author and speakers in horaces satires 2

Author and speaker(s) in Horaces Satires 2

Page 1 of 16

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico %28UNAM%29; date: 18 March 2014

UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineOxfordScholarshipOnline

TheAuthor'sVoiceinClassicalandLateAntiquityAnnaMarmodoroandJonathanHill

Printpublicationdate:2013PrintISBN-13:9780199670567PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:January2014DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670567.001.0001

Authorandspeaker(s)inHoracesSatires2StephenHarrison

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670567.003.0006

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterlooksatthecomplexconstructionoftherelationshipbetweenauthorandspeakerinthesecondbookofHoracesSatires(30BCE).ThefirstbookofSatires(35BCE)had(apartfromonepoem)beennarratedinthepoetsfirst-personvoiceandprovidedanapparentlyself-revelatorypoetofHoraceandhiscareer.ThesecondbookofSatires,ontheotherhand,introducesasuccessionofotherspeakerswhotakeoverfromthesatirist,eitherpresentingpoemsasmonologuesoractingasdominatinginterlocutorsindialogues;anumberofthesespeakerscanbearguedtorepresentaspectsofHoracescharacter,andthischapterexplorestheideathatcharactersotherthanthepoet-narratormayinfactrevealjustasmuchabouthimashisownfirst-personvoice.

Keywords:Horace,Satires,Plato,narrativetechniques


Page 2 of 16


IntroductionThiscontributionlooksatthecomplexconstructionoftherelationshipbetweenauthorandspeaker(s)inthesecondbookofHoracesSatires(30BCE).ThetenpoemsofHoracesfirstbookofSatires(35BCE)had(apartfrom1.8,almostentirelyspokenbyastatueofPriapus)beenmonologuesnarratedinthefirst-personvoiceofHorace,anapparentlyself-revelatorypoetandmoralistgivinghisviewsontheworldanddescribinghisowndevelopingpoeticandsocialcareer.Theeight-poemsecondbookofSatires,ontheotherhand,publishedfiveyearslater,beginswithanappearancebythepoetasmajoritydialoguepartnerin2.1,butthenintroducesasuccessionofotherspeakerswhotakeoverfromthesatirist,whoseroleinthisbookseemstobetoprovidean(oftenminimal)dialoguepartner.Somepreviousscholarshiphastendedtostressthefragmentationofthesatiristsvoicehere,andhismimeticskillsinrepresentingcharactersquitedifferentfromhimself;butIwanttoargueinthispiecethatmostofthesespeakerscanbearguedtorepresentaspectsorpotentialaspectsofHoracescharacter,andthatcharactersotherthanthepoet-narratormayinfactrevealjustasmuchabouthimashisownfirst-personvoice.1

(p.154) Muchattentionwaspaidintwentieth-centuryscholarshiponHoratiansatire,andonRomansatireingeneral,totheissueofhowfarthefirst-personpoet-narratorrepresentstherealhistoricalfigureandviewsofthepoet.Arereadersmeanttoassumethatfirst-personstatementsinthispoeticgenreareinprincipleautobiographical,orthatthefirst-personvoiceisitselfalwaysarhetoricalmask,oftenitselftheobjectofironyandhumour?2Issatiremoreeffectiveifwelinkitsspeakerwithanapparentlyrealperson,orisitmoresatisfyingfromaliteraryperspectiveifthespeakerisanevidentartisticcreation?Doestheevidentartificialityofavoicecompromiseordeconstructitsmoralizingmessage?Ofcourse,thetopicofauthenticvoiceisdeeplyproblematicinanyworkofliteraturepresentedinthefirstperson,wherethespeakingIisitselfnecessarilycarefullyconstructedasacharacter,andwhereanunreliablenarratorisalwaysapossibility.3HoracesfirstbookofSatirescancertainlybereadasthefirst-personlinearandrealisticrepresentationofasuccessfulcareerinwhichthepoetmovesfromexcludedstreetmoralisttomemberoftheliteraryestablishment,atleastpartlythroughthepatronageofMaecenas;4butmodernHoratianscholarshipisclearthatHoracesself-representationinanyofhisworksisartfulintheextremeandcannotalwaysbetakenatfacevalue.5

InwhatfollowsIwanttopresentalinearreadingofthesecondbookofSatires,andtoarguethattheissueoftheidentityofthesatiristsvoiceisitselfthematized.Thepoemsofbook2largelysubordinateHoracethefirst-personpoettoothervoices:thisispartlyanartisticvariationofnarrativeframeworkaftertheomnipresenceofthepoetsvoiceinthefirstbook,avariationwhichasweshallseedrawsonthedialoguesofPlato,butthebookalsobeginswithapoetwhoisworriedthathissatiricvoiceinbook1hadbeenalittletooforceful(seenextsection),andtheapparentocclusionofHoracemightbeseenasareactiontothisanxiety.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthepoethimselfvanishes;asIhopetoshow,theothervoicesofbook2consciouslyechoaspectsofthepoetsown(p.155) self-characterizationelsewhere,andpresentuswithcharacterswhoresemble


Page 3 of 16


Horaceinanumberofways.

2.1:HoraceandTrebatiusAtthebeginningofthesecondbook,thepoetpresentshimselfasindialoguewithTrebatius,formerlegateofJuliusCaesarandatoplegalexpert,6andthetopicoftheirconversationispreciselythepoetsvoice(2.1.16):

Suntquibusinsaturavidearnimisaceretultralegemtendereopus;sinenervisalteraquidquidconposuiparsesseputatsimilisquemeorummilledieversusdeduciposse.Trebati,quidfaciam?praescribe.quiescas.nefaciam,inquis,omninoversus?aio.

TherearesomewhothinkIhittoohardinmysatire,andthatIstretchmyworkbeyondalegitimatepoint;theotherhalfreckonsallmywritingtobeinsipid,andthatverseslikeminecanbespunathousandaday.Trebatius,givemeadviceonwhattodo.Youshouldtakearest.Notwriteversesatall,youmean?Correct.7

Thisamusingpseudo-consultationofthegreatlawyerisofcourseironic,buthisrecommendationisbothnotfollowedandfollowedinthebook:Horacecontinuestowrite,butthepoetsownvoiceasspeakerand/orexpositorofviewslargelydisappearsforthenextfourpoems,emergesagainonlyinthefirstpartof2.6,andisthenmostlyreplacedbyDavusin2.7andbyananonymousnarratorinthefinal2.8.OnemodelhereisclearlythephilosophicaldialoguesofPlato.ThoughPlato(unlikeHorace)isentirelyabsentfromhisowndialoguesinwhichSocratesisusuallythedominantcharacter,8themovetodialogueandtothepresentationofentertainingspeakingcharactersonphilosophicalsubjectsbothdrawonthiscelebratedsource,and(asweshallsee)severalofthepoemopeningsinthisbookevokefamousmomentsinPlatonicdialogues.Thisthemeofhowfarthe(p.156) poetistorevealhimselfinthisbookisraisedagaininthispoeminthedescriptionofHoracessatiricpredecessorLuciliusat2.1.304:

illevelutfidisarcanasodalibusolim

credebatlibrisneque,simalecesserat,usquamdecurrensalioneque,sibene;quofitutomnisvotivapateatvelutidescriptatabellavitasenis.sequorhunc

Inearlierdaysheusedtoentrusthissecretstohisbooks,asiftotrustedfriends,notturningtoanyothersourceatall,whetherthingswentbadlyforhimorwell;andsoitcomesaboutthattheoldfellowsentirelifeliesopentoview,asifitwerepaintedonavotivetablet.ThisisthemanIfollow

ThoughthepoetsstatementthathewillfollowLuciliusinself-revelationisimmediatelyfollowedbyabriefpassageofautobiographyonhisregionofbirth(3439),thedeclarationseemsproblematicasaprogrammeforthisbook:howcanthepoetrevealhimselfinaworkwherehespeakssolittle?Asweshallsee,thisisskilfullydonethroughdeliberateconflationofhisowncharacterizationandvoicewiththoseofotherspeakers.

2.2:OfellusandHorace


Page 4 of 16


Thesecondpoemintroducesthekeymoraltopicoffrugalliving,raisedinotherHoratianpoems(forthegeneralideaofuiuereparvoseeSat.1.1.2860,Odes2.16.13uiuiturparuobene).Butinthiscontextitsoriginastheviewofsomeoneelseisimmediatelystressed(2.2.14):

Quaevirtusetquanta,boni,sitvivereparvonecmeushicsermoest,sedquaepraecepitOfellusrusticus,abnormissapienscrassaqueMinerva,discite

Whatthevirtueoffrugallivingisandhowgreat(andthisisnotalkofminebuttheteachingofthecountrymanOfellus,amanofself-taughtwisdomandroughlearning),youshouldlearn,myfriends

Ascommentatorsnote,thisopeningneatlyalludestothebeginningofthediscussionproperinPlatosSymposium,wherethedoctor(p.157) Eryximachusisabouttoproposeloveasthesubjectofpost-prandialconversation,asubjectreallyproposedbyPhaedrus(Symp.177a):

:,,.

LetmebeginbycitingEuripidesMelanippe:Notminethetale.WhatIamabouttotellbelongstoPhaedrushere.

EryximachusthenproceedstocitePhaedruswordsonthesubjectbeforemakinghisownproposal.ThisstructureisneatlyinvertedinHoracespoem,whichfirstofallparaphrasesOfellusviewsinthepoetsvoice(Ofellusisemphasizedastheirsourcebothatthestart(aswehaveseen)andinthemiddle,2.2.534Ofello/iudice),andthenallowsthesagetospeakforhimselfinthefinalsection(2.2.11636).Notetoothepointeduseofsermo:thewordnotonlytranslatesPlatostale,butalsomeansHoracescurrentstyleofwriting,sermobeingoneofthetermsHoracelaterusestodescribehishexametersatires(Ep.1.4.1,2.1.250,2.2.60).9ThesuggestionisthatHoracehasforthemomentassignedhissatireanditskeythemetoanotherauthor.

ButthatotheriscarefullychosentoresembleHoracehimself.LiketheHoraceoftheSatires,Ofellusiskeentopurveyethicaltruths,butisexplicitlyindebtedtonoparticularphilosophy;thewordabnormis(3)impliesfreedomfromanysectarianlineofthought,10andmatchesHoracesfamousstatementintheEpistlesthatheisnotweddedtoanyschool(Epistles1.1.1319).LikeHorace,Ofellushaslostlandintheconfiscationsof41BCEbutemergedhappilyfromtheexperience(12736:cf.Epistles2.2.4951);likeHorace,hepreachesthevirtuesofthesimplelifeanddietonhisfarminthecountry(cf.Sat.2.6forasimplemealonHoracesSabineestate).Buttherearealsodifferences.OfellusisatruepeasantwhileHoraceisasophisticatedintellectual,andOfellusclearlylostpropertypermanentlyandhascometotermswithit,whileHoracesyouthfuldifficultieshavenowbeenresolvedbythegenerosityofMaecenasgiftoftheSabineestate,celebratedinSat.2.6;inthissenseOfellus,clearlyacountryneighbouroftheyoungHorace(cf.2.2.112),showswhatmighthavehappenedtohimhadhenotgoneto


Page 5 of 16


Rome,madeacareerasapoet,andattractedtheattentionofMaecenas.

(p.158) ButtheconflationbetweenHoraceandOfellusextendsbeyondbiographytothatofnarrativevoice.ThedetailedexpositionofthepoemscentralpartseemstocombinetheperspectiveoftherusticsageOfelluswiththatofHoracetheurbansatirist.ThepassageonpretentiousgastronomyinRome(2.2.952),neatlyanticipatingthethemeof2.4,isspokenfromtheviewpointofsomeonewhoknowstheRomanscene:thereferencestourbanexercisesandmilitarytraining(2.2.1013)surelylooktotheCampusMartius,theusuallocationforsuchthings.Conversely,thecriticismofthemiserAvidienius(2.2.5564),nicknamedDog,whomakeshisownrevoltingoilandwine,seemsdrawnfromtheframeworkofhumblecountrylife.ThedifficultiesthatinterpretershaveexperiencedintryingtoseparateoutthevoicesofHoraceandOfellus11areunderstandable:thepoetsself-presentationandthatofhischaracterareinextricablyintertwined.Insomesense,Ofellusrepresentsthepart-timerusticinHorace,soontobeadvertisedinSatires2.6.

2.3:Damasippus,Stertinius,andHoraceInSatires2.3,Horaceisinitiallyupbraidedbytheart-dealerDamasippusforinfrequentliteraryproduction(2.3.131),butthebodyofthesatirethenturnstoDamasippusreportingofavastlecturebytheStoicphilosopherStertiniusonthetopicofwisdomandmadness(2.3.34299).ThenarrativeframeworkonceagainowessomethingtoanopeningscenariofromPlatosdialogues,reportingeventsandspeechestoathirdparty(mostfamouslyPlatosSymposium,allnarratedbyApollodorusfromthereportgivenhimbyAristodemus).TheenormouslectureofStertiniuslookslikeamusingparodyofaphilosophicalopponent,latermockedatEpistles1.12.10EmpedoclesanStertiniumdeliretacumen,whetheritisEmpedocleswhoismadorthebrilliantStertinius.LikethesimilarlyvolubleCrispinus(Sat.1.1.120and1.4.1316),theextremeStoicStertiniusdrasticallyfailstoachievetheStoicidealofconciseness,andpresentsextremephilosophicalviewswhichdifferdramaticallyfromthoseoftheself-proclaimedmoderateHoraceoftheSatires(seeSat.1.1.1067).His(p.159) discourseisalsofundamentallynon-Horatianinitslength,making2.3byfarthelongestofallthesatires,andthuscontraveningHoracesfavouringofCallimacheanbrevity(cf.1.10.9);DamasippushimselfasaStoicfollowerandmouthpieceevidentlyespousesthesameviews.Thetwoareinsomesenseinversemodelsforpoeticandphilosophicalexposition,figurestobeguyedratherthanimitated.

AndyetbothDamasippusandStertininiusshareelementsofcharacterizationandvoicewithHorace.Damasippus,liketheyoungHoraceafterPhilippi(andlikeOfellus),loseshispropertyandhastostartagain(1820);likeHoracesfather,theauctioneersagent(coactor,Sat.1.6.86),hebelongstothebustlingcommercialworld,whichHoracemightwellhaveenteredhimself(1.6.857);andliketheHoraceoftheSatires,heisconcernedtosummarizeandretailtheviewsofotherphilosophers(34),andusesanAesopicfabletomakeamoralpoint(2.3.31420,seee.g.2.6.79117).Atthebeginningofthepoem,Horaceaskssedunde/tambenemenosti?buthowdidyougettoknowmesowell?Damasippusrepliesthatsincehisbusinessfailurehehashadtimetoconcentrateonthe


Page 6 of 16


doingsofothers,butthequestionmightalsosuggestthatDamasippus(likeOfellus)isanalterHoratius.ThisideaofinterchangeabilityisalsoreinforcedbyitssettingontheSaturnalia,notjusttheseasonoffreespeech(henceDamasippusverbalassaultonHorace)butalsotheseasoninwhichslavesandmastersmighttemporarilychangeplaces.ThoughDamasippusisnotHoracesslaveliketheDavusofSat.2.7(seep.166),thefirsthalfofhisnamerecallstheservileDama(seeSat.1.6.38,2.5.18)andheisclearlypresentedasthepoetssocialandintellectualinferior:thesuggestionofacarnivalesquechangeofidentitiesisthereforenotastonishing.

Stertinius,too,thoughcontraveningHoratiancanonsofmoderationinbothviewsandlength,oftensoundsliketheHoratiansatirist.Hislectureproceedsbypickingoutindividualfiguresoffollyandmadnessfromcurrentreallifetoexemplifymodelsnottofollow,thetechniquefamouslylearnedbyHoracethesatiristfromhisvirtuousfather(1.6.10331).TheseincludethewastrelNomentanus(2.3.175,224),whoisnotonlyanexamplealreadyusedseveraltimesinHoracesSatires(1.1.102,1.8.11,2.1.22),butwillalsoappearasaspeakingcharacteratNasidienusdinnerinthefinalsatireofbook2.EvenStertiniusliteraryallusionsmapthoseoftheHoratianwriterofsermo.HismemorableevocationofAeschylusOresteiatrilogyinhisdescriptionofmadness(2.3.131141)recallsHoracesentertaining(p.160) useofthissamemythinthedescriptionofaslavewhokilledhermisermasterasClytemnestra(1.1.100fortissimaTyndaridarum),whilehisrewritingofthedialogueofSophoclesAjaxtomakeamoralpointaboutroyalpower(2.3.187213)recallsHoraceslatermanipulationofthePentheus/DionysusconfrontationfromEuripidesBacchaeintheEpistles(1.16.739).Similarly,hisuseofAesopic-stylefable(2.3.186),sharedwithDamasippus(aswehaveseen),recallsakeyHoratiantechnique.12

SoinSatires2.3wefindanadvanceon2.2:thepoetissetagainsttwocharacters,notone,andeachhastraitswhicharedistinctlyHoratian.IstheHoraceoftheSatiresattimesreallyanotherDamasippus,avulgarmouthpieceforothersviewswhocomesfromthecommercialclasses?AndistheobsessiveStertiniusanindictmentofHoratianmoralizing,anillustrationofthedangersintowhichthepoetcanfallwhenonhisethicalhighhorse?

Thiskindofself-underminingistypicalofthepoetsself-presentationgenerally:13thepresenceofsuchironyinthispoemseemstobeconfirmedbyitsend,whenDamasippuspresentsHoracewithsomeclearhometruthsandforceshimtoadmitthatheisindeedmad,thoughDamasippusismadder(2.3.3236).ThecocksureStertiniusisthusfinallycontrastedwiththeself-undermining(butdidacticallymoreeffective)Horatianspeaker,whounlikethevolubleStoiccanironizehisownmoralizingstanceandthusmakeitmoreattractivetothereader.14

2.4:CatiusandHoratiangastronomyLike2.2,2.4beginswiththeidentificationofacharacterotherthanthepoethimself,acharacterwhoturnsouttobethepoemsmainspeaker(2.4.13):

UndeetquoCatius?nonestmihitempus,aventiponeresignanovispraeceptis,


Page 7 of 16


qualiavincentPythagoranAnytiquereumdoctumquePlatona.

(p.161) Catius,wherehaveyoubeenandwhereareyouoffto?Ivenotimetostop,ImsokeentomakenotesofsomenewteachingsthatareofakindtooutdoPythagorasandthemanAnytusputinthedock[i.e.Socrates]andlearnedPlato.

WhereindeeddoesCatiuscomefrom?Thoughheisalsolikelytobeahistoricalcharacter,15oneansweristhathecomesfromPlato,oneoftheveryphilosophersthenewteachingsmentionedbyCatiussupposedlyoutdo,forthisopeningagainpicksupanopeningfromaPlatonicdialogue,theMenexenus(234a):;isMenexenuscomingfromthemarketplace,orfromwhereelse?;alsosimilaristheopeningofthePhaedrus:,;mydearPhaedrus,wheretoandwherefrom?InbothcasestheopeningisspokenbySocrates;andinbothcasestheensuingworkprincipallypresentsformalspeeches,thethreediscoursesaboutlovebyLysias(one)andSocrates(two)inthePhaedrus,andtheparodicfuneralspeechgiventoAspasiaintheMenexenus.16HoracespoemtakesupthisfeatureofthePlatonicoriginals,sincealmostthewholeofSatires2.4consistsofCatiusspeechwhichreportsthepreceptsofanother.Thus(asin2.3)wefindthreevoiceshere,thatofthesatirist,thatofCatius,andthatofhisunnamedsage.Theissueofthespeakerof2.4isthushighlightedandplayedonatthebeginning.

Butwhatofthepoemscontent?Heretooweseewittyplay,sinceitturnsoutthattheamazingnewpreceptsadvertisedbyCatiusarenotphilosophicalbutgastronomic.Atline12weexpectethicalpreceptsbutfindrecommendationsoneggs,andthroughoutthelongreportedspeechongastronomywhichformsthebodyofthepoem(1287)wittyallusionsaremadetophilosophicalmodesofdiscourse,17endingwiththeironicsummarybythesatiristthatthesedoctrinesareuitaepraeceptabeatae,theteachingsofthehappylife(2.4.94).Thekindofingenuityanddedicationwhichshouldbededicatedtoseekingthetruthabouthowbesttoliveoneslifearehereappliedtothelowappetitesoffoodanddrink;Catiusandhisnamelesssage(unliketheseriouslyethicalHorace)areusingtherightlanguagebutthewrongcontent.Asin2.3,wemightthinkinitiallythatwearedealingwithastraightforwardattackoncontemporarymaterialism(p.162) anddistortedvalues,butonceagainthereareaspectsofCatiusandtheunnamedspeakerwhichuncomfortablyrecalltheseamiersideoftheHoratiansatirist.ThoughHoracegenerallystresseshisfewmaterialwantsandsimplediet(especiallyin2.6withthehumbledinnerathiscountryplace),hisslaveDavusin2.7suggeststhatthisisonlywhenhecannotenjoytheluxuriesofMaecenastable(2.7.2935):

sinusquamesfortevocatusadcenam,laudassecurumholusac,velutusquamvinctuseas,itatefelicemdicisamasque,quodnusquamtibisitpotandum.iusseritadseMaecenasserumsubluminaprimavenireconvivam:nemonoleumfertocius?ecquisaudit?cummagnoblaterasclamorefugisque.

Ifithappensthatnoinvitationstodinnercomeyourwayatall,youpraiseyourcarefreegreens,and,asthoughyouworechainswhengoinganywhere,callyourselfsoluckyandhugyourselfatnothavingtogooutboozingsomewhere.But


Page 8 of 16


shouldMaecenasbidyoutojoinhimfordinnerlate,justasthelampsareabouttobelit,itsWontsomeonefetchmeoilquicker?Isntanyonelistening?asyourantinaloudvoicebeforescurryingaway.

SoHoraceisagastronomeonoccasion,justlikeCatiusandhisnamelesssage,andtheviceheissatirizingisatleastsometimesclaimedashisowninthissamepoeticbook.Horace,Catius,andthenamelesssageareperhapsnotsofarapartafterall.

2.5:HoraceasUlyssesThisopeningpoemofthebookssecondhalfmatchesitsoverallopeningpoemintakingtheformofaparodicconsultation.182.1depictedHoraceaskingTrebatiusforlegaladvice,whereas2.5replaysincomicmodeUlysses/OdysseusconsultationoftheseerTiresiasfromtheOdyssey(11.248ff).Thereisalsoaneatsymmetrywithbook1.1.5hadpresentedHoracesjourneytoBrindisiasatleastpartlyaparodyofthejourneyoftheOdyssey,19and2.5(thefifthpoemagain)(p.163) takesupthesametechnique.20TheearlierpresentationofHoraceasacomicUlysses/OdysseusthussuggeststhattheUlyssesofthispoemmayhaveHoratianelements.Andsoitproves.LikeHorace(andOfellus,andDamasippus),theUlyssesof2.5seekstorepairlostfortunes,andinanenquiryappendedasanimaginarysequeltotheseriesofusefulresponsesaboutthefuturegivenbyTiresiasinOdyssey11,heasks:

Hocquoque,Tiresia,praeternarratapetentiresponde,quibusamissasrepararequeamresartibusatquemodis.quidrides?

Answermethistoo,Tiresias,inadditiontowhatyouhavetoldme,bywhatwaysandmeansIcanregainmylostwealth.Whydoyoulaugh?

Tiresiaslaughterperhapssuggestsaudiencereactiontothisincongruousjuxtapositionoffamousepicframeworkandlow-lifeenquiry,butOdysseusonreturntoIthacawillfindhimselfinmuchthesamesituationasHoraceonhisreturntoRomeafterhisexperiencesatPhilippi(Epistles2.2.4952):

undesimulprimummedimiserePhilippi,decisishumilempinnisinopemquepaternietlarisetfundipaupertasimpulitaudaxutuersusfacerem

AssoonasPhilippidischargedmefromthere,broughtdowntoearthwithclippedwingsandstrippedofmyfathershomeandestate,povertymademeboldanddrovemetowriteverse

ThesolutionaspropoundedbyTiresiasisthetraditionalsatiricaltargetofcaptatio,legacy-hunting,achievedthroughself-ingratiationwiththerich.21Thismightseempurelyconventional,butHoracesowncareerinthe30sBCEcanbedescribedasachievedinthisway,evenbyhimself:inthecomicautobiographyofEpistles1.20,HoraceclaimsthathefoundfavourwiththeforemostmenofRomeinwarandpeace(1.20.23primisVrbisbelliplacuissedomique),andinhisadvicetoScaevainthesamebook,advisingonhowtomakepowerfulfriends,hestatesthattohavefoundfavourwiththeleadersofsocietyis


Page 9 of 16


notthelowestformofrenown(1.17.35principibusplacuisseuiris(p.164) nonultimalausest).Augustusisclearlymeantinbothinstances,butthepluralalsoincludesMaecenas(primusdomitoAugustusprimusbelli),andofcoursethecrucialfeatureofHoracescareerasnarratedintheSatiresishisrelationshipwithMaecenas,thepatronwhoclearlygavehimtheSabineestateandfinancialindependence,somethingcelebratedintheverynextpoemafter2.5.HowdifferentinfactwasHoracespursuitoftherichandinfluentialfromthatadvisedbyTiresias?22Hereagainasatiricallyexaggeratedcharactermayreflectelementsofthesatiristhimself.

2.6:HoraceandthemiceInSatires2.6,weheartherarevoiceofthepoethimself,atleastforthefirsttwo-thirdsofthepoem,inwhichhecelebrateshisSabinecountryestate,apparentlygiventohimbyMaecenasbetweenSatires1(35BCE)andSatires2(30BCE).23ThepoembeginsbydetailingHoracesbusylifeatRome(160)andthenturnstotheparadisiacalescapeofferedbyhisruralretreat.Therusticdinner-partyinthelatterdescribedat2.6.635(beansandbacon)isclearlymeanttocontrastpositivelywiththehyper-luxuryofthecitydinnersandgastronomywhichconstitutetheobsessionofCatiusandhisunnamedsagein2.4(seep.161)andNasidienusin2.8(seep.167).ItisalsothelocusforthediscussionofethicaltopicsemblematicfortheSatires(2.6.707):

ergosermooritur,nondevillisdomibusvealienis,necmalenecneLepossaltet;sedquodmagisadnospertinetetnesciremalumestagitamus;utrumnedivitiishominesansintvirtutebeati;quidveadamicitias,ususrectumne,trahatnos;etquaesitnaturabonisummumquequideius.

Andsoconversationarises,notaboutotherpeoplesvillasortownhouses,orwhetherLeposdancesbadlyornot;ratherourdiscussions(p.165) areaboutmatterswhichconcernusmore,andwhichitwouldbebadnottoknow:whetheritiswealthorvirtuethatmakesmenhappy;orwhatattractsustofriendships,self-interest,oranuprightcharacter;andwhatisthenatureofgoodnessandwhatitshighestform.

HerethepoetsuggeststhatthecountryisthetrueplacefortheethicaldiscourseoftheSatires:sermonamesthesatiricliteraryformasat2.2.2(seep.157)aswellassimpleconversation.ThisPlatonic-stylesymposiasticdialogueisthestageforthefamousAesopic-stylefableofthetownandcountrymouse(2.6.79117),24inwhichthecountrymousetriesthefleshpotsanddangersofthecitywithhisurbanrelativebutisonlytoogladtoreturntothecountry.ThetaleistoldinthevoiceofCervius,arusticneighbour,anotherembeddedcharactervoice,butthetechniqueofusingamoralizingfablerecallsthevoiceofthepoethimselfelsewhere(seeon2.3onp.159).Nomoralisofferedforthistaleinthepoem,butthecountrymousehasoftenbeenseenasananalogueforHorace,keentowithdrawtothecountryandavoidthepressuresofcitylifewhichhehasdescribedearlierinthepoem.25Thecontrastdrawnbetweentownbustleandcountry


Page 10 of 16


lifeisreruninthestoryofthetwomice,whichthusbecomesamiseenabyme,anembeddedrepetitionoftheouterframestoryofthepoem.26Similarly,thefirstmealitrelates,ahumblerepastofferedbythecountrymousetothetownmouse,isclearlyaversionofthelowlyrusticmealatwhichitisbeingnarrated.

Theseindicatorssuggestthepoetsself-identificationwiththecountrymouse,butthetownmouseisalsorecognisablyHoratian:hisfacileEpicureanaddresstothecountrymouse,ascommentatorshavenoted,comicallyreflectsthesympoticexhortationsofcarpediemintheOdes(2.6.937):

carpeviam,mihicrede,comes:terrestriaquandomortalisanimasvivuntsortita,nequeullaestautmagnoautparvoletifuga:quo,bone,circadumlicet,inrebusiucundisvivebeatus:vivememor,quamsisaevibrevis.(p.166)

Putyourtrustinme,andtaketotheroadwithmeasyourcompanion,sinceearthlycreatureslivewithmortalsoulsastheirlot,andthereisnoescapefromdeathforgreatorsmall,therefore,mygoodfellow,whileyoumay,liveahappylifeamidjoyfulthings;livemindfulofhowbriefyourtimeis.

Indeed,inthisverypoemthepoethasbeenseenasamanabouttown,besetwithurbandutiesbutalsorejoicinginhisfriendshipwiththeveryurbanMaecenas(2.6.32),andinthenextpoem(asnotedearlier)weseehimcancellingahumbledinnerofthesortdescribedin2.6foraluxuriousfeastatMaecenashouse(2.7.2935).AshisintimatecriticDavuspointsout,HoracepraisesthecountrywheninRome,Romewheninthecountry(2.7.289).ThepoeminfactpresentstheculturalandsocialcomplexitiesofHoraceslifeasapoet:hispoetryisoftenwritteninthecountry(2.3.1112,2.6.1617),butthatcountrylocationisitselfagiftfromtheurbanMaecenasandthesubjectofhissatireislargelyurbanvice.Horacecanneverbeonlythecountrymouse,andtheplacingofthestoryinthemouthoftherusticCerviusleavesthisissuemoreopenthanifitwerevoicedbythepoethimself;Cerviuspresentsthecountrysviewofthecity,whichHoracecanadoptordropathisownconvenience.Inthispoemthepluralityofvoicesservestoexpressthepoetsdividedviews.

2.7:DavusHoracesalterego?Satires2.7beginswith(andisdominatedby)thevoiceofHoracesslaveDavus,exploitingthelicenceoftheSaturnaliatotellhismasteraseriesofhometruths(2.7.15):

Iamdudumauscultoetcupienstibidicereservuspaucareformido.Davusne?ita,Davus,amicummancipiumdominoetfrugiquodsitsatis,hocest,utvitaleputes.agelibertateDecembri,quandoitamaioresvoluerunt,utere:narra.

IvebeenlisteningforawhilenowandwantingtosayafewthingstoyoubutasaslaveIvebeenafraidto.IsthatDavus?Yes,itsDavus,aboughtslavebutone


Page 11 of 16


whosafriendtohismasterandanhonestfellow,thatis,honestenoughnottobeconsideredtoogoodtolive.Come,makeuseofthefreedomDecemberallows,asourforefatherswanteditso;sayyourpiece.

(p.167) HereDavusisinsomesensecharacterizedasthelinearreaderofthebook,wholikehimhasbeenlisteningtothevoicesofthelastsixpoems.27ButheisalsoanalteregoofHoraceassatirist.HisexpositionofHoracesfaultsbegins(622)withapairofindividualsexemplifyingaparticularvice,verymuchintheanecdotalsatiricmodeHoraceclaimstohaveinheritedfromhisfather(cf.1.6.10331,seeon2.3onp.159),andhecoversarangeoftopicsalreadyfamiliarfromtheSatires(inconsistencyfrom1.3,discontentwithoneslotfrom1.1,townandcountrylifefrom2.6,Crispinusfrom1.1and1.4,adulteryanditsdangersfrom1.1,satirictreatmentoftheStoicsagefrom1.3,gluttonyfrom2.4).Inthisrehearsaloffamiliarthemesthereisperhapsasenseofafinalgatheringupofkeymaterialasthebook(andHoracessatiriccorpus)movestowardsitsend.Thusinthispoem,asinhisinitialindictmentbyDamasippusin2.3,Horaceishoistwithhisownsatiricalpetardinthevoiceofanother,whoimitateshimonlytooeffectively:thecarnivalesqueSaturnaliansettingofbothpoemsbefitsandreflectsthisreversalofthenormalsituation.

2.8:HoraceandFundaniusInthisfinalsatireweonceagainencounteraPlatonicnarrativeframework:thepoetmeetsthecomicpoetFundanius,whoproceedstogivehimanaccountofthepretentiousdinneratthehouseofNasidienus(2.8.15):

UtNasidieniiuvittecenabeati?nammihiquaerenticonvivamdictushereillicdemediopotaredie.sic,utmihinumquaminvitafueritmelius.da,sigravenonest,quaeprimairatumventremplacaveritesca.

HowdidyoulikeyourdinnerwiththewealthyNasidienus?ForwhenIsoughttohaveyouasmyowndinner-guestIwastoldthatyouweredrinkingthereyesterdayfrommidday.SomuchsothatneverinmylifehaveIhadamoreenjoyabletime.Tellme,ifitsnotrouble,whattastydishwonroundyourangrystomach.

(p.168) Ashasbeennoted,thisrepeatsthepatternoftheopeningofPlatosTimaeus(17b),whereTimaeusasksSocratestorepeatyesterdaysdiscourse:,;ifitisnottroublesomeforyou,gobackbrieflyoveritfromthebeginning.28Weshouldalsonotethatthereareechoeshere(asintheopeningof2.3)oftheopeningofPlatosSymposium,narratedbyApollodorusinresponsetoanunnamedinterlocutorfromthereportgivenhimbyAristodemus,29andwerecallthatthegreatcomicpoetAristophanes(likehiscounterpartFundanius)wasakeyparticipantinthatPlatonicparty.Thecontent,foritspart,recallsthatof2.4,whereCatiusgivesthesimilarlypretentiousgastronomicpreceptsoftheunnamedsage.ThereisanaturalaffinitybetweenHoraceandFundanius:thelatterisclearlyafellowdiscriminatingliterarymaninthecircleofMaecenas(Sat.1.10.42),andlinksbetweenHoratiansatireandtheworkofcomicpoetsisathemeofbothbooksof


Page 12 of 16


satires(1.4.17,2.3.1112).30Thetwosharemoralweaknessesaswellasstrengths:astheopeningshows,likeHoraceat2.7.2935,Fundaniuscanbetemptedawayfromthenormalroundofsoberermealswithfriendsforaluxuriousblow-outwiththerich.Asin2.7,figuresandthemesfromprevioussatiresreappear,notjusttheobsessivegastronomyof2.4andepicparody(in2.8.5)31of2.5and1.5,butalsoMaecenas(2.3,2.6,and2.7aswellasthroughoutbook1),Varius(1.5,1.6,1.9,1.10),Nomentanus(1.1,1.8,2.1,2.3),andCanidia(1.8,2.1).FundaniusclearlybehavesasHoracewouldhavedonehadhebeenpresent,commentingironicallyonthehostspretensions,andfleeingwithMaecenasattheendofthepoem(2.8.935):

quemnossicfugimusulti,utnihilomninogustaremus,velutillisCanidiaadflasset,peiorserpentibusAfris.

offweran,takingourrevengeonhimbytastingnothingwhatever,asthoughCanidia,worsethanAfricansnakes,hadbreathedherpoisononthem.

HereofcourseweneedtorecallthatthisisalsotheendofHoracespoeticbook:likethedepartingnarratorFundaniusandthesensibleguestsatNasidienusgrossfeast,thepoetheretakesleaveofthe(p.169) Satires,andasattheendofEpistles2.2(2.2.215tempusabiretibiest,itstimeforyoutodepart),wefindthethematizingofdepartureataconcludingpoint,awell-knownformofpoeticclosure.32ThustheplaybetweenthevoicesofHoraceandFundaniushereallowsaneatandwittyendtobothpoemandthebook.

ConclusionOverall,thispieceshowshowinHoraceSatires2wefindamovetodialogueandtohighlightingspeakerswhoarenotthepoet,amajordifferencefromSatires1andamarkedvariationinnarrativetechnique.Inliteraryterms,Platoisanimportantmodelhere,bothasapredecessorinethicaldialogueandasaconsistentuserofnarrativeframeworksandopeningswhichcomplicatetheissueofthenarrativevoiceandoccludetheauthorhimself.

ButthisdivergencefromthevoiceofHoraceisnotinfactamoveawayfromself-revelation.Rather,thismoveallowsthepresentationofaspectsofthepoetscharacteraspreviouslyestablishedinhiswork,usingthemediumofotherfiguresandvoiceswho(despitetheirsurfacedifferences)shareimportantelementswiththesatirist,whetheraspectsofbiography,philosophicalandethicalambitions,ormodesofexemplification,expression,andargument.ItthusallowsthepoetindirectlytoexposeandmeditateonhisownmoralweaknessesinotherpoemsashedoesdirectlyinDavusSaturnaliancritiqueofhismasterin2.7,thoughthistooisdeliveredwithunmistakableelementsofhismastersvoice.Withconsistentsubtletyandwit,themanynon-Horatianvoicesofbook2thusprovideamodeofmirroringincomplexandinterestingwaysthecareer,concerns,andfoiblesofHoracehimself.

References


Page 13 of 16


Bibliographyreferences:

Anderson,W.(1982).EssaysonRomansatire.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Booth,W.(1983).Therhetoricoffiction.Chicago,IL:ChicagoUniversityPress.

Bowditch,P.(2001).Horaceandthegifteconomyofpatronage.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Braund,S.(1996).TheRomansatiristsandtheirmasks.London:BristolClassicalPress.

Champlin,E.(1991).Finaljudgements:dutyandemotioninRomanwills,200BCAD250.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Coventry,L.(1989).PhilosophyandrhetoricintheMenexenus,JournalofHellenicStudies,109:115.

Dllenbach,L.(1989).Themirrorinthetext.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Davie,J.(2011).Horace:SatiresandEpistles.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Fowler,P.(1997).Lucretianconclusions,inD.Roberts,F.Dunn,andD.Fowler(eds),Classicalclosure.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,11238.

Freudenburg,K.(1993).Thewalkingmuse:Horaceonthetheoryofsatire.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Freudenburg,K.(2001).SatiresofRome.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gowers,E.(1993a).HoraceSatires1.5:aninconsequentialjourney,ProceedingsoftheCambridgePhilologicalSociety,39:4866.

Gowers,E.(1993b).Theloadedtable:representationsoffoodinRomanliterature.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Gowers,E.(2003).FragmentsofautobiographyinHoraceSatiresI,ClassicalAntiquity,1:5591.

Harrison,S.(1995).Poetry,philosophyandletter-writing,inD.Innes,H.Hine,andC.Pelling(eds),Ethicsandrhetoric:classicalessaysforDonaldRussell.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,4761.

Harrison,S.(2007a).Horatianself-representationsinS.Harrison(ed.),TheCambridgecompaniontoHorace.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2235.

Harrison,S.(2007b).GenericenrichmentinVergilandHorace.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.


Page 14 of 16


Labate,M.(1981).Orazio:Satire.Milan:Rizzoli.

Lejay,P.(1911).LesSatiresdHorace.Paris:Hachette.

Muecke,F.(1993).Horace:SatiresII.Warminster:Aris&Phillips.

Nisbet,R.E.M.(1995).Thesurvivors:old-styleliterarymeninthetriumviralperiod,inR.E.M.Nisbet,CollectedpapersonLatinliterature.Oxford:ClarendonPress,390413.

Oliensis,E.(1998).Horaceandtherhetoricofauthority.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rudd,N.(1966).TheSatiresofHorace.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Sallmann,K.(1974).DieseltsameReisenachBrindisium:AufbauundDeutungderHorazsatire1,5,inU.ReinhardtandK.Sallmann(eds),MusaIocosa.Hildesheim;NewYork:Olms,179206.

Sharland,S.(2010).Horaceindialogue:BakhtinianreadingsintheSatires.Oxford:Lang.

Notes:(1)SeeLabate(1981:267)(stressingfragmentationandirony/lackofauthority),Oliensis(1998:53)(stressingthelackofresemblancebetweenthepoetandhisbook2speakers).Sharland(2010)isaninterestingandsalutaryexceptiontothistendency,fromaBakhtinianperspective;myviewalsoresemblesthatofFreudenburg(2001:99100).

(2)ForimportantcontributionsseeespeciallyAnderson(1982)andBraund(1996).

(3)ForthisconceptseeBooth(1983:1589).

(4)SeeespeciallyGowers(2003).

(5)ThebesttreatmentisOliensis(1998);forabriefintroductoryaccountseeHarrison(2007a).

(6)ForthecareerofC.TrebatiusTestaseeNisbet(1995).

(7)TranslationsfromtheSatiresandEpistlesthroughoutaretakenfromDavie(2011).

(8)ThoughPlatoalludestohispresenceatSocratestrialintheApology(34a,38b),inhisdialoguesheisalwaysabsent,famouslysoatPhaedo59b:.Plato,Ithink,wasunwell.

(9)ThepointiswellmadebyFreudenburg(2001:112).

(10)SeeLejay(1911:3289).

(11)WellsetoutbySharland(2010:20037).


Page 15 of 16


(12)Indeed,thefableofthefoxandlionalludedtoherebyStertiniusturnsuplaterinHoracesEpistles(1.1.735).

(13)Cf.Harrison(2007a).

(14)AslikewiseinEpistles1seeHarrison(1995:4851).

(15)SeeMuecke(1993:167).

(16)OntheinterpretationoftheMenexenusseeCoventry(1989).

(17)Cf.2.4.36ratione,2.4.44sapiens,2.4.76uitium,2.4.82flagitium.

(18)SeeMuecke(1993:8).

(19)SeeSallmann(1974:2026),Gowers(1993a:559),Harrison(2007b:869).

(20)Harrison(2007b:86n.30).

(21)ForthispracticeatRomeanditsliterarytreatmentseeChamplin(1991:87102).

(22)Cf.similarlyOliensis(1998:57):IsHoraceanhonestOfellus,contentwithhislot,whosefarmhasbeenmiraculouslyrestored,oraUlysseswhohasworkedhardanddeviouslytoaccomplishsucharestoration?

(23)ForthebestmoderndiscussionofthepoetsmildocclusionofthegifthereandelsewhereseeBowditch(2001).

(24)IndeedtheimitationinBeatrixPotter,ThetaleofJohnnyTown-Mouse(1918)acknowledgesAesop(anamelikelytobeknowntoherchildreadership)butusesdetailsfromHorace.

(25)Cf.e.g.Rudd(1966:252).

(26)FortheideaingeneralseeDllenbach(1989).

(27)IndeedSharland(2010:262)suggeststhatthephrasereferstolisteningtoallthepoemsofbothbooksofSatires.

(28)SeeGowers(1993b:1623),Freudenburg(2001:117).

(29)Muecke(1993:227).

(30)Freudenburg(1993:1078).

(31)Muecke(1993:230).

(32)SeeFowler(1997:11415).


Page 16 of 16


Accessbroughttoyouby: UniversidadNacionalAutonomadeMexico%28UNAM%29

author and speakers in horaces satires 2

Documents

oxford scholarship online

personal use

single chapter of amonograph

universidadnacional

horaces satires

icence agreement

individual user