236 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 Satires I. IV 4 An Introduction to Horace's Satires I. IV : In Satires 1.4 we are apparently shown Horace's views on the purpose of satire and its status as a literary genre. His possible irony and the extent to which he should be taken at face value (a long-standing source of debate are) are addressed here with particular reference to Aristotelian and Philodeman influence. This recently analyzed influence is reappraised and challenged with regard to its extent and implication. But first I look at the moral purpose—or otherwise—of Horatian satire as expressed in 1.4. ‘+ The Paraphrase of Satires I. IV: ‘The poets Eupolis and Cratinus and Aristophanes and others, of which ‘men isancient comedy, if any was worthy to be written of because he was wicked 4 thief, because he was an adulterer or cut-throat or was otherwise infamous noted with much liberty. ‘On such men Lucilius hangs entirely, having followed with only feet ang numbers changed. He is keen, of sharp nose, unyielding to pen verses: for Be ‘was faulty in this: as it were, oft in an hour would he recite two hundred verses standing on one foot. ‘When he muddily flowed, there was that which you wished to remove: Fe was lazy and chattersome to bear the labour of writing, of writing well: as quantity, 111 not delay. Behold, Crispinus provokes me over so little: “Take, {you will, take now your tablets; let a place be given to us, a time, referees; let bee if one shall be able to write more’ ‘The gods did well that they shaped me of an idle and feeble mind, speaking « rarely and with few words: and you, as you prefer, imitate the winds shut up: goatskin bellows, always laboring until the fire softens iron. Blessed Fannius tuntarily put out his bookshelves and bust when none read my writings; because this I was fearful to recite them to the public, because there are few whom this pleases, since the worth of many is damned. Choose any from the crowd’ miss He labours either from avarice or from miserable ambition: He raves loves of married women, he that of boys; awe of silver seizes him; Albius enraptured with bronze; this one harks wares from the rising sum to that by which evening kingdom warms, though indeed he is carried headlong; dangers, just as dust collected in a tempest, fearing that he lose all things or he profit for the work. They fear all verses, they hate poets. ‘He has straw in a horn, flee far: as: fas he gets a laugh for himself he'll spare not a friend; and whatever he @ scribbled on papers, he shall desire all, returning from the ovens and fo to know, both boys and old women. Come! Take a little to the contrary: First I should except myself from the number of those whom I give t poets: for one ought not say it to be enough to produce a verse; nor if any: wrote clot has nature things, shi ‘There because st should dif ing father wife with torches be Can it father we which, if [as ina ce and Lueili first in ore not come tible Disee ‘Thing§ views on the purpose dle irony and the extent inding source of debate fetelian and Philodeman raised and challenged {and others, of which pecause he was wicked, §§ otherwise infamous, &d with only feet and © pen verses: for he btwo hundred verses, ished to remove: He writing well: as for ver so little: Take, if time, referees; let us tmind, speaking only be winds shut up in Fannius vol- writings; because of ew whom this genre the crowd's midst: ition: He raves for es him; Albius is § sum to that sun ‘headlong through fall things or lest Te flee far: as long whatever he once ‘Rs and fountains = contrary; hom I give to be nor if any, as 1, =: Satires LIV ~ 237 has man set #0 conversation should you think him to be a Poet, to him, who has natural talent, whose mind more divine, arct ‘mouth about to sound great things, should you give the honor of this name, Therefore, some have asked whether comedy should be considered Poetry, should differ only in a certain measure from Prose, itis only prose. “And bumn- ing father Rages, because his playboy son, mad wih love fora whore, refuses a wife with a great dowry, and, drunk, which is a0 Breata disgrace, wanders with torches before the night” Can itbe that Pomponius should have heard words lighter than those if his ige in such a way as the father, masked things, which I now write and, because the word is first, indeed you will ‘Things are such: at another time the poem may not be just. Now I'll con- iter that only, whether this genre of writing merits thet it be suspect to you. Sharp Sulcius and Caprius, hoarse with evi, walk with their notebooks and cach is great terror to swindlers; and if any lives well wea with clean hands, he may condemn both. Caclius and Burrus, are similar to thieves, Lam not similar to Caprus oF Sulcus; why do you fear me? No tavern or storefront holds my books {he hand of the vulgus and of Hermogenis Tigellus would dampen. Nor do I recite to any friends, save when forced’ No te whomever it pleases, any- where and publicly. Those who recite ‘writings in the middle of the forum or pathing are many: A closed place resounds with his voice. This pleases the fool- {Gh not considering whether they do this without eames (ot whether at the wrong time. “You rejoice to annoy!’ J SAYS ‘Ana, perverse, you do this with zeal’ Whence do you throw this snack at me? Is the author any of those with whom Ihave lived? He who carps W238 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 Nevertheless, I wonder why he has fled that judge in such a way’ This is the draught of black cuttlefish, this is pure bronze rust. Let vice be away be far from my writings and mind as before; I promise, if I am able truly to promise any- thing further about muse. If Thave spoken freely, if perchance too jokingly, you will give me the favour of your indulgence in this; my great father accustomed me to this, that I should flee [vice] by noting examples of vices. ‘When he encouraged me that I should live frugally, shrewdly, and content to use that which he had provided for me, ‘Do you not see the son of Albius lives badly, and also that Baius is indigent? It is a great lesson lest he wish to ruin his father’s wealth.’ When he deterred me from love of turpid whore, ‘May you be dissimilar to Scetanus’ Should I not follow a whore when I may be able to enjoy sex favours, “The story of discovered Trebonus is not pleasant.’ He would say, ‘The philosopher may give you reasons that it might be better for shunning this than by seeking it; while you need a guardian, I am able to watch over your save life and reputation, and as soon as age has stiffened your mind and your limbs, you will swim with outa float’ Thus he formed me as.a boy with his words, and ifhe decreed I should doa thing, he said, “You have the authority by you may do this,’ and he cast out one of the selected judges; or if he forbid a thing, ‘But do you doubt that this is dishonest and useless to do, that he blazes with wicked rumor when he does this or that?’ A neighbour's death stuns sickly gluttons, and from fear of death he compels himself to desist; thus often others’ scandals deter tender minds from vices. From this teaching I am safe from these vices which also bear ruin. T am held by lighter vices, which you might excuse. Perhaps long age, a frank friend, and my own counsel shall have reduced muchly even these. For indeed Iam not apart from myself when bed or Colonnade snatches me: “This is the more proper; doing this I might live the better; thus I should b found pleasing to my friends; such is not fetching; should I ever imprudently 4 something similar to that?’ For these things I turn over in my mind with ca tongue. When anything of leisure is given, I play around with writings. This one of those lighter foibles; if you do not wish to pardon any of this a great b of poets shall come which should be to my aid, for we are many by the mo and we shall compel you , just as the Jews did, to concede to this crowd. ‘© A Summary of Satires I. IV : Satires: Book I Satire IV - A Defence of Satire Line: 1-25 : Quality not Quantity in Satire please ‘The poet speaks in defence of Satire. He argues that whenever anyo deserved to be shown as a crook a thief, a libertine, a murderer, or notorious in some other way, the true poets, those who powered the Old edy: Eupolis, Aristophanes, Cratinus, used to mark such a man out quite fre Horace remarks that Lucilius derives from them, as a follower who o changed rhythm and metre: witty with a sharp nose, true, but the verse wrote was rough. That is where the fault lay: often, epically, he'd dictate RBaerz SOSe7228 REROARRE TWAS HITATeh a — Satires LIV 239 hundred lines, do it standing on one foot even! Horace adds that a lot should have been dredged from his murky stream, He was garrulous, hated the labour involved in writing, writing well, the poet meant that he doesn’t care for mere quantity. He refers to what Crispinus offering him long odds: “Now, if you please, take your tablets and I'll take mine: pick a time, a place, The judges: lets see which of us can scribble the most.” Now Horace thanks the gods that he is a man of few ideas, with no spit, one who speaks only rarely, and then says little. But, Horace comments, if it’s what one prefers, then he imitates air shut in a goat-skin bellows, labouring away till the fire makes the iron melt. The poet says that Fannius is Blessed, for he offers his books and a bust unasked, while no one reads what the poet writes, and he is afraid to recite it aloud since some care little for that sort of thing, and most men deserve censure. Horace says the readers that they may choose any man from the crowd: That man will be bothered by avarice or some wretched ambition. Line: 26-62 : Is a Satirist truly a poet though? Horace then raises the question if a satirst is truly a poet though or not. He comments, among the crowd, this man is crazy for married women, an- other for boys; that man is captivated by gleaming silver; Albius marvels at bronze; this man trades his goods from the east to the lands warmed by the evening rays, rushes headlong just like the dust caught up by the wind, full of fear lest he loses his capital or the chance of a profit. Horace says that all of them dread their (satirists’) verses and hate the poets. The poet comments that he’s dangerous, flee, he's marked by hay tied to his horns! He won't spare a single friend to get a laugh for himself; and whatever he's scribbled all over his parchments he’s eager for all the slaves and old women to know, on their way from the well or the bake-house. Then the poet appeals to his readers to listen to these few words of reply. He says that, firstly, he would cut his own name from those he listed as poets; it’s not enough merely to turn out a verse, and the reader can’t call someone a poet who writes like him (the poet) in a style close to everyday speech. He urges to give the honour owed to that name to a man of talent, one with a soul divine, and a powerful gift of song. That is why, Horace comments, some people have doubted if Comedy is true poetry, since in words and content it lacks inspired force and fire, and except that it differs from prose in its regular beat, is merely prose. But it, the poet adds, highlights a father there in a raging ‘temper, because his son, a spendthrift who is madly in love with his mistress, a slut, shuns a girl with an ample dowry, reels around drunk, and causes a scandal, with torches at even-tide. Accepting the fact the poet farther asks if Pomponius would not get a lecture no less severe from a real father. So, Horace comments, it is not nearly enough to write out a line in plain speech, that if one arranged it, would allow any father to fume like the one in the play. The suggests to take the regular rhythm from this verse that he is240 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 Writing now, or Lucilius wrote, putting the first words last, placing the last ‘ones first. He comments that it is not like transposing Ennius, wher hideous discord shattered the iron posts and the gateways of War. Even dismembered, Horace remarks, the reader will find there the limbs of a poet. : ut why treat Satire wit ici Now with a sense of despair Horace urges his readers not to treat Saire with suspicion. He says that we can discuss other time if it is poetry or not. The only Freer gor now is whether people are right to view such things with suspi- clon. Sulcitis and Caprius prow! about zealously armed with summons; and, terribly hoarse, are a terror to thieves. But a man with clean hands who lives decently, scorns them both. Even if one is a Caeliusor Birtius, not to anyone. There are plenty who read out their works in the Forum, or baths: (The poet comments ironically that the the vaulted Space resonates to the voice very nicely.) It delights the stupid, who never con- Ser whether time and taste are right. But, the poet commets that people take delight in wounding (by sharp criticism) and they work their evil zealously. In 2 Xoice of suppressed anger the poet asks where They find that spear to throw. He wants to know if he knows anyone of them as the author of that ineght mn, and can’t keep 2 secret. Horace addresses Rome and says that man is a blackguard. Line: 86-106 : After all, 'm malici Horace elaborates the discussion further with suitable example, He come ments that When there's a party of four and only three couches, often theres one guest who prinkle the rest excluding his host who supplies the ater: His host too though later when, drunk, as a truthful Liber urlocke the peat Net people, hating blackguards, consider him charming, direct, and we bane. Harace asks if then he seemed spiteful or vicious, if he laughed because fupid Rufillus smells of pastls, Gargonius of goat. The poet comments thar {isteaders,ifsomeone while they (the readers) were there gavea hintof Pellicg, Capitolinus thefts, he would be sure to defend him as is his habit. Horace says {hat Capitolinus has been a dear friend and companion since childhood sea the he has done the . Horace desires such nastiness be far from his work, and well before that from his heart: if there's anything he can truly Promise, he will promise his readers that. Ife speaks too freely, too lig 823 | SiFiGS 23E2EEs rz LPT i ls ¢ Ht Ihho lives jut their vaulted ‘wer con- yple take ously. In fo throw. 2 insult. absent laughter, (tkeep a He com- im there’s 2plies the locks the and ur ibecause tents that €Petillius race says hood and cet is de- he is still ka cuttle- ® far from can truly 0 lightly =: Satires LIV 241 perhaps, the readers will allow him that liberty. He says thatthe best of fathers Peewee him and s0 he would fle from vice, the father would point it out by ‘example. Line: 107: fat me ical ‘The best part ofthis discussion begins from this point. Horace gives an of his upbringing by his father. He writes that when his father exhorted him to be thrifty and careful, so as to live in content on what held leave him. He would say, : “Don’t you see how badly young Albius is doing, how pact Huis? I is a clear warning: dont wilfully squander your birthright”. Or teering the poet from base love of a whore, the father said: “Don't take after Seotans”. Or from chasing an adulteress where the poet might enjoy free sex, the father would have said: “Not nice, Trebonius name now he's caught. Some cae einen can tell you why its better to seek or avoid something: its enough i that I follow the code our ancestors handed down, and while you need a guardian I'll keep your reputation and health from harm: then when 46S has sdengthened your body and mind, you can swim free of the float”. Horice aaereents that with words such as these he formed the child, whether urging the poet on If he acted, with “You've an authority for doing this’ pointing to ree the judges the praetor had chosen, or forbidding it, with can you realy cee Joubtfel whether its wrong of harmful, when scandals ablaze about that oe orn this? As a neighbour's funeral scares the sick glutton, and makes him Tet fearful of dying so tender spirits are often deterred from doing wrong by cthers shame. That's why, Horace recounts, he is free of whatever vices bring caine though he is guilty of lesser failings, one’s the reader might pardon Perhaps growing older will largely erase even these, or honest friends, of self: rereaios Since when the poets armchair welcomes him, or a stroll in the ice alert to himself: It is more honest, he will say, if he does that his life pol be better: that way he will make good friends: what he did wasn’t nice: Could | ever unthinkingly do something similar one day? So, the poet advises himself with his lips tight closed: and when he is free he toy with his writings. Its one of the minor failings he mentioned: and if its some- thing a reader cannot accept, a vast crowd of poets will flock to His aid (for these poets are by far the majority), and just asthe Jews do in Rome, these poets will force the readers to join their congregation! ‘Critical Analysis of Satires I. IV: ‘Though Satires 1.4 is Horace’s first statement on the nature of his own writing, and writing in general, its difficulties cannot be ‘explained away on the grounds that it is early and therefore inept. A poet with Horace’s ree etton to self-criticism] would not have allowed the survival of something isich he did not think lived up to his ideal scribendi recte. Similarly, oie be a mistake 9 conclude that, because his argumentation is playful renee not saying anything serious about the ethics and poetics of satire. HBECL/16242 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 ‘The aim of my reading of the poem is to arrive at Horace’s concept of himself as satirist, for in the end it is his own character which holds together the two seemingly disparate threads of the argument — the moral justification of satire and its definition as an artistic form. ‘The poem takes the form of an argument, a polemical apologia in reply to purportedly hostile criticism. Whether Horace had really been criticized or not is a question that need not detain us, since an answer to it would not in any case help us to understand the poem better. What matters is that Horace has adopted this strategy in order to explore certain issues that arise from the fact that he is now a writer of satire. These matters — the character of the satirist, the form and method of satire, both as writing and as social criticism, and, more widely, the relationship of satire to life — are all for him interdependent, and so, for us, only to be understood in the context which gives them full meaning. It is necessary, therefore, to define the way in which 1.4 is an argument. AY. ‘Campbell found that Horace is ‘illogical’ and ‘deliberately clouds issues’.4 On the other hand, Coffey has recently described 14 as ‘closely argued’ and contrasted it with 2.1 on just this point: ‘In place of the poets reasoned exposition of arguments there is a swift dialogue in which issues are evaded by clever shifts of position and ambiguities of language’ ‘The central paradox in the theory of satire is that it is poetry and wants to be read for the sake of the words, while it claims a function that implies an unusual degree of involvement with life. This function, of course, is not simply that of imitating life, though satire does claim this kind of realism, but of improving it. Horace humorously focuses this dilemma on the audience. Given the state of mankind, his readers are his actual or potential victims. Their moral improvement, we come to realise, consists initially in their being taught how to read satire. Let us see how this is done. The poem opens with a standard piece of literary history, an innocent- looking disguise for one of the basic matters of contention — satire’s aggressiveness, Lucilius is said to depend on Old Comedy. This implies that a genre exists and that certain expectations have been formed as to its style and content, expectations which any subsequent writer has to take into account. Horace’s implied definition accords with that found in Diomedes and generally agreed to be Varronian:” ‘carmen maledicum ad carpendum uitia hominum archaeae comoediae charactere compositum’. The more specific point made in lines 1-5, that the libertas of a verbal attack can be justified on the grounds that the target deserves it (is dignus) is confirmed as current by a letter from Trebonius to Cicero, which uses the same argument and also cites Lucilius as a precedent. Horace therefore begins by outlining the traditior.ai conception of satire as the public exercise of censorious wit, directed at individuals. .t was Hendrickson’s main thesis that Horace wished to dissociate himself irom this kind of satire, and to propose a new definition more in accord with the milder spirit of his own work. The stylistic criticisms of Lucilius which follow lines 1-8 should not be ze MGUSSTEMEL PAPEL] ivealso =: Satires LIV — 243 thought of as opposed to the definition of satire by content. On the contrary, res and uerba are complementary facts of writing, and Horace is being comprehensive as well as finding a way of introducing himself into the argument. It is worth pausing for a moment with uitiosus in line 9, since so much of the poem is about uitia. In the context this refers first to technical faults, uitium and uirtus being technical terms of stylistic analysis, but, given Horace’s tendency to slide between literature and morality,there may be an indication of moral irresponsibility which is picked up in lines 12-13 in garrulus atque piger and also present in scribendi recte. In lines 34-38 the fear of the victim of satire is expressed. The way in which the answer to this complaint is postponed to lines 65. has often been noticed. What is presented as a counter-argument develops into a seemingly irrelevant disquisition on the nature of poetry. The argument takes off from line 33. Horace replies in lines 39. ‘I am not a poet’. What is he getting at here? The initial disclaimer of the title of ‘poet’ may be motivated by the injunction in the Twelve Tables against ‘mala carmina’ (as Kiessling-Heinze suggest), but the passage leaves the joke behind to discuss the position of satire as a genre, again in the light of uerba and res. Horace will only give the status of poet to someone writing in the grand style, with the inspirational force and verbal power to match an elevated subject matter. Ennius is cited as the example. In contrast, Horace and Lucilius write sermo, a nicely ambiguous term. From the stylistic point of view, it is the discourse of everyday life, the colloquial. In comedy, for example, it is the dialogue appropriate to the realistic content, and thus we are brought back to the ‘question of the content of satire. ‘The passage 48-56 makes much more than the stylistic point which, on the surface, it is intended to illustrate. The objector’s argument is contained in his opening words — ‘at pater ardens saeuit’ — that is, comedy can portray passion, but Horace squashes this with the prosaic word stomachetur — the anger of the personatus pater is not that of an Achilles. In giving the reason for the father's rage the objector outlines a situation typical of New Comedy, conflict between a stern father and a wastrel son. Horace immediately identifies this situation with that of Pomponius, a concrete illustration of the difference between New Comedy and satire. If New Comedy presents moral conflicts in a generalized form, satire points to the same universal moral problems by identifying individual examples of them. No less than lines 25. this passage anticipates lines 105,, the section where Horace's father teaches hhim how to ‘read’ life. Therefore, though satire does have the function which was probably attributed to New Comedy even at the time of its original composition, the function of holding a mirror up to life, it goes further, offering not just a representation of reality, but also a critique of it. Now it is part of the strategy of Satires 14 that Horace represents himself as accused of such a uitium, as it has been revealed in his sermo (101.). He is accused of illiberal humour and of stabbing friends in the back.244 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 In lines 33ff. (an epitome of the charges Horace deals with in the poem) the satirist is compared to a dangerous animal (an analogy proper to iambic invective), accused of irresponsible personal attack, lack of proper self-respect and loyalty to his friends, careless and sloppy composition and desire for Publicity among an inappropriate audience, Finally we shall discuss Horace's account of his upbringing by his father. Some commentators have been worried by an. inconsistency between ‘what Horace says here and the earlier implication that he was followi Tucilius. But there is no serious inconsistency, since his following of Lucilius is a matter of the choice of a genre, his instruction by his father a ‘matter of formation of character. Not that these are separate questions — indeed it is the purpose of the poem to trace their interdependence. For, literary imitation Horace is not the kind of writer who cannot see the real faults and virtues of his model, the reason he is able to do this lying in his : ‘own character, in the habit of making moral distinctions that he has formed. The device of attributing this habit to his father’s concern for him is most elegant, and more than a simple piece of autobiography. It shows Horace a= generous enough to recognise his debts to others, and it also allows him Continue his game of ironic self-effacement. But while appreciating, all that _ this passage tells us about the character of the satirist, we should n overlook what it says about the method of satire, Its relevance to this theme is clearly signalled by line 106. This is the sense in which satire is ‘personal’ poetry, not so n ‘autobiographical’ as venturing into that kind of moral philosophy sj of by Plato as ‘conversation of the soul with itself’,63 and this i why the character of the satirist himself is of such importance in vindication of satire as a genre. The dialectical form of the satire reflects satirist's internal dialogue, the logical equivocations and disconti allowing both sides of the case to be represented in a way prohibited by systematic exposition of the argument. Perhaps the use of irony ambiguity, the constant reminders that every idea comes into the world its equally valid (or invalid) counter-idea and that life allows us to put feet up on very few certainties (if any) — pethaps all this does under the status of this piece as a contribution to a poetics narrowly But it is the merit of this poem to have transformed literary cri ‘commonplaces into issues of vital concern for the poet himself and for reader linked to him in their common enterprise. 2 z Benno.ORR OURT TED I RMD Vv 245 ner eonecelieetres En A Qu. Ans. Q2. Ans. Q3. Ans. Qa. Ans. Qs. Ans. Ans. Q7. Ans. Qs. Ans. Q9. Ans. ‘Name the writers of ancient comedy as mentioned in Horace’s Satires 1. IV. (CU. 2018) Eupolis, Aristophanes, Cratinus were the writers of ancient comedy mentioned in Horace’s Satires I. 1V: Who was Eupolis? Eupolis was an Athenian poet of the Old Comedy, who flourished during the time of the Peloponnesian War. Who was Aristophanes? ‘Aristophanes (c, 460 - c. 380 BCE) was the most famous writer of ‘Old Comedy plays in ancient Greece and his surviving works are the only, examples of that style. Who was Cratinus? Cratinus (519 BC - 422 BC) was an Athenian comic poet of the Old Comedy. Who was Lucilius? What does Horace comment about him? Gaius Lucilius (c. 180 ~ 103/02 BC), was the earliest Roman satirist. Horace says that Lucilius largely depended on the writers of ancient comedy, having followed with only feet and numbers changed ‘Who was Crispinus? What does Horace comment about him? ‘According to the scholiasts, Crispinus was an aretalogus, a speaker on Stoic virtue. He wrote verses. Horace says that Crispinus provokes him over so little: “Take, if you will, take now your tablets; let a place be given to us, a time, referees; let us see if one shall be able to write more.’ ‘What according to Horace, were the main faults of the writers of the Old Comedy for which they were strongly criticised? _ According to Horace, the writers of the Old Comedy were ‘publicly exposed for being a crook and a thief, a lecher or a cut-throat, or for being notorious in any other way, for they were noted with much liberty. "as a tour de force he would often dictate two hundred lines an hour standin on his head” - About whom is this said? Or “A witty fellow with a keen nose, but harsh when it came to versification’- About whom is this said? Or “A man of many words, he disliked the effort of writing” - About whom is this said? This is said about Gaius Lucilius (c. 180 - 103/02 BC), the earliest Roman satirist, in Horace’s Satires I. 1V. How did Crispinus give challange to Horace? ‘Acoording to Horace, Crispinus gave him long odds saying “Just246 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 take your jotter if you please and I'll take mine. Let's fix a time and a place and umpires; then see which of us can write the more. Who was Fannius? Fannius was a minor poet of Rome, famous for his extreme self- advertisement. How does Horace criticise Fannius? In his Satires 1. IV, Horace says that Fannius is happy to present his wrks unasked, complete with a case to hold them and a bust of himself. “Pick anyone you like from a crowd: he’s plagued with greed or else the curse of ambition” - Metion the source of the line? Name a few among the crowd mentioned by the speaker? This line from Horace's Satires I. IV, Horace mentions the ambitious literary men Lucilius, Crispinus and Fannius among the crowd plaged with greed or curse of ambitiion. Who is Albius In Harace’s Satires I. IV, Albius is a man with expensive tastes. Possibly the father of Albius Tibullus the poet to whom Epistle L IV may be dedicated. In BklSatlV: I1.26-62 he is mentioned for his taste for bronze-wares. In BkISatlV: 1I.107-143, he iis said to have run through his inheritance. “All such men are afraid of verses and loathe poets”- Who are these men? In Horace’s Satires IV, Horace mentions these men, except Albius. with their character or occupation. He says that one among them is obsessed with married women, another with boys, One loves the gliitter of silver; Albius stares at bronze. Another barters his wares from beneath the easter sky to lands warmed by the evening sum another us swept along through hardships, like dust raised by 2 whirlwind, in constant dread of losing a penny of his capital or failing to make profit. “That's why people have asked whether comedy is genuine poetry”. Why did people ask such a question? In Horace’s Satires IV, the poet explains that in language and subject-matter a comedy lacks the fire and force of passion, and except that it differs from prose in the regulaity of its rhythm, it prose pure and simple. “he’s the blackguard; beware of him, O son of Rome!”- does the speaker warns to beware of? In Horace’s Satires LIV, the poet wams his readers to beware of man who defames a friend behind his back, who won't stand for him when someone else is running him down, who looks the big laugh and wants to be thought a wit, the man who « invent what he never saw but can't keep a secret.twine and and , itis fhom of the dup §s for 3 can Iv 247 while urging him to practise = Sa Q.16. What did Horace's father say to thrift and economy? ‘Ans. In Horace Soties LIV, he says that his father, while urging him to practise thrift and economy, used to say “Notice ‘what a miserable fife young Aldius leads and how Baius is down and out - a salutary warming not to squander the family’s money.” Q.17, “Don't be like Scetanus!"- Who said this and to whom? Why? yin Horace’ Satires LIV, the poet says that his father used to say him the referred words while steering him away from 2 squalid attachment to a whore. 0.18, “It isn’t nice to get a name like that of ‘Trebonius’- Who said this and to whom? Why? ‘Ams. In Horace’s Satires LIV, the poet says that his father used to say him the weferred words to stop him chasing another man's wife ‘when legitimate sex was available. Q. 1. What are Horace’s views on satire and its ‘moral content as stated in his Satires LIV? Discuss. (CU. 2018) sens, Though Sates 1.4 is Horace’ first statement on the nature of his ‘own writing, and writing in general, its difficulties cannot bbe explained away cwthe grounds that itis early and therefore inept. poet with Horace's Geaication to self-criticism would not have allowed the survival of something, aeairthe did not think lived up to his ideal scribendi rect, Similarly, it Would be a mistake to conclude that, because his argumentation is playful, Moa not saying anything serious about the ethics and poetics of satire. veri of my reading of the poem is to arrive at Horace’s concept of himself Te inst, for in the end it is his own character which holds together the as eeveemingly disparate threads of the argument — the ‘moral justification cf satire and its definition as an artistic form. The central paradox in the theory of satire is that itis Posty and wants tobe read for the sake of the words, while it claims a function that implies an +o eat degree of involvement with life 9 This function, of Fourse, not sim- ply that of imitating life, though satire does claim this kind of realism (cf.25, Fquemuis media elige turba’), but of improving it Horace humorously focuses this dilemma on the audience. Given the state of ‘mankind, his readers are his Setual or potential victims. Their moral improvement, we come to realise, con- fas initially in their being taught how to read satire "The poem opens with a standard piece of literary history, an innocent- looking disguise for one ofthe basic matters of Contention satire’s aggressive- oe illus i sai to depend on. Old Comedy: This implies that a genre exists248 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 SS Honouts Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 and that certain expectations have been formed as to its style and content, expec- fations which any subsequent writer has to take into account. Horace’s implied Gefinition accords with that found in Diomedes and generally agreed to be atronian:"‘carmen maledicum ad carpendum uitia hominum archaeas comoctics charactere compositum’. The more specific point made in lines 15, thatthe lite of a verbal attack can be justified on the grounds that the target deserves (is ignus) is confirmed as current by a letter from Trebonius to Cicero, which was the same argument and also cites Lucilius as a precedent. Horace therefore begins by outlining the traditional conception of satire as the public exercise of cone ous wit, directed at individuals. It was Hendrickson’s main wished to dissociate himself from this kind of satire, and to propose a new defg, tion more in accord with the milder spirit of his own work, In lines 34-38 the fear of the victim of satire is expressed. The way in which the answer to this complaint is postponed to lines 65 ff, has often Leen oticed. What is presented as a counter-argument {pauca accipe contra) devel, ret kee a Rety itelevant disquisition on the nature of poetry. The argu. Front lakes off from line 33. Horace replies in lines 39.‘Lam nota poet. Wher ip fe getting at here? The initial disclaimer ofthe title of ‘poet’ may be motivated by the injunction in the Twelve Tables against ‘mala carmina’, but the Passage Position of satire as a genre, again in the stylistic point of loquial. In comedy, for example, itis the dialogue appropriate to the realistic content, and thus we are brought back to the question of the content of satire. ‘The passage 48-56 makes much more than the stylistic point which, on the Sulace it is intended to illustrate. The objector’s argument is contained wa te eapein® words that is, comedy can portray passion. In giving the reason for the father’s rage the objector outlines a situation typical of New Comedy, conflict be- tweeh a stem father and i which, if you rearrange, anyone should rage in such # way as the father, masked [as in a comedy]. If you take if you take from these things, which I now write and Lucilius once wrote, certain rhythms and meters, and, because=: Satires LIV — 249 the word is first in order, you make it later, placing the last before the first, indeed you will not come upon the limbs of a torn:poet as if you should rear. range, ‘After horrible Discord shattered the posts and iron doors of War.’ This is the sense in which satire is ‘personal’ poetry, not s0 much ‘auto- biographical’ as venturing into that kind of moral philosophy spoken of by Plato as ‘conversation of the soul with itself’, and this is the reason why the character of the satirist himself is of such importance in the vindication of satire as a genre. The dialectical form of the satire reflects the satirist’s internal logue, the logical equivocations and discontinuities allowing both sides of the case to be represented in a way prohibited by a systematic exposition of the argument. Perhaps the use of irony and ambiguity, the constant reminders that every idea comes into the world with its equally valid (or invalid) counter- idea and that life allows us to put our feet up on very few certainties (if any) — perhaps all this does undermine the status of this piece as a contribution to a Poetics narrowly conceived. But it is the merit of this poem to have trans- formed literary critical commonplaces into issues of vital concern for the poet himself and for the reader linked to him in their common enterprise. Q. 2. What does Horace say in his Satires LIV about his father’s training in providing a key to his satiric art? (C.U. 2018) Ans.The best part of this discussion begins from line 109 in Satires LIV. Horace gives an of his upbringing by his father. He writes that when his father exhorted him to be thrifty and careful, so as to live in content on what he'd leave him. He would say, : “Don't you see how badly young Albius is doing, how poor Baiusis? It is a clear warning: dont wilfully squander your birthright”. Or steering the poet from base love of a whore, the father said: “Don't take after Scetanus”. Or from chasing an adulteress where the might enjoy free sex, the father would have said: “Not nice, Trebonius name now he’s caught. Some wise man can tell you why its better to seek or avoid something: its enough for me that I follow the code our ancestors handed down, and while you need a guardian I'll keep your reputation and health from harm: then when age has strengthened your body and mind, you can swim free of the float”. Horace comments that with words such as these he formed the child, whether urging the poet on If he acted, with ‘You've an authority for doing this’, pointing to one of the judges the praetor had chosen, or forbidding it, with can you really be doubtful whether its wrong or harmful, when scandals ablaze about that man and this? As a neighbour's funeral scares the sick glutton, and makes him diet, fearful of dying, so tender spirits are often deterred from doing wrong by others shame. That's why, Horace recounts, he is free of whatever vices bring ruin, though he is Builty of lesser failings, one's the reader might pardon. Perhaps growing older will largely erase even these, or honest friends, or self-reflection: Since when the poet's armchair welcomes him, or a stroll in the portico, alert to250 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 himself: It is more honest, he will say, if he does that his life will be better: that way he will make good friends: what he did wasn't nice: could I ever unthinkingly do something similar one day? Horace’s description of his upbringing in Satires 1.4.103-129 is one of the ‘most important scenes in the entire collection, particularly because it estab- lishes the poet’ ethical credentials and justifies his role as professional critic. It is also one of the most complex and multifaceted passages, for in the process of constructing his persona Horace synthesizes various literary and philosophi- ‘al influences in a sophisticated and yet often parodic manner. Scholars have repeatedly shown the role of Roman comedy, especially Terence’s portrayal of Demea in the Adelphoe, in Horace’s serio-comic depiction of his father’s train- ing. One of the least explored facets of his pedagogical method, however, is the role of Epicureanism, which offers much to a satiric poet concerned both with practical ethics and moral correction through the observation of vicious indi- viduals’ defects. This paper provides a new interpretation of this scene by con- sidering the role of Epicurean philosophy vis-a-vis Horace’s father’s emphasis on sense perception as the foundation for a useful education, the use of con- ventional language for the sake of clarity, the application of the pleasure calcu- lus within the context of moral deliberation, and the employment of frank criti- ccism as a preventative, pedagogical technique. Previous considerations of Horace’s description his father’s method have ‘emphasized this scene's literary and philosophical background. Leach (1971), Hunter (1985) and Freudenburg (1993, 2001) have interpreted parallels between the satiric father and the pater rusticus of Roman comedy as a programmatic characterization of Horace’s own persona as indoctus and therefore comically inept. Closely related to this reading is the assertion, maintained by Fiske (1971) and Freudenburg (1993), that Horace’s moral training incorporates the con- cems and methods of popular philosophy as expressed by the flamboyant and roughshod Cynics, who, like the poets of Old Comedy, branded vicious indi- viduals by employing the finger-pointing method alluded to in 1.4.106: exemplis vitiorum quaeque notando (“by branding each of the vices through examples”). Others have appreciated these influences but detected a more serious engage- ment with the philosophical tradition in general (Schlegel 2000), especially through connections between Horace’s father’s method and Plato's pedagogi- cal concerns (Marchetti 2004). What is lacking in these examinations of Horace’s self-portrait is a serious examination of Epicureanism, which, in addition to ‘enriching the ethical content of the Satires in general, adds depth to the poet's presentation and analysis of the foibles of contemporary Romar society. Although Horace’s father does not deny the importance of abstract doc- trines, the fact that his pedagogical concerns are essentially practical is commu~ nicated by his casual depreciation of theoretical instruction. Indeed, Horace’s upbringing relies on practical sense-perceptions of everyday life, which, in ad- dition to resembling the Cynics’ emphasis on logoi chrestoi and informal reli- ance on empirical observation (Fiske 1971), also expresses the Epicurean doc-)-CC-2 life will be better: nice: could I ever 1129 is one of the because it estab- Messional critic. It tin the process of f and philosophi- fe. Scholars have ‘nce's portrayal of his father’s train- 4. however, is the cemed both with 2 of vicious indi- this scene by con- father’s emphasis | the use of con- fe pleasure calcu- ent of frank criti- 5 method have &. Leach (1971), parallels between @ programmatic ‘refore comically by Fiske (1971) porates the con- flamboyant and led vicious indi- (4.106: exemplis, gh examples”). serious engage- 000), especially lato’s pedagogi- fons of Horace’s + in addition to ith to the poet's P society. af abstract doc- tical is commu- deed, Horace’s which, in ad- 4 informal reli- Epicurean doc- =: Satires LIV. 251 trine of sensation as the starting point of all knowledge. In order to qualify examples of vicious behavior, moreover, his father uses universally accepted ethical terms such as turpis and inhonestus, which is consistent with the prin- ciples of Panaetian sermo as described by Cicero (Off. 1.134-37) but likewise recalls Epicurus’ insistence on the use of conventional language in ethical dis- quisitions in his Letter to Herodotus (Asmis 1984). As a result of his exposure to the terrible consequences of economic and sexual vice (1.4.114-19), Horace reveals that he learned to calculate the potential outcomes of ethical decisions in terms of foreseeable pleasures (ibid. 134-35: rectius hoc ... hoc faciens vivam ‘melius), thus alluding to the hedonic calculus as seen elsewhere in the Satires (cf. 1.2.39, 1.2.75 and 1.6.99-104). Finally, it may be observed that these lessons are communicated to Horace not in the spirit of overly harsh criticism or invec- sive typical of Stoic and Cynic diatribes; instead, they are motivated by the genuine concern of a loving teacher, whose frankness, in accordance with Epi- curean practice, is preventative and intended for the sake of correction. Q. 3. Comment on Horace’s criticism of his literary rivals in his Satires LIV, Ans. Despite the claims of Satires 1. IV, Horace satirized almost no living contemporary of real significance in the first three satires of Book-1. Rather he reserved his best and most frequent lampoons for certain obscure literary rival, contemporary theorists and poets who, he suggests, were every bit as wicked in their poetic practices as the various misers, wanton profligates, adulterers, theives, and murderers mentioned in Satires LIV: they were Poemicides who piled wordupon word with the relish of misers, sorting and stacking heaps of silver. Fabius, Crispinus, Fannius, Hemogenes Tigellius, Caprius, and Sulcius were real, living contemporaries, rival theorists, poets and writers of diatribe whose works, Horace suggests, subscribed to no aesthetic standards accepted in his day. He parodies their poetic practices in the diatribe satires of Book -1, portraying them as renegade poetasters guilty of the wildest sbuses of style. This is the standard view of Horace’s opponents in the opening satires of Book 1. Not a single fragment of their works has survived against which to check this view. As a result, the scholiasts and nearly all. subsequent commentators on the Satires have accepted the satirist’s assessment of his rivals without question. It is very strange, however, that Horace should invest so much time and energy criticizing opponents who he would otherwise have us believe deserve no attention whatsoever. At Satires 1. IV. 1 71-76 he even suggests that their works were read much more widely than his own. It is witht good reason then that we suspect that Horace fabricated a very lopside impression of his literary rivals. As 2 writer of lamppons in the iambographic tradition, the satirist is perfectly free to distort the image of his opponent. Aristophanes, for example, grossly misrepresents Euripides, whom he portrays in several places as the lowest type of fligty poetic huckster with no claim to critical feeling. |252 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 In Satires LIV, Il. 6-13, Horace satirizes the style of Gaius Lucilius (c. 180 = 103/02 BC), the earliest Roman satirist. Metioning some of the writers of the Old Comedy like Cratinus, Eupolis and Aristophanes, Horace comments that Lucilus derives entirely from them; he followed their lead changing only their rhythms and metres. Horace calls him a witty fellow with a keen nose, but harsh when it came to versification. Horace comments that is where the faut of Lucilius lay. He further explains that as a tour de force he would often dictate two hundred lines an hour standing on his head. As he flowed muddily on, there were things one would want to remove. A man of many words, he disliked the effort of writing, writing properly. Horace ‘comments that he does not care a hoot for quantity. At Satires LIV. I! 13-16, the satirist derides Crispinus’s poetic pretensions: Here's Crispinus offering me long odds” ‘Just take your jotter if you please and I'll take mine. Let's fix a time and a place and umpires; then see which of us can write the more’ ‘The challenge to see whoo can write ‘more’ verses links Crispinus to the loose, unpolished ppractices of Lucilius described in the lines immediately preceding. The repeated ‘take’ in these lines underscores hiis insistence; he simply demads to be regarded as a fool. ‘Another contemporary literary figure criticized in this satire is a certain Fannius, in Ul, 21-22: “Fannius is happy to present his works unasked, complete with a case to hold them and a bust of himself”. Fannius is extremely elusive, for, as Rudd has pointed out, the scholiasts’ remarks on these lines are inconsistent: “Here we are told that Fannius presented book-case to the senate, that the senate presented book-cases to him, that his heirs presented his books to public libraries, and (splendidly) that at the hour of death Fannius begged to be cremeted on a pile of his own books.” Ina separate article in which he treats these discrepancies in detail, Rudd hhas concluses that we are to regard Fannius as the donor, who, without being asked, has handed over his writings along with his portrait,, to the public library. Rudd concludes, “The lines will the run something like this” “Fannius takes a delight in making free donations of his poems, complete with boxes and bust.” This makes sense, bringing out the full ironic sense ‘happy’ and ‘present’ in line 21, which stress that Fannius is driven by his ‘own desire to publish his workks, not that anyone really wants to read them, and that his wealth alone has made his works known to a broad audience, since he himself made copies available to the various libraries and schools in Rome. Porphyrion, among other possibilities identifies the Fannius of Satires L1V. I 21 as Fannius Quadratus, a contemporary writer of satire. The identification, while attractive, is uncertain. Horace gives us little information about the type or style of these works, other than they required a strong set of lungs in performace. In this he associates Fannius with RRURE BESATALR APEZTEGR SPEER PEGE(c. 180 ters of aments anging 2 keen hhat is wee he As he tman forace Othe ately & he POPPE RERERSRPLE = Satires LIV 253 GisPinus, suggesting that he too wrote in verse, perhaps on the themes of Stoic ethics. We knoow from Saties LX. 180 that Fannius was, by reputation, & constant dinner companion-that is, a parasite- of Hermogenes, who wa a school teacher and a favourite of Stoics, and that, at one time he hat actively criticized the works of Horace. objections, the satirist, in a sense, ferms. Although he disagrees with his critics on many pasic issues, he knows that their objections have at least some bacie 1 theory. That much the same is true of his opponents as stylists is clewr from the chief passages of Satres I. IV treating theories of style namely, lines 612 directed against Lucilius, and the large central passage, 38-63, Horace remarks that Lucilius derives from them, as a follower who only changed thythm and metre: witty with a sharp nose, true, but the verse he {rote was rough. That is where the fault lay: often, epically, he'd dictate twa involved in writing, writing well the poet meant that he doesi’t care for mere Quantity. He refers to what Crispinus offering him long odds: "Now, if you Please, take your tablets and Ill take mine: pick a time, a place, The judges: lets see which of us can scribble the most.” Now Horace thanks the gods that he is a man of few ideas, with no spirit, ‘one who speaks only rarely, and then says little. But, Horace comments fit, what one prefers, then he imitates air shut in a goat-skin bellows, labouring {u2y tll the fire makes the iron melt. The poet says that Fannius is Blessed, fe. he offers his books and a bust unasked, while no one reads what the poet [itites, and he is afraid to recite it aloud since some care little for that sort of {ins and most men deserve censure. Horace says the readers that they may ghoose any man from the crowd: That man will be bothered by avarice eo some wretched ambition. Horace then raises the question if satirst is truly a poet though or not. He comments, among the crowd, this man is crazy for married women, an, ther for boys; that man is captivated by gleaming silver; Albius marvels a: bronze; this man trades his goods from the east to the lands warmed by the €xening rays, rushes headlong just like the dust caught up by the wind, fall of fear lest he loses his capital or the chance of a profit. Horace says that all ofgomss30Ra1 254 Honours Hand Book (European Classical Literature)-CC-2 them dread their (satirists’) verses and hate the poets. The poet comments that he's dangerous, flee, he’s marked by hay tied to his horns! He won't spare @ single friend to get a laugh for himself; and whatever he's scribbled all over his parchments he's eager for all the slaves and old women to know, on their way from the well or the bake-house. Then the poet appeals to his readers to listen to these few words of reply: He says that, firstly, he would cut his own name from those he listed as poets: it’s not enough merely to turn out a verse, and the reader can’t call someone poet who writes like him (the poet) in a style close to everyday speech. He urges to give the honour owed to that name to a man of talent, one with = soul divine, and a powerful gift of song. That is why, Horace comments, some people have doubted if Comedy is true poetry, since in words and content it lacks inspired force and fire, and except that it differs from prose in its regular beat, is merely prose. But it, the poet adds, highlights a father there in a raging ‘temper, because his son, a spendthrift who is madly in love with his mistress, a slut, shuns a girl with an ample dowry, reels around drunk, and causes scandal, with torches at even-tide. Accepting the fact the poet farther asks i Pomponius would not get a lecture no less severe from a real father. So, Horace comments, it is not nearly enough to write out a line in plain speech, that if one arranged it, would allow any father to fume like the one the play. The suggests to take the regular rhythm from this verse that he is writing now, or Lucilius wrote, putting the first words last, placing the last ones first. He comments that it is not like transposing Ennius, when hideous discord shattered the iron posts and the gateways of War. Even dismembered, Horace remarks, the reader will find there the limbs of a poet. Although these passages appear confined to a private debate between Horace and certain obscure, addle-brained opponents, they fit nicely into the context of a much larger, contemporary debate on matters of style, to which both Horace and his critics were well attuned. Again, anew understanding of these passages is called for that gives due weight to the cogency of the tenets argues by Horace’s critics ‘The stairsist’s central passage on style, Satires I, IV, 38-63, shows the char acteristic marks of conversational logic. The satirist would have us believe that the entire passage is a spontaneous digression propmted by this critics’ claim ‘dere poetas ("they hate poets") in line 33, to which the response in lines 38-63 is “Then why hate me? I am no poet.” It is in this half-serious, conversationalvein that the passage is conveyed, so that one must be wary of accepting at face value the satirist’s claim that comedy and satire are not true poetry, which has little if any basis in traditional theory.