in ty is a tta in a b le , th e a n a p h o r a o f u t, w h ic h is suauior a n d u iuidior a s B en tley

364

Commentary says, is com m ended by a number of instances, among them those of utque or et ut, thus ut-utque at S. 1. 2. 38-9, 4. 109, 11. 1. 50, thus ut-et ut at S . ii. 4. 13, and ut—ut {-ut) at S. i. 3. 129-30, ii. 5. 43, Ep. i. i. 20-1, 13. 13-15, ii. i. 172. 356 oberrat: poetic and Silver Latin, vividly pictures the shifting of the finger {ob-) to the wrong place chorda. . . eadem, the verb first known from this passage, next in Silver Latin. 357-60 A rigid application of the principle borrowed from the other arts— occasional mistakes venial, botching unforgivable— would be tedious and jejune. Instead H. sees the case in personal terms, concretely. He identifies the latter position with a famous botcher among poets, and in the sequel identifies the former with the supreme poet, Homer. H e then dialectically reverses the position, not just condem ning the botcher’s work but expressing amused surprise when he gets one or two things right. By the same token he does not simply forgive Homer his occasional lapses, but professes to be annoyed when Homer, very occasionally, nods. Hence he must call himself and others to order and assert reason in the face of emotional confusion : ‘ an occasional nap over a long work is right and proper . There is nothing wrong with the text, the sequence of thought is apt and lively, provided H .’s dialectical process is understood. 357 rnultum: the neut. adj. with cessat is used adverbially as is idem (354 n .), e.g. Epod. 17. 20 amata nautis multum, S. i. 3. 57, π. 3· 320, Ep. i. 3. i 6. 52, above 241 sudet multum frustraque laboret', also with adj. as S . 11. 3. 147 medicus multum celer. Cf. such colloquialisms as Cic. Alt. i. i. 5 multum te amamus. cessat: f r e q u e n t in H . a n d elsew here for ‘h a n g back, default , cessator is a s h irk e r, S. 11. 7. 100. T h e v e rb is used in th e context o f lite r a r y p e r fe c tio n to in d ic a te (as it does here) lapses: Q u in t. 1. 0 . I. 10. 4 {oratoris) perfecti illius ex nulla parte cessantis, 11. 8. io . fit Choerilus: he becomes Choerilus as it were, not only like C., see e.g. Ep. i. 2. 41—2 qui. . .prorogat horam, | rusticus expectat, not ut rusticus, a n d b e lo w 476 n. Choerilus: ‘ the obscure C. o f the fourth century’ (L. P. Wilkinson, Horace2, p. 91 n. 1)— obscure in one sense but not in another. For C., one o f the highly paid court poets of Alexander o f Macedon, had entered the ancient tradition as an undoubted competitor for the position o f pessimus poeta; cf. Crusius, R-E, in. 2361. 58 ff. He is men­ tioned in Ep. i i . i , where H. turns his own criticism of Alexander s regrettable taste into a tactful if pointed comparison with Augustus, 232-4 gratus Alexandro regi magno fuit ille | Choerilus, incultis qm uersi us et male natis ) rettulit acceptos, regale nomisma, Philippos, cf. ro . 20

365

Commentary A c o n s id e ra b le m y th o lo g y a tta c h e s to th e n a m e ; th e sp ec im e n s in P o rp h y rio n ’s a n d p s.-A e ro ’s n o te s o n th e tw o p a ssa g e s m a k e am using re a d in g . T h e p r e s e n t p a ssa g e c a n b e e x p la in e d fu lly i f i t is set in t e c o n te x t o f H e lle n is tic c ritic is m — a n o t h e r lin k w ith A le x a n d ria n u m , cf. H e in z e a n d R o s ta g n i a d L , O . Im m is c h , p p . 1 8 7 -9 2 (his discus­ sio n a g a in v itia te d b y th e d e s ire to fin d a P la to n iz in g d o c tr in e o t e S u b lim e in th e A r s ) . T h e n e o - P la to n is t H e r m ia s o f th e fifth ce n tu ry in a n o te o n P la to , Phaedr. 245 a ( ‘th e m a d n e ss o f th e m u se s ) con tra s ts th e p o e try o f in s p ir a tio n w ith t h e p o e tr y o f a r t (112, PP· 9 28 ff. ed . P. C o u v re u r , 1901) τ ί y à p ό μ ο ιο ν ή Χ ο ιρ ίλ ο υ καί Καλλιμ ά χ ο υ ττοίησις π ρ ο ς τ η ν ‘ Ο μ ή ρ ο υ ή Π ιν δ ά ρ ο υ ;. T h is c o m m e n t c asses C h o e rilu s w ith C a llim a c h u s as a (H e lle n istic ) m a n o f τ έ χ ν η and c o n tra s ts b o th w ith th e p o e ts o f in s p ir a tio n , H o m e r a n d P in a r a s ig n ific a n t A le x a n d r ia n e c h o . P h ilo d . P oem ., H V 2, v i. 174· 4 · 1S e v e n m o re r e le v a n t, a n d w a s b r o u g h t in to H o r a t i a n c ritic ism y U s e n e r, R M , x l i i i (1 8 8 8 ), 150 a n d K ie sslin g (1 8 8 9 ] : κ [ α τ ] α σ υ ν έ χ [ο ]ν καί κ υ [ ρ ι] ώ τ α [ τ ο ν δέ] τ ω ν εμ πο[η]τ[ι]κή[ι] _δ[ια|φερειν Χ ο ιρ ί[λ ]ο ν κ [α ί] Ά ν α ξ ιμ έ ν η ν Ό μ ή ρ ο [ υ ] , καί Κ α ρ κ ίν ο ν . . .Ε ]υρεπτιδ ο υ , κ α ί το υ ς ά λ [λ ο υ ]ς το ύ ς -πονηρούς εμ π ο η τ ικ ή ι [ τ ] ώ [ ν ] ά [ρ ισ τ ω ν ], cf. Τ . G o m p e r z ‘ P h ilo d . u n d d ie ä s th . S e h r, d e r H e re . B iblio­ t h e k ’, S B A W , c x x i n (1 8 9 1 ), 37. H e r e C h o e rilu s , A n a x im e n e s , an o th e rs a r e c o n f ro n te d as -πονη ρ οί, m a li poetae, o f th e e p ic g e n re wi H o m e r as ά ρ ισ τ ο ς , bonus o r su m m u s, a s trik in g p a r a lle l to th e rs. ille : P e e r lk a m p p ro p o s e d th e p u n c t u a t i o n Choerilus, ille j quern- · · * a ttr a c tiv e in is o la tio n b u t u n lik e ly in t h e c o n te x t a n d e x c lu e ille C hoerilus. . . q u i in th e p a r a lle l p a ssa g e o f t h e A u g u stu s, c ite m la s t n . , 358 bis tem e B K , bis terque c e tt. A lth o u g h B e n tle y te n d e d to c a n g -que a n d -ue o fte n e r t h a n is w a r r a n t e d (cf. H o u s m a n o n M a n . i- 47 > in . 15), I h a v e n o d o u b t t h a t h e w a s r i g h t h e re to c o r re c t th e v u g a o f h is tim e a n d b r i n g -ue, k n o w n to h im o n ly fro m O x . R e g ., m to ^ te x t; cf. p s .-A c ro duos ueltresu ersu s elegantes. F o r bis tem e m e a n ^ (f Ì 5n ° r tw o o r th re e tim e s ’, C ic. F a m . 11. 1. 1 {-ue o r -ne i n th e M a r t. X. 11. 6 tem e quaterne {-que M S S , cf. M . H a u p t , Opusc. in . 5 4h a n d th is m u s t b e th e m e a n in g h e r e — fo r th e sense cf. E p . n . 1. 73 O n th e o th e r h a n d bis terque is ‘s e v e ra l tim e s o v e r ’ a s a t E p o . 5-3 > A .P . 4 4 0 , C ic. Qu. F . in . 6 (8). 6 , a n d t h e p assa g es liste d in F o rc e in n . a n d K e lle r , E p il. 7 6 5 , e sp e c ia lly S ta t. S ilv . iv . 2 .5 8 sin ce it w o u a b e e n a p o o r c o m p lim e n t t o D o m itia n i f S ta tiu s h a d w is e 1 ‘ a n o th e r y e a r o r t w o ’ b e y o n d V e s p a s ia n ’s age. O t h e r locutio:ns i n y b e c o m p a r e d : ter et am plius, ter et quater, ter quaterque i n H -, erH

366

Commentary quaterque i n V irg il. E d ito rs n o w a c c e p t th e rig h t re ad in g , b u t Lejay

a n d la te r V ille n e u v e s h o u ld n o t h a v e stood out. _bonum: K . - H . 3 5 9 n . o n bonus Homerus, ‘epitheton perpetuum as d iffe re n t fro m bis tem e bonus Choerilus ’. bonus poeta c a n take the place o f perfectus e v e n in c r itic a l w ritin g s, e.g. Gic. D e Or. 11. 194 poetam bonum n em in e m . . .sin e inflam matione animorum existere posse, T ac. Dial. 10. i mediocres p o e ta s nemo non nouit, bonos pauci. So also bonus orator, e.g. C ic. D e Or. 1. 118. F o r o th e r in stan ce s ‘ de eis qui in arte sua et negotio perfecti s u n t’, see T L L , π . 2080. 42 ff. T h is w ill h a v e to be borne in m in d fo r j u d g i n g th e n u a n c e o f bonus. . . Homerus in th e next verse. cum risu: S . 1. 8. 50 cum magno risuque iocoque. et idem c o n s u m m a te s th e p a ra d o x , cf. 3 5 7 -6 0 n. Some earlier e d ito rs t r ie d t o e lim in a te th e a p p a r e n t c o n tra d ic tio n b y em ending et to u t, d e f e n d e d b y L . M u e lle r a n d o th ers, o r else ut for et and indignor in t e r r o g a t iv e : ‘ b u t sh o u ld I b e an n o y e d w hen, etc.?’ (O. R ib b e c k , p. 2 4 0 ). B o th a re c o n tra d ic te d b y th e adversative uerum 360, see b e lo w .

359 indignor: c o n tr a s t 3 5 1 -2 non. . .offendar·, ps.-L ong. Subì. 33. 4 ή κ ισ τ α το ϊς ττ τα ίσ μ α σ ιν ('Ο μ ή ρ ο υ ) άρεσκόμενος, όμως κτλ. U nlike the s a m e v e r b a t E p . 11. 1. 76 it is h e re co lo u red by its ironical counter­ p a r t cum risu m iror , 358. H . p re te n d s to a d m ire C hoerilus w hen very o c c a sio n a lly h e g e ts s o m e th in g rig h t, a n d to feel irk ed , unreasonably, w h e n H o m e r g e ts s o m e th in g w ro n g . F o r indignor Cic. Or. 104 m ay be c o m p a re d , usque eo difficiles a c m o ro si sum us, u t nobis non satisfaciat ipse Dem osthenes; qui quam quam unus eminet, etc. I see no p o in t in H einze’s s p e c u la tio n s a b o u t th e d iffe re n c e b etw een indignor a n d offendar, 352. quandoque i n H . o c c u rs o n ly as a co n ju n ctio n , ‘w h en ev er’. It is a r c h a ic , p o e tic (first in verse k n o w n fro m H .) a n d Silver an d late L a tin . T h e in s ta n c e s in H . a re re stric te d to C. iv (1. 17, 2. 34) an d the p re s e n t p a s s a g e . bonus: so th e w h o le o f th e M S tra d itio n b u t H ier. E p. 84. 8 cites th e v erse w i t h m agnus in ste a d o f bom s. C o n tra st above 358 bis terue bonum , S t J e r o m e ’s re a d in g w o u ld rem ove th is link. S. 1. 10. 52 tu nihil in m a g n o . . . reprehendis Homero ? differs in scope ; poeta bonus or poeta niagnus o c c u r in tw o s im ila r passages o f C icero, th e fo rm er De Or. 11.194 th e la t t e r D iv . 1. 8 0 . B u t bonus q u alify in g a p ro p e r n am e has to be d is tin g u is h e d fro m th e e p ith e t w ith a n o u n lik spoeta. I t is likely to b e p r e d ic a tiv e h e r e a s i t is in th e case o f C hoerilus above: Choerilus Quem. . .m iro r ‘w h e n h e is bonus o n ra re occasions’ ; H om er ‘who is in d e e d bonus’, o r p o ssib ly ‘i n sp ite o f his p e rfe c tio n ’, dormitat. dorm itat H om erus: Q u in tilia n w as stru ck b y th e likeness of this p a ssa g e to C ic e ro ’s c o m m e n t o n D em o sth en es, 1. 0 . x. 1. 24 (not even 367

Commentary op tim i auctores a re p e r fe c t, c it. a b o v e 352 n .) nonnum quam fa tig a n tu r, cum C iceroni dorm itare in terim D em osthenes, H oratio uero H om erus ipse uideatur. H e r e p e a ts th is a t x n . 1. 22, a d d i n g nec Cicero B ru to Caluoque (sc. uideatur sa tis esse p erfectu s). F o r t h e p r o v e n a n c e o f C ic e ro ’s criticism , see P lu t. Cic. 24.. H . w o u ld s c a rc e ly h a v e a p p lie d to H o m e r w h a t C ic e ro s a id a b o u t D e m o s th e n e s , h e n c e I r e g a r d i t a s p rim a fa cie

p r o b a b le t h a t b o th a u th o r s w e re s tim u la te d b y H e lle n is tic critic ism o f H o m e r (th u s N o r d e n , toc. cit. 504 f., n. 3 ). C f. p s .-L o n g . Subì. 33. 4 α μ α ρ τ ή μ α τ α καί 'Ο μ ή ρ ο υ κ α ί τ ω ν ά λ λ ω ν δ σ ο ι μ έ γ ισ τ ο ι, a n d n o te th e lik e n e ss b e tw e e n th e c o n te x ts o f L o n g in u s a n d H ., a n d th e unlik en ess o f t h e i r v iew s (a b o v e 352 n . ) . 360 D e le tio n o f th is v e rs e w a s p r o p o s e d i n t h e la s t c e n tu ry (C . H a m m e r s te in , L . M u e lle r) b u t m a y n o w b e f o r g o tte n ; th e verse is e s s e n tia l to H . ’s p o e tic a r g u m e n t. I t a lle g e s a re a s o n fo r H o m e ric fa u lts , w h ic h q u ite d iffe rs fr o m m e re incuria : th e siz e o f h is task . A la r g e w o rk m a y b e a success a s a w h o le , th o u g h i t o c c a s io n a lly flags. T h is d e fe n c e sk irts t h e n o tio n o f th e la rg e p o e tic u n i t y d isc u sse d P r o . 62 if. L u c iliu s ’ v ie w o f H o m e r is r e le v a n t h e r e , ix , frs. 344" 7> c · P rol. 6 4 , qua propter dico: nemo qui culpat H om erum , ] perpetuo cu p a t neque quod d ix i ante p o esin : ) uersum unum culpat, uerbum , enthym em a, \· ) poem a. I n s p ite o f th e s im ila r ity t h e tw o c o n te x ts a r e n o t id e n tic a l. uerum : cf. 225 n . , operi longo is th e p r e v a le n t r e a d i n g o f t h e M S S , opere in longo a n opere longo h a v e so m e M S a u t h o r i t y i n H . a n d in la te c o d d . o t J e r o m e , w h o c ite s th e lin e E p . 84. 8 . W a s operi m a d e to m o v e ( p e r a Ps v ia opere) to opere in o r th e re v e rs e ? E ith e r c o n s tr u c tio n is g r a m m a ti c a lly p o ssib le , cf. B e n tle y ’s n . a n d th e d ic tio n a rie s . T h e q u e s tio n is w h e th e r th e im a g e r y is d i s t u r b e d w h e n sle e p is sa id to s te a l u p o n t e p o e t ’s w o rk (360) a f te r th e p o e t h a s b e e n s a id to n o d o n o cc asio n (3 5 9 ). I d o n o t th in k t h a t e i t h e r th e c o n c e it som nus obrepit operi o r t e c h a n g e o f v ie w p o in t d is tu rb s th e im a g e ry . B o th a r e b o r n e o u t y B e n tle y ’s p a r a lle l fr o m S ta t. T h e b . v m . 21& -17 n o x . ■ .curas | 0 rui et f a c i l i s la crim is obrepere som nus.

(b) Poetic excellence clarified by a com parison o f poetry and painting (cf. Prol. 258), 361-5

Again H. makes an abrupt new start. But the argument itsel proceeds, for the capacity to create a poem that will stan up to repeated reading is part of poetic uirtus, perfection, t e point is made manifest by a visual art, where the worth o a 368

Commentary

picture is assessed by the method o f ‘inspection5. Having in the first words of the section juxtaposed poetry and painting, H. has no need to dwell on the likeness in detail. The criterion of repeated close scrutiny is valid for both cases, and belongs to the context of artistic perfection. A passage in Longinus provides external support, which to my knowledge has not yet been claimed. Ps.-Long. Subì. 7. 3-4 makes in fact H.’s point, with the proviso that what in H. is poetic uirtus or bonum is to Longinus’ romantic mind the sublime : haec dedens repetita placebit, in Η. ; τούτο yàp τω δντι μέγα ου πολλή μέν η αναθεώρησις in Longinus. The comparison of poetry and the fine arts, especially painting, is as old as literary theory. Simonides, who pre­ empts various notions rationalized, or further rationalized, by the Sophists, called a picture silent poetry and poetry a speaking picture (Plut. Mor. 17 f, 58 b, 346 f, al.). As early as 400 B.G. the comparison was familiar; the author of the Δισσοί Λόγοι uses it (3.10) for a comment on the illusionist effect, έξαπαταν, of painting and tragedy. Plato and Aristotle are concerned above all with two aspects of the comparison, the related or ‘organic5 character of the parts of a work of art or poetry and, secondly, the character of mimesis, that is the kind of reality an artefact or poem may possess. Hellenistic literary discussion seems to have made these notions so familiar that they could be carried into neighbouring fields: Polyb. 1. 3. 4 dilates on the organic character of history, σωμοττοειδή... ιστορίαν, and its unity, cf. F. W. Walbank ad I. In Rome these notions were common literary property. The writer Ad Her. Iv* 3 9 can quote Simonides’ dictum without much ado, poema loquens pictura, pictura tacitum poema debet esse. Cicero, the Greek critics of the Augustan age like Dion. Hal., and later Quintilian and others use them freely, see H. Nettleship, Lectures, etc. 11. 54—6, K. Borinski, Die Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie, i (1914), 97, 183 ff., R. G. Austin on Quint. 1.0 . XII, ch. 10. H. then may have picked up these notions from contem2+

369

EH A

Commentary

porary or slightly older writers, Roman or Greek ; but equally, and more convincingly for the reasons I have suggested throughout this book, he may have drawn on Hellenistic literary theory. He employs the comparison twice. At the beginning of the Ars, i if., and intermittently up to 40, painting is made to illustrate the notion of unity, or its lack. This is one of the ways in which Plato and Aristotle employ the comparison, and in my notes on the first part of the poem I have given my reasons for believing that H. uses the Aristo­ telian notion of artistic unity. In the present passage his aim is simpler. Mastery in painting and poetry alike can be such as to make its creations withstand and reward repeated inspection. He does not say that such a work is ‘better’ than that which bears inspection only once. But this clearly is the result of the comparison. 364 quae nonformidat acumen and 365 dedens repetita placebit proclaim this assessment more mem­ orably than if he had actually stated it. Some have commended H .’s broadmindedness. He is said to acknowledge the value of impressionist painting, and demand that such pictures should be viewed from afar. But few pain­ ters, however impressionist, would agree that their pictures should please only once’. H. does not acknowledge the value of a painting that pleases only once. Yet the error unaccountably persists in modern writing on the history of art. Thus an otherwise competent and illuminating article by Renselaer W. Lee, ‘ Ut pictura poesis : The humanistic theory of painting’, The Art Bulletin, x x i i (1940), 199. There H. is oddly said to plead ‘for further flexibility in critical judgment by declaring in effect that poetry should be compared to a painting which exhibits not merely a detailed style that requires close scrutiny but also a broad impressionistic style that will not please unless viewed from a distance’. ut pictura poesis ’ was sufficiently memorable to serve as a base for far-reaching assertions on the relation of the arts. Of these it is innocent, if it is not actually opposed to them. In the Italian Renaissance H .’s saying was used as if it were ‘ut poesis

Commentary

pictura’, to inculcate the superiority of painting to poetry, music, and the rest. In Lessing’s Laokoon it was made to point the inherent difference rather than likeness between poetry and painting. The debates thus provoked tended to gain in scope and interest as the distance from the original Horatian context increased. [For bibliography and discussion know­ ledgeable friends refer me to A. Blunt, Artistic theory in Italy 145 6 (Oxford, 1940), Renselaer W. Lee, loc. cit. xxn, 197-296, XXIII, 332-5, E. S. King, ‘Ingres as Classicist’, Jour, of the Walters Art Gallery, v ( 1942), 69-113, E. Panofsky, Galileo as a Critic o f the Arts (1954), p. 3.] ° ~

i

o o

36 1 T h e la y o u t o f th e v e rse p u z z le d a n c ie n t s tu d e n ts o f th e p o e m : th e p u n c t u a t i o n in th e s c h o lia a n d M S S is e rro n e o u s . M e in e k e ’s p u n c tu a tio n , u t p ic tu ra , p o esis e rit, e tc ., w h ile a v o id in g a g e n e ra l s ta te m e n t {ut p ic tu ra p o esis t o b e lim ite d p re s e n tly to a specific sim i­ la rity ) is, I th in k , e x c lu d e d b e c a u s e i t p re d ic a te s ο ϊ poesis w h a t in fact o n ly b e lo n g s to p ic tu ra — th e d is ta n c e o f v ie w in g . F o r H . is n o t d is­ cu ssin g m o d e s o f v ie w in g p ic tu r e s b u t th e i n h e r e n t q u a lity t h a t m ak es o r a r e p e a te d r e a d i n g o f p o e m s (3 6 5 ). H e le a d s th e re a d e r to this q u a lity t h r o u g h i l lu s t r a ti n g tw o d if f e r e n t w a y s o f v ie w in g p ic tu re s, o f w h ic h o n ly o n e is a p p r o v e d . H e n c e t h e n o w c u r r e n t p u n c tu a tio n is c o r re c t, u t p ic tu r a p o e sis:, e tc . T h e e x a g g e ra te d g e n e ra lity is a d e lib e r a te p u z z le , w h ic h is n o t fu lly c le a re d u p u n t i l 365. poesis ‘p o e m ’, th e w o r d h e r e o n ly in H . T h is is n o t th e te c h n ic a l te rm o f th e l ite r a r y c ritic s , e.g . L u c il. c it. 360 n ., P rol. 29 if., 5 8 i f , erit, quae, — th u s D a c ie r , l a t e r O r e lli a n d o t h e r e d ito rs in th e n in e te e n th c e n tu r y . T h is I r e g a r d as th e o n ly p u n c tu a tio n e x c lu d in g th e lo c u tio n est q u i, w h ic h th e s e q u e l sh o w s to b e ex c lu d e d . K .- H . SaY) p ictu ra is s u b j e c t ’. T h e s u b je c t is m o re lik ely to b e ( pictura ) quaedam , t h e p r o n o u n b e in g p la c e d corrò κ ο ιν ο ν in th e n e x t verse. W ith o u t th is a s s u m p tio n th e n o n s e n s ic a l o r d e r p ic tu r a . . . , et quaedam ([pictura) is o b ta i n e d . T h e s e n te n c e t h e n is, I th in k , erit {pictura quaedarri), quae, s i p ro p iu s stes, te c a p ia t m a g isj e t quaedam {quae te capiat m agis), si longius abstes ; d o u b le haec in 363 ta k e s u p th is ( quaedam )— quaedam. fu lle r fo r m o f th is id io m w o u ld h a v e quidam tw ic e o v er, = ‘ som e— o th e rs , a s C ic . T o p . 79 q u i b u s d a m quaestionibus alios, q u ib u s d a m alios esse aptiores locos, L iv . x x v m . 12. 10 in H isp a n ia res q u a d a m ex p a r te eandem fo r tu n a m , q u a d a m longe disparem habebant, xli. 20. 4 quidam . . .

371

2 4 -2

Commentary quidam·, cf. i. 54. 8 m u lti. . . , quidam , in quibus, etc., χχχνιι. 20. 5 p a r s . . .p a r s . . .q u id a m , x x v m . 30. 2 m a x im a p a r te . . .quibusdam , xlv, 10. 14 q u id a m . . . a lii, etc. capiat: as S . 1. 4. 28 hunc capit argenti splendor, quaedam: see 361 n. ; quae iam im p la u s ib ly L . M u e lle r in o rd e r to

a v o id th e g r a m m a tic a l d iffic u lty d iscu ssed a b o v e . abstes: aptes B (apstes K e lle r ) , p e r h a p s a n ά π α ξ λεγόμ ενον, since tra n s , abstare, PI. T r im 265 ( K . - H . a n d I L L , 1. 198. 45), is im ­ p la u s ib le , a n d o th e r a lle g e d in s ta n c e s o f th e in tra n s , u sa g e a re eith er false (L u c a n v i. 720 p ro p o s e d b y W ö lfflin ) o r d u b io u s (H o r. E p. 1. i8 . 58, B e n tle y , a n d Sii. x n . 480, L . B a u e r ). S u c h c o m p o u n d s as abesse, amouere, a n d G re e k ά φ ίσ τ α μ α ι, m a y h a v e assisted th e fo rm a­ tio n ; a n d th e n o u n abstantia, ‘d i s t a n c e ’ (V itr . ix . 1. 11), existed. T h is e v id e n c e d o es n o t m o v e m e to r e p la c e abstes b y absis (J. P· P o s tg a te , C Q , i v (1 9 x 0 ), 1 1 0 ), s till less b y adstes s'. W ith th e M S re a d in g s , 362 a n d 361 rh y m e , cf. 177 η . o n uiriles. 3 6 3 re p la c e s [q u a ed a m ). . .quaedam b y h a ec. . .haec. C h iastic ally longius (362) is fo llo w ed b y obscurum w h e re a s sub luce co rre sp o n d s to propius. T h is is n o t, as m a n y r e a d e r s , e sp e c ia lly h is to ria n s o f a r t, h av e a s s u m e d , a n ex e rcise in im p re s s io n is tic a r t c ritic ism . T h e v iew from a f a r is c o n d e m n e d . T h e p i c t u r e w h ic h a m a t obscurum is th e p ic tu re , a n d la te r th e p o e m , w h ic h d o e s n o t s ta n d u p to r e p e a te d in sp e c tio n ; i t is see n a n d d is c a rd e d . sub l u c e , y pòs α ύ γ ά ς , p s .-L o n g . S u b ì. 3. i (cit. K . - H . ) . 3 6 4 iudicis: th e c ritic , cf. 2 4 4 , 2 6 3 , 387, S . 1. 10. 38, n . 1. 84. 3 6 5 deciens: see 2 9 4 n . repetita:

cf.

S.

1. 10. 72.

(c) E x c e l l e n c e a n d m e d i o c r i t y i n t h e l i b e r a l a n d t h e u s e f u l a r t s , 3 6 6 -7 8

Norden s researches have uncovered at any rate one clear and suggestive parallel to these contentions, Cicero’s perfectus orator, restated by Quint. 1 . 0 . xn; cf. Norden, H, XL ( i 9 ° 5 )> 502-5 (and following his lead, Heinze and Rostagni ad I.), citing De Or. i. 117-18,11. 185, hi. 213, Brut. 193 ; for a different aspect, see De Or. 1. 259. Cicero is aware that a higher stan­ dard of achievement is demanded in poetry, and certain other arts, than in utilitarian pursuits, which are also called artes. He is concerned to extend to rhetoric that standard, without wishing to discourage weaker practitioners. H. does 372

Commentary n o t a c c e p t C i c e r o ’s s u b m i s s i o n ; r h e t o r i c a n d j u r i s p r u d e n c e , h e t h i n k s , a r e p r a c t i c a l a r t s i n w h i c h a u s e f u l m e d i o c r it y h a s a p l a c e ; p o e t r y is n o t s u c h a n a r t . W h a t H . a n d C ic e r o s h a r e i n t h i s m a t t e r is n o t ‘ a c o m m o n r h e t o r i c a l e n v i r o n i n g a t m o ­ s p h e r e ’ ( C . G . F is k e , W is e . S t . x x v n ( 1 9 2 9 ) , 3 8 ). R a t h e r H . ’s t h e o r i z i n g m u s t b e c lo s e to t h e o r i g i n a l s e t t i n g o f t h e a r g u m e n t a b o u t p o e t r y a n d t h e f in e a r ts , w h i c h h a s l i t t l e o r n o p l a c e f o r r h e t o r i c . C i c e r o o n t h e o t h e r h a n d m u s t b e s e c o n d a r y s in c e h e is e x t e n d i n g t o r h e t o r i c t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e f i n e r a r ts , a n d is h o p i n g t o c o m p r o m i s e a t t h e s a m e t im e . T h e s p e c u la tiv e s e ttin g fr o m

w h ic h th e H o r a tia n

( a n d a t th e re m o v e j u s t

s t a t e d , t h e C i c e r o n i a n ) d i s t i n c t i o n o f a rtes d e r iv e s is A r i s t o t l e ’s a n a ly s i s o f τ έ χ ν ο α , i n p a r t i c u l a r h is d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n p r a c ­ tic a l a n d t h e fin e a r ts , τ ά υ α γ κ α ΐα , as o p p o s e d to δ ια γ ω γ ή o r τ α eis ε ύ σ χ η μ ο σ ύ υ η ν κ α ί π ε ρ ιο υ σ ίο υ a n d t h e lik e , e .g . M e t . r. 2 , 9 8 2 b 2 3 , w h e r e t h e p r a c t i c a l a n d fin e a r ts a r e g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r o v e r a g a i n s t ‘ t h e o r y ’, a n d P o l. v ii. 10, 1 3 2 9 b 27 ff., o r , m o r e i m p o r t a n t , v m , c h s . 3 if ., w h e r e t h e tw o a r e s e t a p a r t f r o m e a c h o t h e r . B u t H . ’s m o d e l h a s d i f f e r e n t a im s ; i t m u s t h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d i n t h e e a r l y H e ll e n i s t i c a g e f r o m th e s e A r i s t o t e l i a n b e g i n n i n g s , a n d is n o t p r e s e r v e d . C e r t a i n s im i­ l a r i t i e s w i t h L o n g i n u s a ls o n e e d to b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t , se e b e lo w 3 7 2 n . [ T h e s p e c if ic p r o b l e m o f t h i s n o t e h a s n o t , to m y k n o w le d g e , b e e n r a is e d b e fo re . I h a v e h o w e v e r fo u n d h e lp fu l so m e re c e n t w o rk o n th e A ris to te lia n n o tio n s o f τ έ χ ν η . F o r th e tria d , in th e M e ta p h y s ic s , o f A r t s n e c e s s a r y , f in e , a n d p h ilo s o p h ic , se e W .

J a e g e r , S I , x x v i i - x x v m ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 1 3 5 ( = S cr. M i n . 11. 4 8 8 ) ; f o r A r . P o l. v m , c h s . 3 ff., s e e E . K o l l e r , M H , x n i (1 9 5 6 ) , 1 - 3 7 , 9 4 - 1 2 4 , F . S o lm s e n , R M , l v i i (1 9 6 4 ) , 1 9 3 - 2 2 0 . I h a v e o m i t ­ t e d P l a t o n i c r e f e r e n c e s a s n o t d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t , b u t E p in o m is , 9 7 4 d ff. m a y b e r e c a l l e d b e c a u s e o f t h e d i s t in c ti o n b e t w e e n ‘ n e c e s s a r y ’ a n d ‘ f i n e ’ ( i .e . m i m e t i c ) a r t s , w h i c h t h e r e a p p e a r s a s p a r t o f a P l a t o n i z i n g a n a ly s i s o f τ έ χ ν α ι . F o r p o s s ib le p r e S o c r a t i c a n t e c e d e n t s o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n s c h e m a se e E . K o l l e r , toc. c it. 3 4 , a n d t h e i m p o r t a n t a r t i c l e b y F . H e i n i m a n n , ‘ E i n e

373

Commentary v o r p la to n is c h e T h e o r i e d e r T e d i n e ’, Μ Η , χ ν ι ι ι ( i g 6 i ) , ι ι 8 η . 58 .]

366 ο maior iuuenum: for addresses to th e Pisos, cf. a b o v e 6 n . T h e tw o iuuenes to g eth er w ere ad d ressed a t 24. H e r e fo r th e first tim e th e eld er o f th e tw o is singled o u t a n d o n e m a y sp e c u la te o n th e reasons for th e address in this section, since H .’s p la c in g o f his addressees’ n am es is d e lib e ra te a n d a d ro it. Gf. b elo w 3 8 5 -9 0 , 406—7. quam uis+ in d ie., cf. 355 n. uoce paterna: cf. 388 patris. 3 6 7 fingeris ad: o f tra in in g . C. in . 6. 22 th e y o u n g g irl tra in in g h erself in o b je c tio n a b le artes, E p . 1. 2. 64 th e tr a in in g o f a h o rse by th e magister. T h e fash io n in g o r tr a in in g to a s ta n d a r d is expressed by ad : Gic. D e Or. in . 58 {artes) quae repertae su nt u t puerorum mentes ad humanitatem fingerentur atque uirtutem, cf. S en . E p . 92. 29 non est adhuc bonus, sed in bonum fingitur·, T L L , v i. 1. 733. 25 ff. rectum: th e m o ra l n o tio n m a y n o t b e a b s e n t b u t o n ly th e p o e tic is fully g e rm a n e , cf. 25 n ., 309. 0quamuis) per te sapis recalls E p . 1. 17. 1 quamuis, Scaeua, satis per te tibi consulis. F o r sapere, see 309 n. L u cil. fr. 617 (M a rx ) tuam probatam m i et spectatam maxume adulescentiam m a y b e re le v a n t h e re , b u t its c o n te x t is u n k n o w n . Cf. below o n 388. 36 8 {libi dictum) tolle memor: tib i seem s to b e άττό κοινοΰ w ith dictum a n d tolle. T h e p ro n o u n c e m e n t 3 6 8 -7 3 is in tro d u c e d n o t o n ly b y th e add ress, 0 maior iuuenum, b u t b y th is so lem n e p ic lo c u tio n : V irg . A . vi. 377 cape dicta memor, cf. E n n . A n n . 198 (V .2) et hoc sim ul accipe dictum, V irg . A . in . 250 accipite ergo anim is atque haec mea fig ite dicta, al. G re e k p re c e d e n ts su ch as th o se c ite d 336 n . a re fa m ilia r, b u t n e ith e r th e L a tin n o r th e G re ek in stan ces p a r a lle l tollo. A t E p . 1. 18. 12 uerba cadentia tollit th e a d d itio n o f cadentia m ak es tollo a m e ta p h o r fo r servility. certis is m o re e m p h a tic th a n quibusdam. T h e fa irly w id e sp ac in g certis. . . rebus, w ith th e decisive adjs. in te rp o s e d , also m ak es for em p hasis. medium: cf. 370 mediocris, 372 mediocribus. T h is m e a n is m ed io cre a n d n o t g o ld en , b u t I w o u ld n o t c a ll i t a n ‘ a e sth e tic t e r m ’ ( K .- H .) . So mediocris a n d mediocritas in th e C ic e ro n ia n passages c ite d a b o v e 3 6 6 -7 8 n ., p s.-L o n g . Subì. 33. 2 c o n tra sts ταττεινάς και μέσας φύσεις w ith ύττερμεγέβεις. ei e x p la n a to ry : ‘b y w h ic h I m e a n . . . T h is serves to e n la rg e o n th e in d istin c t w o rd medium. 3 6 9 recte rig h tly ’, w ith o u t th e n u a n c e o f rectum 366. As fre q u e n tly 374

Commentary in H . th e w o rd c o m p re s s e s a q u a l i f y i n g c la u se in to a n a d v . : atque id recte conceditur.

370 c o m b in e s , a s a t E p . u . 2 . 8 7 , tw o o f th e m a jo r ‘p r a c tic a l a rts a t R om e, ju r is p r u d e n c e a n d r h e to r ic . T h is is th e v ie w o p p o s e d b y Cicero. (actor) causarum : as C ic . D e O r. in . 73 Socratici a se causarum actores. . . separauerunt, D iv . in Caec. 11 m e actorem causae totius esse uoluerunt , al. T L L , i. 446. 61 ff. uirtute: th e s ig n ific a n t t e r m u irtu s (cf. a b o v e 3 0 8 ), e x c e lle n c e , o cc u rs in p assin g , a p p lie d to o r a t o r y , n o t to p o e tr y . diserti: d is tin g u is h e d f r o m eloquens i n a m u c h - q u o te d sa y in g o f th e o ra to r M . A n to n iu s , e .g . C ic . D e O r. 1. 9 4 s c r ip s i. . .quodam in libello • . .disertos cognosse m e nonnullos, eloquentem adhuc nem inem , O r. 18, al. ( T L L , V. i. 1377. 71 f.). B u t e ls e w h e re th e tw o w o rd s a re fr e q u e n tly syn o n y m o u s, a n d u s e d in d i f f e r e n t l y ( T L L , ib id . 1377 - 74 ff·) I 37^· i ff.). diserti is h ig h ly l a u d a t o r y h e r e . 371 T h e in s ta n c e s fo llo w in re v e rs e o r d e r . M e s s a la (C o rv in u s a t S. I. 10. 2 9 ), th e g r e a t o r a t o r , o f r o u g h l y th e sa m e a g e a s H ., p r o b a b ly a little y o u n g e r, cf. H a n s lik , R - E , v m a . 135. 1 ff. B u t w h a te v e r th e precise d a te , h e w a s a t l e a s t 4 0 y e a r s y o u n g e r t h a n C a sc e lliu s; h e n c e in sp ite o f th e p r e s e n t te n s e s o f a b est a n d seit th e r e is n o n e e d to assu m e a re fere n ce to c o n te m p o r a r ie s . A u lu s C a sc e lliu s is th e e m in e n t law y er, b o r n e . 10 4 b . c . , cf. J o r s , R - E , in . 1634· 4 ^ ff· f f e w o u ld h a v e b e e n c. 90 a b o u t t h e m i d d le o f th e l a s t d e c e n n iu m o f th e c e n tu r y . T h is is possible, b u t is n o t n e c e s s a r y to e x p la in th e p a ssa g e . H is e x p e rtise (seit) m u s t b e k n o w n s till; n o m o r e is r e q u ir e d , cf. Prol. 2 4 0 n . 3. 372 in pretio est. I n v ie w o f 2 9 9 p re tiu m nomenque, 4 0 0 honor et nomen, 7 1 su n t in honore, th e w o r d i n g s c a rc e ly d e p r e c ia te s t h e v a lu e o f u sefu l m e d io c rity ; i t is t h e c o n t e x t t h a t d o e s. T h e s a m e a p p lie s to C ic. D e Or. i. 1 17 m a g n o h o n o r i f u i s s e . . .illa m ipsam quamcumque assequi potuerat in dicendo m ediocritatem . mediocribus esse p o e tis (sc. non concessere colum nae): th e p re d . d a t. u su a l w ith licet a n d in f.— t h u s i n t h e tw o r e le v a n t H o r a t ia n in s ta n c e s, S. *■ i- 19 licet esse beatis, 2. 51 m unifico (-u m , u a r .l.) esse licet is h e r e tra n s fe rre d to concedo, w h ic h re s e m b le s i t in m e a n in g . T L L , iv . 16. 37 offers n o p a r a l l e l to th is e x te n s io n w i t h concedere a n d d a tiv e w ith esse b efo re A u g . E p . 118. 31 ( a c c ., u a r .l .) . H . a n d o th e r A u g u s ta n p o e ts

e x te n d th is i d i o m f u r t h e r , p e r h a p s u n d e r G re e k in flu e n c e ; E . L öfste d t, Syn. 11. 1 0 8 , n o te s E p . 1. 16. 61 da iusto sanctoque uideri. F o r mediocris ‘ m i d d l i n g ’, see G . B . A . F le tc h e r , A n n o t. on T a citu s, 104, a p ro p o s o f T a c . D ia l. 10. 1. A g a in C ic e ro , a n d h e r e also L o n g in u s, show s im ila rity o f t h o u g h t : C ic . D e O r. 1. x 18 in eis artibus in q u ib u s. . . 375

Commentary quaeritur. . . anim i libera quaedam oblectatio, quam diligenter et quam prope fastidiose indicamus, 1 19 non u ti ( orator ) eis satis fa c ia t, quibus necesse est, sed uideatur quibus libere liceat iudicare, p s.-L o n g . Subi. 33. 4 τ ά ς μεί^ονας

ά ρ ε τ ά ς . ,. τ ή ν το υ π ρ ω τ ε ίο υ ψ ή φ ο ν μ άλλον άεί φέρεσϋαι. G . C. Fiske, ‘ L u cii, a n d H o r .’, W ise. S t. v ii (1920), 462, h a s ra sh ly id en tified H . ’s ow n k n o w n c o n te x t w ith th e u n k n o w n o f L u cil. fr. 702 (M a rx ) paulo hoc melius quam mediocre, hoc m inus m alum quam u t pessumum.

L u ciliu s’ co n te x t is n o t likely to h a v e b e e n t h a t o f H . in this passage n o r in th a t cited w h e n Fiske h a d seco n d th o u g h ts , ibid. n. 8 5 ; cf. ra th e r Prol. 168. 373 T h o se w h o a re said to fo rb id m e d io c rity a re homines·, u p to this p o in t th o u g h t a n d w o rd in g a r e serious, ev en so lem n . T h e n th e re follows a su d d e n c h a n g e o f m o o d : H . is e n u n c ia tin g a cosm ic law , homines su g gesting th e p a ir homines diuosque, cf. T L L , vi. 3. 2875. 49 ffi, e.g. C ic. Q .F r . 11. 4. 1 dis hominibusque plaudentibus, a h u m o ro u s tw ist. R itte r suggests such m e rc a n tile p a tro n s as V e rtu m n u s a n d J a n u s (E p . I. 20. 1) ; p e rh a p s so, b u t H . claim s m o re. T h is in t u r n le a d s o n to th e bookshops, w h ic h a re m o re n e a rly c o n c e rn e d w ith th e ‘a p p r o v a l’ o f books o f verse, cf. ab o v e 332, 345 f. H e n c e th e columnae, cf. S . 1. 4. 71 nulla ta b e r n a meos habeat neque p ila libellos a n d P o rp h . o n i . 71 negat se libellos suos edere bibliopolis, qui uel tabernas habeant uel arm aria apud pilas',

cf. M a rt. i. 117. 10. I n c o m p a riso n th e re is little p la u sib ility in th e notices o f p o e tic re c ita tio n s said to b e d isp la y e d o n su ch p illa rs (ps.A cro o n A .P . 373)5 o r in th e re c ita tio n s them selves, su p p o sed ly in d i­ c a te d b y th e p illars o f a d o m estic peristy le w h e re s u c h re a d in g s m ig h t b e g iven (th u s J . G w y n n G riffiths, C F , n.s. x (i9 6 0 ), 104). columnae th e n p ro v id es th e co m ic b a th o s in a tric o lo n w h ich is m a rk e d b y tre b le a n a p h o r a a n d , a t th e e n d , a n asso n a n ce [con- col-) : non homines non di, non concessere columnae. concessere: th e ‘e m p iric a l’ p e rf., a p tly , a n d beside columnae h u m o r­

ously, re p re se n ts H .’s c o n te n tio n as a T a w ’ p ro v e d b y ex p erien ce. F o r th is use o f th e tense, see ab o v e 10, 343 a n d th e c o m m e n ta to rs o n S. i. 9. 60, E p . i. 2. 4 8 , 19. 48, a n d v a rio u s p lace s in th e Odes', H o fm a n n —S z a n ty r, 318 f. w ith b ib lio g ra p h y . 374-8 co m p rise o n e o f H ’s. c o m p a riso n s m a rk e d b y u t . . . sic (ita) th a t a re d e lib e ra te ly irre g u la r, a n d th u s m o re te llin g b ec au se th e y d ra w a tte n tio n to w h a t m a tte rs in th e c o m p a riso n , e.g. ab o v e 6 0 -2 , 3 5 4 -6 0 . T h e w h o le se n te n c e p u rp o r ts to b rin g o u t th e h ig h s ta n d a rd s o f C icero ’s anim i libera quaedam oblectatio (372 n .). T h e u t cl. states th e d e sira b ly useless c h a r a c te r o f su c h ‘a r t s ’ as m usic a n d co okery. T h e s i cl. is th e n left finally to re v e a l w h a t th e co m p a riso n re a lly a im s a t — in p o e try th e o n ly a lte r n a tiv e to ex cellence is n u llity .

376

Commentary 374 M u s ic : C ic e ro ’s e x a m p le o f a useless a r t, w h ich th ere fo re by (his a n d H . ’s) d e f in itio n d e m a n d s a h ig h s ta n d a r d , is a c tin g : D e Or. i. 118 a u d ie n c e s n e e d n o t in theatro adores malos perpeti in th e sam e w ay as th e y p u t u p w ith m e d io c re a d v o c a te s . A r. Pol. v m . 3, 1338 a 30 ff. (cit. N o rd e n , loc. cit. 5 0 4 n . x) re c o m m e n d s m usic in e d u c a tio n ο υ χ ώζ χ ρ η σ ίμ η ν . . . ο ΰ δ ’ ώ ς ά ν α γ κ α ία ν ά λ λ ’ cbs έλευθέριον και καλή ν (for th e te rm s, see a b o v e 366—78 n .) . T h is is c le a rly th e m e th o d o f e v a lu a ­ tio n w h ich p r o m p ts th e m e n tio n o f m u sic in th is p assag e, a lth o u g h A risto tle is fa r fro m d r a w in g t h e C ic e ro n ia n a n d H o r a tia n conclusion as to th e h ig h d e g r e e o f a c h ie v e m e n t in th e lib e ra l a rts, cf. E. K o ller, loc. cit. (a b o v e 366—78 n . ) , p p . 112—14· M o re o v e r H . uses th e ex­ a m p le in his o w n o b liq u e w a y . M u sic is p a r t o f a n e n te rta in m e n t a t d in n e r a n d its asse ssm e n t is c o u p le d w ith a n assessm ent o f th e fare offered. symphonia discors: ta b le m u sic, p e rfo rm e d b y slaves tra in e d for th e p u rp o s e a n d c a lle d sym phoniaci, w as a fe a tu re o f e la b o ra te R o m a n e n te r ta in m e n t fr o m th e first c e n tu r y b .c . o n w a rd , cf. A b e rt, R -E , IV a . 1 169. 59 ff. T h e c o n v e n tio n a l n a m e h as p ro m p te d H . s H e ra c lite a n o x y m o ro n ; a t E p . 1. 12. 19 rerum concordia discors it is im p u te d to E m p e d o c le s’ b a la n c e b e tw e e n t h e co n flic tin g p rin c ip le s o f νεΐκος a n d φιλία. 375 is e v e n m o re re a listic . E x c e lle n c e is d e m a n d e d for th e p e r­ fum es s u p p lie d to g u e sts a t d i n n e r (e.g . C. h i. 14. 17 i,p e te unguentum, puer, et coronas, e t a l.) a n d fo r t h e i r m e n u . T h is co n cern s th e cenarum • · .artem , S . i i . 4 . 35, a p a r a lle l w e ll e sta b lish e d in a n c ie n t discussions o f th is k in d , cf. E . K o lle r, loc. cit. (a b o v e 3 6 6 -7 8 n .), p. 95. As a n illu s tra tio n o f e x c e lle n c e in th e lib e r a l a rts , a n d p o e try m o re th a n a n y , i t is h ig h ly iro n ic a l a n d e n te r ta in in g . crassum unguentum : P lin . J\r.H . x iii . 2. 15 says th a t th e u n g u e n t m a d e o f c in n a m o n fe tc h e s p r o d ig io u s p ric e s ; h e a d d s, unguentorum hoc crassis­ sim um . O n th e o th e r h a n d h e re p o rts a t ch . 4 - 2 1 , w ith w h a t seem s d istaste, sed quosdam crassitudo m axim e delectat, spissum appellantes. Unique iam non solum p e rfu n d i gaudent. T aste s in p erfu m es d oubtless d iffe red a n d t h a t p e r h a p s m a y a c c o u n t fo r H .’s criticism o f th ick p e rfu m e s ’, th o u g h h e sp e a k s a s i f tastes d id n o t differ. N e ith e r usage n o r P lin y ’s d isc u ssio n b e a rs o u t p s .-A e ro ’s su g g estio n t h a t crassum = m ali odoris; nam u t lenem odorem dicim us suauem, ita et crassum malum. Sardo cum m eile papauer: d e s s e rt s p o ilt b y S a rd in ia n h o n ey , w h ich w as b itte r , P o rp h . Corsicum et Sardum m ei p essim i saporis est, V irg . E . 7. 41 S a rd o n iis. . . am arior herbis. R o a s te d seeds o f w h ite p o p p y a n d h o n ey fo r d esse rt a p u d antiquos dabatur, re p o rts P lin . N .H . x ix . 53· *^8, n o *

n iu c h m o re t h a n h a l f a c e n tu r y la te r . 377

Commentary 37® offendunt: as S. ix. 8. 1 2 -1 3 quodque | posset cenantis offendere. Cf. 248, 352 offendere in m a tte rs a e sth e tic , a n d th e C ic e ro n ia n passage m en tio n e d 352 n. poterat duci. . .cena: in spite o f S. 1. 5. 70 iucunde cenam producimus illam , scarcely ‘p r o lo n g ’, w h ic h does n o t fit tw o o f th e th re e instances. O n th e o th e r h a n d th e lo cu tio n s c ite d fo r ducere cenam ‘h o ld a d in n e r ’ (aeuum o r uitam d.) o r ‘ tak e d i n n e r ’ (e.g. as pocula) d o n o t su p p o rt it fully. Is duci sound? quia in th ird p lace. I n H . d is p la c e m e n t o f quia is r a r e ; it occurs o n ly in 4 o u t o f (p ro b a b ly ) 34 cases : o nce, C. iv . 9 . 28, in th e second p la c e o f its clau se, th re e tim es in th e th ird , th is p assa g e a n d above 2 95) Ep- π · ϊ· 168— a ll fo u r o f th e m in la te w o rk ( Odes iv , Augustus) o r w o rk th a t m a y b e la te { A .P .). istis p e rh a p s w ith a d eriso ry n u a n c e . T h is p ro n o u n is e n tire ly av o id ed b y som e p o ets a n d v e ry selectively u se d b y o th ers, cf. B. A xelson, Unpoet. Wörter, 71 f. I t is n o t r a r e in H .’s h e x a m e te r poem s b u t in th e A rs o ccurs o n ly o n ce m o re , 6 isti tabulae, n e v e r in th e Odes. 377 T h is is o n e o f th re e verses in th e A r s w ith o u t a c le a rly m a rk e d m id d le ca esu ra . U n lik e th e tw o o th e r, discussed a t 263 n ., th e p re se n t o n e c a n n o t b e a c c o u n te d fo r b y m e tric a l p a r o d y , a lth o u g h , b ecau se o f th e se n tim e n t in th e n e x t verse, th is h as b e e n alleg ed e.g. b y L . M u eller. I f a n y m o tiv e c a n b e alleg e d , i t m ig h t b e th e expressive c h a ra c te r o f a lo n g c e n tra l w o rd in a n expressive lin e. B u t th is m a tte r c a n o n ly b e c lea red u p o n th e basis o f all a v a ila b le in sta n c e s o f th is n o t u n c o m m o n p h e n o m e n o n in L a tin a n d G re e k verse. T h is verse a n d th e n e x t c o n ta in th e b u rd e n o f th e a rg u m e n t— a p o e m is e ith e r g o o d o r void. T h e s tru c tu re o f th e p re s e n t verse seem s to be d esig n ed to c o n c e n tra te a tte n tio n o n tw o featu res, th e n a tu r e {natum) a n d scope (inuentum ) o f a p o e m , n a m e ly anim is iuuandis. iuuare is n o t h e re th e iuuare w h ic h som e critics lik ed to d iv o rce fro m prodesse. H .’s view is expressed a t 343 omne tu lit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci, 99 non satis est pulchra esse poem ata, dulcia sunto. A ll p o e try in H .’s sense is anim i libera quaedam oblectatio (a b o v e 3 6 8 -7 8 n ., 372 n .). (1animis) natum { . . . iuuandis) : cf. 82 n. natum rebus agendis {iambum). inuentum is tin g e d w ith th e m e ta p h o ric a l n o tio n o f natum , ‘ d estin ed f o r ’. Cf. 405 repertus. 37» su m m o . . .a d im um su b sta n tiv a l as 152 medium a n d im um . T h is is n o t L o n g in u s’ n o tio n t h a t th e g re a te s t p o ets so m etim es ττίπ το υ σ ιν ά τ υ χ έ σ τ α τ α {Subi. 33. 5 ), th o u g h th e sam e p assa g e show s L o n g in u s d isc o u n tin g m e d io c re p o e try o n d iffe re n t g ro u n d s. decessit (n o t dis- L a m b in u s) ‘falls sh o rt o f ’. uergit is th e rig h t re a d in g , ‘a p p r o a c h e s ’ (th e lo w m a rk ) . . . . pergit 378

C o m m e n ta r y w as a v a r ia n t, w h ic h d is p la c e d th e c o r re c t re a d in g in tw o o f th e best M S S, B C ; b u t in t u r n G n o te s uergit as a v a r ia n t. (d) C o m p e t e n c e i n t h e a r t s : i n a t h l e t i c s ( a n o t h e r ‘u s e l e s s a r t ’) i n c o m p e t e n c e i s c o n d e m n e d , b u t i n p o e t r y i t i s n o t , 379~ 3®4 » 3 8 5 -9 ° T h e o b v io u s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i n c o m p e t e n t p r a c t i t i o n e r s m u s t r e f r a i n f r o m p r a c t i s i n g i s n o t e x p l i c i t l y d r a w n . T h i s m o r a l is o n ly i m p l i e d i n t h e a d d r e s s t o P i s o ’s e l d e r s o n ( 3 8 5 ) , w h o h a d a l r e a d y b e e n a d d r e s s e d i n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n ( o n m e d i o c r it y ) . H . ’s a d v i c e t o u c h e s o n t h r e e t o p i c s ( 3 8 5 - 9 0 ) , t a l e n t , i n f o r m e d c r itic is m , a n d t h e m u c h - q u o t e d d e l a y b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n . 379 A th le tic s , o r g a m e s in g e n e ra l, n o w re p la c e ta b le m usic a n d d in in g as ‘a r ts o f lib e r a l e n jo y m e n t ’ (372 n .) . B u t A r. Pol. vili. 3, 1338 b 5 ff. re c k o n s t h e m a m o n g ‘useful p u rs u its ’ b ecau se they s tre n g th e n th e p h y s iq u e . ludere nescit (w ith in f. as se it, 158, 316, E p . 11. 2. 213, al.) expresses th e n e e d fo r te c h n iq u e i n g a m e s, cf. C. in . 24. 56 ludere doctior o p p . uenari. cam pestribus. . .a rm is : t h e a d j. is n o t p re d ic ., as K .- H . suggest, b u t

a n o r d in a r y a t t r i b u t e : ‘u s e d o n th e C a m p u s M a r tiu s ’ (cf. above 162 n .), cf. E p . I. 18. 53—4 quo clamore coronae | proelia sustineas campes­ tria, Gic. Cael, i i u t exercitatione ludoque campestri uteremur, al. arma elsew h ere is a p p lie d to th e ‘to o ls ’ o f th e fa rm e r (V irg. A . 1. 177), th e sailo r ( A . v. 15), th e h o r s e m a n (O v . A m . 1. 2. 16) a n d o th e rs (see 7 X 1 , π · 590, 58 ff.). H e n c e th e m e a n in g ‘w e a p o n s fo r sh am fig h ts’ (W il­ kins) is n o t r e q u ir e d ; t h e ‘w e a p o n s ’ a r e th o se e n u m e ra te d in th e n e x t v erse a n d o th e rs lik e th e m . E v e n th e proelia campestria c ite d a b o v e a re p ro b a b ly c o n te sts r a t h e r t h a n fights, cf. P o rp h . ad I. E p . exerceri, p s.-A cro ibid, cum clamore circum stantium ludis. 380 indoctusque p ila e : cf. nescit a n d doctior in th e p re v io u s n o te, a n d S . i. 5. 4 9 p i l a . . . ludere ; t h e g e n . as a t C ic. P hil. n. 3 7 indoctusignarusque rerum th o u g h th e r e ig n a ru s im m e d ia te ly p re ced e s th e g e n .; cf. 218 sagax, 407 sollers, a l. (D . B o, H ör. Op. in . 229). disciue: cf. S . 11. 2. 10—13 R o m a n a fa tig a t | m ilitia adsuetum graecari, seu p ila uelox | . . . | seu te discus agit, C. 1. 8. 11 trochiue c f C. in . 2 4 · 57 G raeco. . . trocho. quiescit ‘ a b s ta in s ’, as S . n . 1 . 5 quiescas. T h e ex ten sio n o f m e a n in g fro m ‘ k ee p s ile n t’ to ‘k e e p q u ie t, a b s ta in , c e a s e ’ seem s to b e arc h a ic in v iew o f PI. M o s . 11734- in f., T e r . A n . 691 + a b l., C la u d . Q u a d . ap. G ell. ix . 13. 8 (fr. i o b P e te r ) , G e ll. n . 28. 2 + inf.

379

C o m m en ta ry 381 spissae m e a n in g ‘c r o w d e d ’ (ab o v e 205 n .) is p o e tic a n d Silver L atin . coronae: as in th e sim ilar c o n te x t E p . 1. 18. 5 3 -4 (cit. ab o v e 379 n.). risum tollant: cf. ab o v e 113 tollent cachinnum. T h e re a c tio n o f the p u b lic is once a g a in ju stifie d . 382 qui nescit uersus tamen audet fingere: 3 7 9 ludere qui nescit suggests a sim ilar c o n stru c tio n h e re . H e n c e K . - H . ’s a n d K lin g n e r’s p u n c ­ tu a tio n (w hich re p e a ts B e n tle y ’s), nescit uersus, tamen is unlikely; R o sta g n i rig h tly re frain s fro m p u ttin g a c o m m a . Cf. D ille n b u rg e r ad I. ‘ a lii distinguunt q u i nescit, versus, a lii contra q u i nescit versus, ta m e n , rectius omni interductu abstinebis, quoniam sententia est: qui nescit versus fingere, tamen audet versus fin g e re '. T h e lo c u tio n uersus fingere is in fact d istrib u te d o v er th e tw o clauses, as K . - H . re m a rk , od d ly , in view o f th e ir p u n c tu a tio n . T h is in te rw o v e n o rd e r, a k in d o f άττό κοινού co n stru c tio n , is o ften e n c o u n te re d in L a tin verse ; i t is m u ch fav o u red b y H . N o u n a n d a d j. a re m o st u su a lly so d is trib u te d , th o u g h v e rb (inf. in c lu d e d ) a n d o b je c t, as h e re , o c c u r n o t a t all ra re ly . Cf. H o u s m a n o n M a n . 1. 2 6 9 -7 0 , L u c. 1. 6 3 7 -8 , J u v . 6. 4 9 5 -6 , H einze o n H o r. C. 1. 27. 11—12. B u t th ese a re n o t th e m o st e la b o ra te instances o f this fig u re o f speech. quidni? sc. audeas fro m th e p re c e d in g audet fingere : ‘ a n d w h y (should h e n o t? A fter all h e i s . . . ’ T h e lo c u tio n is p u t fully b y J u v . 10. 94- ^ uis certe p ila cohortes | . . .q u id n i | haec cupias? T h e p a rtic le is a rc h a ic a n d co llo q u ial. I t in tro d u c e s a stro n g ly p o in te d ‘ rh e to ric a l ’ q u estio n a n d iro n ica lly asserts th e re v e rse o f w h a t th e q u e s tio n expresses. So h e re : n o o n e sh o u ld in fa ct th in k h e c a n w rite verses j u s t b ecau se he is a free R o m a n citizen . F o r th e o rig in o f quidni, a n d its e a rly use in P la u tu s a n d T e re n c e , see H o fm a n n -S z a n ty r, 4 5 8 ; fo r its stylistic level, B. A xelson, Unpoet. W örter, p . 96. Its u se is v e ry flex ib le; C a t. 79· i h as th e seq u el o f a re i. c l., C ic. (hiinct. 69 th e sam e lin k ed w ith enim; a t O v . Her. 7. 45, 15 (16). 221 quidni in tro d u c e s a paren th esis. H . o b ta in s a n especial effect in th e p re s e n t passag e b ec au se est is u n d e rsto o d afte r liber, etc. T h a t b rin g s i t close to a p a rtic le like utpote a n d th e iro n y is h e ig h te n e d b y th e c e rta in ty d isp la y e d . T h e effect w o u ld b e lost i f i q u id n i? ' w e re a sc rib e d to a n in te rlo c u to r, as ea rlier co m m e n ta to rs, e.g. O re lli, assum ed. 383 a c c u m u la te s fo u r q u a lific a tio n s fro m w h ic h th e a b s u rd (b u t d o u b tless c o n te m p o ra ry ) co n c lu sio n w o u ld fo llow t h a t th e w ritin g o f (good) verse is a social a c c o m p lish m e n t a n d tie d to p o sitio n : free statu s, free b irth , e q u e s tria n census, u n im p e a c h e d mores— liber, in­ genuus, equestrem (sum m am nummorum ), uitio remotus, liber h e re h a s n o n e o f th e (Stoic) m o ra l im p lic a tio n s o f S . 11. 7. 92, E p . 1. 1 0 6 -7 , a ^' 380

C o m m e n ta r y F o r ingenuus, cf. S . i. 6. 7—8 ; th e w o rd h e re lacks th e force o f E p . 1. 19. 34 ( iuuat ) ingenuis oculisque legi m anibusque teneri ; i t is to b e d efined in leg al te rm s , a l th o u g h p re c is e ly w h a t te rm s is o p e n to fu rth e r discussion, cf. G a i. In s t. 1. 11 ingenui sunt qui liberi nati sunt (c o n trasted w ith libertini), M o m m s e n , R .S t. h i. 1. 72 S - , esp ecially 73 w ith n . 2, K ü h le r, R - E , ix . 1547, a n d m a n y m o re re c e n t c o n trib u tio n s. T h e pater (above 248 n .) m a y o r m a y n o t b e in p o in t h e re . census: p ass, w ith th e ‘ r e t a i n e d ’ acc. o f th e su m assessed, cf. Cic. Flacc. 80 m agnum agri m odum censeri. . . census e s . . . c x x x . . . census es mancipia A m y n ta e . . . ; p e r tim u it cum te audisset seruos suos esse censum

(this a p p a r e n tly e a rlie s t in s ta n c e o f th e ac c. c o n stru c tio n is o m itte d in T L L , h i . 787. 21 if., 5 4 if., a lth o u g h Flacc. 8 0 is c ite d tw ice in the sam e c o lu m n ), G e li. v i. 13, G a i. In st. 11. 2 7 4 ; c o n tra s t T L L , ibid, for th e m o re f a m ilia r a b l. o f t h e ce n su s, E p . 1. 1. 5^~9 o n eq u e stria n census: sed quadringentis sex septem m ilia desunt: | plebs eris. 384 sum m am num m orum : p s .-A c ro hoc est: quadringentorum sestertiorum, E p. i. i . 58 (c it. p re c . n .). ‘ S u m o f m o n e y ’ is r u b b e d in w ith gusto. uitioque remotus ab om ni: as sine crimine, ‘ a n ex c ellen t re c o rd , a referen ce a b o v e a ll to t h e c e n s o r’s morum seuerissimum magisterium (C ic. Prov. Cons. 4 6 ), w h ic h , i f th e r e w a s a probrum , m ig h t cause a nota a n d ignominia, cf. M o m m se n , R .S t. 1. 3 .4 9 4 if., n . 3. 1. 375 S*> ΙΠ· κ 2 5 ! ^·» 2. 875. A p u n m a y w e ll b e in te n d e d , fo r th e c itiz e n w h o is uitio remotus ab omni w o u ld n o t n e c e ssa rily b e free fro m p o e tic uitium (ab o v e 31 n .). T h e p o in t is n o t t h a t Ή . d o es n o t a n sw e r th e p le a w h ic h answ ers itself’ (W ic k h a m ) ; r a t h e r t h a t t h e s ta te m e n t in tro d u c e d b y quidni is no p le a b u t a s a r c a s tic re je c tio n . 385 tu is n o t th e r e a d e r (so fo r e x a m p le 153) b u t th e maior iuuenum (366) to w h o m th e p r e c e d in g h a r a n g u e w a s ad d ressed . T h e y o u n g m a n h as th e s ta tu s j u s t d e s c rib e d , a n d m o re ; y e t (it is tactfu lly suggested) h e w ill b e th e la s t to d ra w th e a b s u rd conclusion th a t civic s ta tu s m a k e s a p o e t. C o n te m p o r a r y so ciety w as civilized en o u g h to in d u lg e a ta s te in p o e tic c o m p o sitio n , a n d u n c ritic a l e n o u g h to m ista k e its q u a lity . T h e c e n s u re im p lie d h e r e is o n e o f th e links w ith th e A ug u stu s, see E p . 11. 1. 108 ffi, in p a r tic u la r 109 f. pueri patresque seueri | fro n d e comas uincti cenant e t carm ina dictant, 117 scribimus in d o cti d o c tiq u e poem ata p a ssim . n ih il. . . dices fa ciesu e : ‘ ce n ’est p a s u n conseil, m ais u n e lo u an g e, p o u r a d o u c ir les p ré c e p te s q u ’il v e u t lu i d o n n e r (D a cier). K .—H ., in sen sitiv ely , re fe r th is to th e y o u n g m a n ’s gesamte Lebenshaltung. T h is m akes little sen se i n th e c o n te x t, a n d is re fu te d b y tarnen (386). dices, as som e o f th e o ld e r c o m m e n ta to r s h a v e seen (e.g. O re lli) a n d R osta g n i h a s r ig h tly r e p e a te d , c o n c e rn s th e p o e tic c o n tin g en c ie s w h ich H .

381

C o m m en ta ry has m o o ted in a section in tro d u c e d w ith a n ad d ress to th e y o u n g m a n ; dices ap p lies m o re to p o etic sp eech (as it does fre q u e n tly in H .) , facies to th e ac tio n o f co m posing, uersus facere. in u ita . . . M inerua: ps.-A cro . . . et est prouerbium artificum . . . quia et ipsa inter ceteras artes etiam poesi praeest. Cf. A . O tto , Sprichwörter , 224. C o m m e n ta to rs rig h tly cite Cic. O f. 1. n o neque enim attinet naturae repugnare nec quicquam sequi quod assequi non queas, ex quo magis emergit quale sit decorum illud, ideo quia nihil decet inuita M inerua, ut aiunt, id est aduersante et repugnante natura. T h e p o in t a b o u t ars h a v in g b ee n m ade,

H . n o w in cu lca te s th e c o n tra ry p rin c ip le , ta le n t. T h is is u n e x p e c te d after w h a t preced es, b u t su ch a q u ic k d ia le c tic a l c h a n g e is a fa v o u rite H o ra tia n device, e n su rin g flexibility, natura a n d ars a re b u t tw o dif­ feren t asp ects o f th e a b ility to p ro d u c e g o o d p o e try . W ic k h a m rig h tly refers to th e sam e to p ic in th e in itia l p a r t o f th e p o em , 3 8 -4 0 . T h e c rite ria a re th e sam e b u t th e d iffe re n t c o n te x ts n e e d to b e n o ted . 386 id tib i iudicium est, ea mens takes u p 367 et p er te sapis. T h e tw ofold iudicium -m ens em p h asiz es th e y o u n g m a n ’s o w n decision, cf. E p. i. 14. 8 -9 tamen istuc mens animusque \ f e r t , C ic. Vat. 30 quo consilio aut qua mente, P hil. m . 13 magno consilio atque optima mente. T h is n o tio n is in ten sified b y th e c h a n g e o f g e n d e r id . . .ea, a k in d o f p o ly p to to n m o re fa m ilia r w ith hie, PI. Poen. 1099 hoc consilium capio ethane fabricam , Cic. Font. 35 hanc urbem et hoc imperium, V irg . A . v i. 788 huc geminas nunc flecte acies, hanc aspice gentem, a n d w ith o th e r p ro n o u n s, above 3 Ι 4 - Ϊ 5 q u o d .. .officium, quae | partes, e t al. i d . . .ea sh o u ld b e n o te d becau se th e ch a n g e o f g e n d e r w as p e rh a p s to o o bvious a n d rh e to ric a l in p o e try ex cep t for sp ec ia l effect, is in p a r tic u la r h a p p e n s to b e a n in cre asin g ly ra re w o rd in L a tin verse a fte r L u c re tiu s (B. A xelson, Unpoet. W örter, 70 f .); H ., w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f C. i v . 8 . 18 (C. m . i i . 18 I re g a rd as sp u rio u s), re stric ts it to th e h e x a m e te r poem s, a n d does n o t elsew here re p e a t i t fo r em phasis. tamen allow s for natura as w ell as for th e ars in c u lc a te d e a rlie r. H . d em an d s criticism to c h e c k b o th — a m o tif in th e p re c e d in g p a r t o f th e p o e m (cf. 263 ff.) a n d e v e n m o re im p o r ta n t in th e sequel, 419 ff· P s.-A cro m a in ta in s t h a t Piso (i.e. maior iuuenum ) tragoedias scripsit. T h is is likely to b e a m e re guess, b a se d o n th e poem . olim: p s.-A cro idest quandocumque, cf. C . 11. 10. 1 7 -1 8 non si male nunc, et olim | sic erit, S . 1. 4. 136—7 num quid ego illi | imprudens olim fa cia m sim ile ?, 11. 5. 27, E p . 1. 10. 42, V irg . A . 1. 203, iv . 6 2 7 ; C ic. A tt. XI. 4. I . 387 M a e c i. . . iudicis: in th is fo rm as w e ll as M a ecii, M eet, M e ti, M e ttii, etc. in th e M S S a n d o ld ed itio n s. T h e p erso n w as id e n tifie d b y M a n u tiu s a n d L a m b in u s as th e c ritic S p. M ae ciu s T a r p a , w h o m

382

Commentary C icero m e n tio n e d in a c r itic a l a s id e as a se le c to r o f plays, Fam . v n . ϊ. 1 (55 B .c.), a n d H . so m e tw e n ty y e a rs la te r a t S. 1. 10. 3 7 -8 haec ego ludo I quae neque in aede sonent certantia iudice Tarpa, cf. P o rp h . ad I. B entley re s to re d th e s p e llin g M a e c i, a n d su g g ested th e m e a n in g ‘a ren o w n ed c r it i c ’, t h a t is, a re fe re n c e to c ritic a l statu s, n o t to his p erso n — w h ic h is u n lik e ly . C f. M ü n z e r, R - E , x iv . 238. 48 if., a n d for this q u e stio n , a n d th e p r o b le m o f d a tin g w h ic h u n d e rlie s it, Frol. p. 240 n . 4. in ( M aeci) descendat. . .aures: a m e a s u re d te rm fo r th is e x a m in a tio n . P arallels a re e q u a lly so le m n , S a il. lu g . 11. 7 uerbum in pectus Jugurthae altius, quam quisquam ratus erat, descendit, L iv. in. 52. 2 curam in animas p a tru m descensuram, a n d f r e q u e n tly in S en e c a (cf. T L L , v . x. 65°· 62 ff.). T h is su g g ests a n o ld sty listic p re c e d e n t fo r th e usage. Also cf. L u cil. fr. 6 1 0 (c it. a b o v e 3 3 5 -6 n .). 388 et nostras: 3 0 4 -5 a b o v e m a y b e c o m p a re d . K in d ly advice offered b y w rite rs a n d c ritic s o f s ta n d in g to y o u n g e r frie n d s w as n o t only a r e a lity b u t a l i te r a r y c o n v e n tio n . L u c il. fr. 944 (M a rx ) a me auxiliatus sies m a y b e lo n g to th e g e n re , as C . C ich o riu s, Untersuch, zu Lucil. (1 9 0 8 ), p . 1 16 su g g e ste d c a u tio u s ly a n d G . C . F iske ‘L u cil. a n d H .’, W ise. S t. v i i (1 9 2 0 ), 4 4 8 , less c a u tio u sly . nonum . . .in annum seem s to su g g e st n e o te ric e la b o ra tio n , in p a r ti­ c u la r C in n a ’s S m y rn a , a l th o u g h th e r e is n o c o m m e n d a tio n o f C in n a s style; cf. P o rp h . a n d p s .-A c ro a d I., P h ila rg . o n V irg . E . 9. 35, F. S k u tsch , R - E , v m . 227. 19 if. F o r Q u in tilia n ’s referen ce to this verse, see b e lo w 3 8 9 n . C a t . 9 5 . 1 -2 , in his e p ig ra m o n th e Z m.Ψ η α '· nonam p o s t. . . messem | quam coepta est nonamque edita post hiemem. T hese verses d o u b tle s s lie b e h in d th e H o r a t ia n , b u t th e re fere n ce is q u a li­ fied, see th e fo llo w in g n o te s. 388-9 p r e m a tu r . . ., | m em branis intus p o sitis: B en tley ’s p u n c tu a tio n , now g e n e ra lly a c c e p te d . T h e v e r b = ‘ c o n c e a l, co n fin e closely , as Epod. i. 33 q u o d . . .a u a ru s u t Chremes terra prem am . M a rt. m . 41(40) quas (opes) grauis arca p rem it. A s im ila r n o tio n is expressed b y membranis^ intus positis, w h e re in tu s h a s its fa m ilia r m e a n in g ‘in sid e th e house (ϊ8 2 n .). T h is is t h e s itu a tio n also a t E p . 1. 20. 1 ff., w h e re th e co m ­ p leted liber epistularum w ill b e p u t o n sale a n d th u s escape fro m the co n fin e m e n t a t h o m e , ib id . 3 o d isti claues et grata sigilla pudico. B u t liber. . .pum ice m undus i n t h a t p a s s a g e does n o t sq u a re w ith membranis h ere. F o r th e r e is n o e v id e n c e t h a t a fa ir c o p y w as m a d e o n p a rc h ­ m en t, m em brana, a t t h a t tim e , a n d som e ev id en c e a g a in st it. membrana is sh o w n b y S. 11. 3. 1 ff. to b e u s e d fo r n o te s a n d ro u g h d ra fts : sic raro scribis, H . is to ld , u t toto non quater anno\m em branam poscas, scrip to ru m q u a e q u e re te x e n s . T h is re fe re n c e to p a r c h m e n t sheets o r notebooks

383

Commentary is th e first t h a t is k n o w n , a lth o u g h it is n o t a t all u n lik e ly t h a t C a tu l­ lu s’ palim psesti (22. 5) d e n o te th e sam e th in g , fo r p a rc h m e n ts like w a x ta b le s co u ld b e u sed m o re th a n o n ce, cf. T . B irt, D a s antike Buchwesen, p. 59, C. H . R o b e rts, ‘T h e C o d e x ’, Proc. B r. Ac. xl ( T954)> ! 73· H e n c e th e n o tio n p ro p a g a te d b y W ilk in s a n d W ic k h a m t h a t H ., in th e A rs, is ad v isin g y o u n g P iso to c o m p le te his p o e m a n d th e n k eep i t u n d e r lock a n d seal for n in e y ea rs rests o n n o evidence. N o r is this advice likely o n g e n e ra l g ro u n d s. 3% delere licebit is a m b ig u o u s a n d , I su sp ec t, p ro m p te d th e o p in io n re je cted in th e p re v io u s n o te. I t m a y b e ‘ d elete , d e stro y ’ ; so J u v e n a l advises th e a sp irin g p o e t, 7. 22 fif., w h e re th e membrana is e ith e r to be b u rn e d o r lo ck ed u p to b e e a te n b y w o rm s— h en c e, 27, u ig ila ta . . . proelia dele. O r else it m a y b e ‘ d elete ’ fo r th e p u rp o se o f c o rre c tio n , S. i. 10. 72—3 saepe stilum uertas, iterum quae digna legi sint, | scripturus. T h e c o n te x t suggests t h a t th e la tte r is th e case, b u t H . d o es n o t tell. Q u in tilia n c e rta in ly so u n d e rs to o d th e p assa g e, cf. 1. 0 ., E p . a d T ryph. 2 usus deinde H orati consilio qui in arte poetica suadet ne praecipitetur editio ‘ nonumque prem atur in a n n u m ', dabam iis (to his o w n w o rk ) otium , ut refrigerato inuentionis amore, d ilig e n tiu s re p e tito s tam quam lector perpen­ derem, L O . X. 4. 4 Cinnae fm y r n a m n o u e m a n n is accepimus sc rip ta m , et Panegyricum Isocratis. . .decem annis dicunt e la b o ra tu m . 390 edideris ‘p u b lis h ’ as d istin e t fro m membranis in tu s positis, as

e x p la in e d ab o v e. nescit uox missa reuerti: cf. E p . 1. 20. 6 non erit em isso reditus tib i {liber), 18. 71 et semel em issum uolat irrem eabile uerbum; A . O tto , Sprichwörter, 367. m itto is a p o e tic v a r ia n t o f emitto a b o v e ; th e u sa g e m ig h t h av e b e e n n o te d b y D . Bo, H or. Op. in . 388.

(e) True excellence: poets the founders and civilizers of soci­ ety, 39*-407 T h e tr a d itio n . In this section some surviving evidence en­ courages an attempt to separate H. from the tradition on which he appears to have relied. The evidence has been assembled and discussed from very different points of view by M. Pohlenz, JV G G , 1920, 150, F. Solmsen, H , lxvii ( I932)> I5 I ff·) Rostagni in the introductory note on this section, and in TI proemio di Suetonio D e P o e tis ’, etc., M e la n g e s M a r o u z e a u (1948), pp. 509-23 (= S cr. M i n . 1. 238 ff.), H. Dahlmann, A A M , x (1962), 575-9; cf. P r o l. 1324, 147. Moreover in an important paper F. Heinimann has set this curious type of K u ltu rg e sc h ic h te in the context of

384

Commentary Sophistic τέχναι, cf. ‘Eine vorplatonische Theorie der τέχνη’, ΜΗ, XVIII (1961), 118 f. Writers on certain ‘arts’ from the fifth century b . c . onward projected these arts back into a mythical past. In each case mankind was said to have been civilized by the ‘invention’ of the τέχνη or ars for which primacy in time and rank was asserted. The Greek poets had traditionally had that primacy and it must have seemed plausible for the rhetoricians and sophists, who claimed the educative role of the poets, also to claim their early status as civilizers of the human race. This claim appears in the obviously derivative and traditional proem to Cic. Ino. 1. 2 flf. and is referred to De Or. i. 33; but its basic assumptions are as old as Isocr. Nic. 5, cf. Solmsen, op. cit. p. 153; in fact these notions are likely to go back a little further still. For the inaugural speech of Protagoras in Plato’s dialogue, 316 d, makes similar or even greater claims for σοφιστική τέχνη : Orpheus, Musaeus, Homer, Hesiod, Simonides, were Sophists in the guise of poets, musicians, soothsayers. The speech would lose much of its satiric force if this were not a parody of Sophistic propa­ ganda; Heinimann, loc. cit., has given plausible reasons for the Sophistic provenance of these claims. Philosophers later took the same road, e.g. in the Stoic account of Sen. Ep. 90, which derives from Posidonius. The advocates of poetry in turn seem to have reasserted their claims. Of these three pieces of evi­ dence remain, widely spaced in time: Aristoph. Ran. 1030—6, a fragment from the introduction to Suet. De Poetis (ap. Isid. Et. vili. 7. 1—2), and the present passage. It is not implausible that, as Dahlmann argues, the introduction to Varro s De Poetis contained a similar account. By their different modes of reasoning, Solmsen, Rostagni, and Dahlmann have come to ascribe the notions of the Ars to Neoptolemus of Parium. This is a guess, but a reasonable one, and I have discussed it, Prol. 132-4., 147, as part of the hypothesis that the basis of the Ars as a whole is derived from Neoptolemus. Unlike Aristo­ phanes and Suetonius, H .’s account rationalizes the myths of Orpheus and Amphion in order to arrive at assertions on the *5

3 85

BHA

Commentary earliest poets. Aristophanes’ pseudo-historical account ends with Homer, and Suetonius mentions not names but genres. H. on the other hand places Homer and Tyrtaeus after the mythical personages, Orpheus, etc., but before a selective list of poetic genres. For the principle of selection, see P ro l. and my notes below. Here as often in this poem the invigorating shock of an apparently unconnected topic is administered at the outset: n escit u o x m is s a r e u e rti ends the last sentence, silu estres h o m in es sacer interpresque deorum begins this. But the pieces are sufficiently linked in the sequel to make this more than a superficial effect. H. is still concerned with p e r fe c tu s p o e ta . That is the wider context in which he now sets the topic ‘ poet and society . If poetry is merely a pastime for the lib er, ing en u u s, and rich (of 383-4), its achievement will be middling; but mediocrity has already been excluded by definition (372-3). So this social criterion for poetic quality will not do ; another social criterion however will. For poetry, the very founder of civilized society (391 ff.), has its natural habitat in society (400 ff.). No need therefore for the person addressed at the end of this piece (406 f.) to be ashamed of M u s a and can to r A p o llo . The person so addressed is the m a io r iu u e n u m of 366. The two addresses are, in a sense, complementary and bring the intermediate contexts more closely together. Perfection in poetry is not a concomitant of social standing, but rather true poetry is social in origin and has always achieved its own kind of social standing. The true quality of poetry and its true efficacy go together. H ora ce.

siluestres homines: early man as in the parallel accounts cited above 391-40711.: Suet. D e poetis (Isid. E t. vili. 7. i) cum prim um homines exuta ferita te , etc., Aristoph. R a n . 1030-1 σκέιραι yap άττ“

391

10

«PXhS I ωφέλιμοι των ποιητών οί γενναίοι χεγένηνται. Quint. . . i. 10. 9 (on Orpheus as an early musician, poet, and sage) q u ia . . . agrestes animos admiratione mulceret, cf. 393 η.; Isocr. Me. 6 του θηριωδώζ 3ήν άπηλλάγημεν (through rhetoric), Cic. In o . i. 2 (on

386

Commentary early rh e to ric ) nam f u i t quoddam tempus cum in agris homines passim bestiarum modo uagabantur. sacer interpresque deorum: fo r e m p h a s is s e p a ra te d a t th e e n d o f this verse fro m th e n a m e to w h ic h it b elo n g s, Orpheus, a t th e en d o f th e n ex t, interpres is q u a s i- a d je c tiv a l b e sid e sacer ; sim ilar usages a re dis­ cussed b y H o f m a n n —S z a n ty r, 157 f. Cf. e.g. A risto p h . R a n . 1 032-

3 Ό ρ φ ε ύ ς . . .τ ε λ ε τ ά ς θ’ ή μ ΐν κ α τ έ δ ε ιξ ε . . . | Μ ουσαίος δ εξακεσεις τε νό σ ω ν καί χ ρ η σ μ ο ύ ς, P la to , P rot. 3 16 d τ ο ύ ς . . . τελετά ς τε καί χ ρ η σ μ ω δ ία ς ( π ρ ό σ χ η μ α ττοιεϊσ θα ι), το ύ ς άμφί τε Ό ρ φ έ α και Μ ου­ σαίον al. I n a d if f e r e n t c o n te x t P la to , Ion 5 3 4 e, calls po ets έρμηνεΐς. . . τ ω ν Θεών. A c c o rd in g to V irg . A . v i. 645 O rp h e u s is Threicius longa cum ueste sacerdos, cf. p s.-A c ro o n sacer a b o v e , idest sacerdos; ut poeta (seq. V irg . A . v i. 6 4 5 f.). H . ’s d e s c rip tio n n e e d n o t im p ly a n a c c e p t­ an c e o f t h a t le g e n d a r y fig u re as a u th o r o f th e O rp h ic poem s so -called , re je c te d b y A ris to tle a n d o th ers. 392 caedibus et uictu fo e d o deterruit: p s.-A c ro glandium esu, C o m m . C ru q . instar fe ra ru m . O r e lli’s p a r a p h r a s e glandibus et fe rin a cruda m a y b e rig h t. M a n y sc h o la rs h o w e v e r th in k t h a t caedibus a n d uictu foedo to g e th e r p o in t to c a n n ib a lis m , th u s K .- H ., R o sta g n i, a n d th e w rite rs c ite d b y J . H a u s s ie rte r, ‘D e r V e g e ta ris m u s in d e r A n tik e ’ (Religionsgesch. Versuche, χ χ ι ν (1 9 3 5 ), 77) j th is assessm ent is u n c e rta in b u t c a n n o t b e e x c lu d e d , see A . J . F e stu g iè re , H aro. Theol. Rev. x l ii (1949), 2 1 8 -2 0 . Cf. M o s c h io n , fr. 6 . 14—15 ( T G F 2, p . 814 N a u ck ) βοραί δέ σ α ρ κ ο β ρ ώ τες ά λ λ η λ ο κ τ ό ν ο υ ς | τταρεϊχον α ύ το ϊς δ α ϊτα ς, P lato , L aw s, vi. 782 b - c , E p in o m is, 975 a 5 ff. ή τ ή ς ά λ λ η λ ο φ α γ ία ς τ ω ν 3Φ ω ν ήμας τ ώ ν μέν, ώ ς ò μΰθός Ι σ τ ιν , τ ό π α ρ όα τα ν ά ττο σ τη σ α σ α (έπ ισ τη μ η ), τ ώ ν δέ εις τ η ν νό μ ιμ ον έ δ ω δ ή ν κ α τ α σ τ ή σ α σ α , O rp h . fr. 292 (p. 3°3 K e rn ) fjv χ ρ ό ν ο ς ή ν ίκ α φ ώ τες άττ’ ά λ λ ή λ ω ν β ίο ν είχο ν | σαρκοδακη, e t al. A ris to p h . R a n . 1032 Ό ρ φ ε ύ ς . . .φ ό ν ω ν τ ’ άττέχεσθαι (κατέδειξε) m a y s u p p o r t th is e x p la n a tio n , b u t C ic. Ino. 1. 2 cum . . .sib i uictu fe r o u ita m p ropagabant is m o re in d istin c t. I n view o f th e larg e a m o u n t o f P e r ip a te tic d o c tr in e in th e A rs, it m a y b e n o te d t h a t n e ith e r T h e o p h r a s tu s n o r D ic a e a rc h u s a t all a g re e d w ith this a c c o u n t: H a u s s le ite r , op. cit. p p . 59, 62. Orpheus: cf. P rol. 133 n n . 1 a n d 2, a n d b e lo w 401 n. 393 H . a lle g o riz e s p a r ts o f th e O r p h ic m y th : O rp h e u s sp ellb in d in g w ild a n im a ls re a lly is O r p h e u s c iv iliz in g p rim itiv e a n d b ru tis h m an . F o r th e a lle g o ry , see P rol. 133 n . 2. Q u in t.’s re m a rk s (7. 0 .1. xo. 9) o n O rp h e u s a n d L in u s , m usici et uates et sapientes, re sem b le this section, e x c e p t t h a t Q u i n t i li a n h a p p e n s to b e ta lk in g a b o u t th e uses o f m usic fo r th e o r a to r (P r o l. 133 n . 1). H is so u rces h o w e v er offered th e sam e a lle g o ry , q u ia ( O rpheus) rudes quoque atque agrestes animos

387

25 -2

C om m entary admiratione mulceret, non fe r a s modo sed saxa etiam siluas que duxisse posteri­ tatis memoriae traditum est. T h is is a fa m ilia r fe a tu re in S to ic alleg o rizin g , cf. H e in z e a d I. a n d S olm sen loc. cit. ; w h ic h does n o t n ecessarily m ak e

H .’s o r Q u in tilia n ’s a c c o u n ts S toic. H ., w h o c laim s c re d e n c e w h e n th e im a g in a tiv e s itu a tio n o f a p o e m ju stifie s it— e.g. C. i. 12. 5 -1 2 , 24. 13-14— d e m o n stra te s th e d iffe ren c e b e tw e e n lite raln ess a n d m e ta p h o r w h e n h e w rites in a lo w er e m o tio n a l key. T h e d o u b le t dictus-dictus a n d its p la c in g a t th e b e g in n in g o f th is a n d th e n e x t verse give p ro m in en c e to th e alleg o riz in g . rabidos, οπτό κοιυοΰ w ith tigres as w ell as w ith leones', n o t rapidos, cf. L a c h m a n n o n L u cr. iv . 712. T h e ad js., like th e v e rb s rabio a n d rapio, a re c o n tin u a lly co n fu sed b y scribes a n d h a v e to b e ca refu lly dis­ tin g u ish ed , see O . S k u tsc h ’s b ib lio g ra p h y , H S l x x i (1966), 141 n. !5394 T h e p ro se o rd e r w o u ld b e et A m phion, conditor . . . urbis, (ob hoc) dictus (est) saxa mouere, etc. ; th e a ttr ib u te conditor urbis co rre sp o n d s to th e m a in cl. 390 f. homines deterruit, a n d dictus (sc. est) m akes a g o o d a n a p h o ra b u t b a la n c e s o n ly su p e rfic ia lly th e first dictus, w h ich is g en u in ely p a rtic ip ia l. A m phion, Thebanae conditor urbis: fo r th e a d j. cf. ab o v e 18 n . flum en Rhenum . I n spite o f Rom anae conditor arris (V irg . A . v m . 3 1 3 ), arris (u ar.l.) does n o t m a k e H . ’s p o in t as fu lly as urbis; w h e th e r arx o r urbs a p p lie d w as d e b a te d in m y th o lo g y , cf. H o m e r cit. below , P au s. n . 6. 4, ix . 5. 7—8. conditor urbis c o rre sp o n d s to homines deterruit, a sim i­ la rly m a g ic a l a n d civilizing a c tiv ity , th e fo u n d in g o f cities : 399 n . o n oppida m oliri ; T h e b e s a c c o rd in g to som e m y th o lo g ies w a s re p u te d to b e th e o ld e st city . O rp h e u s a n d A m p h io n to g e th e r a p p e a r a t P au s. Vi. 20. 18. I n H o rn . O d. x i. 2 6 2 -3 Z eth o s as w ell as A m p h io n fo u n d e d a n d fo rtified T h eb e s. T h e m u sic a l m y th is p ro b a b ly as o ld as H e sio d (Palaeph. 4 2 ) a n d w as g iv e n p ro m in e n c e in E u r. Antiope (D . L . P ag e, Greek L it. Pap. 1. 6 8), 8 1 -2 α σ τ υ . . . έξαρτύετε, th e m ira c le o f th e b u ild in g follow s, 84 ff., cf. W e rn ic k e , R - E , 1. 1946. 2 ff. As in th e in s ta n c e o f O rp h e u s , H . elsew here tells th e m y th u n ra tio n a liz e d , C. n i. i i . 1 -2 . A lleg o riz in g o f a d iffe re n t k in d is m e t in T ze tzes, Chil. 1. 323 ff. φ ασί δέ τ ο ν Ά μ φ ίο ν α κτλ. | τ ο δ’ αληθές· ’Α μφ ίω ν μέν ή δε κ ρ α τώ ν τ η ν λύραν, | ο ί λ ιθ ο υ ρ γ ο ί δ’ έττήρειδον το ύ ς λίθους σ υ ν τιθέντες κ τλ .

395 saxa mouere sono testudinis: cf. C. n i. 11. 2, E u r. ibid . 8 6 -9 . prece blanda: in E u r. 86 A m p h io n is to ld , ly re in h a n d μέλττειν θεου[ς ώ ι]δ α ϊσ ιν a n d th e m ira c le follow s, blandus, ‘t h a t w h ich c h a rm s, casts a s p e ll’, a c o n v e n tio n a l e p ith e t, h e r e m o re te llin g t h a n o ften , fo r in c a n ta tio n s, E p . n . 1. 135 docta prece blandus, C. iv . 1. 8

388

C om m en tary blandae. . .preces, T L L , i i . 2 0 3 9 . 10 f., cf. C. 1. 24. 13 Threicio blandius Orpheo, 12. 1 1 -1 2 blandum e t . . .ducere quercus. 396 f u i t . . .qu o n d a m : cf. a b o v e 391 n J o n siluestres hom ines: εξ α ρχή ς, nam f u i t quoddam tem pus, cum p rim u m . haec p o in ts f o r w a rd to th e infs. 397~9> c ^· 4 2~3 ordinis haec uirtus e r it. . . I ut, S . i i . 5. 36—7 haec m ea cura est, | ne. sapientia: O r p h e u s a n d L in u s w e re m usici et uates et sapientes (Q u in t,

eit. 3g3 n .). R h e to r ic ia n s , S o p h ists, a n d p h ilo so p h ers c la im e d t h a t p o e try (o r m u sic ) w a s t h e i r o w n sapientia a t a n e a rlie r stag e a n d co u ld still serve as p r o p a e d e u tic . O n th e o th e r h a n d th e p o e t is a d v ised (3°9) to tu r n to p h ilo s o p h y a s scribendi recte. . .fons. 397—9 : e a c h v e rse s u b d iv id e d in to tw o c o m p le m e n ta ry halves, th e divisions ir r e g u la r . C f. a b o v e 195 -7 · 39 7 publica p riu a tis secernere, sacra pro fa n is: (for th e g ra m m a r see a b o v e 273 n . seponere), b a s ic d istin c tio n s o f R o m a n law . G a i. In st. 11. 2 if. sum m a itaque rerum diuisio in duos articulos diducitur, nam aliae sunt diuini iuris, aliae hum ani. 3 . d iu in i iuris sunt ueluti res sacrae et religiosae. 4 . sacrae sunt quae d iis superis consecratae sunt, religiosae quae diis M anibus relictae s u n t . . .1 0 . hae autem res quae hum ani iuris sunt, aut publicae sunt aut priuatae. 11. quae p ublicae su n t n u lliu s uidentur in bonis esse; . . .priuata sunt, quae singulorum h om inum su n t. C ic. In v . 1. 2 (see 391 n .) talks in d iffe re n t th o u g h still R o m a n te rm s , nondum diuinae religionis, non hum ani officii ratio colebatur', c o n tr a s t S u e t. D e Poetis (see 391 n.) seque ac deos suos nosse, w h ic h strik es a G re e k n o te. 3 9 8 concubitu prohibere ungo ‘ r e s tr a in fr o m ’, w ith abl. b u t no d irec t o b je c t as in th e e q u a lly ‘g e n e r a l p r e c e p t ’— ex quo sunt illa communia C ic. O ff. i. 52 non prohibere aqua profluente, al. T h e ir m a rria g e s w ere as u n s e ttle d , uagi, a s th e y th e m se lv e s w e re in th e ir n o m a d ic s ta te . concubitus n o t m atrim onium o r nuptiae, cf. uenerem incertam rapientis more fera ru m in th e L u c r e tia n a c c o u n t o f S'. 1. 3. 109. dare tura m a ritis is th e p o sitiv e c o u n te r p a r t to prohibere: C ic. ibid. (3 9 1 n ·) nemo n u p tia s u id era t legitim as. Cf. G a i. Inst. 1. 55 quos (sc. liberos) iustis n uptiis procreauim us; quod ius p ro p r iu m c iu iu m R o m a ­ n o ru m est, J u s t . In s t. 1. 10 p r . iustas autem nuptias inter se dues Rom ani contrahunt qui secundum praecepta legum coeunt, etc. m ariti p i. is p o etic, S ilv er a n d la te L a t i n fo r coniuges, n o t, as L . M u e lle r suggests, p ro te c ­ tiv e le g is la tio n fo r w ro n g e d h u s b a n d s , in sp ite o f S . 1. 3. 106 neu quis adulter, cf. T L L , v m . 404. 65 if., esp e c ia lly D ig . x x iv . 1. 52 inter maritos nihil a g itu r (cit. H . S c h ü tz ) . T h e m e a n in g o f A fran iu s’ title M a riti is d u b io u s. 399 A fte r th e d iv is io n o f p r o p e r t y sa c re d a n d p ro fan e, co m m o n a n d p riv a te , a n d t h e in s titu tio n o f m a rr ia g e a n d fam ily , th e re follows

389

C om m entary th e esta b lish m e n t o f cities a n d law s. T o G reeks a n d R o m a n s c ity life was civ ilized life a n d th e fo u n d in g o f cities th e re fo re m a rk s th e d ec i­ sive stag e in ac co u n ts such as th e se : P la t. Prot. 322 b 1 πόλεις δ’ ούκ ήσ αν. oppida m oliri: cf. 394 Thebanae conditor urbis, Iso cr. ibid. (391 n.) συνελθοντες πόλεις φ κίσαμ εν, C ic. op. cit. i. 3 urbibus constitutis, moliri is m o re c o n c rete th a n condere (conditor , 394) : ‘ to e n g in e e r’, fro m moles, w ith a n o b ject like cities, bu ild in g s, etc. ; it is p o etic a n d S ilv er L atin , cf. V irg . A . i. 42 4 m o liri. . .arcem , in. 132 muros, v ii . 290 tecta, C. ni. i. 46 atrium, O v. M e t. xi. 199 moenia, al. T L L , v ili. 1 3 6 1 .2 3 ff. H .’s ea rlie r a c c o u n t, S . 1. 3. 105, h a d d e sc rib e d th e sam e th in g b y oppida coeperunt munire. leges incidere ligno: w h e re ligno is lik ely to b e d a t., cf. T L L , v ii . 1. 907. 78 if., esp ecially 908. 4 f. ; th e C ic e ro n ia n c o n stru c tio n is in + abl. Cf. S . I. 3. 1 0 5 ponere leges, Iso cr. ibid. (391 η .) καί νόμους έθέμεθα (καί τέχνα ς ενρομεν), C ic. Ιηυ. ι. 2 non ius aequabile q u id utilitatis haberet acceperat, 3 u t fidem colere et iustitiam retinere discerent; . . .a d i u s . . .sine ui descendere. In sc rip tio n s o f e n a c tm e n ts o n w o o d a re a n a rc h a ic to u c h ; P o rp h . aereis enim tabulis antiq u i non sunt usi sed roboreis; . . . unde adhuc Athenis legum tabulae axones uocantur. C f. S z a n to , ‘A x o n e s’, R - E , 11. 2636. 6 if., S w o b o d a , ‘ K y rb e is ’, ibid. x n . 134. 60 ff. ; B erg er, ‘ T a b u ­ la e d u o d e c im ’, ibid, iv a . 1918. 49 ff. 400 A c co u n ts o f th e h isto ry o r p re h isto ry o f a n ars te n d to e x p la in th e n a m e o f ars a n d a rtifex, th u s V a r r o a n d S u et. ap. Isid . E t. vm . 7· 3; Isid o re h im se lf o n th e sam e p a ssa g e ; cf. H . D a h lm a n n , A A M ΟθδΒ)» η° · 3 · 99» A A M (1962), n o . 10. 591 ff. T h u s h e r e th e n am es o f ars a n d a rtifex a re d e riv e d fro m th e o ld p o e t-p ro p h e t w ho was sacer interpresque deorum (391). A t th is im p o r ta n t p la c e o f th e p o e m H . sig n ifican tly em ploys n o t poeta b u t th e a r c h a ic w o rd uates, fo r w h ich th e N e w P o ets o f th e la st g e n e ra tio n h a d little use. T h e A u g u stan s h o w e v er h a d co m e to c la im it, w ith its o v e rto n e s o f in s p ira tio n , in sp ite o f th e ir a d d ic tio n to th e C a llim a c h e a n d iscip lin e o f ars—τέχνη . sic sum s u p th e p ro v e n a n c e o f p o e try fro m in s p ira tio n , p rie stly lore, a n d civilizing e n te rp rise , 3 9 1 -9 . C f. S u et. loc. cit. id g e m s . . ■ uocitatum est, eiusque fictores, etc. honor et nomen: cf. A risto p h . τιμ ή ν καί κλέος (cit. 401 n. insignis). T h e p o ssib ility o f a h e n d ia d y s is su g g ested b y S. 1. 4. 4 4 det nominis huius (sc. poetae) honorem, b u t n o m o re th a n a p o ssib ility ; th e tw ofold n o tio n ‘statu s a n d title ’ is m o re lik ely w h e re th e tw o a re in fact in v o lv ed . So to o 299 nanciscetur enim pretium nomenque, C ic. Verr. 11. 87 f u i t tota Graecia sum m a propter ingenium honore et nomine, D eiot. 14 amplissimo regis honore et nomine, O v . Pont. n i. 2. 32 effu g iu n t. . .nomen

390

Commentary honorque rogos, M in . F el. 6. 2 m u ltis honoribus ac nominibus sacerdotum ; cf. J . V a h le n , O p. A c . i. 5 9 -6 0 . diuinis uatibus (atque | carm inibus): th e a d j. m a y b e p re d io , (‘th e n a m e a n d s ta tu s o f d iu in i ’) o r a t t r i b ., m o re lik ely th e la tte r since this p a r t o f th e s e c tio n c a n s c a rc e ly c u lm in a te in a c la im for a n y th in g b u t th e a n c ie n t uates a n d carm ina', p o st hos th e n begins a new line o f d e v e lo p m e n t. T h e w h o le d r i f t o f th e p assag e, n o ta b ly 391 sacer inter­ presque deorum a n d 395—6 prece blanda | ducere, quo uellet, h in ts a t th e p ro p h e tic a n d m ira c u lo u s c h a r a c te r o f th e uates a n d his spells. T h e a n c ie n t n o tio n o f uates is th e re fo re m a te r ia l a n d even V a rro ’s (false) e ty m o lo g iz in g o f uates m a y h a v e som e re le v a n c e . V a rro (Isid. E t. vili. 7. 3) d e r iv e d uates a u i m e n t i s . . . ; proinde poetae L a tin i uates olim, scripta eorum u a t i c i n i a dicebantur, quod u i quadam et quasi uesania in scribendo com m ouerentur. . .e tia m p er fu ro rem d iu in i eo d e m e r a n t n o m in e, quia et ipsi quoque pleraque uersibus efferebant. T h e honor et nomen th e n w as estab lish ed fo r uates, th e o ld p ro p h e t- p o e t, a n d for his carmina, diuinis too m a y b e r e le v a n t a n d a p o e tic p u n o n ‘d iv in e ’ a n d ‘ p ro p h e tic c a n n o t b e d ism isse d . H . uses th e w o rd in b o th c o n n o ta tio n s; for ‘p r o p h e tic ’ see S . 1. 9 . 3 0 , C . in . 27. 10, a n d p a r tic u la rly ab o v e 218 utilium que sagax rerum et d iu in a fu tu r i, fo r ‘d iv in e ’, S. 1. 4. 43- 4 cu^ mens diuinior atque os | m a g n a sonaturum , a n d th e H o m e ric θειοι ά οιδοί, V irg il’s diurne poeta (E . 5. 4 5 , io . 17), etc. I n this passag e o f th e A rs th e re fo re th e tw o c o n n o ta tio n s o f diuinus seem to coalesce. As alw ays w h e n th e o rie s a r e c o n c e r n e d , H . n o m o re th a n h in ts a t th e m . B ut th e fa c t t h a t V irg il, H o r a c e , ‘a n d su c c e e d in g w rite rs m a d e uates o n ce m o re a n a m e o f h o n o u r ’ ( M u n r o o n L u c r. 1. 102, cf. L . M u e lle r, L>e re m etr? 51 if.) p ro v id e s a b a sis fo r th e p re s e n t se c tio n ; cf. also E p. H· i . 1 18 ff. I t m a y m o re o v e r h a v e p ro m p te d som e s y m p a th y w ith th is a s p e c t o f V a r r o n i a n a r c h a is m , cf. D a h lm a n n , A A M (1962), 5 7 5 -6 . T h is p o ssib le c o n n e x io n h o w e v e r m u s t n o t b e m ista k en fo r th e close a n d d i r e c t lin k b e tw e e n V a r r o a n d th e A u g u sta n s w h ich th e sam e s c h o la r h a s a s s e rte d in th e se c o n d p a r t o f his p a p e r a t P , x c v n (1 9 48), 337 f f .; cf. E . B ick el, ‘V a te s bei V a rro u n d V e rg il’, R M , x c iv (1 9 5 1 ), 260—1. A lth o u g h uates in V irg il a n d H . occasionally expresses th e c o n c e p t o f t h e A u g u s ta n p o e t in c o n tra d istin c tio n to poeta, th e tw o w o rd s a r e n e a r-s y n o n y m s a t 299, a n d in n u m e ro u s p lace s w h e re th e p a le poeta re c e iv e s som e co lo u r fro m its A u g u sta n c o m p e tito r. O n th e o t h e r h a n d uates m a y b e h u m o ro u sly o v ersta te d , a n d th u s b e a s o u rc e o f ir o n y . T h e sh iftin g d istin c tio n b etw e en uates a n d poeta th e re fo re p ro v id e s a n in s e c u re fo u n d a tio n fo r la rg e c o n c lu ­ sions, s u c h a s J . K . N e w m a n ’s d a tin g o f th e A rs to 22 b . c . ( The concept o f V ates , C oll. L a to m u s (1 9 6 7 ), p p . 79, 130 )· 391

C om m entary 401 post hos: cf. n o t so m u c h A risto p h . op. cit. (391 n .), w here H o m e r, a t 1034-6, ends th e list o f g re a t a rc h a ic p o ets, p re c e d e d by O rp h e u s, M u saeu s a n d H e sio d , as A r. Poet. ch . 4, w h e re (as R o sta g n i notes) H o m e r’s epics, th e o ld e st k n o w n lite ra r y d o c u m e n ts, are p re ced e d b y h y m n s a n d e n c o m ia . T h e le g e n d a ry O rp h e u s is n o t m e n tio n e d in th e Poetics; fr. 7 (R ose3) fro m th e ττερί φ ιλοσοφ ίας rules th a t th e ‘so-called O rp h ic p o e m s ’ a re n o t b y O rp h e u s . H . th e n w hile n o t d isag reein g w ith A risto tle is m o re e x p lic it (p e rh a p s o n A le x a n ­ d ria n p re c e d e n t) in p ro n o u n c in g o n p re h is to ric a l p o e try before H o m e r a n d th e p o e tic gen res p ro p e rly so ca lle d , cf. Prol. 134. insignis: p re d ic . w ith p o st hos a n d durò κοινού w ith H om erus | Tyrtaeusque, as H . S ch ü tz p ro p o se d , n o t sc. f u i t ( K .- H ., R o sta g n i, ah). K .- H . assum e a re fe re n c e to th e Odyssey in c o n tra s t w ith th e m a rtia l g lo ry o f T y rta e u s in th e n e x t lin e. B u t P lu t. A lex. 8. 2 τ η ν . . . Ί λ ιά δ α τη ς -πολεμικής αρετής Ιφ όδιον (w h ic h th e y q u o te ) is n o t th e only illu stra tio n to th e c o n tra ry . A risto p h . (cit. 391 n .) , b e c a u se o f his c o n tex t, is m o re re le v a n t a n d in v a lid a te s th is case, 1 0 3 4 -6 ό δέ θείος Ο μηρος | α π ό τ ο ϋ τιμ ή ν καί κλέος εσχεν ττλήν τ ο ΰ δ ’ ό τ ι χ ρ ή σ τ ’ έδίδαξε, I τάξεις, άρετάς, ο π λ ίσ εις ά νδρ ώ ν. Cf. a b o v e 73~ 4 · D a n te still ack n o w led g ed th e a n c ie n t sw o rd -b e a rin g H o m e r, Inferno, iv . 86 M ir a colui con quella spada in mano, 88 Q uelli è Omero poeta sovrano. 4 0 a Tyrtaeusque: cf. P o rp h . a n d p s.-A c ro a d I. M a r tia l elegy is jo in e d closely w ith H o m e r ; Q u in t. I.O . x. 1. 56 H o ra tiu s. . . Tyrtaeum Homero subiungit. N o o th e r ty p e o f elegy is h e r e m e n tio n e d , th o u g h som e m a y b e h in te d in th e n e x t sen ten c e, b u t cf. ab o v e 7 6 -8 . mares animos in M a r tia bella: th e a llite ra tio n as in V a r r o , L .L . v . 73 M a r s . . . quod m aribus in bello praeest, fo r th e a d j . also E p . 1.1.64 n en ia . . . maribus Curiis et decantata Cam illis·, cf. T L L , v ili. 423. 72 if. 4 03 exacuit: th e s h a r p e n in g a n d in c ite m e n t o f em o tio n s as Cic. D e Or. i. 131 a d uos exacuendos, o p p . deterrendos, A tt. xii. 36. 2, N e p . Phoc. 4. i. T L L , v . 2. 1139. 13 ff. offers also re le v a n t la te r p arallels, E p it. A lex, i i strepitu rem orum . . .a n im i m ilitu m exacuebantur (exaequa­ bantur M S ), H o rn . L a t. 507 spes exacuit languentia m ilitis arma, syn. accendit. dictae per carmina sortes: cf. a b o v e 2 1 9 so rtileg is. . .D elphis. T h is is th e n e x t g e n re , a fte r e p ic a n d elegy— χ ρ η σ μ ο λ ο γ ία , uaticinia o f this k in d p ersisted in h isto ric a l tim e s; h e n c e th e g e n re is p lace d h ere, n o t in th e p re -H o m e ric se c tio n : P o rp h . m e n tio n s Phemonoe, p s.-A cro S ib illa . R o sta g n i n o tes t h a t th e A le x a n d ria n s classified o racles as a ty p e o f d id a c tic verse, Schol. D io n . T hr. 166. 15 (ed. H ilg a rd ). P u b lic u se a n d sta tu s— H .’s c rite rio n h e re — q u alifies th e m fo r in clu sio n .

392

Commentary 404 uitae m onstrata u ia est, th e g n o m ic verse o f T h eo g n is, P hocylides, Solon, a n d th e la r g e m o ra lis tic l ite r a tu r e o f Chriae. A G re ek te rm like ύ φ η γ η τ ικ ή m a y b e i n m in d . R o s ta g n i cites D io m . G L , 1. 482. 32 f. angeltice (species p o em a tis enarra ttu i) est qua sententiae scribuntur, ut est Theognidis liber ; item C hriae, cf. P o r p h . (sententiis a d d . ς') sapientium quibus instructa uita est. T h e m e t a p h o r o f th e w a y o f life, k n o w n fro m

G reek p o e try a n d p h ilo s o p h y , is a p p o s ite h e r e a n d fully estab lish ed in L a tin w ritin g , cf. E p . 1. 17. 2 6 uitae uia si com ersa decebit, e x p la in e d b y 23 om nis A ristip p u m decuit color et status et res', also in la te r S a tire , as P ers. 5. 34—5, J u v . 7. 172. C ic e ro ’s speeches h a v e th e allite ra tiv e p a ir fo r a p o litic a l p e rs u a s io n , e.g. t h a t o f th e O p tim a te s , Sest. 14° j in m o ra l th e o ry it c o n tin u e s th e im a g e r y o f th e p a r tin g o f th e w ays, Off. i. X18 quam quisque u ia m uiuendi sit ingressurus. 404— 5 P ie r iis . . .m o d is, i n H . ’s u sa g e , d e n o te s lyrics. L y ric verse, o f w h ich c h o ra l, p u b lic , p o e tr y is a la rg e p a r t, ‘in v ite d ro y a l p a tro n a g e — a G re c iz in g d e s c rip tio n o f a G re e k g e n re . E .g . A r. A th . Pol. 18. 1 " Ι π π α ρ χ ο ς . . . φ ιλό μ ο υσ ο ς fjv * κ α ί το ύ ς π ε ρ ί Ά ν α κ ρ εο ν τα και Σ ιμ ω νίδη ν κ α ί τ ο ύ ς ά λ λ ο υ ς π ο ιη τ ά ς ο υτος ήν ο μεταπεμπομενος, p s.-P la to , H ip p . 228 c Ά ν α κ ρ ε ο ν τ α . . .Ικόμισεν, Σ ιμ ω νίδη ν δέ^ το ν Κεΐον dei π ε ρ ί α ύ τ ό ν είχεν, μ ε γ ά λ ο ις μισθοΐς και δω ροις πειθω ν, cf. B acch y . 5· 3 ~ 6 ( H ie r o n ) , P in d . O l. i (H ie ro n ). 14—175 i o 3~ 5 > 3 · 44 (T h e r o n ) , P y. 5. 1 ff. (A rc e sila u s), e t al. W ith o u t th e p u b lic c rite rio n o f th is s e c tio n o t h e r k in d s o f ly ric w o u ld q u alify m o re d efin itely , cf. a b o v e 83—5 n n . gratia regum | . . . tem ptata a v o id s th e fa m ilia r gratiam petere, appetere ; g ra tia m . . .experiri S ali. Iu g . 102. 9. 405— 6 D r a m a , a ludus, is a p u b lic sp e c ta c le as longorum operum finis, see a b o v e 24 4 , E p . n . i. 14 0 ; ά ν ά π α υ σ ις in A risto te lia n la n g u a g e , cf. E . K o lle r, op. cit. (366—78 η .) , ι ι 8 , 123 f. et: e x p la n a to ry , cf. p s .-A c ro ludus e t . . .finis κ α τ α τ ό α ΰ τό dixit. ne fo r te : cf. 176 n . pudori, a t th e e n d , e x p lic itly fits th is sec tio n in to th e la rg e r c o n te x t b e g u n w ith t h e a d d re s s to th e m aior iuuenum (366, cf. 3 9 1 -4 0 7 n.) a n d do es so a f te r th e m o tiv e s fo r th is fin a l ad d ress h a v e b e e n clarified. T h e q u a s i-h is to ric a l se c tio n (1) m a k e s g o o d th e tra d itio n a l claim o f professors o f artes t h a t t h e i r p ro fe ssio n is useful, utile, cf. F . H e in im a n n , M t ì , XVIII (1 9 6 1 ) 105, 1 17 ff.; (2) p ro c la im s th e civilizing p o w e r o f p o e try , th e sp ec ific fo r m t h a t u tile h e r e tak es : th e p o e t, as a t E p. 11 1 · 124, is u tilis urbi, h e n c e th e y o u n g s ta te s m a n n e e d n o t feel ash a m e d o f th e a r t, a n d t h a t in t u r n ju stifie s th e s trin g e n t d em a n d s m a d e o f th e p r a c titio n e r ; (3) in te rw e a v e s , in H .’s d ia le c tic a l m a n n e r, th e id e a l o f in s p ira tio n w ith w h a t se e m e d la rg e ly a d e m a n d for studium (379

393

C om m entary 84, 386-90). N ow , p a ra d o x ic a lly a fte r his o p p o sitio n to D e m o c rite a n fu ro r (295 ff.), honor et nomen o f p o e t a n d p o e try is see n to h a v e sp ru n g from th e in sp ira tio n o f th e o ld uates, sacer interpresque deorum. 407 M u sa a n d Apollo a p p e a r, e m p h a tic a lly , a t th e e n d o f a section c a rrie d by th e id e a o fin sp ira tio n . lyraesollers, w ith th e g e n . co n stru ctio n , a H o ra tia n fa v o u rite , e x te n d e d to this adj. fro m peritus o r th e like, cf. L am b in u s a d I., H o fm a n n -S z a n ty r, 78 ; p s.-A cro sollers. . .q u i habet peritiam , etc. N e ith e r th a t lo c u tio n n o r cantor A pollo re fers to ly ric verse, as K . L a tte , H , l x (1925), 12, a n d o th ers b eliev ed . T h e y re fer to

th e w h o le o f p o e try , a u th e n tic a te d as i t w e re in th is section.

(f) Genius and artistry in literary theory, 408-18

This duality underlies the whole poem. It introduces the present part of the poem, 294-308—there in the shape of an antithesis, which H. resolves humorously in favour of his doing literary criticism since he prefers to ‘cure’ himself of his ingenium and therefore cannot write (lyric) poetry. In the sequel ars is strongly supported, yet ingenium comes to the fore several times (cf. 323, implied in 372 mediocribus, 385 in u lta .. . Minerua) ; the last section in particular could not have been written without a firm reliance on ingenium. Thus before he comes to this section the reader has been exposed to varying answers to the apparently simple problem ‘natura an arte'. But more than that; the continuous dialectical switch from the one to the other must have shown that in the setting of this poem at any rate the antithesis is unreal. The bland Peripatetic compromise, ‘et natura et arte’, set against this logical back­ ground, loses the character of superficiality and truism, with which it has been saddled so often. Here as elsewhere, when H. comes to put a matter in abstract terms and the language of the schools, he does so briefly, after long passages of poetic argument have made these notions real and concrete. Abstrac­ tion then acquires the nature of a summing up, which, for the reader remembering what he has read before, puts a different complexion on the abstract terms. For the pre-Platonic position, see F. Heinimann, M H , xvm ( i 9 6 i)> I 2 3 P. Shorey, ‘Φύσις, Μελέτη, Επιστήμη’, 394

Commentary Τ Α Ρ Α , x l { 1 9 0 9 ) , 185-201,D.

A. Russell, ‘Longinus’, etc., pp. 63 f. ; for the Democritean and Platonic positions, see above 2958 n. The Aristotelian disjunction, which points the way to a compromise, is expressed at Poet. 8 , 1451 a 22 ff. à "Ομηρος. . .καί τοΰτ’ εοικεν καλώς ίδεϊν, ήτοι διά τέχνην ή διά φύσιν. For the Peripatetic compromise reflected by H. see Neoptolemus of Parium ap. Philod. Poem. v. n · {Prol. 5 5 > no. 2) [τον] τήν τέχνην [καί την δύν]αμιν έχοντα τ[ήν ττοι]ητικήν. Longinus’ notion of τέχνη as an assistance to φΰσις is a different matter; but he too can talk o f αλληλουχία repre­ senting το τέλειον, perfectum {Subi. 4 4 ÌO~ 11 alterius. . . \ altera) . In Rome the pair natura-ars is standar ized in references to an ars, e.g. Cic. Arch. 1 and 15. The desiccated remains of once lively debates are enshrined in the introductions to the artes, the question natura an arte^a con­ ventional topic, e.g. Quint. 1 . 0 . 11, ch. 19 starting scio quaen etiam naturane plus ad eloquentiam conferat an doctrina, (cf. i, prae . 26), Vitr. i. i. 3 , al. But in the A .P. many topics which the humdrum types of textbook rehearsed at the outset appear in the present part of the poem—presumably their origina place, though in H .’s flexible and poetic scheme not the only place, cf. above 38-41. 3 6 ·

?

408 natura a n d arte a t b e g in n in g a n d e n d p ro v id e th e fram ew o rk for th is v erse as ingenium a n d arte d id a t 295. R e a so n a b le artifices 1 e Q u in t. 1. 0 . π . 19. i (c it. p r e c . n .) o r V itru v iu s (ref. ibid.)| w o u ld te n d to q u e stio n th e a n tith e s is ; C ic e ro re c u rs to th e su b ject m his o w n w ay. B u t th e A r s d ra w s m u c h o f its é la n fro m th e an tith e sis a n so · Pu s th e m a tte r a n tith e tic a lly i n th e d ia le c tic a l m a n n e r o f th e philosophers. laudabile: cf. 2 6 8 , 3 2 4 , n o t ‘l a u d a b l e ’ b u t th e uirtus o r p erfec tio n ° f 30 8 , 37 0 . 409 quaesitum est: th is m a t t e r d e riv e s fro m th e schools, is a quaestio, ζ ή τ η μ α , -π ρ ό β λη μ α . C f. S. i. 4. 4&~7 quidam comoedia necne poema \ esset q u a e s iu e re , Q u in t. L O . π . 19. 1 scio q u a e r i e tia m natura. . .an doctrina, e tc , ibid, p lu rim u m tam en referre arbitror, q u a m esse in hoc loco q u ae stio n e m uelim us . ego: th e c r itic as a t 306 a n d f r e q u e n tly th e re a fte r, cf. a ove 24 5 n · studium , lik e μ ελέτη , ά σ κ η σ ις, is a te c h n ic a l t e r m in these discussions. diuite uena in c o n ju n c tio n w ith rude (410) suggests m in in g as 395

Commentary source o f th e m e ta p h o r; uena like G re ek φλέψ m a y b e a v e in o f m etal o r a w aterco u rse. T h is does n o t n ec essarily , as K .—H . say, distinguish th e im a g e ry a t C. n . 18. 9 -1 0 ingeni | benigna uena (o f his p o etry ) alth o u g h it is tru e t h a t uena c a n b e c o m e a m e ta p h o r in e ith e r sense, a n d O v . TV. in . 7. 14 p ra ise s raras dotes ingeniumque, 15 lead s th a t ingenium to P egasidas. . . undas, 16 ne male fecundae uena periret aquae. T h e d ifference b etw e en th e tw o H o r a tia n passages is t h a t in th e p re sen t passage th e im ag e is m o re fully re a liz e d . 410 ru d e. . .ingenium calls fo r erudire, th e j o b o f ars, te a c h e r an d critic. W ith diuite uena p re c e d in g , th e n o tio n o f aes rude m a y h a v e b een in H .’s m in d , th e m e ta l t h a t is n o t signatum b y a r t. Q u in t. 1. 0 . n. J9- 3 (c o m p a ra b le a n d p r o b a b ly n o t u n in flu e n c e d b y th is passage o f th e A rs) recalls th e a n e c d o te a b o u t P ra x ite le s c a rv in g a m illstone, a n d ad d s Parium marmor m allem rude. possit J o h n o f S alisb u ry , M e ta . i. 8 (p re su m a b ly fro m a M S ), S', B en tley a n d th e b e st H o r a tia n critics o f th e la st c e n tu ry , prosit M S S a n d all re c e n t e d itio n s; n o t a n u n u s u a l v a r ia tio n , see e.g. C. 1. 26. 10. prosit is c e rta in ly a possible n o tio n ; Q u in tilia n h a s i t in th e sam e c o n te x t, 1 .0 . p raef. 27 haec ipsa (sc. bona ingeni) sine doctore perito, studio p ertin a ci . . .continua exercitatione p er se nihil prosunt, v. io . 1 2 1 th e o re tic a l tra in in g non m a g is. . .s a t est quam palaestram didicisse nisi corpus. . · natura iuuatur, sicut contra ne illa quidem satis sine arte profuerint. H . ’s n ex t verse h o w e v er m ak es a g a in st th e n o tio n o f av a il, b e n e fit (sc. to th e p o e t to b e), w h ic h is th e m e a n in g o f prosit. T h e n o tio n is r a th e r th a t studium a n d ingenium c a n n o t ‘d o ’ e n o u g h b y th em selv es; e a c h needs th e o th e r’s assistance. T h is, m a n y in sta n c e s (m o st o f th e m b ro u g h t to g e th e r b y B entley) show , is exp ressed b y posse. Cf. PI. A s. 636 (;uiginti minae) quid pollent quidue possunt. T rue. 812 p lu s potest qui plus ualet, V irg . E . 3. 28—9 inter nos q u id possit uterque uicissim | experiamur, A . ix . 446 si quid mea carmina possunt, H o r. C. 1. 26. 9 -1 0 n il sine te (sc. P im plei) m ei j possunt (p s.-A c ro co d d . A r le m m . e t c o m m ., B entley, prosunt co d d .) honores, m . 4. 58 (q u id Typhoeus et M im a s) possent ruentes, IV . 14. 9 q u id M a rte posses, E p . 1. 2. 17 quid uirtus et quid sapientia possit, 9· 6 q u id possim uidet ac nouit me ualdius ipso. N o r is th e id io m re stric te d to verse, see Gic. Quinct. 69 quod poterant, id audebant, Τ .Ώ . 11. 34 h°c pueri possunt, uiri non poterunt?, al. sic to su ch a d e g r e e ’ (W ilk in s), h e n c e sed (P e e rlk a m p ), is n o t re q u ire d .

410-11 alterius (t as alw ay s in H ., cf. H . S ch ü tz o n C. iv . 13. 18) . . . I altera, b u t Q u in t. I . 0 . 11. 19. 2 si p a rti u trilib e t omnino a lte r a m detrahas, natura sine doctrina m ultum ualebit, doctrina nulla esse sine natura poterit. P e e rlk a m p a n d o th e rs c o m p a re p s.-L o n g . Subi. 36. 4 ττροσήκει

396

Commentary . . . β ο ή θ η μ α τ η φ ύσει π ά ν τ η ·ττορί3εσθαι τ η ν τ έ χ ν η ν (cf. Η . poscit opem)· ή γ ά ρ α λ λ η λ ο υ χ ία (cf. Η . a b o v e ) τ ο ύ τ ω ν ίσ ω ς y év o rr’ αν τ ο

τέλειον, cf. a b o v e 4 0 8 -1 8 n . . . coniurat amice, a f r ie n d ly p a c t, w h e re a s a c c o rd in g to false o p in io n hostile re la tio n s su b sist b e tw e e n natura a n d ars\ so a m o n g m an y th o u g h t th e o p p o n e n t( s ) o f p s.-L o n g . {Subì. 2. 2) χ ε ίρ ω τε τ α φ υσικά έ ρ γ α , ω ς ο ίο ν τ α ι, κ α ί τ ω ιτ α ν τ ι δ ειλ ότερ α κ α θ ίσ τα τα ι τα ις τε χ ν ο λ ο γ ία ις κ α τα σ κ ελ ετευ ό μ εν α . I n v iew o f th e close p a ra lie to in Subì. 36. 4 (see p re c . n .) , K ie sslin g p la u sib ly suggests t h a t th e m e ta p h o r o f a p a c t in b o t h w r ite r s also rests o n a p re c e d e n t, ave h o w ev er fo u n d n o s u c h coniuratio o r σ υ ν ω μ ο σ ία elsew here, coniurare, w h ich C ic e ro u ses fo r s e d itio u s o a th s o n ly , is h e r e u se d fo r e n te rin g in to a p a c t, lik e th e fa m ilia r conspirare·, so in a rc h a ic lite ra tu re a n d later in p o e ts a n d h is to ria n s ( c f T L L , iv . 339· 7 6 ^ · ) ’ e -S· 0 t ta ry o a th C aes. B .G . v n . 1. 1, V irg . A . v m . 5. a n d g e n e ra lly FI. Cm. 241, T e r. Hec. 198, H o r . C . 1. 15. 7 ( Graecia) com m ata tuas rumpere nuptias, L iv. x x i i . 38. 4, L u c a n , π . 4 8 in arma {mundus). T h e o n y in sta n c e n o te d b y T L L o f a m e t a p h o r s o m e w h a t c o m p a ra b le to the p re sen t is A etn a 3 5 9 , w h e r e th e w in d s e n te r in to a n a g reem en t. 4 1 a H a v in g m a d e th e p o i n t a b o u t ingenium, H . a g a in m oves o m th e d ire c tio n o f ars. H is f ir s t e x a m p le is ta k e n fro m ath le tic s, a tr a d i­ tio n al illu s tra tio n , cf. a b o v e 3 7 9 ~ 81 ', a t E p . n . 1. 1 i4 - I 6 e x a m p es are e q u a lly t r a d itio n a l in th is c o n te x t: h e lm s m a n , d o c to r, c a rp e n te r. e obv io u s n e e d fo r t r a i n i n g m a d e a th le tic s a serv ic eab e case o r w riters o n τ έ χ ν η , u n d e r p in n e d in S o p h istic w ritin g a n d p 1 osop y b y th e p a r a lle l b e tw e e n a rts p h y s ic a l a n d in te lle c tu a . a to n ic ex am p les a b o u n d , b u t cf. Is o c r. A n tid . 181, E p ict. in . 15· 1 έρ γο υ σκόιτει τ ά κ α θ η γ ο ύ μ ε ν α καί τ ά ά κόλουθα κ τλ. 2 ω Ό λ ύ μ τ π α ν ικ η σ α ι.’ ά λ λ ά σκόιτει τ ά κ α θ η γο ύ μ εν α α ύ το υ καί τ α ά κ ό λ ο υ θ α . . . 3 δει σε ε ύ τα κ τε ΐν , ά ν α γ κ ο φ α γ ε ϊν , αιτέχεσθαι στεμμάτων, γυ μ νά ^ εσ θ α ι π ρ ο ς α ν ά γ κ η ν , ώ ρ α τ ε τ α γ μ έ ν η , έν καύμ α τι, εν ψύχει· μη ψ υ χ ρ ό ν ττίνειν, μ ή ο ίν ο ν δ τ ’ έτυ χ εν κ τ λ ., Q u in t, ν . io . ΐ 2 ΐ (cit. 4 1 0 n .j, al. optatam cursu contingere m etam : th e r e la tio n o f th e g o al-lin e (ca x) to th e (th re e ) tu r n in g - p o s ts e x p re s s e d b y th e sing, meta is c o n je c tu ra , c . P o lia k , R - E , in . 1421. 61 f f . S c h ro ff, R - E , x v . 13«. i(L A Ä theless th is a n d o t h e r in s ta n c e s , c ite d T L L , v m . 865. 1 ·, e m a n th e m e a n in g ‘g o a l ’ a n d s im ila r ity w ith th ese in stan ce s ( ro p . m . 14· 7, O v . M e t. X. 59 7 , al.) su g g ests t h a t th e c o n te s ta n t h e re is a ru n n e r {cursor, Q u in t. 1 . 0 . 11. 8. 7 ) ; cursu = ‘b y r u n n in g . T h e m e t a . . . feru id is I euitata rotis (C . 1. 1. 4 - 5 ) is n o t th ere fo re c o m p a ra b le . F o r th e u se o f th is lin e in V a l. F I. iv . 620 optatam dabitur contingere pellem,

397

Commentary see P. L a n g e n ’s c o m m e n ta ry o n th e Argonautica a n d J . S tro u x , P , x c ( i 935)j 305 n. i. 413 T h e verbs w ith th e h o m o e o te le u to n tu lit fecìtque, sudauit et alsit, 414 abstinuit, a n d th e d o u b le t uenere et uino (cf. 42 n . u ir tu s . . .et uenus)— all this to give e m o tio n a l co lo u r to th e h a rd sh ip s b o rn e by th e a th le te ‘ as a b o y ’, t h a t is ‘w h e n h e w as a b o y ’, th e tenses n o t (as H . S c h ü tz suggests) g n o m ic, cf. p riu s 415. T h is rh e to r ic is a t hom e w h ere h a rd sh ip is d ra m a tiz e d , ev en in th e a rtle ss style o f E pictetus, cf. έν καύμ α τι, έν ψ ύ χει a b o v e 412 η. puer, cf. P ro t. fr. 3 o n φύσις a n d ά σκησις: άττό υ εό τη το ς δέ άρξαμέvous δει μανθανειν, P la to , Rep. in. 403 c δ ε ι. . .τ ο ύ τ η (sc. yupvocστικη) ακριβώ ς τρέφεσθαι εκ τταίδω υ δ ιά β ίου. F o r τταιδομαθία, cf. Ρ. S h o rey , op. cit (4 0 8 -1 8 n .), p . 189. 4*4 Suda s.v . βεκκεσέληνος. T h e sch o liast’s e x p la n a tio n is b a se d o n

422

Commentary the eq u iv ale n ce o f D ia n a a n d L u n a , e sta b lish e d in R o m a n p o etry , e.g. C. IV. 6. 38 N o ctilu ca m , C a t. 34. 1 5 -1 6 tu {D iana) . . .notho es | dicta lumine Luna. I n t h e c u lt th e tw o s e p a r a te d iv in itie s a p p ro x im a te to each o th e r, cf. W isso w a , R - E , v . 3 3 4 . 4 8 if. B u t as to eq u iv ale n ce V arro expresses h im s e lf c a u tio u s ly , L .L . v . 68 L una, uel quod sola lucet noctu, itaque ea dicta N o ctilu ca in P a la tio ; nam ib i noctu lucet templum, hanc ut Solem A pollinem q u i d a m D i a n a m m ea n t. So does C ic. JV.D. 11. 68 Dianam autem et L u n a m eandem esse p u ta n t. 455 T h e uesanus poeta is th e f o u r th su ffe re r fro m disease. tetigisse tim ent: th e in f. w i t h tim ent as a b o v e 170, for th e p e rf. inf., see 168 n. T h e s a tiric a n g le a s S . 11. 7. 117 aut insanit homo aut uersus fa cit. 456 qui sa p iu n t p u n s : th o s e w h o a r e in th e ir rig h t senses a n d those who h a v e th e s a v o ir o f a rs poetica, cf. 309 n . agitant pueri ‘c h a s e ’, cf. a b o v e 341 n . T h e a sy n d e to n is ad v ersativ e. mcautique sequuntur: cf. S . 1. 3 . 1 3 3 -3 4 uellunt tibi barbam j lasciui pueri; quos tu n isi f u s t e coerces, e tc ., 11. 3. 130 insanum te omnes pueri clamentque puellae. P h ilo ’s c e le b r a te d o u td o o r scene {In Flaccum, 36)

exhibits a s im ila r f e a tu r e . C a r a b a s su ffe red fro m ‘ a m ild fo rm o f m ad n ess’ (τ η ν ά νειμ ένην κ α ί μ α λ α κ ω τέ ρ α ν sc. μανίαν). οΰτος δ ιη ­ μέρευε και διενυκτέρευε γ υ μ ν ό ς εν τ α ΐς ό δ ο ϊς . . . άθυρμά ν η π ίω ν καί μειράκιων σ χ ο λ α ^ ό ν τ ω ν . 457-64 A lo n g p e r io d d e s c r ib in g th e m a d p o e t’s p ro g ress a n d fall, wo c o n d itio n a l se n te n c e s a r e c o n tr a s te d w ith o u t o v e rt connexion, 457-60, 4 6 1 -4 . T h e f o r m e r is a m a s te rp ie c e o f a rc h ite c to n ic a rra n g e ­ m ent, e a c h c la u s e c o r r e s p o n d in g to a s e p a ra te folly a n d th e final isaster, th e s e q u e n c e d e c e p tiv e ly sim p le in its ju x ta p o sitio n s. T h e prosaic o r d e r w o u ld b e s o m e th in g lik e th is, nemo poetam uesanum, quamuis d a m et, si, dum uelut auceps su b lim is errat, in puteum decidit, tollere uolet. H . h a s j u x t a p o s e d t h e stag es, th u s : hic ( i ) dum s u b l i m i s ... errat·, (2) ueluti auceps, w i t h th e v e r b d ra w n in to th e c o m p a riso n so th a t

is th e fo w ler w h o see m s t o h a v e th e fa ll, see b elo w 458 n . ; (3) th e cry fo r h e lp {d u e s), im p ly in g t h a t h e b e lo n g s to th e c o m m u n ity a t 3;r ge ; (4) th e fin a l d is a s te r, n o o n e w ill h e lp , th e m a d m a n h as p u t im self o u ts id e th e c o m m u n ity . 4 5 7 -6 0 T h e s y m b o lic a l f a ll o f th e p o e t w a n d e rin g w ith his h e a d in f e clo u d s h a s a p r e c e d e n t i n t h e sto ry a b o u t T h a le s w a tc h in g th e cav en s w h ile w a lk in g , P la to , T heaet. 174 a , D io g . L . 1. 34 ; W . J a e g e r, S B P A , x x v (1 9 2 8 ), 3 9 0 ( = Scr. M in . 1. 348). T h e p o et’s fall m ay h a v e b e e n m o d e lle d o n t h e d e sc rip tiv e fe atu res o f th e o ld e r st° ry . Cf. to o A e so p , F a b . 6 5 (ed. C h a m b ry , c it. R o sta g n i). 457 sublim is ‘h e a d h i g h ’, lik e μετέω ρος, cf. P la to , Theaet. 174a °λ ή ν ά σ τρ ο ν ο μ ο Ο υ τα . . .κ α ί ά ν ω βλέττοντα, h a r d ly acc. w ith uersus.

423

C om m entary T h e w o rd co n n o tes ‘h ig h -m in d e d ’, cf. a b o v e 165, E p . 11. 1. 165, a n d th e d ifferen t m e ta p h o r, C. 1. 1. 36 su b lim i fe r ia m sidera uertice. uersus ructatur: W ilkins’ guess (ad I.) t h a t th e v e rb h a d lost its coarseness in classical L a tin as έρεύγομαι h a d in H e llen istic G reek is a t a n y ra te n o t im p la u sib le . I t is tru e , th e c o m p o u n d eructo(r) p re ­ serves its o n o m ato p o eic n o tio n in th e few classical in sta n c e s w here d ru n k e n a n d sated speech is d e sc rib e d as ‘ b e lc h in g ’, cf. C ic. Cat. 11. io nino languidi, conferti c ib o . . .eructant sermonibus suis caedem ’, it seems to becom e g en teel n o t before C h ris tia n w ritin g , T L L , v. 2. 827. 3 ff. = proferre, promere. B u t a sim ila r v e rb , euomere, occurs as ea rly as E n n . A nn. 241 (V .2) in th e n o tio n ‘u tte r fr e e ly ’, a n d su ch la te L a tin in stan ces as S id. Carm. 23. 253 im p ly little m o re th a n ‘m o u th in g ’. H e n ce uersus ructatur m a y b e ‘ to m o u th , co m e o u t w ith , verses’, ‘b lu rt o u t ’ in its e a rlie r m e a n in g . F o r th e d e p . see P o rp h . ‘ ructatur ’ pro ructat; antiqui enim et ructo et ructor dixerunt, e tc . P a u l. F est. 263 ructare non ructari dicendum e s t. . . Cicero tamen ‘ ructaretur ’ d ixit, S erv. on V irg . A . m . 632. ructatur et errat: verses e n d in g w ith tw o s im ila r m a in verbs jo in e d by et o r o th e r c o n ju n ctio n s h a v e a n a rc h a ic tin g e a n d w h e n th e y o cc u r in A u g u sta n p o e try (as th e y d o o cc asio n ally ) serve a sp e c ia l p u rp o se . H e re th e effect is p ro b a b ly m e a n t to b e c o m ic : th e p o e t sp o u tin g verses d u rin g his h a ltin g p ro g ressio n . E lsew h e re o th e r p u rp o se s a re in te n d e d , e.g. 200 precetur et oret, a n d th e v e rb s w ith h o m o e o te le u to n 1 10 deducit et angit, th o u g h n o t w ith trip le rh y m e as in E n n iu s ’ m u c h d e rid e d splendet et horret. 458 H . sa tiric a lly id en tifies p o e t a n d fo w le r so closely t h a t it is h a r d to k n o w w h ic h o f th e tw o is merulis intentus a n d fa lls in to a w ell o r p it. decidit: th e v e rb o f th e si clau se is d r a w n in to th e c o m p a riso n , a n d th u s co n trib u te s to th e effect d e sc rib e d i n th e last n o te . L . M u e lle r a d I. ap p o sitely c o m p a re s th e v e rb , S . 11. 5. 83. 459 puteum foueam ue: th e o d d a sso rtm e n t o f w ell o r p i t d raw s a tte n tio n to th e ty p ical n a tu re o f th e ta le — ‘ a h o le in th e g ro u n d lik e . . . T h e p o in t w as a lre a d y illu s tra tiv e w h e n th e sto ry a b o u t T h ale s w as ben trovato ; it sim p ly m a rk s th e p a r a d o x t h a t th e wise m a n a tte n d s to th in g s in th e sky b u t n o t to th in g s a t his feet, cf. P la to , Theaet. i 7 4 a ττεσόντα els φρέαρ Θ ρ α τ τ ά t i s . . . θερατταιν'ις cnroσ κ ώ ψ α ι λ έ γ ε τα ι cos τ ά μεν έν ο ύ ρ α ν ω ττροθι/μοϊτο είδέναι, τ ά 5 ’ έμ π ρ ο σ ­ θεν α ύ το ϋ κτλ. Ig n o ra n c e o f a n y o b sta c le in o n e ’s p a t h seem s to h a v e b ec o m e p ro v e rb ia l fo r la c k o f p ra c tic a l sense, as S . 11. 3. 59 hie fo s s a est ingens, hic rupes m axim a: sem a, E p . ii . 2 .1 3 5 posset qui rupem et puteum m tare patentem.

424

C om m entary licet is still r a r e a s a q u a s i - c o n j u n c t i o n i n A u g u s ta n v e rse , e.g . V irg. A . v i. 8 0 2 , Xi. 3 4 8 , 4 4 0 . I n t h e A r s i t o c c u rs o n ly h e re , a n d o n c e each in th e S a tire s a n d E p is tle s , b u t also o n c e e a c h i n th e Epodes a n d Odes. T h o u g h i t is n o t u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e u s a g e g a in e d g r o u n d in th e

co llo q u ial l a n g u a g e o f t h e t i m e , t h e p a u c it y o f in s ta n c e s i n e a c h o f H .’s w o rk s d o e s n o t b e a r o u t H e i n z e ’s c o n c lu sio n s, C. in . 24. 3 n ., 7th ed. succurrite: cf. 4 6 0 n . longum ( j clam et) : a l t h o u g h t h e s im ila r ity o f th e H o m e r ic μακράν άυτεϊν su g g ests v o lu m e o f v o ic e , t h e s i t u a t io n see m s to f a v o u r c o n ­ tin u ed crie s f o r h e lp , lo n g u m a d v e r b i a l fo r th e tim e o f u t t e r a n c e as H . E pid . 3 7 6 n im is lo n g u m loquor , 6 6 5 , P er. 167, P s. 687 n im is diu et longum loquor, J u v . 6 . 6 4 —5 lo n g u m | . . .e t m iserabile g a n n it; fo r V irg . E· 3· 79 longum , fo r m o s e , u a l e . . . , in q u it, lo lia see th e c o m m e n ta to rs . T hese u sa g e s a r e n o t li n k e d w i t h H . b y E . L ö fste d t, S yn . 11. 420, H o f m a n n - S z a n ty r , 4 0 (‘ lo n g u m s e it H o r . ’) a n d o th e rs. 4 6 0 ( ‘ succurrite ’) ‘ io d u e s ’ : t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c r y fo r h e lp a d d re s s e d to all citizen s, w h i c h W . S c h u lz e , i n a n o u ts t a n d i n g p a p e r , h a s tra c e d in v a rio u s I n d o - E u r o p e a n s e ttin g s , S B P A , 1918, 481 ff., re p r. K l. Sehr. (1 9 3 3 ), Ρ Ρ · i 6 o ff. I t w a s m o s t o fte n , p e r h a p s o rig in a lly , asso­ ciated w ith a n a t t a c k , e s p e c ia lly o n w o m e n , β ία , in iu ria : e.g. E u r. Tro. 9 9 9 -1 0 0 0 ττ ο ία ν β ο ή ν | ά ν ω λ ό λ υ ξ α ς . . . ; |, PI. A m p h . 3 7 6 pro fid em , Thebani d u e s . M e n . 9 9 9 —1 0 0 0 p e r ii, opsecro uostram fid em , j E pidam nienses, subuenite, d u e s , 1 0 0 4 , P u d . 6 1 5 p ro Cyrenenses populares, uostram ego imploro fid e m , 6 1 7 f e r t e o p em e t c ., C a e c . F C R 3, frs. 2 1 1 -1 2 pro deum, popularium o m n iu m , . . . | c la m o . . .a tq u e im ploro fid em , V a r r o , L .L v i. 68 a n d L iv . x x x m . 2 8 . 3 o n q u irita re, L iv . in . 4 4 . 7 a d clamorem nutricis fidem (Quiritium im p lo ra n tis f i t concursus, O v . F a st. v i. 517 dique uirique loci, miserae succurrite m a tr i. T o th e s e a n d o t h e r in s ta n c e s c ite d b y S ch u lze m a y b e a d d e d t h e c r y o f t h e n u rs e , S e n . P haed. 7 2 5 - 6 A th e n a e . . . f e r opem . F o r its p r o b a b le G re e k p ro v e n a n c e , see W· H . F r ie d r ic h , U ntersuch, z u S e n . dram . T ech. ( i 933 )> PP· 3^ ff -5 th e P assage se e m s to m e to a f f e c t t h e a r g u m e n t o f W . S. B a rr e tt, E u r . P· 39 - O t h e r e m e r g e n c ie s a lso q u a lif ie d ; th u s th e T w e lv e T a b le s o n a p p r e h e n d i n g th ie v e s , C ic . T u ll . 5 0 . F o r e v e n less c o lo u rfu l o ccasio n s, see S c h u lz e , K l . S e h r. 1 7 9 n . 5 , a n d E . N o r d e n n o tin g th e a c c id e n t o f t h e uesanus p o e ta , a p . S c h u lz e , 181 n . 2. F a ilu re to o b e y su c h a s u m m o n s p r o b a b l y i m p li e d a b r e a c h o f fid es, see S c h u lz e , *82 f., u n less, a s i t h a p p e n s h e r e , t h e d u e s k n o w t h a t th e c r ie r o r c ry f e e d n o t b e t a k e n s e r io u s ly ; cf. E p . 1. 17. 5 8 ff., i n p a r ti c u la r 61—2 » ed ite, non lu d o , crudeles, to llite cla u d u m .’ j ‘quaere peregrinum ’ uicinia rauca reclam at.

42 5

C o m m en ta ry non sit: rig h tly e x p la in e d b y K ..-H ., L e ja y , a n d W ilkins, as p o te n ­

tial, n o t e ith e r as a p ro h ib itio n o r su b ju n . w ith fu tu re n o tio n . qui tollere curet: cf. E p . i. 17. 5 8 -9 nec semel irrisus triuiis attollere curat Ifra cto crure planum . 461 si curet: ad v e rsativ e, ‘ (b u t) i f so m eo n e d id c a re a fte r a l l ’, w ith th e p o in te d re p e titio n a n d c h a n g e d m e tric a l p o sitio n o b se rv e d by B entley {tollere càret. j si curét), a n d p re fe rre d b y h im to th e v u lg a te o f his tim e s i quis curet. T h e tw o re a d in g s w e re n o te d b u t m isju d g e d b y L am b in u s. 462 qui scis a n . . .? ‘h o w d o y o u k n o w w h e th e r . . . n o t . . . ? ’, close to affirm ative sense, ‘p e rh a p s h e h a s . . as in th e a r c h a ic lo c u tio n PI. M os. 58 qui scis an tib i istuc eueniat. . . ? (w ith a n . . .non. M il. 448)5 T er. E un. 7 9 0 quiscisanquaeiubeam sine u ifa c ia t? Cf. M a d v ig , L a t. Gram. §453. T h e p a rtic le is fa m ilia r in w h a t b e c a m e a c o llo q u ia l fo rm u la , haud scio an. T h is c o llo q u ialism is a v o id e d in th e nescio an o f C ic e ro n ia n speeches. H . so uses an a fte r nescio a t C. 11. 4. 13, a n d a b o v e 436 this n o tio n is d a rin g ly e x te n d e d to perspexisse. T h e q u e stio n h e r e is w h o lly ‘r h e to r ic a l’— ‘p e rh a p s th e n th is m a n o f gen iu s is d e lib e ra te ly d estro y in g h im se lf? ’. T h u s th e case o f E m p e d o c le s is b r o u g h t in satirica lly , as a n exemplum (4 6 3 -6 ) : in sp ire d p o e ts a n d p ro p h e ts m u st b e allo w ed to in d u lg e th e ir d ea th -w ish . prudens ‘d e lib e ra te ly ’, as S . 11. 3 . 212 cum p . scelus. . .adm ittis, 5. 58, 7. 66, E p. π. 2. 18. se proiecerit sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n set aside b y F . K lin g n e r in fa v o u r o f se deiecerit, o ffered b y som e o f th e b e tte r M S S . B o th re a d in g s a re o f co u rse possible b u t th e sw itch fro m decidit a n d demittere to proiecerit stresses, as B en tley said , significationem voluntarii discriminis, th e n o tio n o f th e pro c o m p o u n d . T h e asso n a n ce prudens-proiecerit m ak es for r a th e r th a n a g a in st th e r e a d in g ; fo r th e c o n fu sio n o f dùcere a n d proicere, cf. S. 1. 3. 91. 463 Siculique poetae: th e d e sc rip tio n p la c e d b e fo re th e n a m e E m p ed o cles, w h ich follow s a t 465— a d iffe re n t k in d o f allusiveness fro m 140 hie qui, cf. n . E m p e d o c le s in th is p la c e is poeta, n o t th e φ υ σ ιο λ ό γο ς to w h o m A r. Poet. 1, 1447 b 19 d en ies p o etic sta tu s (cf. Prol. 121 n . 3 ); so to o th e (p ro b a b ly P e rip a te tic ) d o c trin e ap. Schol. D ion. T hr. 449. 4 ff. a n d 168. 10 ff. [GG, 1, voi. 3, ed. H ilg a rd ), cf. P lu t. D e aud.poet. 16 c (cit. R o sta g n i), P o rp h . ad l. E . f u i t Agrigentinus physicus, qui se in craterem . . . dedit Aetnae im m ortalitatem affectans. E p . i. 12. 20 shows t h a t th is a rc h a ic p h ilo so p h e r w a s sufficiently k n o w n to m a k e th is p assag e m o re th a n a re c o n d ite allusion. 4 6 4 narrabo u sh ers in a n exem plum , as e.g . C . in . 7. 17 narrat paene datum Pelea Tartaro, 1 9 -2 0 et peccare docentes \ f a l la x histonas mouet, S .

426

C om m entary i. i . 6 9 -7 0 m utato nom ine de te | f a b u l a narratur, E p . i. 2. 6 ; cf. S . π .

6. 77-8 g a rrit

an iles j ex re fa b e lla s , interitum e x e m p lifie s i n s p i r a t i o n le a d in g to s e lf-d e stru c tio n . deus im m o rta lis: cf. E m p . fr. 112. 4 - 5 ( D ie ls - K r a n z , fro m th e

Καθαρμοί) έ γ ώ δ ’ ύ μ ϊν θεό ς ά μ β ρ ο τ ο ς , ο ύ κ έτι θν η τό ς, | π ω λ ε ϋ μ α ι μετά π α σ ι τε τιμ έν ο ς, ώ σ π ε ρ εο ικ α | κ τ λ . N o tio n s o f th is k in d , a n d a n elem en t o f m y s tif y in g a n d w o n d e r - w o r k in g , p r o m p te d a r ic h c ro p o f legend a n d fic tio n , o f w h i c h th is is t h e m o s t im p re ssiv e sp e c im e n , cf. D ie ls -K ra n z , V orsokr. 31 a 16. F o r su g g e stio n s o n th e a g e o f th is legend, see R o s ta g n i ’s n ., H e r a c l . P o n t. fr. 85 (W e h rli), W . K . C. G u th rie , H is t. o f G r . P h il. 11. 131 n . 1. C f. D io g . L . v m . 6 7 -7 5 (D ie ls K ra n z, op. cit. a 1) a n d S u d a s .v . E m p . ( D ie ls - K r a n z , ibid, a 2). H . om its th e m a lic io u s d e t a i l t h a t M t E t n a e r u p tin g r e tu r n e d o n e o f E-’s b ro n z e s a n d a ls . T h e f e a t u r e w h ic h h e em p lo y s is m o re re le v a n t to his su b je c t, see a rdentem fr ig id u s , 4 6 5 n . 4 6 5 cupit a n d 4 6 6 in s ilu it , p erire, m a r k th e p ro g re ss a d interitum o f u n re s tra in e d i n s p ir a tio n . ardentem f r i g id u s : a n a n t i t h e s i s ( in c h ia s tic o r d e r ) , contentio, contrapositom, o r th e lik e i n L a t i n r h e to r ic , a n d a sto c k e x a m p le fo r th is fig u re ’, A d H e r. iv . 21 in re f r ig id is s im a cales, in feruentissim a frig es, w ith H . C a p l a n ’s n o te . I n s t a n c e s fr o m l a te L a t i n verse a r e n o te d in K e lle r’s a p p . c r i t . ; S il. ix . 4 9 7 - 8 (c it. L . M u e lle r), th e w in d V u ltu rn u s g e t t i n g h o t A e tn a e . . . candente barathro, d o es n o t sh a re this rh e to ric a l s t r u c t u r e . E a r l i e r i t w a s r e g a r d e d as a sim p le v e rb a l c o n tra st, ‘g e t t i n g h o t i n c o ld b l o o d ’ o r th e like. S u c h a n an tith esis c o n v e y s se n se f o r e x a m p le in S o p h . A n . 88 Θερμήν ε π ί Ψ'-'Χροΐσι κ α ρ δ ία ν εχεις, cf. J e b b ’s n o te , b u t sc a rc e ly h e re , w h e re th e co n tex t d e m a n d s s o m e r e f e r e n c e to ingenium a n d , possib ly , som e referen ce to E m p e d o c le s ’ o w n te a c h in g . T h e lo w t e m p e r a tu r e o f o ld ago (K .—H .) is i r r e le v a n t , f r i g i d u m is lik e ly to b e ‘in se n sitiv e , d u ll , th a t is, ‘la c k in g in g e n iu m ’, a n o t i o n e s ta b lis h e d in C ic e ro a n d la t e r w riters, a n d im p r e s s iv e ly i n V ir g . G . n . 4 8 3 —4 has ne possim natura accedere p a rtes, \ f r i g i d u s o b stite rit circum praecordia sanguis. S e rv iu s co m tn en ts o n th e V i r g i l i a n p a s s a g e , secundum physicos qui dicunt stultos esse homines fr ig id io r is sa n g u in is, p ru d en tes ca lid i. T h a t th is sta te s c o rre c tly th e d o c trin e s o f P a r m e n i d e s ( i n th e ‘W a y o f S e e m in g ’) a n d D e m o ­ critu s is b o r n e o u t b y o t h e r e v id e n c e , cf. T h e o p h . D e sensu, i —\ , 58» W · K . C . G u t h r i e , H i s t , o f G r. P h il. 11. 6 7 f., 453· A s fo r E m p e d o c le s, th e e v id e n c e is in c o m p l e t e . F r . 105 p la c e s h u m a n t h o u g h t in th e b lo o d s u r r o u n d i n g t h e h e a r t , α ίμ α y à p ά νθ ρ ώ π ο ν ς π ερ ικ ά ρ δ ιό ν έσ τι υ° η μ α . P s .-A c ro c o m b in e s th is f e a tu r e w ith a d o c trin e o f v ita l h e a t, a n d a p p lie s i t to t h i s p a s s a g e , E m pedocles enim dicebat tarda ingenia

427

Commentary frig id o circa praecordia sanguine impediri. W h e th e r c o rre c t o r n o t, ps.-

A cro ’s asc rip tio n sh o u ld h a v e b ee n p re se n te d w ith th e re s t o f th e E m p ed o c le an ev id ence in D ie ls -K ra n z . F o r a discussion, see m y p a p e r in Phoenix x x m (1969), 138-42. 466 {Aetnam) insiluit: fo r th e acc. see 194 n ., D . B o, H or. Op. h i . i 17. sit ius liceatque: ab o v e 72 th e n o tio n o f ius is e x p la in e d a n d e n la rg e d by arbitrium a n d norma, h e re b y liceat ‘le t p o ets b e free to p e r is h ’— a p o rten to u s, m ock-solem n, p ro n o u n c e m e n t. 467 T h e verse w as e x p u n g e d b y R ib b e c k a n d L . M u e lle r b ecau se (1) this is th e o nly versus spondiacus in H .’s h e x a m e te r p o em s; (2) th e axiom is ex ten d e d to all, n o t, as in 4 6 6 , re s tric te d to p o e ts; (3) 468 sh o u ld follow 466. B ut (1) a n e o te ric m a n n e rism , e x p lo ite d w ith m u ch circ u m sp e ctio n b y V irg il th o u g h a v o id e d elsew h ere b y H ., does n o t ill su it this m o ck in g se n tim e n ta lity . (2) T h e re is n o n e e d to re stric t th e p u rv ie w ; H . is alleg in g a re a so n fo r th e a x io m o f th e p re c e d in g verse, cf. E p . 1. 20. 1 4 -1 6 u t ille | q u i. . .in rupes protrusit asellum | iratus; quis enim inuitum seruare laboret? (3) So fa r fro m in te r­ ru p tin g th e seq u en ce 4 6 6 -8 , 1. 467, as K .- H . h a v e seen, b rin g s talk b ac k to uesanus poeta a n d seruari nolit, 463. T h e verse seem s to be im ita te d in a serious c o n te x t b y Sen. Phoen. 100 occidere est uetare cupientem mori·, b u t a t Ben. 11. 14. 4 th e S to ic m o ra list arg u es ag a in st this perm issiveness. id e m . . .occidenti ‘ th e sam e a s ’, lik e th e G re ek id io m ό α υ τό ς m vi, k n o w n in L a tin fro m L u c r. π . 9 1 8 , in . 1038, iv. 1174, cf. T L L , vii. *· ! 99 - 83 ff. T h e c u rre n t, a n d in m y view p ro b a b le , e x p la n a tio n as a G recism h a s b e e n q u e rie d b y H o fm a n n —S z a n ty r, 92. 468—9 A tte m p ts a t self-d estru ctio n a re h a b itu a l w ith th e uesanus poeta. 468 nec semel hoc fe c it: as in th e p a ra lle l passag e (cit. ab o v e 460 n.) E p. i. 17. 58 nec semel irrisus. A lth o u g h th e sa tire is m e a n t to h a v e g e n e ra l v a lid ity , th e g ra m m a tic a l su b je c t is n o t un qualsiasi poeta affetto da m ania (R o stag n i) b u t th e uesanus poeta o f 455 ff. T h e s a tire is g e n e ra l b ecau se th e m a d p o e t is a sy m b o lical figure. iam ‘s tra ig h t aw ay , a t la s t’, w ith fie t, n o t (as in m a n y o ld e r ed i­ tions) w ith erit, cf. T L L , v n . 1. 106. 28. 469 fie t homo ‘w ill b e b r o u g h t to his senses’, like th o se qui sapiunt (456)} homo b e in g qui sapii. C ic. C lu. 199 cuius ea stu ltitia est u t eam nemo hominem . . .appellarepossit', cf. th e lo c u tio n s i esses homo a n d th e like, T L L , y i. 3. 2879. 43 ff. S ince h o w e v er excludit san o s Helicone poetas j Democritus (2 9 6 -7 ), th is is a c o n tra d ic tio n in te rm s; th e uesanus poeta, like his a rc h e ty p e E m p ed o c le s, desires to b e m o re n o t less t h a n homo : a p la y u p o n th e tw ofold n o tio n o f homo , b o th m o re a n d less th a n ‘sen se’.

428

C om m entary ponet = deponet: cf. ι 6 ο η . fam osae m o rtis a m o rem m a lic io u s ly alleg e s a m o tiv e fo r 4 5 8 -9 decidit . . . I in p u te u m ; i t is t h e lo n g i n g fo r a d e a t h a f te r th e m a n n e r o f E m p ed o cles. H o w e v e r g r e a t H . ’s ir o n y m a y b e , th e uesanus poeta h im self c a n o n ly lo n g fo r a c n o t a b l e ’ d e a th , fa m o sa e , n o t fo r a n o to ­

rious o n e , as h e is s a id to d o b y W ilk in s a n d o th e rs . I t is tru e , ‘n o to rio u s ’ is t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d e ls e w h e re in H . a n d o fte n in classical L a tin . B u t o c c a s io n a lly , i n v e rs e a n d S ilv e r a n d la te L a tin , th e r e p u ta tio n , f a m a , is g o o d o r n e u t r a l , fa m o s u s th e re fo re ‘ c e le b ra te d ’ or ‘n o t a b l e ’, cf. T L L , v i. 1. 2 5 8 . 21 ff., 2 5 7 . 70 i f , A . L a P e n n a , S I, XXV (1 9 5 1 ), 212 f., D . R . S h a c k l e t o n B a ile y , Propertiana, 2 3 6 , G . B. A. F le tc h e r, A n n o i. on T a c . (1 9 6 4 ) , p . 5 7 . 4 7 0 - 6 T h e A r s e n d s o n a h i g h ly s a tir ic a l n o te . U n lik e tr u e p o e try th e m a d p o e t ’s v e rs e s a r e l e t h a l , n o t o n ly to h im as h a s j u s t b e e n seen, b u t to th e c o m m u n i ty a t la r g e . 47° T h e se lf-c o n fe sse d f u r o r is r e p r e s e n te d as a re lig io u s c u rs e ; th e uesanus poeta m u s t h a v e v i o l a t e d s o m e ta b o o o r o th e r. cur: p s .-A c ro nec sc itu r p o e n a p r o p t e r q u a m f a c i t uersus m alos insanus poeta, an quia . . . a u t q u ia , e tc . T h i s w e ll b rin g s o u t th e s a tiric a l logic w h e re b y t h e m a d p o e t ’s v e rs e s a r e r e g a r d e d as a c o n se q u e n c e o f d iv in e p u n i s h m e n t . T h e o n l y q u e s tio n is w h y h e is th u s p u n is h e d . uersus f a c tite t ‘w i t h s u c h p e r s i s t e n c e ’ ( W ic k h a m ). A fr e q u e n ta tiv e n o tio n is p r e s e n t i n fa c tita r e a n d a s m a ll n u m b e r o f s im ila r v e rb s in H . M o st o f t h e n i n e t y - t w o v e r b s lis te d b y D . B o, H or. Op. in . 384 (ß) h a d lo n g sin ce lo s t a n y f r e q u e n t a t i v e fo rc e t h e y m ig h t h a v e h a d , e.g. dubitare, cogitare, im ita r i. 4 7 1 m in x e rit in p a tr io s cineres: t h e v io la tio n o f g ra v e s o fte n d e p r e ­ c a te d i n s e p u l c h r a l i n s c r i p t i o n s , cf. C . F e a a d I., O . J a h n o n P ers. 1. 113 - 1 4 ; P lu t. S to ic. R e p u g . c h . 22 c ite s C h ry s ip p u s o n v io la tio n o f βω μός o r ά φ ίδ ρ υ μ α θεο ύ . T h e sty le o f sermo a c c o m m o d a te s a n

o c c a s io n a l lo w e r in g o f v e r b a l p r o p r ie ty . C f. in a s im ila r c o n te x t P ers. I· 1 1 3 -1 4 p u e r i, sacer est locus, extra j m eiite, J u v . 1. 1 3 1 cuius a d effigiem non ta n tu m m etiere f a s est. triste b id en ta l: P o r p h . i d q u o d Io u is f u lm in e percussum est bidental appel­ latur. hoc e x p ia ri non p o te s t, erra n t a u tem qui p u ta n t ab agna dictum bidental, cf. N o n . 5 3 . 2 3 N i g id i u s F ig u lu s d ic it bidental uocari quo bim ae pecudes im m olantur, p s .- A c r o locus f u l m i n i s . ‘ triste ’ autem quoniam propter lapsum fu lm e n co n stitu itu r, P e rs . 2 . 2 7 triste iaces lucis euitandum que bidental. O t h e r e v id e n c e is c i t e d b y W is s o w a , R - E , s.v . bidental , in . 42g. 4 8 f f ,

O lc k , R - E , s.v . b id en s, in . 4 2 6 . 5 8 f f 47 * m ouerit ‘t a m p e r w i t h , d i s t u r b ’. R i t t e r ’s g u ess t h a t m ouent — demouerit : ‘ n on rite d em o u it nec p ra esc rip tis in eam rem caerimoniis w a s

429

C o m m en ta ry rev ived b y K .- H . a n d others, b u t does n o t seem to b e b ase d o n evi­ dence. R a th e r cf. V irg . A . h i . 700-1 f a t i s num quam concessa moueri | . . . Camerina, Serv. a d l. consultus A pollo an eam (paludem ) penitus exhaurire deberent, respondit μή κίνει Καμάριναυ, e tc ., L u c . v ili. 791 nautaque ne bustum religato fu n e moueret, al. incestus ‘c o m m ittin g sa c rile g e ’, sa n ctim o n ii p ollutä, cf. C. in . 2. 30 [Diespiter) neglectus incesto addidit integrum. T h e a d j. m a y , οπτό κοινοϋ, ap p ly to b o th k in d s o f p o llu tio n . certe ‘a t a n y r a t e ’, a n assertio n a fte r p re c e d in g d o u b t [nee satis apparet c u r . . .u tru m . . . a n ), as C. 11.4. i g f f . nescias an t e . . . j P h y llid is . . . decorent parentes; | regium certe genus. fu r it: th e fa n a ticu s error, etc., b u t also th e θεία μ ανία o f th e in sp ired poet. uelut ursus p recedes th e clau se o f w h ic h th is c o m p a riso n form s a p a rt. As elsew here, e.g. ab o v e 458, th e effect is a p o e tic m ix tu re of im ages ; it seem s alm o st as i f recitator acerbus h as b ro k e n o u t o f a cage w ith th e ursus. T h e vivid h u m o u r o f th e recitator as a b e a r len d s fresh p o in t to th e w ell-w o rn rh e to ric a l co m p a riso n o f a m a le fa c to r w ith a d an g e ro u s an im a l, cf. A r. M e t . in . 4 , 1406 b 27 ff. είσίν δ ’ εικόνες olov ήν Α νδρο τίω ν εις Ίδ ρ ιέα ό τ ι όμοιος τ ο ϊς έκ τ ω ν δεσμώ ν κυνιδίοις · έκεΐνά τε γ ά ρ π ρ ο σ π ίπ τ ο ν τ α δ ά κ νει(ν), καί Ίδ ρ ιέα λ υθέντα έκ τ ω ν δεσμώ ν είναι χ α λ ε π ό ν . T h is είκών is a p tly set b y H . C a p la n b esid e th e descriptio, A d Her. iv . 51 quodsi istum , iud ices. . . liberaueritis, statim , sicu t e c a u e a leo em issus a u t a liq u a ta e te r r im a b e lu a s o lu ta ex caten is, uolitabit et uagabitur in fo r o , acuens dentes in uniuscuiusque fortunas, in o m n es am ico s a tq u e inim icos, n o to s a tq u e ig n o to s incursitans, etc. 473 obiectos caueae. . .clatros: n o t g e n . ( ‘th e b ars o f th e c a g e ’), th e d a t. w ith obicio as in o rd in a r y classical u sag e , e.g. C aes. B .C . in . 39. 2 faucibusque portus nauem onerariam submersam obiecit, 67. 5 erat obiectus portis ericius, cf. 54. 2, C ic. P is. 8 1 , F ont. 13. F o r clatri, see C o m m . C ru q . c. sunt robusti postes et rotundi, repagula quibus obfirmatur cauea. T h e w o rd a p p e a rs to b e G re ek κ λδθρ α , S to lz -L e u m a n n , 76, fo r t re p la c in g θ ibid. 130. ualuit + inf. : as ab o v e 40, 3 0 5 , al. ή : in 4 t h p la c e o f clause. 474 indoctum doctumque: cf. A d Her. ib id , (ab o v e 472 n .) in omnes amicos atque inimicos, notos atque ignotos, a n d fo r th is p a r tic u la r p a ir, see E p . i i . i . 117 scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim . redtator acerbus:

outdoing even Martial’s untiring reciter, in. 44·

10 ff. (cit. O re lli), n o t to m e n tio n th e re tic e n c e e n io in e d a t S. 1. 4. 7 0 -8 . J 475 arripuit and tenet are still appropriate to the image of the bear.

430

Commentary occiditque legendo: in th is id io m a tic c o n s tru c tio n th e m e ta p h o r w as all b u t d e a d , as E p o d . 14. 5 candide M aecenas, occidis saepe rogando, b u t even b y itse lf p r o b a b ly c o llo q u ia l, P I. P s. 931 occidis me quom istuc rogitas. H e re h o w e v e r t h e im a g e r y gives fre sh s u b sta n c e to th e m etap h o r. 476 W ith s ta r tlin g s u d d e n n e s s th e p o e t- b e a r ch a n g es in to a leech (Porph. ‘ hirudo’, haec sa n g u isu g a appellatur) , th e la st w o rd o f th e p o em , no lo n g er a c o m p a r is o n — u elu t ursus — b u t a n a p p o sitio n , cf. ab o v e 357 n - on f i t Choerilus. missura: th e fu t. p a r t , is a t t r i b u t i v e as a b o v e 155 {plosoris) sessuri, and w ith u tm o s t c o n c ise n e ss f u r th e r q u a lifie d b y nisi plena cruoris. T h e m etap h o r o f th e le e c h is k n o w n fr o m G re e k , b u t T h e o c . 2. 5 5 -6 h av e a different c o n n o ta tio n , a n d th e w o rd in g o f C all. fr. 691 is u n c e rta in , cf. Pfeiffer a d I. T h e m e t a p h o r is e s ta b lis h e d in R o m a n co m ed y for financial b lo o d -s u c k in g ; i t is p r o b a b ly p ro v e rb ia l, see A. O tto , Sprich­ wörter, 164. T h e plebecula, C ic. A tt. 1. 16. 11, is ca lle d illa contionalis hirudo aerari. N o n e o f th e s e in s ta n c e s re sem b le s H .’s p o etic hirudo.

431

A PPENDIX

1

128-30 difficile est proprie communia dicere ; tuque

rectius Iliacum carmen deducis in actus quam si proferres ignota indictaque primus. O f th e th re e re n d e rin g s discussed in th e c o m m e n ta ry tw o a re an c ie n t. T h e y co u ld b e su sta in e d o n ly i f H . h a d ta lk e d in u n c o n n e c te d ‘ p r e ­ c e p t s a n d e ith e r his c o n te x t o r his w o rd in g is ig n o re d . T h u s (i) communia is e q u a te d w ith fa m a (119) a n d publica materies ( 13 1) ; P o rp h . nunc in aliud catholicum { transit, cf. 179, u e l s im .) et quasi interro­ gans ait: ( a t ) enim inquiunt difficile est communes res propriis explicare uerbis, p s.-A cro (a), ex P o rp h ., hoc interrogatiue ait: { a t ) enim dicunt difficile esse communia propriis explicare uerbis, cf. C o m m e n ta to r C ru q u ia n u s materi­ am ab aliis descriptam ita proprie explicare tamquam tua sit. O r conversely (ii) communia is e q u a te d w ith fin g e ( 119) a n d ignota indictaque ( 130) ; p s.-A cro (b) ‘communia dicere ’, idest intacta; nam quando intactum est aliquid, commune est; semel dictum ab aliquo j i t proprium, etc.. C o m m e n ­ ta to r C ru q u ia n u s sim . P o rp h y rio n a n d p s.-A cro w e re a v a ila b le in p rin t fro m 1476 a n d th e e a rly c o m m e n ta to rs b o rro w e d th e o n e o r th e o th e r e x p la n a tio n . T h e se b o rro w in g s o ften in c lu d e som e fo rm o f p s.-A cro ’s a d d itio n a l e x p la n a tio n , (c) : communia autem dixit, quia, quamdiu a nullo sunt acta aut dicta, singulis aeque p a ten t a d dicendum, ut uerbi gratia: quemadmodum domus aut ager sine domino communis est, occu­ patus uero iam proprius fi t, ita et res a nullo dicta communis est. 1 (a )

I f communia = fa m a ( 119) a n d publica materies ( 131 ), o r m lg a ria , th e re is a clash w ith th e p re c e d in g c o n te x t a n d , e v e n m o re d istu rb in g ly , w ith th e follow ing tw o verses, tuque (128) th e re fo re m u st e ith e r b e ig n o re d ; o r else i t m u s t b e fo rced in to c o n fo rm ity a n d , in v a rio u s w ays, h a s b e e n so fo rced b y tra n s la to rs a n d c o m m e n ta to rs th ro u g h th e c e n ­ tu rie s. T h e p o in t is n o t t h a t que c o u ld n o t h a v e a n ad v e rsa tiv e n u a n c e , b u t t h a t th is n u a n c e , if i t h a d b e e n in te n d e d b y H ., sh o u ld h a v e b e e n m u c h m o re stro n g ly expressed since th e c o n te x t p u lls th e o th e r w ay. T h e w o rd s in m o d e rn tra n s la tio n s a n d p a ra p h ra s e s in tr u d e d to t h a t effect a re p rin te d in italic s b elo w ; a n d in sectio n 1 1 h a v e u sed italic s fo r n o o th e r p u rp o se . ( T h r o u g h o u t th is A p p e n d ix I h a v e also n o rm a l­ iz e d th e sp ellin g o f th e ex tra cts.) M a d iu s 155° s u b iu n g it esse c o m m u n ia p ro p r ie dicere, ita scilicet

432

A p p e n d ix ι

ea n o u o m o d o e x p r im e r e , u t a n u llo a c c e p ta u id e a n tu r . Cf. L u isin u s reply 1554 b e lo w u n d e r 11, a n d R i b b e c k ’s s im ila r a r g u m e n t in t is section b elo w (b ) 1869, D a c i e r b e lo w u n d e r 11, O re lli b elo w u n d e r

III. A chilles S ta tiu s 1553 n o n esse n u lliu s la b o ris , a u t la u d is, q u a e sin t ab aliis s u m p ta i t a t r a c t a r e , u t t r a c t a t i o n e q u id e m ip sa u id e a n tu r tu a . p u b lic a m a te r ie s , e tc .] q u a e s e q u u n tu r fere p e r tin e n t a ipsius u im tr a c ta tio n is , q u a fit, u t q u a e d ix im u s c o m m u n ia , p ro p rie tam en q u o d a m c o lo re s p le n d e s c a n t it e r u m tr a c ta ta , etc. S am b u cu s 1564 p u b l i c a i g i t u r c o m m u n ia u o c a s, e t p e ru u lg a ta , p ro p ria e a d e m q u i d e m , se d a r te f a c ta p r o p r ia , etc. ^ B oileau D e s p r é a u x ( 1 6 3 6 - 1 7 1 1 ), r e m a r k u n d a te d (in ‘ B o la e a n a ed. de M o n c h e sn a y ( A m s te r d a m , 1 7 4 2 ), P· 93 > p re c e d e d b y a n a p p a r e n t­ ly m u d d le d re fe re n c e to D a c i e r ’s e x p la n a tio n ) ‘ II est difficile d e tra ite r des su je ts q u i s o n t à l a p o r t é e d e to u t le m o n d e d ’u n e m a n ie re qui vous les r e n d s p r o p r e s , ce q u i s’a p p e lle s’a p p r o p r ie r u n sujet p a r le to u r q u ’o n y d o n n e . M . D e s p r é a u x p ré te n d o it a v o ir tro u v e la solution d e ce p a s s a g e d a n s H e r m o g è n e (see b elo w i ( b )), e t d iso it mille b o n n es ra is o n s p o u r l ’a p p u y e r q u i o n t é c h a p p é à m a m ém o ire.

Baxter 1701 res uulgares disertis uerbis enarrare; uel humie Thema cum dignitate tractare. ‘Difficile est communes res propriis explicare u e r b is .5 V e t. S c h o l. F ea, ed . n o u a (B o th e ) 1827 a b aliis a n te a tr a c ta ta , p u b lic a m m aterie m , u t a i t 131. M a c le a n e 1853 . . . ‘ p r o p r ie c o m m u n ia d ic e r e ’ . . . t h e sam e as m ak in g t h a t w h ic h is ‘ p u b l i c a m a t e r i e s ’ ‘p r iu a ti iu r is ’, ‘c o m m u n ia is u su a l i n t h e sen se o f p a r tn e r s h i p p ro p e rty , a n d is d iffe re n t fro m p u b lic a ’ ; b u t h e r e i t se e m s to h a v e th e sa m e m e a n in g . H . seem s to h av e fo llo w ed a G re e k p r o v e r b . Χ α λ ε π ό ν τ ά κ ο ινά ίδ ιώ σ α ι. Conington 1870 ’T is hard, I grant, to treat a subject known A n d h a c k n e y e d so t h a t i t m a y lo o k o n e s ow n. S ch ü tz 1883 h a s a l o n g a n d c o n fu se d n o te o n 128. H e re je cts ‘c o m m u n ia = i n t a c t a ’ (ii b e lo w ) , a n d ‘ c o m m u n ia = a b s tra c t a n g en e ral s u b je c ts ’ ( h i b e lo w ) , w h ic h , h e says, does n o t su it a n c ie n t d ra m a , ‘ c o m m u n ia ’ a n d ‘p u b l i c a m a te r ie s ’, h e th in k s, m u s t be synonym s, a n d h e q u o te s t h e (irr e le v a n t) passages D e m e tr. ‘I n te r p r . a n d J u v . 7. 53 ff. i n s u p p o r t. . , P a ra p h ra s e : ‘ H . h a t t e v . 125 ff. g e le h rt, d a ß m a n b e i ein em b ish e r n ° c h n ic h t d r a m a t is c h b e h a n d e lte n S toffe (neu erfunden rawc t er darum noch nicht z u sein, k a n n es aber ) nur a u f E in h e itlic h k e it u n o ge ric h tig k e it d e r H a n d l u n g z u s e h e n h a b e ; denn da der S to ff zu m ersten M a le vorgeführt w ird , so h a t der D ich ter eine größere Freiheit in der Erfindung.

38

433

ΒΗΛ

A p p e n d ix i D a s ist verhältnism äßig leichter; s c h w e r aber e in e n g e m e in s a m e n (auch v o n a n d e r e n b e a r b e ite te n ) G e g e n s ta n d so z u b e h a n d e ln , d a ß er trotz seiner B eka n n th eit dennoch a ls e ig e n tü m lic h e s W e rk d e s D ichters e r s c h e in t; er w ird dadurch zu g leich eine, viel strengere, K r itik herausfordern, indem m a n ihn sicher tadeln w ird , w enn er seine Vorgänger nicht erheblich a u sstic h t. . . N im m s t d u n u n . . . doch e in e n s o lc h e n S to ff, so w irst d u

r ic h tig e r v e r fa h re n , w e n n d u ih n e in fa c h , w ie e r v o r lieg t, z. B. das b e k a n n te s te e p isc h e G e d ic h t, d ie Ilia s , d r a m a t is i e r s t, als wenn du dann N euerungen vorbringst, durch die du dich gleichsam über H o m er erheben und dadurch d ir eine herbe K r itik zu zieh en w ü rd e st ’, e tc . W ilk in s 1889 . . . ‘B u t th is is com paratively easy; th e d iffic u lty arises

w h e n y o u e n d e a v o u r to t r e a t fa m ilia r th e m e s i n a d is tin c tiv e a n d in d iv id u a l m a n n e r . Y o u a r e s e le c tin g a th e m e fr o m t h e I l i a d ; then y o u a r e w ise to confine y o u r s e lf to sim p ly th ro w in g H o m e r ’s p o e m into d r a m a tic s h a p e , in s te a d o f a t t e m p t i n g a n originality o f handling, which w o u ld probably lead y o u into inconsistencies', e tc . W ilk in s 1892 (A p p e n d ix ) K ie s s lin g a n d W ic k h a m a p p r o v e O re lh s in te r p r e ta tio n ‘ to g iv e in d iv id u a l s h a p e t o c o m m o n ty p e s o f h u m a n c h a r a c t e r ’ [i.e. h i b e lo w ], d e n y in g th e e q u iv a le n c e o f ‘c o m m u n ia to ‘ p u b lic a m a te r ie s ’. I t c a n n o t b e d e n ie d t h a t th is k e e p s b e t t e r th e s e q u e n c e o f th o u g h t. M ew e s in O re lli’s 4 th e d . 1892, 128 n . n e sc io a n re c tiu s (i.e . q u a m O re lli e t O r e lli- B a ite r ) c o m m . G ru q . : ‘m a t e r ia m a b aliis d e s c rip ta m i t a p r o p r ie e x p lic a re , t a m q u a m t u a s i t ’, e tc . 131 n . i t a h ae c n e c tu n t u r c u m p r io rib u s , e tc . h a e c ‘p u b lic a m a t e r ie s ’, q u a m n o n d iffe rre a ‘c o m m u n ib u s ’ illis u . 128 sa tis p r o b a b ile e s t, c o m p le c titu r u n iu e r s a m c o p ia m μ ύ θ ω ν a b e p ic is e t tra g ic is t r a c t a t o r u m , etc. G. G. M a c a u le y 1912 ( G R ,x x v i , 153) ‘I t i s d iffic u lt t o t r e a t th e m e s w h ic h h a v e b e e n c o m m o n ly h a n d le d , in s u c h a m a n n e r a s to p ih u p o n th e m th e d is tin g u is h in g m a r k o f y o u r o w n in d iv id u a l g e n iu s , re p h r a s e d : *ch o o sin g c o m m o n th e m e s a n d s ta m p in g u p o n th e m th e m a r k o f y o u r in d iv id u a l g e n iu s is h a r d enough to sa tisfy the poet s am bition ’. K ro ll ( ‘S tu d ie n z . V e rs tä n d n is d . rö m . L i t .’ p . 144 n . 11) I 924 S c h w ie rig (u n d daher lobensw ert , w enn es g lü c k t ) is t es, d as, w as b e re its A llg e m e in g u t ist, in d iv id u e ll z u b e h a n d e ln , u n d darum ist es r ic h tig e r , e in e n tro ja n is c h e n S a g e n s to ff z u b e h a n d e ln als e in e n n e u e n auszugraben ’. F a irc lo u g h (L o e b series) 1926, B la k e n e y 1928. Im m is c h 1932 is a s lo n g -w in d e d a n d a s c o n fu s e d a s S c h ü tz (a b o v e 1883). H e th in k s t h a t H . h a s e x p re sse d h im s e lf so b a d ly t h a t th e p a ssa g e c a n n o t b e e x p la in e d w ith o u t t h e h e lp o f t h e fr a g m e n t o f

434

A p p e n d ix i

P hilodem us (c ite d b e lo w A p p e n d ix π ) . T w o k in d s o f fa m a m sequi are said to b e d is tin g u is h e d b y H . ; ( i ) t h e s h a r in g o f tr a d itio n a l subjects w ith e a rlie r u sers o f t h e s a m e t r a d i t i o n , w h e n c e ‘c o m m u n ia ’ ; this is called ‘h a r d ’ ; (2) r e c o u r s e to t h e H o m e r ic fo u n ta in h e a d a n d a n attem p t th r o u g h p e r s o n a l a n d n e w fe a tu re s to o u td o e a rlie r users o f this tr a d itio n ; th is is c o m m e n d e d . W i t h ‘r e c t i u s ’, etc. (129) u n d e rs ta n d ‘ipse tuo M a rte , non com m uniter cum antecessoribus t u i s \ ‘c o m m u n ia ’, Inamisch th in k s , is a d a p t e d to t h e f o r m e r a lte rn a tiv e , ‘p u b lic a m aterie s’, w h ic h b e c o m e s ‘ p r i u a t i i u r i s ’, to t h e seco n d . S teidle 1939 c o m m e n d s K r o l l ’s in te r p r e ta tio n . G re e k lite ra ry theory a n d th e L a t i n le g a l n o tio n s e m p lo y e d b y H . e q u a lly suggest th at 128 ‘c o m m u n i a ’ is t o 131 ‘p u b l i c a m a te r ie s ’ as is 128 ‘p r o p r ie ’ to 131 ‘p r iu a ti i u r i s ’. I n ‘ t u q u e ’, as e lse w h e re in H ., th e logical nuance is u n e x p re s s e d . P a r a p h r a s e : ‘ S c h w ie rig ist es schon, in eigen­ artiger F o rm lite r a r is c h e s G e m e in g u t d a rz u s te lle n , u n d d u h a n d e ls t deshalb ric h tig e r , w e n n d u . . . ’. G. W illia m s 1964. ( J R S , l iv , 190) says, su rp risin g ly , ‘ a ll c o m m e n ­ tators assu m e t h a t H ., i n s a y in g t h a t s o m e th in g is d ifficu lt, is tellin g the re a d e r n o t to t r y i t ’. H e se e m s to b e u n a w a r e o f th o se o f his predecessors c ite d i n th is s e c tio n w h o h a v e m a d e a d iffe re n t assu m p ­ tion. P e rh a p s t h e i r in c r e a s in g ly to r tu o u s re n d e rin g s a n d e x p la n a tio n s, if he h a d k n o w n t h e m , w o u ld h a v e g iv e n h im p a u se . ‘ tu q u e ’ (h e says) could b e in t e r p r e t e d as ‘ b u t y o u ’ a n d th e m e a n in g c o u ld b e : ‘I t is difficult to sa y th in g s t h a t a r e c o m m o n p ro p e r ty in a w a y t h a t m ak es th em o n e ’s o w n , b u t y o u a r e b e t t e r occupied doing that th a n . . . ’ T h e id ea is th e n r e p e a te d a n d a s t a r t is m a d e o n th e im p o r ta n t th e m e o f o rig in ality a t 13 x . . . I f th is i n t e r p r e t a t io n (h e c o n c lu d e s) is a c c e p table, th e re is n o r e a s o n t o f in d t h e A ris to te lia n d o c trin e o f p o e tic u n iv ersa lity in A . P . a t a ll. i ( b) T h e rh e to r ic a l n o tio n o f κ ο ιν ά δ ια ν ο ή μ α τ α , e x p la in e d a t 128 η ., is a v a ria tio n o f ‘ c o m m u n ia ’ = ‘ p u b lic a m a te rie s ’, sta te d u n d e r 1. M a n y c o m m e n ta to rs h a v e n o t e d H e rm o g e n e s ’ c h a p te r Περί κοινώ ν δ ια ν ο η ­ μ ά τω ν π ώ ζ α υ τ ά ίδ ιώ σ ο μ ε ν λ έ γ ο ν τε ς (Περί μεθόδου δ εινοτη τοξ, 29), cited in th e s a m e n o te . B u t n o t so m a n y h a v e e q u a te d th e c o n te n t ° f th e H o r a t ia n p a s s a g e w i t h t h a t o f H e rm o g e n e s o r o th e r r h e to r i­ c ia n s; th u s p r o b a b ly B o ile a u (a b o v e , 1), c e rta in ly R ib b e c k , S h o re y u n d a few o th e rs . R ib b e c k 1 8 6 9 (PP· 2 1 8 -2 2 ) a f te r re je c tin g L a m b in u s ’ re n d e rin g u n d c itin g H e rm o g e n e s a n d C ic e ro , c o n c lu d e s t h a t n o R o m a n w ill « a v e u n d e r s to o d H . o th e rw is e t h a n ‘ es ist sc h w e r G e m e in p lä tz e so

435

2 8 -2

A p p e n d ix i a u s z u d rü c k e n . . ., d a ß sie e in e p ersö n lich e , in d iv id u e lle B ed eu tu n g e rh a lte n . R ib b e c k recognizes h o w e v er t h a t th u s u n d e rs to o d ‘co m ­ m u n ia (128) a n d ‘ig n o ta in d ic ta q u e ’ (130) a r e c o n tra d ic to ry . In s te a d o f t u q u e ’ (128) a c o n tra d ic tio n w o u ld b e e x p e c te d : ‘ta m e n ’. Since n o sim p le e m e n d a tio n c a n h e fo u n d , a la c u n a b e tw e e n ‘d ic e re ’ a n d ‘tu q u e ’ m u st b e p o stu la te d . S horey 1906 (C P , 1, 415) fu r th e r a d u m b ra te s th e rh e to r ic a l n o tio n by citing, a n d e m e n d in g , H im e riu s, O r . 1, ττροθεωρία, 2, w h ic h , h e thinks, is n o t d e riv e d fro m H . b u t p e rh a p s fro m Isoc. P a n . 9 (cit. ab o v e i n c o m m e n ta ry ). G . S c h m itz -K a h lm a n n , P , S u p p . x x x i (1 9 3 8 -9 ), 2 n. links H . w ith th e sam e p assage o f Iso crates. II

As was said ab o v e, p s.-A cro ( b) a n d (c) p u rv e y th e sam e n o tio n — intacta o r non ante dicta. T h e d e m a n d s o f th e H o r a tia n c o n te x t a re th u s satisfied (th e fingere o f 119 b e in g re fe rre d to ), b u t th e d e m a n d s o f lex ico g rap h y a re n o t. N e v erth eless th is n o tio n c o n v in c e d th e m a jo rity o f R en aissan c e scholars ev er since it w as ta k e n o v e r fro m p s.-A c ro by th e first c o m m e n ta to r L a n d in u s , b u t th e difficulty in h e re n t in th e m e a n in g o f communia d e te r r e d m a n y o f th e ir successors fro m th e e ig h te e n th c e n tu ry o n w a rd s. I cite few o f th ese c o m m e n ts since th e y c o n ta in little th a t is n ew a n d calls fo r a tte n tio n . L a n d in u s 1482 C o m m u n ia a p p e lla t: q u a e a n e m in e a d h u c d ic ta s u n t: n e q u e a q u o q u a m o c c u p a ti: u t a g r i n o n d u m o c c u p a ti co m ­ m u n es d ic u n tu r. E rg o c o m m u n is o m n ib u s e r a t A chilles et U lyxes : c u m n o n d u m eos q u is q u a m descripsisset. D esc rip sit H o m e ru s : erg o c o m m u n ia p ro p rie d ix it. D e in d e c u m p o e ta e L a tin i e a d e m s c rib e re n t : n o n ia m c o m m u n ia : sed q u a e p ro p r ia H o m e ri essent d e sc rib e b a n t. N u n c u e ro p o e ta a ffirm a t difficilius esse q u o d H o m e ru s fe c it fa cere : q u a m illu m im ita ri d e d u c e n d o in ac tu s i. in tu a m fa b u la m Ilia c u m c a rm e n i. m a te ria m b elli T ro ia n i. S im ila rly M a n c in e llu s 1492, B ad iu s A scensius 1503, P a rrh a s iu s 15315 P h ilip p u s P ed im o n tiu s 1546, R o b o rte llu s 1546, G rifo lu s 1550, D e N o res 1553, e t al. L u isin u s 1554. . . p u b lic a m a te rie s (131)] . . . a t M a d iu s clarissim u s p h ilo so p h u s, c o m m u n ia p a u lo a n te p ro p u b licis, e t a b a lte ro a c cep tis, e t sic n o b is c u m illo co m m u n ib u s, in te rp re ta tu s est, et h ic p u b lic a , id est c o m m u n ia e x p o n it, c u iu s h a e c u e r b a s u n t . . . [ab o v e 1] . . .h a e c ille cu iu s ego a u c to rita te m lib e n te r se q u e re r, si m ih i sc ru p u lu s e ri­ p e re tu r, q u i m ih i in a n im o re sid e t, n u m H o ra tiu s u e r b u m illu d c o m m u n ia sta tim a p e rit, c u m in q u it, q u a m si p ro ferres ig n o ta ,

436

A p p e n d ix i

in d ictaq u e p rim u s , c o m m u n i a e r g o s u n t, ig n o ta , e t in d ic ta , p r a e ­ terea si c o m m u n ia p r o a b a lte r o d ic tis, a tq u e a b a lte r o ac cep tis posuisset, s u b d id is s e t n o n p a r t i c u l a m , q u e , se d p a r tic u la m , ta m e n ; ut hic sensus e x t a r e t : d iffic ile e st i t a e x p lic a re , q u a e a b a lte ro a c c i­ pias, u t tu a la u s sit, e t p r o p r i a , ta m e n re c tiu s a b Ilia d e , e t facilius a rg u m e n tu m s u m e s , q u a m si n o u a m r e m a g g re d e re ris, q u a e si in m edium a f fe rr e m , u t e r u d itis s im i M a d ii s e n te n tia m o p p u g n a re m , iure u id e ri p o s s e m in e p tu s , se d n o s h a e c q u id e m te s ta ta re liq u im u s, u t fidi in te rp re tis p a r te s t u e a m u r , q u i, q u o d ta c ite ip se se c u m sen tit, indicet aliis e tia m lib e riu s . L a m b in u s 1561, N a n n iu s 1608. D acier 1681 . . . I l est m a la is i, d i t H o ra e e , de traiterproprem ent, e’est a. d ire convenablement, des su jets com m uns, c ’est à d ire des sujets inventis , et q u i n ’o n t a u c u n f o n d e m e n t n i d a n s F H is to ire , n i d a n s la F a b l e . . . Geux q u i o n t c r u q u ’il a p p e ll o i t ic i communia des choses c o m m u n es et o rd in a ire s, d e s c a r a c tè r e s c o m m u n s e t tra ité s p a r d ’a u tre s p o ètes, se sont in fin im e n t tr o m p é s . Ils j e t t e n t H o r a c e d a n s u n e c o n tra d ic tio n m anifeste, p u is q u ’il c o n se ille im m é d ia te m e n t a p rè s d e s’a tta c h e r a u ca rac tè res c o n n u s . C e tte m a t i è r e e s t assez é c la ircie, il n ’est p as n éc es­ saire d e r é f u te r p lu s a u lo n g ce s e n tim e n t q u i n ’a rie n d ’a b su rd e . [D a c ie r’s o p in io n w a s c a lle d in q u e s tio n b y a y o u n g m a n o f fashion, M a d a m e d e S é v ig n é ’s s o n C h a rle s, a n d le d to a n ex c h a n g e o f essays b e tw e e n th e m — o n e o f t h e c e le b ra te d lite ra ry ev e n ts o f th e tim e, b u t n o t e q u a lly r e m a r k a b l e i n c ritic a l term s. T h e essays a re re p rin te d i n t h e H a c h e t t e e d itio n o f M a d a m e d e S év ig n é’s Lettres (n o u v elle éd . P a ris , 1 8 6 2 ), x i, 2 9 5 -3 3 8 .] Desprez 1691 (aliter 1674) P roprie ] ‘Apta, conuenienti, et propria ratione.’ C om m unia ] ‘ A nullo ante occupata et tractata.’ P . F ra n c is 1746 ’T is h a r d a n e w -fo rm e d fa b le to express, A n d m a k e i t se e m y o u r o w n . . . M e ta sta sio 1 7 8 0 -2 {O pere, P a r i s ; M . h a d h o w e v er b e e n w o rk in g ° n th e tr a n s la tio n a n d n o te s a s e a r ly as 1749) I l t r a r p r im ie r o d e g li u m a n i ev e n ti D a l te s o ro c o m u n m a te r ia , e d a r le P r o p r i a f o r m a e d a c c o n c ia è d u r a im p re sa . T h e o r d e r o f th e w o rd s is s tr a in e d ; m y co llea g u e P rofessor U . L im e n ta n i su g g ests t h e fo llo w in g p a r a p h r a s e : ‘I t is a h a r d u n d e r ­ ta k in g to b e t h e firs t to e x t r a c t a s u b je c t fro m th e co m m o n tre a su ry ° f h u m a n e v e n ts ’, etc. Doering 1803. Lhllenburger 1843, but few others in the nineteenth century. R itte r 1856—7 com m unia d ix it in m e d io e t n o n d u m a b aliis o c c u p a ta ,

437

A p p e n d ix ι h .e. a p o e ta aliq u o prim um fin g e n d a . H a e c c o m m u n ia noli com m is­ cere cu m uoce p ro x im a publica materies, proprie (in eigener W eise), u t tib i p ro p riu m et a c o m m u n ib u s b o n is se c re tu m p e r se co n stare u id e a tu r. N os d icim u s Allgemeines individualisiren. publica materies: m aterie s o lim e d ita et p u b lic i iu ris fa c ta , q u a ia m u n icu iq u e u ti licet. E x h a c m a te r ia p a u c i ita su m u n t, u t sua (p riu a ti iuris) p ro ferre u id e a n tu r ; illu d q u ib u s m o d is fieri possit sta tim ex p o n it. R . L. D u n b a b in ( C R , x x v i, 21), 1922 communia a r e sa id b y h im to be G reek lite ra ry subjects n o t y e t a p p r o p ria te d b y R o m a n s, a n d on ly in th a t sense ignota indictaque. P asoli (p. 182) 1964 p a ra p h ra s e s : D ico su b ito ch e , secondo m e, è difficile tr a tta r e in m o d o o rig in a lm e n te p e rso n a le a rg o m e n ti n u o v i, ch e n o n h a n n o d ie tro d i sè tra d iz io n e a lc u n a ; p e r ta n to t u . . . fai m eglio a tr a tta r e in fo rm a d r a m m a tic a u n a rg o m e n to tr a t t o d a l­ l ’Ilia d e ch e se tu p re n ta ssi a rg o m e n ti e p e rso n a g g i del tu tto in ed iti. in T h e th ird re n d e rin g is th e o n ly o n e t h a t by-passes th e a n tith esis fam a-fingere , a n d is y e t re la te d to fingere, as th e c o n te x t e n jo in s; tuque,

etc. im m e d ia te ly falls th e n in to p la c e . N o r c a n it b e fa u lte d o n g ro u n d s o f lex ico g rap h y , communia h a s p u t m a n y o n th e w ro n g tra c k ; in fact, w ith so u n d p a r a g ra p h in g (1 2 8 -3 0 c o n c lu d e th e p re c e d in g c o n te x t) th e w o rd is seen to p o in t to persona noua (12 6), a n d a su b je c t t h a t is inexpertum scaenae (125), th in g s ignota indictaque (1 3 0 ). ‘T h e q u a litie s c o m m o n ’ (to kinds o f p eo p le) a r e th e m o ra l tra its , a tta c h e d in th e fa m a to k n o w n c h a ra c te rs b u t h a r d to k eep c o n sisten t in a n ew ly c re a te d p erso n ag e (1 2 6 -8 ), fleb ilis p e rh a p s th o u g h n o t Ino (123), tristis th o u g h n o t Orestes (124). T h is is ex pressed w ith H o r a tia n b re v ity ; th e p u zz le is solved w ith o u t d e la y in 1 29-30. T h e c o n te x t clea rly disjoins communia (128) fro m publica materies (131), a n d keeps e a c h m e a n in g d istin c t. T h is re n d e rin g is n o t likely to b e e a rlie r th a n th e e ig h te e n th ce n tu ry . T h e decisive p o in t seem s to h a v e b e e n m a d e first in a F re n c h c o m m e n ta ry o f 173° cited below , n o t (as is sa id e.g. in Plessis—L e ja y ’s n o te a d I.) b y D u m a rsa is, w hose m e rit i t is to h a v e re ite ra te d a n d co n firm ed th e p o in t. P ia t 1730 (B rocas, P a ris), k n o w n to m e o n ly fro m D u m a rsa is in th e essay m e n tio n e d b elo w . P ia t is th e re (p . 290 n . 1) c ite d as saying, H ic communia su n t m ores g e n e ra tim e t in u n iu e rs u m sp ec ta ti, n u lla ra tio n e h a b ita h u iu s a u t h u iu s h o m in is, proprie dicere, est m o res illos, siu e n a tu ra s alic u i h o m in i a d se rib e re et illius p ro p ria s facere, c u m

438

A p p e n d ix i persona a liq u a e x h is to r ia d e s u m itu r , h a b e t iam m o res suos, su am indolem , s u a m n a t u r a m p r o p r i a m a c p e c u lia re m : n e c a liu s p o e ta e labor in c u m b it, n isi u t n a t u r a m e a m , ia m fa ctam et c o g n ita m s e q u a ­ tur. si n o u a p e r s o n a e ffin g itu r, a d i r i necesse est n a tu ra s illas g en e rales atque c o m m u n e s : a t q u e e x iis h a u r ir i u n d e h u iu sce p erso n a e in ­ dolem p ro p r ia m c o n fic ia s : q u o d esse difficile H o ra tiu s d ic it : id e o q u e suadet p erso n as ia m c o g n ita s a d h ib e r i. D u m arsais 1745 ( CEmres , m (1 7 9 7 ), 290, in a le tte r a d d re sse d to M. D u ra n d , A v o c a t a u P a r l e m e n t, fo r w hose sons h e h a d p re p a re d ait in te rlin e a r v e rs io n o f th e A r s ) . T h e le tte r arg u es a g a in s t b o th JJacier s a n d C h a rle s d e S é v ig n é ’s c o n tra ry positions (cit. ab o v e 11, acier 1681) : A in si proprie com m unia dicere, c ’est a d a p te r si b ie n u n caractere à u n p e r s o n n a g e p a r tic u lie r , q u e to u t ce q u ’o n fa it d ire o u aire à ce p e r s o n n a g e , r é p o n d e p a r fa ite m e n t à l ’id é e a b s tra ite et generale q u ’o n a d u c a r a c tè r e . com m unia, c’est le c a ra c tè re e n luim em e d a n s le sens a b s tr a it, g é n é r a l e t m é tap h y siq u e. proprie, c ’est e c a ra c tè re a p p l i q u é a u n p e r s o n n a g e e t in v e n té p o u r è tre le ta b le a u u c a ra c tè re . L es m o su rs d ’u n h y p o c r ite , communia, ce s o n tle s m oeurs e T a rtu ffe , proprie. D u re s te , M o n s ie r, j e dois le fo n d d e c e tte rein arq u e à la n o t e q u e M . P ia t a fa ite su r ce passage d a n s le p e tit orace, q u ’il fit im p r im e r , e n 1730, ch e z Brocas ; n o te q u ’il n e d o it & a u c u n a u tr e c o m m e n t a t e u r : m a is q u e n e tro u v e -t-o n p a s d a n s le ° n d d u n e s p r it ju d ic ie u x ? C ’e st l ’in stru m e n t et le c o m m e n ta ire universel. • ®a ]te u x 17 5 ° I l e st b i e n d iffic ile d e d o n n e r des tra its p ro p re s et m iv id u els à c e q u e q u i n ’a r ie n d e g én é riq u e. M esner 1752 proprie dicere e st i t a u n d iq u e describere ac fin ire , u t ia m n° n c o m m u n e q u i d d a m a u t g e n e ra le u id e a tu r, sed in d iu id u u m , in q u o o m n ia s u n t d e t e r m in a ta , u t l o q u u n tu r P hilosophi, p ic tu ra e , u t p ro p rie ta lis sic p o e tic a e , m a i o r la u s si re m sin g u larem p in g a t. ^ r J o h n s o n 1776 (B o sw ell, L ife , e d . P ow ell, m . 7 3 -5 ) D r J o h n so n u n d M r W ilk e s ta lk e d o f th e c o n te s te d passage . . . J o h n s o n [c o n tra ­ c t i n g W ilk e s], ‘ H e m e a n s t h a t i t is difficult to a p p r o p ria te to P a rtic u la r p e rs o n s q u a litie s w h ic h a r e co m m o n to all m a n k in d , as o m e r h a s d o n e .’ [ I n a lo n g n o te B osw ell d enounces th e H o ra tia n passage as ‘ a r a r e in s ta n c e o f a d e fe c t in p ersp ic u ity in a n a d m ira b le w rite r, w h o w ith a lm o s t e v e ry species o f excellence is p e c u lia rly ~ b l e fo r t h a t q u a l i t y ’.] W iela n d 1782 E s ist v ie lle ic h t n ic h ts schw erers, j als aus d e r L u ft 8 eg riffn en M e n s c h e n b ild e r n j d a s eig n e Individuelle g e b e n . H· Voss 1 8 0 6 S c h w e r ists e ig e n e W esen aus A llg em ein em z u

A p p e n d ix i O r d ii 1838 [c o rrec t in 3 rd ed. B a ite r 1852 b u t un co n v in cin g ly a tere b y M ew es 4 th ed. 1892] offers th e fullest a n d b est discussion 0 t is passage. H e rig h tly o b jects to th e r e n d e rin g c ite d u n d e r 1 a ove cu i ra tio n i m an ifesto r e p u g n a t u . tuque ; e te n im si illu d dicere uohusset, p erg ere d e b u isset: ‘ tu ta m en ’, ‘ nihilom inus t u ’, etc. p ■KKeSi n g b riefly re sta te s O r d i i b u t spoils his case b y ad o p tin g 1 s referen ce to rh e to ric a l te rm in o lo g y (a b o v e u n d e r 1 (b)). ìck h am 1891 says . . .H . is g la n c in g a t th e A risto te lia n disin c tio n o f tru th s g e n e r a l’ w h ic h a r e th e p ro p e r su b jects o f p o etry , n any case, i f o u r view o f th e w h o le p assa g e is c o rre c t, th e special in stan ce o f th e d ifficulty sp o k en o f m u st b e s u b s ta n tia lly th a t w hich re 1 ex p lain s it to be, n a m e ly , t h a t o f g iv in g in d iv id u a l sh ap e to co m m o n types o f h u m a n life a n d c h a ra c te r. M a n y e d ito rs feel so stro n g y th e n ecessity o f m a k in g ‘ c o m m u n ia ’ i d e n t i c a l . . . w ith p u ica m a te rie s , t h a t th e y a r e forced to ta k e it o f su b jects a lre a d y m a d e p u b lic p ro p e rty , s u c h as th e sto ry o f th e I l i a d . . .T h e con-SenSe ° f th e P assa§ e seem s to m e th e n to fa ll to pieces. W ilkins 1892 (A p p e n d ix ), see a b o v e 1. V a h le n 1906 (re p r. Ges. P h il. Sehr. 11. 759) V o rte ile u n d N a c h te ile ei e r W ege [ fingere , Ja m a ] w e rd e n e rw o g en : z u e rs t fü r das, was o ra z fingere g e n a n n t h a t. E s ist sch w ie rig communia, allgem eines, • · w as v ielen g em ein sa m ist, proprie in e in e n w e n ig e n o d e r einen e ig e n tü m ic en A u sd ru c k z u b rin g e n * (* communia u n d propria sind G e g en sätze : C icero Acad. p r. 11 16, 34. T op. 13, 55. D e rse lb e G egensatz m τ α καθολου u n d καθ’ έκαστον, w ie d ie P o e tik des A ristoteles sie e n ie rt, καθόλου τ ω π ο ιο ι τ ά π ο ια a r r a σ υμ βα ίνει λέγειν ή ■π-ράττειν καθ’ έκαστον τ ί ’Α λκιβιά δης επ ρ α ξεν (9 . ι 4 5 ι b ) ) : d e n n e r w e c e r ersin n t, e rd ic h te t, m u ß vo m A llg e m e in e n a u sg e h e n , dies V eif· i.11 e m ef b id iv id u e lle n A u sd ru c k z u k le id e n v e rsu c h e n : ein v e rjä h re n , d a s a n A risto teles’ έκτίθεσθαι καθόλου το ύ ς μύθους t o etik 17. 1455 b) e rin n e rt. D as ist sch w ierig , sa g t H o ra z , etc. [ i h e q u o ta tio n s a re im p re c ise .] H e in z e 1908 re p o rts K iessling b u t c o rre c ts h is in sisten ce o n r h e t­ o ric a l term in o lo g y . ,1^ 12, ^,n ^ ess*s a n d L e ja y ed . m in o r) in d iv id u a lis e r des P ia t 1730) ^ eneraUX’ c r®e r u n ty p e (D u m a rsa is, b u t see ab o v e J e n s e n 1918 (re p r. P h ilo d e m o s 1923, p . i 20).

on T h t o A n d o c t S *

^

V ille n e u v e 1934. K lin g n e r 1937.

440

VaMen’ Wkh &Str° ng emPhasis

A p p e n d ix 2

A PPE N D IX

2

129-31 rectius Iliacum carmen deducis in actus quam si proferres ignota indictaque primus, publica materies priuati iuris erit, si, etc. T h e p a r a lle l G r e e k p a s s a g e (w h ic h I se t d o w n w ith th e lin eendings m a rk e d ) r u n s as fo llo w s. (1 ) α γ α θ ό ]V ε!ν α [ι] j ττ ο η τή ν , ό μ ο ια μόνον | ώ ι β ούλεται τταρατέθη| κεν, ούκ ά π ο δ έ δ ε ιχ εν ό |τ ι τ ο ιο ύ τ ο ς , εν r a i s έ π ισ τ ή |μ α ις διαφ οράς πολλής ύ |π α ρ χ ο ύ σ η ς . ά λ λ ’ δ μ ω [ ς ], κ α |θ ά π ε ρ επ ί τ ω ν κ α τ ά τά ς | χειρουργίας ο ύ χ ή γ ο ύ μ ε |θ α χ ε ίρ ω ι π α ρ ’ όσον ύφέμ|μ]]|ενος ύλη ν ετέρου τ ε |χ ν ε ίτ ο υ κ α λ ώ ς ή ρ γ ά σ α |τ ο , ο ύ τ ω ς ούδέ π ο η τ ή ν , έ|ά ν t ό π ό η τ ο ν | ύ π ό θ ε σ ι[ν ] λ α |β ώ ν π ρ ο σ θ ή [ι] τ ό ν [ΐ]δ ιο ν vo[öv], | (2) χείρ ω υομί^ομεν, κ α ί ( ο ύ κ ε π ί τ ω ν μεικρών | μόνον ο ύ τω ς έχομεν, | άλλ’ ούδ’ α ν τ ά κ α τ ’ Ε ΐλ ιο ν | [ή ] Θ ή β α ς κοινώ ς π α ρ ’ έτέ]ρου λ α β ώ ν ώ σπερ δ ια λ ύ |σ η ι καί π ω ς π ά λ ι σ υ ν |τ ά ξ α ς Ιδίαν κατασκευήν | περιθήι. τ ά y o ö v π ε ρ ί τ ό ν | Θ υ έ σ τ η ν κα'ι τ ά π ε ρ ί τ ο ν ( Πάριν κ [α ί Μενέλα]ον καί | τ ά π ε ρ ί τ η ν Ή λ έ κ τ ρ α ν | και π λ είο ν ’ ά λ λ α Σ ο φ [ο ]κ λέ|α και Ε ύ ρ ιπ ίδ η ν κ α ί π ο λ |λ ο ύ ς ά λ λ ο υ ς γ ε γ ρ α φ ό τ α ς | [όρ]ώ ντες ού νομί^ομεν | κ α τ ά τ ό τ ο ιο ϋ τ ο τ ο ύ ς | μέν είναι βελτίους το ύ ς | δέ χείρους, ά λλα π ο λ λ ά |κ ι τ ο ύ ς ε ίλ η φ ό τα ς ά μ εί|ν ο υ ς τ ω ν πρ ο κ εχρη μ έ|νω ν, άν τ ό ττοητικόν I α γ α θ ό ν μ ά λ λ ο ν ε ΐσ ε [ν έ γ |κ ]ω ν τ α ι. T h e te x t is w e ll p re s e rv e d a n d offers n o d ifficu lty a p a r t fro m tw o places u n d e r lin e d a b o v e , χ ε ίρ ω ι m u s t su re ly lose th e fin a l stro k e to b e ta k e n u p b y γ ε ίρ ω i n t h e p a r a lle l c la u se , ά π ό η τ ο ν is n o n sen sica l; th e o p p o site sen se is r e q u i r e d b u t Im m is c h ’s (ο ύ κ ) ά π ό η τ ο ν (p. 19 n · 4 ) does n o t c o n v in c e , ύ λ η ν έτέρ ο υ τε χ ν ε ίτ ο υ , th re e lines a b o v e , suggests s o m e th in g lik e ά ( λ λ ο υ ) π ο η τ ο ϋ o r ά ( λ λ ω ν ) π ο η τ ώ ν . T h e p a ssa g e co n sists o f tw o p a p y r u s fra g m e n ts fro m H e rc u la n e u m ; ( J) α γ α θ ό ν t o voOv, H V 2, v n . 87. 1 4 -2 8 , (2) χ ε ίρ ω to th e e n d , H V 2, lv · J 95 - 1 -2 4 . A tte n tio n h a d b e e n d r a w n to (2) b y T . G o m p e rz , c x x in , A b h a n d . 6 (1 8 9 1 ), ‘P h ilo d e m u n d d ie ä sth . S eh r, d e r fiercul. B ib i.5 p . 8 1 . T h e a u t h o r ’s n a m e a n d th e title a re lost, b u t G o m p e rz ’s a s c r ip tio n to P h ilo d e m u s ’ fo u r th b o o k Περί π ο ιη μ ά τ ω ν b as b e e n g e n e ra lly a n d r ig h tly a c c e p te d . H e in z e q u o te d p a r t o f fra g m e n t (2) i n h is n o te o n A .P . 130. C . J e n s e n su cc eed e d in fittin g th e tw o fr a g m e n ts to g e th e r , a n d th e y fit p e rfe c tly ; cf. Je n s e n , P h ilo dem os Ü ber die Gedichte, e tc . (1 9 2 3 ), p p . v f. n . 2 ; S B P A ( 1 9 3 6 ) ^ .2 4 . T h e lik en ess b e tw e e n th e G re e k a n d L a tin c o n te x ts is close; it 441

A p p e n d ix 2

would be closer still if Philodemus’ κοινώς and Ιδίαν κατασκευήν could be equated with H .’s proprie communia, and Philodemus’ τά κατ Εΐλιον, διάλυση, and συντάξας with H .’s preference for Iliacum carmen, and deducis (or di-) in actus. However, H. is no fidus interpres ; the train o f thought explained in the commentary and Appendix x must prevail over similarities in wording which may be accidental. We must allow the poet to employ Iliacum carmen as a link between 128 and 130; deducis is a metaphor in its own right; and κοινός— ίδιος could be expressed rather by pub lica materiespriuati turis erit. Never­ theless the likeness of argument need not be fortuitous. Philodemus m a y w ell h a v e discussed N e o p to le m u s in o th e r p a r ts o f h is w o rk th a n book V.

APPENDIX

3

146 nec reditum Diomedis ab interitu Meleagri (orditur) Some scholars, notably F. Ritter (ed. 1857) and K. Latte (Η, l x π Ρ ·’ haVC concluded from this verse that H. ascribed the e aid (and Diomede’s part in the expedition o f the Epigoni) to omer. In Ep. 1. 2 that poem is not mentioned. If, moreover, the present verse refers to a Thebaid, then it would seem to follow from the context that H. did not ascribe that poem to Homer. But there is no certainty that the verse does refer to a Thebaid. It is Porphyrion w o so refers it, but the grounds for his assertion (and for his mention ? * e evidence concerning Antimachus) are unknown; Antimachus is judiciously discussed by B. Wyss, Antim. Col. reliquiae (1936), P^' j _1X‘j. 'not^er possibility cannot at any rate be dismissed out of hand; reditus Diomedis may belong to the Trojan cycle o f Νόστοι.

442

THE

‘A R S

P O E T IC A ’ AS H O R A TIA N POETRY

1

P O E T IC P A T T E R N S IN THE

‘A R S P O E T I C A ’ A N D T H E O D E S ’ ‘ Pallida Mors has nothing to do with the above .5 lan d or

Received opinion, paradoxically encouraged by the poet s nomenclature, has it that a Horatian hexameter poem is a kind of versified prose. Levels of style in Greek and Roman literature are so marked that this notion, if it were true, would severely confine the area of H.’s experiment. If by prose we mean a vocabulary adapted to the level of Latin prose, the preceding commentary will have shown that nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout, en­ quiry has revealed that H. has employed a vocabulary drawn from poetry, or created on the model of the Roman poetic tradition. To save space in a book already too long I here refrain from summarizing the findings of the commentary and the listing in the index, though I may do so elsewhere. Galling the vocabulary poetic I do not, of course, mean that there are no colloquial elements in the E p istle s and even more the S atires . H. accommodates a small, carefully controlled, amount of colloquial language, usually in debate, which, as a tribute to the spirit of serm o, includes even an occasional verbal impropriety. The quantity may be small ; but, I suspect, an optical illu­ sion has made it look large. A colloquial tone is of course not infrequent. Add realism of setting, an apparently abstract argument, an apparent looseness of structure and the case for ‘prose’ seems to be made. An occasional colloquialism, however, cannot invalidate the consistently poetic language that H. employs. What can be invalidated is the poet s own paradox in calling the hexameter poems ‘prosaic’. Satire and Epistle alike are, for him, serm o ‘talk’. When he contrasts sermo with the intensity and the high style of epic, he dubs it 445

‘A r s P o e tic a ’ a s H o r a tia n P o e tr y ‘pedestrian’ and ‘unpoetic’1. Elsewhere he is quite ready to make large poetic claims for the satirist; the language of rhetor and p o e ta take their place with other strict demands.2 No wonder that Lucilius falls short of these poetic standards,3 that H. can class satire with the great genres4, and the aspiring satirist is told, saepe s tilu m u e rta s, ite r u m quae d ig n a le g i s in t | The

scrip tu ru s .5

The hallmark of serm o is the variability of tone which epic, drama, and high lyric must eschew by definition, although H. found other ways of lightening the heavy load of an exclusive style whenever he wished to do so in the O d es. Serm o is a highly poetic genre, but a mixed one. Occasionally it rises to ‘poetry’ in the exclusive sense of the great genres—and that applies to its vocabulary, style and tone. Very occasionally its rhetoric is pushed below a carefully judged middle level. On the whole it observes that middle level, which, as my com­ mentary shows, is a refinement of poetic qualities (in the Roman sense), not of prosaic. If you look at serm o in this manner, it appears close to the comparatively large gamut from colloquial to intense expression in the lyric verse of our contemporaries. Its variability of tone and emotional level distinguishes it from the ancient selectivity of the large forms. It is one of H.’s triumphs that his middle style sounds so natural and relaxed that he makes us forget the ‘poetic’ provenance of much of the vocabulary in the hexameter poems. In this respect a Horatian serm o is quite unlike a con­ temporary poem, where such traditional elements, where they appear, tend to be personal and not common to all practitioners. None of the hexameter poems quite matches the variability of the A r s . Clearly the poem is a p e r p e tu u m m o b ile in subjectmatter, style, and tone. It is so organized as to keep the reader’s mind and emotions on the move continually. Literary argument 1 s · ϊ- 4 - 3 8 - 6 5 , ' I · 10· 5 0 -7 1 · 6 i. 10. 7 2 -3 .

Ep.

n . I . 2 5 0 - 9 e t a l.

2

S.

1. 1 0 . 7 - 1 9 .

* 1. I 0 . 4o f F .

P o e tic P a t t e r n s in th e ‘ A r s P o e t i c a ’ a n d th e ‘ O d e s '

and teaching recurs, but selectively, throughout the poem. There are the sketches that concentrate H.’s principles in pictures, and shift them from conceptual argument to visual images—the painting at the outset and the mad poet at the close, the arithmetic lesson in a Roman school, the satire on the false critic, the Satyric drama of the future, music in the primitive theatre, the shaman-poet in the dim past of human civilization, and so forth. There is the personal element, notably concerning H. as a creator of poetic language and, later, in the setting o f criticism, what is clearly a personal memory of Quintilius. There is the Horatian humour, especially as a penumbra of his own personal status as a poet and critic. There is the satiric wit directed against the condi­ tions in which poetry is produced in Rome. There is the imaginative rise to an essentially lyric level in debem ur m o rti nos nostraque. All this variety will, if anything, show how real, to H., was the problem on which he pronounces in the first part of the poem—the problem of unity. And more than a theoretical problem. This poem offers a practical solution of the question asked by the poet on the level of theory. H. the critic demands s im p le x e t u n u m . Has he achieved it himself in the very poem in which the problem is posed? Many will say, No. Those, like myself, who say otherwise, must satisfy the persistent searchers for the poetic pressure that has welded together these apparently incompatible materials. This is a question that might be asked about any poem by the same master, however different in genre and intent. The kind of pressure that unifies a Horatian lyric is not different in nature from that unifying a serm o poem of his, such as the A rs. I am not much of a Shelleyite and might have passed by the poet’s perceptive and entertaining appraisal of Words­ worth, had I not noticed it some thirty years ago in F. R. Leavis’ R e v a lu a tio n s. Shelley describes Wordsworth as ‘waken­ ing a sort of thought in sense’. It seemed to me then as it seems to me now that this is not only admirably true of Wordsworth but its opposite is true of another ‘philosophical ’

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry p o e t, t h o u g h i n m a n y w a y s n o t a W o r d s w o r t h i a n o n e . T u r n S h e lle y s d e s c r i p ti o n u p s i d e d o w n : ‘ W a k e n i n g a s o r t o f sense i n t h o u g h t s u g g e s ts a s w e ll a s a n y t h i n g I h a v e r e a d a b o u t H . t h e c u r io u s a m b i v a l e n c e i n h is p o e t r y

b e tw e e n m in d an d

e m o tio n , b e t w e e n a b s t r a c t i o n a n d c o n c r e t e n e s s . E v e r y r e a d e r m u s t h a v e s e n s e d h is e x t r e m e l y t o u g h i n t e l l e c t u a l s t r a i n . A n d y e t , a t a m o m e n t ’s n o t i c e , a b s t r a c t i o n w ill c h a n g e i n t o se n se o b j e c t o r e m o tio n , a d o c t r i n e o f t h e m o r a l M e a n i n t o s a ilin g n e i t h e r to o c lo s e to t h e s h o r e n o r t o o f a r f r o m i t , o r a p e r s o n ’s a n x ie ty o r o v e r-c o n fid e n c e . A ll th e th in k in g

tim e h e

see m s to

be

i n h is p o e t r y , a n d y e t h is t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s c a n n o t

b e id e n tifie d w ith th e c o n c e p tu a l a n d

a rg u m e n ta tiv e p ro ­

c e d u r e s t o w h i c h w e a r e a c c u s t o m e d w h e n w e t a l k , o r h is c o n t e m p o r a r i e s t a l k e d , o f ‘ p h i l o s o p h i c a l a r g u m e n t ’. I n h is p o e m s h e s e e m s t o o f f e r a p h i l o s o p h y , a n d i n a s e n s e h e d o e s. B u t, a fe w e x c e p tio n s a p a r t , h e s c o ffs a t d o c t r i n e s . H i s p h i l o ­ s o p h i c a l t r u t h s , w h e n y o u c o m e to e x a m i n e t h e m , a r e a se rie s o f tru is m s

w h a t a n y o n e m i g h t a c c e p t , i f o n l y h e d i d ; w h ic h

s o m e r e a d e r s h a v e t a k e n f o r m o r e t h a n tr u i s m s , a n d o t h e r s a v e d is m is s e d a s t r i t e , b e c a u s e t h e y l o o k e d f o r t h e r i g h t t h i n g ( t h a t is, d e p t h ) i n t h e w r o n g p l a c e ( t h a t is, c o n c e p t u a l th o u g h t a n d f o r m u la ) . T h e c u rio u s ly iro n ic d e ta c h m e n t t h a t th e p o e t te n d s to o b s e rv e i n s u c h s ta te m e n ts s h o u ld p u t th e re a d e r o n th e rig h t tra c k . M o ra l o r lite ra r y p ro b le m s a re to u c h e d o n b y fo rm u la a n d c o n c e p t; b u t o fte n th e p o e m as a w h o le se e k s t o s o lv e t h e m a t a d e e p e r a n d le s s e x p l i c i t le v e l.1 h a t s trik e s m e a b o u t h is t h o u g h t is its u n i q u e f le x ib ility , n m a n y p o e m s h e w ill r a n g e n o t o n ly , d i a l e c t i c a l l y , f r o m o n e i n t e l l e c t u a l p o s i t i o n t o its v e r y a n t i t h e s i s , b u t f r o m a b s t r a c t i o n t o c o n c r e te n e s s , f r o m e x p e r i e n c e t o j u d g e m e n t , f r o m l i t e r a l to m e t a p h o r i c a l , f r o m i n d i v i d u a l t o t y p e , f r o m p e r s o n a l to i m ­ p e r s o n a . I f i n d t h e s a m e a t t i t u d e i n h is c o n s t a n t s h i f t f r o m

instance nf a «'j S , f delight imparted by poetry, docere and delectare, are an with the sen, °Cn j C. r°m tlle ^ rs- ®ut almost the whole poem is concerned utile dulci IA p 0US 1®teUectual qualities of poetry, omne tulit punctum qui miscuit problemtnA' 343) “ **,? 0* ’5 ir0nicalb P ^ t r i a n way of relating the deeper problem to the conceptual language of the schools.

448

P o e tic P a t t e r n s i n t h e ‘ A r s P o e t i c a ’ a n d th e ‘ O d e s ’

seriousness to uninvolved humour—the kind of attitude that has suggested the perceptive paradox that H., ‘once he has been admitted, plays about the heart-strings’, adm issu s circum praecordia lu d it; 1 or that H. ‘can be convincingly serious only when it is certain that no one will take him quite seriously’.2 This multiplicity is hard to understand and, once understood, hard to exhaust. Yet these aspects and moods do not fall apart, as they might do if there were no personal and unifying link. Differently related in different poems, they form a recog­ nizable unity and structure. H. stands apart from such poets as Lucretius and Catullus (to mention only two from the Roman world), who seem to draw their strength from a single source ; they see the world as one, in the light of a single powerful emotion, an overwhelming idea to which we can respond simply and single-mindedly. Minerva denied that kind of strength to a poet whom she yet favoured. H. belongs to the company of those whose poetic world is as diverse as it is harmonious, and whose poetic personality while unmistakably present defies easy identifi­ cation. Unobtrusively, like certain great dramatists, he slips into many opposed attitudes, as though each naturally ex­ pressed his own state of mind and manners— m ores in the language of the A r s . To say this is not to deny the integrity and inspiration of his poetry. But the A r s , like most Horatian works, encourages the quest for the poetic personality that has given rise not only to the contraries of thought and feeling expressed in the poem hut to the manner in which those conflicts are resolved, the Horatian tone. On the basis of a single poem, however, it is easier to raise this question than to answer it. I will not there­ fore attempt it here. The apt reader of this kind of poetry will be one who has trained himself to emulate some of H.’s flexibility, who has learned to relate the crossing and interweaving strands and 1 Persius, i . 1 17.

2 R. A. Brower, Alexander Pope; the Poetry of Allusion ( 1959 )> P· *62· 29

449

b h a

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry m o tifs . T h e

s o l u t i o n ’ o f t h e d i a l e c t i c e x e r c is e t e n d s t o r e m a i n

c o n c e a le d ; n o r c o u l d t h e p o e t h a v e m a d e i t e x p l i c i t h a d h e so w is h e d . I t s l o c a t i o n is t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e p o e m a s i t e v o lv e s f r o m v e r s e t o v e r s e ; i t is h e r e t h a t t h e s h if tin g a n t i t h e s e s o f t h o u g h t a n d e m o t i o n m e e t . T h o u g h t a n d w o r d i n g , s u g g e s tio n a n d t o n e a r e a ll i n e x t r i c a b l y i n v o l v e d , a n d c a n n o t b e c a u g h t i n t h e n e t o f a n a ly s is a n d d e s c r i p t i o n . Y e t a n a ly s i s a n d d e s c r ip ­ t i o n c a n t a k e u s a l o n g w a y a n d , I h o p e , w ill t a k e u s s o m e w a y i n th is s t u d y o f t h e A r s P o etica . P e d e s t r i a n c r itic s c o m p l a i n o f £t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y d if f ic u lty i n d is c o v e r in g a n y t h i n g lik e a c o n n e c t e d t r a i n o f t h o u g h t ’ in s o m e o f t h e O des ( R . Y . T y r r e l l ) . N o r is i t o n l y p e d e s t r i a n c ritic s w h o fe e l t h u s t h w a r t e d . L a n d o r ’s f a m o u s r e m a r k o n

1.

13

o f S o lu itu r a cris h ie m s h a s o f t e n b e e n q u o t e d — ‘P a llid a

M o r s h a s n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e a b o v e ’ . Y e t t h e p o e m in

q u e s t i o n is b u t a b r i e f l y r i c o f m o d e r a t e c o m p l e x i t y . I t c a n n o t s u r p r is e i f a l e n g t h y a n d le ss t i g h t l y o r g a n i z e d serm o e v o k e s e v e n m o r e i r r i t a t i o n o r m i s j u d g e m e n t . C l e a r l y , t h e s h o r t ty p e o f o d e is w h a t w e m u s t lo o k to , i n t h e f ir s t p l a c e , i f w e w a n t to r e c o g n iz e t h e p a r t i c u l a r H o r a t i a n k i n d o f c o m p l e x i t y . A b r u p t ­ n e ss, g l i d in g t r a n s i t i o n , c i r c u l a r s t r u c t u r e , b l o c k - c o m p o s i t i o n s u c h a r e th e te rm s t h a t in v ite a m e c h a n ic a l m a n ip u la tio n o s t a t i c m a t e r i a l s ’. S o m e o f t h e s e t e r m s h a v e t h e i r d e s c r i p ti v e u s e s , b u t t h e y d o n o t a s s is t u s to v i e w a p o e m a s a u n i t y o f a y o u t a n d s u b j e c t a s w e ll a s o f i m a g e r y , s ty le , a n d to n e . n o w a t t e m p t t o i l l u s t r a t e f r o m t h e O d es s o m e o f th e s t r u c t u r a l d e v ic e s t h a t I f i n d e m p l o y e d i n H . ’s A r s a n d h is o t e r l o n g h e x a m e t e r p o e m s . T h e O d e s t h a t I h a v e s e le c te d are

m uch

s h o rte r a n d

m o re

tig h tly

c o n tro lle d

th a n

th e

erm o n es, b u t t h e s a m e k i n d o f i m a g i n a t i o n h a s e v o lv e d t h e s t r u c t u r e o f b o t h , t h o u g h i n d i f f e r e n t sty le s.

F e w o f H . s p o e m s a r e u n ilin e a r in s tr u c tu r e — a s tra ig h t p r o g r e s s io n f r o m o n e p o i n t t o a n o t h e r l o g i c a l l y r e l a t e d . B u t ju s t

e c a u s e H o r a t i a n c o m p l e x i t y lo o m s so l a r g e , i t is w e ll t o

e- ern * a * s u c h p o e m s e x is t. F o r s o m e tim e s t h e p a t t e r n o u g t a n d e m o t i o n le n d s i t s e l f t o a s i m p l e p r o g r e s s io n .

Poetic P a ttern s in the ‘ A r s Poetica ’ a n d the ‘ O d es’

The introductory ode, M a e c e n a s a ta u is, juxtaposes values in a series of typical human preferences, one after the other—sunt q u o s .. .h u n c. . .i li u m , etc.—an archaic form of poetic rhetoric, on which E. Fraenkel has written instructively.1 That series fits the mood of a poem designed to rise by way of a long fac­ tual preamble to the declaration of a personal way of life : me doctarum hederae p r a e m ia f r o n tiu m | d is m iscent su peris .2 Here the whole poem is structured by juxtaposition, because juxta­ position fits subject and mood. This is an extreme case, though not the only one. But there are other poems whose overt structure suggests a simple logical progression, though closer examination shows it to be any­ thing but simple. Such is the great Ode subdivided into three groups, with the headings weightily set out at the beginning, C. i. i2 quem u tru m a u t h e r o a .. . | quem deum . It is well known that this division echoes Pindar’s introductory question in the Second Olympian (τίνα θεόν, τίν’ ήρωα, τίνα δ’ άνδρα. .. So Pindar asked, but what H. made of that question was undreamt of by the Greek poet. The tripartition comes to govern the poem as a whole. For Pindar answers his own question without delay and in the same sequence, thus defining occasion, addressee, and setting—‘god’ leads to Zeus who protects the district of Olympia, ‘hero’ to Heracles, the founder of the Olympic games, ‘man’ to Theron, the victor. Then he allows the question to sink out of sight, to underlie the whole poem though not to determine its order. For H. the occasion has no reality; nothing corresponds to the Olympic setting; the poem is addressed to Clio, and aimed at the emperor. Yet the poet makes the tripartite order the axis on which the whole poem turns, the cosmic context of the final prayer for Augustus. With a slight but expressive variation he first reverses the sequence, so as to rise from man to hero to god ; but then, in chiastic order, he places the gods first, heroes next, and men last of all. But there is no attempt to take up 1 Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 899—902 n., Horace, 230-2. 2 C. i. I. 29—30.

4S I

2 9 -2

The ‘Ars Poetica' as Horatian Poetry

the three markers ’ explicitly, and the possible prosaic element is thus eliminated. Instead of external links therefore the poet provides for a structuring by poetic means—the hymnic quid p riu s dicam (13), neque te silebo (21), dicam (25) , p o s t h o s p r i u s . . . memorem (33 _4 )> and referam (39). Every reader will draw the obvious conclusion that qui res hom inum ac deorum. . . temperat takes up deum, as A lcides takes up heroa. Whether R om ulum (33) or rather Regulum (37) starts the last of the three divivisions seems to me an open question, not only in view of the much debated but still debatable textual difficulties at 35-6. For even if the Romulus stanza were thought to adhere con­ vincingly to the part of the poem defined by heroes, it would in fact form at the same time a bridge to the catalogue of the Roman uiri 1 a kind of gliding transition, which relieves what would otherwise be a strict formalism of five groups of three stanzas each: invocation; dei, heroes, u ir i ; Augustus. That lack of strictness is in fact no mere avoidance, for in spite of Fraenkel s persuasive advocacy2 I find it hard to believe that the Greek division between qpcoss and ανδρες is echoed sufficiently in this Roman context. The merging of the heroes and u iri therefore may well have been induced by Roman senti­ ment. And the final prayer for Augustus is actually enhanced if the dividing line between heros and uir is not too clearly drawn. We have then, in this short lyric, an apparently prosaic structure. In that way quem uirum aut heroa differs fundamentally from the Pindaric poem that inspired it. But the sub­ divisions are not worked out prosaically; they only suggest a conceptual scheme. In fact the structure is so flexible as to enhance not hinder emotion and thought. The flexible use in a short lyric of a conceptual structure should caution readers against denying that technique in the larger hexameter poems. Thus in the A r s the substance of large parts of that long poem is indicated in a similar way. A .P . 40-1 set down res, fa cu n d ia , and or do. The sequel is 1 Fraenkel, Horace, 296. 2 ibid. 294-6, 447.

Poetic Patterns in the ‘ A rs Poetica ’ and the £ Odes'

chiastic. First or do, where the word is actually repeated. Next which is no longer named but hinted at by in uerbis (46). Finally res, which is so far away (at 119) and arises so unobtrusively from the context that even now many scholars deny (quite wrongly, in my submission) that the topic appears at all. What matters in each case is not a cut-and-dried ‘arrangement’ but an order adapted to the substance and form of each context. The same technique, with its attendant difficulty to the reader, is employed at 307—8, where too a ‘table’ of three ‘subjects’ is set out. None of them, when its time comes, is verbally repeated. The first, at any rate, is alluded to, but the second, and even more the third, have to be gathered from the sequence of juxtaposed pieces. In these cases the simple conceptual scheme seems to inform a whole poem or parts of a poem, although more often than not the apparent rigidity of outline yields to a subtle play of emotion and suggestion. Many other poems are what might be called ‘open-ended . The ductus of thought or feeling moves on to details a scene, a picture, or the like—and these details are only tangentially connected with the ‘subject’ of the poem, although they make their own contributions to its tone and thus, indirectly, to the subject. Such for example is the amorous scene at the end of uides ut a lta . It might be argued too that the A rs has an open ending, the satiric story of the mad poet. But I think it more likely that the marked similarity with the initial caricature poem and poet going wrong from an excess of ingenium un­ controlled—suggests a looking back to the beginning, humano

facundia,

capiti.

Imperceptibly, towards the end, this kind of poem wheels back to something like the initial situation so that a circular movement seems to arise. This is familiar from archaic Greek writing ; it has been called ‘ ring-composition . H. employs that technique in various ways. C . 11. 10 is exemplary, rectius u iu es\ so Licinius is addressed the first stanza, in nautical metaphor, setting out the avoidance of 453

The ‘Ars Poetica’ as Horatian Poetry

moral extremes, and the last stanza returning to the addressee as well as to the metaphor. In between, four stanzas proclaim m rea m ediocritas in terms leading from the social to the natural and the divine scene. Thus the intervening stanzas form a kind of panel framed by the two addresses; the panel also lends the colour and tone of moral experience to the first and last stanzas. This is not a great poem but a confident re­ handling in lyric form of the moral antitheses of the Sermones. The poem is neither better nor worse for the truth, or truism, it contains; nor indeed for its borrowing an abstract ‘rule’ from moral theory. It becomes ‘poetic ’ through viewing moral m terms of living experience, and through embodying in its structure the very nature of its subject-matter: a warning against extremes is conveyed by logical antitheses at the begin­ ning and end, with the intervening picture of the bene p raepara­ tum pectu s that is reassured by sameness, in change, of nature and divinity. Some of the love poems are fashioned in this circular manner—aptly, because the final statement is used to qualify the ironical detachment with which the poem begins; H. shows himself involved after all. In and out, involvement and detachment, emotion as well as rationality : that is the world of Horatian poetry, not only love poetry. The last two stanzas of intermissa^ Venus diu (iv. i ) explain the parce, precor, precor of the beginning; they also contradict the sentiment immedi­ ately preceding: me nec fe m in a nec p u er. In the unity of the whole poem those stanzas have more than one function. In the masterly economy of u ix i p u e llis nuper idoneus, a poem of no more than three stanzas (in. 26), the switch-back effect seems to relate only to the last two lines. Until 1. 10 resignation is unquestioned; but then the prayer turns about unexpectedly: regina, su b lim i fla g ello | tange Chloen sem el arrogantem . The poet, half humorously, half seriously, is involved still. Once you ave read to the end, it it hard to look back to u ix i p u e llis without a memory of the last two lines. I have discussed no more than three instances of ‘ring

P o e tic P a t t e r n s i n th e ‘ A r s P o e t i c a ’ a n d th e

cO d e s ’ composition’ in the O d e s. Despite their similarity, they all fulfil different functions. Many other instances could be adduced from lyric and serm o alike. But what I have said will demon­ strate sufficiently that the lyric and hexameter poems derive from the same kind of structural imagination. H., the master of the small lyric form, seems to have attempted similar formal complexities in a long serm o. What are the movements of thought and feeling deployed to bring about such tightly-controlled structures? It is easy to ask this question ; it is not easy to answer it. For the circu­ larity of the poems last discussed arises from apparently diverse thought-movements—often an abrupt leap, but often too one of those delicate adjustments of thinking or tone or feeling which have become known by the name of gliding transition. Such names have a certain descriptive virtue ; but what they describe will often be the conceptual order of argument, not an order determined by poetic association. Nor are these ‘ transitions ’ restricted to the few poems that have been mentioned. H.’s much deplored abruptness and his much admired gliding transitions ’ differ from each other in their effect, but seem to derive from similar thought-processes. Ideas are imaginatively, not conceptually, associated in his mind. The strategy that he adopts in revealing such associations is an integral part of every poem. It determines its unity and tone; it is not extraneous to the poem. When H. sets ideas starkly apart from each other, this abruptness—such as p a llid a M o r s m the Spring Ode i. 4—is a pointer to the scope of the poem, perhaps its very germ and inspiration. The reader’s imagination has to be stretched accordingly. When the opposite happens, and ideas are shown to be related before the reader can be expected to notice the link (‘gliding transition’), then, too, the scope of the poem is involved. But the reader’s imagina­ tion is affected differently, his attention is drawn to connexion rather than disjunction. Any Horatian poem will show that these different forms of

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

e? 1L··85^011 are asP ects the same imaginative manner of * 1 ai^’· ^ove P°em ni. 26, to which I referred earlier, t e abruptness of the final turn expresses the poignancy of the situation, the instability of human wishes. On the other hand, m e n e c f e m in a nec p u e r , the third stanza from the end of the love poem IV. 1, may, with some justification, be called a gliding transition. For the stanza follows on without strain from the praise of Paulus, and prepares, by contradistinction, for the enouem ent of the last two stanzas. Yet that transition reveals, wit a ifFerence, the same contingency of human nature. 0 watch the move from one thought-complex to another -never-repeated and ever-new poetic experience in reading · e step may be small or large. Sometimes the poet conrms an extends the territory just gained, or simply adds anot er related area without overt link and connexion. oetica y more rewarding are those daring leaps from one extreme to another, where antithetic thought is expressed by lsjomte ness of structure. The Spring Ode 1. 4 has already een mentioned, p a llid a M o rs sets the paleness of death rusque y against the colour and regeneration of spring; es ms, 1 e the rest of us, must make the adjustment between e permanence, in change, of nature and the uitae summa brems, which is never renewed. Often the impact of an abrupt break is mitigated, as it ^ lding transitions that hint at a large conception still 1 en rom the reader. Such is the proposal, overtly abrupt, o a ce e ration for Caesar Augustus, descende caelo, in. 4. 37· or (as raenkel1 has observed) the thought of the person w o is now expected to keep the barbarian people in check prece es t is stanza; in fact there is a continuing thoughtmovement that leads from the poet’s charmed life in the past th u an?er he maintains, he is ready to face among thebwbanms under the protection of the Muse. the hexameter poems lack the tautness of the Odes, their ensi y an emotional range. But they have many other 1 Horace, 275 .

456

4A r s P o e tic a ’ a n d th e cO d e s ’ virtues. For variation of style, for venturesomeness of structure over a larger canvas, they compete with the lyrics. Perhaps no Horatian poem is so daringly successful as the A rs in sug­ gesting by structure and tone the philosophy of art which it does not, and indeed cannot, express by conceptual argument. If structure has that importance, it provides sufficient induce­ ment to an editor to break up the text into paragraphs. No division within a Horatian poem is fully self-contained. But paragraphing invites the adroit reader to attend to the fresh start as well as to the links beyond the context, major ones or minor, explicit or implied. Transitions in the A r s show a large and almost inexhaustible variety. They must be seen in their own setting ; many of them will be described below. Here I consider only some typical instances that recall the Odes already described. Two very special cases excepted (46 etia m , 3 4 7 tam en), the A rs moves from one context to the next by juxtapostion; no apparent need for external links. A simple placing of one context beside another might express no more than juxtaposition in thought—a mere sequence or series of topics. It is striking that over a long range in the A rs that kind of series is exceedingly hard to find. Such seem to be, at first sight, the topics chosen to illustrate exem­ plary technique in the work of dramatists (from 153 onward). Appropriate character-drawing, the right mixture of reported speech and dramatic action, the number of acts, the deus ex machina, the number of speaking parts, chorus, music. But here other motives come into play. If H. had wanted no more than to move from one topic to another, related or vaguely related, he would have proceeded from music to metre, and then to the major dramatic genres in which these techniques materialize. But that is precisely what he does not do. By placing Satyric drama before metre, not after, he sharpens the point of both. For the former, Satyric drama, is treated like chorus and music, as a technique to be mastered by the dramatist. But when he comes to metre, the rhythmic vitality P o e tic P a tte r n s in th e

457

T h e ‘ A r s P o e t ic a ’ a s H o r a t i m P o e tr y

of verse, he does more than that ; he brings the motif of artistic potency to the fore, and thus begins the delicate jostling for position that characterizes so much of his verse. He sets Roman poetry vis-à-vis classical Greek, exem plaria Graeca —an incitement to fresh artistic endeavour. Which in turn enables him to confront genius and artistry, the unreal antithesis that concludes this part of the poem, and gives rise to the satiric thought-movement in the next. The first part of the poem looks very disjointed and abrupt. I should be surprised however if ‘disjointedness ’ can be the just comment of a reader who has made himself familiar with H. s technique and with the literary theories that form his material. How can a lively poetic variety be achieved without declining into mere fragmentation? The answer is inherent in the progress from the initial caricature to the purple patch to the demand for sim plex et unum. Next false variety is interpreted as a desire for the right thing without the necessary training, or without the insight that makes such a training serve the wholeness of a poetic vision, totum. Each of these ‘paragraphs’ presents a picture in its own right and yet, added to the rest, each contributes its share to the total. The abruptness of transition from one partial picture to the other draws the reader’s attention to the variety as well as to the wholeness of the larger canvas. Just as abruptly H. passes from philosophy, ‘the source of good writing , and its misunderstandings (at 309—22), to the psychology of the Greeks and Romans (at 323—32). And just as effectively comes enlightenment to the reader when he senses that the implicit connexion is one of cause and effect. Were the connexion overtly expressed, a large and inconclu­ sive argument would have resulted. For this causal chain makes a good guess but a bad proof. H.’s imaginative procedure at its most astringent will be seen in the last sub-section of the A rs , beginning at 347. Drop t e Horatian key the notion of poetic excellence—and this part o the poem falls apart. But the key fits throughout. 458

P o e tic P a t te r n s in th e

‘A r s

P o e tic a

’ and

th e

O des

Within a group of nine juxtaposed pieces a central kernel of four is explicitly held together by an address to the e er son of Piso and personal detail related to the dominant notion ot poetic uirtus: 366 0 m a io r iuuenum , 385 tu n i h i l . . .dices, 406-7 ne forte pudori \ s i t tib i M u s a lyrae sollers. The remaining ve are placed on each side of the centre-piece ; the reader must ta e his clue from this p la cin g .‘Abrupt juxtaposition?

no tru

sive links?’ I suggest that both techniques are present to a certain extent although the former predominates. · c ear y wanted to obtrude the variety of aspects in which uirtus poetica is involved, and has therefore underplayed their agreement. But when it comes to turning from one large section o his literary theory to another the two procedures are di erent y weighted. H. still marks the new context by a more or ess abrupt switch. But he assigns equal weight to a link passage, and that produces a twofold effect; the break is thus cus 1®ne and the new subject is related to a motif common to ot sections, the old and the new. .. There is a likeness between two of these transitions t a should not escape notice— I mean the tables of contents at 40-1 and again at 306-8. To call them by that name is not to decry them. These indications are worked so beautifully into the poetic fabric that no humdrum rehearsing of topics arises. Nevertheless topics are indicated and they are the chie^ topics in the two large sections on the ‘poem and the poet . _ in both transitions the duality of ars and ingenium is emp oye as a framework, it looks as if the poet meant the likeness to be noticed—perhaps a hint, if no more, that ‘poem’ and poet account for one strongly marked structural division among others. ‘Arrangement’ and ‘style’ arise without strain rom t announcement of o r do and fa c u n d ia (at 41), the ormer a 42, the latter at 46/5. How does the third predetermined member of the triad come into play: ‘subject-matter , r e s i Having seen H.’s technique at work elsewhere we should be pre ispose o recognize it in complex settings. Many commentators ai o 459

’ a s H o r a t i a n P o e tr y recognize the new topic when H. ceases to speak of style ( 118). They willingly accept that the poet has established a link between the topics before and after this verse. But the two choices do not exclude each other. A ‘gliding transition’ and an abrupt break are here combined as they are elsewhere. This procedure serves more than one purpose. The desired unity of diction and subject-matter comes out unobtrusively because the demand is that diction as well as subject must be informed by mores. But the two settings are not the same in terms of ars p o etica . And this difference is made to obtrude m the harsh break. I am not equally clear in my own mind that the otherwise abrupt jump to dramatic technique (at 153) is qualified in the same manner. Although there too character study is de­ manded—the ages of man at 156—the break is not mitigated in the same way because ‘character’ does not precede the new section immediately but only at a remove. The combination of connectedness and abruptness in the same poem, lyric or serm o , should put us on our guard against premature generalizing. Each method has its own function. Often several themes are entwined in an antecedent poetic vision and the reader is made aware of this complexity only in the course of the poem. A mechanical division into subjects or themes will then tend to obscure the issue. Two lyrics in which H. speaks partly in a public and partly in a private voice will show what I have in mind. H ercu lis n tu (in. 14) and d iu is orte bon is (iv. 5) deal with the same themes, the public occasion of a celebration for Augustus, and a private one, when an individual, Q. Horatius Flaccus, is seen to share in public rejoicing. What matters to the lyric poet is not to report two kinds of events, but to make the reader feel and understand the motives that induce a private person, and that private person H., to celebrate a public event. This is the meeting point of private and public, and in that point the unity of die poem inheres. In d iu is orte bonis unity is achieved by a means that really does away with the individual aspect. T h e ‘ A r s P o e tic a

460

Poetic P attern s in the ‘ A rs P oetica’ and the ‘ O d es’

H. shares in the general rejoicing as a loyal and patriotic citizen, or (it may be said by a critical observer) one of the many whom the emperor dulcedine o tii p e lle x it . In that sense there is no longer a valid distinction between a public and a private voice. The two ‘parts’ of the poem, as Fraenkel has said,1 almost merge into each other. But Fraenkel seems to me less persuasive in measuring Herculis ritu by the same yard-stick. He says truly that the transitional stanza 4 belongs no more to the first three than it belongs to the last,2 that even stanza 5, which starts in a manner so pointedly private— i p e te unguentum, pu er —contains echoes of public concern, the social war and Spartacus. Fraenkel admires the poem, yet (291) complains o f ‘a faint disharmony’, a clash between the two roles taken by the poet, the public and the private. Perhaps there is some dissonance, but any clash is the deliberate one from which the ode draws its strength—that in this poem H. does not submerge his individual emotion in the emotion of the many. It may be said then that in O des hi. 14 and iv. 5 H. offers not a single subject, but the same two, which he has related or3 in musical language, counterpointed differently. But the unity of each poem, perhaps its origin, lies in a wider entity comprising the two subjects. Hence ‘unfolding one complex idea or emotion’ rather than ‘ connecting two separate notions might be a more plausible way of describing these poems. Velox am oenum (i. 17) ties two or three apparently diverse strands together. The Ode has been instructively analysed by Fraenkel.3 It consists, we are told, of two parts, separate though structurally related. One is a Greek theophany, stanzas the other a traditional invitation to a banquet, stanzas 5~ 7 · The poem is said not to fall apart because it is held to­ gether in the middle stanza by the role assigned to the poethimself. The bliss he enjoys through divine protection and his own craft occupy the centre of the ode, giving unity to the whole 1 Horace, 446. * Ibid. 204-7.

* Ibid. 290.

461

T h e ‘ A r s P o e tic a ’ a s H o r a tia n P o e tr y

poem. But what is the scope of the poem, and what stays in the memory at the end? Three diverse poetic forms adroitly tied together theophany, H. divinely protected, invitation? Or t e coolness of the shade on a hot Italian day, with the ani­ mals on H. s farm as happily sheltered from the sun as their owner and his expected musician guest? Surely, the latter. The safety of man and beast, the music of H.’s guest, and his own poetry are, with ancient religious feeling, traced to a ivine source, the complex notion unfolded into the presence o Pan, who is first seen to protect the animals and then the umans who can profit by his music—you too, Tyndaris, come and sing. It is certainly instructive to track down the i erent literary origins of the different themes, and it is instructive to see the themes entwined ; but without a lively apprehension of the complex picture as a whole, the parts will not add up. The sum total of the parts is not identical with the poem before us on the page or with the poem’s image in the mind. But whichever way you go, from the parts to the whole, or rom the whole to the parts, the complex unity of the ode is unmistakable. There are Odes longer and more complex than the three with which I have operated. But restricted length and taut composition in the lyrics advantageously magnify in parvo the structural characteristics of the hexameter poems. Among t ese t e A rs stands supreme in its concatenation of themes &ιι There are few places in that poem where we are a owe to settle down, drowsily, to a single theme, or else aye a single emotion aggrandized until it fills the horizon. · s poetry is multilinear, and in the A r s more than anywhere f In P w legom ena (pp. 226 ff.) I have singled out a number °i motifs that are used to combine with, and relate to each u * * T 10?8 of the liter£*y critics, thus instilling prino w at ad become unprincipled, unintelligent, and o f ! C‘ ne of them is ttle principle of ars, another is that orum, appropriateness. But in saying that ars is ‘the

Poetic P atterns in the ‘ A r s P o e tic a ’ an d the ‘ O d es’

subject’ of the poem, or else that decorum is, many have gone astray. They fave failed on two counts. One is the applicability of their thesis. The poem witnesses against them loudly and persistently; it has not a single subject but a large number. The other is literal-mindedness, a rs does not appear as an abstraction with a rigidly defined meaning but as a manysided dialectical principle, in ever-repeated interaction with its counterpart, in gen iu m . So does decorum , the regulator of right­ ness in a poetic world where style still counts, and where originality can only fulfil itself within a tradition. In spite of the appearance of conceptual argument, what is not said or only implied is as important as what is actually made explicit. The structure and the tone translate into terms of the poem what would be of little value in mere conceptual terms. Critics are not therefore likely to prevail with a proof that decorum in the A r s is an unequivocal critical notion, meaning one and the same thing wherever it appears. But if they had remembered that a poet’s terms are ever-shifting and flexible, they might have had a tenable case in urging the importance of this notion. ‘Appropriateness’ is a relative term and it can be related in the most various ways to the technical subjects of ancient literary theory. It may be one or several of the following : the unity of poetic texture over against the multi­ plicity of subjects and tones (15-16 p u rp u reu s . . .pannu s , 19 sed nunc non erat h is locus, 23 sim p le x d u m ta x a t e t unum ) ; the ‘ proper arrangement of topics (42 o rd in is uirtus, 43 debentia dici ); the appropriateness in the choice of words (46 tenuis cautusque ), m diction vis-à-vis metre and genre (73) or emotion (101) °r character ( 114) ; the consistency in the drawing of persons either ‘historical’ or ‘fictional’ (119fa m a m sequere, s i b i conuenientia finge, 126 seru etu r a d im u m , 152 medio ne discrepet im um ) ; the decor, aptum , d ig n u m conjoined in the dramatic rules ( i 56 ~7 > l8 3 > 191, 195); the middle range of Satyric drama (225, 237, 24 5 ); the leg itim u s sonus of rhythm (274)· Even in Ose. poeta section H. has known how to let ‘the poem’, and appro­ priateness along with it, impinge on ‘the poet’. Thus 463

The ‘ A rs Poetica ’ as H oratian Poetry

certainly in the first sub-section : conuenientia entwined with the opes on which the poet is to draw (316). In the next sub-section, the ‘mixture of delight and instruction’ is set up as an ideal (343) in implied polemic against all those who thought that if the poet improves men, he does not do so qua poet. H. turns back to matters of workmanship and if, as I think is likely, this piece answers to the description qu id deceat, qu id non (308), ‘appropriateness’ is more than implied. In the final sub­ section the wider notions of poetic uirtus are uppermost, although the list of faults (445 ff.) is likely to encroach on the territory of that ‘aptness’ with which t h e poem a part has been concerned. ‘Appropriateness’ then, as H. uses it, is a many-sided criti­ cal principle, deployed in many parts of the poem to point the relation of a poetic technique to a standard of rightness. It does not appear as a self-contained topic in the sequence of critical theory. It does appear as a concomitant that qualifies many topics in that sequence. The notion of ‘art ’ is even more complex. A conventional ancient ‘Arts Book’ begins by persuading its putative user that the necessary guidance here offered is based on rational principles stated in the sequel. H. jettisons most of that. His introduction deals with a basic concern of all ancient art, poetry included—a unity that does not pall, and a variety that does not fail to add up. Yet ‘art’ is not wholly jettisoned. It must provide the one vital clue if unity is not to become uniformity, and variety fragmentation. Two subjects are thus woven together— unum and ars. But more than that: unity and ‘art’ are made interdependent. Thus ‘art’, and its counterpart ‘genius’ (38-41), come to form the link of the structure, leading from the section on unity to the A rs proper—the teaching of arrangement, diction, subject-matter, and the advice on the genre of genres, poetic drama. Once this stage is reached, the dominant second theme, as has been noted, is appropriateness. Only rarely are the wider notions of art and genius made to shine through the 464

Poetic P attern s in the ‘A rs P o etica ’ and the ‘O des'

fabric, as at 87-8 cur ego s i nequeo ignoroque, etc. It is not until be comes near the end of this large part of the A r s that the poet returns to the wider motif. The disquisition on metre brings back a rs (262), and a rs casts light on the exemplary Greek forms of drama as well as on their Roman successors. Thus it forms a bridge to the last part, which is wholly built on the dialectical interplay between studied art and natural genius. These are the motifs that are woven into the poem’s main fabric throughout, decoru m , and that mixture of craft and rationality which the Romans called ars, have a wide appli­ cation to all artistic production in antiquity. By deploying them as structural principles in a poem on one of the arts, H. has widened the appeal and scope of that poem. The part played by other motifs is more limited. Among these two stand out—character and national psychology. Character had traditionally a place in poetic theory. But in Aristotle’s P o e tic s ethos stands as a topic by itself; there is little connexion with the rest of his theory. In H., with one possible exception (at 156), it is not a self-contained subject hut an accompanying motif. What have mores to contribute to the various aspects of the poet’s craft? A great deal, it appears. Diction had been discussed with regard to genre and emotion ; in both cases appropriateness was demanded. Now (Ιτ4·) it is the traits of character due to natural disposition, social standing, and provenance that call for notice. But the motif does not disappear. Rather it serves to bridge the de­ plorable gulf which, in ancient literary theory, is fixed bet­ ween diction and subject-matter. This is done so adroitly and, It appears, so naturally that readers cannot make up their minds whether there is any shift of topic at all. Some say that the poet has not abandoned the topic of character, others that he has moved from diction to m ythos. Both are right in a sense- Character is a motif entwined with the primary topics, ^nd it reappears once this context is ended. The rules on dramatization begin with m ores (156)· Much later H. lets it 30

465

BHA

The ‘ A rs Poetica ’ as H oratian Poetry

be known why he puts m ores s o high in his order of values. The of good writing is sapere (309) ; and the understanding’ taught by Socratic chartae , he thinks, is that of moral principle, which (for him) must lie at the root of true poetry. The poet who has learned that lesson reddere personae scit conuenientia cuique (316). The traditional route of a Roman ars had some place for reflections on the comparative worth of Greek and Roman poetry. These are just the reflections that H. is bound to regard as illuminating. For his A rs is Greek to the core, though its Hellenism is of the Roman and Augustan kind,' it promotes self-understanding and is meant to stimulate new poetic pro­ duction. Here then is yet another motif. Although it suits the comparison between drama in Greece and Rome (275-9*)’ it differs too much from such technical matters as diction and subject-matter to become easily part of the fabric of instruc­ tion. H. therefore treats it as a counterpoint. His study of dramatic metre reveals the unduly spondaic nature of Latin senarii compared with their ancestral Greek trimeters. Not without malice this failing is put down to negligence—-H. s customary and creative misunderstanding of archaic Roman literature, with the motif of ars again prominent (261 ff·)· Out of the comparison the poet spins an indictment of Roman uenia, the vista to exem plaria Graeca is open. So the transition to the Greek and Roman genres is made (with all that the comparison implies, 275 ff.), and hence to the unity of form and content, where again the national comparison is prominent (319, 323 fr.). One suspects that when H. sensed the 1luminating possibilities of this structure, he removed Metre rom its cognate topic of Music, and consequently Satyric rama from the other dramatic forms. Irregularity of order draws attention to motive. The national theme takes us half-way to the poem’s personal and contemporary concern. H. the poet, critic, teacher, friend, V Ca^re ^oer’ ^ows and out from the beginning to the end of t e rs. The personal motif, in the various forms analysed in prin cipiu m et J o n s

466

Poetic Patterns in the ‘A rs Poetica ’ and the ‘Odes' my note on 2 5 -6 , is e m p lo y e d in precisely the same manner as the other motifs th a t are second ary to the technical teaching of the Ars, th ough by n o m ean s secondary in importance. They bring som eth in g o f th e artistry and wit, the humanity and humour, o f th e o th er E pistles— sometimes even o f the lyrics— to the pale artificialities o f a textbook o f poetics. Without these personal im p lication s, the Ars w ould not be a Horatian poem . At times this n ote enters in to the very structure o f the poem, most im pressively a t th e b eg in n in g o f the poeta section. For there the personal m o t if is en tw in ed w ith one o f the primary subjects o f literary th eory — ars versus ingenium— and helps to make the transition from th e precedin g section : 0 ego laeuus, | qui purgor bilem (3 0 1 -2 ), non alius faceret meliora poemata (303)? fungar uice cotis (3 0 4 ), munus et officium, nil scribens ipse, docebo

(3 0 6 ). U nilinear progression, lo g ica l subdivision, open endings, circular com position, transitions abrupt or unobtrusive, com ­ plexity o f them es— these are th e procedures on which I have now com m ented. T h e y h a v e disturbed students o f the Ars and, for that reason, I h a v e traced them in the shorter lyrics, where they are m ore ea sily perceived. T hey are traditional procedures w h ich a p o etic m in d o f great intellectual distinc­ tion and suppleness h as p u t to fresh use. T hey are more than tricks o f th e trade. H .’s successful poems branch out, as it were, from a u n ity im a g in a tiv ely perceived and realized in structure, tone, and w ord in g. Students o f the structure o f his poems need to bear this in m in d . Otherwise they are easily tempted to focus o n th e single aspect o f arrangement, and to neglect subject, em otion , and expression. M ost o f all, this lesson has to be h e e d e d in th e Ars. For here we are continually tempted to rem em ber the content— that is, literary theory but not the practice— a p oem dem onstrating by example the spirit o f this theory, or else rem em ber the practice but forget the content. In the description o f the Ars that now follows I have tried to h eed th is lesson. 467

3 O -2

2 THE

POEM

D urch das V ernünfteln w ir d die Poesie vertrieben, A b er sie m ag das V ernünftige lieben.

GOETHE R ie n de p lu s anorm al qu’u n poète qui se rapproche de Γ kom m e norm al: H u g o , G o eth e. . . C est lef o u libre. L e f o u q u i n a p a s V a ir f o u . L e f o u qu i n est ja m a is suspect. Q u a n d j ’a i écrit que Victor H ugo éta it un f o u qui se croyait Victor H u g o , j e ne

c o c te a u

p la isa n ta is p a s. A vo ir du style et non un style.

COCTEAU

I. Unity and Art, 1— 4* 1. A grotesque: no p a r t o f a p a in tin g fi ts a n y other , 1 -5 ie 2. A conversation on incongruity: not a ll variety in p a in tin g and poetry ca ju stifie d by a p lea f o r creative freed o m , 6 - 1 3 3. Three instances exem plifying incoherence; u n ity demanded, i 4-- 2 3 4 . A literary argum ent: fa u l t y variety, lik e certain kin d s o f f a u lty sty e, virtue misunderstood; u n ifo rm ity and u n ity; ‘a r t’ as regulator, 2 4 -3 5 . A cautionary tale: the bronze-founder; m astery o f p a r ts does not guara mastery o f whole, 3 2 -7 r 6 . T h e poet’s advice, an apparent tru ism : choose a poetic task adapted o y talent, 3 8 -4 0 ,, ^ 7. T h e p o et’s prom ise: i f y o u can m aster y o u r su b je c t, y o u w ill be a ^ ex p ress and a r ra n g e it, 4 0 ( c u i) ~ 4 i. {The technical topics o f a n ^ p o e tic a ’ are thereby im p lied — subject, diction, arrangement, whic n. fo llo w in reverse order.)

The ‘ Letter to the Pisos5opens with a series of violent contra dictions, driving the reader from pillar to post. Such contra dictions cannot seem strange to the reader of the O des or S atires. As other instances of Horatian dialectics, so this shou be scanned first in its natural sequence, and next in reverse order, backwards from the end of the dialectical process. 468

T h e Poem (i) A grotesque : no part o f a painting fits any other, 1-5

is H .’s description of Homer’s procedure ( A . P . 148). In a wider, non-narrative, sense it often applies to his own poetry, and produces a ‘shock-effect’, as it has been called. The realistic style of sermo can accommodate caricature and grotesque. The first four lines do not describe so much as affront : a hum an head set down by a painter on a horse s neck, feathers of many colours, limbs unassorted, a fish’s tail but above a beautiful woman. The result of viewing such a picture, the last line adds, would be laughter. Few readers will overlook that these verses, though ridiculed in the scheme of the poem, stand as a little masterpiece in its own right, just as does its larger companion, the poet whose unalloyed inspiration results in madness (453- 7b)> both assigned by their creator to the same cause—lack of art. But H. is not here arguing. He clearly had the creator s love for these misshapen beauties. The caricatures of medieval archi­ tecture and the grotesques of the Italian Renaissance show how such fantasies can be accommodated in the larger design of another medium. The place of unnatural configurations in Roman decorative painting— monstra potius quam ex rebus finitis imagines certae —is adverted to, censoriously, by Vitruvius in a famous chapter (vn. 5. 3—4) · The passages of H. and Vitruvius were widely known in sixteenth-century Italy.1 The details of the present piece inspired Raphael or his colleagues to set down a monster in the scherzi of the Vatican’s Logge , character­ istically in the panel devoted to the Fates.2 in medias res

1 S ee N ic o le D a c o s , ‘ L a d é c o u v e r te d e l a D o m u s A u re a e t la fo rm a tio n d es g r o t e s q u e s à l a R e n a i s s a n c e ’,

Studies of the Warburg Institute, x x x i (1909),

122 3 .

( I o w e a n a d v a n c e n o t i c e o f t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n t o t h e c o u r t e s y o f t h e a u t o r i ti e s o th e W a r b u r g I n s titu te .) * C f . K . B o r i n s k i , Die D acos,

op. dt.

1 0 0 f f. o n

-

...

,

Antike in Poetik und Kunsttheorie, i (1914). I0oi-> mcole L'atelier de Raphael. Maturation des grotesques.

469

The ‘ A rs Poetica ’ as H oratian Poetry (2) A conversation on incongruity: not all variety in painting and poetry can be justified by a plea for creative freedom, 6 -1 3

Now the address, Pisones (ushered in by am ici in the previous line) with a new point which reveals that the grotesque is there merely to illustrate: H. is concerned with liber, not with ta b u la (6). Book and painting alike, if so formed, are in­ coherent—shapes or images—like feverish dreams. Seeming to slip back into the realistic language of the initial grotesque, H. employs a homely proverb to describe such works ; hand and foot do not belong to the same ‘form’; a hint at the description above and a sidelong glance—not at this stage recognized as such—at literary theory, for the organic meta­ phor had played a part in it since Plato and perhaps earlier. But such discourteous speech evokes a protest. In the best style of sermo an objection by an unnamed objector is quoted, but abruptly, without the customary ‘someone (or ‘you’) might say.. . and so a discussion develops.The interlocutor demands unlimited daring, the romantic prerogative of painter and poet. Believers in the proprieties called classical used to note that H. agrees but that he regards the demand as a truism when it means what the defenders do not mean (n ), and as false when it means what, with vigorous realism, he describes as the mating of incompatibles, ‘snakes with birds’, etc. (12-13)· Thus a limiting condition has to be imposed : creative liberty must not be licence. It is only some variety that emerges as faulty. What variety then does so emerge? (3) Three instances exemplifying incoherence; unity demanded, 14-23

Three instances follow with the abruptness which a Horatian knows to be a favoured device for keeping the reader on his toes or, put differently, a device for drawing attention to con­ nexions of substance, and away from such external links as a prosaic ‘for example’. 470

T h e P oem

The first instance concerns poetry: the celebrated ‘purple patch’, 14-19 locu s. The piece has its place not only in the contemporary setting in which descriptio was a fashion. For the purpose is wider. Such descriptions were approved parti­ cularly for epic writing, larger unities by definition. And it is with larger unities that this poet is concerned. Under H.’s hands the writing prettily assumes the character of descriptio with its lightweight picture-painting and its imitative asson­ ances: e t p r o p e r a n tis a q u a e p e r am oenos am bitu s agros (17 η.). Particularities precede, but a near-technical word identifies them at the end (d e s c r ib itu r , 18). The next two instances come from the fine arts, if that is not overstating the case. For the votive tablet and the pitcher represent handicraft rather than art. But homeliness of exem­ plifying—and that applies to the example of sewing as well— is in the nature of serm o and suits the case well, the case being elementary achievement in the making of things. While the purple patch shows up topics unadapted to a poetic texture— and hence inequality of poetic tone—the votive tablet fails more grossly in a different medium; the cypress contradicts purpose and setting alike. The potter’s failure is grosser still; the parts of his work do not add up to the same thing, for what began as an amphora ends as a pitcher. The instances thus get shorter and shorter; examples of failure crowd in, as it were, on the reader. By now, however, he has mastered the details, and the last line (23) summarizes briefly what has already been seen in concrete fulness. The summary may be taken to apply not only to the three instances but to what precedes them, s im p le x et unum is a basic law in nature and art. (4) A literary argument : faulty variety, like certain kinds of faulty style, is a virtue misunderstood; uniformity and u*uty» ‘art* as regulator, 24-31

If H. were writing a treatise he might base good poetry on variety and avoidance of uniformity, variety limited by the wholeness to be attained—unity the overriding excellence, 471

The ‘ A rs Poetica ’ as H oratian Poetry

uniformity and undue variety two opposed faults. Being a Roman critic he might exemplify this notion of ‘virtues and faults ’ by the doctrine of style in which u irtu tes and u itia loomed large. Finally he might let this striving for unity in multi­ plicity be ordered by that trained sensibility of workmanship which is an aspect of ars. In this way he would have tied together, in a manner unusual in antiquity, a plea for unity and a plea for training in ars p o etica . As it is, H. is not writing a treatise. The abstractions of literary theory are realized through the technical problems which the poet solves, by the manner in which he writes about them. The abrupt start propels the listener into a new subject, whether the exemplary doctrine of style with its ‘excellences’ and faults’, or simply the doctrine of u irtu tes and u itia in the context of style. That is something new in the poem, and not only because before he has told us nothing of technical criti­ cism of poetry. It is new because H. now suggests that varia­ bility is a ‘virtue’, not, as one might have expected from most that precedes, a fault. This is clearly important, and hence H. marks it by a mock-solemn address to ‘the father and the sons worthy of the father’; by identifying himself, humbly and humorously, with the ‘greatest number of poets’ who are liable to such mistakes ; and by the very archaism uates, which the Augustans had brought back into poetic use. For six verses the reader’s attention is held by talk about stylistic excellence missed through over-zealous avoidance of faults-the passage picturing the faults discussed, until it dawns on him where deception by a ‘false image of truth * has led him. Style was but an example, taken from poetry, a well-known case, where learners were warned against ‘opposite faults’: breuis esse laboro, | obscurus fio , etc. Variability is a ‘virtue’, something at the root of this art. But the attempt to produce a marvel of variety—an escape from sameness—may produce a dolphin in the painting of a wood, and so forth, unnatural combinations that have been rejected before. So the pictores atque poetae (9) reappear; now their sins are brought home to

T h e Poem

them. It is not that variety and daring are bad; rather uni­ formity is a fault. But to avoid the contrary fault, undue variety, the control of art is needed. We can be told at the end what would have told us little at the beginning—a generality, an abstract rule, ‘flight from fault leads to fault’, s i caret arte (31). W-U) Here, it seems, is a pause in sense and it is time to look back over the first 31 lines. Are they more than a hap­ hazard study in variety? Variety is clearly intended and the manner of presentation does not allow us to forget it: the sequence, caricature described, followed by dialogue, fol­ lowed by cautionary tales, concluded by stylistic theory and lts application to the problem of variety and an implied demand for training in the art—that sequence could hardly he more diverse. This impression is strengthened by the logical antithesis which H. has built into this section. For while, in spite of the grudging admission 1.10, the first 23 lines look like a plea for unity, the end of the section makes variety a commendable aim. Reading up to this point, therefore, one would be justified in saying that H. in talking about undue variety had produced a poem (or part of it) which was all Variety. And yet the progress from (1) to (4) is also a progress from grotesque variety to variety mastered by unity, and from untutored daring, which produces an ‘unnatural ’multiplicity, to art ’, which keeps the practitioner from oscillating between two faults—undue uniformity and undue variety. The impres­ sion therefore, as one looks back, does not so much change as add to the former view : the poem up to this point mirrors the qualities which it discusses. The poem does not only talk about multiplicity and design but its structure conveys the experience of both. Its form has coalesced with its subject. The outcome cannot be summarized, least of all in such phrases, however memorable, as denique s it quiduis sim plex dum­ taxat et unum or in u itiu m d u c it culpae f u g a , s i caret arte. The unity uf the section lies in the relation of its parts; in H.’s language, hand’ and ‘foot’ do belong to una fo rm a . 473

The ‘ A rs Poetica ’ as H oratian Poetry (ΰ) A cautionary tale : the bronze-founder : mastery of parts does not guarantee mastery of whole, 32-7

Another abrupt break and the cautionary tale of the Jaber by the Aemilian School follows. The fine arts are still exemplary. This bronze-founder is second to none (32 unus, not imus) in bringing out lifelike details in his bronzes, but his skill is partial not total: ponere totum | nesciet (34-5). This is, as H. puts it with one of the realistic touches of his hexameter poems, like having handsome black hair and black eyes but an ugly nose. Looking back again we establish the thoughtsequence. si caret arte the last section ended (31). ‘Wholeness’ is here added to the ‘ unity ’ of the earlier sections, a different thing altogether or, if you like, a different aspect of unity. The ars required certainly deals with parts. But if it remains partial it also remains artisanship. The true artist must be able to see and make a whole. In the last section unum and ars were brought together. In this section totum and ars are joined. The notions (εν and όλον), as my Introduction showed, are Aristotelian, but the questions asked and the answers given are not. For the juncture of unity/wholeness with ars is a problem for the maker. His insight and his practical training are in question. Hence 'an astringent demand for ars is already inherent in the vision of unum and totum, and it is this demand that now follows. (6) The poet’s advice, an apparent truism: choose a poetic task adapted to your talent, 38-40 (7) poet’s promise : if you can master your subject, you will be able to express and arrange it, 40 (cui)-4 i (The technical topics of an 4ars poetica’ are thereby implied—■ subject, diction, arrangement, which now follow 1® reverse order)

The demand that was just mentioned is put in the form of advice addressed to qui scribitis (38), poets. But even here the matter is complex, not simple. The pull of a dialectical mind is 474

T h e Poem

at work. H. is not simply saying—hence art is required to deal with the totality of a poem. His mind runs in contraries, and the contraries themselves are part of a larger vision. Paradoxically on the surface but coherently beneath it, the notion of capability in art brings ingenium rather than an to the fore. Thus a new (antithetical) motif is introduced, and H. can warn the practitioner against undertaking work that is beyond his powers. And finally he wheels about, as it were, turning materia, a subject undertaken, into res, subject-matter, and ends by proposing the layout of a book of instruction in this verbal art-—res (subject-matter), facundia (style), ordo (arrangement). Unity is not however forgotten, for the right choice of subject promises that style and arrangement will fall into place ; thus the poet overcomes the inorganic distinction between form and content, which so disturbs modern readers. The promise is made on the understanding that ars has been ac­ quired by the practitioner who has the right measure of ingenium. The notion of ars never disappears from the poem hereafter, though it is no longer the critical topic to be debated, but an underlying motif. It comes to the surface when occa­ sion demands it, notably, from 290 onward, where it serves to pull together the ‘technical sections’, two thirds of the poem, and to form a bridge to the last part, artifex. (I)~(7 ) The introductory forty-one verses in parvo display the niain motifs and the workmanship of the Ars in its entirety. From the first there is not only one topic but several, subjects come to the fore and recede ; one needs to talk of motifs rather than plain subjects, unum, totum, ars are here so closely en­ twined that only the analyser and the literary historian can tell us that this combination is as unusual in antiquity as it °°ks natural in the poem. H.’s poetry is not one-sided. His world is not a simple and static world; that is its strength but also its weakness. His terms are dialectically loaded; most of them seem to carry their logical opposites about them: unity and multiplicity, the 475

The 'A rs Poetica ’ as H oratian Poetry

whole and the parts, studied art and the spontaneity of genius. The piece, moreover, does not evolve in one unilinear pro­ gression; readers, even scholarly readers, looking for that have come to grief. The units of thought are small, like blocks sharply cut oif from what precedes and follows ; some critics have compared the parts of a Horatian poem to marble blocks, sharply hewn, and pushed together without much connexion. That is a misunderstanding. But those who said so did sense something real. The superficially unconnected and often antithetical contexts of a poem do reflect the dialec­ tical cast of the poet’s imagination, in this work as in many others. But that does not mean that a poem consists of un­ related parts—the fallacy against which he tilts in this piece. Rather it is the relation between contraries that moves H. s mind, and in the flexible relation of antitheses and the implicit resolution of contradictions lies much of his art. Multiplicity and unity are thus related in the technique of many of his poems. So they are in this. But what makes the Ars unique is that in doing so he also talked about this very subject. The form of the poem not only mirrors his subject ; it is his subject. H. must have been well aware that thus to relate variety and unity is what he could do best. Talk of H .’s failure to discuss his own poetry is wrongheaded. In this piece the poet not only discusses his own procedure, but he offers an instance of his procedure to illuminate a basic problem of poetic production, perhaps the basic problem—for a poet of H .’s kind. Π. The Arts of Arrangement and Diction in Poetry, 42-118 I. Arrangement, 42-4 2. Diction, 46/45-118 (a) Vocabulary, 46/45-72 (b) Norms o f diction in poetic g e n re s, 73-88 (c) Styles o f diction exemplifiedfrom drama, 89-118 (1) Arrangement, 42-4 H. ended his ‘table of contents’ with lucidus ordo (41)· When he now, ‘chiastically’, slips into the subject of ordo he is using 476

T h e Poem

his favourite device of a gliding transition. Favourite but not mechanical, for the transition hints at an unexpected con­ nexion. The initial section said and implied a great deal about ‘arrangement’: above all the protest against the purple patch, sed nunc non erat his locus (19). But earlier, ‘placing’ was a special case of an Aristotelian unity; there were other cases. Now ‘the art of placing’, more rhetorico, becomes a subject in its own right. W ith dead-pan humour and a fairly outspoken insistence (aut ego fallor, 42 n.) he described ordo in truistic fashion, leaving the all-important subject, imperatoria uirtus, even more tersely defined than most of the critics did. Once again he is commenting on his own procedure as much as on literary theory. He demonstrates the strength and charm of the procedure by postponing, according to his precept, all that is not needful in this place (e.g. the Homeric technique, 140 ff.). This amounts to illustrating ordo both as the art of concentration, and as the art of the highly concentrative and undiffuse poet, Horace. (*) Diction, 46/45-118 (a) Vocabulary, 46/45— 72

Rightness’ or ‘appropriateness’ was an underlying but un­ expressed motif in the debate on unity, up to 40. A similar quality again was to inform ordo\ it could have been called sparse and circumspect’. Here, at last, at the start of the section on style, H. does use these terms (tenuis cautusque), and etiam (46 preceding, as it should, 45) vindicates this description for the order of topics as well as the choice of words. Yet, in the fashion already remarked, contradictory principles appear almost immediately. Since H. has seen fit to indicate personal involvement, the scope of this section calls for doubly careful consideration. W hat is the balance of contrary attitudes H. wishes to strike? The poet claims to speak of his own practice, but>at the same time, he offers a literary theory. The most unbiased view will be to regard this piece as what it claims to be an interpretation of his own practice, made by the poet 477

The ‘ A rs Poetica * as H oratian Poetry

himself in the theoretical terms open to him. This will tell us a great deal. The limitations will be twofold—those imposed on a poet talking about his own work, and those imposed by his critical vocabulary. The setting differs from the rest of this poem in two re­ spects: it has a strong personal complexion, and it sounds a sustained lyric note that is unique in the Ars and ex­ ceedingly rare anywhere outside the Odes. There is no such stress on the initial terse pronouncement (47—8 nouum) that diction will be out of the ordinary if ordinary words are placed in a pointed context. This provides the common basis for poetic speech. But next (48 si forte- 59) an extraordinary em­ phasis is placed on the antithesis to notum uerbum, however refashioned by the cunning context—new coinages. The emphasis comes out in an emotional involvement which H. permits himself rarely and which therefore deserves notice. Usually when H. employs the first person in this poem, and often elsewhere, he generalizes himself in the most ingenious ways (cf. 25 η., 25-6 n.). Here however ego (55) really is I, Horace, who have added new words to the language, in the proud line of those who have enriched sermonem patrium (5 7 )· There is, moreover, a polemical point, directed against those who allow creativity in the use of words to archaic authors but not to the new, Virgil, Vaiius and—himself. Yet ‘new words’ must not be introduced for their own sake, the Ars deplores empty talk, uersus inopes rerum nugaeque canorae (322)’ New words must ‘point to ’ unexplored territory: si forte necesse est j . . . monstrare. .. abdita rerum (48—9). This is the manner in which ‘appropriateness’ arises out of the present context, although again this term is not mentioned. One can sense a protest in two directions, against the archaizers, who are so well known from the letter to Augustus, and those New Poets to whom a sophisticated use of words was an end and not, as H. thought it should be, a means. Such is the personal and contemporary involvement that in turn now evokes the world of the lyric poems. 478

T h e Poem

The poet’s feeling for words makes them animate: they are bom, live and die. Words are humanized and language shares mutability with man. M utability, and the human emotions that it engenders, thus form the background which is to justify poetic usage, both the common stock of words and new coin­ ages. Permanence in the ever-repeated cycle of the seasons, death leading to new birth, are religious symbols to Greek and Roman readers. In the Odes they often lend emotional stabi­ lity to the poignant transience of the human lot : damna tamen celeres reparant caelestia lunae ; nos ubi decidimus quo pius Aeneas, quo diu es Tullus et Ancus, puluis et umbra sumus. (C. IV. 7. 13-16)

In a sense it is true that the Odes, unlike the Satires, may conjure up death at any moment.1But that does not mean that there is no place for death in the world of the Satires. What differs is the tone. Death dryly points moral lessons in that world, and does not point them very often (S. 11. 2. 132; 3. I22, 15 7 ; 5- 84-8, 104-6). The lessons lack depth and emo­ tional force, as a writer on the Odes has remarked.2 The Epistles, however, occasionally and briefly sound the lyric note: omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum (i. 4· l ?>)>^re tamen restat JVuma quo deuenit et Ancus (1. 6.27, written before the Ode just cited from book iv), hoc sentit, imoriar\ mors ultima linea rerum est (1. 16. 79, cf. 11. 2. 173-9, 207). But the note is never more than occasional. In the present sections of the Ars, death and change yield more poetic capital than they do elsewhere in the hexameter Poems. In the verses 60—9 the tone rises from a well-poised middle level to something akin to lyric intensity. First the epic simile of the changing leaves of the forest (60-2). Next the poignant Simonidean reminiscence, debemur morti nos nostraque (83) and three cases where Nature reasserts her power over 1 F. Solmsen, A J P , l x v iii (1947), 342. 2 S. Commager, T h e O d e s o f H. (1962), 87. 479

The ‘ Ars Poetica * as Horatian Poetry the works of man: m ortalia J a c ta peribu n t (68). So we return to language and the conclusion is drawn, nedum sermonum stet honos et g ra tia uiuax (69). The ‘excursus’, as in the Georgies, contains the poetic substance. What inspires intensity unique in the hexameter poems is the ‘life of language’. Finally a rapid fall, back to the middle style of sermo, 70-2 : if language is thus changeable, words will die and revive under the lordship of Usage. These are notions of grammatical theory made into poetic symbols that qualify the whole of this section. H. has established an intimate connexion between the poetry written in the language and the common stock of the language in its changing aspects. On this understanding the poet’s freedom to create new words is defended. The complexity of this situation is recaptured in the complexity of this piece of poetry. (b) Norms of diction in poetic genres, 73— 88

An abrupt change to a new subject—an apparently elemen­ tary disquisition on the metres of Greek poetic genres. This is a first description of the new topic. Is it a true description? Not entirely true. In the first place, the subject is metre only in a superficial sense. For the varying metre simply indicates the genres, with the diction of which H. concerns himself. Secondly, it is hard to dissociate advanced from elementary. What could be more difficult than a just appreciation of the major Greek genres and their styles? Thirdly, this is not literary history for its own sake. Rather select genres are offered as so many settings for different kinds of diction. The settings are largely defined by metre and by the ‘inventor’ of the genre, but the terms are generous and wide. A first reading, up to 65? fixes these apparently historical data in the reader’s mind. But clearly this is done because H. demands diverse styles for diverse genres. The precedence assigned to the genres serves to establish their ideal diversity before the purpose of this exercise is disclosed. For 86—8, a ‘link passage’, puts it beyond doubt that the norms of diction should change according to 480

The Poem

these genres, uices operumque colores. A backward glance then shows literary history with an ulterior purpose. The reader addressed is the Roman poet-learner; he must train himself to observe, in his own writing, the diversity of the great Greek genres about which he has just been told. Thus the section that started as literary history is brought back to the context of diction. At the end, in unobtrusive fashion, the two earlier motifs of appropriateness and ars are continued, and are meant to give purpose to the literary history— uices operumque colores and nequeo ignoroque, nescire and discere. (c) Styles of diction, exemplified from drama, 89-118

There has been a narrowing of scope as H. passed from words (e)’ which concerned all poetry, to the styles of different genres (b), to the diction of drama, in general terms touched on before (80-2). The layout of this section, and its key-term, the appropriate ’—decens, derives ultimately from Aristotle, hut, unlike the philosopher, H. regards the rightness of tone as a technical problem which the poet must learn to master from inside. H. once again begins with an antithesis, contrasting sharply the dramatic circumstances of the two genres that are poles apart, comedy and tragedy. The contrast is intensified by the terseness and directness with which it is put: not res comica and tragica but res comica refusing to be expressed uersibus tragicis. Literal and metaphorical, fact and abstraction tend to nourish each other in H .’s imagination. Comedy and tra­ gedy thus become agents possessing a volition of their own. °t only does the genre pass easily from the general term to a single instance—cena Thyestae—but to the dramatis personae themselves: Chremes, Telephus, Peleus. The labels ‘personication’ and ‘metonymy’ (89 n.) may have their uses but they tell us little about the way poetic language works. What noeds to be noted is the nature of the Horatian style, which, Without a strain, encompasses logical variables in a continuous Movement from abstract to concrete or from concrete to 31 481 ΒΗΛ

The ‘ A rs Poetica ’ as H oratian Poetry

abstract. This is an essential feature in a poem which turns the abstractions of literary theory into the concreteness of live poetry. Having set up two contrary styles—the ‘ appropriate place ’ for comedy and another for tragedy (89—92)—H. proceeds to break down what might be a rigid and unreal distinction. Chremes, the comic type-figure, in his anger, may occasion­ ally reach almost tragic emotion. In tragedy, on the other hand, Telephus or Peleus, in the misery of poverty or exile, may touch the spectator’s heart with a realistic lament which strikes ancient feeling for style as near-comic or prosaic (93-8) · Comic diction is thus raised to a level close to tragic dignity, just as tragic is lowered to near-comic realism, the hero flinging aside the ampullae of his lofty genre. In either case emotion (Aristotle’s πάθος) is involved and diction must be related (be appropriate) to the emotions engendered by the drama. So that the passage functions as a transition from the context o f ‘dramatic circumstance5 to that o f ‘emotion’. Now emotion, pathos, comes into its own (99-113) · A be­ liever in the canons of classical art and literature may feel content with poems shaped according to the demands of formal perfection, pulchra poemata. Not so H ., the classic par excellence : non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto (99) > psychagogia is needed ( 100). A plea for sincerity—a rarish plea in ancient literature—colours H .’s manner of writing: ut ridentibus arrident. And there is an address inspired by sym­ pathy with the dramatis personae of the last section: si uis me flere.. . | ...tunc tua me infortunia laedent, | Telephe uel Peleu (102-4). Hence the series of ‘appropriate’ styles, tristia maestum / uultum uerba decent, and equally anger, playful mood, seriousness (105-7). H .’s psychology demands this close link between utterance and the emotion felt. Unless the emotion is genuine, diction will not sound true (108—10). So he can turn back to the ‘circumstances’ of the dramatis personae and the attendant emotions. Words will not carry conviction unless they are inspired by emotion, and if they do not carry 482

The Poem

conviction they will sound stilted and be laughed off the stage (112-13). As in Aristotle, ‘ethos’ follows after ‘circumstance’ and ‘emotion’; the same demand is made. Diction must express character and type of person (114) ; that is the conclusion the reader will rightly draw from the ‘link passage’ (112-13) and the interent multum immediately thereafter. But the brisk cata­ logue of antithetic types is quite different in style from the preceding plea to meet emotion with sympathetic emotion. Distinguish by their speech god and hero, old and young, and so forth. Here the topic of diction, the facundia of 41, comes to a close. The next verse (119) pronounces on ‘subject-matter’, and wherever ‘ diction’ appears again on the agenda it is set ln a different framework. Arrangement and Diction seen from the end of this section, 118 back to 46/45, 44-2

It is time to turn back once more, taking the long view of the whole of this section. Certain new features come into promin­ ence, and help to clarify what H. has been trying to do. He has not only availed himself of the conceptual framework of the literary critics but has also decided to compete with them m his own way. The evidence shows that there is a framework which relates to the notions of ancient literary criticism. To deny that there is a progression of thought from on/ö-arrangement (42-4) to facundia~àiction (46/45-118) is to fly in the face of the evidence. And it was arrangement and diction—two fixed points in virtually every ancient discussion of style—that were selected for mention at the end of the previous section, and there contrasted with res, ‘subject-matter’ (41)· Moreover within the topic of diction there is a progression from ‘words , which apply to all poetry (46/45-72), to the more selective treatment °f style in the various genres (73-88), and a yet more selective 483

31-2

The i A rs Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

piece on dramatic diction (89-118). These headings are no more but also no less important to the Ars than are pre­ determined subjects—such as a hymn or an invitation—to the lyric poems in which they occur. The scope of such predeter­ mined matters is limited. It is worth remembering, too, that these literary terms are heavy abstractions. Unilinear pro­ gression from one abstract topic to another is a prosaic notion— not per se a promising poetic procedure. If H. had done no more, all that could be said is that he employed these notions but played them down, perhaps enlivening them by the tech­ nique of sermo—a minor achievement if achievement it be. But then, looking back from this point, we note, as we have noted before, that H. has imposed other patterns on the oneline arrangement of the literary critics. When he has finished with his first discussion of style, he sums up the different genres and their concomitant tones by descriptas. .. uices operumque colores (86), a kind of appropriateness of diction to poetic genre. The subsequent little section he concludes by telling tragedy and comedy to keep locum decentem allotted to each (92) ; decens denotes what is ‘ becoming5 or (appropriate . The same procedure is followed when emotion and character come up for consideration : tristia maestum | uultum uerba decent (105-6) starts the last sentence dealing with emotional dic­ tion, and intererit multum (114) introduces character-study, taking up the absona dicta of the clink passage ’ ( 112). Here a large context with its technical subdivisions is guided, as it were, by the overriding principle of decens, which sounds less forbidding in Latin than cappropriate ’ o r cbecoming’ in Eng­ lish. In any case a glance at many passages will show the light touch with which these notions are employed. Something is right in its place; something may be related to a principle; parts of a larger whole fit together—all this, in Latin, decet. While it is worth noting, therefore, that the word decens appears after we are well into the poem (92), and its fore­ runners, the descriptae uices and the colores, do not appear much earlier (86), it is still true that the principle inherent in decens 484

The Poem

has been with us from the very first. For what are unity or wholeness (1-37) if not an appropriate (decens) relation of the parts of an organism, painting, poem, or what you will? Again, what is the unity of arrangement and diction, so promisingly tied to the right choice of subject-matter (40-1), if not the appropriate relation of all aspects of a poem to each other, the coalescing of word and thought, form and matter, the Horatian poet’s ultimate goal? In the distinct terms of literary theory there is no clear connexion between the ‘unity ’ of the initial part of the Ars and the decens of the present ; but in a wider poetic sense there is. H. seems so to have arranged the poem up to this point that the various symbols which are used to describe the relation of unity to multiplicity, and of content to style and arrangement, suggest a regulative principle which he calls ‘appropriate’ (decens). The same technique is used in dealing with the motif of ars. From si caret arte (31) to ponere totum ( nesciet (34- 5) 5 the discrimination practised in the choice of words and in callida iunctura (46/45 if.), to ignoro (87) in the next section, and to the training which will enable the poet to meet the difficult con­ ditions laid down for manipulating the varying styles even in the same genre—everywhere we find the same motif of ars, but entwined with others to which ars is applied. To work in this manner, with motifs, amounts to an ordering and structuring of the poet’s experience. H. applies his techffique in the same way as he does in other poems only that here that technique itself is his subject. Here as elsewhere H. s motifs are few in num ber but their complexity is great. Dif­ ferent patterns arise according to the point of vantage from which you scan the poem. I f the first 118 verses are read with a traditional literary division in mind, the reader will find unity, wholeness, and the necessity of ars, followed by arrange­ ment and diction. I f they are read with larger principles in mind, he will find the motifs of ars and decens qualifying the simpler division. . Nor are the terms a few simple and rigid abstractions. H. 485

The ‘Ars Poetica’ as Horatian Poetry sets art against talent, unity against multiplicity, tragic diction against comic, and so forth. In each case the unity lies in the balance that he strikes between such contraries. With accustomed agility he moves between abstract and concrete, factual and symbolic, res comica and Chremes, uersus tragici and ampullae. This kind of imagination, and the technique thus evolved, help to break down and build anew what was once a fairly staid literary theory. Thus poetics is drawn into action. The theory of poetry is turned into a poem that, by its quality, expresses what the literary critic can only teach in conceptual terms. (ΙΠ.

1. 2.

S u b je c t-m a tte r a n d c h a r a c te r in p o e try , 119-52)

Traditional and new subjects {characters), ng-30 How to make a traditional subject the poet's own; Homer and the cyclic

epic> 131-52 (1) Traditional and new subjects (characters), 119-30

This major break combines with a ‘gliding transition’ the abrupt change of topic that is so common within the larger sections of this and other Horatian poems. The few major breaks in the Ars show the same combination. At the start of the last section of all, ingenium misera (295) marks the abrupt turn to the new topic, ‘the poet’, but the transitional subject is the cult of ingenium, which has been delicately prepared in the preceding section from 285 onward or earlier. Something at any rate like itis found at 42 and 45, where arrangement and diction mark two new contexts, cut off from the poet’s choice of subject and his personal talent, on which the previous para­ graph dilates (38 ff.). Nevertheless arrangement and diction were brought into the discussion of talent, at 41, and thus form a bridge from one context to the next. The abrupt break at 153, in spite of continuing attention to ‘character’, may serve a similar purpose. At the outset an injunction, and an inescapable ‘eithero r’ (119): the learner is faced with two kinds of subject, 486

T h e Poem

traditional or of his own making. This marks the new topic but it is shown at once from w hat angle the poet wants the reader to view the new topic; other viewpoints will appear presently. H. describes subject-matter in terms of its ‘heroes’ —not the mythos oxfama of the Trojan W ar or the Seven against Thebes but Achilles, M edea, Ino, Ixion, Io, and Orestes a personalized view of things which doubtless was shared by many of his contemporaries. In poetic terms this has the advantage that he can employ the notion of ‘character’ as a bridge to the preceding section. There ethos was impersonal as it were—status, age, calling, provenance. Here ethos is still typical— Io uaga, tristis Orestes (124)—but the features belong to persons as they fit certain myths of the ancient tradition. In the preceding section ethos was looked at from the view­ point of diction, here from the viewpoint of content, story, myth. A third m otif must not be overlooked. Appropriateness or consistency is a quality th at ties this section to all that has gone before. So far then the evidence: ‘content, myth, story’ provide the basic literary theory, which is seen in terms of personal character with traits demanding consistency of treatment. This is a rich texture and the three strands are all tied together in the initial two verses (119-20): aut famam sequere—the literary theory—aut sibi conuenientia finge the literary theory again b u t also the motif of consistency in daringly H oratian terseness. For conuenientia is the grammatical object of finge, and implies th at the consistency which the inventor ’ has to strive for is already guaranteed by thefama— but next si forte reponis Achillem, the fama is expressed in terms of character. Deft character-study continues this line, each persona receiving no more than one telling epithet apart from Achilles whose exemplary case receives more attention. The vista is then narrowed to the stage (scaenae, 125, probably prepared by reponis, 120) and the ‘inventor’ receives attent!°n. His difficulty, as H. sees it, lies in rendering communia (general or typical features) proprie, that is, making them mto characters which carry a story as consistently as the set 487

The ‘A rs Poetica? as Horatian Poetry

personages of a traditional myth do, where that work has been done already by fama. Hence H .’s advice in favour of the latter subjects. (2) How to make a traditional subject the poet’s own; Homer and the cyclic epic, 131-52

H. saw salvation not in originality à tout prix but in revital­ izing, and being revitalized by, a tradition. His creed declares his and his friends’ poetic experience. The Augustans had reacted with originality to the ancient Greek tradition. Hence the poet is told that he should prefer traditional subjects; hence too he is advised to learn how to make traditional subjects, publica materies, his own, priuati iuris (131). Such a description will fit the learner’s work. But it will fit also great things, the Aeneid and the Odes, which are publica materies and yet eminently priuati iuris—a welcome reminder, though not the only one, to reprove those who complain that the Ars has no dealings with Roman, Augustan, or Horatian poetry. Although the large abstractions of literary theory are seen in the background, H. here shows the poet at work. He seems to be talking of the realities of the world around him—the crowded and well-trodden round, the translator at work, the narrow hole in which the imitator gets stuck, etc. In fact these are literary symbols, which H. deftly relates to poetic faults. ‘Subject-matter which belongs to all will become private property’ only if certain mistakes are avoided. In each case there is a metaphor with its attendant overtones. The ‘ trivial and well-trodden round ’ suggests Callimachus’ opposition to crowded roads (132), the orbis containing the first hint that the cyclic epic is not far away. The literal versions of the fidus interpres (133-4) are arraigned not because of their diction but as a failure to deal with publica materies ; the reference is to a type of exercise much practised in antiquity. Slavish imi­ tation is like a jump into a narrow space, the ‘law of the genre’ stifling instead of promoting creativity (134-5)— narrowness, whereas at first the area was too wide, and open 488

The Poem

to all (132). Finally the proem of a humdrum, ‘cyclic’, epic; it takes us back to the notion of unity early in the poem: 138 tanto.. .promissor hiatu, 14 inceptis grauibus. . . et magna professis. The large and unfulfilled promise, realistically set down, suggests in tu rn the proverb of the mountain in labour with its Hellenistic nuances (139 n.). Having barred the escape routes, H. sets the Homeric pro­ cedure against the cyclic, not precisely an easy assignment for the aspiring poet. I t is the procedure of ‘ him who engineers nothing foolishly’ (140), the ideal exponent of ars and in­ genium alike, who is great enough to be identified by descrip­ tion and citation. T he proem of the Odyssey sets the tone for the rest and it is the right tone. Homeric aptness is concen­ trated in a vigorous image, exfumo dare lucem (143)—the light of Homer’s oeconomia, which is then shed on the miracula of his episodes. But there is no talk o f ‘unity and episodes’, only imagery (143-4) and the fairy-tales conjured up by a verse consisting entirely of rom antic Greek names distributed cunningly over the line (145). T he miracula, fictional as they were known to be, are fitted without strain into the mythical events which were believed to be true to history. Only then is literary theory assigned the task of summing up in conceptual terms what has already been expressed in picture-language. Homer’s poetic economy is described by ad euentum and in medias res (148-9) and his art of omission is noted (150). Finally it is claimed that ‘tru th ’ (the assumed historicity of heroic myth, the main line of his narrative) and fiction (the miracula admired above) form a coherent unity (151-2). . Thus primo ne medium, medio ne discrepet imum (152) closes the circle begun at the beginning of this section. For that is how Homer has joined fama and fiction (119), making the two cohere in a m anner which the innovator would have to create afresh (126-7). Thus H om er performed the task, set up as an ideal (at 13 1), of making tradition his own. But primo ne medium tells us more than that. For significantly it varies the notions of the initial section. ‘U n ity ’ was there seen to arise from an 489

The ‘Ars Poetica’ as Horatian Poetry

organic relation of parts, continued by other notions implying appropriateness’. Here a similar idea appears as the inherent harmony of the mythical diversities which Homer has been able to achieve. Homer’s procedure in unifying his subject-matter is, in the first place, a narrative ideal; it belongs to the Greek epic genre or to the Latin, to Homer or to Virgil. But the earlier part of the section has shown the same notion in the setting of drama. We must go further still, for H. makes his point so gen­ erally that it has an application to poetry, whatever its genre. I for one find it hard not to see the ideal of in medias res realized at the beginning of this poem, though there are other in­ stances in H. Commentators are not always aware that when they admire the dramatic impact of humano capiti ceruicem pictor equinam ( i ) and describe it by saying ‘in medias res ’, they are in fact describing this Homerie procedure, as H. here puts it in terms of traditional literary theory. I regard this as a telling example of Horatian complexity. IV. Drama, 153-294

i. Characters, 153-78 2-5. Interdicts, 179-92 6. Chorus, 193-201 7. Music, 202-19 8. Satyric drama, 220-50 9. Metre, 251-74 10. Greek drama, tragic and comic, 275-84 11. Roman drama, tragic and comic, 285— 94 (1) Characters, 153-78

Now there are no more pronouncements on subject-matter, nor examples from Homer. Instead the reader is addressed and his attention is called to a new topic. This marks a strong break. Drama, the genre of genres, is now under discussion, no longer as an instance of diction or content, but qua drama ; its aspects are at first undefined. Yet other patterns of thought 490

T h e Poem

continue across this boundary line. Surprisingly we find H. facing the reader with a splendid series of pen-portraits : the four ages of man. I t is character once again, the specific topic close to 115—16 maturusne senex an adhucflorente iuuenta | Jeruidus. But now no attention is paid to what characters say (loquatur 114) or to the dom inant traits of individuals (120 fif.). What matters is action; mores must be lifelike in accordance with age. Thus the motif of mores is carried on; the many-sidedness of the human personality and the complexity of the poetic task are shown by the same modus operandi. Ethos, in this poem, is set in different poetic fields— diction, subject-matter, dramatic action. Each time the poet must adapt his creation to external factors ; hence, not surprisingly, appropriateness, here decor, is inculcated as well : mobilibusque decor naturis dandus et annis (157). The pen-portraits differ in tone and intent from the ‘theory’ that precedes and follows them. The piece stands as an ethology’ in its own right, both in length and emphasis, a demonstration of w hat is required of the poet, not only the dramatist. The same sharp eye for typical moral features which elsewhere characterizes H .’s writing is at work here; he is demanding of others w hat he demands of himself. Ethology was a literary form employed by the philosophers and orators. Often H. translated Aristotelian theory into poetic practice. In this passage however, just for once, he seems to enter into competition with Aristotle, or the Aristo­ telians, in the same field. I have tried to show in my commen­ tary how the celebrated piece from the Rhetoric (11. 12-14) differs in spite of basic similarities of genre. ^ ^ “(5) I n t e r d i c t s , 179-92

These interdicts (with one exception post-Aristotelian) mark a striking contrast to the long descriptive piece that precedes and the injunction that follows. Prescriptions must be brief, sf'1d H. elsewhere (335), and so are these. In fact, they get norter and more imperious each time ; ten lines on horrors and improbabilities enacted on the stage, two on plays longer 491

The ‘ Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

or shorter than five acts, one line plus enjambement on an unmotivated deus ex machina, and the rest of the line on speak­ ing parts exceeding three. They all restrict the working forms of a luxuriating genre. H .’s way of talking is negative, and brings out objectionable features, but there is a criterion of fitness behind these interdicts: the form that ‘the appropriate’ takes in this section. The visual sense has an important func­ tion in drama, but for this reason nothing must be shown on the stage that unduly strains sensibility or credibility (intus | digna geri, 182-3); hence H. dwells realistically on revolting incidents—Medea killing her children on the stage—or sensa­ tional and incredible ones—Atreus cooking human entrails, the metamorphosis of Procne or Cadmus. A drama must be neither shorter nor longer than five acts; this is assumed as a right mean. A deus ex machina must not appear unless this solution is appropriate to the kind of plot intended ; dignus again (191). And, finally, the exclusion of a fourth speaking part. Such are the technicalities that will serve to concentrate the dramatic form. As before ( 153-6) the inherent appropriateness of the drama is claimed as a guarantee for its success ( 190). (6) Chorus, 193-201

That the function of the Chorus must evince the same inherent quality is one of H .’s two lessons. ‘Appropriateness’ thus serves as a link with the preceding injunctions and the more so because the motif, now strongly expressed, is the only interdict in an otherwise prescriptive setting : the Chorus must take an actor’s part and not sing as a mere interlude between the acts of a play quod non proposito conducat et haereat apte ( ΐ 9 5 λ H.’s second lesson is moral. The Chorus must be the mouth­ piece of accepted morality and this note is sounded in language reminiscent of choral wisdom in Greek classical tragedy. There is more allusiveness here than we can now establish (196-201 nn.). But the tone of this section is clearly set; the aptum of literary theory turned into the sententiousness of the choral passages of tragoedia moralis. 492

T h e Poem (7) Music, 202-19

The step from the Chorus to music is small but the two pieces differ widely in character. T here is a jum p in medias res when H. {202) starts to retail as it were the rake’s progress, with tibia, the pipe, cast as a villainous character; the piper does not take the place of the pipe until the last sentence (215). This piece pushes descriptiveness hard against the prescrip­ tions of the last. H. is now as descriptive as he was in drawing the four ages of m an ( 156). But this time the picture is quasihistorical. Society, at two typified stages of its development, reacts quite differently to music in the theatre. In early times simple music was condoned; the primitive audiences took it for granted that music would play second fiddle to poetry. At a later and more civilized stage audiences demanded more sophistication and music invaded the domain of poetry. The two stages are ethnically indistinct. A part from a slight Roman touch (in Genius, 210) H . may be talking of Greece or Rome °r both. But contem porary application is certain: H. starts, tibia non ut nunc. His own judgem ent is not made explicit. But clearly the narrative shows that for this poet as for many others the verbal arts have a prior claim; music provides an accompaniment. T h at and no more is its proper function. Of the primitive tibia he says, adesse choris erat utilis (204) ; which is the shape th at appropriateness takes in this section. While there is no legislating, H .’s adm iration for the simplicity of archaic music is clearly marked and so is his condemnation of theatre-music as an art in its own right. He might have sympathized with Goethe enjoying settings of his poems by a second-rate contemporary, but ignoring Schubert. Modern tausic is described as luxuriating—luxuriem addidit arti (214)· ft spoils the verbal arts; w hat results is facundia praeceps (217)· The charming picture of primitive society and the garish colours of its modern counterpart tell the same story. The motive th at induced H . to present a narrative rather than a prescription is likely to have been not only his desire 493

The ‘ Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

for variation but a recognition of fact. Music in H .’s time was what it was and his objections would not have changed it. This piece of story-telling therefore may be compared to the section on ancient poetry (391 if.). For there too an ideal is set up in a mythical past. (8) Satyric drama, 220-50

If H. had adopted from the literary theorists a simple and unilinear scheme he would have placed Satyric drama along with the various dramatic forms, either between tragedy and comedy (280), or even after comedy (284). What he has done is more interesting and suggestive. He has talked about the Satyri not as a dramatic genre but as part of his instruction in the craft of framing a classical tragedy. After the Chorus, which must not be merely an accompaniment, and after music, which—in H .’s view, unfortunately—is not such an accompaniment, there follows Satyric drama. This is a dif­ ferent kind of ‘accompaniment’ of tragedy—an exodium or Nachspiel. As F. Klingner has suggested,1 H. seeks, and ob­ tains, the strategic advantage of a transition from the primitive feeling for what is appropriate in music to a similar one in relaxing the tension of tragedy by Satyric jest, without violating tragic dignity: incolumi grauitate iocum temptauit (222). But that is not all, for the appropriateness that H. so warmly admires here appears as something very Horatian, a golden mean between the high style of tragedy and the realism 01 comedy, which is easy to define but exceedingly hard to achieve. In the different medium of Singspiel, many centuries later, Mozart achieved something similar in ‘The Magic Flute’. Once again the reader can see for himself that H. is not content merely to describe or define—the style of Satyric drama should hold a balance between two opposed genres etc.—but the wording itself recaptures reality; it communi­ cates an experience. Three times is the notion of a poetic mean brought out by 1 BVSA, Lxxxvin. 3 (1937), 34.

494

The Poem

the structure of the poetry. In H .’s view Satyric drama re­ laxes the high seriousness of tragedy ; yet it is not realistically comic. Each group of Satyric characters is shown to achieve its own mean in its own way, and so in each case does H .’s style. First (225 ff.) gods and heroes, just now personae of tragedy, must credibly remain gods and heroes. Yet their diction must neither rise to tragic heights, disappearing in clouds of grandeur, nor on the other hand descend from the palace to the hovel, Satyric drama is like a matrona who relaxes propriety just enough to agree to a dance on the occasion of a festival, ita. . .ita .. .ita .. .ne.. .aut mark the logical structure; the imagery is inseparable from the personae. Next (234 if., 239) Silenus; he lacks the grandeur of the first group, but has his own dignity as famulus dei. Thus his speech too requires a mean, but a different one. It must neither be colloquial nor in its simplicity impinge on the realism of comedy. This is the very centre as it were of the middle range, and hence the occasion for a ‘ technical ’ pronouncement on diction. If the use of ordinary vocabulary is permitted, then anybody might hope for success in this genre. But the tone must be raised by the context in which the words are placed a hard thing to achieve; tantum series iuncturaque pollet. So here again is a mean: non. . .necsic. . .u t.. .ne.. .an. Finally (244 ff.), on the lowest rung of the short ladder, the chorus of the adolescent Satyrs. Here the jocularity of this gay genre has to be carefully assessed ; ne.. . aut.. . aut secure the logical structure. But once more the imagery is distinctive because the personages are distinct. In the vernacular the Satyrs are Fauns ; by tradition they are youths. After their recent immi­ gration from the forests, they must not speak as if they were natives of the city. Their talk must suggest neither of two modern types—the smutty jokes of the Roman gutter, or the delicate sensibility of the well-born. The length and weight assigned to this topic are obvious hut this is also one of the most imaginatively organized pieces in the whole poem, series iuncturaque pollet (242) reformulates 495

The ‘ Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry a much-heralded ruling from an earlier part of the poem. This ruling is now applied to the Satyric genre in order to inculcate what is surely a cherished Horatian conviction : the subtle touch of art that has become nature. This conviction together with the address to the Pisos (235) and the personal involvement made public by the poet (234) suggests that H. meant to give precisely the emphasis to this subject which many moderns stoutly deny it. (9) Metre, 251-74

Metre and music have a certain resemblance of topic ; Satyric drama, which H. has placed between them, resembles neither. Moreover the new context, at its very beginning, dissociates the present new topic from its predecessor. It is only in the course of the piece that the strategic gain of this placing becomes apparent. The gain does not lie in any connexion, overt or concealed, with Satyric drama, except that both are linked with dramatic techniques, the subject of the larger section to which they belong. Metre comes last before the final material point. H. makes metre the criterion of com­ petence in the art so that the reader will accept it before he views the dramatic forms at the end of the section. The cri­ terion is developed poetically in the course of the piece on metre. This then is how the poet proceeds. The beginning in medias res—H. not saying ‘ now I will talk of metre ’ but humorously offering a lesson in the art, a trite definition of the dialoguemetre of drama, the iambus. The elementary lecturing sty e is reminiscent of the apparent truism on ordo (42). I n bo instances the humour lies in the manner, not in the substance. Few of H .’s readers, if any, would have to be told that an iambus is defined by ‘short long’. What they do require is an ear trained to sense the application of this rhythm. Is there enough ‘short long’ in a trimeter consisting of iambuses an ^ spondees? The apparent truism quickly collapses. ‘Iambus himself takes over, personified as was the pipe, tibia, in the 496

The Poem

piece on music. Thus humour persists, mitigating the serious­ ness of the charge of ignorance or carelessness. It is hard to resent criticism if, by an urbane conceit, ‘Iambus’ himself becomes the plaintiff charging with incompetence the archaic Roman playwrights and modern critics alike. Roman poets and critics then turn out to be a crew of amateurs, and atten­ tion is directed to their Greek predecessors who cannot be so described. For poetic sufficiency, even where more than ‘mere tech­ nique’ is concerned, H .’s vocabulary offers two notions above all, appropriateness and art, major motifs in this poem. In the large section on dram a the former has been well to the fore, while the latter has been no more than implied in the tech­ nical demands made of the dramatist. In the present piece the procedure is reversed. The ‘legitimate sound’ (274) im" plies, but does no more than imply, the right or appropriate sound. But the motif of ars is made explicit at the climax of the piece. Hence the attack on Roman ars ignorata, its lack of opera and cura (261-2). When H. in the Ars talks of Roman poetry he usually points out its shortcomings or sets up a new ideal for its practitioners. When he talks of Greek poetry he rarely does so except in terms of admiration. When he mentions the names °f poets or other writers up to this point (with the one important exception of 54-6, where inventiveness in the creation of new Latin words is generously recognized) they are Greek, for the avowed purpose of orientating Latin letters. Roman poetry receives mention only in terms of censure. Yet Roman and Greek have not before this passage been made to confront each other. Now H. leads the way to such a comparison in characteristically unobtrusive fashion. ' Iambus ’ has charged Accius and Ennius with neglect and ignorance ; ‘ Roman poets’ are seen to be allowed an unworthy latitude. Romani (264) generalizes the poets already named. It is not until a few verses later that Roman calls forth Greek. The different qualities of the two nations are contrasted. It is 32

497

BHA

The ‘ Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

Graeca that qualifies the word exemplaria. The exemplars for Romans are Greek because, it is implied but not here said, Graeci laudem meruerunt, not only uitauerunt culpam (267—8)· H .’s pronouncement lacks all portentousness, partly because of the brief moment in which it flashes across the screen the reader is required to fill the logical gap between non laudem merui and exemplaria Graeca—and partly because of the realistic, half-humorous, notion o f ‘thum bing’, which turns the exem plars’ into copies of books. O n such an assessment comedy fails as much as tragedy; Plautus’ metre is alleged to be deficient, his wit gross. Thus the thought returns to the main subject, the halting vehicle of Latin verse, by which, to Augustan ears, Roman poetic production stands condemned. ( io)-( ii ) Greek and Roman drama, 275-84» 285-94

Students of H. have felt puzzled by this piece, particularly its first half. Why, they ask, does H. crown a large and important section of the Ars by a bit of Greek literary history, archaic, incomplete, irrelevant to his subject? The question is wrongly put. The relevance, if there be any, must be poetic and ima­ ginative; we are not dealing with arguments in conceptua terms. H. himself, in his unobtrusive and subtle way, has established links with the preceding piece. In that piece he displays Greek poetry as the great exemplar for Roman com­ petitiveness. Now he demonstrates how the Greeks came to evolve their exemplary procedure in the field of drama. The exemplars earlier (268) derived some of their force from a logical ellipse: the reader had to account himself for the transition from non laudem merui to exemplaria Graeca, and Η. had given him just enough help to do so. Now again no overt link is made between the exemplaria Graeca of the last piece and the specific exemplars of this. It is the virtue of this subtle procedure that once more the reader is required to work out for himself—and if he does, see more clearly—the imaginative progression of H .’s thought. The history of Greek tragedy is, more Aristotelico, taken no 498

T h e Poem

further than the point at which £it reached its inherent nature’ (as the philosopher would have put it), and thus became exemplary for later dramatists. The alleged literary data, however, are largely Alexandrian rather than Aristo­ telian: Thespis’ innovations led to the high style of Aeschylus’ language and production. Next Old Comedy is shown by the key-word laus to be an exemplary genre and the transition to New Comedy—the effective model for the Romans—is sketched in. Such are the exemplars. This leaves Roman drama, tragic and comic alike, with the same double aspect that is familiar from the last piece and other Horatian poems—competitiveness with the Greeks and yet inferiority. A glance back over the whole of the last section will put many details in perspective. Above all note the following. The two motifs of ars and perfection or appro­ priateness, joined in limae labor and castigauit ad unguem, qualify the critical theory, which concerns drama. Thus, with a solemn, perhaps deliberately over-solemn, address to the Pisos, Pompilius sanguis (292), this section closes and, at the same time, affords a glimpse forward, ars was the main subject of the introduction and, later, the motif that coloured each topic of ars poetica, ars now serves to pull all these inter­ vening subjects together, relate them to the introduction and bridge the gap between this and the final part of the poem.

V.

r

The Poet, 295-476

Transition and Introduction,

295-308

2. opes, the acquisition o f the poet's equipment, 309-32 3· (quid deceat, quid non) instruction and delight, 333-46 4- (uirtus and error) poetic perfection and aberration, 347-476 Tw o notions o f poetic fa u lt, 347-60 Poetic excellence clarified by comparison with painting, 361-5 Excellence and mediocrity in the liberal and the useful arts, 366— 78 Competence in the arts, 379-9° (e) True excellence: poets the founders and civilizers o f society, 391_

(a) (b) (c) {d)

407 499

3 2 -2

The ‘A rs Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry i f ) Genius and artistry in literary theory, 408-18 (g) The false critic and the false friend, 419—37 (h) The true critic and the true friend, 438-52 (i) Error personified: the mad poet, 453-76

(1) Transition and Introduction, 295-308

H. distrusted the common distinction between ‘a r t’ and ‘genius’, ars or studium and ingenium. Later, when he talks in the terminology of the literary theorists (408-11), he sub­ scribes to the truistic compromise, ‘ the one cannot do without the other’. Here, and indeed elsewhere in the poem, he offers something more astringent. He so vastly overstates his advo­ cacy of ars over against ingenium that antithesis becomes satire. With style following subject, a Democritean (and Platonic) panegyric on ingenium assigns poetry to creative madness, and bars it to those guided by prudential calculation. H. allows it to be seen how much (he thinks) there is in him of the madness he affects to despise. He is a valetudinarian, his craving for mental health forbids him now to write (lyric) poetry, but by the same token allows him to teach the munus et officium of poetry. Criticism is poetry manquè, and the poet manqué can lecture on what (he pretends) he cannot produce. He puts himself in the posture of a professor of this subject, and for a moment parodies lecturing style. Thus a table of contents arises, as it were, by the way. In an earlier part of the poem (40—1) such a table con­ cerned the ars, here the artifex. First comes the training of the poetic mind (307), next the approved objective of the poet with its negative counterpart attached (308 quid deceat, quid non), and finally the ideal figure of the poetic artifex and again its frustration (308 quo uirtus, quoferat error). The words hint at critical terminology. But H. is not proposing to continue the lecture in these simple conceptual terms. The subsequent thought-patterns are not summarized by this division of topics but, as will be seen, they are slightly related to it.

The Poem (2) ‘opes’, the acquisition o f the poet’s equipment, his philo­ sophy^ sapere ’): h is values and education, ‘res ’and1uerba’, characters and m oral criteria, 309-18; Greek and Roman poetry contrasted, national ethos accounts for difference in attainment, 319— 32

A first cursory reading is likely to leave the reader with the impression of three unconnected essays in literary theory—if ‘theory5 is the word for the highly impressionistic skit at the end. Such a first reading will have to be assisted by a second, which looks back from the position reached at the end of the section. W hat does each reading yield? The first point of the ‘table5 is clearly taken up at the beginning. W hat was announced before (307) as the opes on which the growing mind of the learner can draw, is here disclosed, paradoxically, as moral principle of a rationalistic kind. The principium et fons of scribendi recte is sapere, that ‘knowledge5 which moral theory—‘the Socratic books’—can reveal to the student. ‘W ords’ have been made much of, in the preceding technical instruction, but are now demoted. At 4 1 they were given second place to the right choice of a task, there called res. Here (311 ) they must take second place to res, subject-matter. The poet must have something to say; poetic substance comes first. But H. is not here describing the process of poetic creation. He knew as well as anyone that, in a sense, the distinction res-uerba is unreal. He is setting out the poet’s education. The demand is that there shall be moral principle at the root of his mind. A person without such a principle will not be able to gauge the right tone for his characters. Such are the grounds for H .’s objecting to nugae canorae (322), the empty tinkle of fashionable but insubstantial verse. Poetry, he believes, is concerned with life and life with mores, but mores with an understanding of principle. Thus two of H .’s motifs are used to shape the present sec­ tion. First mores, a major motif in the sections on style and subject-matter, mores now reappear, in a manner disconcerting 5° i

The ‘A rs Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

to the amoralist among literary critics. The virtues—and by implication, vices—of man in society must be impressed on the young poet’s mind (312-17). That, it is claimed, enables him to judge and represent reality, makes him a doctus imitator. Thus the generality and abstraction of moral theory precede the particularity of poetic production. Closely entwined with mores is appropriateness, that ubi­ quitous concept. How to get a poetic character right has been a repeated concern before. Here it is the concern of poeta, this poet and all poets, conuenientia cuique (316) is what Socraticae chartae are to teach. Then there is an abrupt break and the reader is informed that a moralistic play although it lacks artistic merit some­ times has a greater effect on audiences than the tuneful trifles that lack res (319-22). This clearly belongs to the preceding context; how it does, H. does not tell. The next break is more abrupt still (323). The Greeks, we are told, are endowed with genius and rounded speech, free from greed, except the desire for glory. The Romans—and then there follows a spirited caricature of a lesson in arith­ metic, which is supposed to show the young mind corroded with a desire for gain. How can such minds create true and lasting poetry? Such is the final question (330—2). Abrupt these gyrations may be at first sight. But the abrupt­ ness is deliberate. It draws the mind away from overt con­ nexions and opens it to others that are more complex and less explicit. Looking back from the end, we find last a leading question (330—2)—‘can we hope to produce lasting poetry if our minds are early corroded by a materialistic education? aerugo and curapeculi (33°) take up the preceding satiric picture Roman education (325—30). Without the final question that picture might have remained an affectionate skit; but with the final question humour changes to bitter sarcasm and we remember that the Roman lesson in arithmetic marked a strong antithesis to the preceding panegyric o f cthe Greeks ’, the ingenium and the ore rotundo loqui granted them by the muse 502

The Poem

(3 23 ~4 ) · The Greeks are praeter laudem nullius auari (324). If this essay in national psychology gives a new turn to the earlier contexts, and does so by suggestion and not by argu­ ment, what is that new turn? That the preceding two pieces are related to each other, though merely juxtaposed in syntax, has already been main­ tained. A moralistic play sans art is at times more successful with an audience than art that has nothing to say, Part pour I art (319-22). Such a play seems to possess the res and mores of the preceding context (310-18) but not the uerba that were there said to be spontaneously superadded (311). H. starts by making dogmatic statements. The second piece, through a kind of dialectic, breaks up rigid doctrine, res without ars may please (? in Rome), but severs form and content, which should, as the Ars teaches, be one and a whole. Once it is seen that this short piece stands in the middle between two contexts, everything falls into place. The implied reference to local practice raises the national problem. The Greeks fulfil H.’s poetic ideal, but the Romans do not. And, it is broadly hinted, Roman values are to be blamed for that. In this way the backward glance reveals the poetic move­ ment over a number of poetic contexts in a large section. The backward glance is needed because the perpetuum mobile of a Horatian poem is not seen to be perpetual until we have reached the final point in the process. Nor is this movement complete within a single section. Sections are not selfcontained. I t is precisely because H. uses an oblique technique of suggestion, rather than a straightforward technique of statement, that he can throw light from the poeta section on all the earlier ones. The first two-thirds of the poem deal with poetic procedures. Consequently, although unity has been a substantive issue from the first, such generalities as ingenium and ars, Greeks and Romans, the concept of character, the function and the appropriateness of poetry, the heroic figure of perfectus poeta—these or some of them have appeared only as accompanying motifs. In the poeta section they appear in

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

their own right, substantiated by what has gone before and clarifying in turn the earlier and more technical aspects. (3) (‘quid deceat, quid non’) instruction and delight, 333-4®

In terms of literary theory there must be a break here. For to instruct and to delight are not activities that could be said to be within the compass of the verse that has proved an adequate summary so far : unde parentur opes, quid alat formetque poetam (307). But it would be within the compass of the next half-verse (quid deceat, quid non 308), though hardly within that of the next, poetic uirtus and error. The question, much ventilated in a moralistic society, is therefore: should the appropriate scope of poetry lie in instruction or entertainment? In terms of a poetic ordering, however, there are some links between this piece and the preceding. For prodesse and delec­ tare are, in a sense, inherent in the res (mores) and nerba o f the last section. A moralistic play (319—20) will answer to the call of prodesse, and falsely to that of delectare (321), whereas, by definition, the nugae canorae (322) can only please—if they are canorae. These two aspects of H .’s procedure, separation and relatedness, are not mutually exclusive, here or anywhere in H. The poet’s opinions here seem strange to the modern mind but are closely related to ancient thinking about poetry. I have elucidated them, as far as I can, and there is no need to repeat the findings of my commentary. What H. says in this section is set down in a brisk style—the style of discourse—■ and the discourse spills over into the technical field of the earlier sections: poetic instruction (prodesse) requires brevity; poetic fiction (delectare) requires verisimilitude. If a poem divorces the two aspects, it will leave the public divided in taste and judgement. Thus the situation of the first section would be repeated (321) ; content and form, truth and fiction appeal to different groups of people, thereby destroying the inherent unity of the two. Hence H .’s concern with a syn­ thesis, which he puts in the form—easily but mistakenly 504

T h e P oem

dismissed—of a Peripatetic compromise : miscuit utile dulci{3 4 3 ). Grai, the ideal poets, achieved a unity of content and form, talent and art. So here prodesse and delectare are joined m an ideal unity—not a weak compromise. (4) (‘uirtus5 and ‘error’) poetic perfection and aberration,

347-476 j f 1 ‘Poems to be preserved’ were looked for at the end ot the section on the doctus imitator (332) · ' P°ems ensuring long ame were the final demand of the last section (346). On both occa­ sions the fame sought was in specific terms, althoug it contained, unclarified and inexplicit, the concepts of per ec tion and imperfection, achievement and fault. Just as an 1 ea of achievement was assumed, certain large faults were t oug t to be excluded. Starting the last and most complex section ot the Ars, H. makes one of his apparently simple, unemphatic, transitions; ‘yet there are venial faults’, he says (3 4 7 )· 1S may be described as a ‘gliding transition . Such transitions do not provide mechanical links between static doctrines u establish connexions that cannot be taken for granted—a n of poetic thought. ‘Venial fault’ is the opening exploratory sally in a series of explorations, all designed to reveal poetic uirtus and error. , , The word ‘ transition ’ implies a change of topic or approac In what sense, it may be asked, is there such a change. ere is, it would appear, a new topic ; for (at any rate m t e poe a section) the concept of delictum (347), soon to be contrastea with its counterpart bonus (35^”9 ) > m a^es a ^rst _aPPearara:e‘ If H. had sufficiently departed from his practice of juxta­ position, he might have marked the new beginning y a logically overriding concept, which would allow a unihnear progression. In that case we would have found n o t on y t e term delieta but uirtus and error repeated from 30 . en rest would have consisted of ‘ sub-sections . That procedure ke has adopted here as little as at 119, where t e su jec changed from diction to subject-matter without any reference 505

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

to 40-1. Since other aims were more important to the poet than a unilinear order, we cannot now tell how much he wished the abstractions of his ‘table of contents’ to impinge on the sequel. Had he cared more, he would presumably have notified his intention. Should one therefore argue that the two concepts, at 3 °^> of decet as well as uirtus, apply to the same thing, poetic perfec­ tion—so that the present context would simply be one of a number of juxtaposed pieces? I do not think so. The piece 309 if. can be described in terms of opes and formare poetam (307). But the piece 333 ff. cannot be described in those terms, and hardly in terms of uirtus (308) ; but decet (308) does describe it. It seems to me equally true that the uirtus and error offer a suitable description of the poem all the way from the present place (347) to the end. I conclude therefore that, although no unilinear progression is intended, the pair uirtuserror serves as the denominator common to the series of con­ texts that now follows. There are no external links to bind together the members of the series. But by subject-matter, judgement, and sentiment the series is by no means uncon­ nected. This I will now attempt to show. (a) Two notions of poetic fault, 347-60 H. does not begin with an affirmative—poetic perfection i s .. ■ He excludes faults, negatively. But as in the realm of morals, virtue is not the absence of faults, there is no anxious hugging of the safe shore. Nor is there a romantic admiration of faults as concomitants of the sublime. W hat we are offered is a poetic analysis of faults; he embodies in two exemplary cases the faults of inability and occasional negligence. One of them is unforgivable, because it denies achievement by definition, the other must be forgiven, because it arises, unavoidably, m a large work : the cases of Choerilus, the proverbial botcher, and of Homer nodding. H. persuades us by the listener s reactions to Choerilus and Homer, asserting his own and gauging ours. The distinction between the two kinds of fault 506

T he Poem

is quickly made. The substance of the case lies in an oblique comparison (354-60), where all the stress falls on a para­ doxical reaction to the two poets—admiration for Choerilus (when, so rarely, he gets something right) and annoyance with Homer (when, so rarely, he gets something wrong). (b) Poetic excellence clarified by comparison with painting, 361-5

This is either a complete change of ambience or, if you will, continuity of argument in a different medium. Both apply, ia a sense. In terms of change, we suddenly hear talk of painting— a poem is like a picture’. And what follows makes it clear that excellence is at stake, no longer faultiness. Some pictures attract more on a cursory glance from afar, others on close scrutiny. The former may please but please only once. Pictorial excellence must satisfy repeated and close inspection: deciens fepetita placebit (365). These are H .’s words and, through the comparison implicit in the first three words—ut pictura poesis (361)—5 it is assumed though not said to be part of the case for poetic excellence. The extremely quotable ut pictura poesis fliay suggest a theory of the arts. No such theory is advanced here, although poetry, not painting, is later set in such a context (366 ff.). The elliptic thought, which allows H. to talk of painting while he is thinking of poetry, is inherent in the poet’s planning. Yet there is continuity, barely concealed. Having admitted artistic fault only as an accidental outcome of uirtus poetica in a long work—Homer’s but not Choerilus’—H. now lifts the quasi-argument on to a new plane. But he does not display the logical links between the two pieces. Excellence may not be faultless, but it must be such as to withstand close critical scrutiny.

507

The ‘A rs Poetica * as Horatian Poetry (c) Excellence and mediocrity in the liberal and the useful arts, 366-78

The poetic analysis of excellence proceeds. H. makes a dis­ tinction between arts useful and liberal, and makes it first in abstract terms ; mediocrity is tolerated in the former but not in the latter. This distinction is preceded by an elaborate and overwhelmingly courteous address (366-9). The elder son of Piso has his attention drawn to the importance of this issue—a well-known device not only of rhetoric but of archaic moral­ istic poetry. But this is not the sole personal feature. Once the distinction between the arts is made, the terms become con­ crete, even personal in another way. A lawyer or barrister need not be a Messala or Cascellius, paragons in their pro­ fessions. Mediocrity has its uses where usefulness provides all that is required. To poetry however a (jocular) cosmic law sets narrow limits; by decree of gods, men, and bookshops, there must be no mediocrity (372—3). To see the case thus overstated has its humour ; the universe is now safely divided between excellence and mediocrity. The little section ends with a touch of malicious realism. Such realism contributes much to the Satires, sometimes grossly. But realism is characteristic of the genre sermo as a whole, and adds its share of incisive amusement to the Epistles. Diners, it is suggested, feel offended by dissonant table-music, thick perfumes at dinner, or bitter Sardinian honey for dessert with the roasted poppy-seeds. The ironic implication—half true, half false—is that a poem resembles the perfumes and the honey: poema, the elliptic comparison suggests, si paulum summo decessit, uergit ad imum. (d) Competence in the arts, 379-90

This time it is appreciated without difficulty that the new topic is only apparently new. The connecting link—excellence—is easily fitted in its place, but its factual absence sets poetry cheek by jowl with odd companions, various kinds of ludere', now 508

The Poem

athletics, and earlier the ‘artists’ concerned with perfumes at table, and with other embellishments and entertainments. Incompetence makes practitioners refrain from the sports of tht Campus. Why not so in poetry? The answer is simple. Poetry is regarded as a gentlemanly pastime where social status, not accomplishment, counts. It is here that the elaborate address to the maior iuuenum (366) needs to be remembered. About that young man we know nothing—except that H. has seen fit to draw him into the poetic fiction of this letter. The iuuenis is not merely the recipient of a dedication. H. uses the dedication for a purpose, and the purpose concerns the poetic structure of his argument. H. has addressed this discourse on excellence in poetry to the young Piso. But more than that, he has marked the stages of the discourse by continued and varied references to him. The biographical motive for this procedure is un­ known; the structural motive however is plain. At 366-7 Piso is credited with poetic insight, prompted both by his father s advice and his own powers. Yet he still seems to require exhor­ tation. hoc tibi dictum j tolle memor marks weighty advice the difference between the arts that tolerate mediocrity and those that do not (368-9). Now we learn a little more. Dilettanti, the rich and aristocratic, may think that social position absolves them from learning ars poetica, though they would not think similarly when ars Campestris is at stake. Piso, H. asserts, will n°t think so. Already his resolve in matters poetic is, ‘ nothing inuita Minerua’ (385). But if he should produce something after all, a trio of formidable critics—Piso senior, Maecius Tarpa, and H. himself—will sit in judgement, nonumque prematur in annum (388), he is reminded into the bargain. The young man therefore serves as an exemplary case. His example validates a truth for all. Just so does H. turn an in­ dividual into a type when he himself speaks in the persona of the literary critic or countryman or lover. He draws poetic capital from the disparity of general case and particular condition. The young Piso then is a corpus nobile—by no means uile upon whom, and to whom, H. demonstrates the demands that 509

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

may generate poetic excellence, and make poetry truly noble —not noble in terms of social nomenclature. Thus such an apparently extraneous feature as Piso’s own qualities becomes an integral part of the poem’s substance. The young man’s exemplary situation, sketched in with great tact in personal terms, individualizes the general discourse on poetic excel­ lence. The Pisonian case serves as a link between the disparate pieces that make up this section. The importance of this link will be borne out by the following context, which has puzzled so many readers, expert and amateur alike. (e ) T ru e e x c e lle n c e : p o e ts , th e fo u n d e r s a n d c iv iliz e r s o f s o c ie ty , 391-407

H. has moved close, perhaps uncomfortably close, to the ‘arts’ of the sports ground and, worse, to music at table, and Sar­ dinian honey. On this showing, if the poet’s uirtus amounts to no more, how to justify the strenuous effort, the conscientious testing, the nonus annusi If the reader puts this question, the sudden lifting of the tone may be H .’s answer. siluestres homines opens the praise of the poeta. Simple juxta­ posing rhetoric sets one of the poet’s uirtutes beside another, from Orpheus in a primitive age to the appearance of Greek drama. Thus H. builds up the imposing picture of the poet as the civilizer of mankind, the founder and preserver of human society. The piece is wholly archaic in subject-matter and tone. It resembles an earlier one, in which an ideal of music was set up in the terms of a bygone age (202 ff.) not what music should be but what it was. So here we are told what poetry once was, although, not unnaturally, the claims are much larger. The two pieces are alike also in pressing no conclusions. H. prescribed as little what music ought to be, as he lays down that, in these modern days, a sophisticated writer of verse ought to become a sacred uates. He draws a picture to look at ; its severe and archaic colouring is meant to exercise what effect it can in its setting. The implicit scope of the piece seems to be to show the 510

The Poem

poet’s impact on the society to which he belongs. The honor et nomen of the nates and his carmina (400-1) derive from his impact upon society as a whole. The mythical part of the story is devoted to this aspect alone and the genres that follow, from Homer’s epic to the dramatists, are chosen for that purpose. H. knew as well as anyone that the poet, in the conditions of the Augustan empire, was not and could not be regarded as prophet, law-giver, philosopher. But, equally, the Augustan poet sees himself as recreating, in modern, sophisti­ cated, conditions, certain features of the archaic uates. H. is not arguing a case. He allows the ideal picture to exercise its fascination. He also allows the ancient uates to clash with the ‘excellences5inherent in the comparison with the arts of the table and sports ground, and the discipline enshrined in nonum.. .prematur in annum. Yet H .’s conclusions are more than implicit. This is the last of the paragraphs held together by an address to the maior iuuenum ; his words at 406—7 are, £so that you may not feel ashamed of Musa lyrae sollers et cantor Apollo ’. The preceding paragraph ended with an exhortation (to the same person), enjoining the skill and perfection which the liber et ingenuus could commonly do without. Now the uates passage demon­ strates to the young Piso that the exertions earlier demanded, so far from being unworthy of a homo nobilis, should really be his own. The poet’s true excellence is seen to have lain in the practices of the ancient uates and his successors. His art eminently belonged to society, res publica. Poetry then is the legitimate art for the nobilis, because, as H. said in the Augustus, the true poet is utilis urbi. ( f ) G en iu s a n d a r tis tr y in lite r a r y th e o r y , 408-18

Many readers here complain of pedestrian and dull writing. The little section is pedestrian; but it is not dull. After the elevation of the section on uates, tone and style are made to drop back to the middle range of sermo. H., adopting a measure of conceptual language, states a theorem. 5 11

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

Why such a theorem in this place ? As often before, particu­ larly in the technical portions of the Ars, H. pulls together what has already been before the reader in picture or symbol, and extracts what can be formulated in the unambiguous language of theory. Holding a rationalistic philosophy, H. is not averse from using an occasional commonplace expressing that philosophy. The theorem is set down not for its own sake but as part of a poetic structure. It acts as a signpost for the reader, pointing to a route through the highly complex poetry preceding and following it. In the preceding paragraphs H. has set before the reader a many-sided picture of poetic excellence, ordered in its later stages (366-407) by the exemplary figure of the noble learner. He now opens up another aspect of uirtus poetica—the equip­ ment of the poet in a wider and more general sense than the opes of which he talked in an earlier section (309 if.). ingenium and ars form one of the unhappy dualities of the theorists which the whole poem is designed to explore and overcome. The pair is often dialectically split into its com­ ponents; ingenium misera (295) and the caricature at the end of the poem are the most impressive instances. In the pre­ ceding paragraphs the two extremes have been juggled in dialectical play, with ars continually summoned, and ingenium providing the counterpoise whenever emphasis on studium might evoke the wrong reaction. I am thinking of such un­ mistakable hints as inulta. . .Minerua (385) or the magic in­ sight claimed for the ancient uates, Orpheus and his kind (391 6F.). The present section eschews dialectical play and anti­ thesis alike. H. permits himself a brief and sidelong glance at the schools of literary theory.cThe problem is raised whether a poem s excellence derives from natural endowment or art’ (408—g). The warring schools are put in their place. On theoretical grounds the problem comes to naught ; both con­ tentions are as true as they are false. But on practical grounds, for the maker, the problem remains open and alive. The poem as a whole teaches how to solve it by poetic means. And even

The Poem

in this place the reader is left with an emphasis on art in the matter-of-fact language of the athlete and the professional performer of music. (g) T he f a ls e c r it ic a n d th e f a ls e fr ie n d , 419-37

This section and the next deal with the literary critic; they continue the subject of the last section. In the cut-and-dried terminology of the literary schools, emendatio, the correction of faults, follows natura and studium. Without criticism and emen­ datio, the theorists would say, the poet’s uirtus cannot be real­ ized. emendatio is literary criticism at its most practical. H., as in other places, first eliminates the negative; having barred aberration, next (at 438) he turns to the right road. To move from this section to the next, is to progress from the false critic, the professional admirer or yes-man, to the true critic. Such a description would be correct in terms of literary theory but in terms of this poem it would be incomplete and misleading. H. has humanized and strengthened the austere exercise of criticism. H e depicts the realities of Roman condi­ tions, the conditions of his own time and circle. At the level envisaged by him the critical operation can be performed only by a like-minded friend, acting as the critical conscience of the poet. Poet and critic must share the same ideals and stan­ dards. As in the 10th satire of book 1, poet and critic belong to the same group of men, doctos.. .et amicos (S. 1. 10. 87), Virgil and Varius but also Maecenas, Messala, Plotius, et al. In the long letter to Florus (Ep. 11. 2. 109 ff.) the true censor is not even another person, alter ego\ it is the critical ego of the poet himself. Once these presuppositions are understood it becomes easier to see what H. is doing in these two sections. His manifest debt to Cicero and Lucilius is the token of the tradition in which he is here placing himself. The false critic is the counter­ feit friend, the toady or parasite—a social phenomenon of the aristocratic world of Rome just as the κόλαξ was a feature of the Greek world. 33

5 !3

BHA

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

The similarities with writings on friendship or flattery, Cicero’s De amicitia above all, to which I have drawn atten­ tion. in my commentary, are not then fortuitous. Cicero regards a flatterer as an immoralist. For a friend is seen as an alter ego, contradicting and exhorting if he respects you as a moral being; but the flatterer praises what he despises. So too H. thinks, except that for him the criterion is poetic uirtus, although his moral involvement is unmistakable. This may be a situation for moral diatribe, but likewise for ridicule. The evidence is just sufficient, for some features at any rate, to show H. in the wake of Lucilius’ Saturae. This spirited piece makes epistle revert to satire. One sentence in particular (431-2) may be set, word for word, beside what appears to be its Lucilian model. The same satiric spirit animates both, but H .’s rhythm, wording, and tension of word-groups combine to create a whole, where the model, followed apparently in detail, fails to do so. The whole section may be described in similar terms: a whole created out of very diverse materials. The rich dilet­ tante appears in the guise of a (perhaps Lucilian) auctioneer—a carefully calculated incompatibility between the aristocratic Dives and the common crier. The benefactor is incapable of knowing the true from the false friend; Dives cannot defend himself against flattery. Now for the flatterer. A tip has changed or may change hands. The recipient seems to be intoxicated with laetitia·, his performance at the dinner-table when the patron’s poems are recited suggests that he is m a trance of admiration. But the flatterer’s world is a lying world. He is (as Lucilius seems to have said) like a professional mourner at a funeral; his mourning is the more outre the less it is ex animo. Dives, it is implied, must learn the justice of the royal procedure ; ply with wine the man whose intentions you want to assess. The false laudator, or friend, needs to be dis­ tinguished from the true. The true critic, whose unbiased criticism proves his friendship, is thus before us by contra­ distinction. 514

The Poem (h) The true critic and the true friend, 43^ 5*

The topic continues but, logically, this section presents an antithesis, which H. brings out by a different poetic form. Satire, in the last section, appropriately expresses incompati­ bility of pretence and pretender ; the literary theory an prac tice, in this section, do not only express the true critic s jo , but show how it is done. There is more to it than that. H. was attracted a ove a y the ethos of the true critic. Since the poet sees criticism in t e personal and emotional terms of friendship, he talks a out a person; he seems to be recounting his own dealings wit t at person—Quintilio si quid recitares (438)· ‘Personal an emo tional’ do not mean a relaxing of critical standar s. n t e contrary the personal warmth that informs these verses derives from a patent admiration for the man who proved his nen ship by remaining the unbribable and stern critic. The section therefore offers not only a Roman restatement of Alexan rian criticism; more than technical skill is involved. T h e m onus et prudens is shown at work, and the influence of a nen 1 e Quintilius on such as H. Poetry so judged involves the whole of a person—his character as well as his mind and imagina tion. It is fitting that at the close of this section two tell-tale words should be made to clash, nugae are mere trifles, ut sena {mala) point to the seriousness of the outcome when a poet as failed to obtain strenuous criticism of what is more t an trifling. (i) Error personified : the mad poet, 453”7®

This is the finale of the poem and there can be no doubt that it answers to the description quoferat enor (308). But it is not o course the only section that so anwers. H. s poetic wor oes not consist in a static opposition of black and white ut in a continuous resolution of insufficient opposites, a wor w ere one assertion usually brings in its antithesis. Anyone tracing the manner whereby H . builds up his picture of poetic exce 515

33-2

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

lence, uirtus, will know that error has been present all the time from the beginning of the uirtus section (at 347)· (l uo ferat error (308) applies throughout. Yet the present section differs from the rest in that the whole of this final sketch is devoted to a caricature of poetic inspiration, a picture of error. ‘Error5 in what sense? Not surely in the sense that H. was a stranger to imaginative ‘madness5. This piece is too arresting for that supposition. The satire on inspiration and the deathwish5 is one of the great satires in European letters. It fascin­ ates because it is written from inside the experience which it professes to ridicule. H. is pretending to write as a detached observer; but that is no more than a poetic fiction. He depicts a poet whose genius is paramount, and lacks the safety device that will restrain him from destroying himself, or destroying others if he should survive. This cautionary story could never have been written without a generous measure of the quality so caricatured. Malebranche, says Voltaire, is brilliantly ima­ ginative in attacking imagination. So is H. His uesanus poeta is a welcome antidote to the neo-classical notion of Horace, the Anacreontic versifier, or indeed to Gocteau’s^/òn libre (above p. 468). This satire, in the scheme of the poem, endorses most effec­ tively the anxieties that, H. asserted, made him forswear poetry for valetudinarian reasons. Thus it links up with the introduction to the long final portion of the Ars (295 ff·)· did not there complain that he lacked ingenium. He did say, sarcastically, that he chose to be cured of a surplus of it. Last of all there is the relation of artifex to ars. The poem when it deals with artifex continually spills over into ars. That is one of the unifying features of the poem, perhaps most strongly marked at the outset and the conclusion. The Ars begins with the caricature of a painting that is all variety and daring, but lacks what would make it into a viable entity ars. The poem ends with the caricature of the artifex who is all imagination, but lacks what would preserve him—ars. In both instances the picture is gruesomely real in its unreality; it has 516

The Poem

the force that earned the French Romantics their nickname, les amateurs du delire ; we have seen much ofthat since. H. how ever is no Romantic. These pieces are caricatures satires set in the framework of ars poetica. Their sharpness is mitigate , not blunted, by humour. The curse of ingenium is relieved y ars and at the base of ars there lie Socraticae chartae. H. writes as the dialectical poet. His strength lies in harnessing contra dictory qualities and attitudes. So far the poem. In my Prolegomena I put forward a claim : that the Ars would reveal its secrets when we had ceased making H. responsible for what is not likely to be his t e outlines of a trivially constructed piece of literary theory-—an had begun making him responsible for what without doubt is his—the features of this Horatian poem. In my commentary and my appraisal of the poem I have tried to make goo t at claim; how successfully readers must judge. If I have een successful, the common charge of triteness must fai w en it is directed not against H .’s poetry but against the material that he subjected to his poetic processes. The Ars has now been read like any other poem m which H. rehandled a traditional form and traditional content, just as he rehandled lyric material in his own way. The evidence suggests that he did not shape but reshape an Ars poetica. a implies that he had such an Ars poetica to reshape, but it oes not imply by any means that he had no other ‘sources . tie raised a traditional piece of criticism to a level where it is no longer mere literary theory. His subject is ancient poetry, y recreating an Ars in fluid and suggestive Horatian patterns, he related it to his own verse but also to much that was a ive in the poetry of his own time. Poetic patterns, through asso­ ciation and suggestion, hint more than they can make explicit. His Ars symbolizes what an ordinary Ars would merely theorize: the nature of ancient poetry, Greek an^ By an economy of means that would be incredi e 1 **· * not seem so natural, he lightly places a new structure on t e 5*7

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatiam Poetry

staid and unpromising sequence of ‘poem ’ and ‘poet’ with some of its conventional subdivisions. The principles which he imposes suit above all Virgil’s poetry and his own, but in different ways all ancient poetry. W hat the principles are we have seen before—unity in a shifting balance with variety, appropriateness and studied art set against inspiration, mores in interplay with style and subject, Roman imagination com­ peting with the great Greek models, and finally H. himself in his varying poetic personae, bringing poetic experience and personal feeling to bear on an apparently self-contained criti­ cal theory and, conversely, attempting to make the ‘demands’ of theory stimulate new practice. Guided by the evidence of the Ars, let us accept then that H. wanted to produce a genuine poem, not a piece of literary theory versified, and let us ask how far he succeeded in what he wanted to do. Such a question could not have been asked, let alone answered, before E. Norden, some sixty years ago, inaugurated a promising line of research ; earlier the poem was taken for granted and poets, critics, and scholars looked to H. for practical guidance. Nor would it have been possible to subject the Ars to the searching literary appraisal to which we have subjected it if literary critics of our century had not applied similar procedures to poems of more recent vintage. The Ars, 476 verses in all, would make a middle-length canto. This is not long by the standard of a didactic poem like the Georgies, or an epic like the Aeneid or Metamorphoses, but too long, and too diverse in tone and structure, to allow of the astringent and collected effect of a short lyric. The multipli" city of tone and subject belongs to a different world, the world of the senrw—the kind of long Short Poem in which H. excelled. In that setting it stands as the poet’s most comprehensive and mature work, reminiscent of the discursive style and the panache of the Satires, the ironic and mannered reflections of Epistles book 1, the personal, literary and political mode of Epistles book 11, and, in debemur morti, something of the yncism of the Odes. But all this a long poetic letter like the 518

T h e P oem

Florus or Augustus could have accommodated. What dis­ tinguishes the Epistle to the Pisos is the u n i q u e achievement, never repeated, of making these varied effects illuminate t e layout of an ancient Ars and a rationalistic philosophy o poetry. The outcome was a picture of great complexity, w ic required a constructive imagination of a high order. wor of the length of an epic canto is formed in the highly structure image of his shorter poems. How far has H. succee e in is ambitious design? Magnificently, it seems to me, if we apply the right criteria. In a short ode or hexameter poem the motils are few and their interplay is restricted. In the Ars t e num er of motifs is much larger; the patterns that arise are so numer­ ous that it is impossible to look back, and be aware o more than a few at a time. You can pick out the humdrum line of literary theory. But as soon as you do, you see it re uce o first principles by the criss-cross of ars and ingenium, or appro­ priateness and the rest, each valid in its own rig t, an eac related to the others in their different styles and tones. .ihns from every point of its compass, the poem assumes a i eren complexion. . , Yet in spite of the many and varied aspects of the tn impression that it leaves with the present rea er oes no fundamentally differ from w hat readers throughout t e ten turies have felt: unity is as strongly marked as variety, o in such larger Augustan works as the Georgies, the Aeneid and the Metamorphoses', the patterns and motifs abound, but t ere is unity that defies the simple restatement of a prosaic summary. But for all its similarity, H .’s oeuvre is not at all like that of the other Augustans. He is a different kind of poet, most ot a in the incisive dialectical quality of his mind an imagina ion. In spite of the emphasis placed on ars and decorum, or their contraries, what stays in the mind is the balance ac *ev^ in the interplay between these contrary poetic patterns. JNosmg e argument but a poetic entity—the equipoise achieved m a long poem—may be claimed as the poet’s answer to the questions posed by the literary critics. 5*9

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

If my picture of H .’s imagination and intelligence is a just one, it is not hard to see why the poet was attracted to literary theory, and above all to Aristotelianism. The opposed sim­ plicities of the Stoics and Epicureans, even of Alexandrian aestheticism, would repel him ; his kind of poetry was moral to the core and, at the same time, animis natum inuentumque. .. iuuandis (377)· He was the poet of quo me, Bacche, rapis? ; but he would be chary of a poetic imagination unaided by a tough intellectual fibre—a powerful motive counteracting any attraction to intuitionism which Plato or at any rate contemporary middle-Platonic philosophy might have exercised. The introduction to the Ars pronounces on Aristotle’s philo­ sophy of organic unity. But altogether there is no better poetic illustration of Aristotle’s ‘one and whole’ than H .’s poems. How to create interplay and balance between unity and daring variety is H .’s inimitable secret. In that sense he is an anima naturaliter Aristotelica. To critical hindsight, a lively poetic unity appears as tension resolved, variety unified. In the Ars, while debating this critical problem on the intellectual level, he demonstrates by his writing how to solve it. H .’s debate acquires the character of what he is debating. But the notion of organic unity was not the only thing that attracted H. to Aristotelianism. There is the clear-cut ration­ ality of Aristotle’s and H .’s poetic theories; poetry is a form of cognition. Next, if it can be separated at all, there is the poetic entity in which alone Aristotle’s ‘ universal ’ is realized, the logic of the plot. Thirdly, there is the stress on mores, ethos. Fourthly, there is the rhetorical concept of ‘appro­ priate speech’. All this does not make H. a minor Aristotle. For the Ars lacks the decisive feature of the Poetics—an explicit argument. H. offers both less and more. H e offers less because the poet cannot match the philosopher’s coherent reasoning. Indeed it would be fair to say that the Ars cannot be called a genuine piece of reasoning at all, although at times it is designed to 520

The Poem

look like an argument. But H. offers more than Aristotle because he takes reasoned arguments and uses them as mat­ erial for his poetic patterns. If the Epistle to the Pisos is the kind of poem I take it to be, it represents imaginatively, in a way no conceptual prose could, not only views on poetry but the ancient feeling for poetry. If we say therefore th a t the Ars lacks the logical coherence of the Poetics, or of any argued literary theory, we say very little. O f course it lacks it. But H. would not if he could repro­ duce the coherence o f a piece of conceptual prose. That was not his métter. W hat he thought was his job is shown by the job he did. He was writing from inside. If his purpose may be guessed from the finished article, it was precisely the opposite of a critic’s. Aristotle regarded the words of which the poetry consists as a piece of rhetoric standing in no organic relation to the logic of the plot, although certainly the words of a poem must be clear, not mean, appropriate. H., on the other hand, wrote a poem in which, in a sense, the words are the content. Thus he brought the reflections on poetry back to a reflection °S poetry. To do th at he treated a traditional Ars poetica as he treated all other subjects. H e made it into material for poetry that achieves its legitimate ends, not primarily by what it says and argues but by the devices of tone, style, and structure. A few graces of epistolary style would not have touched the sub­ stance. I t was the substance that had to be broken down, and recreated in the image of his own poetry. Perhaps then there is a germ of truth in Pope’s sententia on Horace : Yet judg’d with Coolness tho’ he sang with Fire; His Precepts teach but what his Works inspire. The Ars may well be seen as a poetic restatement of H.’s own poetry. He is the exemplar of the originality that may be attained within the bounds of the traditional styles and genres. A modem reader’s assessment of H .’s Ars will therefore differ according to his preconceptions. If ingenium for him must be

The ‘Ars Poetica ’ as Horatian Poetry

unlimited by tradition, he will condemn the Ars. If he can admire originality strengthened, but also limited, by tradition, he is likely to admire, if he understands it, what H . has achieved. The Ars occupies a unique position in the poetry and criti­ cism of the West. What it leaves in the reader’s mind is a pre-established harmony, a natural world of poetic laws and freedoms, realized in the shape of a poem. With the under­ lying ‘theory’ the theorists had dealt better. But no one had ventured to make it the vehicle for a live poem in which originality would fulfil and transcend tradition—ingenium on the boundaries of ars. To overcome the apparent contradic­ tion inherent in such a work, a degree of insight, resilience, and irony was called for, which few other poets, however great, could have attained. H. attained it, and thus, through the centuries, the Ars has withstood the literal-minded, whether they attacked it, or praised it, in the name of méthode, or in the name of originality and imagination. Never before had the image of Greco-Roman poetry been caught undistorted in the mirror of a poem that represented ancient thinking no less than ancient feeling. I t was never to be so again. For whereas Greco-Roman beliefs in the ‘fixi­ ties’ (as Coleridge might have said) of styles and genres con­ tinued to the eighteenth century and beyond, the realities of the styles and genres did not so continue. However strong and beneficial these ancient influences were, creative power often tended to diverge from the inherent virtues of the genres. Nothing can be surer than Dante’s touch when he writes his poetry. But he lacks sureness when he attempts to measure the style of his Commedia by the yard-stick of ancient theory this is brought out admirably in E. Auerbach’s Mimesis.1 Chaucer saw himself continuing the precedent of ancient poetic theory, though in fact he was striking out in a new direction.2 When imitatio Horatiana can only proclaim correctness, or Tr., P rin ceto n 1953, 185-8. Gf. R, O. Payne, T h e K e y o f R e m e m b r a n c e ; A

1 Eng.

S t u d y o f C h a u c e r’s P o e tic s ,

Yale 1963.

The Poem

reason, or esprit, H. is far away. Boileau’s famous work is what many who misunderstood their H. thought the Ars Poetica was like. Voltaire confidently declared that ‘VArt poétique de Boileau est supérieur à celui d'Horace. La méthode est certainement une beauté dans un poème didactique; Horace rien a point'. And Boileau was adm ired not only by Voltaire but by his own friend Racine. The young Pope’s Essay on Criticism is an astonishing Augustan performance ; it has many other Horatian virtues besides—panache, wit, good sense, urbanity. But an occasional appearance of bluff heartiness marks a larger difference of tone1 and, above ail, the Essay lacks the com­ plexity of the Ars, the m ature Horatian interplay of inherited theory and individual practice. With the coming of the German neo-classicists, and gen­ erally European romanticism, strains divided which H.’s poetry and criticism held firmly together. Schiller’s Naiv and Sentimentalised, Nietzsche’s Apollonian and Dionysian, and the like, are not H oratian alternatives. Sapientia was mockingly turned against (romantic) poetry in Peacock’s satire The Four Ages of Poetry, and evoked Shelley’s Platonizing answer in the Defence of Poetry ; both owe something to the Ars, but their uims are not H oratian. It was not until the notions of imagination and organic form were established in the nineteenth century that a new framework for critical thought could be devised. That frame­ work could coexist w ith the preconceptions of actual con­ temporary poetry. Ezra Pound’s Mauberley is a poem in its own right though not proclaimed as an ars poetica of its time. Now the individual talent, ingenium, needs to devise its own ars, tuake its own nostalgic selection of widely divergent traditions, Build its own shell of forms and styles—every poet his own Horace. tUf. R. A. Brower, A l e x a n d e r P o p e :

T h e P o e tr y o f A llu s io n

(i959)> c ^>· 9 ·

BIBLIO GRA PH Y A d d e n d a to B ib lio g ra p h y i n P rolegom ena, c o n ta in in g w r it­ in g s sin ce 1961 a n d a fe w o ld e r o n es t h a t h a d b e e n o v e r­ lo o k ed . T h e p rin c ip le s o f s e le c tio n a r e t h e s a m e as in th e e a rlie r v o lu m e . T o s a v e sp a c e , e x c e p t in cases w h e re la rg e r to p ic s h a v e b e e n in v o lv e d , I h a v e n o t r e p e a t e d a rtic le s o n sp ecific p assa g es o f th e A .P . to w h ic h r e fe re n c e h a s b e e n m a d e in m y n o te s. A n d e rs o n , W . S ., A J P , l x x x v i i (1 9 6 6 ), 2 2 9 -3 3 , re v ie w o f P r o l e g o m e n a . B eck er, C ., D a s S p ä tw erk des H o ra z, G ö ttin g e n , 1963, p p . 257. B rin k , C . O ., ‘H o r a e e a n d V a r r o ’, i n E n tre tien sF o n d . H a rd t, ix ( i 9 ° 2)> 1 7 3 -2 0 5 . , ‘ H o r a tia n N o te s : D e sp ise d R e a d in g s in t h e M a n u s c r ip ts ol th e O d e s ’, Proc. C am . P h il. Soc., n .s. x v (1 9 6 9 ), i - 6 . ‘ H o ra c e a n d E m p e d o c le s ’ t e m p e r a t u r e : a r e je c te d fr a g m e n t o E m p e d o c le s ’, P hoenix, x x m (1 9 6 9 ), 138—42. B u e h le r, W ., B eiträge z u r E rk lä ru n g der S c h r ift vom Erhabenen, G ö ttin g e n 1964, p p . 159. , C la u s e n , W . V ., ‘ C a llim a c h u s a n d L a t i n P o e t r y ’, G reek, R om an ana B y za n tin e Studies, v (1 9 6 4 ), 1 8 1 -9 6 . , C o u lte r, J . A ., ‘ Περί "Υψους a n d A r is to tle ’s T h e o r y o f t h e M e a n , Greek, R om an a nd B y za n tin e S tu d ies, v (1 9 6 4 ), i 97_ 2 I 3 · C u p a iu o lo , F ., ‘S tu d i d ’e s te tic a a n t i c a ’, P aideia, x ( i 955 )> ^ I ~ 97 · _ ‘ C o n tr ib u to a llo s tu d io d e l l ’e s te tic a a n t i c a ’, A n n . P o n ti/. 1st. Sup. Sc. e L e tt. ( S . C h ia ra ’, χ ιι ι (1 9 6 3 ), 4 5 -7 2 . T ra Poesie e Poetica: S u alcu n i aspetti culturali della poesia la tin a nell e a A ugustea (C o lla n a d i S tu d i la t . x v , N a p o li, 1966), p p . 280. d e L a c y , P ., ‘S to ic v iew s o n p o e t r y ’, A J P , l x i x (1 9 4 8 ), 2 4 1 - 7 l · , D essen , C y n th ia S ., ‘ I u n c t u r a c a llid u s a c r i ’ : A study o f Persius Satires (Illin o is S t. i n L a n g , a n d L it. i x (1 9 6 8 )), p p . 11 7* E is e n h u t, W ., ‘ D e d u c e re c a rm e n . E in B e itra g z u m P r o b le m d . it. B e z ie h u n g e n z w isc h e n H o r a z u n d P r o p e r z ’, G edenkschrift f i t G . Rohde, T ü b in g e n , 1961, 91—104. F e r r e r ò , L ., ‘ T r a p o e tic a e d is to ric a : D u r id e d i S a m o ’, M i s c e l l a n e a . . .R o sta g n i, T o rin o , 1963, 6 8 —100. F o n ta in e , J . , R E L , x l i , 1963 (1 9 6 4 ), 4 4 7 -5 0 , re v ie w o f P r o l e g o m e n a . F o n tä n , A ., ‘T e n u is . . .M u s a ? L a te o r i a d e los χ α ρ α κ τή ρ ες e n a p o e s ia a u g ù s t e a ’, E m e rita , x x x i i (1 9 6 4 ), 193—208.

52 4

B ibliography G a n ta r, K ., ‘D ie A n fa n g s v e rs e u n d d ie K o m p o sitio n d e r h o razisch en E p istel ü b e r d ie D i c h t k u n s t ’, Sym bolae Osloenses, x x x ix (1964), 8 9 -9 8 . G araffo n i, C in z ia , ‘ R iflessi d e lla p o e tic a fìlo d e m e a ’, Vichiana, in (1966), 3 -2 3 . G ia rd in a , G . C ., V ichiana, 1 (1 9 6 4 ), 103-8, review o f Prolegomena. O r a z i o e P r o p e r z io : a p ro p o s ito d i H ö r. E p . I I 2, 91 s q q . R F 1C, x e n i (1 9 6 5 ), 2 4 - 4 0 . G rim al, P ., E s s a i sur V A r t Poétique 350. K e n n ey , E . J . , ‘T h e F ir s t S a tir e o f J u v e n a l ’, Proc. C am . P hil. Soc., n.s. v ili (1 9 6 2 ), 2 9 -4 0 . Koller, E ., ‘ M u ß e u n d m u s isc h e P a i d e i a ’, M H , x iii (i9 5 ^ )j i _ 37j

94-124.

.

.

,

L a n a ta , G iu lia n a , Poetica pre-P latonica: testimonianze e fram m enti (B ibl. d i s tu d i s u p . x l i i i ) , F lo re n c e , 1963, p p . xvi, 307. L a P e n n a , A ., A th en a eu m , x l i (1 9 6 3 ), 449~ 53> rev iew o f Prolegomena.. Lucas, D . W . (ed . w ith I n t r o d u c ti o n , C o m m e n ta ry a n d A p p e n d ix e s), A ris to tle , P oetics, O x f o r d , 1968, p p . xxviii, 313. . M a ro u z e a u , J . , ‘Q u e lq u e s é lé m e n ts d e p o é tiq u e : P a r t h o ra tie n , m (Quelques aspects de la fo r m a tio n du latin litteraire, P aris, 1949’ I 93— 222. M e tte , H . J . , ‘ G e n u s te n u e u n d m e n sa ten u is b e i H o r a z ’, M H , x v m (1 9 6 1 ), 1 3 6 -9 . M ü h m e lt, M ., Griech. G ra m m a tik in der Vergilerklärung (Z e te m a ta , 37)5 M ü n c h e n , 1965, p p . iv , 168.

525

Bibliography N a s ta , M ., ‘ Q u e lq u e s re fle x io n s su r les te r m e s d e la p o é tiq u e , S tu d ii Clasice (B u c h a re s t), i n ( 1961 ), 3 1 7 -3 6 . N e w m a n , J . K ., A u g u stu s a n d the N e w P oetry (C o ll. L a to m u s lx x x v ix i), 1967, p p . 4 5 5 .

.

T he Concept o f Vates in A u g u sta n P oetry (C o ll. L a to m u s lx x x ix ) , 1967, p p . 132, e sp e c ia lly ‘D a ti n g b y V a tes/Poeta u sa g e o f · s A r s Poetica ’, p p . 75—81 ; ‘T h e d a t e o f th e A r s P oetica , ρ ρ · 1 27 3®· O tis, Β ., Gnomon , χ χ χ ν ι (1 9 6 4 ), 2 6 5 - 7 2 , re v ie w o f Prolegomena. P a r a to r e , E ., B iografia e poetica d i Persio, F ir e n z e , 1968, p p . x i, 2 4 2; P aso li, E ., ‘ S p u n ti d i c r it. le tt. n e lla s a t. o r a z i a n a ’, Convivium

(B o lo g n a ), x x x ii (1964)* 449- 78 · ‘ S a tu r a d r a m m a ti c a e sa t. l e t t e r a r i a ’, V ichiana, 1 (1 9 0 4 ), 3 4 1· L e epistole letterarie d i O ra zio , B o lo g n a , 1964, p p . x i, 235. R e c k fo rd , K . J . , ‘ S tu d ie s in P e r s iu s ’, H , x c (1 9 6 2 ), 4 7 6 -5 0 4 . Reiflf, A ., Interpretatio, im ita tio , aem ulatio . B e g r iff u n d Vorste ung literarischer A b h ä n g ig ke it bei den R ö m ern [T h e sis K ö ln ] , B o n n , *959» p p . 125. . R o n c o n i, A ., ‘A s p e tti d i c r itic a l e t t e r a r i a i n C i c e r o n e ’, M a ia , x ( i9 5 8 )> 8 3 -1 0 0 . ‘L u c ilio c ritic o l e t t e r a r i o ’, ib id , x v (1 9 6 3 ), 5 1 5 - 2 5 . ? R u c h , M ., ‘ H o r a c e e t les fo n d e m e n ts d e la iunctura d a n s 1 o rd r e e la c re a tio n p o é tiq u e (A .P . 4 6 - 7 2 ) ’, R E L , x u , 1963 ( i 9 8 4 )> 24 69. . R u d d , N ., ‘ H o r a c e a n d t h e o rig in s o f S a t u r a ’, P hoenix, x iv U 9 ö o h 3 6 -4 4 . T h e S a tires o f H orace, C a m b r id g e , 1966, p p . x i, 3 1 8 . , R u sse ll, D . A . (e d . w ith I n t r o d u c ti o n a n d C o m m e n ta r y ) , ‘L o n g in u s O n the S u b lim e, O x f o r d , 1964, p p . lv iii, 2 0 8 . S a in t D e n is , E . d e , ‘ L a fa n ta is ie e t le c o q - à -l’à n e , L atom us, x x 11 (1 9 6 3 ), 6 6 4 -8 4 . , S b o rd o n e , F ., ‘U d i t o e in te lle tto i n u n n u o v o te s to filo d e m e o , L a P arola del P assato, x l i v (1 9 5 5 ), 3 9 0 -4 0 3 . ‘ U n n u o v o lib r o d e lla P o e tic a d i F ilo d e m o ’, A t t i delVAccad. Pon taniana, n .s. rx ( i9 6 0 ) , 2 3 1 -5 8 . Contributo a lla poetica degli antichi. L ’a r te tip o g ra fic a , N a p o li, r 9 l > p p . 142. [ I h a v e n o t se e n a c o p y o f th is b o o k .] S o lm se n , F ., ‘L e is u re a n d p la y i n A ris to tle ’s I d e a l S t a t e ’, R M , N . c v n (1 9 6 4 ), 1 9 3 -2 2 0 . S ö rb o m , G ö ra n , M im e sis a n d A r t : Studies in the O rig in a n d E a r y D evelopm ent o f a n A esthetic Vocabulary, U p p s a la , 1966, p p . 2 1 8 · S p e rd u ti, A ., ‘ T h e d iv in e n a t u r e o f p o e tr y i n a n t i q u i t y ’, Τ Α Ρ Α , L x x x i (1 9 5 0 ), 2 0 9 -4 0 .

526

Bibliography T e rz a g h i, N ., ‘ O r a z i o e P r o p e r z i o ’, R e n d . A cc. dei Lincei, ser. v m (* 959) , 1 7 9 - 2 0 1 . V a n d v ik , E ., ‘S im p le x d u m t a x a t e t u n u m ’. Sym bolae Osloenses χ ι χ (1 9 3 9 ), 1 1 0 -1 7 . V a n R o o y , C . A ., S tu d ie s in cla ssica l satire and related literary theory, L e id e n , 1 9 6 5 , p p . x iii, 2 2 9 . ‘ A r r a n g e m e n t a n d s t r u c t u r e o f S a tir e s i n H o r a c e , Sermones, B ook 1, w ith m o r e s p e c ia l r e f e r e n c e t o S a tires 1—4 ’, A cta Classica, x i (1 9 6 8 ), 3 8 -7 2 . V ic a ire , P ., P la to n : C ritiq u e littéra ire (É tu d e s e t C o m m e n ta ire s , 3 4 ), P a ris , i9 6 0 , p p . 4 4 8 . Recherches su r les m ots d è sig n a n t la poesìe et le poète dans Γ oeuvre de P laton (P u b i, d e la F a c . d e s le ttr e s e tc ., M o n tp e llie r, xxii), P a ris, 1964,

p p . 178. W a sz in k , J . H . , ‘B e m e r k u n g e n z u d e n L ite r a tu r b r ie f e n d es H o r a z ’, M n e m . S e r . iv , x x i (1 9 6 8 ), 3 9 4 -4 0 7 . W e h rli, F ., ‘ D e r e r h a b e n e u n d d e r s c h lic h te S til in d e r p o e tis c h ­ r h e to r is c h e n T h e o r i e d e r A n tik e ’, P h yllo b o lia . . . P . von der M ü h ll, B a se l, 1945, 9-34. W illia m s, G ., J R S , l i v (1 9 6 4 ) , 1 8 6 -9 6 , re v ie w o f Prolegomena . T ra d itio n a n d O r ig in a lity in R o m a n P oetry, O x fo rd , 1968, p p . 3 2 9~ 57 · W im m e l, W ., Ιζιιτ F o r m der h o r. D ia trib en sa tire, F r a n k f u r t a . M ., 1962, , 4T. p p * 77 · W itk e , E . C ., ‘T h e f u n c t i o n o f P e rs iu s ’ C h o lia m b ic s ’, M n e m . S er. iv , XV (1 9 6 2 ), 1 5 3 -8 . C P , L x n ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 4 7 —5 0 , r e v ie w o f Prolegomena.

527

INDEX Accius

PASSAGES CITED

1 F io r .

D idascalica ( f r . 6 , F u n a i o l i ) ,

254; 2 5 6 ; (fr. 8 ) , 1 6 2 ; (fr. 2 0 ) , 3 2 1

M H erennium

16

(6 3 ),

175;

(6 4 ),

249; 251

( c h . 9 ) , 1 9 8 , 3 4 3 ; (1 4 5 1

P la t, i ( 2 ) , 3 9 9 A r g u m . E w r.

* 37- 8 ),

Aeschylus

223;

(1 4 1 5 *

7 8 ; ( 1 4 5 1 b ) , 79 , (1 4 5 1 b 3 3 ) , 94;

M e d ., 2 0 1

3 8 ), 203;

O r ., 2 0 2

11 ( 1 4 5 2 b 1 1 - 1 3 ) , 2 4 4 ;

A n d r ., 2 4 9

I (2), 336; (3); 126; (13), 3555 (15), 126 II (45), 159 Μ (16-18), 127 ϊ ν ( ιι) , n o , 159; ( η - 1 2 ) , n i ; (14), 112; (15), 107; I I I , I I 5 ; (16), n o , 112, 173; (17), 139; (21), 427; (26), l 6 l i (39), 369; (5 O , 430; (63), 232

1 2 ), 7 8 ; (c h . 8 ), 9 4 ; 8 (1 4 5 1 a 2 2 f f ) , 2 1 7 ,3 9 5 ;

( c h . 1 2 ) , 2 4 8 ; 13 ( 1 4 5 3 *

A r is t o p h a n e s

( 1 4 5 3 * 19 ) ,

A c h . ( 5 3 0 - 1 ) , 1 13

3 3 ),

N u b .{ 3 1 6 - 2 0 ) , ( 4 2 4 ) , 2 8 2 - 3

179; Η ( i 4 5 3 fr i - n ) , 2 4 4 ; (i4 5 3 b 2 2 f f .) , 198;

R an.

(7 9 9 ),

f f .) ,

1 8 0 -1 ;

i n ;

(9 3 9

(1 0 3 0 -6 ),

260;

(1 4 5 3 b 2 5 ),

203;

3 8 5 - 9 2 ; (1 0 3 2 f f .) , 1 6 4 ;

1 5 ),

342;

( 1 0 6 0 —1 ) ,

f f .) ,

2 5 1 -2 ;

315;

(1 0 6 1 ),

3 1 4 ; ( f r . 4 7 1, K o c k ) , 3 4 8

A r is t o t l e

(c h .

( i454b i

15

(1454b i°

ff·), 3 4 3 ; (c h · J 7), 182, 1 8 4 -9 0 ; 17 (1 4 5 5 * 2 9

A n a l. P o s t . 1 ( 4 - 6 ) , 7 9

f f · ) , 1 8 5 ; ( 1 4 5 5 * 32 - 4 ) ,

334;

Aesop

A t k . P o l. 1 8 ( 1 ) , 3 9 3 E th . E u d . ii (3 , 1 2 2 0 b 3 1 ) ,

Fab. (65), 423 Aetna

E t h . N i e . ii (8, 1 1 0 8 b 1 3 ) ,

AS- (834), 351

^7 7 ); 355; (359), 397; (3 5 9 - 6 o ) , 1 5 4 A grippa

Alcaeus C omicus

U 2 7 b 2 5 ) , (7 , 1128

116;

iv

3 0 8 ; v i (4 , 1 1 4 0

a 17 ff .) , 3 3 0

G en. A n . 1 ( 2 2 , 7 3 o b 2 9 f f . ) , M e ta p h y s ic s 1 ( 2 , 9 8 2 b 2 3 ) ,

A mmianus M a rcellin u s

13);

n o g b 2 3 ),

(7 ,

189

fr · ( 2 0 , K o c k ) , 2 6 4

(4·

(g ,

a g f .) ,

“A D e m . V ìi. V e rg . ( § 4 4 ) , 2 8 8 -9

^

(1 4 5 6 3 2 5 -6 ),

1 16

.

(4·

404 Anaxim enes R het. ( 3 0 f . ) , 2 1 6

Anecdota Paris. 1 ( !9); 313

P o e tic s 1 ( 1 4 4 7 b 1 9 ) , 4 2 6 ; 2

( 14 4 8 a I f f . ) ,

343;

4

(1 4 4 8 8 3 2 ),

168;

(i4 4 8 b 3 6 ),

1 6 4 ; (1 4 4 9

a g ff.), 273; (1449*15

P· 138 (S u e t. e d . R e iffe rs c h e id ), 4 1 7

Crithologia P a la tin a V n (5° ) ; 2 8 8 , 2 9 0 A ntiphanes fr· ( i g i j K o c k ) , 2 5 1

2 5 4 -5 ;

(1 4 5 6 3 2 9 f f ) , 2 5 5 ,2 5 6 ; (c h s.

2 1 -2 ),

133;

(c h .

2 2 ), 4 1 8 - 1 9 ; 22 (1 4 5 8 a 2 1 ),

133;

142;

( 1 4 5 8 b 1 5 ),

( 1 4 5 8 b 1 2 ), 143;

( i 4 5 8 b 2 i ) , 1 3 9 ; ( 1459*

12 ff.), 169; (ch. 23), 94', 23 (1459330-1), 2 1 7 ; (1 4 5 9 * 3 1 -2 ), 2 1 4 ;

373

18),

( 1 4 5 5 * 33) , 1 8 9 ; ( 1 4 5 5 b 1 2 - 1 3 ) , 2 0 3 ; 18

ff·), 169,

313; 315;

(1 4 4 9 * 2 ° ) , (1 4 4 9 * 2 1 ),

1 6 8 ; ( i 4 4 g a 2 4 f f .) , 1 6 9 ;

( 1459* 35),

128;

(1 4 5 9

b 2 ), 208; (1459631), 163; (146031), 169; (146032), 163; (1460a i i ff.), 352, 355; (1460 318-19), 223; 25 (1460 b 8 ff.), 343; (1460622 f f ) , 352; (1461*25),

5 ( 1 4 4 9 6 1 f ·), 3 1 6 ; (c h .

419;

6 ),

2 7 0 ; (1 4 6 2 6 4 ), 208

195; 6 (i4 4 g b 3 -4 ),

2 6 0 -1 ; (1 4 4 9 8 2 6 ), 245; ( i 4 4 9 b 3 4 ),

160;

(1 4 5 0

P o litic s

26 v ili

373 ', 3

(1 4 6 1 b 2 g f f ) , (c h s.

3 ff·),

( 1 3 3 8 * 3 0 ff·),

A ntisthenes

b i 6 ) , 2 4 5 , 2 6 1 ; (c h . 7 ),

3 7 7 ; (c h s. 5 - 7 ) , 2 6 1 ; 5

«A D io g . L a . vi ( 5 ) , 3 5 1 A puleius

2 4 9 ; (c h s. 7 -8 ), 8 0 ,1 1 7;

(1 3 4 0 0 1 6 -1 7 ),

7

(1 4 5 0 b

(1 3 4 1 3 2 1 -2 ),

2 6 ) , ( 1 4 5 0 b 3 4 ) , ( 14 5 1 a

( 1 3 4 1 3 2 9 f f .) ,

Ap o l. ( 3 8 ) ,

34

1 4 3 ; (6 9 ), 2 2 4

(1 4 5 0 b 2 3 ),

529

261;

6

262; 267; BHA

7

Index of passages cited A ristotle {cord.) (1341 b 2 o ) , ( 1 3 4 2 a 18

5

(3 7 - 4 ° ) , 1 7 1 ; (6 3 - 7) , 1 4 7 ; ( 1 8 2 - 6 ) , 1 71

ff.), 2 6 9

Problems x i x ( 4 8 , 9 2 2 b ) , 2 5 7 ; XXX (1953 a 1 0 ff),

f rs .

8 2 4 -5 ), HO, 3 (1 4 0 6 3 1 6 ),

2 8 8 -9 0 ; 143; 4

(1 4 0 6 8 2 7 f f ) ,

430;

{ (2 11—1 2 ,

R ib b e c k ),

4 2 5 ; (? ) f r · ( 2 8 7 ), 2 8 7 C

a e c in a

C i c . Fam. v i ( 7 . 4 ) , 4 1 3

19; (ch s. 2 - 9 ), 1 3 2 -3 ; 2 (1 4 0 4 8 5 f f ) , 285; (1 4 0 4 8 1 4 ), 160; (1 4 0 4

C aesar

B .G . IV ( 1 7 . 3 ff.), 3 1 4 C a l l i m a c h u s ( e d . P fe iffe r) A etia 1 ( 1 . 2 5 ) , 3 1 9 ; ( i . 2 7 -

5

8 ) , 2 1 0 ; IV ( 1 1 2 . 9 ) , 1 1 2

(1 4 0 7 3 3 2 f f ) , 4 1 9 ; (c h .

7), I7 4 '9 4 ; 7 (i4 ° 8 a

E pigr. ( 2 7 ) , 3 0 7 ; ( 2 8 ) , 2 1 0 H ym ns 2 ( 1 0 8 ) 9 7

16—2 5 ) , 1 8 2 - 9 0 ; ( 14 0 8 a

fr·

1 8 -1 9 ), 1 7 9 ; (1 4 0 8 3 2 5 f f ) , 1 9 0 - 2 ; ( c h . 8 ) , 161 ; 8 (1 4 0 8 0 3 2 ), ( 1 4 0 8 8 3 3 f f.) , (ch s.

1 3 -1 9 ),

163; 169;

127;

14

(i4 i5 a i2 ff), 213; (I4 i9 b 6 ff), 309

18

431 C

a l l is t r a t u s

Descr. ( 1 1 . 3 ) , 1 1 9

C a to Agr. ( 7 9 ) , ( 8 0 ) , ( 8 1 ) , ( 8 4 ) ,

(1 2 . 2 5 2 ), 3 5 4 A sinius P ollio

22

A.P. ( 3 1 1 ) ,

(1 2 ), 1 9 4 ; 6 6 (3 9 ), 3 0 6 ;

« ( 1 3 ) , 332

C h ry sip p u s S V F , ii (fr. 1 0 0 ) , 2 0 6 C ic e ro Academicorum L ib ri i ( 2 5 ) ,

IV ( i 5 8 e ) , 2 5 8 ; x i v ( 6 i 6 d ) , (6 i6 e ff),

(4 1 ), 145

262;

A d A tticum 1 ( 1 4 . 3 ) , 1 8 0 ,

(6 1 7 b - c ) , 2 6 6 ; (6 2 8 f r.) , 270; (6 3 3 b ), 269 A ugustine Civ. D . XXII ( 1 ) , 1 4 7

4 1 9 ; (1 6 · 1 ) , 2 2 2 ; ( 1 6 . i i ) , 4 3 1 ; v i (3 . 7 ), 4 1 5 ; X III ( 4 8 . 2 ) , 4 1 3

Conf. i ( 1 0 ) , 2 4 6 Regulae, GL, v ( 5 1 2 . 1 7 18), 1 4 5

A usonius m (4 · 3 3 , P e i p e r ) , 3 0 5

Epigr. 8 7 ( 1 3 ) , 4 1 7 A vienus Aratea ( 1 3 8 6 - 7 ) , 1 5 2

A d Familiares ii.

(8 9 ),

402,

(B o ), 3 2 9 ; ( 88 ) , 199 D e Finibus Bonorum et M alorum i ( i o ) , m (3)» ( 4 ) , 1 4 5 ; ( 5 ) , Η 2 , 145; ( 1 5 ) , r 4 4 , 1 4 5 ; IV (?)» 1 4 3 ; ( 3 6 )> 33 6 ; v ( 39 )> 1 9 3 ; ( 8 9 )> J43 D e Inventione 1 (2 ff), 38 5 9 0 ; ( 4 ) , 7 6 , 3 3 6 ; (6 ]> 3 3 7 ; ( 7- 9 ) , 1 2 2 - 3 ; ( 9 ), 7 6 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 6 , 3 3 6 ; (2 7 ),

3 5 5 ; ( 5 7 ), 1 5 9 ; ( 98 - 5 ). 79 D e Legibus 1 ( 3 0 ) , 1 9 ° ; 11 ( 2 8 ) , 1 4 3 ; ( 37 - 9 ) . a 6 °> 2 6 2 ; ( 3 8 - 9 ) , 2 6 9 ; ( 39 ). 160; (7 ), 190 2 5 2 , 2 5 3 ; ii (6 8 ) 4 2 3 .

( 5 ), 38 4 ; 3 4 ( 1 5 - 16), 4 2 3 ; 6 4 (1 6 6 ), 2 3 3 ; 6 6

C e ls u s

340 A thenaeus

420;

4 2 0 ; (9 1 ), (9 3 ) >402 D e Divinatione i ( 6 6 ) , 3 4 5 ;

D e Piatura Deorum i ( 53 ).

95 ( 1 - 2 ) , 383

ap. C i c . Fam. x ( 3 2 . 3 ) ,

D e A m icitia ( 31 ), 402"3>

2 6 3 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 1 ; n i ( 2)>

403 (p . 80 , J o r d a n ) ,

ap. S e x t . E m p . Math. 1

215;

1 8 0 ; fr. (6 9 1 ),

C atullus

( fr . 1 2 4 , W e h r l i ) , 2 6 1 , 2 6 9 A sclepiades of M y rlea

(32. 5 ), 3 2 0 ap. P o r p h . o n

(2 1 5 ),

340

fr. ( 1 6 8 , R o s e ) , 2 0 0 A ristoxenus

3 4 B ; ( 3 1 6 )» 323 (8 8 ),

C aecilius

334 Rhetoric 11 ( c h s .

1 2 -1 4 ), 2 2 8 - 4 1 ; h i (2 i n . ) , 4 1 8 -

3 3 7 ; ( 1 9 3 ) , 3 7 2 ; (2 7 2 ),

B acchylides

I (1 ), 3 6 6 ; v i . i (3 ), I 1 0 ; IX . 1 0 ( 1 ), 4 1 9

A d Quintum Fratrem i i ( 4 . 1 ) , 3 7 6 ; h i (6 ( 8 ) . 6 ) , 3 6 6 ; (8 . 4 ) , 4 1 5

Aratea ( 1 3 2 ) , 3 0 2 B rutus ( 9 3 ) , 3 2 1 ; ( 1 2 6 ) ,

337; ( 140 ), 346 ; ( 142 ),

530

( 1 5 2 ) , 151

D e O ß ciis I ( 6 ) , 1 6 0 ; (5 2 > 3 8 9 ; ( 5 8 ) , 3 4 1 ; ( 9 4 ). 3375 ( i ° 4 ) . 3 o S ; ( i °7 f f ) , 3 4 2 ; i 1 1 0 ) ’ , 3 ®.“ 5 (1 1 5 f f ) ,

342;

( 1 18) ’

3 9 3 ; II ( 1 4 ) . I 5 I D e Optimo Genere Oratorum

(i), i7 5 ;(5 ), u o ; ( i 4)> 211

D e Oratore 1 (33), 3°5’

3395 (45 ff·), 33«; (51 ), 347; (86)’ 2 I3 : ( 109 ), 159 ; ( n 6 ). ” 5» (4 2 ),

(1 1 7 -1 8 ),

372;

(II8 ^

19 ), 375-75 ( 180 ). 32*; ( 184 ), 3575 n (73)’ 34«; (9 1 ), n o ; ( 1 2 2 - 3 ) ’ 4 *°;

( 177 ), 795 (i8 5 ) ;3 7 2; ( 189 ), 18 6 ; ( i% -9 ° ’ 182; (1 9 4 ), 3 2 9 ; 2 8 0 - 1 ; (2 3 5 f f · ) ’ 3 ° 8 ’ ( 2 3 6 ) , 3 1 7 ; ( 2 7 0 ) , 3° « ’ ( 3 0 7 f f ) , 1 2 7 - 8 ; ( 325 ) ,

Index o f passages cited Cicero (cont.) 2 1 3 ; ( 357 ) , 2 4 5 ; i n ( 3 9 ) , 1 5 8 ; (4 6 f f .) , 3 3 8 ; ( 4 8 ) , 337;

(5 6 -8 1 ),

( 58 ) ,

3745

Timaeus ( 4 ) , 3 4 2 —3 Topica ( 2 9 ) , 2 0 6 ; ( 3 1 ) , 8 9 Tusculanae Disputationes i (3 f f · ) , 3 4 9 ; n i ( 1 5 ) , 3 3 6 ;

3 4 0 -1 ;

(9 6 ),

(18),

173;

( J 49 ) ,

145,

285;

ff·), 133; (153), 146;

IV

(2 9 ), 121;

(4 3 ), 1 8 2 , 1 8 6 ;

(ιο ί), 4075(103), 357 - 8

; (1 5 2

200;

V

(4 2 ),

357

Verrine Orations i ( 17), 4 17 ;

( 1 7 0 ) , 1 5 8 , 1 5 9 ; (1 7 1 f . ) ,

ii

i io ; (1 7 1 f f . ) , 161; (1 8 2 ), 1 6 9 ; ( 2 0 1 ), I 1 0 ;

8 2 ) , 4 0 4 ; (5 . 9 4 ), 4 2 0 ;

(2 1 3 ), 186;

3 7 2 ; (2 1 5 -2 3 ), (2 1 6 ), 1 8 5 -6 ;

(217),

173;

(217 ff·),

Provinciis Consularibus

(3 .

(5 · 1 5 0 ) , « i ( 8 4 ) , 4 ° 4

Republica,

1 (3 9 ), 2 1 0 ; 172;

(24),

239-40 ; (72),

240 In Pisonem ( 7 3 ) , 4 1 9 Laelius ( 2 3 ) , 1 5 6

Orator ( 3 - 8 ) ,

f r . ( 1 1. 1 - 2 , M o r e l ) , 3 0 7

Ciris

GL,

(u ff),

( 6 a ) ) , 2 0 1 ; ( 733 · 4 ) , 2 1 5

C urtius

80;

Cyclic Epic

112,

159;

Com. Gr.i (136, Kock), 181 in (1 2 . 1 4 ), 189

( 79 - 8 o ) , 1 3 3 ; ( 8 0 ) , 1 3 9 ;

( ? ) a / > . H o r . A P . ( i 37) , 2 i 4

( 8 1 ) , 1 4 2 ; ( 1 0 2 ) .7 9 ; (1 0 4 ), 3 6 7 ; (1 0 9 ), 7 9 ;

P ro o e m .

i io ;

(1 4 9 f f ) ,

161;

(1 5 5 ),

( J 59 ) , 1 5 8 ; ( 1 6 0 ) , 1 5 9 ; (1 6 8 ff.) , 161; (1 9 7 ), 3 4 6 ; (2 0 3 ), 3 0 9 ; (2 1 1 ), 138, 141, 145

Partitiones Oratoriae (3 1 ), 2

ap.

A r.

Rhet.

in

(1 4 , 1 4 1 5 a 1 7 ), 2 1 4

129; (2 4 ),

De Interpr. (2 8 ),

(1 -3 5 ), 1 7 9 ; (4 8 ),

161; 1 10;

( 8 6 ) , ( 8 7 ) , (91), (95), i 5 9 - 6 o ; ( 1 0 8 ) ,9 6 ; (1 1 3 ), 2 0 9 ; (1 1 4 ), 1 0 6 ; (1 3 7 ),

(139), 129; (169), 28i ;

(4 7 ),

( 1 7 6 ), (1 7 8 ), 1 1 0 ; (1 8 6 ),

156;

1 0 6 ; ( 2 2 1 ) , 111 ; ( 2 3 6 ) , 1 0 6 ; (2 5 8 ), 1 1 0 ; (2 7 5 ),

**ro Balbo ( 3 1 ) , 1 4 8 Pro Caelio ( 7 1 ) , 4 0 4 Pro Cluentio ( 1 9 9 ) , 4 2 8 Pro Sestio ( 2 2 ) , ( 8 8 ) , 4 0 4 ; (1 1 8 ), 3 2 0 ; (1 4 0 ), 39 3

2 8 8 -9 ;

IO f f .) ,

183;

II

(ch s. (5 5

f·),

(2 2 ), 1 10; 25 (1 3 5 -6 ), 2 8 8 -9 Demosth. ( 2 ) , 1 1 2 ; (c h . 1 8 ) , 1 0 8 ; 19 ( 1 0 1 0 ), 3 4 8

Din. ( 6 ) , 1 10 Imit. (2 . 2 ) , n o Isoc. ( 1 8 ) , IIO Lys. ( 4 ) , 3 4 0 ; ( 2 4 ) , Pomp. 2 ( 1 5 ) , 3 6 3 [D ionysius sus]

of

no

H alicarnas­

Ars i o ( 1 9 ) , 2 0 9 Rhet. π. I. 3 7 7 (1 6 ff), Anth. Pai.

D emetrius

(1 9 ),

*3 ( 2 8 ) , 341 Pro Archia ( i ) , ( 1 5 ) , 3 9 5

I. 491

191

D ioscorides

(1 1 6 ), 8 9 ;

(1 2 8 ), 2 2 2 ; ( 1 3 2 ), 1 8 6 ;

3 2 0 ; i.

3 0 5 ; 2 0 (1 4 5 ), 2 8 8 -9 ;

Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum

346; (2 9 ), 1 1 3 ; (4 0 ), 348; (5 0 ), 1 2 7 ; ( 7 1 - 4 ) , (7 6 ),

(3 2 -3 ), 393;

(1 4 f f ) ,

4 8 9 (2 9 f r .) , 2 8 2 ;

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

i ( 9 4 - 5 ) , 2 0 1 ; (1 3 7 ), 2 7 8 ; (3 7 8 . 4 ) , 2 1 5 ; π (4 6 3

3 5 9 ; (7 -1 0 ),

i. 4 8 2

Dionysius o f H alicarnassus De Comp. (1), 133; 3

Consolatio ad Liviam

8 ° ; (9) , 3 4 3 ; ( 1 4 f f · ) , 3 3 8 ; (2 0 f .), 1 1 0 ; ( 2 6 ),

Philippics

427

Diomedes

(2 ), 2 5 3 -4

C rates

346; 79

IV (4), 287-8 D iogenes L aertius i(3 4 ), 423; vnl (67-75),

i. 4 8 9

ClNNA

v i ( n o s . 1 2 3 5 - 6 ) , 15 5

n (6 9 ), 3 3 6

De Senectute ( 5 ) ,

(n o ),

xLix. 43 (1), 155 D iodorus

(5 7 ) , i 8 9

( * 5) , 4 0 4 De

1 0 ), (2 . 9 4 ),

( 2 2 7 - 8 ) , 130

182 De

(i.

C assius lxiv . 5 ( 1 ) , 153 XLVIII ( 5 0 ), 152

D io

159 - 6 ° ; ( 2 9 9 ) , ( 3 ° ° ) , n o ; (3 0 2 ), 106 D idymus Etym. ( p . 5 8 . 7 f f ., S t u r z ) , 165

Digests i. 8 ( i ) , 2 1 0

vii ( 4 1 0 ) , 2 7 7 ,

2 7 8 ; ( 4 1 1 ) , (707), 29 1 D iphilus ap Ath. v i ( 2 2 3 b ) , 91 Δ ισ σ ο Ι Λ ό γ ο ι

3 (IO)> 369 D onatus

Comm. Ter. (ed. Wessner), Ad. (638), (789), 178 An. Praef. 1 ( 5 ) , 178; π ( i ) , 2 5 3 ; (2 ), 222 230

Eun. Praef. 1 (5), E mpedocles fr.

(1 0 5 ,

D ie ls -K ra n z ),

4 2 7 - 8 ; f r . (1 2 2 . 4 - 5 ) , 427 3 4 -2

Index of passages cited E nnius Ann. ( 3 4 , V a h l e n 2) , 1 5 2 ; (1 1 3 -1 4 ),

322;

( 374 ) . 3 9 8 ; ( 5 0 0 ) , 1 5 6 Scipio f r. ( 2 ) , 1 6 4 tra g . fr. (8 4 , J o c e ly n ) , 1 56

E pictetus Diss. m . 1 5 ( i ) , 3 9 7 ; ( 9 ) , 1 2 3 E picurus fr. ( 4 9 0 , U s e n e r , p . 3 0 7 ) , 240

Epinomis

(974dff.),373;(975a5ff.), 387

178

E u rip id es Antiope ( 8 1 - 2 , e d . P a g e ) , ( 8 4 f f .) , 3 8 8

Cycl. ( 1 3 ) , ( i o o - i ) , 2 9 2 Tro. ( 9 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 ) , 4 2 5 N a u c k 2) ,

248;

f r· ( 893 ) . 2 5 8

E u s ta th iu s o n H o rn .

358;

H eraclides P o n t . f r. (8 5 , W e h r li) , 4 2 7

H ermias C o m m e n ta ry

on

P la to

II. x x n ( 3 8 3 - 4 ) ,

F estus ( 333 . M u e l l e r ) , 3 6 4

F ortunatianus ArsRhet. n i ( 3 ) , 1 4 6 ; ( 9 ) , n o

Fragmentum Berol. GL, v i ( 6 3 3 . 2 i f . ) , 1 6 5 F ronto Ep. h i ( 1 3 . 1 ), 1 4 3

ΐ· 2 4 ( 3 ) , 3 ° 7 ; η · 2 3 ( 2 1 ) , 1 7 8 ; t v . 1 5 ( 1 ) , 1 4 3 ; VI. Η ( 4 ) , 1 0 7 5 x 1 1 .1 3 ( 1 6 ), 1 6 0 ; XIX ( c h . 7 ) , 181

(1 3 -2 0 ),

1 6 6 ; HI 2.

374; (14), 460“ 1;

δ ε ιν ό τ η τ ο ς

16 ( i o - i i ) , 1 2 5 5 2 3 ( 5 )>

H esiod Theog. ( 9 0 2 ) , 2 5 9 ap. P a l a e p h . ( 4 2 ( 4 1 ) , f r .

4 5 4 , 4 5 6 ; 2 7 ( i ° ) > 2P > 3 9 1 ; ( 1 8 ) , 1 4 9 ; 3 ° ( 3 ),

Π ερ ί

μεθόδου

155; 24 (33), i 66; (20)’

( 2 9 ) , 205

182,

M e rk e lb a c h -

152;

154;

(1 0 -2 4 ),

171;

(1 7 -2 0 ),

Osee

lib .

3 2 1 ; IV

151; ο ΐ "

(31),

*45;

( 5 ) , 4 6 0 - 1 ; ( 1 - 2 ) , 1 17;

Epit. s .v . Α ι σ χ ύ λ ο ? , 3 1 3 H ieronymus Comm, in

(1 0 -1 2 ),

( 0 , 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 ; 2 (1 0 f f ) ,

18),

HESYCHIUS

n,

P ra e f. (5 4 ), 147

H imerius Or. (1) i x P r a e f . ( 1 ) , 91 H omer II. i (5 0 6 f r . ) , i i ( 4 ) , 1 9 9 ;

VI (14&-9), 147; ** (255-6), (385 ff·), ** ( 4 6 7 ) , XXIV ( 3 9 f f . ) , 2 0 0

Od. v i l i ( 1 7 3 ) , 1 1 3 ; X ( 9 8 ) ,

309;

259;

( 3 8 )>

6

( 3 6 ),

4 2 3 ; ( 39 7 ( i 3 - l 6 )>

4 0 ), 149; 4 7 9 ! 8 ( 7 - 8 ) , 1 2 0 ; (2 2 3)

,

170;

(2 6 -7 ),

(8 ), 955

(2 8 ), 37 8 ;

12

(9 ) , 3 9 0 ;

(1 8 ), 1 1 7 ; Η

( 1 7 ) , 1 2 1 ; 1 5 ( 3 ° ) , 224

bistlesi. i (1 —3 ) , 8 8 ; ( ! 3 ), 242;

(5 0 ),

398;

( 59 -

6 0 ) , 4 0 0 ; ( 6 5 - 6 ) , 35 ° ; ( 9 3 ), 1 4 9 ; ( 95 ) , I 2 0 ; 2 ( 3- 4 ) , (1 7 -1 8 ), 343 ,

5 ) , 3975 i ( 3 6 ) , 4 2 4 ; 2 ( 3 3 - 4 4 ) , ! 5 G (4 ) , 4 5 5 “

( 1 7 ) , 3 9 6 ; ( i 8 )» i ° : (1 9 -2 2 ), 2 1 7 ; i26), 2 I 5’

6 ; (1 2 ), 3 5 5 - 6 ; ( 1 3 -1 4 ) , 153, 4 4 5 (e p ig ra p h ),

( 7 - 8 ) , 1 6 4 ; (1 4 ),

4555 5 ( 1 2 - 1 3 ) , 3 1 9 ; 6 (6 ), 2 0 0 ; ( 1 1 -1 2 ), 115;

( 4 3 ), 1 5 7 ; Μ

, 374 , 3 l8 ° ’

4 ( 1 3 ) , 6 ( 2 7 )» 4 7 9 , 7 ( 1 - 5 ) , 8 8 ; (2 2 ), 416; ( 2 9 f f · ) , 2 1 1 ; 8 ( 5 ) , *5 4 ;

(1 2 ), 4 5 1 - 2 ; 13 (1 9 ), 1 6 6 ; 16 ( 1 9 - 2 1 ) , 1 5 6 ;

9 (6), 346, 396; 11 j1®}’

(2 4 ),

297;

1 5 2 ; 12 ( 1 9 ) , 3775 (2 0 >

29G

(2 4 ), 4 1 3 ; 396; 27

17

(1 -2 ), 26

(ΙΟ­

Ι I), 3 4 9 ; 3 ' ( ” ) , 410; 36

(1 6 ),

(ii-iq ),

157; 168; 5

II.

I

(5 -6 ),

1 9 3 ; (1 0 ), 453- 4 ; ( 1 - 4 ) , 1 1 3 ; II ( 1 6 ) , 1 9 4 ; 13 (8 ),

11 7 ;

(2 0 ),

157;

(38), 333; 14 (!-S), 88;

532

321,

( 2 8 ) , 3 0 5 ; 9 (i)> 2 4 2;

H orace Carmina 1 ( 1 ) , 4 5 0 - 1 ; 1 ( 4 -

(9-10), G aius Inst. 1 ( 5 5 ) , π (2 i f . ) , 3 8 9 G ellius

20

(2 2 ),

(30),43°; 3 (40-4), j64! 4 ( 3) , 154; ( 17), 87; (37), 456 ; (58), 396; 5 (2 2 ),

H ermogenes

1 5 6 ; Xi ( 2 6 2 - 3 ) , 3 8 8

243

170;

( 2 3 - 4 ) , 2 5 9 ; 6 ( 2 1 ) , 155;

Phaedr. ( 2 4 5 a ) , 3 6 6

W e s t), 3 8 8

E u a n th iu s De Fab. 2 . 4 ( D o n a t . Comm. Ter. e d . W e s s n e r , i· l 6 )> 3 j 8 ; 3 · 7 (ibid. I. 2 0 ) , 2 2 4 ; 3 . 5 { i b i d . ) ,

(4 8 8 ,

16 ( 2 5 - 6 ) , 1 3 1 ; 18 ( 3 2 4 ),

(1 9 8 ),

3 7 4 ! ( 2 9 9 ) , 3995 ( 2 4 1 ) , 4 2 4 ; (3 0 3 -4 ) ,( 3 0 8 ) , 1 4 2 ;

fr.

( 1 1 - 1 2 ) , 15 (1—2 ) , 153;

G ermanicus Pham. ( 2 6 ) , 3 5 5

117, 426; 13 2 2 4 ; 16 ( 3 2 ) , 4 1 6 , (6

· >’

375; (79), 479; 17 0 > 3 7 4 ; (2 6 ), 3 9 3 ; (4 4 5 ’ 1 4 2 ; ( 4 5 ) , 3395 ( 5 8 o · ’ 4 2 5 ; 18 ( 2 ) , 4 0 5 ; / 4 ’ 1 5 6 ; ( 1 2 ) , 3745 4 0 6 ; ( 4 0 ) , 4 0 0 ; 19 ( 34)

, 2 9 1 ; (1 1 ), 3° 6 ; (T

Index o f passages cited Horace ( cont.) 115,

306;

(1 9 ),

(2 1 ),

a n ; (2 4 -5 ), 211; (2 9 ), 2 1 1 ; ( 3 7 - 8 ) , 4 0 1 ; ( 48 ) , 3455 2 0 ( i i f . ) , 38 35 ( 2 ) , 3 5 8 ; ( 6 ) 3 8 4 ; (1 3 ), 3 5 8 ; ( 1 4 - 1 6 ) , 4 2 8 ; π . i (6 ), 164, 3 1 9 ; (5 0 ), 1 45; ( 5 0 - 1 ) , (5 6 ), 30 1 ; (5 8 ), 3 0 6 ; ( 5 9 ), 1 4 4 ; ( 6 3 ) , 1 9 0 ; ( 6 6 - 7 ) , 4 ·7 5 (6 9 ), 1 5 4 ; ( 6 9 -7 2 ) , 1 8 4 ; ( 73 - 4 ) , 3 6 6 ; ( 73 - 5 ) , 9 6 ; (7 4 ), 1 6 8 ; ( 8 9 ) , 1 5 0 ; (9 0 -1 ), 2 8 0 ; ( 9 3 ff· ) , 2 6 2 ,2 6 7 ; ( 9 3 - 1 1 7 ), 3 4 8 ; (1 0 0 ),

234;

164;

(1 0 6 -7 ),

(1 0 8 f f.) ,

381;

(1 1 4 -1 6 ), 3 9 7 ; (1 1 7 ), 430; (1 1 9 -2 0 ), 349; ( 1 3 0 ) , 3 · 9 ; ( · 33 )> ! 7° ; (1 3 9 f f · ) , 2 6 7 , 3 1 2 ; ( 1 4 5 f f .) , 1 6 8 , 3 1 6 , 3 1 7 ; ( 1 4 6 ) l 6 g ; ( 1 5 a —3 )» 3 ι 6 ϊ ( ι 5 6 ) ,

(i6o),

319;

ff),

262;

7 ),

318;

1 5 7 ; O61 (1 6 4 ), (1 6 4 (1 6 5 ),

(1 6 6 -7 ), 321 ; 378; (1 6 8 -9 ), (1 7 0 fr.) , 144;

424; (I 6 8 ), 290; (1 7 6 ),

156; (1 8 2 -6 ), 293; (1 8 5 ), 1 9 0 ; ( 1 8 8 ), 2 4 6 ; (1 9 9 ), 1 4 4 ; (2 0 3 ), 1 6 9 ; (2 0 7 ), 2 7 0 ; (2 0 8 ), 2 4 2 ; (2 0 8 f f ) , 1 8 3 ; (2 1 0 f f ) , 184;

(2 1 0 -1 3 ),

(2 3 1 ),

304;

245;

(2 3 2 -4 ),

4 ·5> 417; (2 3 7 ), 3 1 9 ; (2 4 7 ), · 4 4 ϊ

365;

(2 3 3 ),

(2 4 7 -5 0 ),

145;

(2 4 8 ),

” 9 ; (2 4 9 ), 4 ” ; ( 2 5 ° I), 164, 1 7 9 ; (2 5 0 -9 ), 446 n .

1;

(2 5 1 ),

112;

(2 5 7 -8 ), 145; (2 5 9 ), 123; (2 6 0 ), 1 4 4 ; 2 (1 8 ), 426;

(7 6 ),

347;

(7 7 ),

3 3 1 ; (8 7 ), 8 7 ; (9 6 ), 2 9 4 ; (9 9 -1 0 0 ), 4 1 9 ; (1 0 6 • 9), 1 3 3 -4 ; (1 0 7 -8 ), 4 0 6 ; ( i o g ) , a i 2 ; ( 1 0 9 f r .) ,

513; (109-10), 303; (no), 241; (in ff.), 345; (in-19), 147; ( n s ) , 157; (II6), 146, 344; (II7), 145; (119), 146,158,159; (120-1), 144; (I2I), 145; (1223), 323, 416-18; (123), 416; (124-5), 289-90; (125), 284,3995(131-5) i 64; (135), 424; (137), 332, 334; (143), 289; (144), 268; (171), 146; (172), 233; (173-9), 479; (188-9), 321; (207), 479 Epodes i (2-4), 88; (33), 383; 5 (3 3 ), 366; 6 (11 ff), 168; 7 (3-4), 152; 12 (4), 118; 15 (5), 149; 17 (· 4 ), 200; (39-40), 3 9 8 - 9 Sermones 1. 1 (28), 155; 2 (24), 115; (28), 115; (9 2 ), 91; 3 (4 7 - 8 ), 1 21; (99ff·) 312; (102), 158; (133-4), 4 2 3 ; 4 (8), 417; (8 - 9 ), 115; (3865), 446 η. i; (42), 179; (4 3 - 4 ), 391; ( 4 5 ff), 179; (4 6 - 7 ), 3 9 5 5 (101), 351; 6 (76-7), 155; 9 (30), 39* ; (38), 154; (51-2), 321; 10(6), 184; (7-19), 446 η. 2; (9 - 1 0 ), 3 5 3 ; (37), g8; (40 ff), 446 η. 4; (423), i64, 319; (48-9), 295; (50-71), 446 η· 35 (5 4 ), 3 0 1 ; (59), 166; (65-6), 321; (66), 138; (72), 372; (72-3), 384, 446 η. 5; (76), igo; (76-7), 293; (87), 513; π. i (2), 120; (a-3 ), (12-13), no; (28), 166; (32-4), 96; (62-3), 319; (82-3), 317; (84), 372; 2 (45), •53; 3 ( if f ) , 383;

( 2 4 -5 ) , 1 1 8 ; (5 9 ), 4 2 4 ; ( 8 2 - 3 ) , 3 3 2 ; (1 0 3 ), 167; (1 3 0 ), 4 2 3 ; (2 0 8 -9 ), 9 0 ; (2 1 2 ), 4 2 6 5 5 ( 1 1 ) , 149; (5 8 ), 4 2 6 ;

(8 3 ),

424;

( 9 6 - 9 ) , 4 0 5 ; 6 ( 1 7 ) , 112, 1 7 9 ; ( 57 - 8 ) , 1 1 8 ; (8 2 ), 8 7 ; 7 ( 3 8 ) , 3 3 3 ; ( 6 6 ), 4 2 6 ; (9 6 ), 4 0 7 ; (1 0 8 -9 ), 1 2 3 ; (1 1 7 ), 4 2 3 ; 8 (5 1 2 ) , 165

Ilias Minor 1 -2 , 214

Inscription Brit. Mus. 8 9 4 (9 f f .) , 2 5 9

I sidorus of Seville Etym. Vi. 8 ( 3 ) ,

136;

v ili. 7 (1 0 ), 3 3 6

I socrates Antid. ( 1 8 1 ) , 3 9 7 ■Nie. ( 5 ) , 3 8 5 - 9 0 Pan. ( 9 ) , 2 0 5 ap. P l u t . Vit. Dec. Or. 4 (8 3 8 ε ) , 3 3 5

J ulius V ictor Rhet. Lat. M in.

347 (17,

H a lm ), 340

J ustinian Inst. I (1 0 J uvenal

P r a e f .) , 3 8 9

• (6 9 ), 1 9 3 ; (1 3 1 ), 4 2 9 ; 4 (1 2 3 -4 ), 4 2 2 ; 7 (I 3), 167; 418;

( 43 ) , (5 3 ),

403; 210;

( 5 0 ), ( 5 5 ),

1 4 6 ; ( 1 0 2 ) , 2 1 2 ; (1 7 2 ),

3 9 3 ; (2 3 7 -8 ),

235;

8

( 6 8 ) , 14 9

L aberius f r . ( 1 3 8 , R i b b e c k 3), 2 9 2

Lex Salpensana ( x x n ) , 148

Liber de Asse ( Ο , ( 4 ), 3495 ( · 4 ) , 350

L ivy i. 6

(3 ), 1 4 1 ; 4 3 (1 -5 ), (1 2 ), 3 5 6 -7 ; 4 4 ( i ) , 1 9 0 ; n i. 4 4 (7 ), 4 2 5 ; 3 4 -3

Index o f passages cited Livy (cont.) 52 (2), 383; V. 40 (5), 155; vii. 6 (3), 321; 16 (5), 357; 37 (2), 149; ix. 18 (2), 189; 46 (13), 292; X. 24 (13), 218; XXI. 40 (io), 141; XXIII. 23 (4), 160; χχχνιπ . ι8 (g), 422 Longinus, see PseudoLonginus

Lucan π (543)) v i (794), 142; νπι (791), 43°

Lucian Hermot. (72), 91; (86), 333 Hist. Corner. (8), 212; (23), 2i3> 215 Pro Imag. (18), 91 Tim. i (1), 218 Ver. Hist. 11 (18), 333 Vit. Auct. (23), 333

Lucilius frs. (49-50, M arx), 149; frs. (344-7), 36 8 ; fr· (587), 85; fr. (609), 4055 fr. (610), 353, 383; fr. (611), 405-6, 420; fr. (617), 374; fr. (621), 405; fr. (702), 376; fr. (709), 3395 frs. (71617), 4025 fr. (944), 3835 fr· (953), 406, 420; frs. (954-5), 408-10; fr. (1209), 215; fr. (1282), 401-2; frs. (1326-38), 341

Lucretius 1 (25), 3995 (136), (!389), 141; (139)» (831-2), 145; (931 ff·), 238; 933 (IV. 8), 399; π (3-4), 238; (656-7), 146; III (260), 145; (969), 157; IV (375-6), 147, 149; (739-4°), 85; V (1023), 245, 246; (273-4), 149; (311), 155; (3278), 157; (328-9), 198; (733), 149; (888-9),

193; (1029),1585(1106), 165; ( h 4 7 ) , 4 °4 ; VI (809), 142

Lydus De Magistratibus i (9), 357 Lyrici Gr. fr. adesp. (947, Page, Poetae Mel. Gr.), 271

Macrobius Sat. in (eh. 14), 284

Mallius Theodorus GL, vi. 589 (20 ff.), 165

Manilius ii (242), 120; in (149 ff.), 154; (423), 350; IV (726), 244; (800), 87; V (468-9), 208

Marcus Antonius

Ovid A.A. in (480), 210 Am. in. i (11), 283; (37)) 284 Fast, π (108), 309; v (ιο ί), 142; VI ( 5 1 7)5 425 H er. i (14), 407; 10 (6 °)> 156; 12 (73-4), 160 Met. i (607-8), 130; (7078), 265; ni (459-60)’ 185; ( 729). 149; ™ (118), 155; x (438)> *93 Pont. IV . 8 (47-8), 157; 12 (25), 4*3; 16 (29- 3°)> 168 Rem. Am. (375“®)> ^ Tr. I. 7 (29-30), 4*4

[Ovid] H a l.

(68-71), 154

ap. Cic. De Or. 1 (94), 375 Marmor Parium s.v. ‘Thespis’, 277

P acatus

Martial I. 25 (2-4), 357; II (27),

P a c u v iu s

407; 14(1), 319; in (40), 383; 44 (10 ff.), 430; 50. (1), 403; vi (6), 253; vii. 37 (1-2), 417; X. 11 (6), 366

Mimnermus fr. 2 (1 Diehl), 147

Moschion fr. 6 (14-15 Nauck2), 387

Nazarius

Pan.

24 (4), 245

fr. (276 Ribbeck3), 181 P a p . O x y. 10 8 6 c o l. i ( 1 1—1 8 ), 222

P aulus

,

F e sti E p ito m a le r),

(223),

160; 3 2° ;

(22,

M u e l­

( 45 ) > 2 9 2 >

(a6 3 )’ 4 245

( 2 9 4 ) , 354 P a u sa n ia s ii. 6 (4) , ιχ · 5

. (T * > ’

388

Pan. 32 (4), 245

Neoptolemus of Parium ? in H V 2 IV (195), 209; vii (87), 209 ap. Philod. Poem. v . 11 (58), 395; 13 (8 ff·), 352-3; (10 ff.), 184

Nigidius ap. Gell. vn. 6 (10), 224 ap. Non. 53 (23), 429

Nonius 60 (8 f f ) , 348 Orphica fr. (292, K ern), 378

534

P ersìus

,

,

v

Sat. i, 401, 407; (4)’ (2°): (3 0 . 3575 (48- 9)> 4 7» (50-1), 3345 (5 1 4 >’ 403; (55-6)> 405; 63' J), 324; ^ 1 39 (W), (8*), ( f 7). (90-1), 186; (92)> ’ 39’ (in),

407 ;

429; (i 17), 4495 * “7 ’ 429; 4 ( 13). 4*75 ( l6)! 332; (5 ), 4 01 > (7)» 2 ’ ( 1 4 ) 0 3 9 ,2 8 9 ; ^ 345 ; (34- 5 )» 393 >( i7), 41 »; ( I23)> 2B4

Index o f passages cited P etronius

(7 0 0 -1 ), 2 6 2 ;

34 ( 7 )> 4 0 3 ; 8 8 ( 4 ) . 3335 118 (5 ), 9 6 ;

132

(i3 )>

ci, 387

Phaedrus IV (2 3 ( 2 4 ) ) , 2 1 5 P h e r e c r a te s

(2 6 3 -4 ),

78;

( 2 7 0 > 342

Rep. h i ( 3 8 6 a ) , 3 4 1 ; (3 9 7 d ) , 2 6 9 ; ( 3 9 9 c - d ) , 271 ;

( 1 6 1 —4 ) ,

(399d ), 262; 3 9 8 ; IV ( 4 2 4

(4 0 3 c ), c), 2 6 0 ,

2 6 9 ; v i (4 9 7 d ), 3 6 3 ; X

Noe

(1 5 7 ),

In Flaccum ( 3 6 ) , 4 2 3 Quod omnis probus

liber

(1 4 5 ), 2 5 8 P hilodemus

De Morte ( 3 8 f . ) , 2 4 0 De Poematis v ( c o i .

3 ),

340; (3 -4 )) 2 2 1 ; 4 ( 1 3 -

Plautus Amph. (376), 425 Cure. ( 5 3 - 4 ) 5 2 1 8 Most. ( 1 4 7 - 8 ) , 15 6 Persa ( 1 5 2 ) , 1 8 5 ; ( 4 6 5 б) , 179

»6 ) , 3 5 2 ; ( 3 1—2 ) , 3 4 5 ; 7 ( 2 9 - 3 0 ) , 3 5 9 ; ( 8- 9 ) .

P oen . ( 8 3 2 ) , 1 9 0 ; ( 1 1 0 9 ) ,

398; 9 (2 8 -3 0 ), 13 ( 8 -1 0 ) , 3 5 9 ; 17 ( 1 8 -

Ps. ( 8 6 5 ) , 1 4 9 ; ( 9 3 1 ) , 4 3 1 Rud. ( 6 1 5 f r . ) , 4 2 5 Trin. ( 2 6 5 ) , 3 7 2 Pliny the Elder N .H . XIX. 5 3 ( 1 6 8 ) , 3 7 7 ; XXV (47 ff·). 332;

2 2 ) , 9 5 ; 2 2 ( 3 5 ) - 2 . ( 3 1) ’

359

H V 2 IV ( 1 1 3 ) , 3 0 5 ; ( I 5 1)» 2 8 8 -9 ; (1 9 5 ). 2 0 9 , 4 4 1 2 ; v i. 1 7 4 ( 7 f f ) , 3 6 6 : vii ( 8 7 ) , 2 0 9 , 4 4 1 - 2 ;

Xi.

1 4 9 (2 f f.) , (1 6 1 ), 4 1 9

Rhet. 1 (p. 5 ) ,

ii

213;

(p. 1 2 7 ) ,

i

2 2 2 ; ix (1 -2 ),

P hilostratus Vita Apollonii 1 ( 1 7 ) , m ;

01.

(59)5 ( 6 5 ) .

XXXVI ( 1 0 4 ) , 1 5 5 Pliny the Younger

" 9J

Ep. 1 . 2 ( 4 ) , 1 8 0 ; i n . 9 ( 2 8 ) ,

359

v i. i i P indar

185

x x x iv

(1 1 3 ), 2 4 4

( 2 6 ) , 2 7 2 ; 26 I 12;

(2 ),

107;

(5) m P lutarch Caesar ( 5 8 ) , 1 5 1 ; ( 5 8 . 9 ) , 153

(1 8 ff.) ,

171;

13

(6 - 7) . 2 5 9

Pyth. 3 ( 7 4 ) , 1 7 1 ; 1 2 ( 2 5 7 ), 2 6 4 P indar

(?) Pap. Oxy. ( 2 6 2 2 ) , 1 4 7 P lato Gorgias ( 5 0 3 e - 4 a ) , 7 8 ion ( 5 3 4 a ) , 3 3 0 ; ( 5 3 4 ε ) , 38 7

Laws n i ( 7 0 0 a f f . ) , 2 6 9 ;

ab

am.

Cic. ( 2 4 ) , 3 6 8 Comp. Arist. et Men. (8 5 3 d ) , 191

D e aud. poet. ( 1 6 c ) , 4 2 6 ; (1 6 -1 7 ),

352;

(4 5

4 6 c), 407

D e se ipsum .. .laud. ( e h .

(e h . 2 9 ), 2 7 1 ; (e h . 3 0 ),

D e vita et poesi Horn. ( 1 6 2 ) , 221

P orphyrion o n A P . ( 4 3 1 ) . 4 0 9 ; (457)5 4 2 4 ; (4 7 1 ), 4 2 9

2 7 1 )5 145

P roclus o n P la to

Alcib. I ( 1 0 5 a ) ,

252 P ropertius ii . 4 ( 1 6 ) , 1 2 3 ; 3 4 ( b ) ( 2 7 ) , 3 3 9 ; III. II ( 4 0 ) , 1 1 8; IV. 2 ( 5 7 ) , 35 °

P rotagoras f r. (3 , D ie ls -K r a n z ) , 3 98

P rudentius Contra Symm. 11 (4 1 5 ), 92 Perist. v ( 4 7 ) , 1 9 3 ; X (1 0 1 6 ), 31 4

P seudo-A cro o n A.P. ( 9 7 ) , 1 8 0 ; ( 9 8 ) , 18 1 ; ( 4 3 1 ) , 4 0 9 ; ( 4 6 5 ) , 4 2 7 - 8 ; (4 7 1 ), 4 2 9

P seudo-C ornutus Rhet. ( 6 5 ) , 2 1 9 ; (3 6 5 ff.) , 216

Pseudo-Longinus Subì, ( i f f . ) , 3 6 0 ; i ( 2 ), 4 0 5 ; ( 4 ) 5 1 1 3 ; (c h · 2 ) , 7 6 ; 2 ( 1 - 2 ) , 9 1 - 2 ; (2 ),

397; 283; in ; 5 (1 ),

3 ( 1)5

3 7 2 ; (2 ) ( 3 ) , 106; ( 3 - 4 ) , (c h s. 3 - 5 ) , 7 6 ; 106; 7 (3 -4 ), 369;

( c h . 8 ) , 7 6 ; 9 (1 4 ), 3 5 6 ; 1 2 (4 ), 1 1 3 5 2 8 (1 ), h i ;

2 2 ), 96

Quomodo adul. poet. ( 1 9 c ) , (3 1 b - c ) ,

Stoic. Repug. ( e h . 2 2 ) , 4 2 9 [P lutarch] De Mus. ( e h . 1 5 ), 2 6 2 ;

P ratinas ‘ hyporchema’, 2 6 2 , 2 6 6 P riscian Inst. XVIII ( 1 3 8 , GL in .

( 6 0 4 ε i ), 1 0 4

Tkeaet. ( 1 7 4 a ) , 4 2 3 - 4 Tim. ( 2 8 a ) , 3 4 2

III

adul.

2 6 6 , 271

( 3 2 3 a 7 f f .) , 3 9 8

152

P h ilo De Piant.

330;

Protag. ( 3 i 6 d ) , 3 8 5 , 3 8 7 ;

fr. (1 4 5 , K o c k ) , 2 6 2

P h ila rg y r iu s o n V i r g . G. π

,

Quomodo

(5 6 b ), 3 3 9 ; (58 e ), 403

Phaedr. ( 2 3 4 ε ) , 3 4 8 ; (2 5 4 а)

179

VI (7 8 2 fa­

200;

2 0 6 -7

535

(3 4 ),

(ch s. 3 2 - 3 ),

1 12 ;

(c h .

3 3 ) . 3 6 1 ; 33 ( 2 ). 3 7 4 ; 3 3 ( 4 ) . 36 3 . 3 6 6 , 3 7 6 ;

Index o f passages cited P seudo-L onginus (cent.)

(1 1 3 ), 3 4 7 ; (1 3 6 ), 1 6 9 ;

(4 3 2 ),

33 ( 5 ) . 3 7 8 ; 35 ( 4 ) . 9 7 ; 38 (4)1 395 , 396 - 7 ;

X· i ( 5 ) , 3 3 6 ; ( 2 4 ) , 3 6 3 , 3 6 7 - 8 ; (2 5 ), 1 1 5 ; (2 7 ),

203 H o rn .

(c h .

233;

P ers. 4 (1 6 ), 332

4 0 ),

2 8 8 -9 ;

(ch .

4 2 ) , 108, 109

217;

392;

Q uintilian 1 .0 . E p . a d T r y p h . ( 2 ) , 3 8 4 ; I. p r o o e m . ( 2 2 ) , 336;

i. p ro o e m .

(2 7 ),

3 9 6 ; i- 5 ( 3 )» 1 1 5 ; ( 72 ) . 92;

6

(3 ),

146,

159;

( 44 ) . ( 45 ) , 1 5 9 ; 8 ( 6 ) , (8)» 3 3 7 ; ( i 7 ) , 2 3 3 ; 10 ( 4 ), 3 6 5 ; ( 9 ), 3 8 6 - 8 ; (3 1 ), 2 6 0 ; B ooks π a n d

h i;

(3 1 ), (5 5 ) ,

337; 292;

(48) , (5 6 ),

(5 9 ) , (8 8 ),

418; 415;

(6 0 ), (9 7 ),

3 4 6 ; (9 9 ) , 346; 2 107,

1 5 6 ; (1 3 0 ), (9 ), 3 6 3 ; (1 6 ),

h i;

(2 2 ),

212;

(2 3 ), 3 4 6 ; 3 (3) , 3 3 6 ; (2 2 -3 ), 331; 4 (1 ),

Soph.

222;

XX

(4 ° ),

Od. x i ( 1 7 7 ), 222 Ajax ( 8 1 5 ) , 2 4 4 - 5 ;

( 1 1 2 6 ) , 17 5

Seneca AdPolyb. 1 ( 1 ) , *55 Apocol. 9 ( 5 ) , 1 7 ° Ben. i i . 14 ( 4 ) , 4 28 De Ira n . 2 ( 5 ) , 185 Ep. 13 ( 1 7 ) , 3 2 ( 2- 4 ),

(4 ) , 3 8 4 ; 7 ( 8 ) , X i. i ( 5 0 ) , 4 1 8 ;

2 4 0 ; ( 5 8 ) , 1 4 1 ; 5 8 (2 6 ),

3 ( 6 9 ) , 2 3 3 ; XU (1 f f ) ,

323; 340;

2455 79 ( 5 ) , 9 5 ;8 7 ( 33 )>

359, 372; i (8), 3 0 5 ;

2 4 5 ; ( 9 °)> 3 8 5 ; 91 ( I 2 )> 1 5 6 ; 9 2 ( 2 9 ) , 3 7 4 ; 101

(7 ), 4 1 3 ;

(1 9 f f ) , 3 6 0 ; (2 0 ), 3 2 3 ,

( 8 ) , 2 4 0 ; 1 13 ( 1 8 ) , 2 4 5 ;

( 2 ) , 3 5 5 ; (9 ), 4 1 6 ; (c h . 8 ), 7 6 ; 8 (1 0 ), 3 6 5 ;

3 6 3 ; (2 2 ), 3 6 8 ; ( 2 8 - 9 ) ,

1 1 4 ( 1 5 ) , 1 3 9 ; i 22 ( i i -

3 4 1 ; (c h . 2 ), 3 3 8 , 3 4 1 ;

(ch s.

( p ro o e m .4 ) ,3 3 6 5 9 (1 3 ),

h i, 7 5 ; i i . 2

4

1 1 -1 3 ),

ii

(0 ,

7 5 J ( 5 - 7) , 7 7 ; 12 ( 4 ) , 7 6 , 1 1 5 ; 1 4 ( 1 ), 1 4 3 ;

316;

(c h .

10), 3 6 9 ; 10

( c h s . 15 f r.) , 7 5 - 6 ; (c h .

(1 6 -1 7 ), 2 8 3 ; ( 4 ° ) ,4 1 8 ; (5 8 ), i n ; ( 6 4 -5 ) , 1 1 3 ;

19), 76; 19 (Ο, 395;

(73), 107 , i n ; (73-6),

(2 )

, 3 9 6 ; in (c h . 3 ), 7 6 ;

3 ( I —1 0 ) , 2 ),

216;

1 2 7 ; IV ( c h . 2

(6 4 ),

246,

345 ; 3 ( 3 )» 9 9 ; V. 1 0 ( 5), 1 5 9 ; (1 2 1 ), 3 9 6 , 3 9 7 ; Η ( 33 ) , 1 5 9 ; VI

2 7 2 ; (8 0 ), i n

(c h . 9 ) , 4 1 9 ; 10 222; v i«

(1 1 f f .) ,

(1 1 ),

1 2 7 -8 ;

o n V irg . 222 o n V irg .

R utilius L upus

III

1 ( 2 1 ) , i i (7 ), 2 3 2 S a llu s t

Cat. 2 5 ( 2 ) , 2 8 4 Hist, i , f r . ( 1 4 ) , 2 5 9 I“g- i i ( 7) , 3 8 3 ; 1 0 2 ( 9 ) ,

(p ro o e m . 2 ), 3 3 7 ;

393

S c h o lia

115; (2 1 ),

424;

( 7° ^ "

Cho. ( 8 9 9 ) , 2 5 3 Ach. ( 4 4 3 ) , 2 5 6

A esch. A ris t.

Nub. ( 397), 422 Vesp. ( 1 4 1 3 ) , 2 0 2

3 6 3 ; ( 3 2 ), 1 1 2 ; 6 (2 3 ),

1 6 8 ( 1 0 f f ) , 4 4 9 ; (4 f f ) , 4 2 6 ; 4 4 9 (1 4 ), 35 5

15 2 ; (3 2 ), 4 1 7 ; ix . 2

1 4 3 ; (6 5 ), (4 0 ), 2 4 6 ;

E u r.

(4 4 ), 9 8 - 9 ;

(7 6 ), 3 2 3 ;

H o rn .

v ili (8 3 ), 215 o n V i r g . G. a ( 4 8 3 - 4 ) , 4 27

Sextus E mpiricus Math, i ( 2 6 4 ) , 35 6 ; “ ( I 9 ) ’ 335

D io n .T h ra x (e d . H ilg a r d ) ,

(43), 129; (51), 309;

A. 1 ( 34 ) , a a I '»

(6 3 2 ),

Sidonius A pollinaris

4 1 9 ; (2 5 f f.) , 9 6 ; (2 8 ),

(3 ) . 2 3 2 ; (ch s. 3 - 4 ) , 161 ; 3 ( 2 8 ) , 1 2 9 ; ( 7 4 ) , (1 0 0 ), 3 4 7 ; 4 (5 ), 3 2 3 ;

A. p r a e f . (9 2 n . j ,

1 ), 4 3 ° ; VI ( l 6 o ) , 136;

2 (2 ), 1 5 9 ; 3 (6 ), n o ; (7 ), 1 0 7 ; (1 8 ), 3 6 3 ; (2 0 ), 2 1 5 ; (3 3 ), 1 4 3 ; ( 35 ) , 9 2 ; ( 5 6 ) , (6 0 ), 8 5 , 9 5 ; 5

9), 149

Phoen. ( io o ), 4 2 8 Tranq. An. 17 (io )> 33 ° Servius

[ Q u in tilia n ] Deci. XIII ( 2 ) , 1 4 9

(c h . 2 ), 1 8 2 ,1 8 6 ; 2 (3 0 ), 1 8 9 ; (3 2 ), 2 4 6 ; (c h . 3 ), 1 8 5 ; v n . i (4 4 ), 2 7 2 ;

i S ) , 95

Med. ( 2 6 ) , 13 6 Oed. ( 4 5 2 - 3 ) , 1 4 9 Pkaed. ( 7 2 5 - 6 ) , 4 2 5 ; ( 7 6 8 -

Phoen. ( 2 0 2 ) , 2 5 7 II. i ( 1 ) , 2 2 1 ; ( 8 ) , 2 2 1 , 2 2 2 ; π ( 5 5 3 ) , V (8), 221;

vi

(2 2 4 ),

(5 8 ), 221;

2 4 5 ; nc

XV ( 5 6 ) , XVI

2 2 2 ; (6 1 0 ff.) , 2 1 0 ;

536

Cam . 2 3 ( 2 5 3 ) , 424 Silius I talicus ih ( 6 2 5 ) , 1 7 0 ; v ™ (5 8 5 ),

142

Simonides . b. P l u t . Mor. 17 f- etaf ap. 3 6 9 ; fr. 8 5 B e rg k * (S e m o n i d e s fr. 2 9 Diehl ), i47;fr. (1 3 9 D i e h l 3) , 15°

Sophocles An. ( 8 8 ) , 4 2 7 . Indag. (4 7 ) , 2 9 2 ; ( 147- 8 ) ’ 292

Index o f passages cited Statius

164; (2 1 9 1 -3 ), 298; ( 2 1 9 6 ) , 2 9 9 ; ( 2 1 9 6 f r.) ,

Silv. i. 6 ( 4 1 ) , ( 4 5 ) , 1 7 1 ; ii· 7 ( 5 θ > a i o ; m · 3 ( 2 0 3 - 4 ) , 3 4 3 ; IV. i ( 2 5 -

152

3 0 0 ; (2 2 5 4 -5 ), 309

V irg il

T heocritus T heophrastus Metaph.

(2 1 6 -1 7 ), 368

Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta ii- 329 ( 33 ) . t 8 9

Strabo i ( 1 8 ) , 3395 V I ( 2 7 6 ) . 2 1 7

(2 0 ,

206 ap. D e m e t r .

Suda

8 b 2 0 -7 ),

Interpr. ( 2 2 2 ) ,

127 ap. D i o n . H a l .

Isocr. ( 3 ) ,

133

s .v . 'Α ν τ ί μ α χ ο ς , 3 1 6 ; s .v . β ε κ κ ε σ έ λ η ν ο ς, 4 2 2 ; s .v . 'Ε μ π ε δ ο κ λ ή ς ,

427;

s .v .

ή Π ε ρ γ α ί α " Α ρ τ ε μ ις , 4 2 2 ; s .v . Θ έ σ π ι ς , 3 1 3 ; s .v . Φ ρ ύ ν ιχ ο ς , 3 1 3 ; s . v . τ ά èx τ ω ν ά μ α ξ ώ ν , 3 1 2 ; s .v . Χ ιω ν ίδ η ς , 3 1 6 ; s . v . Χ ο ι-

ap. P l u t . De Aud. ( 3 8 a ) , 2 4 6

T ibullus i. 8 (9 ),

136;

i 19

Tractatus Vindoborunsis p.

5

(2 4 ,

Aug. 1 6 ( i ) , 1 5 2 ; 3 ° i 1) .

Z e c h m e is te r),

132 T zetzes Chii, i (3 2 3 f f .) , 3 8 8

Caes. 4 4 ( 3 ) , 1 5 3 Nero 2 2 ( 3 ) , 4 2 0 De Poetis ap. I s i d .

Et.

V ili. 7 ( 1 —2 ) , 3 8 5 - 9 2 ; fr. ( 1 9 8 , R e i f f e r s c h e i d ) , 400

Symmachus Ep. i . 4 ( i ) , 4 1 4

Agr. 2 6 ( 2 ) , 1 5 5 Arm. n . 9 ( 1 ) , 2 5 6 ; i n . 3 6 (3) , 1 6 7

Dial. 9 ( 6 ) , 3 3 1 ; 1 8 ( 5 ) , n o ; ( c h s . 3 6 f f.) , 3 1 8 Hist. i . 6 1 ( 1 ) , 2 5 6 T ati an

Ad Graec. ( 1 0 2 ) , 3 3 1

T erence Eun. ( 2 5 2 - 3 ) , 4 0 2 ; ( 7 9 0 ) . 426

Heaut.

( p T o l. 2 9 - 3 0 ) , 1 1 5 ; (2 5 -6 ), 160

297;

(1 6 4 6 -8 ),

387;

(7 1 3 -1 4 ),

150; (847), 119; (848), 343-4; vm (127), 88; (385-6), 259; X (3940), 319; (154), 269; (2IO—11), 85, 87; (2856) , 123; Xi (759), xii

152

V (1), 145; (3-5), 147; (68), 423; (73), 392; vi (64), 136; (78), (82), 158; vm (8), 115; (27), (40), 142; ix. (2 0 ),

146;

(3 7 ),

1 4 2 ; ( 73 ) . Η 2 . 1 4 9 ; X ( 7 3 ). 1 5 9 ; (74). 158; (7 8 ), 159

Men. ( 9 ) , 3 5 7 ; ( 1 4 7 ) , 2 9 2 ; ( 3 9 9 ). 15 6 ; (5 1 9 ). 399; 292 De Vita pop. Rom. i v ap. N o n . (6 6 -7 ), 409

(550),

ap. C h a r . GL, 1 ( 1 0 4 ) , 3 3 9 ap. G e l l . x i i . 1 0 ( 4 ) , 1 4 3 ap. I s i d . Et. v m . 7 ( 3 ) , 391

Eclogues i ( 2 ) , 2 6 5 ; ( 5 ) , 399;

( i 6), 3335

ap. M a r . V i c t . GL, v i . 5 5

( i i ). 139 5 3 7

(3 2 ),

3 5 1 ; 5 ( 45 ) , 3 9 1 5 7 ( 41 ) ,

3775

( 59 ) , 193-45 8 ( 1 0 ) , 1 6 8 ; 10 ( 1 7 ), 391

Georgies 1 ( 4 7 - 8 ) ,

1555

( 1 1 8 ) , 1 5 6 ; ii ( 1 6 1 - 4 ) , 151, 152; (1 6 2 ), 1 5 5 ; (1 6 4 ), 1 5 2 ; (1 8 1 ), 1 5 7 ; ( 4 8 3 - 4 ) , 4 2 7 ; hi ( 1 4 6 7

)

, 194; (169-71).

Vita Aesch. (§ 6 ), 249

V itruvius Arch. i. i ( 3 ) , 7 6 , 3955 v i. 5 ( 2 ) , 2 9 2 ; vii . 5 ( 3 - 4 ) , 8 5 , 4 6 9 ; ne. i ( 1 1 ), 3 7 2

V olus. M aec.

(7 ),

349

fr. (3 0 6 F u n a io li), 3 2 0

(?) V arro

(3 1 0 ), 2 3 4

T erentianus M aurus

(6 4 5 ),

( 794 - 5) , 150

L .L .

147;

147;

Catalepton 5 ( 1 ) , 1 8 0 Catalepton ( Priap.) 2 ( 5 ),

V alerius M aximus V. i (9), 189 V arro

1 3 3 ; i x ( 0 , 1 5 8 ; ( 5 ). 91; ( 1 6 ) , 4 1 3 ; (1 7 ),

T acitus

( ! 3δ 3) ,

v i (1 6 7 ),

149

155

Hec.

V alerius F laccus IV ( 6 2 0 ) , 3 9 7 - 8 ;

(309-10),

( 377 ) , 3 7 4 ; ( 4 6 0 ) , 3 0 6 ;

ρ ίλ ο ς , 3 1 3

Suetonius

(383), 152; (409), 233; « (27), 120-1,259; (5 4 ). 3 3 3 ; (5 6 ), 156; (683-4), 119; in (18), 143; (250). 3 7 4 ! (4268), 85-7; iv (350), 120; (428), 245; (461), 121; (539), 156; (662), 121; V (5 7 5 ). 420; (701-3), 123; vi (88), 121 ; (160),

Aeneidi

2 (5 5 - 6 ), 431

6 ), 2 9 4 ; 2 (5 8 ), 3 6 6

Theb. v i ( 5 - 6 ) , 3 9 9 ; v m

Velleius Paterculus i. 8 (1), 167; η. 33 (4),

X enophon Mem. hi . 3 (13), 349

23

INDEX

M A N USCRIPTS AND TEXT

2

A p p a r a tu s c ritic u s o f th is

and

o th e r

e d itio n s o f H o r a c e , 2 1 , 4 2 A p u l e i u s , Flor. 16. 6 3 ( t e x t ) , 2 5 3 A r c h e t y p e s o f H o r a c e ’s p o e m s , n u m b e r a n d a g e o f, 2 7 - 3 1 C o m m e n ta to rs ,

a n c ie n t,

of

H o race,

38-42 C r i t i c i s m , t e x t u a l , i n H o r a c e , v ii, i x - x , 1 E d i t o r s o f H o r a c e , 1, 4 2 - 7 M a n u s c r ip ts o f H o r a c e : B e n tle y a n d th e

re a d in g s

V e t u s t is s i m u s ,

of 8;

th e

B la n d in iu s

B e n tl e y

and

th e

G r a e v ia n u s o f H o r a c e , 9 - 1 0 ; B la n d in ia n

e x c e rp ts c o n c e r n in g

te x t o f

Ars Poetica f u lly l i s t e d , 4 7 - 5 0 ; c la s s if i­ c a t i o n o f, 1 2 - 2 1 , 2 1 - 7 , 3 1 - 2 ; c o d . a , 2 , 3 1 -2 ; co d . B, 3 -4 ; c o d . C /E , 4 - 6 ; c o d . K , 1 -2 , 6 - 7 ; c o d . I, 1 0 - 1 1 ; c o d . R , 7 - 8 ; c o d . V ( ‘B l a n d i n i u s c o d . 5 (Grae­ vianus), 9 - 1 0 ; c o d . λ , i o ; c o d . ττ, i o ;

V e t u s t i s s i m u s ’) , 8 - g ;

c o d . φ , 11 ; c o d . ψ , 11 ; c o l l a t o r s o f — , O . K e l l e r a n d A . H o l d e r , 1—2 ; i n t e r ­ p o la tio n , p ro b a b le , in , 3 6 2 ; n u m b e r o f , i ; o r d e r o f H o r a c e ’s p o e m s , 1 4 1 5 ; s e l e c t i o n o f, 1 - 1 1 ; t i tle s o f p o e m s , 16 M a v o rtia n s u b s c rip t, 1 0 -1 1 , 3 0 -1 O r th o g r a p h y in th is e d itio n , ix P ro b u s , M . V a le riu s , 3 5 -8 P s e u d o - A c r o o n A .P . 2 3 8 ( t e x t ) , 2 8 7 R e a d in g s , d o u b le , in te x t o f H o r a c e , 3 4, 230, 234 S e rv iu s o n 136

V irg .

A . v i.

160

(te x t),

S t e m m a , u s e s o f, i n e d i t i o n s o f L a t i n te x ts , 1 2 ; u se s o f, in e d itio n s o f H o ra c e , 20

T ex t of H o race

A rs Poetica: abstare, 3 7 2 ; accrescere, 2 9 7 ; adflent a n d adsunt, adsint, 1 8 5 ; adiunctus, 2 4 3 ; -aeus a n d G r e e k -a to s, 2 3 1 ; aeuum— ‘ a g e ’, 2 4 3 ; M S S , -andus a n d -atus c o n f u s e d i n , 2 5 0 ; d i r ò κ ο ιν ο ύ c o n s t r u c t i o n , 2 4 3 - 4 ; artis a n d atris, 4 0 4 ; auidus fu tu ri, 2 3 9 - 4 0 ; bis term (terque), 3 6 6 - 7 ; cantare a n d certare, 3 9 8 - 9 ; captae post tempora Troiae, 2 1 7 , charta, s p e l l i n g , 3 3 9 ; concipere a n d conligere (iram), 2 3 4 ; colurnus, s p e llin g , 16 9 ; culillus a n d culullus, 4 1 0 ; decie(n)s, s p e l li n g , 3 2 3 , 3 7 2 ϊ deducere a n d diducere, 2 0 7 - 8 ; describere a n d discri­ bere, h o w d i s t i n g u i s h e d , 1 7 2 ; ditius a n d D auus, 1 9 2 - 3 ; ( ? ) ducere cenam, 3 7 8 ; -em a n d -en, 2 0 0 , 2 1 9 ; etiam, 4 °8> honoratum .. . Achillem, 1 9 9 ; iambeum, 2 9 7 - 8 ; -im a n d -in, 2 1 9 ; imberbis a n d imberbus, 2 3 4 - 5 ; imus, s e e unus; in d ic a tiv e a n d s u b ju n c tiv e , 3 5 5 , 4 1 1 > materies a n d -a, 2 1 0 ; morari in, 2 4 3 J -mur a n d -mus: debemur (s), poscimur(s ) , 1 5 1 , 2 5 1 ; natura, p l . , 2 3 2 3 ; ne a n d ne fo r te c l a u s e s : p u n c t u a ­ t i o n , 2 4 1 - 2 , 3 9 3 ; ne a n d nec, 3551 »rc a n d non, nunc, 3 9 9 , 4 2 0 ; nomen, 2 9 7 , nudare a n d inducere, 2 7 8 - 9 ; (?) 1 5 4 ; parturient montes, 2 1 4 - 1 6 ; ( p)a u idus fu tu ri, 2 3 9 - 4 0 ; pacare a n d placare, 2 5 7 - 8 ; piscis a n d pistrix, 8 7 ; paucus a n d paruus, rarus, 265-6 ; persaepe, 3 2 , plosor (plausor), 2 3 0 ; possit a n prosit, 3 9 6 ; praesectum a n d perfectum, 3 2 3 - 5 ; prauus a n d paruus, 1 2 1 ; (non ita) p/ridem, 2 9 8 - 9 ; priuus, ( 4 9 · producere a n d procudere, 1 4 8 ; Prolcere a n d deicere c o n f u s e d , 4 2 6 ; pronos. ■■W annos, 1 4 9 ; - ^ , s e e -1*5321 ; q u e re lf)^ 1 8 1 - 2 ; quid autem, p u n c tu a tio n , 144 · quid ergo (est)?, 3 6 4 ; quid hoc?, I00> quiduis a n d quoduis, 1 0 4 ; rabidus a n rapidus, 3 8 8 ; regis opus, I 5 2 _ 3 > relinqui est, 4 0 0 ; r e p e a t e d v e r s e s m

Index o f manuscripts and text T e x t o f H o r a c e ( cont.) H o r a c e ’s

poem s,

403; reponere

p u n c tu a tio n a t p p . 114, 1 3 4 -7 , 1 4 0 and

reposcere, 250-1 ; sc a n d n c o n f u s e d , 251; secus: non secus oc {ut), i d i o m d i s r e g a r d e d b y e d i t o r s a t H o r . C. 11. 3. 1—2, 222; spe longus, 239; sub uulpe

411;

s y lla b ic

tra n s p o s itio n ,

404;

tornatus, 414-15; tum-tunc, 186-7; tumens, 258; -ue a n d -que c o n f u s e d , j 5 4 j 294, 321, 366—7; uergere a n d pergere c o n f u s e d , 378-9; uexisse po­ emata, 3 12 ; uinctus, cinctus a n d iunctus, 264; unus a n d irnus, 117-18; urbem a n d urbes, 267-8; ut. . .ut {et), 364-5; see also t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f t e x t o r

539

I,

1 4 7 -8 , 174, 1 7 6 -7 , 1 7 8 -9 , 1 7 9 -8 0 ,

2 2 7 , 2 4 3 - 4 , 3 2 3 - 5 , 3 3 ! - 2 > 349 ) 3Ö2, 368, 3 7 1 -2 , 380, 400, 419, 428;

C. i ( 8 . 2 ) , 3 2 - 3 ; (1 3 . 2 ) , 3 4 ; π (13. 2 3 )) 3 3 ; ( l 8 · 3 °)> 3 4 i 111 ( 3 - 34 ). (6 . i i ) , 3 4 ; (6 . 2 2 ) , 3 3 - 4 ; (1 4 . 19), 3 4 ; IV (1 4 . 2 8 ) , 3 3 ; Epod. 5 ( 2 8 ) , 3 4 T ra n s m is s io n ‘c lo s e d ’ a n d U n ifie d

o f L a t i n c la s s ic a l te x ts , o p e n ’, 12

c h a ra c te r

of

th e

H o ra tia n

p a r a d o s is a lle g e d , 3 5 - 8 V a r i a n t s , a n c i e n t , i n H o r a t i a n te x t , 3 1 - 5

INDEX

3

LEXICAL, G RA M M A TIC A L, METRICAL auarus, 3 4 9 auctor, 1 3 8 , 1 6 7 audi, 2 2 7 aulaea, 2 3 0 —1 aurum et ostrum, 2 8 1 —2 aut ego fallor ( o u t s p o k e n ) , 1 3 0 autem p r o s a i c , 1 4 4

L E X IC A L

abstantia, 3 7 2 abstare ( p r o b a b l y H o r a t i a n c o i n a g e ) , see I n d e x 2 accrescere, see I n d e x 2 adflere, 185 adspirare, 2 6 6 adulescentiari, 2 9 2 adulescenturire, 2 9 2 aequus, 9 2

beatus, 4 0 6 bidental, 4 2 9 bis terque, 4 1 4 blandus, 3 8 8 - 9 bona pars, 3 3 0 - 1

— ( w i t h d a t . ) , 1 23

animus, 2 9 4 aerugo, 351 aetas ( m e t o n y m i c ) , 1 5 0 — animusque, 2 3 7 agitare, 3 5 7 , 4 2 3 ■—

cadere (poetic a n d Silver usage), I 44 callere (largely archaic, poetic, Silver),

309

ά γ ο ρ α σ τ ικ ό ξ , 2 9 2

alere, 3 3 7 amare ‘ b e p a r t i a l t o ’, 1 3 7 ambitus, 9 7 amice ( a d v . ) , 2 5 7 , 3 9 7 amicitia, see I n d e x 5 , s .v . F r i e n d s h i p amicus, mendax a n d uerus, 4 0 5 - 6 amor mortis, 4 2 9 amphora a n d urceus, 1 0 1 - 3 ampullari ( p r o b a b l y H o r a t i a n c o i n a g e ) , 1 4 0 , 178

an, 351, 411 animi, i r o - i i ό π ε ίρ α τ ο ζ , 3 1 9 aquilo ( p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g ) , 152 arbitrium. . .et ius, 1 6 0 arcere ( r a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ) , 152 ardentemfrigidus, 4 2 7 - 8 Aristarchus ( w i t h g e n . ) , 4 1 9 arma ( campestria), 3 7 9 arrideo, 1 8 5 arrogare ( w i t h d a t . , i n p o e t r y a n d l a t e p ro se ), 2 0 ϊ

assentator ( u n i q u e i n L a t . v e r s e ) , 4 0 2 Assyrius, 1 9 4 at, 3 0 7 ater, 8 7

callidus, 1 3 8 catnena, 3 1 2 cantor ( m e a n i n g u n c e r t a i n ) , 231 — Apollo, 3 9 4 capere, 3 7 2 castigator ( a r c h a i c ) , 2 4 1 cauere ( w i t h in f .) , 2 3 8 cautus, 1 3 7 , 3 0 5 cedrus, 3 5 1 - 2 celebrare, 3 1 9 celsus ( a r c h a i c ) , 3 5 7 centimanus, 1 4 3 centuriae seniorum, 3 5 6 - 7 certe, 4 3 0 . » cinctutus (probably H o ra tia n coinage;,

r 4°> H a

.

circumuenire (metaphorical), 230 coepit w i t h p a s s ., 1 0 3 cogere {turbam), 4 0 2 colludere ( w i t h d a t . , l i t e r a l ) , 233- 4 columnae, 3 7 6 commodus, 3 0 0 concedo ( w i t h d a t . a n d i n f . ) , 375 concubitus uagus, 3 8 9 condere, 4 1 1 coniurare, 3 9 7

54O

,

,

L exical gram m atical and metrical index discrepare, c o n s t r u c t i o n of, 2 2 4 ditare ( a r c h a i c ) , 1 4 5 diui puerique deorum, 1 7 0 diuinus, 3 9 1 diurnus, 2 6 8

conscriptus ( u n i q u e u s a g e ) , 3 4 1 consiliari, 257 conspirare, 397 corona, 2 9 4 - 5 , 3 8 0 coturnus, see I n d e x 2 crassus, 377 crepare, 2 9 3 ( ?) culillus, see I n d e x 2 cupressus, 3 5 1 f. c a ra peculi, 3 5 1

— ( w i t h g e n .) , 2 7 3 doceri ( w i t h a c c . p o e t i c

b e fo re L a te L a tin , p ro b a b ly H o r a ­ t i a n c o in a g e ), 140, 2 8 5 -6

dormitabo, 18 7 duces, 1 6 4 dumtaxat (prosaic), 1 0 4

cursus, 3 9 7 carton, 2 3 5

dare (with inf.), 348 iura, 389

—

debemus-debemur, see I n d e x 2 , -mur deberi ( u s a g e ) , 1 5 0 decessere, 3 7 8 deciens, 3 2 3 , 3 7 2 declinare, 1 4 4 deduco ( w i t h a b l . ) , 2 9 1 defendere, 2 5 5 dehinc ( s p a t i a l ? ) , 2 1 9 delitigare ( ά τ τ α ξ λ ε γ . , p r o b a b l y H o r a t i a n c o in a g e ), 1 7 8

demittere, 2 4 5 denatare ( p r o b a b l y H o r a t i a n c o i n a g e ) ,

effutire, 2 8 3 egere ‘ w i s h f o r ’, 2 3 0 elleborosus ‘ m a d ’, 3 3 2 eloquium ( p o e t i c a n d S i l v e r ) , 2 7 2 emungere ( c o l l o q u i a l ) , 2 8 7 enim ( e l l i p t i c ) , 33 1 eniti ( w i t h in f. a r c h a i c ) , 2 8 6 eo quod ( p r o s a i c ) , 2 7 9 equites, 3 5 7 eripere, 4 0 4 error, 4 2 2 et ‘ a n d i n d e e d ’, 141 ; ? d i s p l a c e d , 2 3 2 3 ; e x p la n a to ry , 3 0 3 , 305, 351, 37 4 ,

x78

393) 422

denique, 103 deproeliari ( p r o b a b l y H o r a t i a n c o i n a g e ) , 178

densor, 4 1 0 desaeuire, 1 7 8 descendere in aures, 3 8 3 descriptas. . .uices, 1 7 2 —3 desperare ( r a r e i n p o e t r y ) , 2 2 2 —3 detorqueo, 1 4 4 deus immortalis, 4 2 7 dicax, 2 8 0 —1 dictum, 3 0 9 dies ( f e m . ) , 3 2 2 differre ( w i t h d a t . ) , 2 8 6 difficilis, 2 4 0 dignus, 2 5 2 , 3 1 6 dilator ( ά τ τ α ξ λ ε γ . , p r o b a b l y H o r a t i a n c o in a g e ), 2 3 9

S ilv e r

dominantia {nomina) ( n o t a g a i n r e c o r d e d

carae, 171

dinoscere, 4 0 5 diota, 1 4 3 discere ( a b s o l u t e ) , 3 9 9

and

u s a g e ) , 155

et fortasse ( c o l l o q u i a l ) , 100 etiam ( i n f ir s t p l a c e o f c l a u s e ) , 4 0 8 eu ( c o l l o q u i a l ) , 3 5 0 ex animo, 4 1 0 exacuere, 3 9 2 exemplar, 3 0 6 exemplaria Graeca, 3 0 5 - 6 exigui elegi, 1 6 7 exire ( m e a n i n g ) , 10 3 exlex, 2 8 0 exodia, 2 7 5 - 6 exprimere, 1 1 9 exsors, 3 3 5 extendere ( p o e t i c ) , 2 6 7 extimesco, 3 9 9 extrahere ( w i t h a b l . ) , 3 5 6

ήσθ’ άρα, 99 facta, 1 6 4 ; ( n u a n c e o f ) , 3 1 9 ; ( p o e t i c ) ,

155-6 Sèi

L e x ic a l, g r a m m a tic a l, a n d m e tr ic a l in d ex imum n o u n , 2 0 3 inanis, 4 1 5 incautus, 4 2 3 incestus, 4 3 0 incidere ( w i t h ( ? ) d a t . ) , 3 9 0 includere ( a n d claudere), 1 6 6 indoctus ( w i t h g e n . ) , 3 7 9 — doctusque, 4 3 0 inducere ( u s a g e ) , 8 6 inexpertus, 2 0 2 —3 infelix ( w i t h g e n . o r a b i . ) , 1 1 9 - 2 0 informare, 3 3 7 innatus (with ( ? ) dat.), 291

factitare , 4 2 9 facundia, 1 2 6 ; see also I n d e x 4 famosus, 4 2 9 fanaticus, 4 2 2 ferre, 2 7 2 fides, 143 fieri ( i n c o m p u t a t i o n ) , 3 5 0 fiet homo, 4 2 8 fingere ad, 3 7 4 fingere carmina, 351 fio, 4 r9 flebilis ( p o e t i c u s a g e ) , 2 0 2 foramen, 2 6 5 - 6 forem, 3 2 1 forensis, 2 9 2 formare, 3 3 7 fortunatus, 3 3 0 frigidus ‘ i n s e n s i t i v e , d u l l ’, 4 2 7 frux( m e t a p h . w i t h o u t d e f i n i n g g e n . ) , 3 5 7 fumum ex fulgore, 2 1 8 furere, 4 3 0 Genius, 2 6 8 Graius a n d Graecus, n u a n c e s o f , 3 4 8 grams, 9 5

in Augustan poetry), 3 1 8 —19 intercinere (απταξλεγ., probably H oratian coinage), 2 5 5 interdum, 1 7 7 , 3 4 4 internoscere, 4 0 4 - 5 interpres, 3 8 7 intra, 3 0 5 intus, 3 8 3 inuideor ( p r o b a b l y g r a m m a t i c a l c o i n a g e ) ,

hiatus, 2 1 4 hic et hic, 4 1 3 hirudo ( m e t a p h o r i c a l ) , 43 1 honor, 2 3 7 - 8 , 2 9 0 ; in honore esse, 1 5 7 - 8 •— et nomen, 3 9 0 - 1 honoratus, 1 9 9 honos a n d honor, 1 5 7 — et gratia, 1 5 7 hora ‘ s e a s o n ’, 3 3 4 humana natura, 3 6 4 iam, 4 2 8 idcirco ( l a r g e l y p r o s a i c ) , 3 0 4 idem ( w i t h d a t . ) , 4 2 8 ignominiosus, 2 9 3 immitis ( i n p o e t i c u s a g e ) , 9 3 immodulatus ( o n l y r e c o r d e d

’Iv o ü s ά χ η , 2 0 i

inseruire, 2 3 7 insilire (with acc.), 4 2 8 insternere (archaic and poetic), 3 1 4 insumere {operam), 4 1 5 intemptatus (perhaps new word

145 — · P o r p h . a n d P s .- A c r o o n , 145

inulta Minerua, 3 8 2 inurbanus, 3 0 8 - 9 io dues, see I n d e x 5 irritare, 2 4 5 is ( r a r e in L a t i n v e r s e a f t e r L u c r e t i u s , ra re

in

H o race

ap a rt

fro m

hex.

p o e m s), 382 iste ( i n p r o s e a n d v e r s e ) , 3 7 8

in s ta n c e

b e fo re L a te L a tin , p r o b a b ly H o r a t i a n c o in a g e ), 302

ita . . .ne, 2 2 4 , 2 8 0 ita-sic, 2 2 4 iubere, 3 4 3 iunctura (? n o t H o r a t i a n c o i n a g e ) , 139 iura paterna, 2 9 9 —3 0 0 ius, 4 2 8 iuuenari (άπαξ λεγ., probably H oratian

immundus, 2 9 3 impariter ( o n l y r e c o r d e d i n s t a n c e b e f o r e L a te L a tin , p r o b a b ly H o r a tia n c o in ­ a g e ) , 16 6

c o in a g e ), 178, 292

laborare ( w i t h i n f .) , 4 1 1 —

implicare, 4 0 4

( a ffirm a tiv e ly

w ith

in f in itiv e

p o e tr y a n d S ilv e r L a tin ) , 107

542

, in

,

L exical gram m atical, and metrical index laedere, 1 8 6 laeuus, 3 3 3 latus, 2 6 8 laudator, 2 4 1 legere f o r (d)eligere, 1 2 4 leuis, 4 0 3 —4 lex ( m e t a p h o r s d e r i v e d f r o m , i n L a t i n ) ,

nam ( e l l i p t i c ) , 361 narrare ( v e r b i n t r o d u c i n g exemplum),

2 1 1 -1 2

liber ( w i t h g e n . ) , 2 6 9 Liber a n d ’Ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ ο ς , 171 librarius {scriptor), 3 6 4 licet ( q u a s i - c o n j u n c t i o n ) , 4 2 5 linquere, 3 1 9 lis, 1 6 7 longum {clamare), 4 2 5 lucem dare, 2 1 8 lucrum·, ad lucrum {ire), 4 0 2 —3 luxuries, 2 7 0

426

natus, 1 6 9 , 2 0 1 , 3 7 8 naues ( p l .) , 101 ne, 3 5 5 ; ( i n d i s t i n c t a s b e t w e e n f in a l a n d c o n s e c u tiv e ), 22 4 — c la u s e s , e llip tic , p a r e n th e tic , 242

242

manere ( t r a n s , i n p o e t r y ) , 2 2 9 manus et mens, 3 6 2 mares ( i n a l l i t e r a t i o n w i t h Martia {bella)), 392

maritus, 3 8 9 materia a n d materies, 1 2 2 mediocris, 3 7 5 medium, 3 7 4 μ ε ιρ α κ ιε ύ ε σ θ α ι, 2 9 2

membrana, 3 8 3 - 4 mensa breuis, 2 5 8 meta, 3 9 7 μ ε τ ε ω ρ ο λ ο γ ία , 2 8 2 - 3

mingere, 4 2 9 ministrare, 2 3 8 miracula, 2 1 8 - 1 9 miser, 3 3 0 mobilis, 2 3 3 moliri, 3 9 0 mollis ( o f h a i r ) , 1 1 9 monitor, 2 3 6 monstrare ‘ r e v e a l ’, 1 6 4 morari, 2 8 0 morbus regius, 4 2 2 mores= v ó o v o r ν ό μ ο ν ? , 2 i 8 mauere, 4 2 9 —3 0 moueri, 2 8 4 mox, 2 3 8 , 2 7 8

dicam, 3 0 8 — forte, 3 9 3 νεανιεύεσθαι, 2 9 2 nec, 2 5 2 nedum ( r a r e i n v e r s e ) , 15 6 nescire ( w i t h i n f .) , 3 7 9 , 3 8 4 neu, 3 5 6 ; ( a f t e r j u s s i v e o r i m p . ) , 2 5 5 neuter ( g e n . o f ) , 3 4 9 nil tanti est, 3 3 4 - 5 niti coturno, 3 1 5 - 1 6 nobile bellum ( n o t e l s e w h e r e ) , 2 1 4 non homines, non di, 3 7 6 non magis . . .quam, 12 0 notus, 2 8 9 nouitas, 2 7 9 - 8 0 nubes et inania, 2 8 2 - 3 nudare, see I n d e x 2 numerabilis ( p e r h a p s H o r a t i a n c o i n a g e ) , —

manare, 3 5 4 mandare, 1 8 7 — ‘ to a s s i g n ( d r a m a t i c p a r t s )

multa dies, 3 2 2 multum ( a d v e r b i a l ) , 3 6 5 multus ( s i n g .) , 3 2 2 mus {ridiculus), 2 1 5 - 1 6 musa, 1 7 0 , 3 9 4 mutare ( w i t h a b i . ) , 1 4 8 - 9

267

numerique modique, 2 6 8 —g numerus, 1 6 4 ego, 3 3 3 obicio ( w i t h d a t . ) , 4 3 0 obticescere ( a r c h a i c a n d p o e t i c ) , 3 1 7 - 1 8 occidere ( m e t a p h o r i c a l ) , 431 olim, 3 8 2 ό φ ε ιλ ό μ ε θ α -debemur, 1 5 0 -or ( a g e n t n o u n s i n ) , 2 3 6 , 2 3 9 ; c f. -tor orichalcus, 2 6 4 ostendere, 3 3 9

°

pacare, see I n d e x 2 palla honesta, 3 1 4 pallescere, 4 0 7

543

,

,

Lexical grammatical and metrical index prope, 4 1 0 prouisor, 2 3 6 prudens ‘ d e l i b e r a t e l y ’, 4 2 6 publica a n d priuata, 3 8 9 pudenter, 1 4 2 pudibundus, 2 8 4 pudor, 2 1 1, 3 9 3 - 4 puer a n d filius, 1 7 0 pueri (Romani), 3 4 9 pulpita, 2 7 0 - 1 , 3 1 4 - 1 5 punctum ( i n v o t i n g ) , 3 5 8 purgari ( w i t h a c c . ) , 3 3 3 Pythia cantat, 3 9 8 - 9

pango ( a r c h a i s m ) , 3 9 9 - 4 0 0 parce, 1 4 4 patiens, 3 0 0 paucus ( s in g .) , see I n d e x 2 paulo ( w i t h c o m p a r a t i v e ) , 2 9 9 peccare ( w i t h a c c . ) , 3 6 4 pectus, 3 5 4 pedites, 3 5 7 penes ( i n p h r a s e s e x p r e s s in g s o v e r e i g n t y ) , 160

per- ( a d j e c t i v a l

and

a d v e rb ia l

com ­

p o u n d s w ith ), 362

perire ( i d i o m a t i c ) , 1 5 6 pernix ( p o e t i c , e t c . ) , 2 3 7 persona, 2 0 3

quamuis ( w i t h i n d i c . ) , 3 6 4 , 3 7 4 quandoque ( i n C. i v a n d A .P .), 3 6 7 -que ‘ a d v e r s a t i v e ’, 2 9 0 ; ‘ a n d t h e r e f o r e

φ θ ο ν ο ΰ μ α ι, 145

Pierii modi, 3 9 3 pleraque, 1 3 1 plerumque, 9 5 , 1 7 7 , 1 7 9 poesis, 3 71

207

-que et, 2 5 7 , 2 7 0 , 4 1 5 - 1 6 -que. . .-que, 9 2 - 3 , 1 6 4 , 2 6 7 , 3 1 5 querelila (spelling an d derivation),

π ο λ ύ χ ο ρ δ ο ς ( α ύ λ ό ς ), 2 7 1

181-2

Pompilius sanguis, 3 2 2 ponere, 1 2 0 , 3 3 1 , 4 0 3 , 4 2 9 poscere, 2 51 — ( w i t h in f .) , 3 5 5 - 6

posse ( e m p h a t i c ) , 1 6 4 , 3 3 9 potens, 3 21 potenter, 1 2 4 - 5 praeco, 4 0 2 praesecare, 3 2 5 praesens in tempus, 131 praesente nota ( c o n c e n t r a t e d p h r a s e ) , 14 6 praeterire ( i n v o t i n g ) , 3 5 7 precari et orare, 2 5 9 - 6 0 prece blanda, 3 8 8 - 9 premere, 3 8 3 — crimine, 3 0 2 pretium, 3 7 5 — nomenque, 331 primus, 1 4 9 procedere, 2 0 3 prodigialiter, 1 1 4 productior, 2 5 0 profecto, 3 4 2 proferre, 1 4 6 , 2 0 8 prohibere ( w i t h a b i . a n d n o o b j . ) , 3 8 9 proicere, 1 8 0 promissor ( p r o b a b l y H o r a t i a n c o i n a g e ) , 214

promissum carmen, 1 3 8

querimonia ( a r c h a i c a n d p r o s a i c ) , 166 querulus, 2 4 0 qui, 4 0 2 qui scis an. . .? , 4 2 6 quia ( d i s l o c a t e d ) , 3 7 8 quid= cur (colloquial), 144 quid hoc? ( i s i t L a t i n ? ) , 1 0 0 quidni ( a r c h a i c a n d c o l l o q u i a l ) , 3 8 0 quiescere ‘ab stain ’ (archaic), 379 quin, 4 1 5 quincunx, 3 5 0 rapere, 2 2 2 rarus, 30 1 recte, 3 7 4 - 5 recusare, 1 2 3 reddere, 3 6 2 — uoces, 2 3 3 redire ( i n c o m p u t a t i o n ) , 3 5 0 reges, 1 6 4 remiscere (w ith abi. or dat.), 223-4 remouere (for subtraction), 3 5 0 repertor (archaic, poetic, Silver Latin),

314 repetere, 3 7 2 reponere, see I n d e x 2 a n d 2 0 0 reposcere, see I n d e x 2 res gestae, 164

544

,

,

L exical gram m atical and metrical index diui Augusti, 1 6 4 rex, 4 1 0 risor ( n o t a g a i n f o u n d

spissus, 3 8 0 spondere, 4 0 3 stabilis, 2 9 9 stare ( i d i o m a t i c ) , 15 6 stillare ( t r a n s , f irs t i n v e r s e h e r e ) , 4 0 8 stulte, 3 0 8 sub iudice ( p o e t i c ) , 16 7 sub luce, 3 7 2 sublimis ( h o w u s e d b y H o r a e e ) , 2 3 6 - 7 ,

—

L a tin ,

p erh ap s

b e fo re

H o ra tia n

L a te

c o in a g e ),

280

ritu, 15 0 ros, 4 0 8 ructari, 4 2 4 sacer, 3 8 7 sacra a n d profana, 3 8 9 sagax ( w i t h g e n . ) , 2 7 2 sales, 3 0 8 salubris, 2 5 9 salutari {poeta), 1 7 3 sane, 4 0 0 sanguis, 3 2 2 sapere, 2 6 9 Satyri = ‘ S a t y r i c d r a m a scabies, 4 0 0 — mala, 4 2 2 scaena, p i . , 2 4 5 scribere, 3 3 6 , 3 3 8

4 2 3 -4

summum a n d imum s u b s t a n t ., 3 7 8 super, 4 0 7 - 8 superare ( i n d ic a t e s n u m e r i c a l r e m a i n d e r ) ,

350

superuacuus a n d -aneus, 3 5 4 symphonia discors, 3 7 7

286

■ — ‘ t o w r i t e p o e t r y ’, 1 2 3

scriptor ( o f p o e t r y ) , 1 2 3 , 1 9 9 secernere ( w i t h a b l . ) , 3 8 9 sedes, 3 0 0 sedilia, 2 6 7 segmenta ( i n c l o t h i n g ) , 9 6 sententia, 2 7 3 seponere ( w i t h a b l . ) , 3 0 9 sequi {carmen), 2 8 9 serere uerba, 1 3 5 - 7 serius, 4 2 0 seruare= conseruare, 3 5 2 ; = obseruare, 172 seuerus, 2 7 1 {Sex) centuriae, 3 5 7 si ( d i s l o c a t e d ) , 8 6 , 1 7 3 , 4 3 0 sic, 3 9 6 signare, 2 3 3 siluestres homines, 3 8 6 - 7 simulare ‘ r e p r e s e n t ’, 1 0 0 sinistre ( a d v . r a r e ) , 4 2 0 - 1 siue. . .seu, 151 socialiter ( n o t a g a i n r e c o r d e d b e f o r e L a te L a tin ) , 3 0 0 -1

sodes ( c o l l o q u i a l ) , 4 1 3 sollers ( w i t h g e n . ) , 3 9 4 sortilegus, 2 7 3 sperare {sibi), 2 8 9

taberna, 2 8 2 tamen, 361 temptare, 3 1 8 — {gratiam), 3 9 3 tempus actum, 24 1 tenuis, 1 3 7 , 2 6 5 tibia, 2 6 2 - 7 1 tigni, 3 1 4 tollere dicta, 3 7 4 — a n d attollere uacem, 177 tonsor Licinus, 3 3 3 -tor, n o u n s i n , 2 1 4 , 3 1 4 ; torquere, 411 tragicus ( a n o u n ) , 1 7 9 transire ( w i t h a c c .) , 3 5 8 triens, 3 5 0 tristis, 4 2 9 triuium, 2 9 1 - 2 tumens, see I n d e x 2 turpiter, 3 1 7 tutus, 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 3 0 5

~or

uagus, 3 8 9 ualde a n d c o m p a r a t i v e r a r e i n v e rs e , 346

ualere ( w i t h i n f .) , 4 3 0 uanus, 9 0 uates, 1 0 6 , 3 9 0 —1, 5 1 1 uel quod.. .uel quod ( L u c r e t i a n ) , 2 3 8 uelle ( m e t o n y m i c ) , 175 tulle ( w i t h i n d i r , s t a t . ) , 120 urna, 3 9 5 - 6 uenus et uinum, 3 9 8

545

L e x ic a l , g r a m m a tic a l , a n d m e tr ic a l in dex versare, 3 0 7 ; ( p o e t i c a n d S i l v e r c o n s t r u c ­ G R A M M A T IC A L

ti o n ) , 123

vertere ( h o w c o n s t r u e d ? ) , 2 8 1 utrum, 2 8 0 , 3 3 4 , 3 6 3 , 3 6 8 uestis ( a n d syrma), 2 7 0 , 2 8 2 , 3 1 4 vestri, 3 0 7 ui et armis, 3 21 victor ( i n a p p o s i t i o n ) , 171 uinctus, see I n d e x 2 uindex, 2 5 2 uirens ( h o w u s e d i n p o e t r y ) , 1 9 3 uirtus et uenus, 1 2 9 vitae uia, 3 9 3 vitium: in uitium flecti, 2 3 5 ; vitio remotus, 381

uiuax ( p o e t i c ) , 1 5 7 uos, 3 0 5 vox missa, 3 8 4 unctum, 4 0 3 unguis, 3 3 1 unusquisque ( s e p a r a t e d

A d d re ss in th ird p e rso n , 349 A d d r e s s e s , h o w d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r s e v e ra l v erses, 8 8 A d je c tiv a l a n d co m p ared , 387

s u b s ta n tiv a l

u sag es

A d v e r b ‘ o f j u d g m e n t ’, 1 2 5 , 2 0 7 A d v e rb s , te rs e u se b y H o ra c e ,

374-5

A llite r a tin g v o w e ls , 9 7 A n a s tr o p h e , 160 374, 380, 4 06, 430 A p p o s itio n i n c o m p a ris o n s , 4 1 9 , 4 3 1 C o l l e c t i v e s i n g u l a r , 153 C o m p a ris o n s , in c o m p le te ,

by

lin e -e n d ),

3 21

231

ut, i n a n a p h o r a , 3 6 4 - 5 ; = ita quidem ut, 8 7 ; (n o n ) ut, 3 0 0 utilis ( c o n s t r u c t i o n o f ) , 2 6 6 uultus {humani), 1 8 5 - 6 Α.Ρ . : abstare, yja·, ampullari, 1 8 0 ; delitigare, 1 7 8 ; dilator, 2 3 9 ; iambeum ( c f. I n d e x 2 ) , 2 9 7 - 8 ; intercinere, 2 5 5 ; iuuenari, 1 7 8 , 2 9 2 ; see also I n d e x 5 , H o r a e e , ά π α ξ λ ε γ ά μ ε ν α

ά π α ξ λ εγά μ ενα in

C o i n a g e s , see I n d e x 5 , H o r a c e , c o in a g e s

( v ii) ,

sermones, v o c a b u l a r y o f , x ,

in

H o race,

399 D a t . w ith p ass, p a r t ., 4 0 6 G e n itiv e , a f te r a d je c tiv e s , e x p e rim e n te d w ith in A u g u s ta n

v e rse , 113 ; a fte r

s u b s ta n tiv a l n e u t e r a d je c tiv e s : p o e tic a n d a r c h a ic n u a n c e , 142 G e r u n d i v e , 121 G r e e k a c c u s a tiv e s , 1 1 4 -1 5 H y p e r b a t o n , 9 5 - 6 , 1 14 ( 2 9 n . ) , 374 I n d . a n d S u b ju n . m ix e d , 33 3 I n f i n i t i v e , w i t h indignus, 2 8 3 ; e p e x e g e ti c in A u g u s ta n v erse, 2 3 5 -6 , 2 3 7 M a i n v e r b d r a w n in to M o o d s i n r e i . c l ., 3 5 5

si c l ., 4 2 4

N e u t . p i. 9 3 N o m in a tiv e in a d d re ss, 322 O b j e c t i o n s , h o w i n t r o d u c e d , 91 O x y m o ro n , 377

N e o lo g is m s , 143 T h e sa u ru s

A c c u s a t i v e w i h p a s s , p a r t . , 3 1 3 , 381

d o rò κ ο ιν ο ύ , p o s i t i o n , 1 7 6 , 2 4 3 - 4 , 3 7 1 - 2 »

urbs, 2 6 7 - 8 urceus, s e e amphora urgere, 4 1 0 ursus, 4 3 0 usque, 3 6 4 {usque) donee ( r a r e i n A u g u s t a n v e r s e ) ,

H o r a c e ’s 4 4 5 -6

A b l . o f c o m p a r i s o n f o r a c c . o f e x te n t, 250

L in g u a e

P a r t i c i p l e , H o r a c e ’s u s e o f , L a tin a e ,

c o rrig e n d a ,

155, »47, 315» 337, 345,363, 381,418

231, 292,

356 P a u c ity o f lo g ic a l p a r tic le s i n H o r a c e , 202 P o ly p to to n , 146, 157, 2 4 5 , 3 i 6 > 38 2

L exical, gram m atical, and metrical index P r e p o s i t i o n s , a v o i d a n c e o f , 2 5 5 —6

M E T R IC A L

P ro p e r n a m e s , a d je c tiv a l, 117

alterius a l w a y s i n H o r a c e , 3 9 6 R h y m e , in itia l, 144

A p h a e r e s i s a t e n d o f l i n e i n H o r a c e ’s

R iv e rs a n d m o u n ta in s , n a m e s o f, u s e d a d je c tiv a lly , 9 7 -8

h e x a m e te rs , 4 0 0 C a e s u r a , c le a rly m a r k e d m id d le , a b ­

S im p le v e r b : a n d c o m p o u n d c o m b in e d ,

s e n t , 1 8 1, 3 0 2 - 3 , 3 7 8 C h a n g e o f s tre s s i n r e p e a t e d w o r d s ,

12 0 , 2 5 1 ; f o r c o m p o u n d , 1 2 4 , 3 1 9 , 3 3 1 , 352, 357, 384, 403, 429 ; p reced ed by c o m p o u n d o f s a m e d e r iv a tio n , 120 S u b ju n c tiv e , 4 2 6 ; p r e v a le n t in r h e t.

426

an

D a c t y l i c li n e s , 9 7

c l·, 3 5 1 E li s i o n s : r a r e t y p e s o f, 1 5 3 ; s e q u e n c e of, i n H o r a c e ’s h e x a m e t e r s , 4 1 5

T e n se s : f u tu r e g n o m ic , 156, 4 1 6 ; f u tu re in in ju n c tio n s , 281 ; f u t u r e o f p r e c e p t,

F o u rth -fo o t b re a k

353 ! f u tu re p a r t, in p o e tr y a n d S ilv e r p r o s e , 23 1 ; f u t u r e p r o s p e c tiv e , 4 0 4 ; ‘ i m p e r i , o f n e g l e c t e d d u t y ’, 3 5 0 ; p e r f . ‘ e m p i r i c a l ’, 9 2 , 3 7 6 ; p e r f . in f .

M o n o s y lla b ic

99 T e n se s a n d M o o d s , I m p e r f . s u b ju n . in si c l . , i m p . i n d . i n a p o d o s i s , 4 1 3 , 414

e n d in g s in

G reek

and

L a t in h e x a m e te rs, 2 1 5 -1 6

a o ris tic i n L a tin v e rse , 1 8 1 , 2 3 8 , 361, 3 9 9 ,4 11,4 2 3 ; p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y c o m b i n e d , 2 0 7 ; tempus (locus) erat,

a fte r w e a k m id d le

c a e s u ra o m itte d , 200

neniae i n t r o c h . s e p t ., 4 0 0 nequeo ignoroque, 173 nullius, p r o s o d y of, 3 4 5 , 3 4 9 P ro s o d y o f fin a l sy lla b le in

cedro (et),

352 V e rse e n d in g , tw o m a in v e rb s , 4 2 4 W o rd -o rd e r, 380

86;

Z e u g m a , d o u b le , 1 7 9 -8 0

in te rw o v e n ,

S p o n d e e s : i n H o r a c e , 3 1 9 , 4 0 2 ; se­ q u e n c e o f fo u r, 3 0 1 - 2 ; s p o n d a ic

138,

rh y th m , 181; 292 ;

v a ria tio n

o f,

T m e s is , 4 0 4 -5

547

321;

uersus spondiacus, 4 2 8 b e tw e e n

tw o

lin e s ,

INDEX G R E E K

4

LITERARY THEORY λείος, tog- ί ο λήκυθοι, ι8ο λήμμα, 89 λόγος ενδιάθετος, -προφορικός, 188-9

T E R M S

άγρυττνίη, 307 άδρόν, 111 αισχρολογία, 317 αΐσθησις (in Aristotle’s m oral theory),

116 αλληλουχία, 396-7 αμφίβολον, 419 άττλοϋς, 104 αρετή, 337- 8, 359' 6 1 άρμόττον, 143

μάνικάς, 185, i8g μετέωρα, 283 μέτρα, ι6ο μέτριον, 142-3 μιμητής, 3 4 3 μύθος, 1 9 7 - 8 , 3 5 4 όλον, 117

βάρος, 346

δέσις, 252 διαλύειν, 2θ8 διδάσκειν, 320-1 είκός, 355 έλεγος (derivation of), 165 έμφερόμενα, 8g ένάργεια, 246 ενδιάθετος λόγος, i88-g ΦΥ°ν, 336 εϋπάρυφος (of style), 96 εύφαντασίωτος, 189 εύφυής (in Aristotle), 185, 189 ήδύ, 355 ήθοττοιία, 232 ηρωικόν μέτρου, 163-4 ίδια, 205-7, 2 og-io, 4 4 1“ 2 ιστορία, 197-8, 354 ισχνόν, 111

καιρός, 99 κεφαλαιωδώς, 221 κοινά, 205-7, 209-10, 441-2 κόσμος, 285 κυκλικός, κύκλιος, 213-14 κυκλικως, 2ΐο κύριον, 285 —εΐωθός, 139

δμματα: ττρό όμμάτων τιθέναι, 246 ονόματα, 203 τταιδομαθία, 398 ιτεττοιημένα, 143 πλάσμα, 197—8, 354 ποικιλία, 95, Ι04 πρέπον, 233, 337-8 προνοούμενα, 34° προφορικός λόγος, i88-g

σαφήνεια, 418-19 σημεία, ιφι σιωπώμενον, 221 σύμβολα, 141 συμπέρασμα, 221 συνήθεια, 159 συνομοπαθεϊν, 182 τάξις (ordo), a rhetorical concept, 128 τέλσς, 359-61

ύποτύπωσις, 246 ύστερον ιερότερου Όμηρικως, 222 φιλάνθρωπον, ι86 φύσις and τέχνη, 394~5 χαρακτηρισμός, 232 χρεία, 141 χρησιμολογεϊν, 353

548

Index o f literary theory ψ υ χ α γ ω γ ε ΐ ν a n d -ία , 1 8 3 , 1 8 4 , 2 4 5 , 3 5 3 ώ φ ε λ ε ΐν , 3 5 3

L A T IN

T E R M S

actus, 2 0 8 , 2 5 0 allinere, 4 1 7 ambiguus, 4 1 9 ambitiosus, 4 1 8 ampullae, 1 8 0 aptus, 1 6 9 , 2 2 4 , 2 6 5 argumentum, 3 5 5 ars, 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 0 2 ; a n d artifex, 3 2 6 atrum {signum), 4 1 7 audere, 9 2 , 3 1 9 austerus ( m e t a p h o r i c a l ) , 3 5 7 - 8 bonus poeta a n d bonus Homerus, 3 6 7

dispositio, 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 - 8 docere, 3 2 0 - 1 dominantia nomina, 1 4 0 dulce, 1 8 3 - 4 , 3 5 3 ; 3 5 5 durus {uersus), 4 1 7 edere, 3 8 4 effictio, 2 3 2 eloquium, 27 3 error, 3 3 7 - 8 , 4 2 1 - 3 1 , 5 ° 5' 6 , 5 1 5 - 1 7 eu{ge), 4 0 6 - 7 euentus, 221 euidentia, 2 4 6 excipere, 4 2 0 exemplar uitae morumque, 34 3 explicare, 2 5 3 fabula, 3 4 5 , 3 5 6 facundia (a s t i t u l a r t e r m f o r a s e c tio n o n d i c t i o n ) , 1 3 2 ; ( n o t i o n ) , 126

cacemphaton, 1 2 0 - 1 , 3 6 4 ; 3 6 1 f . callidus, 1 3 8 canorus, 3 4 7 captare, 2 8 3 censor, 2 4 1 cessare, 3 6 5 chartae Socraticae, 3 3 9 {parum) clarus, 4 1 8 - 1 9 coercere, 3 2 2 - 3 color, 1 7 3 , 2 8 6 conuenit, -iens, 1 9 8 , 2 8 1 , 3 4 2 corrigere, 4 1 3 cotumus, 1 6 8 - 9 , 3 1 5 - 1 6 culpa, i i 5 , 3 0 5 culpare, 4 1 7 cyclicus, cyclius, 1 1 3 decet, 1 7 6 , 1 8 7 , 3 3 7 ; decor, 2 3 3 decorum ( S t o i c ) , 8 0 deducere, 2 0 8 defendere delictum, 4 1 5 delectare, 3 5 2 - 3 , 3 5 5 , 3 5 8 delere, 3 8 4 , 4 1 4 delictum, 3 6 1 descriptio, 9 4 - 5 , 9 8 - 9 designare, 1 4 2 deus ex machina, 2 5 1 - 3 diducere, 2 0 8 dignus, 1 7 6 , 2 1 4 , 2 4 7 , 2 5 2 , 3 1 6 disertus, 3 7 5

35

{peruncti) faecibus ora, 3 1 3 Fescennina licentia ( i n R o m a n c o m e d y ) ,

3ϊ 6- ι 7 fictum (c f. historia, uerisimile), 1 9 7 - 8 , 2 1 8 , 223 - 4 , 355

fidus, 2 1 1 fingo, 9 0 — uerba, a l s o facio, 1 4 3 fons, 339 forma ( m e a n i n g o f ) , 8 9 - 9 0 , 91 fortunarum habitus, 1 8 9 grammatici, 1 6 7 grandis, 111 hircus ( a n d t r a g e d y ) , 2 7 7 - 8 historia (cf. fictum, uerisimile), 1 9 7 - 6 ; 2 1 8 , 2 2 3 -4

humi, humile, 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 ,2 8 2 humilis sermo, 2 8 2 ictus, 2 9 8 idonea dicere uitae ( c f. χ ρ η σ ιμ ο λ ο γ ε ΐυ ) , 353

illustratio, 2 4 6 imitator, 3 4 3 incomptus {uersus), 4 1 7 incuria, 363 incus ( m e t a p h o r i c a l ) , 4 1 4 - 1 5 indicia, 1 4 1 - 2

549

BHA

Index o f literary theory indignari, 367 iners (versus), 416 infimum, 112, 116 ingenium, 323-35, 422-3 inornatum, 285 interprete lingua, 190 iudex, 303, 372 indicium (combined with mens), 382 iunctura, 135-8. 139-4°. 290 ius nocendi, 318 laudabilis, 395 laus, 129, 305, 316, 349 legitimus, 212 — sonus, 309 leuis, 109 léuis, 109, 116 lex (metaph. see below, Varia : Cicero) — nocendi, 316 libertas, 316 licenter, 304 licentia, 269 — poetica, 91 lima, 321 limatus, 321 loci {loca), 345 locus, 99 lucem dare, 418-19 lucidus, 126 macula, 363 magnum loqui, 315 materia (-ies), 122-3, 210 (in) medias res, 221-2, 262, 468-9, 490 [de) medio, 290 monere, 358 mora, 321 morari, 347 moratus, 345 munus, 336 mutare, 419 natura and ars, 394-5 natura, pl., 232-3 nerui, 110 nitescere, 223 nodus, 252-3 nomina uerbaque, 286 nonum {in annum), 383, 509 notae rerum, 142

notare, 232, 419 notatio, 232 notum verbum, 138 novus and recens, 138, 141-2, 145, 146-7. 478

, 493

nugae, 347, 420 obelus, 417—18 offendere, 293, 363, 378 officium, 336 opes, 336 opus longum, 368 orbis, 210 ordinis uirtus, 128-9 ordo, 126, 127-9, 130-1 ornamentum, 418 os rotundum, 348 paraphrasis, 211 partes orationis, 212—13 partitio, 1 2 3 - 4 , 3 2 7 - 8 . 5 ° ° patulus and angustus, 210-11 peccatum, 364 perspicuitas, 2 4 6 poema-poeta, 3 2 5 —8 poeta perfectus, 359 ff., 505 ff. pondus, 345-6 populus, 346-7 praecipere, 353 praetexta a n d praetextata, 3 2 0 pnincipium, 338 privata carmina, 175-6 prodesse, 353 fnopria uerba, 139, 285 proprie communia dicere, 204-7,

487-8 {res) prouisa, 340 proxima ueris, 355 publicus, 210 pulchre, bene, recte, 406-7 pulchrum, 183-4 quaesitum est, 395 reddere, 418 recitare, 413 recte, 217, 338, 345 reprehendere, 417 {inopes) rerum, 347 res, 125 55O

432

- 4 °.

Index o f literary theory res a n d uerba, 1 9 4 - 5 , 3 3 9 - 4 ° , 3 5 ° , 4 7 5 , 478, 4 8 3 , 4 8 6- 7 , 5 0 1 - 4

res— facundia—ordo, 1 2 3 —4 respicere, 3 4 2 - 3 rudis, 3 9 6 sapere, 3 3 8 - 9 , 5 0 1 sapientia, 3 8 9 senarius, 2 9 7 sententia, 2 7 3 series a n d iunctura, 1 3 5 - 7 , 2 9 ° sermo pedester, 1 7 9 sermones ‘ d i c t i o n ’, 1 5 6 seruare (rem), 3 5 0 sesquipedalia uerba, 1 8 0 - 1 significare, 1 4 2 simplex, 1 0 4 soccus, 1 6 8 , 1 7 6 species, 8 9 - 9 0 speciosus, 2 1 9 , 3 4 4 studium, 3 9 5 subicere (sub oculos, uel sim.), 2 4 6 subtile genus, 1 1 1 - 1 2

tornare, 4 1 4 —15 lotum, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 1 2 0 , 4 7 4 tractare, 2 2 3 tragoedia (? e ty m o l o g i z e d ) , 27 7 transuersus (calamus), 4 1 7 - 1 8 trimetri, 2 9 7 ; nobiles, 301 turgere, 111 uates a n d poeta, 3 9 0 —1 uenus, 3 4 5 uerbum, 1 3 5 - 8 , 1 4 3 , 1 5 0 , 1 8 0 - 1 , 1 8 7 ,3 1 1 , 2 8 6 , 3 3 9 -4 0

uerisimile uerum (c f. fictum, historia), 1 9 7 -8 , 2 1 8 , 2 2 3 , 355

uertere, 4 1 5 uesanus poeta, 4 2 1 , 4 2 3 , 5 1 6 uices, 1 7 2 - 3 uir bonus et prudens, 4 1 6 uirtus, 3 3 7 - 8 , 3 5 9 ff., 3 7 5 uirtutes narrationis, 2 1 6 uitium, 115 uiuae uoces, 3 4 3 - 4 untis, 9 1 , 1 0 4 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 uocabulum, 1 5 8 uoluptas, 3 5 5 usitata uerba, 139 usus, 1 5 8 - 9 utile, 3 5 8

tabernaria (fabula), 2 8 2 , 3 2 0 tener, 2 9 2 tibia ( ο ώ λ ό ξ ) , 2 Ö o , 2 6 2 - 7 1 , 4 9 3 ~ 4 togata, 2 8 2 , 3 2 0

V A R IA A d v ic e o ffe re d to th e n o v ic e a lite r a r y c o n v e n tio n , 383 A e s c h y lu s ’ g r a n d e u r o f s ty le a n d d é c o r, a c c o r d in g to lite r a r y th e o ry , 315 A g r i p p a o n V i r g i l ’s cacozelia, 2 8 8 - 9 A l e x a n d r i a n : ars critica a p p l i e d t o t h e p o e t ’s w o r k , 4 1 2 - 2 1 ; r e s e a r c h o n ε ίδ η , ‘ g e n r e s ’, 1 6 1 -2 , 1 6 3 - 7 4 ; th e o r ie s o n S a ty r ic d r a m a , 2 7 4 ; th e o rie s o n H o m e ric n a r r a ­ t i v e , 2 2 1 ; t h e o r i e s o n o r i g i n s a n d h i s t o r y o f G r e e k d r a m a , 3 1 0 ; v ie w s o n H o m e r i c oeconomia, 1 2 8 A lle g o ry o f m y th s , 3 8 7 - 8 A m a t e u r i s m r e je c te d in a th le tic s b u t c o m m o n ly c o n d o n e d in p o e try , 3 7 9 -8 1 A m p h io n , m y th o f, a lle g o riz e d , 3 8 8 A n to n iu s , M ., o n d if fe r e n c e b e tw e e n

disertus a n d eloquens, 3 7 5

A p o llo n iu s , ό ε ίδ ο γ ρ ά φ ο ς , ι 6 ι A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , see H o r a c e , ( v i i) A p p r o v a l , a e s th e tic , v o c a b u l a r y o f, 4 0 6 - 7 A r c h a i s m s , v e r b a l , i n l i t e r a r y t h e o r y a n d H o r a c e , 1 3 3 - 4 , J57 A ris ta rc h u s , 4 1 9 A r i s t o t l e : a n a l y s e s t h e ‘ a r t s ’, 3 7 3 ; a n a l y s e s ty p e s o f w i t , 3 0 8 - 9 ; o n a p p r o p r i a t e s t y l e , 1 7 4 - 9 4 ; o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i a m b i c s , 1 6 9 ; c o m p a r e s p o e t r y a n d t h e fin e a r ts , 3 6 9 ; o n c o n s is te n c y i n p lo t- c o n s tr u c tio n , 1 9 8 ; o n E u rip id e s , 2 8 8 - 9 ; o n

Index o f literary theory A r i s t o t l e ( cent.) H o m e r , 2 1 7 ; o n H o m e r i c oeconomia, 1 2 8 ; l a c k s m e t a p h o r o f b r i l l i a n c e i n Poetics, 2 2 3 ; o n n e w s u b je c ts in p o e tr y , 1 9 8 ; o n ο ΐα ά ν γ έ ν ο ιτ ο a n d τ ά γ ε ν ό μ ε ν α , 1 9 7 -8 ; p e r h a p s d r a w n o n i n H o r a c e ’s a c c o u n t o f a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n ( A.P. S 1^ )) 3 4 2 ; P e r i p a t e t i c t h e o r i e s o n d i c t i o n , 1 3 2 - 3 ; o n τ ό σ α τ υ ρ ι κ ό ν a s o r i g i n o f t r a g e d y , 2 7 3 ; o n s t y l e a n d e t h o s , 1 9 0 - 2 ; o n t h e a t r i c a l a u d i e n c e s , 2 6 9 , 2 7 0 ; h is t h e o r y o f U n i t y , 7 8 - 8 5 ; h is t y p o l o g y o f t h e y o u n g : H o r a c e a d d s h u n t i n g a n d a th le tic s , 23 5 A ris to tle a n d A le x a n d r ia n s o n ‘ in v e n tio n ’ o f h e x a m e te r , 165 A r i s t o t e l i a n - A l e x a n d r i a n p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i e d i n t h e H o r a t i a n S c h o l i a , 1 3 0 -1 ars a n d natura·, i n d e b a t e s o f t h e S c h o o ls , 3 9 4 —4 0 0 , 5 1 1 - 1 3 ; i n p r e f a c e s t o

Artes,

76

Artes: i n t r o d u c t o r y p o r t i o n s o f , 7 5 - 6 ; partitio, 7 6 A r ts , f i n e : e x a m p l e s o f, i n A r i s t o t l e , C i c e r o , H o r a c e , 3 7 7 ; r e l a t e d to i n c r e a s e in w e a lth , 267 A rts , lib e r a l a n d u s e fu l d is tin g u is h e d , 3 7 2 - 8 A th le tic s a s a ‘ u s e le s s ’ a r t , 3 7 9 B o d ily m o v e m e n t: a n d m u s ic a l e th o s , 2 7 0 ; a n d p o e tic e th o s , 4 0 8 B r e v i t y ’, i n l i t e r a r y t h e o r y , 1 0 8 —9 ; p r e c e p t s , 1 0 3 , 3 5 3 C a llim a c h e a n a n d n e o te r ic a e s th e tic s n e g le c te d , 3 4 6 C a t u l l u s p r o b a b l y r e f e r r e d t o i n H o r a c e ’s a d v i c e t o P i s o ’s e l d e r s o n , 3 8 3 C e n s o r io u s n e s s a b s e n t f r o m A r i s t o t l e ’s a n d T h e o p h r a s t u s ’ d e s c r i p t i o n s o f m o r a l c h a ra c te r, 232 C h a r a c te r s o f sty le , 109 C h o e rilu s i n H e lle n is tic a n d l a t e r l i t e r a r y c r itic is m , 3 6 5 - 6 C h o ru s in d r a m a , 2 5 4 -6 0 C ic e ro :

c o m p a re s p a in tin g a n d p o e try , 3 6 9 ;

(Am. 8 8 ff.) c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e

m o r a l a s p e c ts o f f l a t t e r y i n f r i e n d s h i p , 4 1 2 ; a n d H o r a c e o n f e i g n e d e m o t i o n , 186; o n

perfectus orator, 3 7 2 —3 ; o n p r i v i l e g e o f n e w c o i n a g e s , 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 ; a s s o u r c e

f o r H o r a c e , 7 9 —8 0 ; h i s a n a l y s i s o f t y p e s o f w i t c o m p a r e d w i t h A r i s t o t l e ’s a n d H o r a c e ’s , 3 0 8 - g ; h i s u s e o f lex m e t a p h o r i c a l , 2 1 2 ; h i s v i e w o f j u r i s p r u d e n c e a n d r h e t o r i c d i f f e r s f r o m H o r a c e ’s, 3 7 5 C in n a s

Smyrna m o d e l o f n e o t e r i c e l a b o r a t i o n , 3 8 3

C o m e d y , o l d , l e g a l p r o v i s i o n s a g a i n s t i t s f r e e s p e e c h , 3 1 6 —17 C o n s iste n c y o f c h a r a c te r , 2 0 3 C ritic is m , lite r a r y a n d te x tu a l m e r g e d , 4 1 9 D e m o c ritu s o n in s p ir a tio n in p o e try , 3 2 9 ‘ D é n o u e m e n t ’, d e r i v a t i o n o f , 2 5 3 D e v ia tio n ’ o r ‘n e ig h b o u r in g f a u l t ’ i n l i t e r a r y th e o ry , 1 0 6 -7 D id y m u s , s im ila r ity to H o r a c e in a c c o u n t o f e le g y , 1 6 5 -6 D i o m e d e s c r i t ic iz e s H o r a c e f o r u s e o f t e r m s praetexta a n d togata, 3 2 0 D i o n y s i u s o f H a l . , r h y t h m a n d c o m p o s i t i o n i n D e Compositione, 161 D r a m a , d is c u s s io n o f, o c c u p i e s a w h o l e s e c t i o n o f H o r a c e ’s

Ars, 2 2 4 —7

E la b o r a tio n , id e a l o f, 321 E u r i p i d e s : h i s p o i n t e d u s e o f o r d i n a r y w o r d s , 2 8 9 ; h is p r o l o g u e s , c r i t i c i s m of,

552

Index o f literary theory F a u lts , h a b itu a l a n d o c c a s io n a l, 3 6 4 -8 F iv e - a c t la w , 2 4 8 -5 1 G e n r e s : h o w a r r a n g e d i n a n c i e n t l i t e r a r y t h e o r y a n d i n H o r a c e , 1 6 1 - 3 ; ly r ic , in th e a n c ie n t tr a d itio n , 170 G n o m ic v e rse , 3 9 4 G o rg ia s ’ r h e to ric a l th e o r y , 7 8 H e l l e n i s t i c t h e o r i e s o n s t y l e a n d e t h o s , 1 9 0 —2 H e ra c lid e s o f P o n tu s , 3 2 6 H e r m ia s o n C h o e rilu s a n d C a llim a c h u s , 366 H e x a m e t e r , ‘ i n v e n t o r ’ o f, 1 6 5 H o m e r a n d D e m o s t h e n e s : ( P H e l l e n i s t i c ) c r i t i c i s m o f, 3 6 8 H o m e r ’s p r o e m s i n l i t e r a r y t h e o r y , 2 1 7 H o race

A.P. t h e o n l y s u r v i v i n g e x a m p l e o f a c o m p l e t e a n c i e n t Ars Poetica, x i ; h i s l i t e r a r y t h e o r y o f f e r s m i x t u r e o f r h e t o r i c a l a n d p o e t i c c a te g o r ie s , 2 8 5 ; h i s t h e o r y o f p o e t r y r a t i o n a l i s t i c , 3 3 8 ; h i s t h e o r y o f mimesis, 3 4 3 ; o n v is u a l

(i) p o e t i c c r i t i c i s m : h i s

a n d a u d i t o r y im p r e s s io n , 2 4 4 - 8 ; o n c ritic is m

( a s p o e t r y m a n q u é ) , 5 0 0 ; (as

n e c e s s a r y f o r p o e t ’s w o r k ) , 4 0 0 - 1 1 , 4 1 2 - 2 1 ; (a s p a r t o f s e c t i o n o n ‘ t h e p o e t ’), 4 0 0 - 1 ; ( a s a f u n c t i o n o f f r i e n d s h i p c o n t r a s t e d w i t h f a ls e c r i t ic is m , i.e . f l a t te r y ) , 4 0 0 - 1 1, 4 1 2 - 2 1 , 5 1 3 —1 5 ; r e g a r d s ‘ A r i s t a r c h u s ’ ( Q u i n t i l i u s V a r u s ) a s t h e ‘ t r u e f r i e n d ’, 4 1 2 - 2 1 ( ii) a r c h a i s m a n d m o d e r n i s m : c o n d e m n s a r c h a i s m a n d a r c h a i c l i t e r a t u r e , 3 0 7 - 9 , 4 9 7 ~ 8 , et al.; c o m m e n d s E n n i u s a n d C a t o f o r t h e i r c r e a t i v e n e s s , 1 4 5 ; u r g e s n e o t e r i c e l a b o r a t i o n i n a d v i c e t o P i s o ’s e l d e r s o n , 3 8 3 ; o n o l d a n d n e w s u b je c ts , 19 7 - 8 5 2 0 8 - 9 , 4 8 6 - 9 0 ( iii) g e n r e s : d r a w s o u t l i n e s o f a n o r m a t i v e p o e t i c s b a s e d o n a n c i e n t g e n r e s , 1 6 3 ; o n p o e t i c g e n r e s d e f i n e d b y s u b j e c t a n d m e t r e , 1 6 1 ; g e n r e s ( d e f in e d b y t h e i r m e tr e s ) a r e n o r m s f o r d i f f e r e n t k in d s o f d ic tio n , 4 8 0 -1 ; w h y c o n c e r n e d w ith G r e e k l i t e r a r y g e n r e s ? , 1 6 3 ; e x e m p l a r y c h a r a c t e r o f G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e a n d its g e n re s in

A .P ., 3 0 5 ; t e l l s h i s t o r y o f G r e e k g e n r e s w i t h u l t e r i o r p u r p o s e , 4 8 1 ;

l i s t s o f a n c i e n t g e n r e s , 1 6 0 —7 4 , 3 9 2 · H o m e r : o n H o m e r ’s n a r r a t i v e a r t , 2 1 6 - 2 4 ; v i e w s H o m e r a s a s o p h i s t i c a t e d p o e t , 2 2 3 ; A.P. a l l e g e d l y o n t h e Thebaid a s H o m e r i c , 2 1 9 - 2 0 ; H o m e r a n d T y r t a e u s a s p o e t s o f w a r i n A.P., 3 9 2 ; r e g a r d s H o m e r a s i d e a l e x p o n e n t o f ars a n d ingenium a l i k e , 4 8 9 . E l e g y : ty p e s of, r e s t r i c t e d i n A .P ., 3 9 2 ; s i m i l a r i t y t o D i d y m u s i n a c c o u n t o f e le g y , 1 6 5 - 6 ; h is n o t i o n o f

exigui elegi, 1 6 7 ; o m i t s l o v e e l e g y f r o m t h e g e n r e s a t A.P. 7 5 - 8 , 1 6 5 - 6 ; h is d e s c r i p t i o n o f p e n t a m e t e r s c o m p a r e d w i t h O v i d ’s, 1 6 6 . L y r i c g e n r e s : h o w d e l i m i t e d i n A .P ., 1 7 0 ; epinicia i n A.P. a c c o r d i n g t o k i n d s o f c o n t e s t , 1 7 0 - 1 . D r a m a : s k e tc h e s h is to r y o f G r e e k a n d R o m a n d r a m a fo r u lte r io r p u rp o se , 3 ιο ­ ί 8, 4 9 8 -9 ;

tragoedia moralis i n H o r a c e , 4 9 2 ; o n o r i g in s o f d r a m a , 1 6 8 ; o n

A e s c h y l u s , 3 1 3 ; a c t i o n a n d r e p o r t e d a c t i o n o n t h e s t a g e , 2 4 4 - 8 ; o n t h e f iv e -a c t l a w , 2 4 8 —51 ; o n t h e r u l e o f t h r e e a c t o r s , 2 5 3 - 4 ; o n c h o r u s i n d r a m a , 2 5 4 - 6 0 . S a t y r ic d r a m a : H o r a c e o n , 2 7 3 - 9 5 ; w a s s a ty ric d r a m a r e g a r d e d a s a v ia b le R o m a n g e n r e b y H o r a c e ? , 2 7 4 - 7 , 4 9 5 —6 , o n s a t y r i c d r a m a a s a m e a n b e t w e e n t r a g e d y a n d c o m e d y , 2 7 6 - 7 , 4 9 4 - 5 , p l a c i n g o f , i n p o e m , 4 9 4 , H o r a c e o m its n a m e o f f i r s t w r i t e r o f s a t y r i c d r a m a , 2 7 7 ; o n R o m a n d r a m a , 3 1 8 ; o n praetexta and

togata, 3 1 9 - 2 0 ; h i s a n a l y s i s o f t y p e s o f w i t ( i n c o m e d y ) c o m p a r e d w i t h

C i c e r o ’s a n d A r i s t o t l e ’s, 3 0 8 - 9

553

Index o f literary theory (iv ) m u s i c : o n m u s i c i n d r a m a , 2 6 0 - 7 3 , 4 9 3 - 4 .; c e n s u r e s n e w m u s i c b u t c o m m e n d s n e w p o e t r y , 2 6 2 - 3 ; m u s i c a s a c c o m p a n i m e n t o f p o e t r y , 4 9 3 —4 ; m u s i c a n d p o e tr y a t tw o d if fe r e n t s ta g e s o f c iv iliz a tio n , 4 9 3 - 4 (v ) m e t r e : o n m e t r e , 2 9 6 - 3 0 9 , 4 9 6 - 8 ; u s e s m e t r e a s a c r i t e r i o n o f c o m p e t e n c e i n

ars poetica, 4 9 6 ; m e t r e , s e c t i o n o n , m o t i v e s f o r i t s p l a c i n g , 4 9 6 . I a m b u s : c h a r a c ­ te r is tic s a c c o r d i n g t o A.P., 1 6 9 ; o n t h e s p e e d o f i a m b i c s , 2 9 7 ; o n i a m b u s e s a n d s p o n d e e s , 2 9 5 , 2 9 6 - 3 0 2 ; c o n d e m n s t h e m e t r e s o f A c c iu s , E n n i u s a n d P l a u t u s , 3 0 1 -2 , 3 0 7 ; h is ‘ la c k o f fa ir n e s s ’ i n ju d g in g a r c h a ic L a tin m e tr e , 2 9 5 - 6 (v i) p a i n t i n g a n d p o e t r y : c o m p a r e d b y H o r a c e , 8 5 - 6 , 3 7 0 , 4 6 9 , 5 0 7 ; i m p r e s ­ s io n is tic s ty le i n p a i n t i n g a n d p o e t r y n o t e n c o u r a g e d b y H o r a c e , 3 7 0 (v ii) ingenium, ars, artifex·, c l a i m s i n s p i r a t i o n , 3 2 9 ; r e g a r d s natura a n d ars a s t w o a s p e c ts o f t h e a b i l i t y t o p r o d u c e g o o d p o e t r y , 3 8 2 ; h i s i r o n y i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e

natura a n d ars, 3 9 4 ; s a t i r i c a l l y o v e r s t a t e s a n t i t h e s i s ingenium a n d ars, 5 0 0 ; d e n i e s t h i s a n t i t h e s i s i n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f t h e s c h o o ls , 5 1 2 - 1 3 ; a n d t h e c r i t i c a l t r a d i t i o n o n ars, 7 5 - 6 ; o n ars a n d artifex, 3 2 5 - 8 , 5 0 0 ; P e r ip a te tic c o m p r o m is e o n

of

c o n tr a s ts a r t i s t a n d a r tis a n , 1 1 7 , 1 2 1 -2 , 4 7 4 ; h is a r r a n g e m e n t o f s e c tio n s o n artifex, 3 2 5 - 8 , 3 3 8 , 3 5 2 - 3 , 3 5 9 - 6 0 ; ‘ a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s ’ n o t a n u n e q u i v o c a l c r itic a l n o tio n in t h e

A.P., 4 6 3 - 4

( v iii) artes, uirtus, error: d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n u t i l i t a r i a n a n d f in e a r t s , 3 7 2 - 9 ; 5 ° 8 ; m e d io c rity a d m itte d in th e u t i l i ta r i a n a r ts , 3 7 2 - 9 , 5 0 8 ; a n d th e o r y o f p o e tic p e rfe c tio n , 3 5 9 - 6 0 , 5 0 5 - 6 ; p o e tic p e r fe c tio n a n d a b e r r a t io n , h o w r e l a t e d to t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s , 3 5 9 - 6 0 , 5 0 5 - 6 ; e x c e l l e n c e d e m a n d e d f o r t h e f in e a r t s , 3 5 9 - 6 0 , 5 0 5 - 6 ; d e n i e s h i g h ( C i c e r o n i a n ) s t a t u s o f j u r i s p r u d e n c e a n d r h e t o r i c , 3751 p e r f e c t i o n , u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f, b e g i n s b y e x c l u s i o n o f f a u l t s , 3 6 0 - 1 , 5 0 6 - 7 ; f a u l t s , p o e tic , d iv id e d in to h a b i t u a l a n d o c c a s io n a l, th e ca se s o f C h o e rilu s a n d H o m e r , 3 6 0 - 8 , 5 0 6 - 7 ; ars b l o c k s t h e r o a d f r o m o n e f a u l t t o a n o t h e r , 1 1 3 - 1 4 ; c o m p e t e n c e in th e a r ts , 3 7 9 - 8 4 , 5 0 8 - 1 0 ; e r r o r p e rs o n ifie d in m a d p o e t, 5 1 5 - 1 6 ; s e c tio n o n m a d p o e t , h o w r e l a t e d t o e a r l i e r s e c t i o n s , 5 1 6 —17 (ix ) u n i t y : ‘ a r t ’ a n d ‘ u n i t y ’ i n l i t e r a r y t h e o r y a n d i n A.P., 7 5 - 6 , 7 7 , 4 6 8 - 7 6 ; lin k s ‘ a r t ’ a n d ‘ u n i t y ’, 7 7 ; c o m b i n a t i o n o f ‘ u n i t y ’ a n d ‘ a r t ’ is u n u s u a l i n e x ta n t lite r a r y th e o r y o f a n tiq u ity , 77, 4 7 5 ; a n d A ris to tle : d iffe re n c e s i n th e ir tr e a tm e n t o f p o e tic u n ity , 8 0 - 5 ; 1 17 - 2 1 ; m e a n , A ris to te lia n , in

totum i n A r i s t o t l e ’s l i t e r a r y t h e o r y a n d i n A.P., A.P., 1 1 5 —1 6 ; o r g a n i c u n i t y o f p o e m s , 1 2 2 ;

r e g a r d s u n i f o r m i t y a s a f a u l t , 1 0 5 , 4 7 3 ; h i s ‘ p u r p l e p a t c h ’, 9 4 , 9 5 —6 ; o n p o e t i c c o n s is te n c y , 1 9 8 ; o n p o e tic u n i t y i n H o m e r , 2 2 3 - 4 , 4 8 9 - 9 0 (x ) mores: m o r a l i t y a n d t h e H o r a t i a n p o e t , 5 0 1 ; m o r a l t h e o r y a d a p t e d t o t h e n e e d s o f t h e p o e t , 3 3 8 ; prodesse a n d delectare, h o w s e c t i o n is r e l a t e d t o t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s , 5 0 4 ; d e n i e s a n t i t h e s i s b e t w e e n prodesse a n d delectare·, P e r i p a t e t i c c o m p r o m i s e h o w u s e d , 3 5 2 - 8 , 5 0 4 - 5 ; e m p lo y s N e o p to le m u s ’ te a c h in g s o n e ffe c t o f p o e tr y , 3 5 2 ; c o n te s t, c r itic a l, b e tw e e n m o r a lis ts , a e s th e te s , a n d c o m p ro m is e rs i n

A .P ., 3 5 6 ;

c h a r a c te r , m o t i f o f, 5 0 1 - 2 , 5 1 8 ; o n p o e tic s u b je c ts a n d c h a r a c te r , 1 9 5 - 7 ; ‘ m y t h o s ’ o f d r a m a s e e n i n t e r m s o f c h a r a c t e r s , 4 8 7 ; ethologia. P e r i p a t e t i c , i n

A.P., 2 2 8 ff., 4 9 1 fama a n d fingere, 1 9 7 —2 0 8 ; u s e s H e l l e n i s t i c t h e o r y o f Ι σ τ ο ρ ί α , π λ ά σ μ α , μ ϋ θ ο ς , i n L a t i n fam a (uerum) , fictum ( uerisimile) , fabula (falsum), 1 9 8 , 2 2 3 - 4 ;

(x i) o n

3 5 4 -5 ( x ii) s o c i e t y a n d p o e t r y : s o c i e t y a n d p o e t s a c c o r d i n g to A r i s t o p h a n e s , A.P., a n d S u e to n iu s , 3 8 5 - 6 ; lin k s h is a c c o u n t o f s o c ie ty a n d p o e tr y w i t h h is a c c o u n t o f

uirtus (poetica), 3 8 6 , 5 1 0 - 1 1 ; o n a m a t e u r s t a t u s i n p o e t r y ; a s o c i a l a c c o m p l i s h ­ m e n t , 3 8 1 , 4 9 7 et al.; o n m a g i c i a n p o e t s a s f o u n d e r s a n d c i v i l i z e r s o f s o c i e t y .

Index o f literary theory H o r a c e ( cont.) 3 8 4 - 9 4 , 5 1 0 —i i ; a l l e g o r i z e s m y t h s i n h is a c c o u n t o f p r i m i t i v e p o e t r y , 3 8 7 - 8 ; c o n tra s ts G re e k s a n d R o m a n s , 296, 4 9 7 -8 , 5 02, 518 ( x iii) s t y l e : j o i n s

res a n d nerba, 1 3 2 - 6 , 3 3 9 - 4 0 , 4 7 5 ; a n d A r i s t o t l e o n s t y l e a n d

d r a m a t i c c i r c u m s t a n c e , 1 7 4 - 5 ; a n d A r i s t o t l e o n s t y l e a n d e th o s , 1 9 0 - 4 ; a n d A r is to tle o n s ty le a n d e m o tio n , 1 8 2 - 9 0 ; a n d C ic e ro o n fe ig n e d e m o tio n , 186; h i s p s y c h o l o g y o f s t y l e , 1 8 8 —9 0 ; o n

pulchrum a n d dulce, 1 8 3 - 4 ; o n psychagogia, 1 8 3 ; grandia

o n ‘ v i r t u e s o f s t y l e ’, 1 0 5 - 1 1 3 , 4 7 2 - 3 ; u n l i k e P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s , r e g a r d s

( t h e S u b lim e ) a s a k i n d o f s ty le , 1 1 1 ; o n h o w to u s e w o rd s in p o e try , 1 3 3 -4 ; t i e s t o g e t h e r ‘ c o m p o s i t i o n ’ a n d ‘ c h o i c e o f w o r d s ’, 1 3 7 ; h i s callida iunctura, 1 3 9 4 0 ; d o e s n o t d is c u s s m e ta p h o r s ,

133,

1 3 9 ; o n a rc h a is m s in la n g u a g e ,

157;

p o l e m i c i n d i s c u s s i o n o f n e o l o g i s m s , 4 7 8 ; n e w c o in a g e s , w h e n p e r m i t t e d ? , 1 4 0 -1 ; G r e e k p r e c e d e n c e f o r n e w c o i n a g e s i n R o m a n p o e t r y ? , 1 4 0 - 1 ; a p p lie s s im ile o f le a v e s to life o f w o r d s , p o e try , 4 8 0 ( x iv )

1 4 6 —5 0 ; c o m m o n

s to c k o f c h a n g i n g l a n g u a g e a n d

ordo: i n A .P ., 1 2 6 , 1 2 8 —3 1 , 4 7 6 —7 ; r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r i e s o n ordo, 1 2 7 - 9 ; h is

p r e c e p t s o n ordo e x e m p l i f i e d f r o m V i r g i l i n t h e S c h o l i a , 1 3 0 -1 See also I n d e x 5 , H o r a c e Im a g e ry , a rc h a ic fo r in s tru c tio n , 353 Im p o s s ib ilitie s , 9 3 , 114 I n c o n g ru ity in p o e try , 8 8 -9 0 In s p e c tio n , r e p e a te d , in p o e try a n d p a in tin g , 3 6 8 -7 2 I n s p ir a tio n , in lite ra ry th e o r y , 329 Is a g o g ic w r itin g s , 75 n . 2 Is o c ra te s o n

uirtutes narrationis, 2 1 6

J u r i s p r u d e n c e a n d r h e t o r i c , H o r a c e ’s a n t i - C i c e r o n i a n v ie w o f, 3 7 5 L a n g u a g e , i t s m u t a b i l i t y , i n g r a m m a t i c a l t h e o r y , 147 L i g h t n i n g a n d t h u n d e r i n l i t e r a r y t h e o r y , 113 L i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , d o c t r i n e o f U n i t y i n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f, 7 7 - 8 5 L u c r e t i u s o n n e w L a t i n w o r d s , 1 4 1 , 14 5 M e d io c r ity a n d e x c e lle n c e in th e a rts , 3 7 2 -8 M e l a n c h o l i a , 3 3 3 —4 M e t a p h o r , o f ‘ c o i n a g e ’ f o r n e o lo g is m s , 1 4 6 ; o f u n tr o d d e n p a th , 31 9 M e tre ,

d is c u s s io n s

o f,

by

m e tr is ts

and

lite ra ry

c r i t ic s

to

b e d is tin g u is h e d ,

295 M i d n i g h t o il, 3 0 7 M u s i c i n d r a m a , 2 6 0 —7 3 N a r ra tiv e : 2 2 1 -3

p o e try

and

d e s c rip tiv e

w r itin g , 9 5 ,

9 6 -7 ;

s w if tn e s s

o f H o m e r ’s,

N e o l o g i s m s , L a t i n : H o r a c e , Q u i n t i l i a n , a n d A p u l e i u s o n R o m a n b o r r o w i n g s f ro m G re e k , 143 N e o p t o l e m i c h y p o t h e s i s : h o w c a n i t b e p r o v e d ? , x i - x i i i ; r e b u t t a l s o f, x i i i - x v i i N e o p t o l e m u s o f P a r i u m , 7 5 , 7 7 , 9 5 ; i n w h a t s e n s e H o r a c e ’s ‘ s o u r c e ’? , x v i i i - x x ; o n ψ υ χ α γ ω γ ί α a n d ώ φ ε λ ε ΐν , 3 5 2 ; h i s t e a c h i n g s i n l a s t p a r t o f H o r a c e ’s A.P., 3 2 5 ; w a s H o r a c e ’s a c c o u n t o f S o c i e t y a n d P o e t r y d e r i v e d f r o m ? , 3 8 5

Index o f literary theory ordo\ h o w p l a c e d i n t h e r h e t o r i c a l s y l l a b u s , 1 2 7 ; imperatoria uirtus, 1 2 8 ; i n l i t e r a r y t h e o r y , 1 2 8 - 9 ; maxime proprium oratoris prudentiae, 1 2 8 O r ig in a lity o f p o e tic p r a c tic e , i n a n c ie n t lite r a r y th e o ry , 2 0 8 -2 4 , 4 8 8 -9 0 O rp h e u s, 3 8 7 -8 , 392 P a in tin g a n d p o e try , 3 6 9 P a tr o n a g e a n d p o e try , 4 0 0 -1 1 P e r i p a t e t i c n u a n c e i n H o r a c e ’s p s y c h o l o g y o f s t y l e , 1 8 8 P e rip a te tic s ? o n b re v ity , 108 P h ilo d e m u s : o n C h o e rilu s, 3 6 6 ; o n o r ig in a l t r e a t m e n t o f tr a d itio n a l su b je c ts, 20 9 P ip e r, e x a m p le in a r g u m e n ts o n τ έ χ ν η , 3 9 8 - 9 P la to : c o m p a re s p o e tr y a n d t h e f in e a r ts , 3 6 9 ; o n in s p ir a tio n , 3 2 9 ; h is d o c tr in e a s s u m e d i n H o r a c e ’s a c c o u n t o f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ? , 3 4 2 ; h i s

Protagoras: S o c ie ty

a n d S o p h is ts , a c c o u n t of, 3 8 5 ; h i s t h e o r y o f U n i t y , 78 P l a t o n i s m , M i d d l e , i n C i c e r o ’s Orator, 3 4 3 P l u t a r c h ’s Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e m o r a l a s p e c ts o f fla tte ry in frie n d s h ip , 4 1 2 P o l y b i u s a s s e r ts t h e ‘ o r g a n i c ’ c h a r a c t e r o f h i s t o r y , 3 6 9 P o s id o n iu s : S o c ie ty a n d P h ilo s o p h e r s a c c o r d in g to , 3 8 5 P re -S o c r a tic a n a ly s is o f τ έ χ ν α ι, 3 7 3 - 4 P ro b a b ility , 355 P r o e m s , e p i c , d is c u s s e d i n l i t e r a r y t h e o r y a n d i n r h e t o r i c , 2 1 2 - 1 3 P ro p h e tic v e rse , 392 P s e u d o - A c r o o n A.P. 4 3 r e s t s o n g o o d t r a d i t i o n , 13 0 —1 P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s : a n d H o r a c e , 8 0 ; a n d H o r a c e ’s A.P. d i f f e r i n v i e w p o i n t , 8 9 ; a s a c r i t i c , 7 6 ; r e g a r d s sublimitas n o t a s a t y p e o f s t y l e , H o r a c e d o e s , 111 P u b l i c , i t s r e a c t i o n t o p e r f o r m a n c e j u s t i f i e d , 1 9 0 , 2 2 8 - 9 , 2 7 9 - 8 0 , 2 9 3 - 5 , 4 ^ 3 » 495 Q u in tilia n a s a c ritic , 7 6 R h e t o r i c a n d j u r i s p r u d e n c e , H o r a c e ’s a n t i - C i c e r o n i a n v ie w o f, 3 7 5 R h y th m , n a tu r a l sen se fo r, 3 0 4 -5 S a ty r ic d r a m a , 2 7 3 -9 5 S c h o l i a o n H o m e r ’s n a r r a t i v e t e c h n i q u e , 1 3 0 - 1 , 2 1 6 , 221 S e r v i u s m i s u n d e r s t a n d s H o r a c e A.P. ( 4 5 ) , 1 3 7 S o c ia l a c c o m p lis h m e n t, p o e tr y a s , 3 8 0 S o c ie ty : a n d P o e tr y , 3 8 4 - 9 4 ; a n d R h e to r ic ia n s , 3 8 5 S o p h is ts o n U n ity , 7 7 - 8 S p o n d e e s in ia m b ic m e tre , 300 S ta m p in g , 4 0 8 S ta n d a rd s in c o n te m p o ra ry p o e try , 322 S t o i c f e a t u r e s a s s u m e d i n H o r a c e ’s a c c o u n t o f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , 3 4 1 - 2 S t y l e : a l l e g e d d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n ‘ g o d s a n d h e r o e s ’, 1 9 2 - 3 , a n d d r a m a t i c c i r c u m ­ s t a n c e , 1 7 4 - 8 2 ; h i g h , 111 ; m i d d l e , o f s a t y r i c d r a m a , 2 8 4 ; p a s s i o n a t e , i n c o m e d y , c o n d e m n e d , 1 7 8 ; p la in , 108, 1 1 1 -1 3 ; s m o o th , 1 0 9 -1 1 S ty le s : o f tr a g e d y , a n d e th o s , 1 9 1 - 2 ; tr a g ic a n d c o m ic , m u tu a l e n c r o a c h m e n t, 1 7 7 -8 2 T e rm in o lo g y , m e ta p h o r ic a l c h a r a c t e r o f, 3 2 2 - 3

556

Index o f literary theory T h e o p h r a s t u s o n σ ικ ε λ ί^ ε ιν , 2 7 0 ; (? ) T h e o p h r a s t u s o n t r a g e d y , 17 6 T h r e e A c to r s , r u le o f, 2 5 3 - 4 T ra g e d y , h a p p y e n d in g s in , 2 6 0 ‘T r u t h ’ a n d ‘ f i c t io n ’ i n l i t e r a r y th e o ry , 1 9 7 -8 , 2 18, 2 2 3 -4 , 355 T y rta e u s a n d H o m e r a s p o e ts o f w a r, 392 ‘ U n ity ’ in lite ra ry th e o r y , 7 7 -8 5

usus p r e s i d e s o v e r t h e c h a n g e o f w o r d s , 1 4 6 ; o f t e n a n i m a t e i n l i t e r a r y th e o r y , 158 uates, 3 9 1 ; o n v o c a b u l a r y , 1 3 3 ; h i s a n d C i c e r o ’s n o m e n c l a t u r e c o n c e r n ­ togata, 3 2 0 ; ( ? ) h i s u s e o f t e r m iunctura, 1 3 9 ; t h e a r c h a i s m o f h i s p o e t i c

V a rro , o n in g

th e o r y , x ix V i r g i l : a n c i e n t c r i t i c s n o t e h i s H o m e r i c e c o n o m y o f n a r r a t i v e , 221 ‘ V i r t u e s o f s t y l e ’ a n d ‘ T y p e s o f s t y l e ’, 1 0 5 —16 ‘ W e i g h t ’ n o t a r e c o m m e n d e d q u a l i t y i n C a l l i m a c h e a n a n d n e o t e r i c p o e tic s , 3 4 5 - 6 W it, th e o r ie s o f, 2 8 0 -1 W o r d s , i m p e r m a n e n c e o f, 1 4 6 - 6 0 ; o r d in a r y , i n p o in te d c o n te x t, 2 8 9 -9 0

557

INDEX

5

GENERAL

A c h ille s , 2 0 0 - 1 A c t-d iv is io n s in G r e e k a n d R o m a n D r a m a , 2 4 9 - 5 0

Aemilius ludus, 1 17 A e s c h y lu s , s a i d t o h a v e i n t r o d u c e d m a s k a n d

syrma, 3 1 4 ; t h e s t y l e o f h i s p o e t r y

a n d s ta g in g , 3 1 4 - 1 5 A le x a n d ria , m a le m o u rn e rs a t, 4 0 9 A ll u s i o n s a n d s e l f - q u o t a t i o n s i n L a t i n p o e t r y , 3 0 6 A n c i e n t g e n r e s , s e l e c t i v it y o f , 4 4 6 A n tic y ra , 3 3 2 -3 A rc h ilo c h u s , 168 A r i t h m e t i c , R o m a n le s s o n i n , 5 0 2 ‘ A r r a n g e m e n t ’ o f s u b j e c t s d e f i n e d b y t h e o r y a s w e l l a s p r a c t i c e , 4 7 6 —7

as, h o w d i v i d e d , 3 4 9 A u c t i o n e e r , s im i l e o f, 4 0 1 - 2 A u g u s t a n p o e t r y , s i m i l a r i t y a n d d i s s i m i l a r i t y f r o m H o r a c e ’s

A.P., 5*9

aulos, 2 6 0 - 7 3 B a rb e r s a n d p o e ts , 331 B o ile a u , 5 2 3 C a l l i m a c h u s a n d t h e c l a s s ic a l g e n r e s , 2 0 8 - 9 C a n n ib a lis m , 38 7 C a s c e lliu s , A u lu s , 3 7 5 C a to a n d E n n iu s a s c r e a to r s o f la n g u a g e , 145 C a tu llu s a n d L u c re tiu s c o n tr a s te d w ith H o r a c e , 4 4 9 C e n s u s , e q u e s tria n , 381

Cethegi, 142 C h a u c e r, 522 C h ic k p e a s r o a s te d , in L a tiu m , a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n , 2 9 4 C h o r u s : a n d r e c ite d m e tr e s in R o m a n d r a m a , 2 5 4 ; m o r a liz e s i n G r e e R o m a n d ra m a , 2 5 6 -7 C h re m e s in c o m e d y , 1 7 7 -8 C h ry s ip p u s ’ c u re , 3 3 3 , 3 3 4 C lo a c a M a x im a , 155 C o c te a u , J . , 4 6 8 , E p ig r a p h C o m e d y : G reek , 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 -1 8 ; R o m a n , 3 1 9 -2 1 ; C o m p e titio n s , p o e tic , 295 C r i t i c i s m , v a r i o u s k i n d s o f, n e e d e d t o m a k e t h e C u r s e , r e l i g io u s , 4 2 9 - 3 0 C y c li c e p i c , 2 0 8 - 2 1 , 4 4 2 , 4 8 8 - 9 C y p re s s, sy m b o lis m o f, 100 Cypria, 2 2 0 - 1 D a n c in g , 2 8 3 -4 D a n te , 522

558

Fescennina licentia i n , 3 1 7 A.P. r e a d a b l e , v i i - v i i i

an

General index description, a p o e t i c d e v i c e , 8 5 D ia n a a n d L u n a , 4 2 2 -3 D i o m e d e ’s R e t u r n , 2 2 0 E m p e d o c le s ’ le a p in to A e tn a , 4 2 6 -8 E n g i n e e r i n g e n t e r p r i s e s : A g r i p p a , 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 ; A u g u s tu s , 1 5 1 - 2 , 1 5 5 ; C a e s a r , 151 E n n iu s a n d C a to as c r e a to r s o f la n g u a g e , 145 E p ic c y c le , 2 1 0

ethologia, s t y l e o f, 2 0 0 exodium, 4 9 4 F a b le , 411 F a ir y ta le s , 3 5 6 F a n t a s ti c s u b je c ts , H e lle n is tic a n d R o m a n in te r e s t in , 2 1 8 -1 9 F a u n u s a n d P a n , 291 F r a c tio n s , c o m p u t a t i o n o f, 3 4 9 F rie n d s h ip , 2 37, 4 0 0 - 1 , 5 1 3 -1 5

G o e th e , 4 6 8 ( E p ig r a p h ) ; a n d S c h u b e r t, 4 9 3 G r a v e s , v i o l a t i o n o f, 4 2 9 G r e e k n a m e s , L a t i n v e r s e s c o n s i s t i n g o f, 2 1 9 Grotesques i n d e c o r a t i v e p a i n t i n g o f t h e I t a l i a n R e n a i s s a n c e , 4 6 9 G ro v e s i n d e s c rip tio n s , 97

άμαξα (τά έκ των άμαξών), 3 12 Harbours, construction of, 152-3 Helicon, 3 3 0 H e lle b o re , m e d ic in a l u se o f, 3 3 1 -2 H o m e r n o t id e n tifie d b y n a m e , 2 1 7 ;

Od. 1. 1 - 3 , p a r a p h r a s e d b y H o r a c e , 2 1 7 - 1 8

H o n e y , S a r d in ia n , 37 7 H o race (i) His persona : P e r s i u s ’ p a r a d o x c o n c e r n i n g h i m , 4 4 9 ; R . A . B r o w e r ’s p a r a d o x c o n c e r n i n g h i s s e r i o u s n e s s , 4 4 9 ; s e r io u s n e s s a n d h u m o u r i n h is p o e t r y , 4 4 8 - 9 ;

A.P., i m p o r t a n c e a t t a c h e d A.P., 4 8 2 ; u s e o f f i r s t p e r s o n

fa n ta s ie s a t b e g in n in g a n d e n d o f s in c e rity in p o e tr y d e m a n d e d in h im s e lf in

A.P.,

107, 187, 3 0 8 ,

to , 4 6 9 , 5 1 6 - 1 7 ; a n d r e f e r e n c e s to

et al. ; u s e o f f ir s t p e r s o n p l u r a l , 9 2 , 1 0 6 , 1 0 7 , 3 0 8 ,

3 5 1 , 3 6 1 ; v a r y i n g p o e t i c personae, 5 1 8 ; h i s i n t e g r i t y , 4 4 9 ; p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t i n s k e t c h o f m a d p o e t , 5 1 6 ; s e l f - c r i t i c i s m , 3 3 4 ; s e l f - b e l i t d in g , 1 4 5 ; c r i t ic , p a r t o f t h e p o e t ’s

ego ( E p . 11. 2 . 1 1 0 ) , o r h i s f r i e n d , 4 0 0 - 1 ; p e r s o n a l e m p h a s i s , 1 4 4 - 5 ;

a d d r e s s e s i n A.P., go, 1 3 8 , 2 2 7 - 8 , 2 8 6 , 3 7 4 , 3 8 1 , 3 9 3 , 4 0 6 ; H . ’s p e r s o n a l i t y a n d p e r s o n a l m o t i f s i n A.P., 1 0 7 , 4 6 6 - 7 , 4 7 7 - 8 ; p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c m o tif s i n tw o

C. i n . 4 a n d r v . 5 , 4 6 0 - 1 and literary theory : A .P . a s p o e m a n d t h e o r y , v i i - v i i i , x x - x x i ; o v e r l a y s c o n v e n t i o n a l p a t t e m o f a n ars poetica w i t h less c o n v e n t i o n a l p a t t e r n s , x i i , x v i i i - x i x , 4 8 4 , 5 17 - 1 8 ; A .P ., d o e s i t s u c c e e d a s l i t e r a r y t h e o r y a n d a s a p o e m ? , 5 18 - 2 2 ; A .P ., i t s s y m b o l i c n a t u r e , v i i i , 5 1 7 ; t r a d i t i o n a n d p e r s o n a l ingenium in A.P., 5 2 1 - 2 ; p o s i t i o n o f A .P . i n p o e t r y a n d c r i t i c i s m o f t h e W e s t , 5 2 2 - 3 ; A r i s t o t e l i a n i d e a l o f π ρ έ τ τ ο ν i n A .P . t u r n e d i n t o a t e c h n i c a l p r o b l e m , 4 8 1 ; i n w h a t r e s p e c ts

H o r a t i a n ly r ic s , ( ii) Poetic practice

in

a g reem en t a n d

d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h A r i s t o t e l i a n i s m , 5 2 0 - 1 ; u s e o f C a ll i -

m a c h e a n l a n g u a g e , 2 0 8 - 9 ; a n d C i c e r o , 1 3 2 ; l a t i n i z e s a n u n k n o w n c y c lic p r o e m ,

559

General index H o race

(cent.)

2 1 4 ; d o e s h e re fe r to t h e

Cypria ? , 2 2 0 —1 ; a n d H o m e r i c t e c h n i q u e , 4 9 0 ; a n d

J u v e n a l o n o l d a g e , 2 2 9 ; e c h o e s a r c h a i c v e r s e ( ? ) , 181 ; L u c i l i u s : i n f l u e n c e o f, i n

A.P. (4 1 9 f f . ) , 4 0 1 - 2 , 4 0 5 - 6 , 4 0 8 - 1 0 ; r e c a s t i n A.P. ( 4 3 1 - 2 ) , 4 0 8 - 1 0 ; a n d C ic e r o , d e b t to , i n th e se c tio n s o n c r itic is m a n d frie n d s h ip , 5 1 3 - 1 4 ; L u c r e tia n v e in , 1 4 1 —2 ; S i m o n i d e a n r e m i n i s c e n c e m a r k s c l i m a x o f p a s s a g e o f A.P., 4 7 9 ; a n d P e r i p a t e t i c t y p o l o g y , 2 2 9 ; C. 1, 12 a n d i t s P i n d a r i c m o d e l , 3 2 7 ; o w n p o e t i c p r o c e d u r e d isc u sse d o r h in t e d a t , 4 7 6 , 4 7 7 , 4 8 8 , 5 0 0 , 5 1 7 - 1 8 , 521 ( ü i) Poetry and philosophy : p h i l o s o p h i c a l a r g u m e n t a n d t r u i s m i n h i s p o e t r y , 4 4 8 - 9 ; a s a ‘ t h i n k e r ’ i n h i s p o e t r y , 4 4 8 - 9 ; o b l i q u e m a n n e r i n a r g u m e n t , 3 6 5 ; h is w o rld n o t s im p le a n d s ta tic , 4 7 5 ; d ia le c tic a l m a n n e r , 8 3 - 5 , 3 9 3 - 4 , 4 4 8 - 5 0 , 4 6 8 ,

473 . 474 ~ 5 > 4 7 5 ~ 6 , 477 . 4 8 5 - 6 , 5 0 0 ; a b s t r a c t a n d c o n c r e t e i n t h e A.P., 4 8 6 ; p r o c e d u r e o f c a p p i n g c o n c r e t e d e t a i l b y a b s t r a c t t e r m a t e n d , 9 8 ; s o lv e s p o e t i c p u z z le s a t e n d o f a s e c tio n , 1 1 3 - 1 4 ; a b s tr a c tio n s a n d d o c tr in e s , h o w r e la te d to

A.P., 4 8 5 - 6 ; A.P. n o t r i g i d ,

w h o le H o r a t i a n p o e m s , 4 4 8 w ith n . 1 ; r ig id a b s tra c tio n s a v o id e d in a v o i d s p r o s a i c o r d e r i n g o f to p i c s , 3 2 7 - 8 ; c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e o f

452 —3 ; l o g i c a l c o h e r e n c e , l a c k o f , i n A .P ., 5 2 1 ; a v o i d s t e c h n i c a l i t i e s , 1 0 8 - 9 ; a v o i d s s p e l li n g o u t t e d i o u s l o g i c a l d e t a i l , 1 1 5 - 1 6 ; v a g u e n e s s , a l l e g e d , o f h is t e r m i n o l o g y , 1 3 2 ; u n e q u i v o c a l c r i t i c a l n o t i o n s a b s e n t f r o m A P ., 4 6 3 ; p o e t i c c o h e r e n c e o f A .P ., 5 2 1 ; ‘ t a b l e s o f c o n t e n t s ’ i n A.P., 1 2 3 - 4 , 4 5 9 —6 0 ; i m a g i n a t i v e o r d e r i n g o f t o p i c s c o n c e r n i n g d r a m a i n A .P ., 2 2 6 - 7 ; u n i t y a n d s u b j e c t s i n h i s p o e m s , 4 6 1 ; u n i t y a n d v a r i a b i l i t y i n A.P., 5 1 9 ( iv )

v a rie ty o f

Poetic procedure and modes o f reading: a p t r e a d e r s o f h i s p o e t r y , 4 4 9 - 5 0 , 4 6 7 ;

tw o in te r d e p e n d e n t m o d e s o f r e a d in g p r o p o s e d , 105, 2 9 6 , 4 6 8 , 4 7 3 , 4 8 3 -6 , 5 0 i —4 ; u n i t y o f h i s p o e m s , h o w to a p p r e h e n d , 4 6 7 ; p r o g r e s s i o n o f t h o u g h t i n h i s p o e m s , 4 5 0 f f .; c o m p l e x i t y o f h i s p o e m s , 4 6 0 f f ., 4 8 5 , 4 9 0 - 1 , 5 1 7 —1 9 ; h e x a m e te r p o e m s

c o m p a re d ,

4 5 0 - 6 7 ; v a rie s o w n

Odes a n d

a ssessm en t o f h e x a m e te r

p o e m s f r o m ‘ p o e t i c ’ t o ‘ u n p o e t i c ’, 4 4 5 - 6 ; s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f h e x a ­ m e t e r p o e m s i n t h e s m a l l c o m p a s s o f t h e l y r ic s , 4 5 0 —6 7 ; s t r u c t u r e o f C. 1. 1,

4 5 ° —1 j u n i l i n e a r p r o g r e s s i o n r a r e i n h i s p o e m s , 4 5 0 —1, 4 8 4 ; ‘ r i n g c o m p o s i t i o n ’ :

A .P ., 4 5 3 , i n C . n . 1 0 , 4 5 3 - 4 , i n h i s lo v e p o e m s , 4 5 4 , i n o f C. 1. 12 o n l y a p p a r e n t l y p r e c i s e , 4 5 1 - 2 ; t r i p a r t i t e d i v i s i o n a n d u n i t y i n C. 1. 1 7 , 4 6 1 - 2 ; in medias res : h i s o w n p r o c e d u r e , 8 0 , 4 6 9 , 4 9 0 , 4 9 6 , H o m e r ’s p r o c e d u r e a c c o r d i n g t o A .P ., 4 9 0 ; audi, h o w u s e d t o i n t r o d u c e n e w t o p i c , 2 2 7 ; c o m b i n a t i o n o f i n h is p o e m s , 4 5 3 - 5 , i n

C . in . 26, 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 ; ‘o p e n - e n d e d ’ p o e m s , 4 5 3 ; tr ip a r titio n

c o n n e c te d n e s s a n d a b r u p tn e s s in h is p o e m s , 4 6 0 ; d is jo in te d n e s s i n firs t a n d la s t

o f A .P . o n l y a p p a r e n t , 4 5 6 - 9 ; s i m p l e j u x t a p o s i t i o n f e w , in A .P ., 4 5 7- 8 ’ Odes a n d h e x a m e t e r p o e m s , 4 5 5 - 6 7 , t r a n s i t i o n s i n A .P ., 4 5 7 , h i s a b r u p t n e s s , 8 1 —5 , 93 ~ 4 >

se c tio n s

p a r a g r a p h i n g o f h e x a m e t e r p o e m s , x —x i , 4 5 7 ; a b r u p t n e s s a n d t r a n s i t i o n s : i n

1 0 5 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 1 7 , 1 6 2 - 3 , i 7 4 - 5 > 1 8 3 , 1 9 5 - 7 . 2 o 8 - 9 , 2 2 5 - 7 , 24 5 , 2 6 2 , 2 9 6 , 3 1 1 ,

352 , 3 5 9 - 6 1 , 3 6 8 , 3 7 9 , 3 8 6 , 3 9 4 , 4 0 1 , 4 2 1 - 2 , 4 5 5 , 4 5 6 , 4 5 7 - 9 , 4 7 0 , 4 7 4 , 4 8 0 , 4 8 6 , 49 ° ? 4 9 6 , 4 9 8 , 5 0 1 - 4 , 5 0 4 - 5 , 5 0 5 - 1 3 , h i s ‘ g l i d i n g t r a n s i t i o n s ’, 1 2 4 , 1 2 7 - 3 0 . I q c ~ 2 ’ l 8 l> I 9 ° ’ IQ 5“ 7 ’ a ° 9 ’ 3 2 7 ^ 9 . 4 5 0 , 4 5 2 , 4 5 5 . 459 . 4 6 1 , 4 7 6 - 7 . 4 8 ° . 4 8 2 > 4 8 6 , 5 0 4 , 5 0 5 - 6 , a p p a r e n t h i a t u s i n h i s t h o u g h t , 3 4 7 —8 , u s e s c o n c e a l e d partitio in la s t p a r t o f

A .P ., 3 2 9 , 3 3 5 , c o m b i n e s a b r u p t a n d g l i d i n g t r a n s i t i o n , 195 .

t r a n s i t i o n s n o t s u p e r f i c i a l , 1 2 9 - 3 0 ; m o t i f s a n d s t r u c t u r e i n t h e A.P., 4 6 2 —7 . ars a n d decorum a s m o t i f s i n t h e A.P., 4 6 2 - 5 , 4 7 5 , 4 7 7 , 4 8 1 , 4 8 3 - 5 , 4 8 7 , 4 9 2 , 4 9 7 . 4 9 8 ,5 1 8 ( v ) M o r e s a n d o th e r m o tifs : m o r e s : i m p o r t a n c e a t t a c h e d t o b y h i m , 2 2 6 ; c h a r a c t e r a m a jo r

m o tif in

A.P., 1 9 2 , 2 2 8 , 4 6 5 - 6 ; c h a r a c t e r s a s p e n - p o r t r a i t s , 2 2 8 - 9 .

560

General index H o r a c e ( cont.) 2 3 0 - 4 4 ; o n t h e f o u r a g e s o f m a n , 2 2 8 - 9 ; h is p e r c e p tiv e e y e fo r ty p ic a l h u m a n f e a t u r e s , 2 2 6 ; t h e n a t i o n a l t h e m e s ( R o m a n a n d G r e e k ) a s m o tif s i n t h e A.P., 4 6 6 - 7 ; d e a t h i n t h e l y r i c s . Satires a n d h e x a m e t e r p o e m s , 4 0 0 —1, 5 1 3 - 1 5 ( v i)

Epistles, 4 7 9 - 8 0 ; f r i e n d s h i p m o t i f in

Content, style and tone : e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e s u b j e c t s d is c u s s e d i n t h e A.P., h o w

c o n v e y e d , 130, 145, 283, 2 8 5 -6 , 287, 29 2 , 330, 361, 4 7 3 , 476, 47 7 , 480, 482, 485, 5 1 7 , 5 2 1 ; v a r i a b i l i t y a n d c o m p l e x i t y o f c o n t e n t , s ty le a n d t o n e i n A.P., 4 4 6 - 9 , 5 1 8 ; ‘ m i x e d ’ s t y l e o f h i s h e x a m e t e r p o e m s , 4 4 6 ; le v e ls o f s t y l e i n h e x a m e t e r p o e m s , 4 4 6 ; ‘ m i d d l e ’ s t y l e i n h e x a m e t e r p o e m s , 4 4 6 , 4 7 9 - 8 0 ; ly r ic n o t e i n

A.P.,

4 7 8 ; s u d d e n r i s e o f p o e t i c t o n e , 1 4 7 ; h u m o r o u s l y e m p lo y s s ty le o f l e c t u r e o r tr e a tis e , 163, 2 9 6 - 7 , 3 3 5 , 4 9 6 , 5 0 0 ; c o m b in e s la n g u a g e o f R o m a n la w w ith l i t e r a r y t h e o r y , 2 0 9 —1 0 ; h i s m a n n e r o f d e a l i n g w i t h r e m o t e p a s t , 3 1 2 ; h is c o m ­ p r e s s e d n a r r a ti v e , 3 5 6 ; c o m p a r is o n in c o m p le te , 361 ; c o m p a ris o n irre g u la r, 376 ( v ii) Words and imagery, o n i m p e r m a n e n c e o f h u m a n e n t e r p r i s e s , 1 5 1 - 6 ; t a lk s o f w o r d s a s i f t h e y w e r e h u m a n s , 4 7 9 ; l ite r a l a n d m e ta p h o r ic a l in h is im a g in a tio n , 448, 4 8 1 -2 ; im a g e ry :

H o r a c e ’s, 1 9 3 , c o n c r e t e n e s s o f, 1 5 5 , o f p r u n i n g , h o w

a p p l i e d , 4 1 6 - 1 9 , o f w a x , 2 3 5 , o f y e a r s r i s i n g a n d f a llin g , 2 4 1 , m i x t u r e o f, 4 3 0 ; u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r o f s im ile o f le a v e s , 1 4 7 ; a n d V irg il h u m a n iz e n a tu r e , 1 5 4 -5 ; a n i m a t e s w o r d s i n uerborum uetus. . .aetas, e t c ., 1 5 0 ; c o l l o q u i a l i s m s , o c c a s io n a l, in h e x a m e t e r p o e m s , 4 4 5 - 6 ; v o c a b u la r y o f h e x a m e te r p o e m s la rg e ly d r a w n f r o m t h e g e n r e s o f L a t i n p o e t r y , 4 4 5 ; s e n s itiv e to ite r a tio n , 2 3 0 ; p o ly p to to n o f v e r b s , 1 5 7 ; c h a n g e o f g e n d e r , 3 8 2 ; r e p e a t s l a s t w o r d o f li n e a t b e g i n n i n g o f n e x t , 1 2 9 ; h i s v e r b a l i m a g i n a t i o n , 1 7 8 ; c o i n a g e s , p r o b a b l e o r p o s s ib le , i n A.P., r 3 9 . 142 (5 0 η .) , 145 (5 6 n .) , 166, 178, 180, 214, 239, 2 5 5 , 267, 292, 302, 319, 3 4 0 ; ά τ τ α ξ λ ε γ ά μ ε ν α a m o n g H o r a t i a n v e r b s l a r g e l y c o m p o u n d s , 1 7 8 ; r h y m e s in

A.P., 1 8 4 , 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 , 2 4 1 , 2 4 2 —3 , 2 8 9 , 3 9 8 ; p e r i o d i c s t r u c t u r e , 1 5 1 , 2 8 0 , 4 2 3 , et al. See also I n d e x 4 , H o r a c e H o r s e s c e l e b r a t e d i n epinicia, 171 H u m a n is tic th e o ry o f p a in tin g , 3 7 0 -1 I a m b u s , p e rs o n ific a tio n o f, 4 9 7 In o , 2 0 1 -2 I n te r e s t, m o n e ta r y , c o m p u te d in p e rc e n ta g e s , 349 I n t e r l u d e , m u s ic a l, a s a c t- d iv is io n s , 2 5 5 Io , 202

to dues, t r a d i t i o n a l c r y f o r h e l p , 4 2 5 Ix io n , 202 J u v e n a l a n d H o r a c e o n o ld a g e , 22 9 K n i g h t s , R o m a n : a n c e s t r y o f , 2 9 4 ; l i t e r a r y i n t e r e s t s o f, 2 9 3 - 4 ; s t a t u s o f, 2 9 3 - 4 L a m ia , 3 5 6 L a tiu m , 321 L e s s i n g o n ut pictura poesis, 3 7 1 liber l e g a l l y d e f i n e d , 3 8 0 - 1 ‘Lucilius tragoediographus’, 2 8 7 L u c r e tiu s a n d C a tu l l u s c o n t r a s t e d w i t h H o r a c e , 4 4 9 ; L u c re tiu s ’ ty p e o f p h ra s e

terrai. . .abdita i n , 1 4 2

561

General index M a e c i u s T a r p a , S p ., 3 8 2 - 3 M a s k s , 3 13 M a te ria lis m , R o m a n , s a tir iz e d , 3 4 7 , 3 4 9 -5 2 M e d e a ’s te a r s , 2 0 1 M e l e a g e r ’s D e a t h , 2 2 0 M e n a n d e r : Δ ΐξ έ ξ ο π τ α τ ώ ν , 2 5 0 ; Χ ο ρ ο ΰ i n p a p y r i o f , 2 4 9 M e s s a la C o rv in u s , M . V a le r iu s , 3 7 5 M o u rn e rs , h ire d , 4 0 8 -1 0 M o z a r t ’s

Magic Flute, 4 9 4

M y t i l e n e m o s a ic s , 2 4 9 N a e v iu s ’

praetexta a n d togata, 3 2 0

N a t u r e a s c r a f ts m a n in G r e e k p h ilo s o p h y a n d H o r a c e , 1 8 9

neniae u s e d a s i l l u s t r a t i o n s b y H o r a c e , 4 0 0 N e ro se c u re s a u d ie n c e in th e a tr e , 230 O re s te s , 2 0 2 O s t i a : is its h a r b o u r r e f e r r e d t o i n

A.P.?, 152

P a n a n d F a u n u s , 291 P a r a g r a p h s i n t e x t o f H o r a c e , x —x i , x x - x x i P e le u s , 1 7 9 -8 0 P e r s iu s ’ s e n s itiv e u s e o f H o r a t i a n la n g u a g e , 186 P h ile m o n : p o s s ib le a c t-d iv is io n s i n h is c o m e d ie s , 2 4 9 P i s o ’s e l d e r s o n a n e x e m p l a r y persona i n t h e c o n t e x t o f p o e t r y a n d s o c i e t y , 374 > 3 8 1 -4 , 3 9 3 -4 , 5 0 9 -1 0 , 5 1 1

Pisones 8 8 , 9 0 , 2 8 6 ; f a n c i f u l g e n e a l o g y o f, 3 2 2 P o m p tin e M a rs h e s , d r a i n i n g o f, 153 P o p e , A le x a n d e r, 5 2 1 , 523 P o p p y seed s, 377 P o t t e r s i n a n c i e n t t e c h n o l o g y , 10 2 P o u n d , E z ra ,

Mauberley, 5 2 3

praeficae, 4 0 9 P ra tin a s , 277 P r o v e r b s , 9 0 - 1 , 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 2 3 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 8 , 2 9 1 , 3 2 3 - 5 , 3 4 4 , 3 ^ 4 > 3 ®2 > 3 8 4 , 4 0 0 , 4 1 5 , 431 P u b lic a s lite r a r y c ritic s in H o r a c e , 109, 3 5 6

pudor malus a n d i g n o r a n c e , 1 7 4 Ramnes, 3 5 7 R a p a e l, 4 6 9

reditus Diomedis, 4 4 2 R o m a n tic is m , E u ro p e a n , 5 2 3

quiritare, 4 2 5

Satyric drama at Athens, Alexandria, and (?) Rome, 273—7 S c a n n in g w ith fin g e r a n d f o o t, 3 0 9

Schubert, 493

S e a tin g i n th e a tr e , 2 6 9 -7 0

562

G e n e ra l in d ex S h e lle y o n W o r d s w o r th , 4 4 7 S ile n u s , 2 8 7 - 8 S i m i l e , H o m e r i c , o f c h a n g i n g l e a v e s o f f o r e s t, 147, 4 7 9 S im o n id e s o n p a in tin g a n d p o e try , 3 6 9 S o s ii, 3 5 8 S o s ith e u s , 291 S p rin g , se a so n fo r p u r g in g , 3 3 4 S ta g e , r a is e d , h is to r y o f, 3 1 4 S tr in g e d in s tr u m e n ts , 271 syrma r e f e r r e d t o b u t n o t n a m e d , 2 7 0 , 3 1 4 T e le p h u s , 1 7 9 -8 0 T e r e n c e , c o n t i n u o u s a c t i o n in h is c o m e d ie s , 2 3 0 , 2 5 0 6 fo r θάνατο?, 417 T h a l e s ’ a c c i d e n t , 4 2 3 —4 T h e s p is , 3 1 0 , 31 2 threnodi, 4 0 9 T r a g e d y , G r e e k , o r ig in s o f, 3 1 0 - 1 6

Tragoedia, 2 8 3 T y p o lo g y , P e r ip a te tic , 2 2 9 U n g u e n ts , 377 V a r r o o n tibiae, 2 6 2 , 2 6 3 , 2 6 6 V a r u s , Q u i n t i l i u s , t h e f r ie n d a n d c r itic , 4 1 3 , 5 1 5 V irg il a n d V a r iu s , 1 4 4 ; a n d

A .P ., x x

V o lta ire p re fe rs B o ile a u to H o r a c e , 523 V o t i v e t a b l e t s , 101 W a g o n o f T h e s p is , 3 1 2 W i s e M e n a c c i d e n t - p r o n e , 4 2 3 —4 W ittg e n s te in , o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g p o e tr y a n d p h ilo s o p h y , 7 3 , E p ig r a p h

Xerxes togatus, 1 5 2 , 1 5 3

56 3