Horace

Image, Identity, and Audience

Horace
Image,
Identity,
and Audience
Randall L. B. McNeill
The Johns Hopkins University Press
Baltimore and London
p :oo The |ohns Hopkins University Press
All rights reserved. Published :oo
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
: o , , , ,
The |ohns Hopkins University Press
:,, North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland ::-,o,
www.press.jhu.edu
Iibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
McNeill, Randall I. B., ,,o
Horace image, identity, and audience Randall I. B. McNeill.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
isnx o-o-oooo-, (hardcover alk. paper)
. HoraceCriticism and interpretation. :. Iaudatory poetry,
IatinHistory and criticism. ,. Lpistolary poetry, IatinHistory
and criticism. . Verse satire, IatinHistory and criticism.
,. RomeIn literature. I. Title.
i:o .x,,, :oo
,'.odc:
oo-o,o
A catalog record for this book is available from the British Iibrary.
For My Parents
Contents
Acknowledgments
ix
ix+roiuc+iox
The Horaces of Horace

oxr
Poet and Patron

+vo
In the Public Eye

+nrrr
Craft and Concern

rour
Worldly Aairs

coxciusiox
Creating Reality

Notes

Bibliography

General Index

Index of Passages Discussed

Acknowledgments
Working on Horace feels at times like trying to catch a ghosta clever,
charming, and unusually agile ghostand it gives me great pleasure to
express here my gratitude to those who have helped me in the chase. I
would like rst of all to thank Gordon Williams for his wise counsel,
thoughtful criticism, and warm and witty encouragement throughout
this project. My aectionate thanks go also to Jerome Pollitt and Donald
Kagan; their advice, kindness, and support have always been deeply ap-
preciated. Ellen Oliensis and A. Thomas Cole read an earlier version
of the manuscript in full and made many valuable suggestions for its
improvement. Susanna Morton Braund oered generous and thought-
provoking comments on the overall structure and underlying ideas of
my argument. The award of a Robert M. Leylan Dissertation Fellowship
fromYale University, and a Jacob K. Javits Fellowship from the U.S. De-
partment of Education, provided assistance early on. I have further bene-
ted enormously from the helpful reactions and suggestions of Maura
Burnett and the two anonymous readers for The Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press who provided insightful and constructive comments on my
manuscript. I would also like to thank my colleagues at Lawrence Uni-
versity for their encouragement and for the many stimulating conversa-
tions I have had with them.
My greatest debt by far is to my dear parents, David and Nobuko
McNeill, whose love and support have forever been the true mainstay of
my life. They have followed my study of classics fromits rst beginnings,
and their ideas and taste permeate mine. This book can serve as only the
smallest token of the boundless and inexpressible love I feel for them.
Nevertheless, to them it is humbly and gratefully dedicated.
Horace
Image, Identity, and Audience

The Horaces of Horace
Although many ancient authors have suered through long periods of
disfavor and neglect, their literary stars rising and falling according to
the vagaries of changing tastes, Quintus Horatius Flaccus has remained
consistently popular through the centuries. He has stood as a cornerstone
of classical education for countless generations of students; poets from
Pope to Hlderlin to Brodsky have read and admired his works; ancient
commentators, humanists of the Renaissance, and scholars from the En-
lightenment to the present day have written prolically on the man and
his texts. Some two thousand years after his death, he continues to chal-
lenge, astonish, and fascinate his readers, whether they encounter him
for the rst time or discover him anew.
Much of Horaces appeal, of course, derives from the sheer impact of
the lively and engaging personality that springs forth for anyone who
undertakes even the most cursory perusal of his poems. Horace does not
simply make frequent use of himself as a character in his works, describ-
ing his personal triumphs and travails as he goes through life. He seems
to speak directly to us throughout his poetry; he talks openly about his
private thoughts and experiences, inviting our scrutiny and our response.
Here I am, he seems to say, here are my inner feelings and quirks of
personality, my strengths and weaknesses, my friendships and love aairs,
my views and my ideals. As David Armstrong has noted, It is com-
monplace to say about Horace that [his work] gives us a self-portrait of
a striking individuality and apparent frankness not easily paralleled in
classical literature, certainly not in classical poetry. We can read at vastly
greater length [the correspondence of Cicero or Pliny theYounger] with-
out getting any such illusion that we know perfectly the person who is
speaking, and could . . . continue the conversation without diculty if
Horace walked into our presence now.
1
Horace himself comes across as
being so likableso genial and witty, so thoughtful and sensitive, and

Introduction
capable of such strikingly beautiful and sophisticated versethat it is all
too easy to assume that he is being completely open and honest with us in
this presentation. The poet lives in his poetry, often dazzling his readers
into a wholehearted embrace of the vital and charismatic gure he cuts
for himself.
2
But is this really the picture of Horace we should have? He says a great
deal about himself, to be sure; but is he telling the truth? It is, after all,
misleading and even dangerous to think of there being a single Horace
in Horaces poetry. He may present what at rst appears to be a persuasive
and believable self-portrait, but elsewhere he continually contradicts or
alters this picture. There seem, in fact, to be many Horaces on display,
or else separate images that have been given Horaces name and features.
Each is vivid, powerful, and highly attractive in its way, but is caught up
with very dierent themes and concerns not easily reconciled with the
others. What is more, this variance transcends those dierences of self-
presentation that might have been necessitated by the requirements and
limitations of the literary genres within which Horace works. In every
case, the poet has made his projected personality so compelling that the
reader is almost inexorably drawn to accept each particular portrait as
being the true oneat the time of its presentation.
3
Here is Horace the client, attending and entertaining his powerful
patron in return for material support and encouragement; there is Horace
the lofty public speaker, exhorting the Roman people to shun the horrors
of civil war and embrace their destiny as the rulers of a new Golden Age.
Horace the genial moralist oers us comfortable philosophical common-
places and amusing social commentary, while Horace the anxious arriviste
of obscure origin fends o sneers and attacks as he struggles to hold his
hard-won place among the highest circles of Roman society. Horace the
unlucky lover is routinely humiliated by unsuccessful assignations or dif-
cult mistresses, but Horace the political operative smoothly manages
the complex large-scale organization of public opinion on behalf of the
emperor himself. These images may be facets of a persona or entirely
dierent personae, but together they do not constitute a single, readily
encompassable personality. Thus, when people speak of liking Horaces
character or believing what he tells us, we must ask to which Horace
in particular they refer.
Failure to pose this crucial question has undoubtedly contributed
much to the intractability of the once furious scholarly debate over
whether what we see in his poetry is Horaces own face or a mask with
The Horaces of Horace
Horaces features. In years past, this particular oshoot of the Personal
Heresy controversy (as articulated in a well-known exchange between
E.M.W. Tillyard and C. S. Lewis) attracted the attention of many clas-
sicists, including W. S. Anderson, Niall Rudd, and Jasper Grin, among
others.
4
In essence, the choice was long either to believe that Horaces
poems oer us a reasonably accurate record of his life
5
(or a reliable index
to the plausible reconstruction of his historical experience); or to treat
his texts solely as self-conscious and articial literary works, more the
products of craft than of earnest self-revelation. Until quite recently, all
Horatian scholars continued to make this choice, taking up positions on
one side or the other of the essential fault line between what might be
termed the biographical and the rhetorical interpretations of Horaces
self-image.
6
Thus, in Kirk Freudenburg advocated a rhetorical ap-
proach when he identied Horace as he appears in the Satires as being
a wholly invented maskone self-consciously projected by the author,
based on literary and moral philosophical precedents, and not neces-
sarily bearing any resemblance to the historical Horace.
7
By contrast,
Oliver Lyne argued in that the real Horaces shifts in his public and
political commitments can be reconstructed through examination of his
poetry and that an array of societal and political considerations directly
prompted Horace to make changes in his public image over time.
8
Open debate on this subject has largely been suspended of late, with
most Horatian scholars now in agreement that any appearance of open-
ness and genuine personal revelation in the poets work should be rec-
ognized as the result of an artful and carefully managed process of self-
presentation, which must be scrutinized by the reader with equal care.
However, no true consensus has been reached. The past few years have
instead witnessed a general retreat from the whole issue, as scholars in-
creasingly turn toward treating Horaces poems strictly as literary docu-
ments. According to current thinking, it should be obvious that there is
no reliable way of getting past Horaces enticing array of images to ar-
rive at a clear picture of his true self. We can never be absolutely sure
of what is true and what is false in his self-presentation, and as such it
becomes the wrong question to be asking.
9
Much of the latest work done
on Horace thus tends to follow the path laid out by Ellen Oliensis in her
book Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority. For Oliensis, Horaces poetry is
itself a performance venuehence her emphasis upon its most overtly
rhetorical aspects. Indeed, this conviction leads her to treat Horace as an
object of consideration specically and solely as he appears within the
Introduction
poetry itself: I make no clear, hard-and-fast distinction between the
author and the character Horace. Horace is present in his personae, that
is, not because these personae are authentic and accurate impressions of
his true self, but because they eectively construct that self . . . [there is
a] de facto fusion of mask and self.
10
Oliensis stands as one of the foremost advocates of the view that
Horace is indistinguishable from the text, since the text is all we have.
Other scholars have subsequently given implicit endorsement to this
line. In a recent analysis of the generic considerations that lie behind
two of Horaces seemingly most forthright and personal poems, for ex-
ample, Catherine Schlegel moves beyond rearming the extent towhich
Horaces autobiographical persona has been shaped by its poetic con-
text, to argue that the literary requirements of this persona have a priori
shaped Horaces poetryin eect, that Horaces art has shaped his life,
not (as has long been thought) the other way around.
11
Much vital work has recently been done through pursuit of this criti-
cal approach. Indeed, by leaving aside the whole problematic issue of
Horaces true self to focus instead on his rhetorical and generic ma-
nipulations, we have immeasurably heightened our understanding of the
intricacy and multifaceted character of the poets sophisticated literary
technique. There is an inherent risk, however, in turning away froma lin-
gering problembefore it has been thoroughly investigated to the satisfac-
tion of all concerned. We may have gone too far in rejecting or bypassing
any consideration of Horaces poems as evidence for the direct and per-
sonal experiences of this unusual historical individual. At the very least,
the suspicion commonly directed nowadays toward all forms of bio-
graphical literary criticismand toward the author as an object worthy
of attention and careful studydoes a disservice to those who would
understand the nature of Horaces art. For Horace encourages and even
demands that we as readers experience the sensation described earlier of
coming to know him intimately. Horaces indirect and subtle methods
of self-presentation force us to struggle with the mysterious and protean
nature of his portrayed image, rather than either accept blithely what he
tells us without question or take it all as pure invention and turn our
minds to other issues. Questions of what is real and what is invented lie
at the very heart of Horaces poetry. We cannot simply dismiss the real
Horace from our considerations but must instead confront his existence,
and his poetic function, head-on.
In meeting this challenge, we might draw inspiration from an appeal-
The Horaces of Horace
ing suggestion made years ago by Gilbert Highet: Horaces self-image
reects the man, being neither a wholly articial creation nor an entirely
truthful revelation.
The pose of naivet and ignorance of diplomatic aairs which Hor-
ace adopts in his Sermones may perhaps be called a persona: but not
a persona to be separated and distinguished from Q. Horatius Flac-
cus. It is a pose: it is one of the faces which the real Horace wished
to present to the world . . . In his poetry Horace appears in many
dierent guisesas vengeful lampoonist in the Epodes, in some of
the Odes as inspired vates and in some as gay amorist, in the Ser-
mones as critic of others and as critic of self; but each is Horace
or one part of Horace.
12
And yet even this balanced formulation does not completely solve the
basic problem; for although Highet alludes to the multiplicityof Horaces
self-images, he does not attempt to explain their sheer number and va-
riety, nor to dene their strangely uid coexistence within single works
and individual poems. He recognizes but does not resolve the di-
culty scholars have generally had in tting the totality of Horaces self-
presentations into a single interpretive framework without resorting to
untested assumptions and preconceived notions of what is important
in Horaces poetry. Indeed, regardless of the specic critical viewpoint
or interpretation adopted, there is invariably a vibrant and fully realized
image of Horace somewhere in his corpus that cannot be made to t.
13
Whether or not the Horace of the poems is an accurate rendering of
the real Horace, any sensewe get of being able toknowthis real Horace
in some deeply intimate way is certainly deceptive. Horace as he appears
is a carefully developed characterization, representing solely those as-
pects of a projected personality that he wanted us to see and believe in,
in a variety of specic contexts. This is perhaps not so unusual; to some
degree we all consciously or unconsciously monitor the way we come
across in our interactions with those around us, as we manage our words
and actions to suit our personal circumstances. But Horace directs every
aspect of this process with a remarkable facility that is almost unique
among ancient poets. The Horaces of Horace are personae, as Highet sug-
gests; yet the poet focuses attention not on their self-contained existence
as separate characters but rather on the social settings and relationships
within which they are presented.
14
He does more than shape the way he
presents himself; he shapes the way others (including ourselves) respond
Introduction
to these self-presentations by tailoring his remarks and addresses to the
specic interests, tastes, and expectations of a surprisingly wide array of
readers and audiences.
In this context we recall the thoughtful comments made by Barbara
Gold in her study of the dedicatory poems of Horaces Satires and
Odes.
15
Gold identies the presence of multiple audiences within these
works, noting that from each of his audiences Horace expects to elicit
dierent responses, and [that] it is through attention to these audiences
that Horaces reader perceives all the various dimensions of his work.
Pursuit of this idea leads her to adopt the schema of layers of audience
presented byVictoria Pedrick and Nancy Rabinowitz as an integral aspect
of audience-oriented criticism.
16
But the diculty experienced even by
so accomplished and sensitive a reader as Frances Muecke in attempt-
ing to t the Satires into their proposed format illustrates the compara-
tive unwieldiness of this complicated approach when it is applied to the
poetry of Horace.
17
Gold herself concludes that Horaces audiences must
be constantly shifting in relative importance, even trading places with
one another; for if we posit several audiences (as we must for all of
Horaces works), how can Horace be speaking directly to all of them at
once?
18
And yet this is precisely what Horace often manages to do. What
is needed is a revised interpretive model, one that oers a simpler ar-
rangement of categories and makes clearer the extent to which Horace
is able to anticipate and handle simultaneously the dierent reactions of
these audiences.
This book thus shares with the work of Oliensis a basic operating
premisenamely, that when one examines the poetry of Horace, the
main subject of discussion must be Horaces depiction of his relationships
with those whom he addresses. Beyond this common point of departure,
however, we diverge markedly in our aims and methodologies, the orga-
nization and specic arguments of our studies, and in our fundamental
dierence of opinion and approach regarding the nature and signicance
of Horaces self-presentation. Oliensis acknowledges that she has intro-
duced discussion of Horaces life, his surrounding social milieus, and his
shifting place in society only insofar as such issues are relevant to her
reading of Horaces rhetorical technique: I aminterested not in the light
Horaces poetry can shed on his extrapoetic life but in the life that hap-
pens in his poetry . . . My focus in this study is on Horaces poems, not
on his life or his times or his culture.
19
By contrast, I take an approach
that is in many ways guided specically by those ideals and goals that
The Horaces of Horace
Oliensis puts aside, for I nd Horaces poems worth studying precisely
because of what they can reveal to us about the society and culture in
which he purports to have operated. I embrace the idea that there exists
a sharp and very real distinction between the personae on view in the
poems and the poet who created them; and that, moreover, the distinc-
tion is identiable in the very act of their presentation. But in taking as
my focus this discernible gap between the poet and his poetry, I maintain
that careful scrutiny of the inner workings of the poets self-portrayal
enables us to identify the basic conditions and characteristics of his actual
personal and social situationas he wished them to be understood.
I do not, therefore, advocate any return to the old and strictly bio-
graphical interpretation, with its underlying conviction that Horace as
he appears in his poetry is automatically the true and historical Horace.
Instead, my intention is to oer a reconciliation of once irreconcilable
positions: to suggest that the biographical and the rhetorical are bydesign
inextricably linked in Horaces self-portrayal, with both elements con-
stantly being deployed in the others service. In eect, I propose that we
approach Horaces texts as tools of detection: rst, as a means of exploring
further the poets employment of created self-images in order to shape
the perceptions of those around him, and second, as a basis for recon-
structing the larger surrounding social, political, and professional artis-
tic situations in which these poems were written and rst received. For
Horaces extraordinarily self-conscious portrayal is not simply marked
by his preternatural awareness of a large number of separate audiences,
each with dierent responses to his work; it is further enhanced by his
total control and constant manipulation of these same audiences toward
acceptance of the specic impressions he wishes to convey.
20
To identify the general patterns and techniques of Horatian self-
presentation and their function within the poets immediate situation as
it can be reconstructed, we must take the entire sweep of the poets liter-
ary corpus into consideration: the Epodes, Satires, Odes, Carmen saeculare,
and the Epistles (including the Ars poetica). Although the discussion is fo-
cused mainly on the Satires and Epistles, passages from each of the works
are analyzed throughout so as to demonstrate the extent to which the
same issues (and similar methods of response) occupied his creative at-
tention from genre to genre across much of his career.
21
As noted above,
Horaces techniques of self-presentation essentially depend on the self-
conscious depiction of his social interactions with those around him.
Therefore, individual chapters examine his portrayal of his disparate,
Introduction
idiosyncratic, and constantly uctuating relationships with his patron
Maecenas, his audience as a whole, his fellow poets, and the Augustan
Principate.
The rst two chapters are designed to show that we can best under-
stand Horaces contemporary readership as consisting of a series of con-
centric rings, based not so much on the relative authority or absolute
social standing of each of Horaces readers as on their varying levels of
intimacy and direct personal contact with the poet. I then broaden my
focus in the later chapters to consider how this mechanism of concen-
tric rings shapes Horaces treatment of himself as an author and as a par-
ticipant in Augustuss program of political and cultural renewal. In each
case, the evidence suggests that Horace uses his self-images primarily
to comment on the social pressures and uncertainties of these relation-
ships.
22
Thus, Horaces representation of his interaction with each ring
of audience holds signicant implications for our understanding of cru-
cial aspects of Roman society and social culture. In eect, we may em-
ploy Horaces portrayed relationships as lenses through which to glimpse
the several cultural frameworks within which the real-life historical
models for such portrayals were originally developed.
By giving powerful expression to the social, political, and artistic pres-
sures that he claims to have endured throughout his life, Horace both
articulates and shapes his relationship with the people and audiences
around him. The poet presents a vast surrounding web of social inter-
actions: a vivid and engaging world of dinner parties and country estates,
love aairs and close friendships, patrons, fellow citizens, and potential
readers. He creates his rich and complicated self-portraits as a part of
this picture, infusing them with the liveliness and humanity that make
them so compelling. Horaces genius lies in his remarkable ability to
project himself precisely as circumstancesand the specic interests of
particular readersdemand. Directed toward so many dierent audi-
ences and covering such a wide variety of themes, his multifaceted self-
presentation serves to illustrate the complexity and interconnectedness
of his experience and the intricacies of the world in which he purports to
have actually lived.
23
In the end, therefore, Horaces poetic self-image re-
mains precisely that: an image created by the poet, not an unguarded in-
sight into himself. Nevertheless, this image does possess the poets actual
features, even if it has been distorted by the transmitting medium of his
poetry. When we encounter Horace in his works, we do not gaze directly
on his actual face, nor are we looking at a wholly articial mask whose
The Horaces of Horace
features have been identied with his. Instead, we see the real Horace
obliquely, through the polished lens of his poetry, as one would see a re-
ection in a mirror.
24
In scrutinizing this reected image, we may be able
to catch eeting but direct glimpses of the poet and, over his shoulder,
the character and features of his long-vanished world.
cn:i +r r oxr
Poet and Patron
To be supported by a powerful patron is at best a mixed blessing for any
artist. The favor of a great individual can oer a sure path to success and
fame: his wealth provides nancial security, while his social prominence
and inuence amplify his enthusiasmfor his protgs work, quicklycata-
pulting the lucky artist into circulation among wider or more desirable
circles. However, the artist who accepts a patrons support also risks ex-
posure to a raft of unforeseen diculties and potential sources of awk-
wardness. If his patron is a bad one, he faces the possibility of mistreat-
ment. He may be ignored and forsaken, as Dr. Johnson complained to
Lord Chestereld: Seven years, my lord, have now passed since I waited
in your outward rooms or was repulsed from your door, during which
time I have been pushing on my work through diculties, of which it
is useless to complain, and have brought it at last to the verge of pub-
lication, without one act of assistance, one word of encouragement, or
one smile of favor. Such treatment I did not expect, for I had never had
a patron before.
1
Orequally demeaninghe may end up as nothing
more than a supercial curiosity, one more in a largely faceless mass of
lions trotted out at social functions to entertain the guests: People
are so annoying. All my pianists look exactly like poets, and all my poets
look exactly like pianists . . . Of course he wont mind [performing],
said Lady Windermere, that is what he is here for. All my lions, Lord
Arthur, are performing lions, and jump through hoops whenever I ask
them.
2
In anycase, to have a patron is to risk losing ones independence, as one
is gradually forced to accede to the patrons wishes or tailor ones work so
as to appeal to his or her tastes and interests. In such cases, even the most
well-meaning patron can unintentionally destroy the very individuality
and worth that attracted such support in the rst place. Patronage is
therefore always something of a gamble.
3
There are many potential pit-

Poet and Patron

falls to be skirted, yet the potential benets are equally greatand must
frequently be realized; otherwise, the practice of patronage would never
have arisen in so many cultures or lasted as an institution for so long. Nor
is there one xed pattern of interaction that all patron-client relation-
ships are bound to follow. One artist forever remains nothing more than
a gloried unky; another not only derives benet from having a patron
but even transcends the inherent limitations of the formal relationship
and becomes through regular contact and close association a true friend
of his benefactorone who loves and is loved in return. And even in this
latter case, it is important to recognize that artistic patronage is always
a matter of shifting degrees of warmth and intimacy, that much is left
unspoken about the interaction between the two parties. With a patron,
nothing is certain.
Horaces best-known patron, of course, was the famous Maecenas:
close friend and associate of Augustus, a man notorious in his time for
his luxurious lifestyle and indolent habits, and one whose name today
is synonymous with the very concept of the wealthy artistic patron. As
Horaces greatest benefactor and the donor of his Sabine estate, Maece-
nas played an inuential and pervasive role in the poets life; as patron
and dedicatee of the Epodes, Satires, Odes , and Epistles he naturally
constituted Horaces closest and most important audience. Many other
poets of the early Principate enjoyed Maecenass favor: Virgil, Proper-
tius, Varius, and others of the highest elite of the Roman literary world.
But among these Horace alone treats the uidity and indeterminacy of
the poet-patron relationship as a central and overarching theme in his
poetry. Maecenas thus stands simultaneously as a meticulously portrayed
gure in Horaces poetry and as the indisputable core or innermost ring
of Horaces readership.
4
An examination of the works reveals that Horaces presentation of
himself and his patron is highly elusive and constantly changing. We nd
not a single, unied portrait but a series of widely diering pictures of
intimate and distant association. On some occasions, Horace portrays
himself as having been Maecenass very dear friend and their relation-
ship as being marked by familiarity and a deep mutual aection. Else-
where, however, we are given the conicting impression that the poet
was not particularly close to the great man, certainly not enough for
him to be considered a condant or inseparable companion. Many in-
ternal contradictions and puzzles preclude the secure adoption of either
a largely negative or largely positive vision of the relationship.
5
Thus,
Poet and Patron
in characterizing his association with Maecenas, Horace infuses his por-
trait throughout with a remarkable obscurity; indeed, this obscurity and
ambiguity must be understood as constituting a central mechanism of
Horaces overall self-presentation. For by thematizing his relationship
with his patron in this way, Horace gives expression to those diculties
and uncertainties that Maecenass support raised in his own life. Through
the careful manipulation of his protean self-images, he calls attention to
the ever-changing and undened role that he seems to have occupied in
reality.
. The Warmth of Friendship
In general terms, Roman patron-client relationships were very business-
like aairs. The patron extended favors and protection to his clients,
ranging from the disbursement of sportulae, or small gifts of food or
money, to large-scale legal, nancial, or social support. In return, a client
performed for his patron whatever services he could oer, whether that
meant attending him in his daily business, supporting him in politics, or
simply lling out his guest list at a party. Literary clients possessed unique
skills, of course, and generally fullled their obligations by other, more
appropriate means; it was common practice for poets to produce expan-
sive panegyrics or other verse addresses intended to ensure the immortal
fame of their patrons.
6
But Horace takes great pains to thwart any such
simple characterization of himself as a run of the mill client-poet, much
less as someone humbly bowing and scraping before a detached bene-
factor. Instead, he often emphasizes the special and favored position he
enjoyed in Maecenass clientela, or group of clients, to such an extent as
to create a convincing impression of near-total independence and the
comfortable amiability of true friendship.
Horace presents various scenes of casual association with Maecenas
wherein he seems free to do as he pleases, unhampered by onerous social
responsibilities or the tastes and whims of his patron. In Satires . he
portrays himself as Maecenass genial traveling companion on a journey
to Brundisium; here he places special emphasis on the relaxed and infor-
mal relationship they enjoy.
7
When Maecenas joins the traveling-party at
Anxur, Horace is engaged in treating his inamed eyes (): Hic ocu-
lis ego nigra meis collyria lippus /illinere. interea Maecenas advenit atque
Cocceius Capitoque . . . (Here I smear black ointment over my bleary
eyes. Meanwhile, Maecenas shows up, and Cocceius and Capito). The in-
The Warmth of Friendship
clusion of interea is especially signicant, for it indicates that Horace is
busy with his eye treatment at the very moment when Maecenas arrives;
here is no eager social climber pressing forward to make himself useful.
By including this episode, Horace implies that he feels no particular need
to receive his patronto greet him, conduct him indoors, and so on
but rather feels secure enough in his relationship with Maecenas to stay
away and attend to his own mundane pursuits.
8
Later, the poet presents himself as being so at ease when in close con-
tact with Maecenas as to be able to wander o for a nap when the oppor-
tunity presents itself (Sat...): Hinc muli Capuae clitellas tempore
ponunt. /lusum it Maecenas, dormitum ego Vergiliusque; /namque pila
lippis inimicum et ludere crudis (After this place the mules drop their
baggage at Capua, having made good time. Maecenas goes oto play ball,
Virgil and I go take a nap; for ball games are no fun for the bleary-eyed
and dyspeptic). We are meant to understand that Horace is free to come
and go as he pleases, following his inclinations as the group travels along;
he is a friend and fellow traveler, most emphatically not some anxious
member of Maecenass entourage.
9
On other occasions the unself-conscious tone of Horaces addresses
to Maecenas emphasizes the strength and aection of their mutual bond
rather than the implied equality of their relationship. Epodes , for in-
stance, presents a convincing picture of genuine friendship by evoking
an atmosphere of relaxed and casual good humor. Horaces mock-tragic
rebuke to Maecenas for having given him too much garlic at a dinner
party becomes the subject for a parody of an occasional poem(., ):
quid hoc veneni saevit in praecordiis? . . .
nec tantus umquam siderum insedit vapor
siticulosae Apuliae,
nec munus umeris ecacis Herculis
inarsit aestuosius.
What is this poison that is raging in my stomach? . . . Such heat
has never settled over parched Apulia, nor did Nessuss gift burn
more hotly into the shoulders of capable Hercules.
The poets comically histrionic laments for his indigestion are engag-
ingly self-deprecating, both in their absurdity and in the picture they
give us of Horaces embarrassment. By assuming the mantle of a frank
and humorous raconteur, Horace makes his audience feel appreciative
Poet and Patron
and well disposed toward him and therefore more inclined to believe
what he says. In this way he subtly enhances the credibility of the general
picture he presents in the poem. As a result, when Horace turns to ad-
dress Maecenas directly, the use of the term iocosus and strikingly familiar
comments about Maecenass puella seem to conrm Horaces license to
speak to his patron with utter freedom and ease (.):
at si quid umquam tale concupiveris,
iocose Maecenas, precor,
manum puella savio opponat tuo,
extrema et in sponda cubet.
But you, Maecenas, you old joker: if you ever desire such a thing,
I hope and pray your girl blocks your kisses with her hand, and
sleeps on the far side of the bed.
These closing lines of the epode bolster our impression of Horace and
Maecenas as two friends who are close enough to share embarrassing
practical jokes and slightly o-color personal remarks, with no trace of
anxiety or sti formality on either side.
Much of what Horace chooses to tell us regarding his dealings with
Maecenas seems designed to conrm the impression that these two men
are friends on an even deeper and more meaningful level than that in-
dicated above. On several occasions Horace calls particular attention not
only to the warmth but also to the legitimacy and soundness of his re-
lationship with Maecenas. He recounts in detail the circumstances of his
rst introduction to his future patron (Sat...):
10
. . . non, ut forsit honorem
iure mihi invideat quivis, ita te quoque amicum,
praesertim cautum dignos adsumere, prava
ambitione procul. felicem dicere non hoc
me possim, casu quod te sortitus amicum;
nulla etenim mihi te fors obtulit: optimus olim
Vergilius, post hunc Varius, dixere quid essem.
ut veni coram, singultim pauca locutus,
infans namque pudor prohibebat plura profari . . .
sed quod eram narro. respondes, ut tuus est mos,
pauca: abeo; et revocas nono post mense iubesque
esse in amicorum numero . . .
The Warmth of Friendship
Although someone might perhaps justiably begrudge me the
oce [of military tribune], they shouldnt also therefore be-
grudge me that I have you as a friendespecially since you are
careful to befriend only worthy people, free from base ambition.
I couldnt say that I am lucky in this, that by chance you ended
up being my friend: chance didnt toss you in my path. One time
Virgil (that wonderful fellow), and after him Varius, told you
about me and the sort of person I was. When I came before you
face to face I spoke only a few halting words, since I was tongue-
tied and shyness prevented me from saying more . . . but I told
you about myself. As is your way, you said little in reply; I went
away, and nine months later you called me back and told me that
I would be one of your friends.
This careful rehearsal of the process by which Maecenas begins newsocial
connections makes it clear that Horace was not taken up on some idle
whim, as is Mena by the wealthy Philippus in Epistles ..
11
The poet
wants us to understand that he did not falsely engineer their friendship or
otherwise agitate for the privilege of associating with the great man. The
preliminary approach was made by trustworthy intermediaries of good
judgment. Horace was unpretentious and even shy at their rst meeting,
Maecenas cautious and reticent. Only after lengthy consideration was the
poet nally accepted. Thus, nulla etenim mihi te fors obtulitHorace was
a deliberate choice, carefully researched and wholly legitimate. We are
clearly meant to see Horace as one who became an intimate associate
of Maecenas only after surviving a rigorous interview process. The poet
here expresses a palpable pride at being deemed worthy of being counted
as Maecenass friend, not simply his client.
12
Direct assertions, of course, sometimes have a diluted impact upon
their intended audience; the attendant suspicion of ulterior motives on
the part of the speaker becomes too great. For this reason, Horace also
employs more subtle methods in the articulation of this highly positive
image of his relationship with his patron. In Satires ., for instance, he
presents us with a vivid and engaging anecdote, recounted in a casual
and unguarded style. Ibam forte Via Sacra (I happened to be walking
along the Via Sacra)a pleasant urban stroll is interrupted by a social-
climbing pest, who attaches himself to the poet and immediately begins
angling for an introduction to Maecenas. Quite apart fromthe humorous
and appealing quality of the narrative (which serves once again to make
Poet and Patron
the reader more well disposed toward the poets attractive personality
and, thus, more inclined to accept his word), such a scenario serves as a
perfect pretext for Horace to explain freely his most elevated vision of
Maecenas and his surrounding circle of friends. When the pest suggests
that he would make a useful ally for Horace if the poet wishes to claw
his way to the forefront of Maecenass aections, Horaces reply informs
our understanding of the Horace-Maecenas relationship by dening the
ideals shared by Maecenas and his associates ():
. . . non isto vivimus illic
quo tu rere modo; domus hac nec purior ulla est
nec magis his aliena malis; nil mi ocit, inquam,
ditior hic aut est quia doctior; est locus uni
cuique suus . . .
We dont live there in the sordid way you think we do; no
household is more pure than Maecenass, or freer fromsuch evils.
It doesnt bother me, I tell you, that one fellow is richer or
another is more learned; everyone has his own place.
An unusual state of aairs, perhaps. The pests response to thisMag-
num narras, vix credibile (What youre telling me is fantastic, I can
hardly believe it!)indicates that this was not how clientelae were ordi-
narily run.
13
Horace is making important claims in these two passages. There is, to
begin with, a certain anxiety behind his repeated denition of his re-
lationship with Maecenas as one specically between intimate friends
(amici ) rather than one between magnate and professional hanger-on
(scurra), indicative of a pressing desire to x and dene his own social
position. In any case he is careful to bring to our attention the extreme
care and circumspection with which Maecenas initiates all his friend-
ships. Maecenas doesnt simply take up anyone as his friend; Horace is
special, worthy, a close and trusted associate in a comradely group of
like-minded individuals.
14
He is denitely one of the circle and as close
to being on equal terms with the great man as one who is fundamentally
not his equal could ever hope to be. Thus, Horace urgently wants us to
understand that his entire relationship with Maecenas is based on some-
thing more transcendent than simple patronage or regular association.
They apparently share an essential commitment to virtue, and so their
friendship is free from the cheapening forces of gross ambition. Above
Deation and Anxiety
all, by providing this information, the poet ensures that we as outside
readers will nd it easy to believe that he and Maecenas interacted on a far
warmer and more intimate level than did the typical client and patron.
15
. Deation and Anxiety
Is Horace, then, Maecenass intimate friend? Are we to think of Maecenas
and Horace as having enjoyed a closely knit, almost brotherly relation-
ship? Other Romans before them certainly had such bonds with each
other; Cicero and Atticus spring to mind as two men whose friendship
was both aectionate and genuine. But such cannot be the whole story
for Horace and Maecenas, as Horace himself makes clear. Throughout the
Satires, the poet continually deates his beguiling self-image as Maece-
nass close friend and eectively undercuts his warmer portraits of their
relationship. Newdoubts are infused into our understanding of Horaces
status as the poet alters his portrayal of his dealings with Maecenas. As
the dramatic situations of his poetry change, so does his presentation of
the poet-patron relationship become much more complicated.
To begin with, consider the implications of Horaces description of
a typical conversation between himself and his patron as the two men
travel together in a carriage (Sat...):
Septimus octavo proprior iam fugerit annus
ex quo Maecenas me coepit habere suorum
in numero, dumtaxat ad hoc, quem tollere raeda
vellet iter faciens, et cui concredere nugas
hoc genus, hora quota est? Thraex est Gallina Syro par?,
matutina parum cautos iam frigora mordent,
et quae rimosa bene deponuntur in aure.
Its already past the seventh year (closer to the eighth) since
Maecenas began to consider me a friend of hisup to a point. I
amsomeone he would want to take along in his carriage when he
takes a trip, and to whom he entrusts tidbits like: What time is
it? Is that Thracian gladiator Gallina a match for Syrus? These
morning frosts can kill you if youre not careful. And whatever
can safely be deposited in my leaky ear.
The inclusion of the limiting adverb dumtaxat (up to a point, no more
than . . . ),
16
which restricts the scope of the action described (being
Poet and Patron
counted among Maecenass friends, if one takes suorum as denoting his
closest associates), strongly suggests that Horace is well aware of the limi-
tations of their friendship and even chafes somewhat at the realization
that his many years of association have taken him only this far. The top-
ics of their conversation are indeed highly desultory; Horace seems to be
wryly noting that even after years of association, Maecenas is still wont
to entrust only idle chit-chat to the poets leaky ear.
17
It is crucial to remember that in the larger context of the poem,
Horace is trying to show why it is unfounded for his readers to think
of him as Maecenass most intimate condant and therefore privy to all
sorts of state secrets (Sat...). Some of the Odes (such as ., with
its references to recent events in Dacia, Parthia, and Scythia) indicate that
Horace often did have such inside information, and the two men were
likely close enough in reality to escape from such weighty matters by
simply sitting and gossiping with each other in this fashion. But when
approached solely in terms of the direct information given in this par-
ticular poem, the friendship of Maecenas and Horace consists exclusively
of nugae. Unlike Atticus, who heard all of Ciceros inmost concerns re-
garding public matters, Horace as portrayed here is treated only to idle
chatter; he scarcely enjoys the honor of being Maecenass condant, even
if he has been permitted to ride along in attendance to the great man.
18
Ultimately, this hint of apparent limits to the intimacyof their friendship
receives the greatest emphasis.
Another striking example of this more problematic representation of
the Horace-Maecenas relationship is to be found in Satires ., where
Horaces friend and fellowpoet Fundanius describes to hima cena, or din-
ner, given the night before by Nasidienus, a wealthy social climber. This
poem has traditionally been dismissed as a weak and unsatisfying ending
to the Satires, at best a very pretty divertissement of only slight impor-
tance; discussion has tended to focus on its portrait of the tiresome Nasi-
dienus and his spectacular asco of a dinner party, and the poem is most
often characterized as a straightforward mock symposium or a satirical
picture of vulgar ostentation.
19
But if we look more closely at the dra-
matic circumstances of this poem and the self-eacing role Horace takes
within it, we uncover a more complex and meaningful message regard-
ing his social position. Far from simply presenting himself as a curious,
amused, or disapproving listener, Horace allows his location outside the
events of Fundaniuss narrative to convey his discomfort with his status
as one unknowingly excluded from the activities and social functions
Deation and Anxiety
(onerous though they may sometimes be) of men whom he elsewhere
claims to be his closest friends and inseparable companions.
In the opening lines of this poem, we learn that Horace, too, had
planned some sort of social gathering for the night before and had meant
to invite Fundanius (Sat...): Ut Nasidieni iuvit te cena beati?/nam
mihi quaerenti convivamdictus here illic/de medio potare die (So, how
did you like your dinner at lucky Nasidienuss house? I was looking for
you to be my dinner guest, but they told me youd been drinking there
since midday). That Horace had intended to host a convivium, or dinner
party, of his own is perhaps suggested by his designation of Fundanius as
a hoped-for conviva,
20
although some more casual dinner may have been
envisioned. Regardless of the formality or informality of his plans, how-
ever, Horace clearly had no inkling that the cena of Nasidienus was taking
place until he sought out his friend. Thus, Horace ascribes to himself in
the exchange that follows not merely the casual curiosity of an interlocu-
tor but the pique of a thwarted host as well. Fundanius replies that he
had an absolutely great time at Nasidienuss housethe time of his life,
in fact (): Sic ut mihi numquam/in vita fuerit melius (Oh, I had the
best time. Never spent a better evening in my life).
21
But instead of asking
what made it so enjoyable (as one might have expected if Horace were
merely curious as to howFundanius spent his evening), Horace wishes to
know before anything else what sort of menu Nasidienus oered ():
Da, si grave non est, /quae prima iratum ventrem placaverit esca (Well,
spill it, if its not too much trouble: What was the rst dish to soothe
your growling stomach?).
Many commentators have noted the odd mixture of colloquial and
formal language in line , the mock-Homeric avor of line , and have
put Horaces response down as a piece of epic parody, meant to estab-
lish the ironic atmosphere of the poem.
22
But this raises a question: Who
or what is the intended target of Horaces evident irony, and what is
its eect? Remember that according to the dramatic setting of this dia-
logue, Horace does not yet know what happened at Nasidienuss cena;
all he knows is that his friend Fundanius had a wonderful time at a din-
ner party which he himself knew nothing about. If the irony is aimed at
Fundanius or Nasidienus, Horaces words take on the hostile or peevish
tone one would expect from a disappointed rival host. If, by contrast,
Horace is being self-parodic, having dropped his initial role as host and
friend to present himself here in the ironic guise of a hungry, would-
be parasite listening eagerly to the tales of rich dining at Nasidienuss
Poet and Patron
house, then his mocking lines become highly defensivea preemptive
self-abasement undertaken to protect himself from the implicit humilia-
tion of having been left out of the fun. For, needless to say, Horace had
not been invited.
23
Nasidienuss banquet certainly gets o to a lavish, even excessive start:
wild boar, garnished with an abundance of vegetable appetizers and
accompanied by an overly generous selection of expensive and high-
quality wines, all served by a sta of attentive slaves equipped with costly
purple-dyed napkins (Sat...). Horaces response to all this ()
Divitias miseras! (Poor old moneybags!)is generally taken to be an
expression of the poets disdain for Nasidienuss gaucherie. But such is the
double-edged nature of ironic statements that Horaces remark equally
lends itself to interpretation as a further expression of envious regret
(cloaked in feigned hauteur) that he hadnt been there.
In any case, in describing Nasidienuss array of wines, Fundanius has
casually let it slip that Maecenas was also at the cena (Sat...): Hic erus:
Albanum, Maecenas, sive Falernum, te magis appositis delectat, habe-
mus utrumque (Our host said, If you prefer the Alban or the Falernian,
Maecenas, we have them both as well). Such news is unexpected and
unsettling, for this was clearly an important gathering of some kind
and if Maecenas was present, who else may have been there? Horaces
following question suggests a certain anxiety: Sed quis cenantibus una, /
Fundani, pulchre fuerit tibi, nosse laboro (But who were your fellow
dinner-guests, Fundanius, with whom you had such a great time? I am
most anxious to know).
24
As it happens, in addition to the host and his
clients, Fundanius, Maecenas, Varius, and one of the Visci brothers all at-
tended (): Summus ego et prope me Viscus Thurinus et infra, /si
memini, Varius (I was on the right-hand couch; next to me was Vis-
cus of Thurii, and Varius was below him, if I remember rightly).
25
These
are celebrated literary gures of the day, andmost importantall men
whomHorace has elsewhere proclaimed with great force to be among his
closest friends, admired fellow authors, and most cherished audience.
26
Other illustrious poets of the time were absent, includingVirgil and Aris-
tius Fuscus; but even so, a signicant proportion of Horaces self-declared
social circle was at Nasidienuss cena. Once again, one is encouraged to
ask why Horace was not included.
27
Indeed, why had he heard nothing
about this aair? Obviously, none of his friends had thought to tell him
about Nasidienuss party, given that he had blithely been arranging his
own dinner for the same evening.
Deation and Anxiety
To add insult to injury, Fundanius now reveals that Maecenas had had
with him two umbrae, or shadowsuninvited guests whom the guest
of honor is encouraged to bring as company (Sat...): Cum Ser-
vilio Balatrone/Vibidius, quos Maecenas adduxerat umbras (Vibidius
was sitting with Servilius Balatro; Maecenas brought those twowith him
as his umbrae).
28
Although in this instance Maecenass umbrae are clearly
parasites and clowns, the term could embrace genuine and respectable
friends as well.
29
So Maecenas could have brought along Horace, his
favorite traveling companion, if he had so desired. Instead, he apparently
chose not to include Horace in the party, leaving the poet uninformed
and excluded, such that he never even had the option of attending or
staying away. It is as though his patron already made the decision for him.
Horace presents himself, then, as having good reason to be at least some-
what troubled; his nal comment in the poem (Sat...)nullos his
mallem ludos spectasse (Theres no show I would rather have seen)
takes on a certain poignancy.
30
In eect, Horace shows himself in this poem being rather unpleas-
antly reminded that his patron and friends often move in social worlds
in which he plays no role. Maecenas in particular has many other asso-
ciates whose company he nds equally enjoyable; as his patrons com-
panion, Horace is neither inseparable nor indispensable. The nal poem
of the entire collection of Satires thereby serves in part as a qualication
of the appealing, idealized self-image we have elsewhere been given of
Horace as Maecenass best friend and companion of rst choice. To be
sure, Horaces social anxieties are not the sole point at issue in this poem;
and insofar as Satires . follows the traditional symposium form, where
the reader does not attend the party but rather overhears it being de-
scribed to the author by a friend, the requirements of the genre would
in any case have demanded that Horace as author remain absent from the
proceedings.
31
But even here, where Horace is necessarily a peripheral
gurean interlocutor whose structural purpose is primarily to signal
the generic underpinnings of the poem and propel its narrativehis ex-
clusion from the guest list becomes a pointed reection on the lingering
uncertainties of his situation and provides a salutary jolt to the cozy pic-
ture of constant and intimate chumminess that he is at such great pains
to project elsewhere. Satires . reinforces our growing realization that
Horaces relationship to Maecenas continues to be very much a subor-
dinate one and that it is still possible for the level of intimacy between
them to be misreadby himself as well as by his readers.
Poet and Patron
. Amicitia and Patronage
Horaces shifting presentations of his social interaction with Maecenas
make it abundantly clear that he cannot simply be dismissed as one more
anonymous face among Maecenass vast crowd of clients, nor yet com-
fortably accepted in his frequently assumed role as his patrons special
condant and boon companion. Although the reader might be forgiven
at this point for asking in frustration exactly what sort of relationship
these two men shared in reality, it becomes less of a puzzle when we take
into consideration the Romans highly utilitarian conception of what
friendship (and patronage) entailed. In the modern world, we tend to
think of our friends as being genial companions with whomwe share the
same activities or simply enjoy passing the time. We might occasionally
ask them to oer us advice or support, or to do us some other favor, but
in such cases it is always clearly understood that something out of the
ordinary is taking place. Indeed, the very act of requesting such favors
indicates to both parties that theirs is a true friendship, one that can with-
stand and even be strengthened by what essentially amounts to the ex-
ploitation of each others goodwill. For the Romans, on the other hand,
this exploitation represented the true heart of friendship, or amicitia, a
social institution that implied and demanded the reciprocal exchange of
services, or benecia, in the form of favors or social and political support.
Richard Saller has emphasized such transactions in his analysis of the
vocabularyof patronage, noting that a distinction must be made between
the idealized and the de facto models of Roman friendship. Although the
philosophers speak of the ideal amicitia as based on shared interests and
unselsh mutual aection, in reality a Roman amicitia depended upon a
regular trading of benecia and various expected duties, or ocia. This is
why the Romans were able to use the term amicus to refer to someone
whom we might describe as being nothing more than a client. Indeed,
as Saller points out,
In contrast to the words patronus and cliens, the language of amici-
tiae did not carry any inherent notions of dierential social status,
since the word amicus was suciently ambiguous to encompass
both social equals and unequals. This ambiguity was exploited and
there was a tendency to call men amici rather than the demean-
ing clientes as a mark of consideration. The tendency did not pro-
duce any leveling eect or egalitarian ideology in the hierarchical
Amicitia and Patronage
Roman society. Quite the contrarya new grade in the hierarchy
was added as relationships with lesser amici were labeled amicitiae
inferiores or amicitiae minores.
32
This tendency to leave any gradations in status completely unspoken and
yet still very much in operation meant in turn that, in most cases, Roman
social relationships operated without any real clarication of the nature
of the bond between the participants. With so much crucial information
swept under the rug, a basic uncertainty as to ones true position in a re-
lationship would have become a common problemespecially for the
amicus inferior.
As a result, the protgs of wealthy and powerful men (including
Horace) would at times have found themselves in an exceedingly pre-
carious situation, as they struggled to reconcile their natural desire to
remain in their patrons favor with an incompatible yet equally powerful
drive to retain at least some modicum of personal independence or even
to achieve something approaching terms of equality with their mighty
amici superiores. The sort of predicament in which patronage could thus
place a sensitive artist is givenforceful expressionby Horace in Epistles .,
wherein the poet presents himself as having to explain his long absence
to a reproachful Maecenas ():
33
quinque dies tibi pollicitus me rure futurum,
Sextilem totum mendax desideror . . .
ociosaque sedulitas et opella forensis
adducit febris et testamenta resignat.
I promised you that I would be away in the country for ve days,
but I lied; you have missed me for the whole month of August . . .
punctilious ociousness and the little jobs of the forum bring
on fevers and open wills.
At the outset, the dramatic setting is tense. Not only has Horace bro-
ken his promise to return soon, having extended a ve-day trip into a
month-long vacation, he has also thereby implicitly shirked his respon-
sibilities as one of Maecenass clientamici. He has obviously failed to ap-
pear regularly at Maecenass morning salutatio or accompany him on his
daily business roundsthe ociosa sedulitas et opella forensis that, he dismis-
sively claims, are so bad for ones health. For any ordinary Roman client,
this would constitute unthinkable and unpardonable negligence. Even
for a friend, the breaking of a promise demands some explanation at the
Poet and Patron
very least. One is therefore led to imagine a stern Maecenas, with a frown
on his face, grimly reading these opening lines.
34
Horaces presented self-
image, consequently, is that of one who must tread very carefully. He
opens with a mixture of familiarity and formality, calculated so as not
to jeopardize an already strained situation; there is warmth and aection
here, to be sure, but also a great deal of caution. Thus, disarmingly he
asks for the indulgence due to a friend . . . we note that he does not ex-
plicitly claim such status: he merely implies it by his mode of address.
35
At the same time, he demonstrates his full awareness of his predicament
by characterizing himself as mendax; by admitting to his guilt at the out-
set, Horace portrays himself as being most anxious that Maecenas indulge
this dereliction of duty and, at the same time, understand the delicacy of
his position.
36
The ensuing tales of the Calabrian host, the skinny little fox, and the
friendship of Philippus and Volteius Mena, which make up the remain-
der of the poem, do more than divert Horaces readers with their en-
gaging piquancy; they also compose the core of the poets message to his
friend and patron. This is the ideal vision Horace would like to project of
their relationship, one based more on the philosophical model of amicitia
than on actual Roman practice.
37
By recounting these memorable fables,
Horace asserts to his patron that friendship must above all be genuine and
precious to both parties, freely oered and accepted without thought of
gain, obligation, or relative value. Otherwise it is not friendship but a
venal imitation thereof. Thus, by the end of the poem, Horace has suc-
ceeded in laying out the nature of his predicament, as well as indicating
his response to it. He has reminded Maecenas (and led his outside readers
to agree) that they are both too sophisticated and much too close for
the normal demands of patronage to apply to their interaction. Friends
do not ceaselessly dance attendance on each other, nor do they always
keep the promises they make. This poem, then, is meant to enforce the
belief that Horace is Maecenass friend, not merely his client, and that
consequently he is justied in determining for himself a limit to his obli-
gations.
In Epistles ., an actual desperate situation may or may not have in-
spired this daring and impressive literary creation; in any case, the pol-
ished quality of the poem should not blind us to the very real prob-
lems and social uncertainties that form the basis for its composition.
38
What matters here is that Horace plausibly presents himself as having
misjudged the extent to which he might operate independently from his
Amicitia and Patronage
benefactor, and in so doing he indicates that his relationshipwith Maece-
nas continues to be fundamentally undened and uncertain even after
all this time. As Maecenass amicuswhether client or true friend is left
unspoken
39
Horace had certain expectations placed upon him, which
often remained both burdensome and unclear. That he portrays himself
here as having to explain and defend his apparent disregard of these ex-
pectations is a powerful demonstration of the basic precariousness of his
existence as a cliens.
There are, of course, alternatives to Sallers interpretation of Roman
amicitia, but even the strongest of these only conrms the curious lack of
rm denition within Horace and Maecenass relationship. Peter White,
for example, has argued that it was genuine friendship (in the sense of
mutual aection, warmth, and shared anities) that led to the sort of
social exchange discussed above. He goes so far as to claim that in re-
lationships based on literary patronage, patrons and clients alike earnestly
thought of themselves as true friends and collaborators; his is a more
modern conception of amicitia, one much closer to the model we initially
noted.
40
But White too acknowledges that, regardless of whether Roman
amicitiae were friendships or more mechanical social connections, they
were invariably characterized by a total lack of formal denition. What is
more, that friendship was essentially undened is the reason it so easily
became an open-ended commitment for the weaker partner.
41
In other
words, because relationships between poets and their patrons were left
undiscussed in terms of the responsibilities and services they required, it
meant that a poet, as the junior amicus, could easily nd himself lost in
a sea of uncertainty and onerous, never-ending social obligations.
Thus, Saller and White travel opposite routes to arrive at the same
conclusion regarding the dynamics of the poet-patron interaction. For
Saller, the exchange of favors or other services is the basis of the amici-
tia and denes the entire relationship. For White, friendship denes the
exchange of benecia and lies at the heart of the association of patron and
literary client. But both scholars agree that, apart from the obvious basic
connection between the two participants, the relationship could remain
indeterminate, a shifting balance of relative status and inuence. Horace
himself suggests such a formulation when, in two poems in the rst book
of Epistles, he extends his musings on amicitia to have a more universal
and instructive application. Although the reader is left to sift through
these two poems for clues as to which principles of clientela Horace actu-
ally endorses, as opposed to those he has simply put forward as part of his
:o Poet and Patron
exploration of social relationships between unequals, his overall message
about the general nature of these relationships is quite clear.
In Epistles .,, Horace approvingly cites Aristippuss reply to Dioge-
nes (,:) Scurror ego ipse mihi, populo tu, rectius hoc et splendidius
multo est. equus ut me portet, alat rex, ocium facio (I play the scurra
to my own advantage, where you do it for the crowd. What I do is far
more proper and noble. I perform my duty in order that a horse may
carry me around and a patron may feed me). Given that he takes such
great pains elsewhere to deny that he plays the scurra for personal benet
(as we have seen in the Satires),
42
it is perhaps surprising that he would
here endorse such a bald outline of this same practice and tell Scaeva that
being quiet, modest, and uncomplaining in ones dealings with a patron
will yield better results (,,) Coram rege sua de paupertate tacentes
plus poscente ferent distat, sumasne pudenteran rapias (Those who
keep quiet about their own poverty in the presence of their patron will
get more than those who beg. It makes a dierence whether you mod-
estly accept gifts or grab for them.) It is also best to keep quiet, he says,
so as to avoid attracting competition (,)
Qui dicit, clamat victum date!, succinit alter
et mihi! dividuo ndetur munere quadra.
sed tacitus pasci si posset corvus, haberet
plus dapis et rixae multo minus invidiaeque.
Whoever |tells the story of his own hard luck| is shouting, Feed
me! Someone else chimes in, Me too! The loaf is divided and
the gift is split up. But if the crow could eat quietly, he would
get more food and a lot less strife and envy.
These lines have a strong didactic avor, like precepts being laid out
for the aspirant by a friendly and modest sage (Epist..,.,) Disce docen-
dus adhuc quae censet amiculus (Iearn the views of your humble friend,
although he himself still needs to be taught). This, combined with the
implications of extreme inferiority carried by terms such as paupertas and
corvus, perhaps suggests that the poem reects not Horaces experiences
with Maecenas so much as a common style of interaction between clients
and patrons.
By contrast, Epistles . gives the impression of being more closely
tied to Horaces personal situation, as he presents it in his poetry.
43
Here
again he oers a markedly didactic list of recommended and discour-
Amicitia and Patronage :,
aged tactics for clients dont try to match your patrons opulence, dont
pry, be discreet, take care when introducing people, etc. (o,,). But he
goes on to declare rmly that the cliens of a wealthy and powerful man
should strive to be a friend rather than a scurra and yet should not be-
come needlessly rude or argumentative in a misguided attempt to seem
like an intimate equal. The proper degree of friendliness must be main-
tained at all costs (:o). It is a dicult but crucial balancing act one
must avoid becoming too much the slavish buoon, but neither should
one lapse into rudeness and truculence by persisting in demonstrating
ones independence at the drop of a hat (,o)
virtus est medium vitiorum et utrimque reductum.
alter in obsequium plus aequo pronus et imi
derisor lecti sic nutum divitis horret,
sic iterat voces et verba cadentia tollit,
ut puerum saevo credas dictata magistro
reddere vel partis mimum tractare secundas.
alter rixatur de lana saepe caprina,
propugnat nugis armatus . . .
Virtue is the midpoint between vices, removed from both ex-
tremes. One man (overly inclined to be ingratiating and the
clown of the lowest couch) trembles in awe of the rich mans nod,
repeats everything he says, and picks up every word he drops, so
that you would think he was a boy reciting his assignments to a
strict teacher, or a mime-actor performing a small role. Another
man argues often about things about as worthless as goats wool
and battles for tries in full armor.
The implicit admission in this passage that it is possible to misjudge the
situation and to fall into one or the other of these extremes strongly
recalls the shifting and ill-dened position that we have elsewhere iden-
tied in Horaces accounts of his experiences.
44
Epistles ., and . are
both concerned with outlining broadly the proper behavior of a man
toward his patron, and taken together, they provide us with a map of
the conceivable range of patron-client interaction. At the same time, by
hinting in these two poems at the diculties inherent in occupying the
junior role in such relationships, Horace reemphasizes the constant care
and agility with which he, like any client, had to navigate the shifting
and uncertain terrain of his purported friendship.
45
Poet and Patron
The loose association of patronage, in which a clients true status
might never be rmly dened, permitted the development of a relation-
ship whose intimacy and degree of interaction could vary according
to changing social circumstances, although the reciprocal exchanges of
amicitia remained a constant. For Horace, direct benecia from Maece-
nas, such as the Sabine farm (if it was presented to him in the context
of a standard Roman friendship arrangement) and the nancial support
that Maecenas may have oered to the poet at an early stage,
46
required
similar gifts and services on his part in return, despite his claims of free-
dom from such obligations. Less directly tangible social support (in the
form of the sympathetic hearing of Horaces poetry, favorable mention
of him at elite social gatherings, or arranging for readings of his work)
would also have demanded some recompense. Horace in turn fullled
his social obligations by dedicating the Satires, Epistles , and Odes to
Maecenas, as well as by making specic addresses to his patron in many
individual poems
47
valuable ocia indeed, given the likelihood that
such direct displays of gratitude would confer lasting fame and immor-
tality on their recipient. The sorts of direct political and social support
that junior amici customarily provided were thus wholly unnecessary in
Horaces case, especially given that Maecenas harbored no political am-
bitions of his own (outside of assisting Octavian in the establishment and
legitimization of his new regime).
48
Despite all this, however, Horace continues to present himself
throughout his literary career as suering from a raft of anxieties and
perceived threats to his constructed self-image. We have seen that he
constantly shifts his portrayal of his social position vis--vis Maecenas
by alternating his more secure self-image (Horace as friend and com-
panion) with glimpses of a dierent, cooler relationship (Horace as ex-
cluded attendant). A single individual is depicted as a close associate but
not always as a privileged condant or inseparable best friend; a mem-
ber of a lively, close-knit group of artistic and enlightened men who is
nevertheless occasionally left out of their evening gatherings; a man of
indierent background indebted to a powerful benefactor, who is yet
something more than a typical atrium-haunting client or debased scurra.
It is as though Horace wishes to remind his patron and the world that
profound uncertainties of personal status were nothing more than what
a poet had to expect in his dealings with his patronthe natural out-
growth of an amicitia between unequals.
Dealing with Pressure
. Dealing with Pressure
Signicantly, Horace designed these portraits of the amicitia between the
two men, marked by its fundamental lack of clear denition, to be read
simultaneously by contemporary outside readers as well as by Maecenas.
As such, Janus-like, they provide an insight into both the actual nature
of the relationship and the way in which Horace wished that relation-
ship to be viewed. Given that Horace directly confronts his patron with
this undened, variable atmosphere of shifting levels of intimacy and
distance,
49
we are ineluctably led to accept his casting of their relation-
ship as an accurate (and certainly plausible) reection of reality. But why
would Horace choose in this way to call universal attention to the most
uncomfortable and embarrassing aspects of their interaction? In essence,
it is precisely because of this discomfort that the poet has directed such
an uninching gaze at their situation.
As literary patrons went, Maecenas was unusual, even unique: other
prominent Romans of the day (such as Asinius Pollio and the aristo-
cratic Messalla Corvinus) engaged in the practice primarily for the sake
of personal aggrandizement and a chance at poetic immortality, whereas
Maecenas undertook the recruitment and support of promising writers
as part of a vast, far-sighted project to help Octavian/Augustus legit-
imize his new regime and dene his civic program.
50
As a result, there
was a constant expectation that Horace would follow his patrons wishes
and help to articulate the new political order. He therefore had to nd
some way to serve the projects of his patron and amicus superior with-
out abandoning his artistic control, independence, and integrity.
51
When
combined with the ordinary diculties and uncertainties of clienthood,
this represented a considerable challengeand the onus was on him to
remind Maecenas and his other readers that he was facing it bravely and
successfully. For, regardless of the comfortable images of friendly cama-
raderie with which he might cloak his association with his patron, he was
very much a junior partner in the enterprise. As Gordon Williams has
noted in discussing Horaces account of his rst meeting with Maecenas
(Sat...):
52
The verb iubere is not chosen at random; other verbs used of the
relation between patron and poet are cogere and iniungere. In a real
sense the inferior came within the control of the superior . . . The
Poet and Patron
relationship was coercive. For all that the patron felt obligations
toward his client and never referred to him as cliens, but always as
amicus, . . . patronage constituted a power relationship, and Romans
were conditioned from birth to accommodating themselves to it.
An important element in this accommodation was disguise of the
naked reality in various conventional ways.
In other words, as a literary patron Maecenas exerted pressure on his
client-poet simply through the inherent imbalance of power in their re-
lationship. It was left to Horace, both as amicus inferior and as presenter of
their amicitia to the outside world, to confront and neutralize this pres-
sureto disguise the realityby varying his portrayal of the shifts and
uncertainties of their daily interaction.
53
Two additional points would at rst seem to challenge the foregoing
assertion. First, it might be denied that the inequalities of the patron-
client relationship required any sort of response at all. One of the duties
of a cliens was to publicize the favors and other noteworthy accomplish-
ments of his patron; consequently, it has been argued that clients had
to accept openly their inherently inferior status.
54
But Horace does not
t this model. Although he is careful to express his gratitude to his
patron for his friendship, support, and other benecia, he only implicitly
acknowledges any subordination and does his best to confuse the issue
with conicting images of himself as Maecenass friend and chosen com-
panion. Indeed, that Horace is willing to present himself as being left
out of a dinner party strongly suggests the poet could reasonably have
expected to accompany Maecenas on this expeditionas a friend, not
as an inferior client. There is certainly no open acceptance of the re-
lationships uncertainties here but a denite attempt to present himself
to better advantage.
Second, one might dispute the extent to which we can accept the
poets discussion of his own pressures as providing valid insight into the
nature of his relationship with Maecenas. White observes that, in pub-
licly alluding to the pressures under which he works,
often what [an author] wants to project is not so much the idea
that he is being constrained as that he is being pestered . . . A re-
quest that must be met because it is constantly reiterated implies
some intimacy between the two parties: it can be posed again and
again only because they are regularly in contact. Far from weaken-
ing a writers credit, this kind of pressure enhances it. Not only is he
The Horatian Invention
seen to have impressive connections, but he is revealed as someone
whom it is worth the eort of coaxing.
55
Whites conclusion is that Horace may be exaggerating the pressure
he is under from Maecenas, for social and professional reasonsa clever
attempt to enhance his reputation as a rst-rate poet and a regular asso-
ciate of the Roman elite. This may be true, yet pressure is being applied.
Any self-presentation implying that a poet is constantly being hounded
for newoutput by the great men of Rome, although perhaps eective in
transforming a real problem into a potential tactical advantage, should
nevertheless be understood as a noteworthy example of making a virtue
out of necessity. This is one way for Horace to construe the pressure under
which he has been forced to operate from the beginning. There could be
no projection of constant pressure at all if it were not rmly grounded in
the actual circumstances of the relationship. Even for a poet of Horaces
caliber, patronal pressure remained a serious constraint.
Such pressure demanded a response in the form of accommodation
some way to protect oneself from the stresses inherent in being the
weaker partner in an undened, power-based relationship. This Horace
accomplishes through the meticulous crafting and manipulation of an
articial, protective self-image, presenting himself in as favorable a light
as possiblewhile remaining true to the multifaceted and amorphous char-
acter of his association with his patron. White acknowledges that, in any
poets depiction of his relations with his superiors, what is said must . . .
be interpreted as the result of a three-cornered calculation which aims
to inuence the general reader as well as the particular interlocutor to
whomthe writer addresses himself, and which seeks to display the writer
in a favorable light in the eyes of both.
56
This admirable summary of
the Roman authors peculiar dilemma should be expanded to cover all
aspects of Horaces situation with regard to Maecenas. His willingness
to leaven a highly positive self-presentation with contradictory images
of social marginalization enables him to address directly the very nature
of a relationship that demanded the creation of this self-presentation in
the rst place.
. Conclusion: The Horatian Invention
This newapproach to self-presentation is one of Horaces greatest poetic
innovations, for his thematization of his relationship with his patron as a
Poet and Patron
focus for his private concerns and social challenges sets himapart fromhis
contemporaries in the Roman literary world. His achievement does not,
of course, rest simply on his introduction of Maecenas into his poetry.
It was already a well-established topos by Horaces day for an author to
address patrons directly by recognizing their support and their requests
in his works; in the previous generation, for instance, Lucretius oered
his De rerum natura as a gift to the rich and powerful Memmius, a noted
patron of poets. And yet, once Lucretius has fullled the basic require-
ment of mentioning his patron by name, Memmius ceases to be particu-
larly relevant to the work, nor does he remain in its foreground. It is
Venus and not the patron to whom the initial invocation is addressed
even if the great work was specically written with Memmius in mind,
as Lucretius claims (Lucr..):
57
te sociam studeo scribendis versibus esse
quos ego de rerum natura pangere conor
Memmiadae nostro, quem tu, dea, tempore in omni
omnibus ornatum voluisti excellere rebus.
I am eager that you be my ally in the writing of these verses on
Nature which I am trying to compose for my friend Memmius,
the man whom you, oh goddess, have desired to be preeminent
in all things and celebrated for all time.
Nor is it simply that Maecenas, unlike Memmius, was deeply engaged
in the lives of all his literary clients and, as such, automatically became
a central theme in their works. Among the poets supported by Maece-
nas, only Horace conceived of his relationship with his patron as a theme
worthy of extended and regular poetic treatment; the others were con-
tent to represent their connection to Maecenas merely by saying at the
outset of a work that the great man has requested this of me. Proper-
tius claims his mistress Cynthia as his true source of poetic inspiration; in
an elegant recusatio, he sadly confesses that he is incapable of writing on
the grand themes of epic or history (Prop...). If only I could,
he says,
bellaque resque tui memorarem Caesaris, et tu
Caesare sub magno cura secunda fores . . .
te mea Musa illis semper contexeret armis,
et sumpta et posita pace dele caput.
The Horatian Invention
I would speak of the wars and policies of your Caesar, and after
great Caesar you would be my next subject . . . my Muse would
always entwine you with those battles, you the loyal heart of
Peace whether taken up or put aside.
But, he claims, he is too closely bound by the demands of Amor to be able
to incorporate Maecenas or Caesar directly into his poetry. In this way,
Propertius directly states that he will not follow Horaces new innova-
tion; rather than struggle with the question of his relationship with his
patron, he will remain with the themes and images of his chosen genre.
Similarly, in the Georgics, Virgil calls upon Maecenas to join him in
his poetic journey. Arboriculture will be the theme, but the treatment
will not be overly taxing (G..):
tuque ades inceptumque una decurre laborem,
o decus, o famae merito pars maxima nostrae,
Maecenas, pelagoque volans da vela patenti . . .
. . . non hic te carmine cto
atque per ambages et longa exorsa tenebo.
Come and travel with me through the task I have begun, glori-
ous Maecenas, rightfully the greatest reason for my fame: set
sail with me, ying over the open sea . . . not here will I hold
you with a fabricated poem, through digressions and long be-
ginnings.
Following this address, Virgil plunges back into his theme. Maecenas will
be called upon once more to bestow his blessing on Virgils enterprise:
Hanc etiam, Maecenas, aspice partemLook upon this section of my
work as well, Maecenas (G..). But apart fromthese honoric addresses,
the patron remains a distant gure in the poetry. Never one for personal
revelations, whether genuine or contrived, Virgil keeps his relationship
with his patron very much in the background of his work. When we
recall the vivid and colorful world of social interactions that Horace has
oered us, the contrast is striking.
Horaces dealings with Maecenas necessarily resulted in a great deal of
discomfort and uncertainty for the poet as he worked early on to make
sense of his relationshipwith his patron. It was a relationship of unspoken
duties and expectations, one in which he as the junior amicus might nd
himself suddenly and harshly reminded of his subordinate client status.
Poet and Patron
The potential for uncertainty and anxiety was great as Horace pondered
his situation. Equally powerful was his need to articulate his predicament,
somehow to protect himself from either falling too deeply into Maece-
nass orbit or drifting so far into independence as to lose his position. It is
this struggle that Horace wants his audienceand Maecenas himselfto
see and appreciate. The many episodes and images that compose his com-
plex and defensive self-presentation are all ultimately directed toward
that end. The true originality of Horaces treatment of himself and his
patron, then, lies not in its mere inclusion but in his choice to focus
his readers attention on such a private and dicult aspect of his world.
By continually returning to this theme in his poetry and by making his
portrait of this central relationship ever more elaborate and absorbing,
Horace manages to create an entirely new literary topos even as he calls
attention to personal concerns.
cn:i +r r +vo
In the Public Eye
Fame can be intoxicating and often dangerous. It oers shining rewards
to those who attain it, but it can also carry a heavy price in lost indepen-
dence and the continual pressure of public attention. Public gures in
every historical period have had to deal with the darker, more restrictive
side of their celebrity and the strange disjunction between private and
public selves that inevitably attends any rise to widespread fame. An ac-
claimed author or artist, for instance, may revel in his notoriety and take
pleasure in the knowledge that his activities and movements are avidly
followed by thousands. But, like a popular hero or prominent politician,
he is also forced to bear the intense scrutiny of his audienceto resist
their constant intrusions into his personal life, endure their mingled adu-
lation and hostility and ckle changes of taste, and live up to the high
expectations that gather around him as he builds his public image. In-
deed, as his stature grows, his time and attention become increasingly
devoted to the maintenance of that outer faade of behavior and per-
sonality which his audience has come to expect from him, even as his
projects come to be dictated by the requirements of self-presentation. It
is never a comfortable situation in which to be placed, as Cicero despair-
ingly observed from the similarly oodlit stage of Roman politics: O di
immortales! quam magnum est personam in re publica tueri principis!
quae non animis solum debet sed etiam oculis servire civium.
1
Horace reects a great deal in his works on the special demands placed
upon a poet by his publicthe judgments, expectations, and even direct
attacks that require a response or at least some accommodation on his
part. But where many an author might have limited himself to the pri-
vate acceptance of his public constraints, Horace directly confronts his
audience as he struggles to reconcile their domineering inuence with
his individual aims and interests. Indeed, he incorporates this struggle
as an integral component of his constructed, public self-image. Horace

In the Public Eye

regularly portrays himself as being at the center of a large, disparate, and
volatile public, of which each segment exerts a dierent sort of pressure
and elicits from him a dierent response. This wider audience becomes
a rich and complex character in its own right, simultaneously the source
of and Horaces mechanism for dealing with all the public demands that
he claims have been placed on him. For Horace, the process is reexive:
the popular reception of his work fuels and shapes that work, becoming
itself a central theme of his poetry.
. The Rings of Audience
The essentials of Horaces relationship with Maecenas are reected in his
techniques of self-presentation, as we have already noted. In much the
same fashion, Horaces portrayal of his dealings with his general reader-
ship constitutes his most direct and eective response to the pressures he
faced from these readers.
2
As a result, the poets treatment of his public
travails tells us a great deal about his actual relationship with his origi-
nal audience. But what was the composition of this audience? Who was
reading Horace? No segment of Roman society can at the outset be safely
disregarded with complete security. It is conceivable (though unlikely)
that some of Horaces readers may even have sprung from the lowest
levels of the Roman populus, the urban mob whose tastes ran more to
mimes, gladiators, and similar entertainments than to Horaces brand of
cultivated and allusive versealthough there would have been nothing
particularly new or innovative in his treating any diculties with them
as a theme in his work. The city masses had long represented a source
of frustration for aspiring writers, as demonstrated by the playwright
Terence, who in approximately .. had expressed his anger and dis-
may over the repeated failure of his Hecyra by condemning the vulgar
tastes of his erstwhile audience.
3
In any case, Horaces works had many
potential readers throughout Roman society, ranging from the knights
and senators in the uppermost circles of Rome to those in the higher cen-
sus categories who, while lacking conspicuous wealth or social promi-
nence, nevertheless could be expected to possess some education and a
certain level of interest in the literary world.
4
Some might dispute this picture of Horaces readership, arguing with
WilliamHarris that literacy in the late Republic and early Empire was not
so widespread as is generally assumed and that, as a result, the audience
The Rings of Audience
for literary works consisted of a very small and circumscribed elite.
5
But
as a number of scholars have noted, Harriss conclusions are overly dras-
tic, and Horaces audience would have been far larger and broader than he
suggests. The poet became extremely famous very quickly through his
association with Maecenas; consequently, many would have eagerly read
his works, which were readily available at the libraries and booksellers
stalls.
6
We must also take into account the large population of Greeks
then living in Rome: men of inherently lower status as far as Rome was
concerned, who nevertheless were often deeply engaged in literary pur-
suits. Moreover, any recoverable evidence regarding rates of literacy is
of questionable relevance to the more central issue of Horaces poten-
tial audience. Statistics on literacy in the ancient world tell us very little
about the extent to which the general population had access to the lit-
erature of the day, as Rosalind Thomas has pointed out: How much did
such low levels of literacy matter? The prevalence of oral communica-
tion, for instance, is important in its own right for gauging the role of
writing; it meant that illiterates were not always cut o from the prod-
ucts of writing. Public readings at Rome were the fastest means of literary
publication. It was not always thought necessary to read something your-
self, and in any case oral and written communication were deeply inter-
twined.
7
We can safely conclude with T. P. Wiseman that the Roman
populace listened, or had the opportunity to listen, to a lot more poetry
than we think. The evidence is unobtrusive and therefore usually disre-
garded, but it exists and to ignore it is to misunderstand the profession
of letters in Rome.
8
Nevertheless, the way in which various members of Horaces audi-
ence encountered his poetry remains an extremely important issue, for
it raises a crucial point about the composition of this audience. Social
class was not necessarily the determining factor in whether someone be-
came a reader or hearer of Horaces poetry. Rather, the primary question
was one of access, not only to the poetry but to the poet who produced
it. This in turn reminds us that each member of the audience enjoyed a
dierent degree and kind of access. Certainly, there would have existed a
signicant gulf, in depth of experience and connection with the poetry,
between (say) a casual Roman reader who simply bought Horaces poem
at a bookstall, and a personal friend who rst heard the poem at a private
reading by the author, and who is perhaps even mentioned in the poem.
It is therefore best to think of Horaces contemporary general readership
as consisting of a series of concentric rings, based not so much on relative
In the Public Eye
social standing as on levels of intimacy and direct contact with the poet
himself. As we shall see, Horace represents his audience in terms of these
same categories, characterizing each ring by a dierent type of inter-
action with himself as well as by the particular threat that each poses.
9
Thus, each ring of audience becomes the focus of a separate facet of his
overall public self-portrayal.
At the center we nd Maecenas, sole occupant of the innermost ring;
we have already seen the extent to which Horaces benefactor and patron
stands as his most important and inuential reader, the clarication of
their relationship as one of the poets most basic themes. Surrounding this
pair are those individuals whom Horace declares to be personal friends,
men of quality whose taste and literary judgments he implicitly trusts.
The next ring comprises members of the apex of Roman societysena-
tors and equites whom Horace often would have known through Maece-
nas and who, as members of an elevated and erudite social stratum, would
certainly have been familiar with the poet and his work. A fourth ring
consists of men outside the social and political elite of Rome, who never-
theless hold some hope of gaining entrysocial climbers eager to follow
Horaces path from obscurity into prominence and more than ready to
scrape acquaintance with Horace himself in order to do so. Last, Horace
creates a fth ring of literate outsidersimpoverished grammatici, Greek
poetasters without contacts among the Roman upper classes,
10
and other
undierentiated potential readerswho have no contact with the poet
and no hopes of advancing in his society but who read and respond to
his poetry all the same.
. The Core Readership
It is worth recalling that the tensions and pressures of Horaces relation-
ship with Maecenas arose largely from the uidity and indeterminacy
of the amicitia between patron and poet; that is to say, within an essen-
tially private context. By transforming this amicitia into a central sub-
ject of his poetry, however, thereby exposing it to universal scrutiny,
Horace automatically gave it a tremendous public resonance. In much
the same fashion, Horace obliquely acknowledges that even the inner
ring of his audience represents for him a source of considerable pub-
lic anxiety, stemming from his perceived need to identify and cater to
his most desirable readership. These are Horaces own close friends and
The Core Readership
associates, such as Virgil, Varus, Varius, and Fuscus, some of them fellow
members of Maecenass clientela. As with his patron, Horace shows him-
self determined to arm publicly the strength of his bond with them
by dedicating individual poems to them as well as by alluding frequently
to their shared activities and pursuits.
11
In the closing lines of Satires .,
for example, Horace cites as his main literary principle the ideal of the
small, select audience (): Neque te ut miretur turba labores, /con-
tentus paucis lectoribus (Nor should you struggle to make the crowd
marvel at you; be content with a few readers). It doesnt bother him in
the slightest, he claims, to be attacked or slandered by inconsequential
scribblers, whomhe dismisses with contempt ().
12
Instead, the poet
introduces his most desired readers by projecting the image of an elegant
group of men with whom he is very proud to associate himself, and who
represent for him a haven of good taste in a sea of loutish hostility and
criticism ():
Plotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque,
Valgius et probet haec Octavius optimus atque
Fuscus et haec utinam Viscorum laudet uterque!
ambitione relegata te dicere possum,
Pollio, te, Messalla, tuo cum fratre, simulque
vos, Bibule et Servi, simul his te, candide Furni,
compluris alios, doctos ego quos et amicos
prudens praetereo; quibus haec, sint qualiacumque,
adridere velim, doliturus, si placeant spe
deterius nostra . . .
May Plotius and Varius, Maecenas and Virgil, Valgius, good
Octavius and Fuscus approve of my work, and may both of the
Visci brothers praise it! Without any ulterior motive or intent to
atter I can name you, Pollio; you, Messalla, with your brother;
and also you, Bibulus and Servius; and with these you, brilliant
Furnius; and many others, learned friends whomI discreetly pass
over. I would like these men to laugh at my verses, such as they
are; and I will be crushed if they should be less pleasing than
I hope.
But the poet undercuts any atmosphere of total collegiality and un-
conditional sympathy that might initially seem to obtain in these lines,
through language that is highly suggestive of a basic underlying anxiety.
In the Public Eye
Horaces use of the subjunctive in probet haec, haec utinam . . . laudet, and
quibus haec . . . adridere velim, for example, emphasizes that it is his wish
that his verses be well received by this circle, not a secure declaration of
an established truth. Similarly, the care with which Horace species that
he names Pollio, Messalla, and rest of his second group not in order to
curry favor with them, but to pay a compliment to close friends (ambi-
tione relegata te dicere possum), serves to remind us of the inherent diculty
of making such an addressthe challenge it poses of striking just the
right note of polite familiarity and the possibility that such praises will
be misinterpreted as base sycophancy.
13
That Horace plausibly presents
himself as having to make such clarications makes clear the extent to
which his relationship with this inner group of readers is to be read as
remaining indistinct or even potentially vulnerable.
Thus, Horace underscores the urgency with which he must anticipate
the reactions of his core readership. He has declared that he cares only for
the favor of the few and the docti, and so his concern is here apparently
only that his verses should be pleasing to these particular individuals. But
he has also suggested that a positive reaction on their part is evidently by
no means a fait accompli. They will be true critics, not simply his friends.
Horace calls the members of this core audience his amici, of course; but
their reception of his work is not guaranteed to be one of unqualied
enthusiasmindeed, this is precisely why it is of such overriding im-
portance. Doliturus, si placeant spe deterius nostra becomes something more
than a closing pleasantry: if the poet has assumed in this passage an out-
ward expression of friendly optimism, his inner anxiety is nonetheless
also readily apparent here.
. The Social Elite
It is particularly signicant that Maecenas as well as other socially and
politically prominent Romans such as Asinius Pollio and the aristocratic
Messalla Corvinus make their appearance in these, Horaces innermost
rings of audience. By declaring his intention to win the approval of these
men above alldespite the attendant implication that they may be hard
to please and his relationship with them not entirely secureHorace
self-consciously aligns himself with the very highest circles of Roman
society.
14
But such a claim is double-edged, as is so often the case with
Horaces statements concerning himself and his views. For in the very act
The Social Elite
of dening the core group of his best critics and truest audience, Horace
also implicitly acknowledges the existence of other readers, whose views
he may claim to discount but whose insults and attacks remain for him
a major source of irritation. Even as he shrugs o the importance of this
second audience, Horace portrays himself as being forced to admit that
their existence cannot wholly be disregarded and that they, too, have an
impact on him and his work.
Thus, we are led to the third ring of Horaces readership, made up
of the general body of the Roman elite: senators and equites not neces-
sarily on an intimate basis with the poet himself but socially powerful
and therefore important as potential readers of his poetry. Members of
these classes were, of course, heavily involved in the world of literature:
as patrons, as genuine or feigned enthusiasts of poetry (a major enter-
tainment for the upper classes of Rome, being heard or recited nightly
at dinner parties and at formal readings as well as in moments of pri-
vate leisure), and often as writers themselves. What is more, they would
have possessed a natural curiosity as to the character and family ori-
gins of all newcomers into their circles, not only the novi homines or
wealthy arrivistes who entered their political and social ambit but even (or
perhaps especially) any new and promising discoveries on the literary
scene. Taking this high-prole environment as his starting point, Horace
presents both his works and his social acceptability as coming under in-
tense scrutiny from these men, and himself as being abruptly thrust into
the hothouse climate of elite Roman society through his amicitia with
Maecenas no less than his promise and ability as a poet.
15
Horace often creates a strong impression of widespread hostility and
scorn directed at him by members of the social circles within which
he now moves. It is crucial for us to understand that this impression is
largely manufactured by the poet himself and is intended more to raise
the issue of a successful authors diculties in dealing with his audience
than to give straightforward expression to his troubles.
16
It is the poets
implication, and only his, that Roman society tended to look upon him
with suspicion as an unacceptable upstart of dubious social background.
Horaces depiction of his social woes must surely have had some basis in
actual experience, however, since otherwise the sheer implausibility of
his presented scenarios would have drastically undercut the impact of his
intended message on its original recipients. As a result, Horace accom-
modates dierent levels of veracity in his accounts of his background and
experiences. His personal statements are articial and self-consciously
In the Public Eye
made, but they also reect the tensions in his life that made such state-
ments necessary.
In Satires . Horace establishes this theme of social scorn by means
of a neat technique of double address, in which separate audiences are
simultaneously given very dierent messages. The poet lauds Maecenas
for his open-mindedness and virtue, as manifested by his refusal to sneer
at Horaces obscure origins despite the splendor of his own ancient and
glorious family tree ():
Non quia, Maecenas, Lydorum quidquid Etruscos
incoluit nis, nemo generosior est te,
nec quod avus tibi maternus fuit atque paternus,
olim qui magnis legionibus imperitarent,
ut plerique solent, naso suspendis adunco
ignotos, ut me libertino patre natum.
cum referre negas quali sit quisque parenti
natus, dum ingenuus . . .
None of the Lydians who settled the Etruscan lands is more nobly
born than you, Maecenas; at one time your grandfathers on both
your mothers and your fathers sides commanded mighty le-
gions. But despite this, you do not turn up a curved nose (as so
many are accustomed to do) at complete nobodiesnobodies
like me, the freedmans son. When you deny that it makes any
dierence what sort of father anyone has, as long as he himself
is freeborn . . .
The compliment is gracefully and skillfully handled, with the poet tact-
fully hinting that Maecenas has every right to be proud even as he praises
him for seeing such things for what they are truly worth and for prefer-
ring to focus instead on the merit of each individual.
17
It would have been
most gratifying to Maecenas to be addressed in this fashion.
18
At the same
time, howeveras the phrase ut plerique solent suggestsHorace implies
that he personally has been treated by others in Rome to a distressing
level of scrutiny and just the sort of hauteur of which Maecenass rare
character is free. The vehemence of expression with which Horace de-
scribes such snobbery, the vivid pungencyof naso suspendis adunco, imparts
to this passage a darker coloration of personal injury.
This sense one gets of the poets social diculties is conrmed when
he turns to consider his case in greater detail. Horace emphasizes the ex-
The Social Elite
asperation he feels at the mean-spiritedness and persistence of an attack
that he freely tells us has dogged him since his days as a military tribune
with Brutus, eight years before ():
Nunc ad me redeo libertino patre natum,
quem rodunt omnes libertino patre natum,
nunc, quia sim tibi, Maecenas, at olim,
quod mihi pareret legio Romana tribuno.
Now, to get back to my case: me, the freedmans son, whom
everyone bites at for being the freedmans son. Now they do
so because I am your friend, Maecenas, but at one time it was
because I was a military tribune, and a Roman legion obeyed my
commands.
A certain bitterness is further conveyed by the use of the verb rodere,
which carries with it associations of grinding, wearing consumption.
19
Thus, the poems more general discussion of the scrutiny and excori-
ation faced by novi homines takes on a more personal feel. Especially given
his emphasis on the insistence of public opinion in his own caseme,
quem rodunt omnes nunc [et] olimit is hard for the reader not to conclude
that Horaces experiences have shaped the overall resonance and thrust
of the poem.
Recall, after all, that he has already drawn our attention to the biting
contempt and carping of higher society towhich, he suggests, all parvenus
were subjected (Sat...):
nam ut quisque insanus nigris medium impediit crus
pellibus et latum demisit pectore clavum,
audit continuo: quis homo hic est? quo patre natus?
ut si qui aegrotet quo morbo Bassus, haberi
et cupiat formosus, eat quaecumque, puellis
iniciat curam quaerendi singula, quali
sit facie, sura, quali pede, dente, capillo:
sic qui promittit civis, urbem sibi curae,
imperium fore et Italiam, delubra deorum,
quo patre sit natus, num ignota matre inhonestus,
omnis mortalis curare et quaerere cogit.
For as soon as anyone is mad enough to bind the black straps
of a senators sandal up to the middle of his leg, and send the
In the Public Eye
broad senatorial stripe down his tunic, instantly he hears: Who
is this man? What did his father do? It is as though someone had
the sickness that Bassus has, and desires to be thought handsome:
if he goes out anywhere, he inspires the girls to inquire about
everything in detailwhat is his face like, how do his ankles
look, how are his feet, his teeth, his hair? In the same way, who-
ever declares that he will take care of the citizens and the city,
Italy and the empire, the temples of the godshe provokes all
mortals to become interested and nd out who his father was,
and whether he is disgraced by having an unknown mother.
This passage may not seem to apply directly to Horace at rst; he is quick
to deny any political or social ambition on his own part. But his charac-
terization of the remarks that invariably trail a newlymade senator hints
at a broader sympathy and sense of personal connection with what is
being described. These snide comments are fairly clearly made by other
senators from established families, but the scenario is presented in such
general terms as to apply to all any and all transgressors of what are per-
ceived to be their proper social bounds. There is an echo, for instance,
in the phrase quo patre . . . natus of Horaces charge of being libertino patre
natus, while the girls investigation of the hapless Bassus and his physical
features () is described with a rapid, choppy rhythm that seems to
symbolize the prying and intrusive questioning which, Horace tells us,
was customarily directed at any Roman arriviste, himself included. The
passage as a whole conveys an air of weary resignation to an experience
that was, for him, all too familiar.
There is, of course, more going on here than meets the eye, and
Horaces motivation for including all this information still requires some
cautious appraisal. For example, Horace makes only ambiguous refer-
ences to the attacks he specically claims to have suered and nowhere
openly conrms or denies the charge of libertino patre natus as it applies
to him. Indeed, some have argued that the particular charge of freed-
mans son was unjustied; Horaces father had been a respectable Italian,
a Sabellian from Venusia who had indeed been taken captive but only
as a mere child, after the fall of that city in .. Thus, he might have
been called an ex-slave only by the willfully malevolent.
20
If this was
indeed the case, libertino patre natus would have been therefore a most
invidious phrase, verging on the slanderous but with just enough basis
in fact to have staying powera useful and memorably derisive sobri-
The Social Elite
quet of the same stamp as the nicknames that are now often bestowed
upon politicians. If, however, Horaces father truly had been a slave,
this would simply mean that the attacks become much more straight-
forwardly biased and hostile. In any case, it is no wonder that Horace
presents himself as being so irritated by the persistence of the charge:
issues of truth or falsehood do not reduce its sting. But why has the poet
elected to drag these personally embarrassing issues into the open in the
rst place? It would seemthat his introduction of the whole issue of social
scorn is designed to serve as the foundation of a more personal project.
Horace desires above all to establish in this poem the overwhelming
impression that he is facing a tremendous hostility and disdain from all
corners, which manifests itself in cruel jibes and unpleasant muckraking
of his personal past. To ensure that this self-presentation does not trig-
ger suspicions of falseness or articiality, he couches it in the form of
unvarnished and deeply private confession, as if to say: This barrage of
attacks against me, my character, and my family line has prompted me to
discuss these matters in my poetry. Now that questions have been raised
by others, I am forced to demonstrate my virtue and solid worth. Overt
self-glorication might have seemed unattractive and inappropriate, but
by subtly establishing this pressing need for the clarication and defense
of his origins, Horace frees himself to speak at length about his back-
ground and to paint thereby an idealized, appealing self-portrait.
It is in this light that we should read Horaces purported autobiogra-
phy in the second half of Satires ., which consists primarily of revela-
tions of his past and present life as he wishes it to be understood by his
readers. In the face of such long-standing and obnoxious charges, Horace
invites his audience to look back with him to his past. As noted above,
the pretext for this excursus lies in the supposed hostilityof the disdainful
upper classes; thus, Horaces autobiography carries an invented but com-
pelling air of self-justication. He defends his association with Maecenas
and his position in the inner circles of the elite by demonstrating that his
background is suciently respectable for such an advancement and that
his own, irreproachable father inculcated in him a strong sense of high
moral principle, which makes him even more worthy of his temporal
success ():
21
si neque avaritiam neque sordes nec mala lustra
obiciet vere quisquam mihi, purus et insons,
ut me collaudem, si et vivo carus amicis;
In the Public Eye
causa fuit pater his . . .
. . . pudicum,
qui primus virtutis honos, servavit ab omni
non solum facto, verum opprobrio quoque turpi;
nec timuit, sibi ne vitio quis verteret, olim
si praeco parvas aut, ut fuit ipse, coactor
mercedes sequerer: neque ego essem questus: at hoc hunc
laus illi debetur et a me gratia maior.
Nil me paeniteat, sanum, patris huius . . .
If no one can justly accuse me of avarice or stinginess or de-
bauchery, and (if I may compliment myself ) if I live pure and
innocent, and dear to my friendsmy father is the reason for
it . . . He kept me chaste, which is the rst glory of virtue, and
protected me not only from every wicked deed but indeed from
all scandal as well. Nor was he worried that someone would hold
this to be his fault, if I should pursue a modest career as an auc-
tioneer or a tax collector like him. I would not have complained
in any case; but as things are, for this I owe him praise and all the
more gratitude. I could never be ashamed of my father, as long
as I am sane.
Through this carefully engineered process of apparent self-examination
and revelation, Horace presents himself as exploring with his readers his
memories and personal history. In so doing, he makes his direct response
to the larger theme of social hostility, both potential and actual. It is a
masterful technique of preemptive defense, in which the attacks of the
Roman elite are purposefully introduced and then answered by means
of plausible and apparently justiable autobiographical statement. As a
result, that Horace alludes to these attacks at all is of greater importance
than the relative truth of the attacks themselves. Even if he has created
this public issue of social scorn, as the perfect pretext for a strategic re-
invention of his own self-image, this only casts the essential diculties
of his social advancement into sharper relief.
. Criticism and Envy
Horace presents a very dierent sort of pressure as deriving not from
the sneers of the Roman elite but from the opposite assumption: that
Criticism and Envy
the poet himself is a comfortably ensconced member of that same select
group. On several occasions he suggests that this perception is widespread
among those who are not part of the social and political establishment of
Rome but who nevertheless are eager to join or at least become associated
with this charmed circle. In portraying his dealings with such individu-
alsthe fourth ring of his audienceHorace indirectly celebrates his
burgeoning public stature by representing himself as having become a
primary target for their curious mixture of hostility and sycophancy.
This ring can be thought of as containing both social detractors and
social climbers, who are dierentiated by the way in which the poet
characterizes their respective views of the elite and by their chances of
entering that elite themselves. The detractors rst: Horace ascribes the
hostility of this group to their jealousy of his social success, prompted
by the popular assumption (already encountered in our discussion of the
poet-patron relationship in chapter one) that he is Maecenass closest
friend and associate, privy even to vitally important matters of state.
22
Horace establishes his portrait of this section of his public with clever and
engaging scenes, in which conversational language and trivial, everyday
settings serve to emphasize the extent of this readership and the hostility
of their response. Exasperation seems evident enough in Satires ..
, where even as simple an occurrence as being spotted with Maecenas is
described as provoking widespread and rather sarcastic gossip: Per totum
hoc tempus subiectior in diemet horam/invidiae noster. ludos spectave-
rat una, /luserat in Campo: Fortunae lius! omnes (All this time, every
day and every hour, yours truly is subjected to envious comment. We
watch the games together, we play ball on the Campus: everyone says,
Oh, hes Fortunes favorite!).
As if to corroborate the view suggested by such remarks, Horace de-
picts his own slave Davus as using the traditional license of the Saturna-
lian festival to take a fewchoice digs at his masters unseemly desperation
to associate with his betters (Sat...):
. . . si nusquam es forte vocatus
ad cenam, laudas securum holus ac, velut usquam
vinctus eas, ita te felicem dicis amasque,
quod nusquam tibi sit potandum. iusserit ad se
Maecenas serum sub lumina prima venire
convivam: nemon oleum feret ocius? ecquis
audit? cum magno blateras clamore fugisque.
In the Public Eye
If it happens that you havent been invited to dinner anywhere,
you praise your carefree cabbage, and call yourself blessed and
love yourself because you dont have to go out drinking any-
whereas though you could only be dragged out of the house
with chains. Then, latejust around the time when they light
the lampsMaecenas orders you to come be a guest at his place:
Someone bring me the lantern oil! Whats taking so long? Is
anyone listening to me? With a huge uproar you babble on, and
run o.
Through the character of Davus, Horace presents himself in a most comi-
cal and unattering light: complacent and self-congratulatory modera-
tion goes right out the window whenever Maecenas invites him to din-
ner, to be replaced by farcical hurry and agitation. Horace has already
suggested that the public believes this of him; here he seemingly admits
that not even his slaves have been fooled. Thus, the anger with which
he portrays himself as greeting Davuss analysis () becomes the
pathetic rage of one forced to confront an unpalatable truth.
23
As else-
where in Horaces poetry, self-deprecation enhances the credibility of
the message conveyed. But the relative truth of Davuss charges of incon-
stancy, adultery, and gluttony is not the point at issue, since this cannot
be securely determined in any case. Rather, the poems signicance lies
in the picture it presents of Horaces extreme diculties in controlling
the negative perceptions of others (even within his own household)
diculties, moreover, that carry a certain strange attraction for him.
For what is particularly striking about Horaces handling of this issue
is how he presents himself also as paradoxically almost welcoming these
attacks. Not only does he admit to having problems in dealing with the
resentment of the envious; at times he openly acknowledges his pri-
vate satisfaction at being subjected to this particular sort of harrassment.
Horaces exasperation is thrown into reverse, as he deates his earlier
self-image by demonstrating that he nds this particular sort of public
pressure and scrutiny rather appealing, and that he welcomes the atten-
dant status of Fortunes favorite conferred by his close association in
the public eye with the gure of Maecenas.
24
In his rmest and most open
admission of this, the poet comments on the reactions he gets when he
pushes through a crowded city street (Sat...):
luctandum in turba et facienda iniuria tardis.
quid vis, insane, et quam rem agis? improbus urget
Criticism and Envy
iratis precibus: tu pulses omne quod obstat,
ad Maecenatem memori si mente recurras.
hoc iuvat et melli est, non mentiar . . .
I have to struggle in the crowd and give out injuries to those who
are too slow. Some low-life pushes with angry curses: What
are you trying to do, madman? What are you doing? You would
strike everything thats in your way, if you were hurrying back
to Maecenas and thinking only about that. This pleases me and
is like honeyI cannot lie.
Hoc iuvat et melli est, non mentiar. It is a remarkable statement, when one
pauses to consider the way in which it positions Horace among his vari-
ous audiences. In a single line, Horace rst and foremost acknowledges
to Maecenas directly that he is indeed grateful for the great mans friend-
ship and attered by its widespread recognition (hoc iuvat et melli est).
He then immediately tries to deect any sneers or allegations of toady-
ism that might come from his outside readers by suggesting that only
with great reluctance does he admit it means this much to him to be
Maecenass friend (non mentiar). Thus, the poet both celebrates and
deprecates his lofty position, boldly and unexpectedly giving simulta-
neous reassurance to both sets of readers. Rarely have the expectations of
two distinct and incompatible audiences been accommodated with such
skill, economy, and audacity.
25
But Horaces adoption of this complicated stance does not preclude
more direct defenses against similar charges. Earlier, in Satires ., Horace
creates a most pleasing image of his contented daily life, far removed
from the sweaty hustle and crush of social or political intrigue. By por-
traying his humble existence and pursuits in this fashion, he demonstrates
that his character is equally modest and retiring ():
. . . quacumque libido est,
incedo solus; percontor quanti holus ac far;
fallacem Circum vespertinumque pererro
saepe Forum; adsisto divinis; inde domum me
ad porri et ciceris refero laganique catinum . . .
deinde eo dormitum, non sollicitus mihi quod cras
surgendum sit mane . . .
ad quartam iaceo; post hanc vagor; aut ego, eo lecto
aut scripto quod me tacitum iuvet, unguor olivo . . .
In the Public Eye
ast ubi me fessum sol acrior ire lavatum
admonuit, fugio Campum lusumque trigonem.
pransus non avide, quantum interpellet inani
ventre diem durare, domesticus otior. Haec est
vita solutorum misera ambitione gravique.
I walk by myself wherever my fancy takes me; I inquire about
the price of vegetables and grain; often I wander around the
fraud-lled Circus, and, in the evening, the Forum; I listen to
the fortune-tellers; then I go back home to my plate of leeks and
chickpeas and oilcake . . . then I go to bed, untroubled by the
thought of having to get up early the next morning . . . I lie in
bed until ten, then I take a stroll; or, having read or written some-
thing I like when Im being quiet, I clean myself up with oil . . .
But when I amtired, and the hotter sun of the afternoon tells me
to go have a bath, I ee the Campus and the ball-games. I have
a modest lunchjust enough to prevent me lasting through the
day with an empty stomach. I putter around at home. This is the
life of those who are free from wretched and weighty ambition.
Thus, the argument runs, attacks from the detractors among his audi-
ence are doubly unfair, because they are unjustied: Horace does not
meddle in aairs of state, nor does he otherwise exploit his powerful
friends for personal gain.
26
We recall from chapter one (and from Sat..
above) that Horace often portrays himself as resenting even the imputa-
tion that he has been left out of Maecenass inner circle. But in Satires .
he leads his audience to believe in his isolation through precisely oppo-
site means, by presenting himself as loving his leisure, his otium. The life
of placid ataraxia or impassive calmness that the poet here depicts can be
read either as comprising another brave claim of personal independence
or, more subtly, as representing Horaces reluctant admission that he is
painfully aware of his separation from the events and lively happenings
of Maecenass immediate orbit. In either case, Horace has claimed that a
major segment of his readership believes that he does occupy a prominent
place in Maecenass aairs and therefore in Roman society. Once again,
it is the perception rather than the facts that receives the real emphasis.
Horaces ambivalent attitude toward his relationship with Maecenas
nds its echo here, as he turns his mingled feelings of dissatisfaction and
gratication into the subject of wry self-analysis. His several reactions to
the publics hostile perception of his success inject a certain ambivalence
Criticism and Envy ,
or changeability into his self-image, lending it a rather protean quality
that enables himto deliver separate messages simultaneously to the many
dierent segments of his readership.
Climbers, by contrast, come across not as attacking Horace so much
as trying to impose themselves on him and, thereby, prot from his rise
in society. Horace recounts several episodes of repugnant sycophancy as
these individuals either try to befriend him to gain access to his inuen-
tial friends, or pester himwith various petitions and inquiries about state
secrets. In Satires :.o, Horace describes one such hopeful, who latches on
to the poet apparently in the unshakeable belief that he can command
Maecenass attention at will (,,,) Imprimat his, cura, Maecenas signa
tabellis. dixeris, experiar si vis, potes, addit et instat (Please make
sure that Maecenas puts his seal on these documents. \ou say, I will
try. \ou can if you choose to, he replies, and does not leave you alone).
An amusing record of an annoying encounter, perhaps, but the humor
of this little vignette should not obscure its attendant implication that
Horace was forced continually to fend o such impositions fromrandom
passersby.
On other occasions, it is a matter of people accosting Horace and de-
manding to knowwhat is happening at the highest levels of Roman poli-
tics and aairs. The poet has just nished explaining that his conversa-
tions with Maecenas consist of the most innocent and idle trivialities
imaginable (Sat.:.o.,o). Lven so, he declares with irritation (,o,)
frigidus a rostris manat per compita rumor,
quicumque obvius est me consulit o bone, nam te
scire, deos quoniam proprius contingis, oportet,
numquid de Dacis audisti nil equidem. ut tu
semper eris derisor! at omnes di exagitent me,
si quicquam. quid militibus promissa Triquetra
praedia Caesar an est Itala tellure daturus
iurantem me scire nihil mirantur ut unum
scilicet egregii mortalem altique silenti.
A cold rumor runs down from the Rostra through the streets,
everyone I run into on the street asks me Tell me, sirfor you
ought to know, being so close to the godshave you heard any
news about the Dacians Not me. Oh, youyoure always
playing the fool! Heaven help me if I know anything. What
Caesar promised land grants to his soldierswill they be in Sicily
In the Public Eye
or in Italy? When I swear that I know nothing, they all mar-
vel at me as someone who is clearly unusually and profoundly
close-mouthed.
We are led to see this pressure as being all the more exasperating since
Horace has just admitted that he scarcely has access to such informa-
tion.
27
But everyone apparently assumes that he does, and in the context
of Horaces strategic development of his public image, this is far more
signicant.
28
It conrms the strength and currency of the poets reputa-
tion (if not his actual status) as an important individual in Roman society
and government.
Satires ., of course, comprises one of Horaces most extensive and
memorable poetic treatments of this sort of encounter, reecting again
his need to balance the dierent interests of the various sectors of his
audience. In much the same way as seen elsewhere, the episode of the
pest functions simultaneously on a number of levels, as Horace ex-
presses his dismay at being subjected to the unwanted attentions of social
climbers, attempts to ensure a sympathetic reading through winsome
self-portrayal, and reassures his most desired readers as to his trustworthi-
ness. The apparent autobiographical veracity of the account, bolstered by
scenes of personal discomture (as the pest tries hard to turn the reluctant
Horace into his gateway to the world of the elite), enhances the credi-
bility of the narrative and establishes a seemingly intimate connection
between reader and poet. Horaces willingness to admit the indignities
into which his preposterous plight has forced him ()
. . . misere discedere quaerens,
ire modo ocius, interdum consistere, in aurem
dicere nescioquid puero, dum sudor ad imos
manaret talos . . .
Wretchedly trying to escape, now walking quickly, every so
often coming to a stop, whispering who knows what into my
slaves ear, while the sweat trickles down to the bottom of my
heels
his appealing use of self-mocking humor as he recounts the episode
(as in Demitto auriculas, ut iniquae mentis asellus. I lower my ears, like
a stubborn donkey []), the dry wit of his various comments ( Omnis
composui. Felices! nunc ego resto. Ive buried all my relatives. Theyre
lucky! Now Im left. []), and the wonderfully funny encounter with
The Outer Ring
Horaces friend Fuscus: all these features of the poem serve to win the
readers aections and sympathies, even as they convince him of the
genuineness of Horaces mingled sense of annoyance and amusement at
being hounded in this way.
29
Lacking inside knowledge of Horaces life
or of the true nature of Maecenass circle, we nd ourselves wanting to
believe the message of this vivid and seemingly open, unguarded anec-
dote.
Thus, on a level deeper than the mere venting of his irritation, Horace
in Satires . tailors his response to both the outer and inner rings of his
audience. After all, the pest only wants Horace to do for him exactly
what Virgil and Varius did for Horace; that is, to set up an introduction
to Maecenas (; cf. Sat...). This was a common service amici
would provide for their less fortunate contacts.
30
But Horace declares he
will not do this, which seems to underscore both his special position in
Maecenass circle and his essentially awkward, troubled relationship with
that segment of his readership here represented by the pest. We might
also consider Horaces retort to the pests speculations regarding Maece-
nas and his friends (). As Niall Rudd observed, This compliment is
not addressed to Maecenas, and we are made to feel that it might never
have been uttered had it not been for the vulgar insinuations of the pest.
One is reminded of the close of ., where by naming his opponents
and revealing their malicious attitude Horace is enabled to arm his re-
spect for Maecenas, Messalla, Pollio and the rest.
31
The self-image that
Horace projects in this poem allows him to make indirect assurances to
Maecenas as to his continuing reliability and loyalty, without jeopardiz-
ing his carefully established rapport with his larger general audience. At
the same time, it smooths other readers acceptance of Horaces picture
not only of his life in Maecenass circle but also of the sort of daily ha-
rassment to which the poet is subjected as a celebrity and the friend of
celebrities. Thus does Horace maintain his framework of multiple audi-
ences and double implications.
. The Outer Ring
Beyond this circle of pests and detractors lies the outermost of the rings of
Horaces audience: individuals who have no direct contact with the poet
except through reading his works and who, in his representation, enter-
tain no hope of entering his circles or of following his social trajectory.
In the Public Eye
Horace does not devote as much time to the depiction of these readers
as he does to those discussed above; unsurprising, perhaps, given his em-
phasis on his direct relationships with the various sections of his public.
He says little about their origins or place in society, and they receive
his attention only insofar as they read and respond to his poetry. One
might speculate that this ring would consist of the literate but uncon-
nected populace of Romelow-grade poetasters, impoverished gramma-
tici, Greeks without powerful Roman patrons, and the likebut there is
no way to be certain.
32
In any case, the composition of this outer readership is less impor-
tant than the fact that Horace almost invariably treats them with great
disdain. The literary hacks of Rome in particular come in for his con-
tempt, not only because of their mediocre verses but also because they
have slandered him and attacked his work. Horace prefaces his address to
his core readership with an insulting dismissal of those critics whom he
decribes as pesky bedbugs and oash scribblers, one of them a crony of
Hermogenes Tigellius, a frequent whipping boy of his (Sat...):
33
Men moveat cimex Pantilius, aut cruciet quod
vellicet absentem Demetrius, aut quod ineptus
Fannius Hermogenis laedat conviva Tigelli?
Should that louse Pantilius bother me? Should it be a torture
to me that Demetrius mocks me behind my back, or that I am
attacked by that nincompoop Fannius, the dinner guest of Her-
mogenes Tigellius?
Even fteen years later, with the publication of Epistles , Horace depicts
his relations with the hacks as having hardly improved; in Epistles . he
complains heatedly that, in an attempt to be just like him, such writers
clumsily mimic what they imagine from reading his works to be his
actual way of life ():
. . . Forum Putealque Libonis
mandabo siccis, adimam cantare severis.
hoc simul edixi, non cessavere poetae
nocturno certare mero, putere diurno . . .
decipit exemplar vitiis imitabile: quod si
pallerem casu, biberent exsangue cuminum.
o imitatores, servum pecus, ut mihi saepe
bilem, saepe iocum vestri movere tumultus!
The Outer Ring
I will hand over the Forum and the Puteal of Libo to those who
are sober, and I will forbid stern people from singing. Ever since
I made this declaration, the poets have never ceased to do battle
in all-night drinking bouts, and stink of it all day . . . A pat-
tern of faults you can copy is deceptiveif by chance I should
grow pale, they would drink the bloodless cumin. Oh you imi-
tators, you herd of slaves! How often your bustling nonsense has
provoked my rage, how often it has prompted my amusement!
There is, of course, one signicant dierence from the situation Horace
described in the Satires; he is now avidly (though supercially) imitated
rather than pestered, slandered, or criticized. This revelation seems to
underscore Horaces growing stature as one of the foremost poets of
Rome, centrally placed in the public spotlight.
34
But his portrayed re-
sponse to all this remains as involved and complex as it was before in
his anecdote of the pest and in the earlier discussion of his relationship
with Maecenas. Ut mihi saepe bilem, saepe iocum movere: Horaces wonder-
ful phrase captures neatly the same intersection of dierent personal re-
actions to public dicultiesthe same mix of irritation, amusement,
and perhaps even a certain pleasure in receiving such close attention.
In more general terms, Horace provides us with ample evidence of
what amounts to the central theme of his portrayed relationship with
this outer ring of readers: scornful dismissal of what he characterizes as
unsophisticated and vulgar popular literary taste. Early on, in declaring
his commitment to careful, polished composition, Horace rmly rejects
the notion of pandering to the crowd and questions the value of their
praises. Instead, as we have seen, he argues for the ideal of the small, elite
audience (as embodied by his core readership), citing with approval the
example of the haughty actress Arbuscula (Sat...):
Saepe stilum vertas, iterum quae digna legi sint
scripturus, neque te ut miretur turba labores,
contentus paucis lectoribus. an tua demens
vilibus in ludis dictari carmina malis?
non ego; nam satis est equitem mihi plaudere, ut audax,
contemptis aliis, explosa Arbuscula dixit.
Often you must turn over your stilus and use the eraser, if you
are going to write something which is worth reading a second
time; nor should you strive for the crowd to gape at you, but
In the Public Eye
be content with a few readers. Or are you so mad as to prefer
that your songs be dictated in low-grade schools? Not me. Its
enough for me if the knights applaud me, as daring Arbuscula
said, scorning the rest, when she was hissed o the stage.
35
A certain basic contempt for the acclamation of the common herd is also
on display in Epistles ., where Horace warns his personied book about
the dangers and general undesirability of excessive popularity ():
carus eris Romae, donec te deserat aetas;
contrectatus ubi manibus sordescere vulgi
coeperis, aut tineas pasces taciturnus inertis
aut fugies Uticam aut vinctus mitteris Ilerdam . . .
hoc quoque te manet, ut pueros elementa docentem
occupet extremis in vicis balba senectus.
You will be well loved in Rome, until your youth deserts you;
when you have started to grow soiled, all worn out by the hands
of the mob, either you will in silence become food for the un-
cultivated bookworms, or you will ee to Utica or be sent in
chains to Ilerda . . . this end waits for you as well, that stuttering
old age will seize you while you teach boys their letters out in
the furthest suburbs.
Although elsewhere (as in Sat..) Horace portrays himself as being
rather gratied by his burgeoning fame as a poet, here he likens the pros-
pect of his works wide circulation in the provinces to a sentence of
banishment and ultimate degradation.
We must, of course, bear in mind that Horaces claims of disdain for
this outermost and largest ring of his audience are made purely in the
interests of conscious self-presentation, and as such they cannot be se-
curely taken to represent his deeply held convictions. After all, in other
circumstances, the poet openly declares the pride and satisfaction he feels
in knowing that his poetry is so popular. In Odes ., a triumphant poem
placed near the heart of the original collection of Odes , Horaces ref-
erences to various exotic places and peoples serve as a shorthand synop-
sis for the fame he is destined to achieve throughout the world for his
achievements in lyric ():
iam Daedaleo notior Icaro
visam gementis litora Bosphori
Audiences and Images
Syrtesque Gaetulas canorus
ales Hyperboreosque campos.
me Colchus et, qui dissimulat metum
Marsae cohortis, Dacus et ultimi
noscent Geloni, me peritus
discet Hiber Rhodanique potor.
Nowa singing bird more famous than Icarus the son of Daedalus,
I will see the shores of the groaning Bosphorus, and the Gaetulian
Syrtes, and the elds of Hyperborea. The Colchian will know
me, and the Dacian who pretends to have no fear of the Marsian
cohort, and the far-o Geloni. The Spaniard and the drinker of
the Rhones waters will study me and grow learned.
There is no hint here of contemptuous disdain; instead, Horace speaks as
one radiant with pride.
36
But this is the audience of posterity, not neces-
sarily of his contemporaries (as is suggested by the future tense of noscent
and discet). Since there can be no question of their coming into direct
contact with him, Horace is free to celebrate his future popularity in the
form of generic declarations of immortalitythat is to say, this segment
of his audience is so unusual in its distant relationship to him that it is
eectively unique and therefore subject to a very dierent form of ad-
dress. For Horaces contemporary outermost readers, the story is a very dif-
ferent one: the underlying question of access, of admission to the rings of
Horaces audience, remains the decisive factor in their relationship with
him. And if Horace is sometimes excluded from the most desired circles,
so too does he sometimes cut o potential readers from his audience in
turn. Thus, he proclaims in Odes ., Odi profanum vulgus et arceo (I
hate the uninitiated crowd and I keep themaway fromme).
37
The empha-
sis here is on the words arceo and especially profanum; Horace is not simply
heaping scorn on the hoi polloi of Rome (for who in his world would
imagine even trying to speak to the rabble) but rather points out that
readers can be excluded even from the outermost ring of his audience.
. Conclusion: Audiences and Images
On some occasions Horace presents his main concern, as a poet in the
public eye, as resting with his immediate associates; elsewhere, with the
man in the street who pesters him with unwanted attention; or, as
, In the Public Eye
in Odes :.:o, with the broadest possible levels of his readership. As is
always the case with Horace, the right context matters. In each situa-
tion he presents, the poet is careful to emphasize dierent aspects of his
overall relationship with his audience as a wholehis irritation at their
attacks or clumsy impositions, or his sense of gratication at their adu-
lation. Thus, at every level Horace rst creates a separate problem (be it
social snobbery, facile imitation, or something else) and then crafts for it
a separate response within his poetry. Lach of these responses is carefully
tailored to the characteristics and requirements of the particular ring
under consideration. In this way, Horaces overall self-presentation is im-
measurably strengthened by means of the poets reactions to crises and
pressures to which he has directed our attention.
These themes are all brought together in Epistles .,, in which Horace
alludes in quick succession to his relationships with each of the afore-
mentioned rings of his audience (,,,,)
. . . iuvat immemorata ferentem
ingenuis oculisque legi manibusque teneri.
Scire velis, mea cur ingratus opuscula lector
laudet ametque domi, premat extra limen iniquus
non ego ventosae plebis suragia venor . . .
non ego, nobilium scriptorum auditor et ultor
grammaticas ambire tribus et pulpita dignor.
It pleases me, as I bring forth things untold, that I am read by
the eyes and held in the hands of the free-born. Do you want to
knowwhy the ungrateful reader praises and loves my little works
in the privacy of his own home but unfairly criticizes them in
public I do not seek out the votes of the ckle mob . . . I do
not condescend to wander around the tribes and lecterns of the
grammatici, I am the audience and the avenger of noble writers.
It pleases him most, he tells Maecenas, that his Iatin lyrics are read and
valued by the ingenui; the echo here of his early emphasis in Satires .o
on the importance of ingenuitas in Maecenass circle reintroduces us to
the inner ring of Horaces core readership. At the same time, however,
Horace is careful to reiterate that although he may have become ex-
tremely popular, he is still subject to unjust attacks mea . . . opuscula lector
laudet ametque domi, premat extra limen iniquus. This, the poet alleges, is be-
cause he continues to disregard popular opinion as well as the work of
the hacksthe plebs ventosa and the grammatici alike.
Audiences and Images
And so, Horace tells us, he has come in for a great deal of trouble
and aggravation. His volatile mixture of considerable public prominence
and a proclaimed determination to disregard the responses of all but his
chosen inner readership has left him all the more vulnerable to criticism
as being haughty and too far above himself; conventional apologetic de-
fenses are of no use in such a situation (Epist...):
Hinc illae lacrimae. spissis indigna theatris
scripta pudet recitare et nugis addere pondus,
si dixi, rides, ait, et Iovis auribus ista
servas: dis enim manare poetica mella
te solum, tibi pulcher. ad haec ego naribus uti
formido . . .
Hence those tears. If I say, I am ashamed to recite my un-
worthy writings in the crowded theaters and add weight to tri-
es, someone answers: Youre jokingyou are preserving that
stu of yours for the ears of Jupiter. You think you alone are dis-
tilling poetic honey, you think youre beautiful. I am afraid to
turn my nose up at this.
But there is here a marked qualitative change fromhis earlier tribulations
at the hands of his critics: his popularity is now treated as an inescap-
able fact. And though irritated by the continuation of public criticism,
Horace is forced to admit (non mentiar, as before) that he is pleased (ad
haec ego naribus uti formido). Once again, his portrayal of his relationship
with his rings of audience is one of complicated and intertwined, even
ambivalent responses. Horace takes care to ensure that his readers under-
stand the several positions he adopts for what theyare: defensive postures,
forced on him by the necessities of the moment.
Of course, Horace does not invariably employ this technique of mul-
tiple and sometimes conicting addresses to dierent audiences; and it is
important to remember that considerations of genre aected the poets
treatment of his self-image and his dealings with his general public. For
instance, in many of the Odes, he projects an image of himself as vates
distant and authoritative, and very dierent from the complicated and
all-too-human Horace whom we have seen so deeply engaged with all
the dierent sectors of his audience. One might imagine at rst that in
these poems he is retreating to a more detatched and impersonal voice,
in an attempt to make a single ecient and eective response to the
challenges of public pressure. But rather he is operating within the con-
In the Public Eye
straints and possibilities of his genre; lyric necessarily makes less allow-
ance for the elaborate treatment of the exigencies of daily existence and
oers fewer opportunities for vivid, engaging self-presentation than do
the Satires and Epistles. The poet therefore calls up a dierent type of self-
image, one less caught up with the portrayal of his specic and personal
concerns, and thus better suited to the explication of more overarch-
ing literary themes and the articulation of a more fundamental vision of
poetry.
38
When circumstances change, and he returns to what is cast as a
more intimate and confessional context, Horace revives his methods of
artful self-presentation and carefully orchestrated address.
It is important to bear this qualication in mind, especially as it only
emphasizes the essential genius and subtlety of his public defense. Horace
manages to accommodate the diering requirements of all the literary
genres in which he writes, even as he labors rst to dene and then to
counter all the various forms of public response to himself and his works.
In this way, the poet creates a strong sense, if not of anxiety, then cer-
tainly of complicated unease at the scrutiny continually directed at him
from dierent quarters and in dierent ways. He establishes an unshak-
able image of himself uncomfortably in the spotlight, caught in the
midst of many dierent and occasionally conicting demands and ex-
pectations. Where his relationship with Maecenas was presented as one
of unspoken expectations and ever-shifting levels of intimacy, his re-
lationship with his public, made up of xed circles of readers in various
quarters, is in its way just as great a challenge. Here, the changeability and
uncertainty of his situation springs from the sheer variety of his readers
and their reactions to his work.
Such is the framework of public pressure he presents. As though we
were looking into a series of mirrors, we as readers are confronted with
Horaces views of his readership in all its manifestations. In this way, not
only does Horace give expression to the problems that have accompa-
nied his success, he also forces us to consider what it means to be a public
gure, to be famous, to have an audience. This, he tells us, is often a mat-
ter of endless attacks and conicting expectations, of gratifying adulation
and irritating impositions from those around you, of somehow address-
ing a potentially innite variety of demands. Never has the complexity of
the relationship of author and audience, or the heavy price of celebrity,
been more vividly and skillfully portrayed.

Craft and Concern
Modern readers commonly base their reading and reception of Horace
on two problematic assumptions: rst, that he is an artist in the mod-
ern sense, one who operates in obedience to a single, universal guiding
ideal of poetry; and second, that he explicitly lays out this ideal in his
poetry for the aesthetic edication of his readers.
1
It is certainly true
that when Horace turns to reect on what poetry is, how it should be
written, and what it represents, he treats these subjects with such care
and apparent earnestness that it is easy on the surface to accept his state-
ments as representing the genuine declaration of his actual literary prin-
ciples.
2
However, we must constantly remind ourselves that Horaces self-
presentation is above all a poetic ction, that he freely manipulates, alters,
and abandons individual facets of this portrayal as it becomes useful or
necessary. To the extent that he argues about the nature of poetry and
articulates seemingly ideal visions of the poets role in both private and
public contexts, he does so primarily in order to present himself and his
works to his audience in the best possible critical light.
After all, as we observed in chapter two, Horace separately addresses
many dierent rings of this audience throughout his poetry, marking
each such ring with unique characteristics as well as a dierent style of
interaction with himself; in this way, he projects his self-image against a
variegated background of dierent social relationships. In similar fashion
Horace oers an array of what he presents as personal statements about
his craft and identity as a poet but forges from them not one but a series
of separate visions of poetry and its signicance. He thereby forces us to
acknowledge that his proclaimed ideals of poetic composition exist as
essentially self-conscious creations and, as such, are not necessarily rep-
resentative of his actual beliefs. Although what Horace chooses to say
about poetry and specically about himself as a poet does not necessarily
oer us a secure insight into his true conception of himself or his art, his

Craft and Concern

poetic treatments of his craft do represent elaborate and fascinating ex-
ercises in actively defensive self-presentationand constitute a further
source of evidence for the way in which he intended his situation in all
its aspects to be perceived.
. Poetry as Practical Tool
This issue is best approached in terms of the three main conceptions of
poetry that Horace articulates throughout his literarycorpus. We shall see
that although each might initially appear to represent the poets genu-
ine views, internal contradictions and a certain level of incompatibility
between his dierent presented ideals prevent us fromaccepting any par-
ticular one at face value. First among these conceptions is that of poetryas
a practical tool for use in his personal aairs. On several occasions, Horace
deploys what he presents as intimate and deeply personal recollections
in order to introduce the somewhat unromantic notion that poetry, for
him, is nothing more than a mechanism for getting through life.
3
In ac-
cordance with this model Horace suggests that he exercises his poetic
skills not in the pursuit of truth or beauty but simply in order to deal
with all the diculties and other small events of his daily existence
a surprising statement, one whose validity he carefully encourages us to
question even as he advances it.
If we distinguish the historical order of publication of Horaces works
from the ctional, autobiographical order that can be reconstructed
from his various anecdotes and personal remarks, we can see that accord-
ing to the latter, Horace portrays this resolutely practical vision of poetry
as being virtually the earliest one he embraced. In Epistles ., Horace
recalls the end of his halcyon days as a young student in Athens, when
he risked and lost everything by joining the Republican cause in ..
():
dura sed emovere loco me tempora grato
civilisque rudem belli tulit aestus in arma
Caesaris Augusti non responsura lacertis.
unde simul primum dimisere Philippi
decisis humilem pennis inopemque paterni
et laris et fundi, paupertas impulit audax
ut versus facerem. sed quod non desit habentem
Poetry as Practical Tool
quae poterunt umquam satis expurgare cicutae,
ni melius dormire putem quam scribere versus?
But troubled times dislodged me from that pleasant spot, and
the surge of civil war dragged me in, inexperienced though I
was, to carry weapons that would be no match for the arms of
Caesar Augustus. As soon as Philippi sent me away from there
cast down with my wings clipped, and deprived of my fathers
home and estatedaring poverty drove me to compose poetry.
But now I have all that I need; there is no hemlock treatment
that could cure me suciently, if I were so mad as to think it
better to spend my time writing verse instead of sleeping.
With a convincing show of honest confession, Horace casts himself as
admitting that he only turned to poetry out of desperation, when he was
dogged by poverty and isolation in the aftermath of Philippi: paupertas
impulit . . . ut versus facerem. By describing himself as having become inops
as a direct result of losing his paternal inheritance of the family house and
country estate, he emphasizes that in becoming a full-time poet he had
made a calculated response to specic practical circumstancesto wit,
the urgent need to make a living of some kind.
4
Now that he is happily
secure, Horace suggests, he has no further interest in composing verse
seriously; indeed, he would be mad to do so ().
Considered strictly in terms of the poems immediate context, this
highly businesslike conception of poetry and its usefulness is oered up
as Horaces personal view, the vision that motivates him as a poet. But
the claim is polemical and transparently dubious, being made primarily
in order to explain to Florus why he hasnt sent him any letters or poems
recently.
5
The hollowness of the assertion is further indicated by the
fact that, according to the aforementioned autobiographical order of
events, Horace had already begun to produce poetry while in Athens,
writing poems such as certain of the Epodes for the entertainment of his
fellow students.
6
It also seems directly to contradict his exultant decla-
ration in Satires .released in .., after his receipt of the Sabine
estatethat dives, inops . . . quisquis erit vitae scribam color, (rich or
poor, no matter what sort of life I lead, I will write []). Thus, serious
qualications of Horaces paupertas argument begin to arise when one
reads his statements in the light of what can be determined elsewhere
regarding his circumstances and views.
7
Craft and Concern
The complex ramications of such a treatment cohere oddly with the
picture Horace gives in Epistles ., where he likens his book to a pros-
titute, eager to put itself up for sale to one reader after another in the
booksellers district ():
Vertumnum Ianumque, liber, spectare videris,
scilicet ut prostes Sosiorum pumice mundus.
odisti clavis et grata sigilla pudico;
paucis ostendi gemis et communia laudas,
non ita nutritus. fuge quo descendere gestis! . . .
carus eris Romae, donec te deserat aetas;
contrectatus ubi manibus sordescere vulgi
coeperis . . .
You seem, my book, to be looking toward the bookshops at Ver-
tumnus and Janusits obvious that you want to be polished up
by the pumice stones of the Sosius brothers, and go up for sale.
You hate the librarys keys and seals, so dear to chaste books. It
makes you unhappy to be shown o only to a few men, and you
like going around in public. You certainly werent raised this way.
Well, go ahead! Run o to the level youre so eager to sink to! . . .
You will be well loved in Rome, until your youth deserts you;
when you have started to grow soiled, and all worn out by the
hands of the mob.
This unsympathetic characterization of the commercialization of his
poetry is the dark reverse, as it were, of paupertas impulit audax ut versus
facerem.
8
And yet, here too the essential notion of treating poetry as a per-
sonal commodity or useful tool appears to go unchallenged. For however
scornfully he may disown his book for its shamelessness, Horace goes on
to acknowledge its forthcoming wide circulation and even calls on it to
spread word of the poet himself ():
cum tibi sol tepidus pluris admoverit auris,
me libertino natum patre et in tenui re
maiores pinnas nido extendisse loqueris,
ut quantum generi demas virtutibus addas;
me primis urbis belli placuisse domique . . .
When the warm sun brings you a wider audience, you will say
that I was the freedmans son and that frompoverty I rose above
Poetry as Practical Tool
my station, and spread wings larger than my nest. That way, you
will add to your merits what you take fromyour birth: that I was
pleasing to the rst men of Rome, the elite in war and at home . . .
It is important to note that the personal triumph Horace wishes his
book to celebrate is not, rst and foremost, that of his achievements
in literature but of his successful social advancement. The crucial point
being made here is that Horace is a totally self-made man, who raised
himself from poverty and obscurity to occupy a lofty and honored place
in Roman society. That he has accomplished this precisely through the
writing of poetry means that his book will serve as a doubly eec-
tive form of self-advertisement.
9
How this advertisement is received, of
course, depends on whether one sees Horace as a self-promoting arriviste
or as an established poet making an arch and ironic comment about the
social prominence his craft has won for him. Thus, the rings of audience
reappear in their double role as subjects and recipients of Horaces work.
The message one gets from Epistles . and . is that poetic com-
position is not always undertaken strictly in the spirit of ars gratia artis,
but that books of poetry are sometimes written in order to earn a living
or to enhance the social reputation of their authors. Thus, poetry here
remains an important aspect of Horaces self-image only insofar as it is
what enabled him to achieve his worldly success. Poetry is presented as
being largely practical in its purpose and applicationa specic means to
an end, not an end in itself.
10
By advancing such a view, even with quali-
cations, Horace distinguishes himself from poets of earlier generations.
We might compare this portrait of Horace as a resourceful individual
surviving and succeeding through his eorts with poets such as Luci-
lius and Catullus, who give a far less complicated impression of well-o
gentlemen amusing themselves and their friends with their keen obser-
vations about the events and inhabitants of the elite world they com-
fortably occupied as their birthright all their lives. Horace, by contrast,
operates in a far more variegated world of potential responses.
Horace places a similar emphasis onthe personal utilityof poetry when
he projects a picture of his verses as being his individual paternal in-
heritance and his private method of making sense of the world around
him.
11
On the most basic level, this formulation springs as above from
what Horace presents as highly intimate revelation; he introduces it as
part of his defense against criticisms he claims to have sustained for sup-
posedly making ad hominem attacks in his work. In seeking excuse from
Craft and Concern
the charge, he invokes memories of his boyhood, with an aectionate
portrait of his fathers customary moral instruction (Sat...):
. . . liberius si
dixero quid, si forte iocosius, hoc mihi iuris
cum venia dabis. insuevit pater optimus hoc me,
ut fugerem exemplis vitiorum quaeque notando.
If I have said anything too freely, perhaps too jokingly, you will
indulgently give me this right. My excellent father inculcated
this habit in me, pointing out all faults by means of cautionary
examples, so that I might avoid such faults myself.
The image of Horace fondly remembering his fathers good training is a
pleasing one, and it is furthermore intimately connected to questions of
the function and proper application of satire: according to this model,
satire becomes a formof moral observation, prompted bya sense of grati-
tude and lial responsibility.
12
At the same time, it remains a personal
tool, something that Horace uses in his daily life in order to record and
evaluate his thoughts and actions ():
. . . neque enim, cum lectulus aut me
porticus excepit, desum mihi: rectius hoc est;
hoc faciens vivam melius; sic dulcis amicis
occurram; hoc quidam non belle; numquid ego illi
imprudens olim faciam simile? haec ego mecum
compressis agito labris; ubi quid datur oti,
illudo chartis . . .
For when I recline on my couch or walk in the colonnade, I
do not fail myself: this is preferable; by doing that I will lead
a better life; this way I will meet good friends; that wasnt nice,
what that man did; can it be that I would ever do something
foolish like that man? I keep my mouth shut, and go over these
things by myself. Then, when I have some free time, I fool around
with my notebooks.
A remarkable self-image thus underlies this account: Horaces con-
tinual examination of others behavior is undertaken purely for his own
reference. In both domestic and public settings (lectulus aut porticus) he
keeps his thoughts to himself (compressis agito labris); and thus the Satires
Poetry as Practical Tool o,
are strictly privatea collection of verses he happened to jot down in
his spare time (illudo chartis). Such a formulation might initially appear to
be credible and persuasive, thanks to its basis in convincingly intimate
reminiscence. It certainly stands in its own right as an example of Hora-
tian self-presentation that is engaging and appealingly human.
13
On the
other hand, Horace himself quickly alters the image by describing this
sort of exercise as ex vitiis unum, cui si concedere nolis, multa poeta-
rum veniat manus (one of my little faultsand if you dont concede
it to me, a huge crowd of poets will show up |Sat...o|). And in
any case, his various audiences are being allowed to read these supposedly
private notes. The introduction of this image of a band of fellow poets
who engage in the same practicefor Horace acknowledges that he is
one of them, nam multo plures sumus (for we are by far the majority
|:|)thus serves to return us to the larger context of an overarching
ideal of poetry (more specically satire) as a common tool for observing
and speaking to the surrounding world.
14
Thus recast, the sage advice of Horaces father takes on the outward
appearance of a guiding principlea model for both poet and discerning
reader to follow.
15
But Horace does not oer this as a universally appli-
cable model of poetry throughout his works. Given that it comes as part
of a defense against supposed public attacks, it is intended to apply only
to the specic context of the Satires and is quietly dropped without com-
ment when the nature and requirements of Horaces poetry change.
16
In its immediate context this concept of satire is plausibly oered up as
Horaces true belief, but other genres suggest other poetic ideals.
17
This
raises an important point about Horaces overall treatment of poetry as
a practical tool although his presentation of the concept initially comes
across as convincing and sincere, he does not purport to extend its ap-
plication to poets or poetry in general.
Indeed, elsewhere Horace tacitly abandons the notion that he under-
takes to write poetry for the aforementioned reasonsa notion that he
introduced in the rst place. In the Odes, for instance, the exigencies
of poverty go unmentioned as a possible motive for writing. Instead, as
Horace embarks on his great poetic endeavor, it suits his immediate pur-
pose of self-presentation to assert that he writes in a spirit of exhilarating
joy and pride, driven by divine inspiration (.:,,o and ,.:,)
18
me doctarum hederae praemia frontium
dis miscent superis, me gelidum nemus
Craft and Concern
nympharumque leves cum satyris chori
secernunt populo . . .
Ivy, the reward of poets brows, joins me with the lofty gods.
The cool grove and the light bands of nymphs and satyrs set me
apart from the people.
quo me, Bacche, rapis tui
plenum? quae nemora aut quos agor in specus,
velox mente nova? . . .
nil parvum aut humili modo,
nil mortale loquar. dulce periculum est,
o Lenaee, sequi deum
cingentem viridi tempora pampino.
Bacchus, where are you taking me, lled with your power? What
groves or what caves am I being driven into, made swift with
new thoughts? . . . I will say nothing small or in a humble strain,
I will say nothing that is mortal. It is a sweet danger, Lenaean
Bacchus, to follow the god who binds his temples with the green
vine-leaves.
Naturally, what Horace says in the Odes about the composition of
poetry is shaped by consideration of the magnitude of his achievement
in lyric; for him to claim that paupertas led him to write the Odes would
have seemed extremely inappropriate, and even absurd. By contrast, the
satiric and epistolary forms are well suited to the seeming revelation of
homely or confessional detail, and as a result, personal revelations form
the basis of much of Horaces discussion there.
19
For this reason, Horace
elects in Epistles . and . to characterize the craft of poetry as the
practical mechanism of personal survival and social self-enhancement.
Each situation and genre demands a dierent approach if the overall
poetic self-presentation is to be eective, since his audience (even when
composed of the same individuals and drawn from the same ring) will
carry dierent generic and thematic expectations in each case. To pro-
duce aesthetically pleasing verse ( pulchra poemata), as Horace observes in
Satires ..,
et sermone opus est modo tristi, saepe iocoso,
defendente vicem modo rhetoris atque poetae,
interdum urbani, parcentis viribus atque
extenuantis eas consulto.
Poetry as Professional Activity
You need a manner of speech which is now sad, now playful,
sustaining the role now of an orator, now of a poet. Sometimes
you need the style of a wit, who saves his strength and conserves
it on purpose.
By forcing us to notice the inherent variations of his proclaimed poetic
ideals as he moves from poem to poem and work to work, Horace points
out that all is not as it may seem. His statements are not cast as univer-
sally applicable poetic principles but are instead tailored to his individual
needs of self-presentation for particular audiences in specic contexts.
. Poetry as Professional Activity
The second broad conception of poetry that Horace presents as his guid-
ing literary ideal grows out of his aforementioned claim to have turned
to poetic composition in earnest only out of nancial necessity. This is his
treatment of poetry as a de facto profession, a regular occupation whose
principles and standards of practice he presents himself as articulating in
order to clarify his relationship to other poets (including poets of earlier
generations). According to this view, poetry becomes not merely a pri-
vate activity or mechanism of survival but also Horaces personal voca-
tionhis chosen route to the achievement of individual greatness.
The establishment of this position is made a central aim of Horaces
self-denition vis--vis Lucilius in the so-called literary Satires (., .,
.). There, he portrays himself as constructing a sophisticated if complex
view of the earlier authors achievements in order to stake out a place
for himself as a writer of originality. Horace opens Satires . with sharp
criticism of Lucilius, whose work, he alleges, represented nothing more
than the direct imitation of the great poets of Greek Old Comedy ():
Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae . . .
hinc omnis pendet Lucilius, hosce secutus
mutatis tantum pedibus numerisque . . .
The poets Eupolis and Cratinus and Aristophanes . . . Lucilius
wholly depends upon these, following their lead with only the
meter and the rhythm having been changed.
But Lucilius was not a true poet (as opposed to Aristophanes, Eupo-
lis, and Cratinus, who are pointedly identied as poetae); he displayed wit
and chose his targets well,
20
but his execution was nevertheless defec-
Craft and Concern
tive. Prolix and insuciently edited, his works do not meet the standards
of poetic composition (embodied by the phrase labor scribendi recte) that
Horace here implies exist as an absolute measure of worth (Sat...):
. . . facetus,
emunctae naris, durus componere versus.
nam fuit hoc vitiosus: in hora saepe ducentos,
ut magnum, versus dictabat stans pede in uno;
cum ueret lutulentus, erat quod tollere velles;
garrulus atque piger scribendi ferre laborem
scribendi recte . . .
He was witty, clean-nosed and keen-scented, but he composed
harsh verses. He had one major aw: as though it were a great
feat, he would often dictate two hundred lines in an hour with
one hand tied behind his back. The stream of his writing was
muddy, and there were things in it that you would want to take
out; he was too wordy, and too lazy to deal with the eort of
writingof writing well, that is.
Some scholars have attempted to explain this opening as signalling
Horaces commitment to Aristotelian theory or the traditions of iam-
bography, but this would appear to miss the point. Horace is not devel-
oping some ingenious and elusive literary critical analysis or making any
necessarily factual statement about Luciliuss literary inheritance; rather,
he is inaugurating his own process of self-denition as a poet, doing so
with considerable showmanlike air by making dramatic and clearly ex-
aggerated assertions about his illustrious predecessor in the satiric genre.
21
For this reason, although the literary Satires have often been read as chart-
ing the course of development of Horaces actual views regarding Luci-
lius as he retreats from the extreme charges he makes in Satires . to
develop over time an increasingly balanced picture of the earlier writers
work,
22
the consciousness with which Horace manipulates every aspect
of his own image indicates that this process should be treated instead as a
carefully contrived stratagem of self-presentation. Through the projec-
tion of a balanced analysis of his predecessor, one that allows for criticism
of Lucilius as well as for a more positive evaluation, Horace stakes a claim
to both independence and individual merit as a poet in his own right.
The qualications and observations made in Satires . should be con-
sidered in this light. Horace begins by oering a mixture of positive and
Poetry as Professional Activity
negative remarks; he restates his original criticism that Luciliuss work
was marred by verbosity and sloppy construction, but balances this with
newly emphatic praise for the earlier poets wit and sharpness ():
Nempe incomposito dixi pede currere versus
Lucili. quis tam Lucili fautor inepte est
ut non hoc fateatur? at idem, quod sale multo
urbem defricuit, charta laudatur eadem.
All right, I did say that Luciliuss verses are badly composed and
only limp along. What Lucilius enthusiast is so die-hard and
absurd that he wouldnt admit that its true? But on the exact
same page I praise the man as well, for rubbing down the city
with lots of salt.
The impression one gets of joining a conversation in mid-sentence (as
conveyed by the abrupt and conversational opening of nempe . . . dixi )
further enhances Horaces picture of anongoing debate over the character
of Lucilius and, indeed, the methods and qualities of poetry in general.
The suggestion that there has been much adverse reaction to his earlier
critique in Satires . informs his adoption here of a marked tone of de-
fensiveness, especially in the prickly demand, quis tam Lucili fautor inepte
est ut non hoc fateatur? Thus, Horace creates a scenario in which he is com-
pelled to make a response to external criticismto wit, the adoption
of a more balanced and reasonable-sounding position regarding Lucilius
and appropriation of the mantle of a moderate and dispassionate liter-
ary critic.
23
Though unnamed, the critics that Horace presents himself
as dealing with here are very much in evidence. It is an eective image,
one that neatly frames the statements about literature that Horace makes
in this poem, but we must recognize that it has been carefully and con-
sciously designed to be read as such.
In furtherance of this particular self-presentation, Horace goes on in
Satires . to explain why he chose to write satire in the rst place. It
was, he asserts, the only genre in which there was still roomfor improve-
mentallowing, of course, for the indisputable primacy of Lucilius as
its rst practitioner ():
hoc erat, experto frustra Varrone Atacino
atque quibusdam aliis, melius quod scribere possem,
inventore minor; neque ego illi detrahere ausim
haerentem capiti cum multa laude coronam.
Craft and Concern
It was satire that I could write better (since Varro of Atax and a
few others had tried and failed), but I am still lesser than satires
founder. Nor would I dare to take away fromhimthe crown that
clings to his head with so much glory.
By acknowledging Luciliuss pride of place in satire, albeit casually and
as a seeming afterthought, Horace presents himself as being fully cogni-
zant of the earlier poets great achievement. In an extension of his self-
image as a balanced commentator, he nowgoes so far as to put Lucilius in
the company of other illustrious poetsHomer, Accius, Enniuswhose
minor aws did not detract from the greatness of their work ():
at dixi uere hunc lutulentum, saepe ferentem
plura quidem tollenda relinquendis. age, quaeso,
tu nihil in magno doctus reprehendis Homero?
nil comis tragici mutat Lucilius Acci?
non ridet versus Enni gravitate minores,
cum de se loquitur non ut maiore reprensis?
So I said that the stream of Luciliuss poetry is muddy and often
carries more that you would want to remove than leave behind.
But come now, tell medo you as an educated man make abso-
lutely no criticisms of great Homer? Does aable Lucilius change
nothing in the works of Accius the tragedian? Doesnt he laugh
at those verses of Ennius that are lacking in gravitas, although he
speaks of himself as one no greater than those he criticizes?
Thus, Horace presents himself as saying, Lucilius produced the best
poetry possible given the comparatively uncouth age in which he lived.
Lucilius himself would have reworked his verses, had he lived in this
modern era with its higher degree of literary sophistication (Sat...
):
. . . fuerit Lucilius, inquam,
comis et urbanus, fuerit limatior idem
quam rudis et Graecis intacti carminis auctor,
quamque poetarum seniorum turba: sed ille,
si foret hoc nostrum fato dilatus in aevum,
detereret sibi multa, recideret omne quod ultra
perfectum traheretur, et in versu faciendo
saepe caput scaberet vivos et roderet unguis.
Poetry as Professional Activity
I say again that Lucilius was aable and witty. He was more pol-
ished than one would expect for the creator of a genre that was
rough-hewn and uninuenced by the Greeks. He was more re-
ned than the whole crowd of earlier poets. But if by chance
he were transported to our own time, he would rub away many
things from his work and slice o everything that stuck out too
far; he would often be scratching his head as he worked on his
poetry and chew his nails down to the quick.
As such, Horace has provided himself with an eective starting-point for
further discussion of what constitutes quality and originality in poetic
compositionessentially, the issue of craftsmanship. For this gradual
renement of an initially more extreme view does not simply enable
Horace to depict himself as an open-minded and eminently reasonable
judge of artistic quality, although by itself this is certainly an important
instance of positive self-presentation. It also represents a masterful delin-
eation of the concept of what we might term relativity of judgment. This
refers to the idea outlined here by Horace that each poet can be fairly
assessed only according to the tastes and techniques of his age. Each must
be appreciated in his own context and on his own terms, since to hold
him to heightened modern standards would be misleading and unfair.
This viewpoint motivates Horaces claimin Sat... that genres
other than satire have been closed o to him. Contemporary literary
colleaguesFundanius in comedy, Pollio in tragedy, Varius in epic, and
Virgil in pastoralhave already taken these forms to their current limits
():
arguta meretrice potes Davoque Chremeta
eludente senem comis garrire libellos
unus vivorum, Fundani; Pollio regum
facta canit pede ter percusso; forte epos acer
ut nemo Varius ducit; molle atque facetum
Vergilio adnuerunt gaudentes rure Camenae:
You alone among living poets, Fundanius, can chatter on in
comedies, where the sly prostitute and Davus the slave fool the
old man Chremes. Pollio sings of the deeds of kings in the line of
triple-beat. Varius, impassioned like no other, brings forth val-
iant Epic. The Camenae who delight in the countryside have
granted to Virgil gentleness and grace.
Craft and Concern
Horaces emphasis on each of these poets as being unus vivorum and ex-
emplar of his craft is, therefore, crucial to his self-denition as a poet.
24
His friends of the inner ring have already become masters of their chosen
genres, according to the poetic climate and larger standards of their gen-
eration. But satire was still available, since the age of Lucilius was long
since past, and Varro of Atax and others had failed to conquer the form
in more recent years.
Thus, by the time we reach Satires ., Horace has freed himself to
declare that in both choice of targets and style of poetry he follows Luci-
lius completely. Relativity of judgment ensures that he will be read and
appreciated as a poet ():
. . . me pedibus delectat claudere verba
Lucili ritu, nostrum melioris utroque.
ille velut dis arcana sodalibus olim
credebat libris, neque si male cesserat usquam
decurrens alio, neque si bene; quo t, ut omnis
votiva pateat veluti descripta tabella
vita senis. sequor hunc . . .
It pleases me to close up my words in metrical feet, in the style of
Lucilius, who was a better man than either of us. He would en-
trust his secrets to his books as though they were his loyal friends;
regardless of what happened, good or bad, he never turned any-
where else. As a result, the old mans whole life lies revealed as
though depicted on a votive tablet. This is the man I follow.
Horace nowdepicts himself as easily accommodating what he had origi-
nally cast as a major problem. He is able to admit the earlier poets pri-
macy and inuence calmly and without diculty, for it changes nothing
in any casequisquis erit vitae scribam color.
In this way, Horace meets the challenge of preserving his claim to
originality in the face of the achievements of earlier practitioners: just
as we must read poets of prior generations strictly on their own terms,
so too must we read the poets of today. Relativity of judgment antici-
pates each poets surpassment by poets yet to come; as such, it indirectly
defends Horace against potential critical attacks in the future by remind-
ing us that he wrote according to the standards of his time. The corol-
lary here is that in every age there exists the possibility of producing
the denitive treatment of a literary formof achieving works of true
Poetry as Professional Activity
genius. And this, his readers are meant to conclude, is precisely what
Horace has accomplished in satire: he has mastered an available genre
by following Lucilius in creating a plausible impression (but an impres-
sion only) of setting down his personal experiences in quasi-diary form.
Thus, although the literary Satires might initially come across as Horaces
earnest statement of his actual literary views, we should treat themrather
as rhetorical creations, setting the stage for a masterful defensive and pre-
emptive self-portrayal. The articulation of larger literary principles in
these poems serves most immediately to enable their author to stake a
claim to artistic achievementto assert his capacity to achieve personal
greatness through poetry.
By approaching what Horace tells us in the literary Satires in this way,
we can accommodate the otherwise troublesome fact that he continues
to abandon some of his avowals and denitions of poetry once they have
served their purpose. In Epistles . Horace announces that, having n-
ished Odes , he will nowabandon poetry forever (): Nunc itaque et
versus et cetera ludicra pono (And so now I am putting aside my verses
and all the rest of my tries). But even if one leaves aside the Epistles
themselves, Horace goes on to write the Carmen saeculare in .. and
releases a fourth book of Odes four years later. He explicitly punctures the
transparent conceit in Epistles ., when he observes of himself ():
ipse ego, qui nullos me adrmo scribere versus,
invenior Parthis mendacior, et prius orto
sole vigil calamum et chartas et scrinia posco.
I myself assert that I am not writing any verses at all but am re-
vealed to be a bigger liar than the ParthiansI get up before
sunrise and call for a pen, paper, and my bookcase.
This should not be read merely as a contradiction or retraction of earlier
statements in Epistles . (or Sat..), but as an open acknowledgment
that Horace regularly manipulates his statements regarding poetry and
his place in the literary world, to call our attention to particular aspects
of his endeavor as a poet.
25
The evidence of the literary Satires shows us that relativity of judg-
ment allows Horace to claim a place of inherent value as the nest
practitioner, in his own time, of various literary genres and, indeed, to
proclaim and dene his personal ambition in writing poetry. Horace
frequently expresses a straightforward desire for renown and critical ac-
Craft and Concern
claim, in the Odes in particular. But we must bear in mind, as always,
that such declarations represent a conscious literary tactic rather than
the naked confession of any deeply held personal views and reect only
Horaces particular needs of self-presentation. Even so, his self-conscious
invocation of such relativistic critical principles serves to justify and
legitimize his expressions of personal artistic ambition, even to his most
hostile and skeptical readers.
In Odes ., the nal poem of the original collection of Odes ,
Horace does not return to the themes of personal friendship and respect
with which he began in Odes .. Instead, he portrays himself as desiring
most of all to win fame and adulation in his home region of Apulia, in
an ancient manifestation of campanilismo ():
26
dicar, qua violens obstrepit Audus
et qua pauper aquae Daunus agrestium
regnavit populorum, ex humili potens
princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos
deduxisse modos.
I will be spoken of where the violent Audus river thunders, and
where impoverished Daunus ruled over a farming people: a man
of power and inuence who rose from humble beginnings, I was
the rst to bring the Aeolic song into Italian measures.
Horace emphasizes local celebrity in this closing poem of the entire col-
lection of the rst three books of Odes, implying that this form of fame
is dearest to his heart, the true and cherished proof of his individual suc-
cess. Rome, of course, still occupies a most important place in Horaces
poetry as the guarantor of this more private success,
27
but by couching his
boast in these resolutely local terms, Horace transforms a declaration that
might have seemed arrogant and objectionable into the straightforward
acceptance of his due as the master of lyric in his generation. Horaces
program of positive self-presentation once again placates by design all
the rings of his audience, while relativity of judgment allows his personal
glory to become a plausible and legitimate goal of poetic composition.
. Poetry as Public Model
Alterations and internal discrepancies are, of course, hallmarks of Hora-
tian self-presentation, and as a result it is dangerous to search for a single
Poetry as Public Model
unifying theme behind these separate expressions of personal ideals and
individual visions of poetry. Horace outlines many dierent personal
conceptions of self and of poetry, and illustrates them in dierent and
sometimes incompatible ways.
28
In so doing, he ensures that his readers
appreciate his discussion of poetry not as the presentation of an internally
coherent vision but as a series of independent and separate pictures, each
tailored to the poets needs and interests of the moment. Once again,
context is of the utmost importance. Thus, in the third of his three main
presented visions of poetry, Horace goes beyond personal concerns to
claim a position of inherent and unquestionable value to society on the
strength of his achievements and importance as a poet. Instead of being
placed within a strictly private or professional context, the craft of poetry
is here presented as an honorable civic function, the nature of which
Horace investigates throughout his works. But despite Horaces elabo-
rate development of this vision, we must as before recognize the artice
and the demands of self-presentation that lie behind the undertaking.
We begin as we did earlier, with the literary Satires. Just as Horace used
these poems to dene a strong position for himself vis--vis Lucilius,
so too does he use them to identify more fully his position in society.
We might recall that in Horaces day, poetry was not an abstruse disci-
pline practiced by a fewspecialists but a major entertainment and favorite
hobby of the Roman upper classes. Thus, there is from the start a larger
societal context to Horaces discussion of the nature of poetry, and what
Horace chooses to say about his role as a satirist holds important impli-
cations for his presented vision of poetrys civic resonance. In Satires .,
Horace suggests that attacks have already been made on his works, by
individuals who bristle at his having pointed out their character aws
():
omnes hi metuunt versus, odere poetas.
faenum habet in cornu: longe fuge! dummodo
risum excutiat sibi, non hic cuiquam parcet amico;
et quodcumque semel chartis illeverit, omnis
gestiet a furno redeuntis scire lacuque
et pueros et anus.
All these people fear my verses and hate poets. Hes a mad cow,
hes got hay on his horns! Run away! So long as he can scare up
a laugh for himself, he doesnt spare a single friend. Whatever
he has scribbled one time on his pages, he will be delighted for
Craft and Concern
everyone to knowall the slaves and old women as they go back
and forth to the bakery and the reservoir.
Most immediately, this scenario is used to prompt Horaces discussion
of the true nature of satire; but it also reframes the presentation of his
rings of audience into a more wide-ranging meditation on the public aim
of poetry. For which ring does the poet truly write: Is he a popularizer,
an unscrupulous vulgarizer, or does he write for a special selected body
of individuals? And is his poetry dangerousput more broadly, what is
its true function and eect? Horace answers the rst of these questions
by painting for us an idealized picture of the people whom he himself
would include among his most-desired audience. At rst, he seems ex-
plicitly to deny that he seeks a wider audience at all; instead, at several
points in the literary Satires he openly rejects the popular tastes of the
general public, preferring, he claims, to write and perform solely for his
friendsand even then only under duress (Sat...):
nulla taberna meos habeat neque pila libellos,
quis manus insudet vulgi Hermogenisque Tigelli;
nec recito cuiquam nisi amicis, idque coactus,
non ubivis coramve quibuslibet.
Let no shop or bookstall stock my little books, so that the hands
of the mob or Hermogenes Tigellius can sweat all over them. I
do not recite for anyone except my friends, and even then only
when Im forced toI dont perform just anywhere, in public,
for anyone you please.
This is the ideal to which Horace ostentatiously declares his allegiance at
every point in his corpus: disdaining the allure of widespread popularity,
he does not court the favor of the vulgus but instead directs his attention
to a small and select group of cognoscenti.
29
We have already encoun-
tered this group in Satires ., outlined in greater detail; Horaces amici
are fellow poets and members of the Roman elite,
30
erudite men who
can be expected to appreciate and derive benet from Horaces poetry,
and for whom Horace is eager to write (). So the uninitiated vulgus
is once again excluded from his readership. But what of Horaces pos-
terity? Compluris alios, doctos ego quos et amicos /prudens praetereo
(); there is a suggestion here that his future readers are perhaps to
be included in this select audience, as a part of the complures alii whom
Horace knows will understand his timeless writings. Although we are
Poetry as Public Model
necessarily cut o from Horaces world, and doomed forever to occupy
only the outermost and most distant ring of his audience, the poet seems
to imply in this passage that if we study his works and eventually come
to appreciate his craft, we too can become docti and come to grasp the
true heart of his poetry.
But what function and eect does Horace claim he intends his poetry
to have? We noted earlier the way in which Horace characterizes satire in
Satires . as having been a personal inheritance from his beloved father;
but Horaces description of his fathers brand of moral tutelage also con-
tains important evidence for Horaces adumbration of a wider and more
civic-minded vision of poetry ():
cum me hortaretur, parce frugaliter atque
viverem uti contentus eo, quod mi ipse parasset:
nonne vides, Albi ut male vivat lius . . . ?
. . . mi satis est, si
traditum ab antiquis morem servare tuamque,
dum custodis eges, vitam famamque tueri
incolumem possum; simul ac duraverit aetas
membra animumque tuum, nabis sine cortice. sic me
formabat puerum dictis . . .
When he would encourage me to live modestly, frugally, and
content with what he himself had provided for me, he would say:
Do you see how badly the son of Albius is leading his life? . . . It
is enough for me, if I can preserve the custom handed down by
the ancients, and if I can keep your life and good name safe for
as long as you need a guardian. But as soon as you are grown and
your body and mind have been toughened up, you will swim
without water-wings. In this way he molded me with his pre-
cepts while I was still a boy.
Horaces father saw himself as guardian and teacher to his son, mold-
ing the boy into a strong, upstanding individual capable of indepen-
dently charting a correct moral course through a vice-ridden world.
Now Horace depicts himself as closely following his fathers example; in
so doing, he oers moral observation and guidance to his readers. In this
sense, Horace stands in relation to his surrounding society as his father
once stood for him. He is like a parent to the people and desires only
to exert a positive inuence on them.
31
Horace speaks to those who can
o Craft and Concern
understand and will appreciate his message. These fortunate individu-
als will imbibe his words and be protected, just as he once was by his
own father (Sat...:,,o) Lx hoc ego sanus ab illis, perniciem quae-
cumque ferunt (Because of this I am free from those faults which bring
disaster). Such is the model, and such the public, societal role that Horace
envisions for his Satires.
Horace gives this outlined position newapplication in the Odes in the
gure of the vates, or inspired prophet. By presenting himself in this role,
he does more than simply recast this old Iatin term into a new poetic
context,
32
he enables himself to elucidate poetrys public function by
illustrating all that a true poet can accomplish on behalf of those around
him. To this end, various Odes depict Horace as the vates in action, exe-
cuting his proper function in society by celebrating the noblest Roman
virtues and reminding Romans of their moral responsibilities. Thus, to
set his fellow citizens on the right path, Horace upbraids them in Odes
.,, for their misdeeds of civil strife (,,o)
eheu, cicatricum et sceleris pudet
fratrumque. quid nos dura refugimus
aetas quid intactum nefasti
liquimus unde manum iuventus
metu deorum continuit quibus
pepercit aris o utinam nova
incude dingas retusum in
Massagetas Arabasque ferrum!
Oh, the shame of our scars and crimes, and our fallen brothers!
We are a hard generationwhat do we shun What shame-
ful crime have we left uncommitted From what wickedness
have the young men stayed their hands, out of fear of the gods
Which altars have been spared Oh, if only you would reforge
our blunted swords on a new anvil, and use them on the Mas-
sagetae and the Arabs!
In what are known as the Roman Odes (Odes ,.,.o), he extols the quint-
essential Roman virtues for their benet moderation and simple living
(,.), virtus, especially military valor (,.:), the righteous and virtuous gov-
ernance of empire (,.,), loyalty (,.), patriotic courage (,.,), and reli-
gious purity (,.o).
33
The combination of chastisement and moral encour-
agement that one encounters here is the very substance of what Horace
Poetry as Public Model
presents as the public function of the poet. In his guise as vates, Horace
has the authority and the duty to lecture all Romans on how they should
behave, and he calls his fellowcitizens to a nobler purpose and way of life.
This particular aspect of Horaces vates self-image thus embodies the
poets guiding vision of the Odes as having both a civic and morally di-
dactic purpose. As Iyne suggests
What matters is that this is the way he wishes us to conceive his
view of the function of the poet . . . the practitioner of Odes
:.,, ,.o, ,.: is the public educator, concerned with the citysthe
statesmoral condition . . . Horace not only performs the role |of
public moral instructor|, but advertises it. He advertises it by pre-
senting himself as the priest of the Muses, Odes ,.. . . . we see
Horace not only performing the role of public, moral poet, utilis
urbi, but constructing an image for it. He is involved in the role
of the public poet, performing it, proclaiming it, evolving his own
methods.
34
As such, when Horace assumes the guise of vates he ascribes to himself
an enormous moral resonance and indispensable function in society. The
poet-vates bestows honor and immortality on those who have earned his
accolades (Odes ..:o:, and .,.:,:)
. . . neque,
si chartae sileant quod bene feceris
mercedem tuleris.
ereptum Stygiis uctibus Aeacum
virtus et favor et lingua potentium
vatum divitibus consecrat insulis.
dignum laude virum Musa vetat mori.
caelo Musa beat.
Nor, if the pages were silent about your good deeds, would you
receive your reward. The strength and favor and words of the
mighty poets rescue Aeacus from the waves of the Styx and place
him in glory on the Islands of the Blessed. It is the Muse who
prevents the praiseworthy man from ever dying, it is the Muse
who gives the gift of Heaven.
vixere fortes ante Agamemnona
multi, sed omnes illacrimabiles
Craft and Concern
urgentur ignotique longa
nocte, carent quia vate sacro.
Many brave men existed before Agamemnon; but all of them
are weighed down by unending darkness, unlamented and un-
known, because they have no sacred poet.
But what is more important, he also serves as the moral warden and tutor
of the citizen. He is as necessary to Rome as the augurs and pontices
in this regard. Of course, Horace does not always speak as a vates, and
this role is no more universally in eect than any of the other facets of
self- presentation that we have considered.
35
Several of the Odes oer
images of the poet not as the inspired prophet of Rome but as a hapless
and consistently unsuccessful lover, chasing after haughty and unrespon-
sive maidens (Vitas hinnuleo me similis, ChloeYou avoid me like a
little fawn, Chloe [..]), sitting as an exclusus amator outside a married
womans door (..), or ruefully contrasting his bygone successes
with his current sorry state as he prays in frustration for revenge (.).
Such winsomely self-deprecating portraits are light-years away from the
impersonal and otherworldly proclamations of the vates, although these
departures from the moralistic exhortations of the Roman Odes should
not be taken as signifying any overt or nal abandonment by Horace of
the vates role as described above, rather as further evidence of the way
in which he presents a wide variety of aspects of life as catching his at-
tention and so demanding of poetic treatment.
36
Even so, Horace does
not promulgate the vates as the one true model for poets to follow, any
more than he did the private, self-made individual of Satires .. We must
regard the compelling gure of the vates not as Horaces nal word on
what every poet should strive to be but as another example of consciously
developed and, in this case, highly positive self-presentation.
In Epistles ., the great letter to Augustus, Horace at last appears to
embark on an expansive and public dissertation on the proper role of the
poet in society.
37
But here, too, the focus remains on Horace as the prac-
titioner of this role, speaking as much to his ever-present audiences as
to Augustus himself. The dramatic context of the poemRomes great-
est living poet writing a letter to the princeps of Rome (at the latters
request, it should be noted), at a time when both enjoyed their great-
est prominence and stabilityensures the maximum amount of public
attention for the messages contained within it. As though in recogni-
tion of this, Horace casts his statements as a general declaration of the
meaning and purpose of poetry ():
Poetry as Public Model
. . . vatis avarus
non temere est animus; versus amat, hoc studet unum; . . .
militiae quamquam piger et malus, utilis urbi,
si das hoc, parvis quoque rebus magna iuvari.
os tenerum pueri balbumque poeta gurat,
torquet ab obscenis iam nunc sermonibus aurem,
mox etiam pectus praeceptis format amicis,
asperitatis et invidiae corrector et irae,
recte facta refert, orientia tempora notis
instruit exemplis, inopem solatur et aegrum.
The soul of a poet is scarcelyavaricious; he loves verses and thinks
only of Poetry . . . Although he is slowand a poor soldier, never-
theless he is useful to societyif you allow that little things can
be helpful to great ones as well. The poet shapes the tender and
prattling speech of childhood, then turns the ear away from ob-
scene language, and soon even molds the heart with friendly
teachings. He corrects harshness, envy, and anger; he tells of good
deeds; he instructs the rising generations with famous examples;
he comforts the poor and the sick.
Utilis urbithis, Horace proclaims, is the true civic and moral func-
tion of the poet, and the very essence of his identity. It is indeed a
grand and compelling vision of his craft. Nevertheless, even these ringing
lines are founded most deeply on Horaces specic requirements of self-
presentation. The poets individual circumstances are never far from the
surface, as further examination reveals that his self-image is directly en-
hanced by his persuasive articulation of this purportedly universal civic
ideal. In the following lines of Epistles ., Horace strikes a more personal,
self-referential note ():
castis cum pueris ignara puella mariti
disceret unde preces, vatem ni Musa dedisset?
poscit opem chorus et praesentia numina sentit,
caelestis implorat aquas docta prece blandus,
avertit morbos, metuenda pericula pellit,
impetrat et pacem et locupletem frugibus annum.
carmine di superi placantur, carmine Manes.
From where would the unmarried girl learn the prayers along
with the chaste boys, if the Muse had not given her the vates?
Their chorus calls for aid and feels the presence of the divine
Craft and Concern
spirit, begs for the rains of Heaven, winning favor with the hymn
they have learned. It turns away sickness, drives away terrify-
ing dangers, wins peace and a year lled with harvests. The gods
above, the spirits below are pleased by the song.
This is a highly self-conscious and obvious reference to the Carmen saecu-
lare, which Augustus commissioned Horace to write, to mark the Secular
Games of ..
38
It was, of course, a signal honor and an indication of
Horaces status as the premier poet of Rome following Virgils death in
.. In a poem from Odes book , Horace expresses his considerable
pride in having written the Carmen, executing thereby the noblest of
poetic tasks (.., ):
spiritum Phoebus mihi, Phoebus artem
carminis nomenque dedit poetae.
virginum primae puerique claris
patribus orti, . . .
nupta iam dices, ego dis amicum,
saeculo festas referente luces,
reddidi carmen docilis modorum
vatis Horati.
Phoebus Apollo gave me my inspiration, the art of the song,
and the name of poet. Best of maidens and boys born to famous
fathers, . . . Soon, when you are married, you will say: When the
cycle brought back the festival days, I, instructed in the measures
of the vates Horace, sang a song that was pleasing to the gods.
Even more important, when read in the context of what Horace has said
regarding the civic power of the vates, the Carmen saeculare also represents
a striking example of what Horace suggests is the poets public role, as
well as a portrayal of himself executing that selfsame function.
39
This ideal vision is, as we have seen, one of many that Horace skillfully
manipulates throughout his corpus. Given what we have seen of his de-
velopment of a seemingly overarching vision of poetry, we might expect
that the Ars poetica, a verse epistle addressed to the Piso brothers (young
aristocrats and aspiring young poets) that purports to collect Horaces
views on the nature and craft of poetry, would follow much the same
course as Epistles . And so it doesin that several crucial modications
once again draw our attention to the highly conscious and defensive
nature of Horaces overall treatment of his craft. The Ars poetica contains
Poetry as Public Model
any number of knotty problems and diculties of interpretation, and
scholars have long debated how the work should be approached. With-
out entering into a lengthy argument on the intent or signicance of the
Ars poetica as a literary treatise, suce it to say here that the Ars poetica sig-
nals its articiality through its inordinate preoccupation with the craft
and components of tragedy. As Gordon Williams has noted, It should
not be thought that the practical aim of the A.P. was real and genuine,
an aid to poetic composition . . . [and] it would be a ludicrous distortion
of the Augustan literary scene if [it] were taken as an accurate reection
of its interests.
40
Outwardly a didactic tract, the Ars poetica is a kind of
wolf in sheeps clothing: any expectation of a doctrinaire or straightfor-
wardly prescriptive treatise is thwarted and deated on the most funda-
mental level by the poets patently self-conscious handling of the subject,
as ideas, examples, and issues are deliberately made to appear and vanish
seemingly as they come to the authors mind.
41
In its casual shifts of focus and easy, discursive tone, it and the rest
of the Epistles approximate a perfection of the conversational and self-
conscious sermo form of the Satires. In accordance with this, Horace re-
turns in the Ars poetica to many of the themes and visions of poetry that
were presented earlier in his corpus and elsewhere quietly abandoned.
For example, he partly restates the ideal of poetrys civic and moral func-
tion by alluding to the notion of being both pleasing and helpful to ones
audience (): Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae/aut simul et
iucunda et idonea dicere vitae (Poets want to be either useful or enter-
taining, or to say things that are both pleasing and pertinent to life at the
same time). Even the vision of poetry as a practical and personal com-
modity is resurrected here; Horace oers strong sales and world-wide
circulation as the rewards for the young poet who manages to balance
the twin demands of entertainment and instruction ():
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 aevum.
Whoever mixes the useful with the enjoyable will win every
vote, entertaining and at the same time instructing the reader.
This sort of book will earn money for the Sosius brothers; such
a book will cross the sea and extend a long life to its famous
author.
Craft and Concern
Horace thus brings together almost every component thread of his over-
all self-presentationas a poetthe practical advantages of writing poetry,
its nature as a profession subject to rules and principles (the codication
of which is the purported aim of the Ars poetica as a whole), and its higher
civic function as the conduit for idonea dicere vitae. But Horaces care-
ful and self-conscious management throughout his works of his own
image as a poet, and his appreciation for the importance of context as
a determiner of the immediate specics of that image, remind us that
even here his overarching statements about the craft of poetry cannot be
read with security as representing his actual precepts but must be recog-
nized as specic manifestations of his overall mastery of the techniques
of self-presentation.
. Conclusion: The Individual behind the Universal
Insofar as Horace ever presents himself as striving in earnest to follow a
single explicit literary model, he does so in the Ars poetica by enshrining
Quintilius Varus as the exemplary archetype of the consummate critic
and friend ():
Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes,
hoc, aiebat, et hoc. melius te posse negares
bis terque expertum frustra, delere iubebat
et male tornatos incudi reddere versus.
si defendere delictum quam vertere malles,
nullum ultra verbum aut operam insumebat inanem,
quin sine rivali teque et tua solus amares.
If you recited anything to Quintilius, he would say: Please cor-
rect this and this. If you claimed that you had tried to do so in
vain two and three times over, and that you could not do any
better, he would instruct you to return the badly shaped verses
to the anvil and destroy them. If you preferred to defend your
mistake rather than change it, he would not say another word
or pursue the fruitless task of keeping you from loving yourself
and your own work alone, without a rival.
Varus always told the truth in making his criticisms and observations
bluntly, rmly, but without dictating what must be changed.
42
In his
The Individual behind the Universal ,
view, change and revision were fundamental to the composition of
poetry, and acceptance of their necessity was absolutely indispensible,
otherwise there was no point to the exercise. As one who purports to
follow this example, Horace himself engages in the continual repolish-
ing and repositioning of his works. In order to produce an eective and
convincing self-image, he tailors his words in each case to t the cir-
cumstances of the poem and its audience, as well as the specic needs
and restrictions of the literary form in which the poem appears. It goes
without saying that he directly manipulates the substance and eect of
this self-image as well, and opens up this process to a remarkable extent
to the scrutiny of his readers.
For the most part, Horaces treatment of poetry and of himself as a
poet is designed to make it clear that he does not operate in obedience to
any veriably xed vision of the ideal poet or ideal poetry but rather
attempts continually to present himself and his works in the best possible
light, regardless of the specic context of the various demands placed on
him. Thus, even on those occasions when he seems to acknowledge his
personal shortcomings or setbacks, he does so consciously, for the sake
of his crafted image. Who can truly say for sure whether Odes , were
badly received upon their publication, as Horace intimates in Epistles .,
(,,o)
43
scire velis, mea cur ingratus opuscula lector
laudet ametque domi, premat extra limen iniquus
non ego ventosae plebis suragia venor
impensis cenarum et tritae munere vestis,
non ego, nobilium scriptorum auditor et ultor,
grammaticas ambire tribus et pulpita dignor.
Do you want to know why the ungrateful reader praises and
loves my little works in the privacy of his own home, but un-
fairly criticizes them in public I do not seek out the votes of the
ckle mob . . . I do not condescend to wander around the tribes
and lecterns of the grammatici, I am the audience and the avenger
of noble writers.
Or that these attacks eventually subsided with the rise of popular acclaim
(Odes .,.,o)
Romae principis urbium
dignatur suboles inter amabiles
Craft and Concern
vatum ponere me choros,
et iam dente minus mordeor invido.
The people of Rome, queen of cities, see t to place me among
the beloved choruses of the vates, and already I am bitten less
often by the tooth of Envy.
It suits Horaces purpose to conjure a certain undened level of pub-
lic disapproval, since this provides him with an excellent pretext for an
elaborate defense of himself and his poetry. As with the oft-mentioned
jibe of libertino patre natus, or his frequent romantic humiliations in the
Satires and Odes, it is a problem that Horace invokes and then quickly
solves in order to introduce important discussion of issues that mat-
tered to the poet. This preemptive creation of pressure is, in other words,
Horaces most subtle mechanism of self-presentation in his entire large
and varied repertory.
Ultimately, Horace argues about poetry, its craft, and his place within
its tradition because his intention is to present an idea of poetry that cor-
responds closely with himself. Horaces images of the poet (whether in
the private or the public arena) may not match very closely the lives and
works of Virgil and Propertius, but they match his own splendidly, in
all its variation. Thus, we must never let ourselves be fooled into blind
and total compliance with the poets manipulations. It is all too easy to
read Horaces discussion of poetryas comprising a monolithic and wholly
credible literary manifesto, but Horaces thoughts on the subject are in-
fused with entirely individual considerations of self-presentation.
cn:i +r r r our
Worldly Aairs
In the turbulent and unforgiving political arena of late Republican Rome,
no one knew better than Octavian that a politicians survival and success
often boils down to a simple matter of eective persuasion, regardless of
the conditions or systemof government within which he operates. From
the moment he arrived at the port of Brundisium in n.c. to claim
his inheritance as Julius Caesars heir and win the enthusiastic support of
his adoptive fathers veteran legions, Octavian demonstrated an uncanny
ability to swing inuential opinion in his favor, as well as a keen apprecia-
tion for the enormous advantages that could be obtained through force-
ful public performance and the adroit manipulation of other peoples
perception and understanding of the issues at stake. And yet, in the years
that followed, even as he employed a wide array of tactics, tools, and
images in pursuit of his political goals, his true character and personality
remained a frustrating enigmapuzzling, elusive, baing, and inscru-
table, like the Sphinx engraved upon his signet ring. Instead, throughout
his career he regularly altered his outer persona to t his changing politi-
cal circumstances, transforming himself froma military adventurer into a
triumvir rei publicae constituendae, then into the defender of Rome against
degenerate renegades and monstrous foreigners, and nally adopting his
ultimate role as Augustus, Restorer of the Republic and benevolent Father
of the Country. Each personal reinvention was only undertaken with
careful planning and the greatest circumspection. Himself the object of
constant scrutiny, he nevertheless maintained virtually total control over
everything about him that might be seen by others.
1
In this way, Octavian/Augustus sought out and directed the support
of the Roman populace, extending his power and the security of his na-
scent regime through the continual adjustment of public attitudes and
modication of the way in which he himself was perceived. As distant
observers of this process, we are therefore even more limited in our view-

Worldly Aairs
point than Romans of the period would have been; for if we attempt
to develop an understanding of the princeps nature, we do so largely
through his own carefully constructed and highly self-conscious image.
The salient issue for us becomes perforce not the relative truth or false-
hood of this image, so much as its intended function and eect on the
various people for whom it was originally created.
One is inescapably reminded of the techniques of self-presentation
and address of multiple audiences that we have already encountered in
the works of Horace. And indeed it is hardly surprising that princeps and
poet alike would have developed such comparably sophisticated and in-
tricate self-images in response to their respective situations. Politics and
literature had long been closely intertwined in Rome by this time: Cicero
and Caesar, among many others, had composed polished literary works
in order to accomplish political ends; prominent gures were routinely
attacked by proxy through their more vulnerable author-clients; while
Roman poets had been writing on and responding to the political reali-
ties of their day ever since Naevius rst clashed with the Metelli in the
later third century ..
2
In a similar vein, Horaces works are infused with
the tensions and concerns of contemporary politics, as he simultaneously
confronts his various audiences with both the ingenious execution of his
political responsibilities to the new regime and his separate commentary
on the diculties inherent in this task. More than any other writer of his
age, Horace directly addresses within his poetry the impact of political
pressures on his personal world, handling such issues through much the
same elusive and virtuosic techniques of self-presentation that we have
encountered in other contexts throughout his works.
3
. Writing for Rome
In a real sense, Augustus based his victory and the construction of his
new empire on the orchestration of a popular embrace of his image; for
by design he caused himself to be presented as the only choice for a be-
leaguered people desperate for peace, and a national symbol of the new
era of prosperity that he and his supporters proclaimed was heralded by
his Principate. Articulating a vision of Romes destiny and moral char-
acter would serve to guide public attention away from the recent civil
wars and toward the promise of the future, thereby ensuring the tacit
legitimization of his individual political triumph. Thus, beyond his sta-
Writing for Rome
bilization of the new government and creation of a new hierarchy (with
himself at its head), one of Augustuss most impressive political achieve-
ments was his conception and promulgation of a vast long-term plan for
his empire and for the Roman people as a whole.
Many scholars have noted the way in which Augustus brought this
plan to fruition by engaging in the pervasive organization of images and
public opinion (especially after the constitutional settlement of ..);
discussion has centered on the way in which the princeps marshalled sup-
port for his regime through the creation of a new program of national
idealismand rebirth. Syme famously emphasizes the inherent articiality
of the process:
Out of the War of Actium, artfully converted into a spontaneous
and patriotic movement, arose a salutary myth which enhanced the
sentiment of Roman nationalism to a formidable and even gro-
tesque intensity . . . That there was a certain duplicity in the social
programme of the Princeps is evident enough. More than that, the
whole conception of the Roman past upon which he sought to
erect the moral and spiritual basis of the New State was in large
measure imaginary or spurious, the creation conscious or uncon-
scious of patriotic historians or publicists.
4
By contrast, Zanker takes a more optimistic view of Augustuss motiva-
tions, preferring to detect in the national program a note of genuinely
benevolent concern: The princeps of course determined the themes and
general tenor of [the new public imagery], and in fact his political style
was in some respects no less important than what he actually did . . . [but]
the restoration of the Republic was not simply a sham intended to fool
the Roman public, as is often maintained. Even before .. it was clear
that Augustuss new political style did not represent a departure from the
sense of mission that had always motivated him . . . [He] set in motion
a program to heal Roman society.
5
But regardless of whether Augustus truly believed in his message or
was simply making a calculated response to immediate political necessi-
ties, his programrequired the production and dissemination of appropri-
ate ideas and images throughout Roman society. The people at large had
to be convinced that Augustus had restored the Republic and brought
peace to Rome; at the same time, the Roman elite (especially the senato-
rial nobility) had somehow to be incorporated into the new system, so
that their rivalries and ambitions would not continue to destabilize the
Worldly Aairs
state. To this end, there was deployed a huge network of popular commu-
nication, incorporating many dierent forms of persuasion: lavish new
monuments and temples; statues, paintings, and coins, all emblazoned
with appropriate symbols and slogans; public ceremonies, processions,
and spectacle entertainments designed both to please and to edify the
citizenry; laws governing moral and civic behavior; and, perhaps most
important, literary texts. The variety of media used ensured the dissemi-
nation throughout all levels of Roman society, from the cultured and
educated elite down to the sometimes illiterate members of the urban
plebs and other populations throughout the empire, of suitable mes-
sages (carefully tailored in each case to the interests and background
of the target audience) of intergration and acceptance of the Augustan
regime.
6
Clearly, the princeps and his associates were engaged in the estab-
lishment of an extensive and elaborate program of propaganda; that is,
propaganda not in the simplistic popular sense of outrageous and inam-
matory falsehoods but in its more sophisticated guise as the educational
eorts or information used by an organized group that is made avail-
able to a selected audience, for the specic purpose of making the audi-
ence take a particular course of action or conform to a certain attitude
desired by the organized group.
7
This concept of propaganda depends
for its essential character on the seminal work of the French sociologist
Jacques Ellul, who made clear distinctions between separate categories
of propaganda: especially between political and sociological propaganda
respectively, the techniques of inuence used by a specic political group
to achieve their dened ends, and the complex of beliefs and assump-
tions so dominant within a society as to lead each individual to use them
unconsciously to make what he believes are free and spontaneous deci-
sionsand between the propaganda of agitation, denoting the crude and
inammatory devices of subversive opposition, and the far more subtle
and gradual propaganda of integration, designed to encourage stability and
conformity of action and belief within the target society.
8
Ellul argues that sociological, integrationist propagandacontinu-
ous, largely undetectable, and designed to elicit from its target audience
the seemingly spontaneous embrace of desired beliefs and actionscon-
stitutes true propaganda in its most advanced and pernicious form. He
further claims that this phenomenon rst arose only in the twentieth
century; that without the scientic research of modern psychology and
sociology there would be no propaganda, or rather we still would be in
the primitive stages of propaganda that existed in the time of Pericles
Writing for Rome
or Augustus.
9
But the Augustan regime clearly employed propaganda
precisely as Ellul describes it: as the subtle and continuously applied in-
strument of mass social integration directed toward the establishment of
political stability and uniformity of thought.
10
Romans of every class and
background were being exhorted to embrace their destiny as the just and
moral rulers of the world, and (more subtly) to celebrate Augustus as the
man who had at long last freed them from the horrors of civil war and
made possible this new Golden Age.
Literature should be understood as having been a central pillar of this
enterprise, all the more so since propaganda inevitably comes to domi-
nate all literary production, once it has been unleashed: Propaganda will
take over literature (present and past) and history, which must be rewrit-
ten according to propagandas needs . . . it is the result of propaganda itself.
Propaganda carries within itself, of intrinsic necessity, the power to take
over everything that can serve it.
11
Certainly, the very best authors of
the day were being marshalled behind the scenes to lend seemingly spon-
taneous, patriotic support to the regime and its promulgated national
ideals. As early as the late forties .., Octavian and Maecenas began to
recruit promising young writers to aid in the presentation of their cause
and in the shorter-termorganization of public opinion. Virgil and Varius
seem to have been invited to join in or .., Horace shortly there-
after (on the recommendation of the other two) in .. This was a time
of great insecurity for Octavian,
12
but even so he and Maecenas seem
already to have grasped the potentially enormous impact that organized
literary backing might have on his ultimate popular acceptance. Maece-
nas, of course, was the direct patron, but Octavian/Augustus was always
intended to be the real beneciary of the enthusiastic writings of these
rising young poets. The works they produced would be employed to help
dene and legitimize the new political regime:
The literary patronage exercised by Maecenas was unique in that
it was exercised for the political benet of Augustus, and, from
the very beginning, it envisaged that when the right time came,
Augustus would take it over, and Maecenas would fade into the
background . . . Maecenas had an agenda that can be discerned at
least in general terms: it was to focus on the program until the new
political system had been safely established and to shift the focus
onto the great leader only after the program could be regarded as
enacted . . . Maecenas shaped the traditional Roman institution
of patronage into a new form so that literature could be pressed
Worldly Aairs
into service to what could be recognized, when it was successfully
implemented, as a national political program.
13
Thus, each poet or historian in Maecenass clientela can be said to have
beenworking for the newregime under his patrons supervision. It would
be interesting to know which of the two men, Maecenas or Octavian,
rst developed this ingenious and foresighted scheme of engaging and
cultivating talented writers to muster widespread popular favor.
14
At any
rate, the eect was powerful in the extreme. The ensuing demonstrations
of support, and eloquent embrace of Octavian as the true hope of Rome,
came from men who were themselves former Republicans or victims of
the earlier predations of the Triumvirate;
15
such credentials made them
valuable tools in the crucial positioning of public attitudes in favor of
the young Caesar and against his formidable rivals. Horace in particu-
lar was a central gure in this literary program (along with Virgil, Livy,
and to a lesser degree Propertius), as indeed he had been almost from the
beginning.
. Preliminary Observations
What, then, of Horaces response to his becoming an integral component
of this machine of public communication and integrationist propaganda?
We have already marked Horaces ability to speak to several dierent
audiences simultaneously within a poem or even a single line of verse.
In such cases, Horace reconciles often contradictory sentiments into a
single persuasive whole by incorporating these contradictions into self-
images that win the sympathies of his audiences and at the same time
awaken his readers to the special pressures the poet faced by virtue of his
status and vocation. Similarly, although Horace proves himself to be an
eective disseminator of the Augustan messages of peace, tolerance, and
stability, he nevertheless manages at the same time to create within his
poetry a note of apparent personal disinvolvement, qualication, or am-
bivalence. In terms of his relationship to the Augustan camp, he draws
his readers attention to the special challenges of writing on behalf of the
government, even as he inventively fullls the requests and suggestions
made to him by Octavian/Augustus and Maecenas to write on particu-
lar subjects and themes. Dierent readers are thereby encouraged to take
away very dierent political messages, depending on their pre-existing
views regarding the regime.
Preliminary Observations
Given that our primary intention is to recover, if possible, those as-
pects of Horaces situation that occasioned the use of such double-edged
techniques, two problematic notions must be dealt with at the outset.
The rst of these is the popular conception that Horace suered a last-
ing stigma as a traitor or at best a spineless turncoat, all because he ini-
tially fought for Brutus and the republicans but then jumped over to
the winning faction after the battle of Philippi. This view was advocated
as recently as by Oliver Lyne, who takes Horaces wry accounts of
his unheroic performance in the battle as evidence that the turncoat
stigma presented for him a source of lasting pressure and unhappiness:
He had solicited and won the patronage of Maecenas, right-hand man
in the government which had defeated the republican cause for which Horace
himself had fought in .. One would not have to be too cynical to have
the word turn-coat come to mind. It is hard to believe that Horace and
others did not think of that . . . Horace was dissuaded in the early thirties
from all political poetry by fear of appearing the turn-coat; memories of
.. were fresh.
16
Lyne sees Horace as having avoided political entanglements in the
early thirties for this reason, noting that Horace was then Maecenass
client, not Octavians, and so was free to shake o unwanted requests for
public and political poems during this period. But it has been pointed out
in response that Octavian presided over Maecenass patronage of poets as
de facto patron right from the beginning; political concerns were nec-
essarily an issue in Horaces poetry even in the early years of his asso-
ciation, and the proposals and guidance of his powerful friends had
to be accommodated.
17
Even a mild suggestion from either of these two
men could not be taken lightly, since requests from powerful superiors,
no matter how lightly they may be made, carry the force of command
performances and cannot easily be disregarded.
18
Therefore, the idea that any turncoat stigma caused special problems
for Horace (beyond a certain level of private irritation or embarrassment,
perhaps) cannot be accepted with security. Horaces apparent reluctance
to engage wholeheartedly during the thirties in the propaganda war be-
tween Octavian and Antonius, as evidenced by the minimal overt politi-
cal content of Satires (released in ..) and ( ..), must stem not
frompersonal insecurity about his past but fromsome other factor. Con-
siderations of genre obviously played a role; the Satires are cast as records
of the private thoughts and experiences of one Q. Horatius Flaccus and,
as such, they constituted an inappropriate venue for direct political pam-
Worldly Aairs
phleteering. Perhaps also Maecenas and Octavian deemed it imprudent to
trumpet self-praise and visions of Romes glorious future in the early and
uncertain stages of the game. Likewise, they may have preferred to re-
serve Horaces literary talents for something more subtle and demanding
than the scurrilous insults and innuendo that the triumvirs were hurling
at each other in this decade. In any case, Horaces works of the thirties
are in fact infused with urgent and topical political considerations, as we
shall see.
19
Arelated notion, not necessarily false but potentially misleading, is the
long-held belief that Horace developed over time a genuine enthusiasm
for Augustus and his regime, and that he earnestly conveys in his poetry
an honest gratitude for the stability and personal security the newregime
provided. Hence the poets subsequent docility in toeing the party line:
his vilication of Cleopatra after Actium( Nunc est bibendum, sang the
poet Horace, safe and subsidized in Rome),
20
and his repeated calls in the
Odes for major military campaigns in the East, whether he was actually
taken in by this phantom issue or was cynically compliant with its fabri-
cation as a means of safely venting domestic energy and unrest.
21
Many
scholars have supported a picture of Horace as loyal party hack, while
others have attacked it, arguing instead that the poet was deeply pessi-
mistic about the new regime. Some go so far as to suggest that Horace
underwent an early progression of attitudes from the latter to the former
as his youthful idealism gave way to a more pragmatic appreciation for
Maecenass nancial and creative support; but they, too, assume Horaces
ultimate and total acquiescence in what was required of him.
22
However,
it is vitally important to realize that the point is immaterial for under-
standing Horaces articulated response to the political situation. We can-
not get behind Horaces projected image of support in order to make a
wholly secure judgment on the issue, since all we have once again is what
Horace has chosen to show us. It is the impression Horace creates of em-
bracing Octavians cause that demands analysis rather than the unanswer-
able question of the extent to which his support was actually genuine.
Indeed, it can be argued that the semblance of support was all that
Horace needed to convey. Purely rhetorical considerations alone would
have prompted him to fabricate an early republican phase in his atti-
tudes and loyalties, evenhad this phase never actuallyexisted, inasmuch as
it was politically advisable to create the impression that he had genuinely
embraced the newregime and was in turn welcomed into the fold despite
his earlier opposition.
23
Endorsement of any public gure such as Augus-
The Personal Perspective
tus is far more persuasive if it is presented as coming from someone who
has seen the light and converted from the other side. Thus, whether
real or not, Horaces expression of pro-Octavian sentiments stands forth
as a powerful message of integrationist propaganda on the Ellul model.
. The Personal Perspective
Horace and his fellowpoets were, in fact, left comparatively free to arrive
at their own methods of accommodating the literary and political tasks
set them. The only specic expectation was that they aid Octavians cause
by writing poetry that supported the party or articulated its goals and
ideals. Horace in particular initially accomplishes this task not through
simple open discussion or political propagandism,
24
but by airing what
he presents as his individual views on moral and social issues, and by pre-
senting episodes from his daily life in which he assumes the persona and
perspective of an average Roman citizen. Here, the issues of the greater
political stage impose themselves as vast, impersonal forces on his pri-
vate world; by referring to them in this oblique way, Horace is able to
acknowledge their importance with great eect, even as he subtly allows
for the possibility of alternate viewpoints.
We nd evidence for Horaces employment of this technique through-
out his published corpus, beginning in Satires , where he continually
makes indirect references to contemporary political and moral issues of
importance to Octavian and his associates.
25
In Horaces self- referential
poetic world, these take the form of interactions between the public and
personal spheres: impositions from the world of politics into his envi-
sioned private existence. Octavians political situation and plans for the
future form a continuous undertone in the Satires, with Horace depict-
ing himself as a tiny and largely unnoticed pawn in a much larger and
more important game. The various members of his contemporary audi-
ence were thus invited to take away the message they had hoped to nd,
regardless of whether they welcomed or abhorred the growing power in
Rome of Octavians faction: either an open rejection of any and all politi-
cal considerations, or a more subtle adumbration of the preferability and
even indispensability of Octavian (and Maecenas) in the current political
climate.
26
Satires ., for example, oers a commentary on the human failings
of personal discontent and miserly avarice, in the form of philosophi-
Worldly Aairs
cal musings from Horace to Maecenas. The tone of the poem is relaxed
and colloquial, owing easily from general statement and example to
illustrative anecdote. There is, furthermore, a strong suggestion of an ex-
clusively private setting, such as that of two friends idly conversing over
dinner (, ):
Qui t, Maecenas, ut nemo, quam sibi sortem
seu ratio dederit seu fors obiecerit, illa
contentus vivat, laudet diversa sequentis? . . .
denique sit nis quaerendi, cumque habeas plus,
pauperiem metuas minus et nire laborem
incipias, parto quod avebas, ne facias quod
Ummidius quidam. non longa est fabula . . .
Why is it, Maecenas, that no one simply lives content with the
lot that chance or his own judgment has cast before him but in-
stead praises those who follow other paths? . . . And so let there
be a limit to your desires. The more you have, the less you should
fear poverty; you should begin to put an end to your labor on
the strength of the gain you were longing for, lest you end up
doing what a certain Ummidius did. Its not a long story.
Certainly, this satire emphasizes resolutely personal and apolitical con-
cerns; indeed, Horaces exhortations to reject the scramble for wealth
and position might seeminevitably to take on an anti-political resonance,
since success in Roman politics depended heavily on such things. But the
invocation of Maecenas as the dedicatee of the entire collection estab-
lishes an implicit connection to the larger diplomatic and political world
of .. Maecenas played a prominent role in this world as Octavians
adviser and lieutenant, for he was the sole overseer of aairs in Rome
and Italy during this period of Octavians absence ( ..). As such,
his very name carried considerable political baggage. For those mem-
bers of the audience concerned with the ongoing rivalry of the trium-
virs, Horaces self-conscious association of himself with Maecenas (and
through him Octavian) would automatically have constituted a partisan
acta public gesture of endorsement and allegiance.
27
Horaces discussion of lecherous behavior in Satires . may in turn
reect Octavians nascent interest in moral reform and proper familial
conduct, which was to culminate years later in his sweeping marriage
laws of ..
28
The poemcontains a condemnation (of sorts) of adultery,
The Personal Perspective
although its tone is highly ippant and is based on the vulgar praise of
freedwomen and prostitutes as representing more risk-free alternatives
(, , ):
tutior at quanto merx est in classe secunda,
libertinarum dico . . .
. . . atque etiam melius persaepe togatae est.
adde huc quod mercem sine fucis gestat, aperte
quod venale habet ostendit . . .
nec vereor ne, dum futuo, vir rure recurrat,
ianua frangatur, latret canis, undique magno
pulsa domus strepitu resonet . . .
discincta tunica fugiendum est et pede nudo,
ne nummi pereant aut puga aut denique fama.
But safer by far is the second-class merchandiseIm talking
about the freedwomen . . . and often the streetwalkers have much
better features. Add to this the fact that a hooker shows her
goods without any disguises; she openly displays what she has
for sale . . . nor am I afraid, when Im screwing, that her husband
will hurry back from the country, the door gets broken down,
the dog starts barking, the whole house thunders with blows and
uproar . . . then you have to run away with your tunic half on
and without your shoes, lest you suer damage to your wallet,
your rear end, or at least your reputation.
Horace employs here his familiar tactic of deprecating self-represen-
tation (as in the farcical and humiliating picture of himself hurrying
half-dressed from the house amid shouts and barking dogs). But to what
end? From one perspective, the playful mixture of whimsical imagery
and coarsely economic terminology in these lines serves irreverently to
deate any solemnity that might accrue to discussions of adultery, by
which token Horace might be interpreted as gleefully revelling in the ab-
surdity of any attempt to dissuade the Romans from committing the act
and, thus, as making an indirect allusion to the inherent unpopularity of
moral legislation;
29
after all, he closes the satire by condemning not adul-
tery but its aftermath (Sat...): Deprendi miserum est (Its really
bad when you get caught). Then again, it is no less possible to interpret
the passage as a humorous but nevertheless meaningful characterization
of the sorry state of Romes current moral fabric and, by extension, as
Worldly Aairs
an expression of hope that this fabric can soon be repaired and new safe-
guards put in place. Maecenas and Octavian, nowin a position to consider
doing something about the problem, would naturally have been inclined
to take Horaces sentiments in this spirit and would have appreciated the
sacrice of his self-image in service of this goal.
30
Very dierent readings
thus present themselves, depending on the views and expectations with
which Horaces audiences approached the issue; the poet has designed his
text to accommodate multiple interpretations.
Similarly, Horace celebrates the virtues of aequitas and clementia (equa-
nimityand a certain broad-minded forbearance) in Satires . bydepicting
himself as a comically awed and clumsy gure ():
simplicior quis et est qualem me saepe libenter
obtulerim tibi, Maecenas, ut forte legentem
aut tacitum impellat quovis sermone molestus . . .
. . . vitiis nemo sine nascitur: optimus ille est,
qui minimis urgetur. amicus dulcis, ut aequum est,
cum mea compenset vitiis bona, pluribus hisce,
si modo plura mihi bona sunt, inclinet, amari
si volet: hac lege in trutina ponetur eadem.
Lets say someone is rather artlesssuch as I have often freely
shown myself to be to you, Maecenasso that by chance he
barges in on you when youre reading or having a rest, bother-
ing you with some sort of blather . . . No one is born without
faults: that man is best who is weighed down by the fewest. As is
fair, a good friend should balance my aws with my good points
and lean more toward these good points (so long as I have more
of them) if he wants to hold my aection. On this condition, he
will be measured on the same scale.
At rst, the emphasis here appears once more to be on the resolutely pri-
vate and personal. Horaces imagined faux pas occur within the connes
of Maecenass home, serving simultaneously to reintroduce the endear-
ing image of his casual association with his patron and to compliment
Maecenas for his clear-sighted lenience in his dealings with his friends.
But Octavian, too, is present in the background; he has already directly
appeared in the poem as someone who demonstrates a commendable
generosity and tolerance for the shortcomings of his amici (): Habe-
bat /ille Tigellius hoc. Caesar, qui cogere posset, /si peteret per amicitiam
The Personal Perspective
patris atque suam, non/quicquam proferet (That fellow Tigellius had
this fault. If Caesar, who could force him if he wanted to, requested a
poem for the sake of his friendship and that of his father, he would get
nowhere). Thus, Horaces celebration of Maecenass liberality and level-
headed clementia implicitly delineates the very sort of virtuous character
for which Octavian himself wished to be recognized.
31
By speaking on moral issues in Satires ., Horace is in part respond-
ing directly to the immediate political needs of Octavian and his faction.
As Ian DuQuesnay points out, we can see the huge political signicance
of these three poems more clearly when we place them in the context
of the simmering civil strife of the mid-thirties:
The full signicance of [the appearance of unanimity on these
moral issues among Horace, Maecenas, and Octavian] can only be
appreciated when the nature of the contemporary hostile propa-
ganda against the Triumvirs is recalled. The Pompeians and Repub-
licans will have called the Triumvirate a tyranny, dominatio, potentia
paucorumand regnum. Aletter ascribed to Brutus accuses Octavian of
cupiditas and licentia . . . Against this background it is signicant that
Horace presents Maecenas and his friends as being as much con-
cerned withmoral standards as Sallust himself and equally hostile to
the vices of avaritia, ambitio and luxuria . . . The image of Maecenas
friends which emerges from the poems is so precisely suited to the
political requirements of the mid-thirties and so exactly calculated
to allay the fears and anxieties of Horaces contemporaries about
the intentions, ambitions, and moral character of their new leaders
that it is just not possible to suppose this eect to be accidental.
32
In other words, Horace is not merely engaged in moralizing for its own
sake but has designed his work at least in part to address the attacks of the
Republican and Pompeian factions, as well as to reassure and win over
the support of the public at large. Even more important, the presentation
of a positive moral picture of Maecenas and his group also constitutes a
direct response to Octavians attempt to control and deect the rampant
competitiveness of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, whose unrestrained
ambitions, factionalism, and destabilizing rivalries had for decades been
the fundamental cause of civil war. Octavians strategic political vision
was to present himself as the morally preferable choice for Romes future,
the man who could (and would) restore the Republic and yet, at the
same time, place a tight cap on the destructive senatorial impulses that
Worldly Aairs
had brought about its downfall. In turn, although Horaces multifaceted
handling of moral issues in the Satires allows for alternate interpretations
of this strategy, his simultaneous juxtaposition and accommodation of
dierent audiences encourages readers both supportive and hostile to
confront the specics of Octavians program.
33
Even when Horace paints his self-image on the most immediate and
personal scale, he still manages to call attention to specic events of great
public importance, thereby indirectly rearming the crucial governing
role played by Octavian and Maecenas. In Satires . he presents himself
as a rank-and-le citizen, all but oblivious to the serious issues in which
his friends and associates are earnestly engaged; and yet, he is careful to
make sucient allusion to those issues so as to ensure that they remain a
central underlying theme of the poem. Horace meets up with Maecenas
while the great man is engaged on a diplomatic endeavor ():
huc venturus erat Maecenas optimus atque
Cocceius, missi magnis de rebus uterque
legati, aversos soliti componere amicos.
hic oculis ego nigra meis collyria lippus
illinere . . .
Good Maecenas and Cocceius were to meet us here, both of
them envoys sent on matters of great importance and accus-
tomed to reconciling estranged friends. Here I smear black oint-
ment over my bleary eyes.
Although Horace trains our attention upon his own humorous but
embarrassingly mundane experiences, he also makes enough glancing
allusions to the trips urgency (magnis de rebus) and the nature of the task
(aversos . . . componere amicos) to make it clear that the mission he de-
scribes is the one that historically culminated in .. in the Pact of
Tarentum between Octavian and Antoniusa political event of great
signicance. Thus, Horaces account of his eye problems, and the sub-
sequent episodes in the poem of ball-playing, naps, and burnt dinners,
redraw Maecenas and the Octavian faction on a more personal scale.
34
Not only will they shortly avert bitter conict between the triumvirs;
they are also shown to be ordinary, likable fellows, with a sense of humor
and a taste for simple relaxation. Antoniuss lieutenant Fonteius Capito,
meanwhile, is characterized as being a perfect gentleman, ad unguem
factus homo (Sat...). Thus both sides are portrayed to good ad-
The Personal Perspective
vantage, and the all-important external impression of comity between
the two triumvirs (and their adherents) is preserved. By presenting the
entire episode largely through his individual, private gaze, Horace eec-
tively humanizes the faces of the triumvirate and of those who serve
its cause.
This private framing of public matters carries with it one further tac-
tical advantage: it enables Horace on some occasions to emphasize the
political situation of those with whom he associates, on others to ob-
scure it. Everything depends on the message he wishes to convey and
the ring of audience to which he opts to give the privilege of sharing
his self-assumed perspective. In Satires .., for instance, Horace
recalls the nine-month hiatus between his rst meeting with Maece-
nas and his joining of Maecenass clientela, but he remains wholly silent
on one likely reason for the delay: shortly after this meeting in ..,
Maecenas departed on an urgent mission to the East to seek military sup-
port from Antonius for the ongoing struggle against Sextus Pompeius.
It does not suit Horaces purpose to call attention to Octavians past mo-
ment of comparative weakness, and so he makes no direct reference to
these diplomatic maneuvers. By contrast, in Satires ., Horace complains
openly about the harassment to which he purports to be subjected daily
in the streets ():
35
frigidus a rostris manat per compita rumor;
quicumque obvius est me consulit: o bone, nam te
scire, deos quoniam proprius contingis, oportet,
numquid de Dacis audisti? nil equidem. ut tu
semper eris derisor! at omnes di exagitent me,
si quicquam. quid? militibus promissa Triquetra
praedia Caesar an est Itala tellure daturus?
iurantem me scire nihil mirantur ut unum
scilicet egregii mortalem altique silenti.
A cold rumor runs down from the Rostra through the streets;
everyone I run into on the street asks me: Tell me, sirfor you
ought to know, being so close to the godshave you heard any
news about the Dacians? Not me. Oh, youyoure always
playing the fool! Heaven help me if I know anything. What?
Caesar promised land grants to his soldierswill they be in Sicily
or in Italy? When I swear that I know nothing, they all mar-
Worldly Aairs
vel at me as someone who is clearly unusually and profoundly
close-mouthed.
Here Horace uses a typically undignied image of himself (at worst genu-
inely uninformed, at best pestered by inquiries and forced to feign igno-
rance) to acknowledge directly Octavian and Maecenass tremendous im-
portance as the determiners of foreign and domestic policy, as well as
their place at the very center of public attention. In .., one year after
the battle of Actium, it is they who hold the reins of power in Rome;
quicumque obvius est wants to knowabout their plansactions against the
Dacians or the veterans land settlements (an absorbing and potentially
worrisome issue for well-to-do Romans).
36
Although his personal tribu-
lations remain the primary subject, Horace is at the same time careful to
emphasize that external political considerations would not be imposing
themselves on his private experiences to anywhere near the same extent
if these men were not in rm control of Romes future.
. Savior of the State
Even when Horace oers his most open and emphatic support for Maece-
nas and Octavian, this support continues to be expressed principally
through the presentation of vignettes from his private world. Paradoxi-
cally, the very directness of his sentiments on such occasions leaves
his larger message open to darker and more pessimistic interpretation.
Epodes , written in .. but purporting to have been written earlier,
stands of course mainly as a declaration of gratitude and loyal friendship
to Maecenas. From the outset, this friendship is given a strong political
resonance, as Horace envisions his amicus heading o on campaign as rst
ocer to Octavian ():
ibis Liburnis inter alta navium,
amice, propugnacula,
paratus omne Caesaris periculum
subire, Maecenas, tuo . . .
. . . et te vel per Alpium iuga
inhospitalem et Caucasum
vel Occidentis usque ad ultimum sinum
forti sequemur pectore.
Savior of the State
You will go on Liburnian boats among the high prows of ships,
Maecenas my friend, ready to share in every danger that Caesar
faces . . . And, whether over the ridges of the Alps and the in-
hospitable Caucasus, or all the way to the furthest shore of the
West, I will follow you with a brave heart.
Such questions as who is going where, to what extent the Alps or the
Caucasus were actually planned theaters of Octavians operations, or
whether Maecenas and Horace were present at the battle of Actium,
37
are
less materially relevant than Horaces presentation in Epodes of Maece-
nas as being doggedly loyal to Octavian in this dicult and uncertain
period, and himself in turn as wholeheartedly backing themboth. Given
the prominence of this poem as the opening dedication of the entire col-
lection of Epodes, what initially might have seemed a privately expressed
sentiment of personal friendship reveals itself as a rm and public mes-
sage of support for the causeone that, at the same time, exposes its
author to the charge of excessive zeal, almost toadyism, that we have seen
him grapple with elsewhere.
38
In turn, Epodes raises the idea that Octavians party represents the
only escape for the long-suering Roman people through Horaces pre-
sentation of himself as anticipating the celebration he will hold with
Maecenas after Octavians victory ():
39
quando repostum Caecubum ad festas dapes
victore laetus Caesare
tecum sub altasic Iovi gratumdomo,
beate Maecenas, bibam
sonante mixtum tibiis carmen lyra,
hac Dorium, illis barbarum?
ut nuper, actus cum freto Neptunius
dux fugit ustis navibus,
minatus urbi vincla, quae detraxerat
servis amicus perdis.
Romanus eheuposteri negabitis
emancipatus feminae
fert vallum et arma, miles et spadonibus
servire rugosis potest,
interque signa turpe militaria
sol adspicit conopium . . .
Worldly Aairs
terra marique victus hostis punico
lugubre mutavit sagum.
aut ille centum nobilem Cretam urbibus,
ventis iturus non suis,
exercitatas aut petit Syrtes Noto,
aut fertur incerto mari.
When (God willing) will I drink with you in the lofty house,
fortunate Maecenas? When will I be overjoyed at Caesars vic-
tory, and drink with you the Caecuban wine that was laid down
for special festival banquets, and enjoy the mingled song of for-
eign pipes and the sounding Dorian lyre? Just as we did re-
cently, when the admiral son of Neptune ed, driven from the
Straits with his ships burnt, although he had threatened the city
with the chains that he had taken from the slaves who were his
friends. Now a Romanoh God, later generations will deny
itcarries weapons and fortications for a woman to whom he
has surrendered, and a soldier nds himself able to serve a gang
of wrinkled eunuchs, and the sun looks down upon a shame-
ful pavilion placed among the military standards . . . Now, con-
quered on land and sea, the enemy changes from royal purple to
a mourning cloak. Either he will head amid contrary winds for
Crete, famous for its hundred cities, or he is seeking the Syrtes
plagued by the south wind, or he is being tossed on the uncer-
tain sea.
There has been much argument over the dramatic time and setting of
this poem: is this a scene-by-scene commentary on the preliminaries
and aftermath of the battle of Actium, or a hopeful prediction of what
will occur? Is Horace speaking in his own home, at the home of Maece-
nas, or even on a ship at the battle itself ?
40
Perhaps Horace is retro-
spectively imagining himself at Maecenass house and there receiving
breaking news of Actium. But in any case, to focus on such questions
is largely to misinterpret the function of Epodes . Horace envisions a
quasi-ceremonial banquet of thanksgiving, a celebration of Romes de-
livery from a great and barbarous peril comparable to that once posed by
Jugurtha or Hannibal. He further presents himself as looking forward to
drinking an array of ne wines with Maecenas, the friend and lieutenant
of Octavianto whom all this anticipated happiness is owed. The poem
thus oers a compelling vision of Octavians heroic service to his people
Savior of the State
as reected in one citizens gratitude and private festivity. At the same
time, the preoccupation here with the recent military and political de-
velopments of the mid-thirties (the defeat of Sextus Pompeius []
41
and Cleopatras nancing of Antoniuss war chest as well as the ensuing
barrage of unpleasant Octavian propaganda []), and the recurrent
note of morose uncertainty that marks Horaces references to the future
(quando tecum bibam? eheuposteri negabitis), hint that the situation is still
as incertus as the sea. Much remains to be done.
Even by the publication of Odes in .., eight years after Actium
and four years after the settlement of .., the political situation in
Rome remained dangerously unstable. In that year the princeps became
seriously ill and was, in addition, forced to suppress a major conspiracy
involving his consular colleague Terentius Varro Murena. It was, as Syme
observes, a year that might well have been the last, and was certainly the
most critical, in all the long Principate of Augustus.
42
In this atmosphere
of crisis Horace continues to support the regime through tactful but clear
recognition of what he presents as the continuing threat of catastrophe
for the Roman people. His personal thoughts on the dangers of a relapse
into civil war project a compelling image of Augustus as the only wall
standing between Rome and imminent destruction, even though such an
image also sharpens the underlying sense of terror at the chaos brewing
in the state.
As a result, much of the poets politically oriented writing in the Odes
is marked by a high degree of directness and urgency. He makes fre-
quent acknowledgment of the dire political and moral situation, striking
a notably bleak note as he surveys the problems that threaten the Roman
ship of state (Odes ..):
43
o navis, referent in mare te novi
uctus. o quid agis! fortiter occupa
portum. nonne vides, ut
nudum remigio latus
et malus celeri saucius Africo
antennaeque gemant, ac sine funibus
vix durare carinae
possint imperiosius
aequor? non tibi sunt integra lintea,
non di, quos iterum pressa voces malo.
o Worldly Aairs
O ship, fresh tides are bearing you out to sea. Oh, what are you
doing Be strong, and remain in the harbor! Do you see that your
sides have no oars, your broken mast and yards are creaking in
the erce African wind, your keel without ropes can scarcely
withstand the implacable sea \ou have no intact sails, no gods
on whom to call when overcome by calamity.
44
In the later stanzas of Odes .:, a sacral chorus is urged to sing the praises
of Apollo, in the hope that the god will preserve Rome from war, fam-
ine, and pestilence, noteworthy is the tone of fearful anxiety conveyed
by such terms as lacrimosus and misera, and the uncertainty of motus aget
prece (,o)
hic bellum lacrimosum, hic miseram famem
pestemque a populo et principe Caesare in
Persas atque Britannos
vestra motus aget prece.
Moved by your prayer, Apollo will drive away tearful war,
wretched famine, and plague from the people and from Caesar
the princeps, and send them against the Persians and Britons.
45
And in Odes ,.o, the perceived immorality of the Roman populace elicits
an unnervingly dark and pessimistic Hesiodic vision. Worse is yet to
come, says Horace, as Rome spirals down through four generations of
ever-worsening moral and spiritual decay (,:o, ,,)
fecunda culpae saecula nuptias
primum inquinavere et genus et domos
hoc fonte derivata clades
in patriam populumque uxit . . .
damnosa quid non imminuit dies
aetas parentum, peior avis, tulit
nos nequiores, mox daturos
progeniem vitiosiorem.
Our age, abundant in sin, has deled marriage, the family, the
household. Derived from this source, Disaster has owed down
upon our homeland and its people . . . What has this destructive
time not ruined The generation of our parents, worse than our
Savior of the State o,
grandparents, has produced us, even worse, soon we will produce
a line of ospring lled with even more faults.
And yet, here too Horace gives to his poetry a more subtle resonance.
Given Augustuss long-standing interest in shoring up the institutions of
marriage and family in Rome, there is an implicit expectation in these
lines that the princeps will soon resolve even this serious problem.
46
Nor
can one overlook the complimentary allusion earlier in the poem to
Augustuss inauguration in : .. of a vast program of temple repair and
rebuilding.
47
Indirectly, then, Horace is broadcasting a positive politi-
cal message to his readersbut one that must be searched for and that
depends for its eect on the assumption and acceptance of Augustuss
continuing primacy.
Indeed, Horace regularly cloaks his hopeful celebration of Augustus as
the shining savior of Rome and of the Roman moral fabric in gloomy or
otherwise jarring language. On such occasions, the mixture of ruler-cult
panegyric and anxious references to the pressing situation (threatening
barbarian hordes, for example) seems intended to mitigate or justify the
extravagance of his praise (Odes .:.,,, and ,.,.)
48
gentis humanae pater atque custos,
orte Saturno, tibi cura magni
Caesaris fatis data tu secundo
Caesare regnes.
ille seu Parthos Iatio imminentes
egerit iusto domitos triumpho,
sive subiectos Orientis orae
Seras et Indos,
te minor latum reget aequus orbem.
Father and guardian of the human race, son of Saturn, to you
by the Fates has been entrusted the care of great Caesar may
you reign supreme, with Caesar next! Whether he leads in suit-
able triumph the broken Parthians who now threaten Iatium,
or the Chinese and Indians who border the shores of the rising
sun, second to you he will justly rule the wide world.
caelo tonantem credidimus Iovem
regnare, praesens divus habebitur
Worldly Aairs
Augustus adiectis Britannis
imperio gravibusque Persis.
When Jupiter thunders in the sky, we believe that he reigns; now
Augustus will be held to be a god on earth, when the Britons
and the fearsome Parthians have been added to our empire.
These parallel strands of emotiondespair over societys moral fail-
ings and optimistic faith in Augustusare interwoven in such a way as
to accentuate both the seriousness of the situation and the princeps cru-
cial role in determining the fate of Rome. But on other occasions Horace
underlines the connection between the princeps and Romes bad situa-
tion in a more ambiguous and pessimistic fashion. In Odes ., a prayer
to Fortuna for the safety of Augustus is abruptly cut short, giving way
to lugubrious lamentation for the past sins of civil war ().
Thus, although such passages might perhaps strike some modern read-
ers as being unattractive or even servile in their adulatory tone, it is im-
portant rather to recognize the skill with which Horace has met his re-
sponsibility to create an overpowering impression of Augustus as being
the one true savior of the state and the only hope for the Roman people,
while yet managing to inject a certain ambivalence into his presentation.
Signicantly, he sends the same message that the princeps many manipu-
lations of image and public opinion were intended to convey, thereby
operating in synchrony with Augustuss larger political and image-based
calculations without ever necessarily committing either himself or his
readers to wholehearted belief in their sure success.
Indeed, Horace often diverges from the party line in the performance
of his political functions, by delineating for himself a new self-image as
an independent commentator on Augustus and his regime.
49
In Odes .,
for instance, Horace uses the pretext of the urgent moral and political
situation to consider the position of Augustus in a markedly frank and
undeferential manner. If Augustus wishes to be remembered with love
and gratitude, the poet suggests, he will have to end civil strife and halt
Romes downward slide into depravity ():
o quisquis volet impias
caedes et rabiem tollere civicam,
si quaeret Pater Urbium
subscribi statuis, indomitam audeat
Savior of the State
refrenare licentiam,
clarus postgenitis: quatenus, heu nefas,
virtutem incolumem odimus,
sublatam ex oculis quaerimus, invidi.
Whoever would want to eliminate impious slaughter and the
madness of civil war, if he wants the words Father of Cities
to be inscribed upon his statues: let him dare to restrain un-
controllable wantonness and be famous among later generations,
inasmuch as we in our envyoh, the criminal shame of it
hate intact Virtue and only long for it when it has been removed
from view.
That Augustus is the ultimate target of this rm, from-the-shoulder ad-
vice is clear from the veiled reference in these lines to the title of pater
patriae (which the princeps seems to have considered long before it was
ocially awarded to him in ..) and the explicit linking of the long-
term prospects for peace with the legislation of domestic morality.
50
The
passage thus takes on an air of cool objectivity, further enhanced by the
poets subsequent expression of doubt as to whether such legislation can
ever be eective if the moral ber is not already there (Odes ..):
Quid leges sine moribus vanae prociunt? (What do empty laws ac-
complish, when mores are absent?) To be sure, Horaces essential message
remains that Augustus is indispensable to Rome, for it is he who will
take the actions and initiate the reforms necessary for its survival. But
the poet now speaks on a far more equal footing as an independent indi-
vidual, whose separate yet valid viewpoint allows for direct commentary
in a way that the oblivious personal perspective of the Satires did not.
51
Engaging in such a complex mode of political discourse involves con-
siderable hazard; there is always a very real possibility that dierent audi-
ences will intercept and misinterpret each others intended messages.
Odes ., for example, begins with a grim survey of the evil portents
that have recently befallen Rome (), similar in tone to passages cited
above. The specter of civil war is specically invoked as a sure sign of the
coming end ():
52
audiet civis acuisse ferrum,
quo graves Persae melius perirent,
audiet pugnas vitio parentum
rara iuventus.
Worldly Aairs
quem vocet divum populus ruentis
imperi rebus? prece qua fatigent
virgines sanctae minus audientem
carmina Vestam?
The youth, made rare by the faults of their parents, will hear that
citizens sharpened their swords for use against each other, those
swords by which the terrible Persians should better have died.
They will hear of civil war. Which god will the people call upon
for the sake of a collapsing empire? With what prayer will the
sacred virgins bore Vesta, who no longer listens to their hymns?
Several godsApollo, Venus, Mars, and Mercuryare beseeched to aid
the Roman people in their time of need. But something unexpected
occurs during this invocation: over the last three stanzas of the address to
Mercury, the identity of the god slides imperceptibly into that of some-
one else. Patiens vocari Caesaris ultor seems an unusual epithet for Mercury,
as does pater atque princeps. And in the nal line of the poem he is revealed
to have been Augustus all alonga god on earth, in an assumed human
form ():
sive mutata iuvenem gura
ales in terris imitaris almae
lius Maiae, patiens vocari
Caesaris ultor:
serus in caelum redeas, diuque
laetus intersis populo Quirini,
neve te nostris vitiis iniquum
ocior aura
tollat; hic magnos potius triumphos,
hic ames dici pater atque princeps,
neu sinas Medos equitare inultos,
te duce, Caesar.
Or if with altered form you take the shape of a youth and y
down to earth, son of Maia, and allow yourself to be called the
avenger of Caesar: late may you return to the sky, and long may
you be happy to remain among the people of Quirinus, and may
no swift breeze take you away, angry at our faults. Here instead
Savior of the State
may you enjoy great triumphs, here may you love to be called
Father and Princeps, nor permit the Medes to ride unpunished
so long as you are leaderAugustus Caesar.
What is the intended eect of this? Is Mercurys metamorphosis into
Augustus meant to be celebratory or disturbing? Nisbet and Hubbard
term Horaces identication of god and princeps an oence against
the Horatian qualities of moderation and rationality, ascribing it to the
poets incomplete understanding of the contemporary rise in the East
of Augustan ruler-cults.
53
Indeed, it is dicult at rst not to see Horace
here as simply having attempted and failed to strike a tricky balance be-
tween acceptable praise and clumsy panegyric. But the problem becomes
more serious when we turn to consider the specic political implications
of the poem. To begin with, Horaces description of Mercury as Caesa-
ris ultor () and subsequent identication of Mercury with Augustus
eectively reestablish the same link between Octavian/Augustus and the
deied Julius Caesar that Octavian himself had emphasized long ago. This
is a dangerous move for the poet to make: twenty years earlier, Octavian
had cleverly gained political credibility and auctoritas by casting himself
as Caesaris ultor, the avenging son (by adoption) of the murdered Divus
Julius. But since .., Augustus had largely obscured this relationship,
inasmuch as it t awkwardly with the promulgated image of republica
restituta, the Republic Restored, upon which the constitutional settle-
ment was based in that year.
54
As such, Horace is running two serious risks. He has made allusion
to a defunct political ploy now potentially embarrassing to the princeps
and, at the same time, has reminded his external audience that Julius
Caesar was assassinated while at the very height of his political strength
(hence Octavians pledge of vengeance)a sobering thought. Augustus
now enjoys almost the same position and power as did his predecessor;
can it be that he, too, is vulnerable? Will he, too, be voted a posthu-
mous deication? We recall that the overall atmosphere of Odes . is
one of impending doom, as the poet contemplates the prospect of a col-
lapsing empire. And, in emphasizing the seriousness of Romes situa-
tion, Horace has pointed to the immediate danger of further suering
for the Roman people should Augustus disappear. Such a formulation
ingeniously compliments the princeps by implying that he alone is the
one true guarantor of Romes future, but the picture of what that future
may hold is troubling. The princeps himself, overlooking the deeper im-
Worldly Aairs
plications of Horaces words, might well bristle at this resurrection of
his relationship with Julius Caesar and the attendant suggestion that he
faces a similar possibility of assassination. Odes . is thus unsuccessful,
indeed, but not because Horaces contemporary readers would have been
uncomfortable with his oensive enshrinement of Augustus as a god
on earth, as Nisbet and Hubbard suggest.
55
Rather, the poem falls victim
to Horaces uncharacteristic mismanagement of his audience, the result
of his privileging the perspective of the outer over the inner ring. In
this instance, the ambiguity of Horaces self-ascribed position as com-
mentator on the regime has undone his attempt to accommodate the
multiple implications of celebrating Augustuss transcendent primacy in
the Roman state.
56
. The Poets Burden
Elsewhere in his corpus Horace is quite forthcoming about the peculiar
challenges and diculties he faced as a central member of Augustuss and
Maecenass literary-political team. This is not to say that Horace ever di-
rectly complains about the burdens of working on behalf of the cause;
rather, just as he did in treating his friendship with Maecenas, Horace
acknowledges in his verse the special pressures under which he operates
while simultaneously doing what is requested of him. It is his familiar
tactic of self-consciously preemptive and defensive analysis, now put to
a new use. One tool to which Horace naturally has frequent recourse in
his illustration of the onerous nature of writing political poetry is the
recusatio, a poets coyly deferential request that he be excused from writ-
ing the grand epic that the subject matter in question requires, on the
grounds of personal inability and lack of talent. Indeed, Horaces use of
this form is especially politicized, since the requested themes on which
he politely declines to write are not mythical kings and battles but the
military exploits of Augustus and his lieutenantsmasters of the current
political scene and his own powerful amici superiores. What is more, the
specic language with which he turns down these requests often carries
the suggestion that considerations of politics and image have motivated
Horaces refusal no less than his poetic commitment to a Callimachean
slender Muse.
57
Agrippa, the victor of Actium and Augustuss most trusted military
commander, receives a recusatio in the rst book of the Odes. Horace sug-
gests that Agrippa apply instead to the epic poet Varius for a praise poem,
The Poets Burden
claiming of himself that pudor and the strictures of the lyric genre pre-
vent him from assuming a task that so clearly needs an epic treatment
(Odes ..):
scriberis Vario fortis et hostium
victor Maeonii carminis alite,
quam rem cumque ferox navibus aut equis
miles te duce gesserit.
nos, Agrippa, neque haec dicere . . .
conamur, tenues grandia, dum pudor
imbellisque lyrae Musa potens vetat
laudes egregii Caesaris et tuas
culpa deterere ingeni.
You, brave conqueror of the enemy, will be written about by
Varius, a bird of the Maeonian songwhatever deed the erce
soldier has accomplished on ship or horseback, with you as his
leader. We will not attempt to speak of these things, Agrippa,
being too weak for grand themes, so long as modesty and the
Muse who controls the unwarlike lyre forbid that my lack of tal-
ent should detract from yours and incomparable Caesars glory.
But this is not simply a matter of modesty or generic limitations; Horace
also worries that if he were to write in praise of the admiral, the short-
comings of his own ingenium would not only fail to enhance but might
damage the public stature of Agrippa and Augustus himself (laudes . . .
culpa deterere ingeni ). One is reminded of Augustuss attested concern that
only the nest authors be allowed to praise him, lest incompetent cele-
brations actually detract from his dignitas.
58
By making his refusal in this
way, Horace calls attention to the fact that more is at stake than simply
observing the correct literary form; the poet must also make certain that
his praises will be acceptable once they are written and will not plunge
him into disfavor for having insulted the dignity of his subject or his
friends. The recusatio thus takes on a sharper edge of personal yet politi-
cally motivated anxiety.
Horace makes clear the rewards and pitfalls involved in writing for
Octavian/Augustus specically in Satires ., where Trebatius suggests to
him a literary topic likely to prove both lucrative and a sure road to good
favor with the mighty triumvir. Horace, however, portrays himself as
being not so sure ():
Worldly Aairs
aut si tantus amor scribendi te rapit, aude
Caesaris invicti res dicere, multa laborum
praemia laturus. cupidum, pater optime, vires
deciunt: neque enim quivis horrentia pilis
agmina nec fracta pereuntis cuspide Gallos
aut labentis equo describat vulnera Parthi.
attamen et iustum poteras et scribere fortem,
Scipiadam ut sapiens Lucilius. haud mihi dero,
cum res ipsa feret: nisi dextro tempore, Flacci
verba per attentam non ibunt Caesaris aurem,
cui male si palpere, recalcitrat undique tutus.
Well, if such a love of writing compels you, you should under-
take to speak of the deeds of unconquered Caesar. You would
earn great rewards for your trouble. I wish I could, sir, but
strength is lacking on my part. Its not everyone who can de-
scribe the battle lines bristling with spears, or Gauls dying with
broken lances, or the wounds of the Parthian as he falls from his
horse. But you could write about him, just and valiant, as clever
Lucilius wrote about Scipio. I will not let myself down, when
the opportunity presents itself; but the words of a Flaccus will
reach the listening ear of Caesar only when the time is right. If
you stroke him clumsily, he kicks back and becomes altogether
guarded.
As Trebatius notes, the potential rewards for writing such celebratory
poetry are immense. But Horace points out (to his external readers as
well as to his interlocutor and Octavian himself ) the considerable di-
culties involved, not only in writing such verses but even in approach-
ing their recipient in order to present them at the right moment.
59
The
powerful mans response to a poem written in his honor is dicult to
gauge beforehand, and may culminate in displeasure and disgrace for the
unfortunate celebrant.
Horace reemphasizes this point years later in Epistles ., when he
gives a string of instructions to one Vinnius, imagined in the work to be
carrying a collection of Horaces verses to Augustus (, ):
ut prociscentem docui te saepe diuque,
Augusto reddes signata volumina, Vinni,
si validus, si laetus erit, si denique poscet;
The Poets Burden
ne studio nostri pecces odiumque libellis
sedulus importes opera vehemente minister . . .
ne vulgo narres te sudavisse ferendo
carmina, quae possint oculos aurisque morari
Caesaris . . .
Just as I instructed you often and at length when you set out,
Vinnius, please give these sealed rolls to Augustus. If hes in good
health, if hes in high spiritsbasically if he asks for them. Dont
make a mistake out of zeal for my cause or bring odiumupon my
little books by being too ocious and enthusiastic as the agent
for my works . . . and dont tell everybody that you worked up
a sweat by carrying around poems that might catch the eyes and
ears of Caesar.
The poem has a strongly humorous feel; the Vinnius referred to is pos-
sibly the praetorian centurion of that name who was famous for his
great strength, in which case Horaces references to the weight of the
books and to Vinnius stumbling and dropping them en route would be
comically incongruous.
60
But even if its eect is intentionally amusing,
Horaces self-image here remains that of a fearful author nervously an-
ticipating his works reception and pestering his messenger saepe diuque
as he imagines all the things that might go wrong. This should be taken
primarily as comprising an allusion to all the pressures and anxieties that
befall any poet who attempts to write for the emperor.
The eect of these passages is complex: Augustus could not fail to
be amused (and pleased) by such inventive allusions to the power he
wielded, but at the same time they serve to remind other readers of the
challenging burden Horace carried as a poet of the regime. In eect,
dierent rings of audience are once more being directed to consider
dierent things. The ultimate result is to showcase Horaces successful
celebration of Augustus and his Principate, and yet simultaneously raise
the curtain slightly on the internal processes and attendant diculties of
composing such celebrations. It is a remarkably subtle performance, and
a quintessentially Horatian one.
Worldly Aairs
. Free and Independent Support
There remains one nal way in which Horace employs the techniques
of self-presentation in order to meet his responsibility to the Augustan
regime. Recruitment of the best poets to act as publicists and celebrants
of the cause was one of the earliest hallmarks of Octavian and Maece-
nass image campaign. As the immediate patron, Maecenas might sug-
gest suitable topics and themes for poetic treatment but otherwise leave
these poets free to write independently and as they pleased.
61
Precisely
this allowance of artistic autonomy enabled Horace to create his most
eective technique for articulating and advancing Caesars political in-
evitability in a non-threatening way: to wit, his presentation of himself
as neither paid mouthpiece nor detached or subversive critic but as a
free and independent Roman spontaneously and privately choosing the
better option for his peoples future. We took note earlier of the way in
which Horaces dark visions of Romes degenerating morality and pessi-
mistic forecasts of a desperate future created problems for his message,
despite (or in some cases because of ) his balancing of this picture with an
image of Augustus as the hope of Rome, a quasi-divine savior who will
rescue the people from themselves. Elsewhere, however, Horace oers
us a more subtle and eective endorsement of Augustuss service to the
state, through more skillful handling of his own self-image. By depict-
ing himself as skeptical or at best indierent to this projected image of
Augustus as beloved hero, Horace paradoxically demonstrates the free-
dom and clemency that were presented as the central, guiding ideals of
the Restored Republic. He thereby cements the positive image of the
regime which, on a supercial level, he purports to question, while deftly
addressing any potential doubts of his readers by seeming to share their
concerns.
Certain of the Epodes provide a useful point of departure for con-
sideration of this technique, particularly those written prior to Horaces
association with Maecenas.
62
In these, Horace oers no discernible escape
from the decay and destruction that the Romans have brought upon
themselves (Epod.):
quo, quo scelesti ruitis? aut cur dexteris
aptantur enses conditi?
parumne campis atque Neptuno super
Free and Independent Support
fusum est Latini sanguinis?
non ut superbas invidae Carthaginis
Romanus arces ureret,
intactus aut Britannus ut descenderet
Sacra catenatus Via,
sed ut secundum vota Parthorum sua
urbs haec periret dextera . . .
sic est: acerba fata Romanos agunt
scelusque fraternae necis,
ut immerentis uxit in terram Remi
sacer nepotibus cruor.
Where, where are you rushing in your wickedness? Whyare your
hands drawing the swords that were laid away? Has too little
Latin blood been poured over the elds and upon the sea? Not
shed so that the Roman might burn the proud citadels of jealous
Carthage, or that the still untouched Briton might walk down
the Via Sacra in chains, but that this city might die by its own
handa pleasing fullment to the prayers of the Parthians . . .
It is so: a terrible fate pursues the Romans, and the crime of a
brother slain, when the blood of innocent Remus owed over
the earth, a curse for his descendants.
63
This Sallustian sentiment is repeated in Epodes , where the poet, look-
ing ahead to the catastrophe of worsening civil strife, calls apocalyptically
for an abandonment of Rome altogether (, ):
altera iam teritur bellis civilibus aetas,
suis et ipsa Roma viribus ruit.
quam neque nitimi valuerunt perdere Marsi
minacis aut Etrusca Porsenae manus . . .
impia perdemus devoti sanguinis aetas,
ferisque rursus occupabitur solum . . .
ire, pedes quocumque ferent, quocumque per undas
Notus vocabit aut protervus Africus.
sic placet? an melius quis habet suadere? secunda
ratem occupare quid moramur alite?
sed iuremus in haec: simul imis saxa renarint
vadis levata, ne redire sit nefas.
Worldly Aairs
Nowanother generation is ground down by civil war, and Rome
herself collapses under her own strength. The city that the neigh-
boring Marsi were not strong enough to destroy, nor the Etrus-
can horde of menacing Porsena . . . we, an impious generation of
accursed stock, we will destroy it, and once again it will be occu-
pied only by the wild beasts . . . To go wherever our feet take us,
wherever the South wind or the rough African wind will call us
over the waves. Is this what we want? Or does someone have a
better suggestion? Why are we hesitating to board the ship, since
the omens are favorable? But let us swear to this: when the rocks
are raised up fromthe deep waves and oat once more, only then
let it not be a sin to return.
But the political resonance of these poems is diuse rather than linked to
any specic historical context, and is closely tied up with considerations
of the poets art. In conveying the basic message that Rome is on the
verge of total annihilation because of its failings and internal strife, Epodes
stands as a darkly qualifying response to the celebratory Eclogues of
Horaces friend Virgil, written in or .. (Ecl..):
64
teque adeo decus hoc aevi, te consule, inibit,
Pollio, et incipient magni procedere menses;
te duce, si qua manent sceleris vestigia nostri,
inrita perpetua solvent formidine terras.
In your consulship, yours, Pollio, will begin this glorious age, and
the great months will begin their progress. Under your reign, if
any traces remain of our wickedness, they will become void and
free the land from their unending dread.
In Epodes , by contrast, no imminent time of wonder is prophecied,
and the gloom is unrelenting; Horace does not openly declare here that
there is any hope of salvation, much less suggest as in Odes . that Romes
future rests in the hands of a particular individual.
65
He makes no spe-
cic reference to Octavian, positive or negativeexcept insofar as he is
implied to be part of the problem, as one of the instigators of civil strife.
It is all a very dierent proposition from his eloquent and skillful cele-
bration, in so many of the Odes, of Augustuss founding of a new Golden
Age. But these Epodes were written very early in Horaces literary career,
when the young poet was unassociated with Maecenas and still a recently
impoverished refugee from the political turmoil of the time. We should
Free and Independent Support
therefore avoid interpreting them as truly expressing the deep pessimism
of an individual who happened then to have no connection to the cur-
rent political situation. They rather reect an early time before Horace
had become an associate of Maecenas and developed these visions of the
impending destruction of Rome into a favored mechanism for present-
ing Octavian/Augustus as the powerful agent of Romes salvation. Epodes
and demonstrate the extent towhich Horaces techniques were based
on the elaboration and political redirection of themes that had always
been present in his poetry.
In any case, Horaces signalling of personal independence and freedom
to express individual views can be found at the heart of his most eec-
tive demonstrations of support for Augustus and his regime. In Odes .,
for instance, Horace presents himself as joyfully welcoming home an old
companion-in-arms from his days as a tribune under Brutus in the Re-
publican army (, ):
o saepe mecum tempus in ultimum
deducte Bruto militiae duce,
quis te redonavit Quiritem
dis patriis Italoque caelo,
Pompei, meorum prime sodalium,
cum quo morantem saepe diem mero
fregi, coronatus nitentes
malobathro Syrio capillos? . . .
oblivioso levia Massico
ciboria exple, funde capacibus
unguenta de conchis. quis udo
deproperare apio coronas
curatve myrto? quem Venus arbitrum
dicet bibendi? non ego sanius
bacchabor Edonis: recepto
dulce mihi furere est amico.
Brutus often led you and me both into desperate situations, back
when he was the commander of the army. Pompeius, my best
friend, with whom I often whiled away the lingering day with
wine, a crown on my head, my hair glistening with Syrian oint-
ment: Who has returned you now, as a citizen, to your countrys
Worldly Aairs
gods and to the Italian sky? . . . Fill up the light cups with care-
free Massic wine, pour out the perfumes from the large bottles!
Who will hurry to prepare the garlands of yielding parsley or
myrtle? Whom will the dice name as the drinks-master? I will
rave, as wild as the Edones: it pleases me to go crazy, now that
my friend has returned.
Pompeius, Horaces friend, is imagined as having only just returned at last
to Rome after years spent ghting in the civil wars on the anti-Octavian
side. Horaces eager anticipation of their joyous (and raucous) reunion
party thus stands in part as a testament to the praiseworthy clementia of
the princeps in allowing another former opponent to come home. And
indeed, Augustuss displays of mercy and forgiveness to old Republicans
are well attested, as are his calculated gestures of respect for the mem-
ory of Cato Uticensis and others.
66
Imperial clementia is likewise manifest
in the freedom with which Horace celebrates this return in a published
work of poetry and the fondness with which he recalls his service in the
Republican cause. Augustus is thus once again revealed to be the invalu-
able benefactor of Rome, as witnessed by the license he has given Horace
to live and write as he pleases. The past is forgiven and forgotten; Rome
turns, under the rule of Augustus, to a new and happier future. A mes-
sage such as this depends for its impact on the indirection with which it
is conveyed.
Perhaps even more striking a demonstration of the ambiguity of Hor-
aces depiction of independence comes with his portrait in Odes . of
the downfall of Cleopatra after the battle of Actium.
67
The poem be-
gins straightforwardlyenough, with an exuberant call for celebration and
allusions to a standard theme of the propaganda war of the thirtiesthe
crazed and drunken queen, surrounded by her gang of foreign perverts
():
nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero
pulsanda tellus, nunc Saliaribus
ornare pulvinar deorum
tempus erat dapibus, sodales.
antehac nefas depromere Caecubum
cellis avitis, dum Capitolio
regina dementes ruinas,
funus et imperio parabat
Free and Independent Support
contaminato cum grege turpium
morbo virorum, quidlibet impotens
sperare fortunaque dulci
ebria . . .
Nowwe must drink and beat the ground with our free feet. Now,
friends, it is time to adorn the couch of the gods with sump-
tuous feasts. Before now it would have been a sin to bring out
the Caecuban wine from our grandfathers cellars, so long as that
queen was planning maddened ruin for the Capitol and destruc-
tion for the empire; she with her foul gang of wicked and dis-
eased men, she unrestrained, ready for anything, and drunk on
her good fortune.
But as Horace recounts the aftermath of Actium, new images begin to
collide with this picture of Cleopatra as a frightening monster. Octavian
is envisioned in noble and warlike tones as a hawk or a hunter, and his
raging enemy is likewise turned into his weakling prey, a dove or a hare
():
. . . mentemque lymphatam Mareotico
redegit in veros timores
Caesar, ab Italia volantem
remis adurgens, accipiter velut
molles columbas aut leporem citus
venator in campis nivalis
Haemoniae, daret ut catenis
fatale monstrum . . .
Caesar drove her mind, unbalanced by Mareotic wine, into genu-
ine terrors. He chased her by ship as she ew from Italyjust
as the hawk chases soft doves or the quick hunter chases a hare
on the snowy elds of Haemoniain order to clap the deadly
monster in chains.
Horace strikes a parallel here with Iliad ., in which exactly the
same similehawk and doveis used to describe Achilles as he pursues
Hector around the walls of Troy. But its eect on the tone and atmo-
sphere of Odes . is unexpected. By equating Octavian with Achilles
and Cleopatra with Hector, Horace celebrates Actium through graceful
Worldly Aairs
and attering comparison of the Roman leader to a Homeric hero. At
the same time, he also implicitly extends the same compliment to the
Egyptian queen, imparting to her a curious duality; she is likened simul-
taneously to a terrible fatale monstrum and the tragic gure of the Trojan
prince, about to die for his city. Thus introduced, the closing scene of
Cleopatras suicide, although it assuredly enhances the glory of Octa-
vians victory (since a triumph over a worthy foe is far more admirable
and politically valuable than the crushing of some vile degenerate), also
leaves the reader of the poem with a profound sense of her nobility and
strength of character ():
. . . quae generosius
perire quaerens nec muliebriter
expavit ensem nec latentes
classe cita reparavit oras.
ausa et iacentem visere regiam
vultu sereno, fortis et asperas
tractare serpentes, ut atrum
corpore combiberet venenum,
deliberata morte ferocior;
saevis Liburnis scilicet invidens
privata deduci superbo
non humilis mulier triumpho.
Seeking a nobler death, she did not quail like a woman at the
sword, nor did she ee to hidden shores with her swift eet. She
dared to look calmly upon her fallen kingdom and was brave
enough to handle poisonous snakes, so that she might absorb
their black venom into her body. Resolving on death had made
her all the more bold. Clearly, she scorned to be a former queen,
brought by the cruel Liburnians to be led in some proud tri-
umph. An uncommon woman.
Not all would agree with the above reading of Odes .. Nisbet and
Hubbard, for instance, do not ascribe to Cleopatras characterization any
particularly redeeming features, seeing it instead as Roman through-
out. There is no languorous death-scene; the snakes are horrible and
scaly to the touch; Cleopatra dies from pride and not for love. Horace
uses precise and prosaic words . . . [and] gibes . . . Cleopatra commits
Free and Independent Support
suicide only to cheat the carnifex.
68
But the obviously politicized, tri-
umphalist, and resolutely Roman atmosphere of the work does not pre-
clude us from appreciating what should be equally obviousthat here,
as Michael Putnam notes, in the poets boldest reference to Caesar, does
an Horatian speaker forthrightly promote [as a] subject the moral per-
plexities of [Actium] . . . Not Caesar but Cleopatra rules the poem, a
reminder that the individual can still stand up to Rome, and be gloried
through a lyric poets candor.
69
There is much here that is crucially relevant to our understanding of
Horaces method of handling his political responsibility to the Augustan
regime. Odes . is indeed a demonstration of individualitynot only
the individuality expressed in Cleopatras deance but also the individu-
ality of a poet who shows respect for the enemies of his state even as
he celebrates their defeat. But it is is most emphatically not a work of
subversion or criticism of Augustus. Rather, it constitutes an allusion to
the dierent ways in which historical events can subsequently be treated.
The display of candor noted by Putnam becomes a testament to the free-
dom of poets and citizens alike to speak their minds, which Augustus
was careful to proclaim he personally had restored.
Thus, even when Horace seems to turn away from issues of state
in favor of homely and decidedly apolitical themes, he continues, as
in the Satires, to give expression to the central messages of the Octa-
vian/Augustan regime. Major events such as Augustuss return from a
three-year tour of the western provinces in .. (a crucial phase of
his program of imperial organization) may be referred to in exclusively
personal terms,
70
with public ceremonies and customs of thanksgiving
(Odes ..) replaced by Horaces private plans and preoccupations:
perfume, garlands, a ne old wine, a puella to come sing at his dinner,
and his own advancing age (, ):
Herculis ritu modo dictus, o plebs,
morte venalem petiisse laurum
Caesar Hispana repetit penates
victor ab ora . . .
i, pete unguentum, puer, et coronas
et cadum Marsi memorem duelli,
Spartacum si qua potuit vagantem
fallere testa.
Worldly Aairs
dic et argutae properet Neaerae
murreum nodo cohibere crinem;
si per invisum mora ianitorem
et, abito.
lenit albescens animos capillus
litium et rixae cupidos protervae;
non ego hoc ferrem calidus iuventa
consule Planco.
People of Rome: Caesar, who just now was said like Hercules to
have sought the laurel wreath at the price of death, is returning
victorious from the shores of Spain to his household gods . . .
go, boy, get the perfumes and garlands, and a wine jar or pitcher
that remembers the Marsian War, if there is any that was able to
escape the ravages of wandering Spartacus. And tell melodious
Neaera to hurry and tie back in a knot her blonde hair. If there
is a delay because of the hateful doorkeeper, let him be o! My
whitening hair lessens my spirit for strife and my desire for wan-
ton brawling; I would not have tolerated this when I was hot
with youth, back in the consulship of Plancus.
But we can see that this purported declaration of apoliticality clearly
has a strong political resonance,
71
especially when one takes into account
the signicance of the dates and events alluded to in the last three stanzas:
the Social War of .. (Marsum duellum), the revolt of Spartacus in
.. (Spartacus vagans), and the battle of Philippi in .. (consule
Planco), all occasions when the Roman state faced and withstood great
peril. As Fraenkel observes, The thought [of the close of Odes .],
while still dwelling on the res publica populi Romani, is gliding into the
sphere of the res privata of the poet . . . [and] it is with a turning-point in
the recent history of the res publica that the private part of the ode con-
cludes. We now see that the two parts of the poem, however dierent
the origin of their themes, are woven into one closely knit texture.
72
After all, it is Augustuss return from an important mission of imperial
organization that has prompted Horaces celebration; the poet makes it
clear that he is able to turn to his own pleasures in this fashion only be-
cause of the princeps invaluable services to the state. Augustus has the
aairs of Rome well in hand, his audience is assured, and thanks to him
the res publica is no longer in danger, as it has been so often in the past.
Free and Independent Support
Each reader is invited to join Horace in focusing on his own res privata
with a clear conscience and a heart liberated from fear.
As a result, when Horace urges Maecenas in Odes . to abandon his
worries and take refuge with him in a few hours of quiet and apoliti-
cal ease as he observes the holiday of the Matronalia, coincidentally his
personal anniversary of nearly being hit by a falling tree branch, all the
rings of his audience are in eect being invited to bask in the unmistak-
able political glow. The aairs of empire that Horace instructs his friend
to forget have been left in the capable hands of the princeps, and every-
thing in the world (including the barbarian hordes that once seemed so
menacing) is safely under control ():
sume, Maecenas, cyathos amici
sospitis centum et vigiles lucernas
perfer in lucem: procul omnis esto
clamor et ira.
mitte civiles super urbe curas:
occidit Daci Cotisonis agmen,
Medus infestus sibi luctuosis
dissidet armis,
servit Hispanae vetus hostis orae
Cantaber, sera domitus catena,
iam Scythae laxo meditantur arcu
cedere campis.
neglegens, ne qua populus laboret,
parce privatus nimium cavere et
dona praesentis cape laetus horae ac
linque severa.
Raise a hundred glasses to your friend who was spared, Maece-
nas, and keep the lanterns lit until dawn. Let all uproar and anger
be far away. Dismiss your state cares and concerns for the city:
the forces of Cotiso the Dacian have been crushed; the hostile
Parthians are ghting each other with grief-causing weapons;
the Cantabrian (our old enemy of the Spanish coast) has been
enslaved and is at last mastered with chains; already the Scythi-
ans are planning to leave the plains, their bows unstrung. Dont
trouble yourself, be a private citizen, and stop worrying that the
Worldly Aairs
people have to do any work at all; be happy, accept the gifts of
this hour, and leave all serious things behind.
73
Parce privatus nimium cavere: the advice is meant for Horaces other readers
as well. With his strength and virtue, Augustus safeguards the happiness
of the people, so secure in his place at the helm that he no longer needs
the help even of his oldest and closest advisers in keeping the ship of
state on an even keel. For Horace, Maecenas, and the outside readers
alike, acceptance of the Augustan regime has brought at last the chance
of restful peace.
. Conclusion: Multiple Indirections
Let us close with a consideration of Odes ., addressed to Asinius Pollio,
for here Horace manages to capture within a single poem almost all the
varied aspects and implications of his technique of addressing to mul-
tiple audiences his indirect support of the Augustan regime. Pollio, of
course, had very much followed his own path throughout the civil wars.
He remained infuriatingly neutral during the war with Antonius and,
after Actium, continued for years to stand as a symbol of libertas, a privi-
leged nuisance to the new Principate.
74
When the poem opens, Pollio
is engaged in writing a history of the civil wars, taking .. as his
starting point and continuing down to Actiuma risky project to be
contemplating, as Horace warns him ():
motum ex Metello consule civicum
bellique causas et vitia et modos
ludumque Fortunae gravesque
principum amicitias et arma
nondum expiatis uncta cruoribus,
periculosae plenum opus aleae,
tractas et incedis per ignes
suppositis cineri doloso.
You are writing on the civil disturbances during the consulship
of Metellus; the causes of war, and the mistakes, and the meth-
ods, and the play of Fortune, and the destructive friendships of
rulers, and weapons stained with blood still unatoned for. It is
Multiple Indirections
a work lled with dangerous chance, and you are walking over
res that smolder beneath the deceitful ashes.
By addressing the opening poem of Odes to such a politically awk-
ward gureand especially by giving such prominence to his history, a
work guaranteed to oer a coolly trenchant perspective on past events
and ruthless actions that the princeps in his new, more benevolent guise
of the twenties .. would be embarrassed to have dredged up again
Horace does a number of things for the various rings of his audience. He
compliments Pollio for his daring independence, and fullls his obliga-
tions to his important amicus for benecia received.
75
He reminds outside
readers of the crimes of the triumvirate and of the dangers involved in
speaking of them now that a single survivor from that era is in control.
But at the same time, by broadcasting such messages, Horace also exhibits
the freedom of speech that he enjoys as a beneciary of the clementia for
which Augustus himself wished above all to be celebrated. Thus, Horaces
seemingly bold gesture of warning to Pollio in Odes . is revealed to
be at the same time a calculated celebration of the Augustan achieve-
ment. Indeed, when thoughts of Pollios forthcoming project elicit in
turn a cry of despair over the crimes and tragedies of the past civil strife
reminiscent of those we have found elsewhere ()
quis non Latino sanguine pinguior
campus sepulcris impia proelia
testatur auditumque Medis
Hesperiae sonitum ruinae?
qui gurges aut quae umina lugubris
ignara belli? quod mare Dauniae
non decoloravere caedes?
quae caret ora cruore nostro?
What plain is not enriched by Latin gore, which eld does not
testify with its graves to the wicked battles and the sound of Hes-
perias ruin, heard by the Medes? What streams or rivers do not
know of the sorrowful war? What sea has not been stained with
Daunian slaughter? What shores are free from our blood?
Horace recoils from such darkly mournful thoughts to turn back in
the nal lines to lighter and happier themes ():
Worldly Aairs
sed ne relictis, Musa procax, iocis
Ceae retractes munera neniae,
mecum Dionaeo sub antro
quaere modos leviore plectro.
But lest you abandon jokes, my wanton Muse, and bring back
the works of the Cean dirge, come seek with me in a Dionaean
cave the measures of a lighter tune.
That Horace portrays himself as able to reject the specter of civil war so
easily, to embrace instead the pleasures of ioci and a plectrum levius, is itself
a declaration that unhappiness and political strife are things of the past,
thanks to the benevolence and vigilance of the princeps. Once again, each
ring of audience is tactfully made to realize that Augustus alone has saved
the Roman people and has freed them to devote themselves peacefully
to their private pursuits.
Horace played a dangerous game by writing on and for the Augus-
tan regime in the way he did. In airing what he presents as his per-
sonal experiences and opinions, he risks encouraging others to persist in
their independent and sometimes hostile views regarding contemporary
political developments. When he articulates such frightening visions of
Romes desperate plight, he risks overstating and thereby weakening the
case for the princeps as the only viable solution. By acknowledging his
diculties as he works for the cause, he risks the chance that Augustus
will misunderstand the purpose of his candor, just as Augustus himself
faced the possibility that his attempts to curb Romes self-destructive ten-
dencies would be misread as threats to the authority and prestige of the
senatorial nobility. But the gamble was clearly worthwhile, and Horace
was right to take it. For in so doing, he managed to craft a technique
for the writing of political poetry that was eminently suited to his re-
markable talent for manipulating the responses of his audiences and for
nding the exact balance between their often contradictory demands. In
an age when the conscious management of images represented a basic
engine of political and social life, Horace was a master of the art and,
quintessentially, a man of his time.

Creating Reality
People being what they are, image often trumps substance when it comes
to persuading them to believe in the worth and rightness of an idea,
a program, a product, or an individual. Political candidates frequently
win elections not because of any inherent superiority in their ideas or
platforms, but because they campaign more eectively or simply give
the impression of being more appealing. A court case may be decided
through an advocates skill in swaying the jurors rather than through the
merits (or lack thereof ) of his or her brief. Indeed, such is the power of
image that it sometimes becomes the sole basis of the discourse, domi-
nating and guiding that which it was initially intended only to enhance
or conceal. Fact ends by following presentation; the fabricated becomes
the true. On these occasions, the manipulator of images must have some
room to maneuverespecially if the image he wishes to modify is his
own. He must nd a way to overcome the natural resistance of his audi-
ences, so that he may focus on shaping their perceptions of him. If the
circumstances shift and the old techniques prove to be no longer eec-
tive, he must adapt to the new situation by developing dierent tactics.
When creating reality, exibility is the key.
Horace knew this principle well. Throughout his works, we have
seen that he does more than neatly manage the various requirements of
his dierent and often incompatible audiences; he shows himself adept
at making minute or drastic adjustments to his self-image, as required
in each case, in order to give expression to his chosen themes. Like a
great military commander, Horace demonstrates a remarkable capacity
for rapidly summing up a given situation and then implementing a re-
sponse that is calculated to bring about its successful resolution. Personal
narrative, self-deprecating humor, sober discussion, lofty statement: each
is applied by turns at the very moment when it will be the most eec-
tive, and then just as quickly dropped and replaced by something else. In

Conclusion
much the same fashion, Horace appears to have been able to overhaul his
entire method of self-presentation and audience address when it became
necessary to do so. As we have seen, his complicated use of self-imagery
and deft handling of multiple readers were techniques perfectly suited
to the uncertainties and pressures of Rome in the thirties and twenties
.. But such artful posturing lost much of its usefulness once Augus-
tus had largely resolved the problems of governmental stabilization and
had begun to turn his attention instead to commemorating his achieve-
ments and ensuring the perpetuation of the system he had created. The
time had come for open celebration of the Augustan triumph, not elu-
sive and ambiguous demonstrations of the poets independent-minded
acceptance of the regime.
Thus, Horace hails the recovery in .. of Crassuss standards from
Parthia as a military rather than a diplomatic victory, following the o-
cial symbolism.
1
He composes the Carmen saeculare by special commis-
sion for the princeps Secular Games of .., taking care on this public
occasion to incorporate into his text many of the most central Augus-
tan motifs.
2
And, as bets a man so well attuned to the requirements of
his immediate situation and the nature of his place in a changing world,
he embarks after .. on a new and very dierent style of political
poetry. Gone is his earlier indirection, and simultaneous address of sepa-
rate audiencesfor only one audience really matters now. Instead, the
poet of Odes and Epistles speaks with a new eusiveness that bor-
ders at times on the panegyric.
3
Horace had, of course, bestowed glowing
praise on Augustus in the past but had always placed his compliments
in the context of the urgent political situation and moral dangers of the
time. His encomia are now far more straightforward, eschewing compli-
cated personal stances in favor of fervent exaltation of the princeps (Odes
..):
divis orte bonis, optime Romulae
custos gentis, abes iam nimium diu;
maturum reditum pollicitus patrum
sancto concilio redi.
lucem redde tuae, dux bone, patriae;
instar veris enim vultus ubi tuus
adfulsit populo, gratior it dies
et soles melius nitent . . .
Creating Reality
sic desideriis icta delibus
quaerit patria Caesarem.
Born of the kindly gods, nest guardian of the race of Romulus,
already you have been away for too long. Come back, for you
promised your quick return to the sacred council of the senators.
Give back the light, great leader, to your country; for when your
face, like the Spring, has shown upon the people, there comes
a more pleasing day, and the sun shines more beautifully . . . In
this way does the country, overcome with loyal desire, long for
Caesar.
He cheers specic accomplishments of Augustus with far greater fre-
quency. Indeed, at times Horace directly connects his praises to acts and
events specially mentioned in the emperors Res gestaethe return of
the Parthian standards, the closing of the Janus Gate, and the revival of
Romes former glory and moral strengthunderscoring the much closer
synchronization in this period of Horaces political poetry with the cen-
tral symbols of the Augustan regime (Odes ..):
4
. . . tua, Caesar, aetas
fruges et agris rettulit uberes
et signa nostro restituit Iovi
derepta Parthorum superbis
postibus et vacuum duellis
Ianum Quirini clausit et ordinem
rectum evaganti frena licentiae
iniecit emovitque culpas
et veteres revocavit artes,
per quas Latinum nomen et Italae
crevere vires famaque et imperi
porrecta maiestas ad ortus
solis ab Hesperio cubili.
custode rerum Caesare non furor
civilis aut vis exiget otium,
non ira, quae procudit enses
et miseras inimicat urbes.
Conclusion
Your age, Caesar, has returned rich crops to the elds and has
brought back to our Jupiter the standards ripped down from the
haughtycolumns of the Parthians. It has closed the gate of Quiri-
nus, free fromwars; it has put restraints on the licentiousness that
transgresses proper order; it has banished crimes and recalled the
ancient skills through which the Latin name and the strength of
Italy grew, and the fame and majesty of Empire was stretched
forth fromthe Suns Hesperian couch to the place of its rising. As
long as Caesar stands guard, neither civil strife nor violence will
drive out peace, nor that anger which forges swords and makes
the wretched cities turn hostile.
Mindful of the unquestioned place of the Julio-Claudian family at the
center of Romes governmental and military aairs, Horace also showers
fulsome praise on scions and protgs of the princeps, such as Claudius
Drusus and his brother Tiberius. It was the sort of task he had gracefully
avoided in earlier times, but he now performs this duty with alacrity
on the direct request of Augustus, perhaps signalling that Horace now
operated under far closer scrutiny and guidance than he had in the past
(Odes .., ):
. . . diu
lateque victrices catervae
consiliis iuvenis revictae
sensere quid mens, rite quid indoles
nutrita faustis sub penetralibus
posset, quid Augusti paternus
in pueros animus Nerones . . .
nil Claudiae non percient manus,
quas et benigno numine Iuppiter
defendit et curae sagaces
expediunt per acuta belli.
The hordes, long victorious everywhere, were conquered by the
strategies of a youth. They felt what a mind, what a nature raised
in an auspicious household, what the fatherly spirit of Augustus
toward the young Nerones, could rightly accomplish . . . There
is nothing which the Claudian band will not achieve, whom
Jupiter protects with his kindly divinity, and whom shrewd ad-
vice helps through the dangers of war.
Creating Reality
Where Horace had once pointed to Augustus only obliquely, as the im-
plicit guarantor of the blessings of Roman rule and virtus, he nowdirectly
embraces the emperor and the emperors house as immanent and uni-
versally beloved institutions of the Roman state. His self-image, such as
it is, becomes more that of a simple and awestruck retainer than a free
and independent Roman spontaneously making the better choice for his
patria (Epist..., ):
5
cum tot sustineas et tanta negotia solus,
res Italas armis tuteris, moribus ornes,
legibus emendes, in publica commoda peccem,
si longo sermone morer tua tempore, Caesar . . .
praesenti tibi maturos largimur honores,
iurandasque tuum per numen ponimus aras,
nil oriturum alias, nil ortum tale fatentes.
Since you alone carry so manyenormous responsibilitieskeep-
ing Italy safe through force of arms, elevating it with morals, and
improving it with lawsI would sin against the public good if I
should waste your time with a long discussion, Caesar . . . As long
as you are present we bestow honors upon you at the right time,
we set up altars at which we swear by your divinity, declaring
that no such man will appear ever again, nor has ever appeared
before.
The worshipful air of these lines seems to be meant in earnest, with-
out the ambivalence of Horaces earlier such declarations of support.
The image of a Roman worshipping Augustuss numen at an altar is simi-
larly introduced without any of the awkwardness or embarrassment that
would have accompanied it in the twenties ..; the only anxiety that re-
mains is that of taking up too much of the emperors precious time. Nor
does Horace show any resentment or frustration in having to walk this
new line; he sets aside the old techniques easily and for reasons of pure
expediency, now that the changing times and demands of the princeps
have necessitated their retirement.
6
And yet, the immense appeal of Horaces techniques of carefully ad-
dressed self-presentation continued to growlong after their inventor had
moved on to other poetic approaches. Poets in the following generation
recognized and greatly admired his achievement, and followed in their
works his method of projecting conscious self-images for the benet of
,o Conclusion
dierent audiences. Ovid in particular oers intriguing evidence of the
extent towhich Horaces innovations shaped subsequent Roman concep-
tions of what poetry could accomplish in this vein. Whatever the exact
circumstances of his disgrace and banishment by Augustus to the Black
Sea town of Tomis in ..,
7
once there Ovid set himself out to win
imperial pardon, producing the Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto as explana-
tion and expiation for his oence. Many forms are tried in these works
epistolary verse, Herodotean ethnography, prayers, lamentations, tearful
pleas for forgivenessand Horatian self-presentation.
8
In the Tristia, Ovid oers carefully deprecatory images of himself as a
harmless minor poet of meagre talent and pathetic insignicance, infus-
ing the portrait with a seemingly honest humility that is designed to win
the sympathies of its audience in much the same fashion as Horaces ad-
missions in the Satires of his discomture or personal shortcomings (e.g.,
Tr.,..,,,o and ,.:.:,:).
9
Purporting to undertake a personal history
in order to clarify popular misconceptions about himself, his upbring-
ing, and his art, Ovid presents a poetic autobiography in Tristia .o that
closely follows the pattern of Horaces Satires .o and :.oright down
to an inversion of the formative role played by the father (Tr..o.:
:o), a self-conscious display of tactful discretion regarding the aairs of
Augustus (,,oo), and above all the simultaneous recognition through-
out of multiple rings of audience, each applying a dierent sort of pres-
sure the anger of the injured princeps, the jealousy of contemporaries,
the interests and judgment of future readers.
10
The Epistulae ex Ponto in
turn demonstrate a keen awareness of the special challenges involved in
addressing one important gure in order to convey a message to another,
and a Horatian concern for balancing the interests and preoccupations
of the various audiences with the poets own desires (Pont..:.o,,)
11
Aut hoc, aut nihil est, pro me temptare modeste
gratia quod salvo vestra pudore queat.
suscipe, Romanae facundia, Maxime, linguae,
dicilis causae mite patrocinium.
est mala, conteor, sed te bona et agente,
lenia pro misera fac modo verba fuga.
nescit enim Caesar, quamvis deus omnia norit,
ultimus hic qua sit condicione locus.
magna tenent illud rerum molimina numen
haec est caelesti pectore cura minor.
Creating Reality
It is this or nothing that your favor can attempt in moderation for
me without impairing your self-respect. Maximus, eloquence of
the Roman tongue, take upon yourself the merciful pleading of
a dicult case. A bad case, I admit, but it will become a good
one if you plead it; only utter some words of sympathy in be-
half of a wretched exile. For Caesar knows not, though a god
knows all things, the nature of this remote place. Great under-
takings engross his divine mind; this is a matter too small for his
godlike heart.
Allowing for the very dierent plights to which Ovid and Horace give
expression (exile in a distant barbarian land, as opposed to the pressures
of life as an associate of Romes social and political elite), their stylistic
and thematic responses to the problems of representation are strikingly
similar. Ovids complimentary acknowledgment of Horaces achieve-
ment goes far beyond simple exercises of aemulatio;
12
he has carefully
studied the earlier poets approach and tried to adapt it to his particular
circumstances.
Ovid, of course, never won a pardon from either Augustus or his suc-
cessor Tiberius, and ended his life on the shores of the Black Sea. Augus-
tus remained implacably cold and hostile to the end, and Tiberius un-
doubtedly had his reasons for taking no action; but Ovid also failed in
part because his place of exile was too remote and his message too limited
to be eectively addressed through subtly defensive manipulations of his
self-image. The Horatian technique was designed for use within Rome
itself and depended on the quick and graceful control of a wide variety
of themes and problems, whereas Ovid was now writing from the very
edge of the empire and had only one theme to present: the harshness and
injustice of his sentence. In all likelihood it was the inappropriateness
to his circumstances of his chosen poetic approach, combined with the
gravity of his error and the increasingly restrictive political and literary
climate of his time, that sealed his fate.
Nevertheless, that Ovid worked so hard to incorporate the meth-
ods of Horace into his writing, even when they proved unsuited to his
task, is itself an indication of the tremendous excitement that the tech-
nique of conscious and multifaceted self-presentation must have gener-
ated when Horace rst introduced it into his poetry. Apart from its im-
pact as a novel literary device, the attendant implication that a poet could
so easily and charmingly alter his outer image and thereby continually
Conclusion
thwart his audiences apprehension of his true inner character while, at
the same time, manipulating them into believing what he chose to say,
must have seemed almost revolutionary. As recently as the late Republic,
most Romans had accepted without question the idea that a mans pro-
jection of himself was necessarily indistinguishable from his true charac-
ter: wie Menschen sich ausdrcken, so sind sie. Cicero, for one, believed that
ones personal conduct and private life constituted bydenition a reliable
index to ones public merit and value to the stateand vice versa.
13
But
Horaces self-presentation deed and overturned this established way of
thinking. He appears at rst glance to oer us an open window into his
private self; but the impression is a deceptive one, the result of his skill-
ful arrangement and displacement of many dierent outer images for the
benet of his various audiences.
To be sure, Horaces private and public selvesthe poet himself, and
the consciously constructed representation of his character, experiences,
and idealsare closely intertwined in such a way that the latter can never
be extricated from the former. But this only emphasizes that the re-
lationship between the two, while elusive, is paradoxically illuminating
at the same time. When we explore Horaces work from our vantage-
point on his outermost ring, we observe the delicacy and sureness of
touch with which he depicts the world around him and admire the lush
detail of his self-portrait as he sets it against many dierent relation-
shipswith his patron and his emperor, with friends, acquaintances,
and assorted hangers-on, with critics, fellow poets, slaves, mistresses, the
Roman people, even ourselves. We grasp the self-consciousness of his
compelling picture of a man of genius who rose from obscure origins
into glorious fame and the highest circles of Roman society and in so
doing faced a plethora of complex challenges and troubling pressures.
We understand that this is only an imagean enigmatic, mesmerizing
reection in the mirror of Horaces artful poetry. But for Horaces audi-
ences, whether those of his time or in the here and now, what is seen
in this mirror becomes reality. We catch tantalizing glimpses of a world
in social and political transformation, one in which tremendous risks
and rewards awaited those who were willing and able to try new ways,
and in which control of ones image and the reactions of others counted
for everything. As readers of Horace, we are thus doubly fortunate, for
Horaces poetic mirror is also a poetic lens through which we may view
the intricacies of existence in another age.
Notes
Introduction: The Horaces of Horace
. D. Armstrong, Horace (New Haven, ,,), :.
:. Indeed, there survives among scholars a strong tendency to accept Horaces
account of himself at face value even in this more guarded and cautious age, see
D. Ievy, Horace: A Life (New \ork, ,,,), for a recent manifestation of this im-
pulse. On the dangers of being seduced by the force of Horaces self-portraiture,
however, see, e.g., R. Ancona, Time and the Erotic in Horaces Odes (Durham, N.C.,
,,), ,,o, nn. :o, :.
,. For an astute analysis of the intergeneric links between poems, one very
much in sympathy with the position I advocate here, see M.C.|. Putnam, From
Iyric to Ietter Iccius in Horace Odes .:, and Epistles .:, Arethusa : (,,,)
,,:o,, esp. :oo.
. C. S. Iewis and L.M.W. Tillyard, The Personal Heresy (Oxford, ,,,), see also,
e.g., N. Rudd, The Style and the Man, Phoenix (,o) :o,, W. S. Anderson,
Roman Satirists and Iiterary Criticism, Bucknell Review : (,o) oo,, and
Autobiography and Art in Horace, in Perspectives of Roman Poetry, ed. K. Galinsky
(Austin, ,,), ,,,o, both reprinted in W. S. Anderson, Essays on Roman Satire
(Princeton, ,:), |. Grin, Latin Poets and Roman Life (Iondon, ,o).
,. As typied by the staunchly biographical approach of Lduard Fraenkel in his
seminal work on the poet, Horace (Oxford, ,,,). Fraenkels famous declaration
that Horace . . . never lies (:oo) neatly captures his unyielding belief in the fac-
tuality of the Horace on view in certain poems of the Horatian corpus (as chosen
by Fraenkel himself, see Charles Martindales introduction to C. Martindale and
D. Hopkins, eds., Horace Made New |Cambridge, ,,,|, esp. - ,).
o. Individual views on this central question are not always openly declared,
scholars often indicate their leanings only indirectly, by emphasizing certain as-
pects of Horaces self-image and omitting others in their reading and analysis of
his works. For further discussion of this phenomenon, see Martindale, introduc-
tion to Horace Made New, :,.
,. See K. Freudenburg, The Walking Muse (Princeton, ,,,), esp. ,, for his
opening statement of this view.
. R.O.A.M. Iyne, Horace: Behind the Public Poetry (New Haven, ,,,), Iynes
fundamental assumptions are implicit even in the title of his book. Cf. P. White,
,,
o Notes to Pages
Promised Verse (Cambridge, Mass., ,,,), who argues that the external personal re-
lationships and responsibilities of the Augustan poets aected but did not control
their poetry. It is worth noting that despite this basic dierence of opinion, White
too takes an inherently biographical approach in his attempt to use the poets
works to reconstruct the nature and conditions of their historical existence.
,. See D. West, Reading Horace (Ldinburgh, ,o,), for an earlier consideration
of this point.
o. L. Oliensis, Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority (Cambridge, ,,), :.
. C. Schlegel, Horace and His Fathers Satires . and .o, American Journal
of Philology (AJP) : (:ooo) ,,,. Schlegel makes the suggestion that Horace
praises the moral training he received from his biological father in order to
distance himself and his work from his literary fathers Iucilius, his predeces-
sor in the genre of satire, and Maecenas, his patron. This is persuasive, but her
conclusionthat Horace breaks away from these literary fathers by making his
biological father the prior poetic cause in a paradoxical act of subtle rebellion
(,)seems overextended.
:. G. Highet, Masks and Faces in Satire, Hermes o: (,,) ,:,,.
,. Thus, as Martindale (introduction to Horace Made New, :) points out,
Fraenkels vision of a kindly, avuncular Horace depends on an outright dismissal
of the erce and erotic Horace found in other poems. Similarly, the learned liter-
ary theorist portrayed by Freudenburg (and at far greater length by C. O. Brink,
Horace on Poetry |Cambridge, ,o,|) misses altogether the lively and vivid per-
sonality that the poet himself takes such pains to project. Can these discrepan-
cies be put down simply to considerations of genre Inasmuch as Horace worked
within many dierent literary forms, the respective strengths and limitations of
each genre are, of course, extremely important for determining the specics of
his self-presentation. However, we shall demonstrate that there exists a remark-
able similarity of self-presentation techniques throughout Horaces works, across
genres and even generic groups, much the same images and tactics are employed
in the Satires, Epistles, Epodes, and Odes alike. As such, this issue demands further
accommodation and analysis beyond the recognition of variations based solely
on genre.
. For a detailed analysis of the way in which Horace addresses readers from
many dierent social levels in his poetry, see M. Citroni, Poesia e lettori in Roma
antica (Rome, ,,,), :o,, ::, although Citroni is interested in showing that
Horace and the other Augustan poets were aiming for a general public circulation
rather than limiting themselves to the narrow upper-class focus of recent gen-
erations of authors, and as such he does not fully explore the personal dimension
of the poets representations.
,. B. K. Gold, Openings in Horaces Satires and Odes: Poet, Patron, and
Audience, Yale Classical Studies (YCS) :, (,,:) o,, the quotation is taken
from ,.
Notes to Pages
o. V. Pedrick and N. Rabinowitz, Audience-Oriented Criticism and the
Classics, Arethusa , (,o) o,, see also P. Rabinowitz, Shifting Stands,
Shifting Standards Reading, Interpretation, and Iiterary |udgment, in the same
issue (,,). The proposed audiences here consist of the actual audience (the
person or people who are reading the text at any given moment), the authorial
audience (the hypothetical audience the author originally had in mind at the mo-
ment of composition), and the narrative audience (the audience that is implied
in the text, to whom the narrator thinks he is speaking). The last of these three
concepts is the least useful for understanding Horace, since his authorial and
narrative audiences so often overlap (or are identical). As a result, Gold presents
a dierent framework of audiences (see the original text of Gold, Openings)
() the primary (the dedicatee, who appears infrequently and is given only brief
though prominent mention), (:) the internal (an implied naf whom Horace has
contrived to play the straight man, to pose as the interlocutor for his rhetorical
questions, and to misunderstand the ironies of the satire), (,) the authorial, the
rst-century .. Roman upper- class writers and politicians to whose experience
and values Horace appeals and who could be counted on to understand the full
eect of Horaces mixed signals and ironic tone, and () the actual (as above).
,. See F. Muecke, The Audience ofin Horaces Satires, Journal of the Austra-
lian Universities Language and Literature Association (AUMLA) , (,,o) ,,, esp.
,,o, ,,.
. Gold, Openings, o,o, ,,,,, the quotation is taken from oo.
,. Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, ,, ,.
:o. Iike all authors, Horace primarily wrote for his contemporaries (despite
his evident anticipation of his own glorious Nachleben, as manifested in Odes ,.,o
and elsewhere). Thus, he necessarily placed his accounts of his life in a world
that would be recognizable to themboth in his references to specic contem-
porary events and individuals (and, where appropriate, to his experiences), and
elsewhere in conjuring up invented scenes and gures who nevertheless required
an essential plausibility to have an impact. For this reason, it is insucient simply
to identify Horaces use of a particular image or episode as a literary topos (even
one with a long-established pedigree). Why did Horace choose to adapt a par-
ticular literary topos in any given instance His choices clearly stemmed not from
mere antiquarianism but because in some way the themes and motifs he included
had a direct cultural resonance for some segment of his contemporary readership.
:. In most cases I have followed H. W. Garrods edition of the Oxford Classical
Text of Wickham (,o), all translations are my own unless otherwise noted.
::. It should be noted that Iyne, Behind the Public Poetry, also acknowledges
that there were pressures placed on Horace by virtue of his position in society
and as a poet. But Iyne envisions only one Horacethe real Horaceresponding
to these pressures in his poetry. I would assert instead that multiple, consciously
invented self-images are at work within Horaces self-presentation. Lven when
Notes to Page
these images operate simultaneously they nevertheless remain separate creations,
aimed at dierent sections of Horaces audience. In any event, contrary to Lyne, I
would say that Horaces allusions to his pressures and diculties are undertaken as
a means of calling attention to various aspects of his contemporary world rather
than necessarily as a means of overtly defending himself against them.
Lyne holds, as I do, that Horace remained under considerable social and politi-
cal pressure throughout his literary career. However, he attempts to identify a
single, monolithic persona that Horace constructed in order to alleviate these pres-
sures. Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, similarly points to an evolution over time
of Horaces distinctive face and strategy of face-maintenance, contending that
Horaces successful career garners him increasing authority and symbolic capi-
tal, and allows him to adopt new strategies of self-defense and promotion. I
am in fundamental disagreement with Lyne and Oliensis on these points; for
Horace employs a multiplicity of self-images, with glaring mutual and inter-
nal contradictions, and separate functions within a variety of specic contexts.
The social and professional pressures Horace purports to face remain substantially
the same throughout his career, as do the audience-directed techniques of self-
presentation that he develops in response. Structural divisions based on genre and
chronology are therefore potentially misleading and comparatively less impor-
tant to the discussion (though questions of genre naturally remain contributing
factors). Rather than search for a gradual evolution in Horaces self-presentations,
one should focus on the particular personal and social context in each case. My
organizing principle is therefore to examine separately Horaces several audi-
ences and his relationships with them; Horace himself becomes, in eect, the lens
through which to view these audiences.
. My critical position on Horace diers from the interpretive strategies of
various modern schools of literary criticism (neatly summarized by Martindale,
introduction to Horace Made New) and yet shares certain elements with each
school. Like the New Critics, I hold that Horace, as he appears, represents a set
of created images (I prefer to avoid the loaded term mask or persona) adopted by
Q. Horatius Flaccus to establish a particular rhetorical stance or series of stances.
But I also agree with the New Historicist position that Horace employed tech-
niques of self-fashioning (or self-positioning) partly to construct an advanta-
geous position for himself in society, although this self-fashioning plays an im-
portant role within his poetry as well. A real Horace had to select and project
these images, and is theoretically distinguishable from what is presented. How-
ever, I do not support the Derridean deconstructionists claim that this real
Horace lies entirely outside the text and is therefore irrelevant to our understand-
ing of it. My assertion that the overall impact of Horaces poetry depends on
his simultaneous address of dierent audiences bears some similarity to a basic
tenet of reader-response criticism, but I diverge from this school in suggesting
that Horace, as author, controls and directs the responses of each of his audiences
Notes to Pages ,
(where reader-response tends to focus solely on the perspective of modern or
actual readers). One might attempt a synthesis of dierent critical approaches
rather than wholeheartedly accept or reject any single one, inasmuch as each is
applicable and eective within a dierent area of Horaces oeuvre and, as such,
might fruitfully be combined into a single interpretive framework.
:. The metaphor of the mirror was also recently invoked in a sensitive (if
notably traditional) treatment of Horace by the historian V. G. Kiernan (Horace:
Poetics and Politics |New\ork, ,,,|), in describing Horace at the outset of his lit-
erary career, a newcomer to the city of Rome, Kiernan writes, |Horace| would
have to hold up the mirror to society, and at the same time to himself, a self still
only half formed, not much better known to him perhaps than the Rome he now
contemplated (:o). Kiernan paints an interesting picture of Horace as a perpetual
outsider in the world he described, one who admired Rome and its empire with-
out ever becoming immersed in it, a natural partisan of a genuine middle class,
if he could have found one (o). Although Kiernan oversimplies by ignoring
the heightened self-consciousness of Horaces writing (and by anachronistically
applying the concept of a middle class to Augustan Rome), his essential portrait
of Horaces independence of thought and perspective is compelling.
Chapter One: Poet and Patron
. Samuel |ohnson, letter to the Larl of Chestereld, February ,, ,,,, in
Dr. Johnson: His Life in Letters, ed. D. Iittlejohn (Lnglewood Clis, N.|., ,o,),
:,:.
:. Oscar Wilde, Lord Arthur Saviles Crime and Other Stories (Iondon, ,),
,,.
,. Here, I am concerned primarily with the phenomenon of artistic or liter-
ary patronage, wherein an artist undertakes to produce works in return for asso-
ciation with and support from a more powerful patron. There were, of course,
many other forms and degrees of patronage in Rome, see, e.g., R. Saller, Personal
Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge, ,:).
. Cf. W. |. Tatum, Ultra Legem: Iaw and Iiterature in Horace, Satires II.,
Mnemosyne , (,,) o,:,,, o,,,, where it is suggested that Augustus had
already become the one truly important reader as early as ,o .. However, the
divergence of readings to which Tatum alludes (and which occurred from the
moment the poems were rst produced) indicates clearly the extent to which
Horace exerted enormous care in accommodating beforehand the potential re-
sponses of Maecenas and many other dierent audiences. As a result, no one
of these responses (even Caesars) is necessarily privileged by design over the
others, although Augustus does play an important role in several crucial aspects
of Horaces self-presentation techniques (see chapter four).
Notes to Pages
,. Nor can these variations be attributed solely to the development of their
friendship over the years, the same mixture is to be found in Horaces latest as in
his earliest works. Throughout his literary corpus, the extreme self-consciousness
in Horaces presentation of his relationship with his patron stands as a warning
that we must be most cautious and circumspect in our analysis, and most careful
in the conclusions we draw regarding individual aspects of that relationship. Cf.
the essentially positive interpretation of Fraenkel, Horace, ,,, and passim, as
opposed to the much cooler descriptions of R. G. Mayer, Horaces Moyen de Par-
venir, in Homage to Horace, ed. S. |. Harrison (Oxford, ,,,), and R.G.M. Nisbet,
Horaces Epodes and History, in Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus, ed. A. |.
Woodman and D. West (Cambridge, ,).
o. Consider, for instance, the plays that Accius wrote for D. Brutus in the sec-
ond century .., and perhaps also Iucretiuss addresses to Memmius (although
see later discussion, The Horatian Invention). Archias, although a Greek and
therefore by denition an inferior and more obsequious brand of client, may oer
further evidence in his career and projects, see T. P. Wiseman, Pete nobiles amicos:
Poets and Patrons in Iate Republican Rome, in Literary and Artistic Patronage in
Ancient Rome, ed. B. K. Gold (Austin, ,:) :,,o. This sort of practice (and the
responses it prompted) continued into the Lmpire, as is suggested by Plinys en-
thusiastic reaction to a brief compliment by Martial (Epistles ,.:), see P. White,
Promised Verse (Cambridge, Mass., ,,,), :.
,. For the way in which this assumption of intimacy also fuels Horaces ex-
clusion and mockery of those who do not meet the standards of Maecenass in-
crowd, see S. M. Braund, The Roman Satirists and Their Masks (Iondon, ,,o),
:,:.
. L. Gowers, Horace, Satires ., An Inconsequential |ourney, Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philological Society (PCPS) ,, (,,,) ,, notes the subordination of
Maecenass arrival but does not pursue its implications. Throughout the remain-
der of Gowerss analysis of Sat..,, it is as though Horace were traveling alone,
Maecenas vanishes from her discussion. Signicantly, such a reading of the poem
becomes possible only because Horace has presented himself and his experiences
as being of equal (if not greater) importance and inherent interest to those of his
patron.
,. Of course, the same observation seems to apply to other members of the
group as well, Virgil is similarly free to go take a napwhen suering fromdyspep-
sia, while Varius drops out of the party at Canusiumwithout reproach (Sat..,.,,).
This distinction becomes sharper with the introduction in line , of the char-
acters Sarmentus (identied as a scurra apparently in Cocceiuss employ) and the
Oscan Messius Cicirrus, who willingly make fools of themselves for the amuse-
ment of Maecenas and the rest of the party, including Horace. Clearly, we are
meant to see them as mere clowns and temporary attendants, of a lower order
altogether from Maecenass poet friends. But cf. L. Doblhofer, Horazens tria
Notes to Pages ,
nomina als autobiographische zeugnisse, Wrzburger Jahrbcher fr die Altertums-
wissenschaft (WJA) , (,,,) ,,, for the suggestion that the mockery of the scriba
Audius Iuscus in Sat..,.,,o constitutes an act of self-irony on Horaces part.
o. See D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Prole of Horace (Cambridge, Mass., ,:),
,, for discussion of Horaces self-conscious handling of apparent autobiographi-
cal detail.
. Mena is like an engaging toy for Philippus, adopted temporarily for his
sheer entertainment value, despite the coactors initial prudent caution, he eventu-
ally falls into the trap of dependence and is almost ruined (Ep..,.,,). This en-
tire episode stands in dramatic contrast to the experience of Horace and Maece-
nas, at least as I have considered it so far (see further discussion below).
:. Or so it would seem at rst, however, as we will see later in this chapter,
Horaces employment of terms such as amicus and amicitia, used by the Romans
to describe a wide range of equal and unequal social relationships, does not nec-
essarily indicate that he enjoyed any rm and unchanging status as Maecenass
intimate friend. Rather, even amid his plainest armation of his true friendship
with Maecenas, Horace allows the specter of ambiguity and anxiety to continue
to lurk in the background.
,. Not unnaturally, |the pest| had supposed like everyone else that the mi-
nence sat atop a stratied pyramid of sta interposed between the vertical grades
from serf up to courtier ( |. Henderson, Be Alert (\our Country Needs Ierts)
Horace, Satires .,, PCPS ,, |,,,| ). But Maecenass domus does not exhibit
the verticality of Hendersons pyramid, so much as a concentric social arrangement
what is at stake is ones intimacy and regularity of contact with Maecenasface
time, to use a popular termnot the rung one occupies on a social ladder. Thus,
Horaces lack of concern for his amount of contact, more than his relative status,
is what the pest nds so amazing.
. However, there is more going on here beneath the surface. The presence of
the verb iubeo indicates the essentially coercive nature of Maecenass and Horaces
friendship and shows that some form of pressure was indeed working behind
their purportedly unforced camaraderie. That Maecenas, as he read these lines,
would have known better than anyone else (Horace included) the true nature of
their relationship only adds to the complexity of the message here. I return to
this issue later at greater length.
,. Arriving at this conclusion, Peter White envisions all literary relationships
in Rome as having been marked by this same relaxed atmosphere of friendship
and personal contact. But paradoxically, while this model certainly seems to t
certain of the relationships discussed (Cicero and his literary protgs, or Pliny
and his), White himself does not extend his arguments satisfactorily to cover the
case of Horace in particular. He too acknowledges that other forces, besides an
easy friendliness, must have been at work. See White, Promised Verse, o,,, and
further discussion below.
o Notes to Pages
o. This is the second of four denitions of dumtaxat suggested by the Oxford
Latin Dictionary (OLD), under which this very passage is included as an example
of usage. A case can be made for the alternate translation of at least as far as this,
which would then jokingly limit the sense of habere in numero and might imply
a greater intimacy between the two men in these lines. According to this in-
terpretation, Maecenas relaxes in Horaces company and takes refuge from mat-
ters of state by talking with him about gladiators and other nugae much as Sci-
pio and Iaelius did with Iucilius, nugari cum illo et discincti ludere, donec
decoqueretur holus, soliti (Sat.:..,,,). This also recalls the episode of Lnnius
and Servilius in Annales ,.:o:, . . . vocat quocum . . . magnam cum lassus
diei partem trivisset de summis rebus regendis . . . quoi res audacter magnas
parvasque iocumqueeloqueretur sed cura, malaque et bona dictuevomeret si
qui vellet tutoque locaret. But the original denition of dumtaxat has a more
plausible application here, and for the reasons of context discussed above, I be-
lieve that this passages true signicance is as I have suggested. In any case, the
alternate denition would do no more than change the position of this episode
in my larger argument, for it would then oer further evidence of Horaces out-
ward projection of casual intimacy with Maecenas. Lllen Oliensis has suggested
to me that the dierence between the two readings of dumtaxat may not be so
stark that in both cases, Horace is saying that he is Maecenass old friendup
to a point. At any rate, it is undeniable that the tone of the passage, as well as
its projected image of the Horace-Maecenas relationship, is ambiguous in the
extreme.
,. Of course, this admission is double-edged it suggests to the outside reader
that the poet is only a marginal gure in his patrons life, but it also serves to re-
assure Maecenas privately of Horaces irreproachable discretion, assuming that he
has not divulged the true nature of their conversations (cf. |. Grin, Caesar Qui
Cogere Posset, in Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, ed. F. Millar and L. Segal |Oxford,
,|, esp. ,o:oo). (This technique of addressing two separate audiences is con-
sidered at greater length in chapter two.)
. Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, ,, suggests that this self-deprecating char-
acterization by Horace of his relationship with Maecenas primarily serves as a
deferential compliment to his patron While Horace represents himself as valu-
ing Maecenass friendship, he does not suggest that the sentiment is reciprocated.
Far from advertising how far in he is with the great Maecenas, Horace labors to
depict himself as a mere minor sidekick, a companion with whom Maecenas dis-
cusses only such safely trivial subjects as sports and the weathera self-belittling
self-characterization that may not be (and is not meant to be) entirely convincing,
but does constitute a public act of homage |emphasis added|. This is certainly
the eect that Horace must have intended the passage to have on Maecenas spe-
cically (and, indeed, Sat.:.o stands as the prime example of the poets elaborate
technique of multiple-audience address). But this picture of Horace as lowly side-
kick is in fact meant to be convincing in and of itself. M. |. McGann, Studies in
Notes to Pages ,
Horaces First Book of Epistles (Brussels, ,o,), ,, notes that the public for whom
Horace published his book for the most part would not have been well-informed
about the details of life in the circles to which Horace and his addressees be-
longed. This is true, but this does not mean that they were not curious about
his life in these circles, all the more so must we recognize that Horace is in each
case attempting directly to shape public understanding of the internal dynamics
of his relationship with Maecenas. For the readers of Sat.:.o other than Maece-
nas, the impression here is overwhelmingly one of triviality and limitation (and
even of slight frustration on Horaces part with his minor role), such a picture of
the poets interaction with his patron becomes implausible only when this pas-
sage is set against the other contradictory scenes of close and equal association
noted above. Horace certainly encourages his audience to strike this compari-
sonthe ambiguity at the heart of his characterization only comes out through
this process.
,. As, for instance, in the introduction to Sat.:. in the Ioeb Classical Iibrary,
and as recently as D. Berg, The Mystery Gourmet of Horaces Satires :, Classical
Journal (CJ ) , (,,,,o) ,, who asserts that Nasidienus is straightforwardly
mocked as a pompous windbag, for the quotation, see Fraenkel, Horace, . There
has been a surge of interest in Sat.:. in recent years, with much valuable work
being done on hitherto unexplored aspects of the poem, including food imagery
and symbolism, themes of proper lifestyle and behavior, and the nature and craft
of the satiric genre. See, for example, |. F. OConnor, Horaces Cena Nasidieni
and Poetrys Feast, CJ o (,,o) :,,, L. Gowers, The Loaded Table (Oxford,
,,,), K. Freudenburg, The Walking Muse (Princeton, ,,,), and Canidia at the
Feast of Nasidienus (Hor. S. :..,,), Transactions of the American Philological Asso-
ciation (TAPA) :, (,,,) :o,:o, and R. R. Caston, The Fall of the Curtain
(Horace S.:.), TAPA :, (,,,) :,,,o. Cf. Robert |. Baker, Maecenas and
Horace Satires II., CJ , (,) ::,:, who reads the poem as strongly arm-
ing the security of the friendship between the two men. It should, however, be
understood to be a crucial qualication of such a picture.
:o. Although conviva, unique among words derived from the verb convivo,
carries no connotations of a formal dinner party setting. It is not inconceivable
that Horace would have been looking for guests for a convivium to be held that
very evening. Lven formal invitations were commonly sent out on the same day
as the event itself (see, e.g., |.P.V.D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome |Ion-
don, ,o,|).
:. The feast was an unmitigated disaster, as we are to learn shortly, Funda-
nius is either being sarcastic or is referring to the enjoyment he derived from the
comic spectacle of Nasidienus discomture when everything went wrong and
his guests left him in the lurch (see F. Muecke, ed., Horace Satires II |Warminster,
,,,|, ::,). But within the dramatic context of the poem, there is no way for
Horace to knowthis at this point in the conversation, for all he knows, Fundanius
is telling the truth.
Notes to Pages
::. For the irony of Horaces language see, e.g., N. Rudd, The Satires of Horace
(Berkeley, ,oo), ::o. The blunt imperative da smacks of casual familiarity, while
Muecke, Horace Satires II, ::,, notes that si grave non est is a polite formula.
:,. For the suggestion that Sat.:. constitutes Horaces revenge on Nasidienus
for having been omitted from the guest list, see Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, oo.
:. Ia question est suggre par le nom de Mcne qui vient dtre pro-
nonc, P. Iejay, Oeuvres dHorace (Paris, ,), ,,,. It hardly seems likely that
Horace should be understood as being delighted (cf. Armstrong, Horace, ,) or
gleefully inquisitive, given that the verb laboro (when used outside the context
of actual physical labor) invariably carries connotations of anxiety, worry, or dis-
tressnever of enjoyment.
:,. For the careful hierarchies of relative social status reected in the seating
arrangements at convivia, see |. H. DArms, The Roman Convivium and Lquality,
in Sympotica, ed. O. Murray (Oxford, ,,o), ,o:o. Given the extremely careful
placement of the guests at the cena Nasidieni, Fundaniuss ohanded si memini
does not betoken an informal gathering but rather serves to emphasize his in-
clusion (as if to say, oh, Maecenas and Varius were therethe usual crowd, you
know), casting Horaces absence into sharper relief.
:o. Sat..o.o,, ,o, see further discussion of this passage in chapter two.
:,. In view of this company as guests around Nasidienus table and the asso-
ciation which Horace marks between himself and them elsewhere in the Satires,
the reader is already asking how it comes about that the poet portrays himself as
hearing about the proceedings at second hand instead of as being one of the com-
pany (Baker, Maecenas and Horace, ::, although the point is not pursued).
:. Cf. Horaces invitation to Torquatus in Epist..,.: to bring a couple of
umbrae to dinner.
:,. Note the suggestive name, Servilius BalatroServilius (servilis, slavish)
the Buoon, but cf. Plutarch, Quaestiones Conviviales, ,o,AB, and comment in
Muecke, Horace Satires II, :,,. For possible autobiographical implications, see
Doblhofer, Horazens tria nomina, ,,,o.
,o. To be sure, given Fundaniuss account of the boredom and irritation they
all suered at Nasidienuss party, Horace was probably better o by being absent.
Cf. Baker, Maecenas and Horace, ::,:, who suggests that Horace chastises
Fundanius, Maecenas, and his other friends for rudely mocking the hapless Nasi-
dienus all evening, and Braund, The Roman Satirists, :,:o, who counters that
Horace is complicit in their mockery and condescension by asking for all the de-
tails of the show. It is more that Horace would like to be complicit in the rude-
ness of his friends, since his sharing in the exclusion of others eectively (if mean-
spiritedly) cancels out the exclusion he himself has just suered, see Freudenburg,
The Walking Muse, :,:,,, and C. Damon, The Mask of the Parasite (Ann Arbor,
,,,), o.
,. See, for example, the opening scene of Platos Symposium. In contrast, that
Notes to Pages ,
the dialogue of Sat.:. takes the form of a mock symposium is itself signicant.
The symposium was a popular literary form in Horaces day, and Servius records
in his commentary on Aen..,o that Maecenas himself wrote a symposium (in
prose) at which Virgil and Horace were both present. An implicit contrast is per-
haps intended with this symposium, especially when we remember that this poem
(with its portrait of Horaces social discomture) was not composed simply as a
literary exercise but rather was designed to be read by Maecenas himself.
,:. Saller, Personal Patronage, :. Cf. D. Konstan, Patrons and Friends, Clas-
sical Philology (CP) ,o (,,,) ,::, esp. ,,,, and Friendship in the Classical World
(Cambridge, ,,,), on which see comment by G. Herman, Journal of Roman Studies
( JRS) (,,) :.
,,. McGann, Studies, taking a staunchly rhetorical approach, argues that the
Epistles are wholly ctional and shed no light on the actual Horace-Maecenas re-
lationship or any other aspect of Horaces life, on Epist..,, he claims that Horace
could not with decency have published the epistle if readers were likely to re-
gard it as a source of information about his and Maecenass aairs. But McGann
himself observes that Horaces outside readers would have had very little inside
knowledge of the Horace-Maecenas relationship, it is inconceivable that they
wouldnt have been inclined to speculate on the accuracy of Horaces depiction
of these interactions, and Horace must certainly have kept this likely response in
mind during the poems composition. McGann argues from the analogy of the
autobiographical convention of amatory poetry that Epist.., is essentially an
ethical tract, a discussion, cast in epistolary form, of the issues which can arise
when an aging dependent is drawn away from the side of his great friend and
seeks the peace of the countryside. The rle of dependent is taken by Horace, and,
naturally, that of his friend is given to Maecenas. But they are rles, and although
the actual friendship between the two forms the background to this discussion,
there is no justication for believing that Horace has revealed a dicult situa-
tion existing between Maecenas and himself (,,). Perhaps so, but McGann goes
too far in detaching Horace and Maecenas altogether from the foreground of this
scenario. It is not enough simply to equate the generic potentialities and limi-
tations of accurate self-presentation in love poetry with those in verse epistles.
Lmployment of the epistolary form automatically demands that writer and ad-
dressee be placed in at least a plausible social setting, one that the original readers
will accept as tting in with what they know of the actual relationship between
the two, since otherwise the central ction of the letter falls apart, and the epistle
fails as a poem. McGann is correct, therefore, that we as readers must resist the
impulse to take Epist.., at its face value. But we must also recognize that the
poem is designed to stand as a plausible representation of aspects of Horaces life as
Maecenass clientjunior amicus.
,. Horace, by not keeping his promise, has badly disappointed Maecenas,
who has been waiting many weeks (Fraenkel, Horace, ,:,). A powerful man
,o Notes to Pages
such as Maecenas would not have looked indulgently upon being kept waiting
in this way.
,,. Iyne, Behind the Public Poetry, ,. Horace does address Maecenas as dulcis
amice in line :, but this does not imply a reciprocal friendship. In this context,
his tone is more hopeful than condent.
,o. A prompt avowal of fault secures a favorable hearing for |his| defence . . .
(R. Mayer, Horace Lpistles Book I Commentary |Cambridge, ,,|, ,,).
,,. H. Drexler, Zur Lpistel I,, des Horaz, Maia , (,o,) :o,,, calls Epist..,
a representation of a disagreement between two men nicht hos egeneto, sondern
hoion an genoito, but he also (,) reads the poem as indicative of Horaces wish to
free himself from onerous obligations.
,. For an excellent discussion of the intricacies of Epist..,, see Shackleton
Bailey, Prole of Horace, ,,,, Ietter , is exceptional in that the situation it
presents has the aspect of a major personal crisis, with Horace telling his bene-
factor after some fteen years of close friendship that he is ready to give up all
past bounties rather than compromise his freedom, which is ex hypothesi in dan-
ger (,o).
,,. Iynes categories of client-amici and friend-amici, while convenient,
are a modern invention. That such distinctions were left unmade or at best am-
biguous by the Romans is the whole point of Horaces presentation.
o. This projection of collegiality |in Sat..o| takes us back to a point made
earlier, that Iatin sources tend not to distinguish between poet and patron but
speak of both alike as friends. Beyond intimating that the two parties have much
in common economically, socially, and culturally, such language reects the truth
that in one sphere of activity they regard themselves as intimate collaborators.
There are also other aspects of the relationship which are best appreciated when
we take seriously its representation in our sources as simple friendship (White,
Promised Verse, :,). See also P. White, Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in
Larly Imperial Rome, JRS o (,,) ,.
. White, Promised Verse, :.
:. For Horaces adaptation of the comic scurra to denote the equally tradi-
tional gure of the parasite, see Damon, The Mask of the Parasite, o,o.
,. For the dierences in seriousness of tone between Epist.., and ., see
F.M.A. |ones, The Role of the Addressees in Horace, Epistles, Liverpool Classical
Monthly (,,,) o.
. See Shackleton Bailey, Prole of Horace, oo.
,. For the observation that both poems apply to our understanding of Hor-
aces situation among the elite, see Doblhofer, Horazens tria nomina, ,,.
o. See I.M.IeM. DuQuesnay, Horace and Maecenas The Propaganda Value
of Sermones , in Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus, ed. A. |. Woodman and
D. West (Cambridge, ,), :,.
,. Note that such dedications cease after publication of Epist. in :o, ..
Notes to Pages ,
This suggests either that Horaces debt to Maecenas had at last been paid or
perhaps that after :o, .. their relationship shifted into a new form, one less
dominated by these concerns of relative intimacy and obligation.
. Horace depicts himself as strenuously trying to avoid situations in which
he might be forced to make introductions to Maecenas (see Sat..,), yet Saller
tells us that it was standard practice to use ones amicitia with a powerful, high-
ranking individual to do favors for relatives and friends, and even the clients
of those friends, in a kind of brokerage of patronage (Saller, Personal Patronage,
,,,,). Virgil and Varius, for instance, approached Maecenas to admit Horace
himself into the charmed body of Maecenass amici. Horaces reluctance to ex-
tend Maecenass network of obligation and inuence through himself there-
fore possibly stands as an indication of the highly unusual character of the
Horace-Maecenas relationship, especially given that Horace easily participates in
inuence-brokering when it involves other elite contacts. As Mayer, Horaces
Moyen de Parvenir, ::, points out, The letter of recommendation (to Tiberius
on behalf of Septimius in Epistles .,) is an example of the sort of benet that
someone like Horace, more nearly placed to the founts of patronage, could direct
toward a deserving friend who is seeking to improve his status.
,. At least during the period from ,, to :o .. (the dates of publication of
Sat. and Epist., respectively). We must allow for the subsequent growth of their
relationship into a later, more intimate phase, the true friendship suggested by
Horaces warm observation of Maecenass birthday in Odes ., and the aec-
tion that Suetonius informs us Maecenas himself felt for the poet (Vita Horati,
,:) Maecenas quantopere eum dilexerit, satis testatur illo epigrammate . . .
sed multo magis extremis iudiciis tali ad Augustum elogio Horati Flacci ut mei
esto memor.
,o. For discussion of the political resonance of Horaces poetry and further
discussion of Maecenass political motivations for patronage, see chapter four.
,. This is not at all to suggest that Maecenas directly prescribed what each
poet was to write, Maecenass and Augustuss plan was to oversee and perhaps
guide these great writers in their choices of subject but essentially to give them
free rein as they developed new methods to achieve these ends. There is no evi-
dence to suggest that Maecenas did not permit each poet to develop his own
response to the task at hand, or even at times to reject political themes altogether
(as Propertius so often does).
,:. G. Williams, Did Maecenas Fall from Favor Augustan Iiterary Patron-
age, in Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate,
ed. K. A. Raaaub and M. Toher (Berkeley, ,,o), :o, :,o.
,,. On Maecenass reading of the Epistles in the context of his patron-client re-
lationship with Horace, see Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, ,, where the works
are seen more as the poets exploration of all the dynamics of the relationship,
including specically as a means of showcasing its more problematic aspects.
,: Notes to Pages
,. A client, by publicizing his patrons benecia, also advertised his own in-
feriority. If the client was not attempting to compete for honor as an equal, the ac-
knowledgment of subordination need not have presented any problems (Saller,
Personal Patronage, :,).
,,. White, Promised Verse, o,,o.
,o. White, Promised Verse, o,.
,,. Memmius all but vanishes from the scene once Iucretius has completed
his introductory remarks and turns to the matter at hand, thereafter, the patrons
appearances are limited to occasional and eeting parenthetical addresses (Iucr.
:.,, ,., ,,, ::) that are by no means integral to the message of the poetry. Of
course, on one level Iucretius does his duty simply by giving Memmius a promi-
nent guration in the opening lines. But even so, the De rerum natura stands on
its own as a complete didactic work, addressed not to one person but to any who
might wish to study its descriptions of natural phenomena and Lpicurean phi-
losophy, as such, the gure of Memmius qua patron merely serves as a necessary
frame for the actual message of the composition. This is a dierent proposition
from the Horatian corpus, wherein Maecenas is never absent or peripheral to the
themes being discussed but instead remains integral to the stucture and concep-
tion of the poetry, a crucial thematic gure throughout.
Chapter Two: In the Public Eye
. Immortal gods! What an enormous task it is to keep up the role of a states-
man in a republic! One must have regard for not only the minds but even the
eyes of the people (Cicero, Philippics .:,).
:. For the suggestion that, in responding to these pressures, Horace went so far
as to undermine his complimentary or celebratory poems to individual readers
by negating their messages in other poems (a method identied as sapping, de-
rived from the technique of siege or trench warfare), see Iyne, Beyond the Public
Poetry, :o,. For the argument that Horaces dealings with others fall into a
vertical arrangement of gestures of authority and deference between individuals
of superior or inferior status, see Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority; but cf. the con-
centric schema proposed in this chapter. Oliensis holds that Horace altered his
face-maintenance (,) as his personal celebrity and stature increased, however,
crucial aspects of Horaces defensive self-images and self-presentation tactics re-
main constant and consistent fromwork towork throughout much of his literary
career.
,. Hecyra quomdatast novae novomintervenit vitiumet calamitas, ut neque
spectari neque cognosci potuerit ita populus studio stupidus in funambulo
animum occuparat . . . quom primum eam agere coepi, pugilum gloria, co-
mitum conventus, strepitus, clamor mulierum, fecere ut ante tempus exirem
Notes to Pages ,,
foras . . . . . . refero denuo. primo actu placeo. quominterea rumor venit datum
iri gladiatores, populus convolat, tumultuantur clamant pugnant de loco ego
interea meum non potui tutari locum (Hecyra prol. and :.,,:). (I discuss
Horaces dealings with the populus later in this chapter.)
. See M. Beard and M. Crawford, Rome in the Late Republic (Ithaca, ,,).
,. W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass., ,,).
o. Since the days of Cicero, the book trade in Rome had advanced fromsome-
what shaky beginnings to take on increasing stabilityand importance, by Horaces
time, there were recognized places of business and established bookselling rms
(such as the Sosii brothers, mentioned by Horace in Epist..:o.:). Similarly, the
establishment of Romes rst public library in the Atrium Iibertatis by Asinius
Pollio in ,, .., followed by those of Augustus on the Palatine and in the Porticus
Octaviae ten years later, helped to usher in a new period of greater public access
to literature (see I. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars |Oxford,
,,|, ::,).
,. R. Thomas, review of Harris, Ancient Literacy, JRS (,,) :.
. T. P. Wiseman, Pete nobiles amicos, in Literary and Artistic Patronage in An-
cient Rome, ed. B. K. Gold (Austin, ,:), ,o. Nor simply in Rome itself, evidence
from the provinces suggests that, even in real terms, literacy may have been more
widespread in the ancient world than Harris suggests (see I. Curchin, Iiteracy
in the Roman Provinces Qualitative and Quantitative Data from Central Spain,
AJP o |,,,| o,o).
,. See Citroni, Poesia e lettori, :,.
o. An important distinction, many Greek poets and rhetoricians of this time
occupied honored positions in upper-level Roman households. Some, includ-
ing Octavians old tutor Apollodorus of Pergamum and the rhetor Heliodorus
(praised in Sat.., as Graecorum longe doctissimus), moved in the same circles as
Horace and knew him personally (see G. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World
|Oxford, ,o,|).
. White, Promised Verse, ,,,,, takes issue with the notion that formal
circles rose up around single patrons and suggests that relations between indi-
vidual associates of Maecenas would, if anything, have been characterized by
spitefulness and hostile competition, rather than by any sense of solidarity or close
rapport. But the absence of any ocial ties between Maecenass associates would
not mean that these men had no contact with each other at all, clearly, there
existed some sense of community among them. In any case, Whites argument
only underscores the fact that Horace would have faced a variety of potential
threats and anxieties simply by virtue of having any sort of relationship with his
patron at all.
:. We see later on that Horace devotes considerable attention to the question
of his relations with other poets and literary men, both the low-grade (invariably
cast as hostile toward him) and writers of quality (see also chapter three).
, Notes to Pages
,. I disagree here with Fraenkel, who follows Heinze in taking ambitione rele-
gata with the previous line and begins a new sentence with te dicere possum. This
unacceptably dilutes the impact of the line and has the further disadvantage of
imputing the charge of ambitio to the Visci vis-a-vis Horace, not (as makes far
greater sense in context), Horace vis-a-vis his socially most elevated readers
Messalla, Pollio, and so on. Fraenkel is correct in observing that there is always a
strong suspicion that . . . praise may be inspired by insincere motives, but clearly
it is Horace who is operating under this suspicion (cf. Fraenkel, Horace, ,:, n. :).
. See N. Rudd, Themes in Roman Satire (Iondon, ,o), ,,, and commentary
by Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, oo:.
,. Iyne, Beyond the Public Poetry, ,, suggests that Horaces irksome socio-
economic situationbeing forced by historical accident to adopt the role, to all
appearances, of an old-fashioned, dependent client-poet, at a time when poetry
had become the pursuit of the Roman well-to-dowould have represented for
him a matter of considerable urgency and anxiety. Iyne perhaps goes too far in
this formulation, although Horaces relations with the Roman elite are indeed
regularly marked with a high level of defensiveness.
o. See also Mayer, Horaces Moyen de Parvenir, :o.
,. Ingenuus here should be read as going beyond the basic meaning of free
born to incorporate the traits and character typically associated with the free
born, such as virtue, honor, generosity, modesty, and so on (see entry , for ingenuus
in the OLD). Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, ,o,, reads this passage and the liber-
tino patre natus charge that follows as examples of Horaces active self-promotion
and defense By attributing this judgment to Maecenas, Horace avoids making
the self-promoting argument himself . . . and also lends the argument his patrons
prestige . . . Horace has brought in this readily disavowable form of |political|
ambition to divert attention from the leap in status that he is in the process of
taking. Lven as he does this, however, Horace calls renewed attention to the
notion that this leap has generated a great deal of resentmentin other words,
the poets characterization of his rapid advancement is designed to be read as both
triumphant and threatened at the same time.
. G. A. Seeck, ber das Satirische in Horaz Satiren, oder Horaz und seine
Ieser, z.B. Maecenas, Gymnasium , (,,) ,,. But as Seeck observes (,,o),
Horace makes such a fuss over Maecenass disregard for his background that it
implicitly links his patron to the poets own irritation. Not only is Horace aware
of Maecenass reaction, therefore, but he makes sure that Maecenas is aware of
his as well.
,. Meanings include carp at, gnaw, erode.
:o. G. Williams, Libertino Patre Natus: True or False, in Homage to Horace, ed.
S. |. Harrison (Oxford, ,,,), :,o,,, cf. W. S. Anderson, Horatius Liber, Child
and Freedmans Free Son, Arethusa : (,,,) ,o.
:. See Mayer, Horaces Moyen de Parvenir, :,.
::. See Citroni, Poesia e lettori, :,o.
Notes to Pages ,,
:,. Picking up on this purposeful ambiguity, Muecke observes Here, in an
innite regression of ironic mirrors, Horace lets |the mask of philosophical mor-
alist| slip and shows that that the real man might be dierent, simultaneously
revealing that this is just another version of Horace, as much a ction as any
other (Muecke, Horace Satires II, :,).
:. D. Armstrong, Horatius Eques et Scriba: Satires .o and :.,, TAPAo (,o),
has perceptively identied a similar note of self-satisfactionand careful location
by Horace of his exact place in the social scenein the poets handling of his own
purported social values and beliefs (both upward and downward) in Sat..o.
o. Armstrong concludes that Horaces attitudes and remarks in these lines show
that the poet (regardless of what he might elsewhere humbly claim) was already
by this time a well-ensconced member of Romes elite. But they would appear
rather to demonstrate that Horace is being very careful not to commit himself
openly and irrevocably to any one of his several convincing self-images.
:,. Martha Habash recently argued that Priapuss mock-defeat of the witches
in Sat.. stands as a parody of a hymn, and that in turn this parody is designed
to complement Horaces humorous and self-deprecating autobiographical state-
ments elsewhere in Sat. (see M. Habash, Priapus Horace in Disguise CJ ,
|,,,| :,,,). The suggestion is interesting, although marred by Habashs tacit
acceptance of Horaces purported autobiographical claims as reliable fact (see esp.
:o,). It is better to take the Priapus episode as another example of Horaces
creation of the image of mingled public hostility and self-satisfactionan image
that, as throughout the Satires, is instantlycalled into question by Horaces parodic
handling thereof.
:o. See Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, ,,o.
:,. Cf. Shackleton Bailey, Prole of Horace, ,.
:. McGann, Studies, ,, notes that the public for whom Horace published
his book for the most part would not have been well informed about the details
of life in the circles to which Horace and his addressees belonged. This is so, but
we must all the more understand Horace as trying directly to shape the broader
publics understanding of his life in these circles.
:,. This even though Horaces audiences would have appreciated his adapta-
tion in these lines of the generic comic motif of the accosting scene, a xture
of Plautine comedy.
,o. See |. L. G. Zetzel, The Poetics of Patronage in the Iate First Century
.., in Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, ed. B. K. Gold (Austin, ,:),
,o:, and Henderson, Be Alert, o,,,.
,. Rudd, Satires of Horace, :.
,:. Although Horace does single out the poetasters by name and states his
indierence to the grammatici in Epist.., (see below).
,,. Horace attacks the poet Tigellius throughout Sat. for his vulgarity, incon-
stancy, and general objectionability (Sat..:.o, .,.,, .o.,o,).
,. An eect similar to that of Horaces pleased observation in Odes ., (pub-
,o Notes to Pages
lished in , .., seven years after Epist.) Romae principis urbium dignatur
suboles inter amabiles vatum ponere me choros, et iam dente minus mordeor
invido (,o). By this time, of course, after the death of Virgil and the tri-
umph of his Carmen saeculare, Horace was indisputably Romes greatest living
poet.
,,. The amusing irony here, of course, is that Horace arms his elevation and
literary exclusiveness by likening himself to a disreputable mime actress who fails
to hold the aections of her audience. It is, as |asper Grin points out, a further
example of the poet simultaneously challenging and acknowledging the likely
reactions of his readers (see |. Grin, Horace in the Thirties, in Horace , ed.
N. Rudd |Ann Arbor, ,,,|, ,).
,o. The allusion to Icarus in line , may hint at a more pessimistic coloration,
one of risk and ultimate disaster in the moment of triumph. If so, then here too
Horace has adroitly accommodated a dierent potential response to the same
statement (see D. P. Fowler, Horace and the Aesthetics of Politics, in Homage to
Horace, ed. S. |. Harrison |Oxford, ,,,|, :oo).
,,. For the Lpicurean nature of Odes ,., see V. Poschl, Horazische Lyrik, vol. :
(Heidelberg, ,,), ,.
,. This issue is discussed at much greater length in chapter three.
Chapter Three: Craft and Concern
. To recognize the fallacyof such assumptions is not to deny that Horace dem-
onstrates an abiding interest in the nature of poetry and his place within both the
contemporary literary scene and the larger poetic tradition. But as we shall see,
his discussion of such issues should be treated as a highly conscious invention and
not as an overarching critical manifesto. It is instructive in this context to recall
Fraenkels incisive observations on Horaces treatment of poetry, he specically
notes the poets use of reections on poetry but does not suggest that such re-
ections necessarily represent Horaces actual beliefs Iatin poetry, a child of the
Hellenistic age, had almost ab origine been self-conscious in the primary sense
of the word, that is to say given to reecting upon itself, aware of its own limi-
tations, of the means at its disposal, and of the ends it was aiming at . . . It was,
then, no novelty in itself when Horace undertook to discuss themes which we
are accustomed to regard as belonging to the theoretical treatment of poetics.
What was new, however, was the use he made of theoretical discussions on such
topics and the place which they came to occupy in his whole work (Fraenkel,
Horace, ::,).
:. For a reading of the Ars poetica in particular as a technical literary treatise in
large part indebted to earlier Greek aesthetic and poetic theories, and comprising
in eect a self-contained and systematic work of critical philosophy, see C. O.
Notes to Pages ,,
Brink, Horace on Poetry, : The Ars Poetica (Cambridge, ,,), ,, ,. As many
commentators on the Ars poetica have pointed out, however, the works exclu-
sive focus on the genres of epic and especially drama would have made it highly
impractical as a critical aid to poetic composition in contemporary Rome. It is,
rather, an interesting but disingenuous amalgam of Greek and Roman literary
analysis, and it must be understood as something other than a genuine technical
handbook.
,. In tacit acceptance of this concept, Mayer, Horaces Moyen de Parvenir, :,
, sees a direct correlation between Horaces goals of high-own social advance-
ment and the themes he chooses to emphasize in his works Horace turns a social
issue into the raw material of poetry . . . |he| was also a man of the world and
wanted some of the things that only the upper level of society had to oer . . . At
this point it might be suggested that Horaces experience as a Roman poet exactly
paralleled his experience as a Roman citizen. I agree with Mayer that Horace cer-
tainly advances his quest for balance between personal independence and social
prominence as a model for his development of new techniques in poetic compo-
sition, and vice versa. But Horace undermines the simplicity of this identication
with equal care, and it is important to recognize it as only one of his separate and
fully articulated visions of the poetic craft.
. Cf. D. Armstrong, Horatius Eques et Scriba, TAPA o (,o) :,o.
,. We might note that Horace makes a comparable declaration to forsake
poetry for other, more noble pursuitsin verse, in the rst few lines of his rst
book of poetic Epistles (nunc itaque et versus et cetera ludicra pono |Epist.
..o|). Horace can, when he chooses, place a very heavy emphasis on the irony
of his statements.
o. G. Williams, Public Policies, Private Aairs, and Strategies of Address in
the Poetry of Horace, Classical World (CW) , (,,) ,,,o.
,. This is made even clearer when one takes into account the disparate state-
ments (and visions of poetry) made to Maecenas in Epist.:. and Florus in
Epist.:.:, whose respective social positions vis-a-vis Horace necessitate very dif-
ferent approaches on his part to this question of poetry as utilitarian or merce-
nary pursuit. On this matter see the concise and elegant formulation by Oliensis,
Rhetoric of Authority, :,.
. Horaces themes and language here have a marked generic precedent in
those poems in which the poet excoriates his current or former mistress for her
wanton behavior, and with embittered satisfaction predicts her unhappy future
as an aged and broken-down hag. Horace himself had practiced this form (Odes
.:,), but here the traditional love-hate ambivalence of the poet for his mistress
has been humorously adapted to reect a similar ambivalence on Horaces part
genuine or assumedto the popularity of his poetry.
,. Horace naturally does not mention here his position as scriba quaestorius,
nor does he acknowledge any assistance that he may have received from power-
, Notes to Pages
ful friends such as Messalla Corvinus or Asinius Pollio. His aim is not to give a
truthful account of his salad days but to make a point about poetry.
o. Cf. Epist..,.:,, where Horace portrays himself as being proudest by
far of his groundbreaking work in Iatin lyric and iambic poetry.
. It should be noted that this concept is advanced only in the Satires, and
that Horace specically claims in Sat...,,: that satire is not poetry Agedum,
pauca accipe contra. primum ego me illorum, dederim quibus esse poetas, excer-
pam numero. However, Horaces subsequent proposal that the actual validity of
the point should be determined some other time (Hactenus haec alias iustumsit
necne poema |Sat...o,o,|) clearly signals that this rhetorical device is adopted
temporarily and does not represent Horaces actual belief (see Fraenkel, Horace,
:,, and Rudd, Satires of Horace, ,o). In the context of my discussion of Horaces
self-image as a poet, the distinction between the hexameters of satire and the
true poetry of epic that he purports to observe should not be read as necessarily
constituting his critical position regarding the various literary genres, so much
as a means of underscoring the importance of genre in shaping the specics of a
poets self-presentation and, thus, the limits to which conscious self-presentation
can be engaged in within each genre.
:. For the suggestion that Horaces autobiography is simply a generic re-
quirement of satire, and that he presents himself as unenviable and thus non-
threatening by implying that he has no literary pedigree and no poetic authority,
see Schlegel, Horace and His Fathers, .
,. See F. Muecke, Iaw, Rhetoric, and Genre in Horace Satires :., in Homage
to Horace, ed. S. |. Harrison (Oxford, ,,,), :,.
. A similar sentiment seems to infuse Horaces praise of Maecenass per-
ceptive nature in Sat..o Magnum hoc ego duco, quod placui tibi, qui turpi
secernis honestumnon patre praeclaro, sed vita et pectore puro (o:o). This
is another occasion when the poet employs positive self-presentation to advance
what seem intended to be read as general ideals of conduct.
,. This characterization of his youth and past experience seems to be the
reason for his couching his private reminiscences in language that so strongly
echoes a comic scene in Terences Adelphoe, wherein Syrus twits Demea for
his moralizing. (The connection has often been noted, see, for instance, L. W.
Ieach, Horaces Pater Optimus and Terences Demea Autobiographical Fiction
and Comedy in Sermo ., AJP ,: |,,| oo,:). By alluding to a widely known
episode of Roman comedy in this fashion, Horace is better able to explain the
debt he owes his father. For Horace to strike such a parallel between his father
and the fatuous Demea seems somewhat troubling at rst, but as Horace observes
in this same poem, scenes from comedy and events of daily life often overlap
(Sat...,,). It does not necessarily demean his father to characterize him in
this way.
o. As in book : of the Satires, which contains no reference to Horaces father
Notes to Pages ,,
or his moral tutelage. Published in ,o .., ve years after Sat., Sat.: reects
the poets dierent circumstances and needs of self-presentation, which he meets
in turn by dierent means, nevertheless, the changing specics of his self-images
conrm that the overall technique has remained constant.
,. Horace himself makes this argument in Sat.., when he argues for a de-
nition of poetry that incorporates genres such as epic but specically excludes the
satire that he himself is writing (see Sat...,,, ,oo:).
. For Odes ,.:, as marking Horaces rearmation of his power as a poet, see
Poschl, Horazische Lyrik, oo,, and Iowrie, Horaces Narrative Odes, ,,,.
,. See Zetzel, Horaces liber sermonum, oo:.
:o. The phrase emunctae naris in particular creates an impression of Iucilius
as being especially good at sning out aws and misdeeds well deserving of
his scorn, but the backhanded nature of this compliment underscores Horaces
ostentatious adoption of the role of clear-sighted and independent-minded critic.
:. Cf. discussion in Freudenburg, The Walking Muse, ,,.
::. See, for instance, Fraenkel, Horace, :,:.
:,. Cf. Armstrong, Horace, o, but see Freudenburg, The Walking Muse, ,,, for
an endorsement of the idea that Horace truly had been criticized for his criticisms
in Sat... Freudenburg does not satisfactorily demonstrate a causal relationship
between the retorts of the Neoterics and Sat..o, however, rather, Horace intro-
duces the notion of fending o hostile counter-criticism as an articial pretext
for the introduction of new points about satire. Armstrong and Freudenburg are
both correct, in dierent aspects.
:. Freudenburg, The Walking Muse, o,, reads these lines as being ironic and
humorous, and attaches to them no greater signicance than that. Humorous the
conceit may be, but this only masksin quintessentially Horatian fashionthe
serious critical argument that the poet here constructs.
:,. Thus, the emphasis in these lines is on Horaces seemingly candid admis-
sion of inconstancy in his proclaimed literary views and ideals, rather than on the
simple fact of writing, as suggested by Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, ,:.
:o. Atermthat in modern Italy refers to ones becoming famous and respected
within earshot of the bell tower of the church where one was baptized (see A. |.
Woodman, Exegi monumentum: Horace, Odes ,.,o, in Quality and Pleasure in Latin
Poetry, ed. A. |. Woodman and D. West |Cambridge, ,,|, :,, but cf. Fowler,
Horace and the Aesthetics of Politics, :oo).
:,. See T. Habinek, The Politics of Latin Literature (Princeton, ,,), ,.
:. For discussion of the very dierent stances and self-images qua poet that
Horace seems to exchange as he moves from work to work, see, e.g., Olien-
sis, Rhetoric of Authority, o:, and S. |. Harrison, Deating the Odes: Horace,
Epistles .:o, Classical Quarterly (CQ) , (,) ,,,o. This sheer variety oers
further indication that the fundamental technique of self-presentation remains
intact from work to work.
oo Notes to Pages
:,. But forcefulness and universal truthfulness are not always identical in
Horaces self- presentation. Under other circumstances (Odes :.:o, for instance),
Horace projects a verydierent attitude toward the prospect of widespread popu-
larity.
,o. As the passage indicates, these two groups overlap in Horaces estimation.
Although the members abilities vary widely, most were themselves aspiring if
not always adept poets, and made up a knowledgeable and sympathetic audience.
,. See Iyne, Behind the Public Poetry, :::,, who points out that this same
vision of the poets role is again articulated (albeit in increasingly public forms)
in Horaces later works as well.
,:. For the suggestion that Horace was somewhat unenthusiastically follow-
ing Virgil in a Callimachean articulation of a vates-concept, see |. K. Newman,
The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry (Brussels, ,o,), ,,. But Newman misses
Horaces self-consciousness and deft use of irony in presenting the vates concept
without committing himself to it.
,,. All the more important, given the contemporary political-ideological cli-
mate in Rome, and the virtuous, restorative message that Augustus himself was
eager to project. (See M. Santirocco, Horace and Augustan Ideology, Arethusa
: |,,,| :,o, and discussion in chapter four).
,. Iyne, Behind the Public Poetry, :,, ,.
,,. Indeed, David Schenker has argued that even the Roman Odes are infused
with a more private voice or persona, which stands as an integral component
of each poem (see D. Schenker, Poetic Voices in Horaces Roman Odes, CJ
|,,,| ,oo, and also Newman, The Concept of Vates, ,).
,o. We recall from Odes ,.:, Horaces emphasis of the powerful role played
by inspired compulsion in his compositions, his subjects are not always freely
determined by him. See Santirocco, Horace and Augustan Ideology, :,,,.
,,. This same poemmarks the revival after more than twenty years (since pub-
lication of Sat. in ,, ..) of Horaces concept of relativity of judgment. (See
especially Epist.:..:,, with its discussion of the tendency people have to value
old authors indiscriminately, simply because of their age.) Given the emphasis
elsewhere in this poem on the deeper value of the poet in his community, per-
haps Horace intends the relativity argument to provide further support for his
more far-reaching claims about the craft of poetry. At the very least, its reappear-
ance signals Horaces continuing attention to the needs of his own situation and
self-presentation as a poet Horace is not primarily concerned with refuting the
wrong judgements on the early Roman poets. What is, however, vital for him,
since the success of his lifes work depends on it, is to overcome the dull opposi-
tion to any fresh production and the common incapacity to recognize any higher
stylistic standards (Fraenkel, Horace, ,).
,. See, e.g., C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry : Epistles Book II: The Letters to
Augustus and Florus (Cambridge, ,:), ,,,,.
Notes to Pages o
,,. See Santirocco, Horace and Augustan Ideology, ::.
o. G. W. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, ,o), ,,.
. Cf. B. Frischer, Shifting Paradigms: New Approaches to Horaces Ars Poetica
(Atlanta, ,,), ,oo, who argues that the generic form of the Ars poetica is
neither wholly epistolary nor fully didactic but stands as a new tertium quid, a
form of Horatian sermo.
:. The image of the poetic censor appears also in Epist.:.:.o,,, although
in this case Horace quickly punctures the image by claiming that he would rather
be complacent and happy than work too hard at his poetry, and therefore be mis-
erable praetulerim scriptor delirus inersque videri, dum mea delectent mala
me vel denique fallant, quam sapere et ringi (:o:). Another instance, per-
haps, when the poet invites us to recognize the constructed nature of his self-
presentations.
,. Also cited previously, in chapter two.
Chapter Four: Worldly Aairs
. See Z. \avetz, The Res Gestae and Augustus Public Image, in Caesar Augus-
tus: Seven Aspects, ed. F. Millar and L. Segal (Oxford, ,), ,o. The quotation
is taken from p. :o, following |. Firth, Augustus Caesar and the Organization of the
Empire (,o,).
:. See G. B. Conte, Latin Literature: A History, trans. |. B. Solodow (Baltimore,
,,), , ,,, :o (for Ciceros self-glorifying poetic compositions), ::,o.
For politically motivated attacks on literary clientes see, e.g, the background to
Ciceros Pro Archia. Although Conte holds that Naeviuss feud with the Metelli
is of contested authenticity, it is well attested in ancient sources see Cicero,
Verr..:, and Brut.oo, and Caesius Bassus, Gramm.Lat.vi.:oo.
,. Much of the following discussion of Horaces handling of the contemporary
political situation builds on the ideas of Matthew Santirocco, who claims that the
traditional scholarly focus on identifying (or vigorously denying) the existence
of an oppositional ideological relationship between the Augustan-era poets and
the Augustan regime is both problematic and misguided, he asserts that we must
instead recognize Horaces accomplishments as an independent and equal partici-
pant in the construction of Augustan ideology, who adroitly manipulated this
interplay of politics and literature for his own creative purposes (see Santirocco,
Horace and Augustan Ideology, ::,,).
. R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, ,,,), o, ,:.
,. P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. A. Shapiro (Ann
Arbor, ,,o), ooo.
o. These dierent audiences were often addressed simultaneously, as is indi-
cated by the fact that the Res gestae, Augustuss public statement of his achieve-
o: Notes to Pages
ments, was primarily written for the people of the city of Rome but was also put
up in Iatin and Greek in cities throughout the empire (see P. A. Brunt and |. M.
Moore, eds., Res Gestae Divi Augusti |Oxford ,o,|, ).
,. For further discussion, see Syme, Roman Revolution, and |. Lvans, The Art of
Persuasion (Ann Arbor, ,,:), , and passim, who focuses on the propagandistic
uses of a number of Roman myths and images in coins and the visual arts. See also
T. P. Wiseman, Cybele, Virgil and Augustus, ,:, and M. Beard, A Complex
of Times No More Sheep on Romulus Birthday, PCPS :, (,,) ,. The quo-
tation is taken from Lvans, Art of Persuasion, . For a challenge specically to the
eectiveness of coins as sources of propaganda, see K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture
(Princeton, ,,o), ,,, following M. Crawford, Roman Imperial Coin Types
and the Formation of Public Opinion, in Studies in Numismatic Method Presented
to Philip Grierson, ed. C. Brooke (Cambridge, ,,), ,o. But coins represented
only one among many media and thus should be taken in context as reecting or
restating themes that were being articulated in far greater detail through other
contemporary forms.
. |. Lllul, Propaganda, trans. K. Kellen and |. Ierner (New \ork, ,o,), o
,o. Lllul makes two further distinctions between vertical propaganda, emanating
from a leader or superior body, and horizontal propaganda, made within a group
and circulated among its members, and rational and irrational propaganda, which
he distinguishes in order to emphasize that even factual information and statistics
can serve a propagandistic purpose by having an irrational eect on the indi-
vidual no less than do appeals to sentimentality, prejudice, and emotion. These
categories are less relevant to a discussion of Augustan propaganda, however, in-
asmuch as Roman propaganda was disseminated largely along vertical lines (see
Lvans, Art of Persuasion), and focused on what Lllul would regard as the irratio-
nal themes of apparent relief from the threat of civil war and joy at the coming
of a Roman Golden Age.
,. Lllul, Propaganda, , perhaps thinking here of the propaganda of imitation
engaged in by Octavian and Marcus Antonius during the triumviral period.
o. As such, Augustan propaganda combined within itself aspects of both
political and sociological propaganda, with integrationist and societal messages
disseminated in the furtherance of political ends, however, this by no means lends
credence to the primitive character identied by Lllul.
. Lllul, Propaganda, . Indeed, to A. P. Foulkes, literature by its very nature
is a propagandistic enterprise, inasmuch as the aim of any piece of writing is to
sway its audience toward acceptance of the views and ideas it puts forth, by the
same token, the schemes of interpretation |of literature| which prevail at a given
time, even though they appear to be natural and spontaneous, may derive from
the various processes dened by Lllul as propaganda . . . |therefore| an under-
standing of the forces which may attempt to control our discovery of |portrayed|
realities is as important to our understanding of the text as is the relationship
Notes to Pages o,
of the text to the realities it purports to convey (A. P. Foulkes, Literature and
Propaganda |Iondon, ,,|, ,, :,).
:. Illness, unpopularity in the Senate, unrest in Rome and Italy, the specter
of betrayal by lieutenants such as Salvidienus Rufus, and the continual political
maneuvering of Sex. Pompeius and especially the then seemingly impregnable
Antonius such was Octavians lot in the years between Philippi (: ..) and the
Pact of Tarentum (,, ..) (see Syme, Roman Revolution, :o,:,).
,. Williams, Did Maecenas Fall from Favor, :o,o.
. Augustus no less than Maecenas harbored literary interests, the Res ges-
tae has been praised for its stylistic economy and clarity (see, e.g., Aulus Gellius,
Noctes Atticae ,.,.,), while the Suetonian Vita testies to Augustuss ability in
prose and oratory (,o), his avid study of rhetoric and Greek (, , ,), and
his penchant for literary criticism (o). There is also the matter of his allowing
only top-ight writers to write about him (,), although this speaks more to his
canniness as a public gure than to his talents for aesthetic appreciation.
,. Virgil and Horace, at least, had lost their patrimonies during the land con-
scations of the Triumvirate in : ..
o. Iyne, Behind the Public Poetry, ,, :,, emphasis in the original.
,. See also comment by R. |. Tarrant in his review of Iyne, Behind the Pub-
lic Poetry, Bryn Mawr Classical Review (BMCR) ,., (,,o) o,:,. Cf. DuQuesnay,
Horace and Maecenas, :, Contemporary readers of Horace did not need to
be told about the nature of amicitia. They could be relied upon to understand
the realities of Roman society and to read the poems accordingly. But Rome was
not a totalitarian state and there was no mechanism by means of which Maece-
nas could have compelled Horace to act as his amicus . . . nor did there exist
any means by which Maecenas or even Octavian could have compelled Horace,
simply by virtue of his being civis Romanus, to write in support of the regime or
could have prevented him from writing if he criticised it. The idea here is that
Horace freelyand honestlyembraced the obligations that were attendant upon his
amicitia. But there were in fact inescapable obligations incumbent upon Horace
(see chapter one), and furthermore, as we shall see, Horace himself points to the
challenge and diculty of having to support the regime, even as he accomplishes
the task.
. It is true that Suetonius records that Horace refused an invitation from
Augustus (delivered through Maecenas) to become his personal secretary and yet
suered no loss of favor. However, this episode appears to have occurred at a
later date, by which time Horaces position was somewhat more secure, Sueto-
nius quotes Augustus as citing his ill health and pressing duties as the pretext for
his invitation (Ante ipse suciebam scribendis epistulis amicorum, nunc occu-
patissimus et inrmus Horatium nostrum a te cupio abducere), which suggests
that the letter was written sometime around : .., the year in which Augustus
became seriously ill, was forced to confront the conspiracy of Murena, and faced
o Notes to Pages
a serious constitutional crisis. In any case, an imperial request made directly to
the poet for an example of his work carried far greater weight Irasci me tibi
scito . . . an vereris ne apud posteros infame tibi sit, quod videaris familiaris nobis
esse Lxpressitque eclogam ad se.
,. See also the excellent discussion by D. Armstrong, Some Recent Perspec-
tives on Horace, Phoenix , (,,,) ,,,o,, especially his trenchant criticisms of
Iynes handling of this issue. Moreover, Horace was simply of insucient impor-
tance as a political gure to have warranted personal attacks for having switched
sides, especially in the thirties, when he was just another promising young poet.
Far more illustrious and socially and politically prominent people made the jump
to Octavians party even later than Horace with no apparent dicultyMessalla
Corvinus for one, who fought for the republicans at Philippi, then joined Anto-
nius, and did not go over to Octavian before ,o .. (see the discussion in R. Syme,
The Augustan Aristocracy |Oxford, ,o|, :o,,). How much less likely, then, that
anyone would have devoted their time and attention to stigmatizing the socially
negligible Horace (other than on the charges of arrivisme and libertino patre natus,
which have already been discussed)
:o. Syme, Roman Revolution, :,,.
:. Action is called for against the Parthians (.:, ,.,), the Indians, and even
the Chinese (.:, ., .,).
::. R.G.M. Nisbet, Horaces Epodes and History, in Poetry and Politics in the
Age of Augustus, ed. A. |. Woodman and D. West (Cambridge, ,), :, ,.
:,. I am indebted to A. Thomas Cole for this observation.
:. Although Sat.., (a punning story of absurd arguments at Brutuss praeto-
rial court in Asia) and . (a statue of Priapus recalls driving away some witches)
might be read as poems with a direct and pro-triumviral political resonance
the former in its picture of the Republican side as litigious, quarrelsome, and
trivial, the latter in its garden setting, which incidentally reminds the reader of
Maecenass generous donation of parks and gardens to the Roman public. In both
cases, however, these political issues are not the main point, and indeed the con-
nection in . to Maecenas is decidedly non-encomiastic. Thus, here too Horace
undertakes political service to the cause only in a tangential fashion.
:,. Cf. Iyne, Behind the Public Poetry, :,:,. The central thesis of Iynes book
that Horace coped with the pressures and diculties of his public role through
careful management of his public imageis sympathetic to my views. Still, there
is much variance between our analyses and conclusions as to the nature of these
pressures and Horaces responses to them.
:o. For the political resonance of representations of a private and comfortable
existence, see D. Kennedy, Augustan and Anti-Augustan Reections onTerms
of Reference, in Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, ed. A. Powell
(Bristol, ,,:), ,o, and esp. ,,o.
:,. Hardly a daring move on Horaces part, perhaps, since by this time Octa-
Notes to Pages o,
vian was in complete control of the West, S. Pompeius and Iepidus were nowout
of the picture. But this does not lessen the political nature of Sat.., in terms of its
establishment of a connection between Horace, Maecenas, and Octavian. (Horace
demonstrates that such a connection was regularly made, in Sat.:.o, discussed in
greater detail below.)
:. For recent discussion of OctavianAugustuss earlyand abiding preoccupa-
tion with the passage of moral legislation, see Galinsky, Augustan Culture, :,.
:,. Cf. the ludicrous eect of Catos pompous statements in Sat..:.,,,
Quidam notus homo cum exiret fornice, mactevirtute esto inquit sententia
dia Catonis, nam simul ac venas inavit taetra libido, huc iuvenes aequum
est descendere, non alienas permolere uxores. See also perhaps Prop.:.,.,,
where he and Cynthia celebrate the abolition of a law qua quondam edicta
emus uterque diu, ni nos divideret.
,o. It is incredible that Satire .: should have shocked either Maecenas or
Octavian, hard to believe that they gave anything less than wholehearted approval
to this rst onslaught on adultery (DuQuesnay, Horace and Maecenas, :o).
,. As indicated by Suetonius, Divus Augustus :, :, and the Res gestae.
,:. DuQuesnay, Horace and Maecenas, , and ,,. DuQuesnay goes on to say
that there is also no reason whatsoever to think that Horace was insincere, that
he did not believe genuinely that Octavian represented the best, even the only,
hope of achieving peace, prosperity, and freedom (,,). But the question of the
genuineness of Horaces feeling seems not only unknowable but also unimpor-
tant. As noted earlier, what matters more is that Horace certainly intended to
present Octavian, and his belief in Octavian, in this fashion.
,,. Similarly, the addressees of the Odes can be seen to have political signi-
cance, in that many of them are members of this same senatorial nobility (Pollio,
Murena, Aelius Iamia, etc.).
,. For the suggestion that Horace is here concerned primarily with showing
how he has surpassed Iucilius by producing a more skillful version of the same
narrative, rather than with developing a politically palatable view of Maecenass
circle, see P.M.W. Tennant, Political or Personal Propaganda Horaces Sermones
,, in Perspective, Acta Classica (AC) , (,,) ,o. But Tennant goes too far in
arguing (,,,o) that this literary concern (clearly present in the poem) removes
all possibility of a simultaneous political resonance.
,,. This passage is cited also in chapter two.
,o. For the suggestion that Horace in Odes ., is making similarly propagan-
distic use of inside knowledge of Octavians plans to reward his veterans with
cash payments instead of land grants, see I.M.IeM. DuQuesnay, Horace, Odes
., Pro Reditu Imperatoris Caesaris Divi Filii Augusti, in Homage to Horace, ed. S. |.
Harrison (Oxford, ,,,), ,.
,,. Cf. Nisbet, Horaces Epodes and History, ,.
,. This alternative coloration is primarily imparted through the poems overt
oo Notes to Pages
similarities to the extravagant promises of Furius and Aurelius in Catullus .
there rejected by the poet.
,,. See Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, :, for discussion of how Horace here
employs the appropriated moral superiority of Octavians party as a weapon
against his political rival Antonius Rehearsing the kind of propaganda favored
by the Octavian party in this period, Horace thus projects disorder outward, away
from the puried and reconstructed Roman community represented here by the
hierarchy Horace-Maecenas-Caesar.
o. Fraenkel, Horace, ,, imagines the scene as taking place in Horaces house,
Williams, Tradition and Originality, :o, suggests that it is set in the home of Maece-
nas. Nisbet, Horaces Epodes and History, ,o, argues at length that Epod.,
follows the form of a running commentary on the battle and would like to see
Horace as having been present at Actium itself, but this seems both untenable
and unnecessary, given the alternative interpretation outlined above.
. Sex. Pompeius styled himself Neptunius, the son of Neptune, following
his naval victories in Sicily.
:. Syme, Roman Revolution, ,,,.
,. This is the traditional allegorical interpretation of Odes . advocated by
most Horatian scholars, see, e.g., Fraenkel, Horace, ,,, R. Nisbet and M. Hub-
bard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book I (Oxford, ,,o), ,,, and Syndikus, Die
Lyrik des Horaz, o:,o. W. S. Anderson, Horace Carm. . What Kind of Ship
CP o (,oo) , argued that the erotic terminology used in the nal stanza
(taedium, desiderium, cura) suggests that the allegorical reference is to a woman,
Horaces mistress, rather than to a ship (much less to the res publica), he is fol-
lowed in this belief by A. |. Woodman, The Craft of Horace in Odes ., CP
,, (,o) ooo,. In response, one need only point out that the political situation
in Rome was far from stable in :, .., and that contemporary Romansas well
as later Romans, such as Quintilian, for whom this period was still recent and
relevant historywould have been far more likely to read Horaces remarks in a
political light. The arguments of Anderson and Woodman, however ingenious,
unfortunately trivialize the poem and unfairly lessen its impact, it might be sug-
gested that one must have stronger grounds for discounting an interpretation that
has had currency since the rst century ..
. There is perhaps an implicit hope here that Augustus, as the helmsman,
will pilot Rome to safety.
,. The reference to populus et princeps and their frontier enemies in particular
indicates the political thrust of the poem. For the political and artistic resonance
of such references to remote peoples, see |ean-Paul Brisson, Horace Pouvoir
potique et pouvoir politique, in Prsence dHorace, ed. R. Chevallier (Tours, ,),
,,,.
o. The hint becomes especially broad if, as has been suggested by some schol-
ars, Augustus had already attempted (unsuccessfully) to promulgate moral legis-
Notes to Pages o,
lation in : or :, .., see G. Williams, Augustan Moral Iegislation, JRS ,:
(,o:) :o. For a contrasting view, see L. Badian, A Phantom Marriage Iaw,
Philologus :, (,,) :,, although in attacking the idea of an early attempt by
Augustus at moral legislation, Badian seems overly restrictive in refusing to con-
sider any evidence other than positive attestation of a high order of reliability
which he does not nd. Galinsky, Augustan Culture, ,, inclines toward accep-
tance of the idea that Augustus had always been concerned with such matters.
,. Odes ,.o., see Res gestae :o..
. For these passages as suggesting the growing awkwardness of the divinity
metaphor as genuine cult worship of Augustus spread in the Last, see S. Com-
mager, The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study (New Haven, ,o:), :o. For a more
enthusiastically pro-Principate reading, see L. Kaus, Rapidos morantem uminum
lapsus Dichter und Staat in Hor. c.,:, Gymnasium o (,,,) :o,:,.
,. For Horaces double goal of fullling the rhetorical function of praise
poetry for Augustus while maintaining his aesthetic and poetic independence,
and his achievement thereof through exemplary narrative and indirect accom-
modation, see Iowrie, Horaces Narrative Odes, ::o,, :,o,.
,o. Horace had already forecast Augustuss assumption of the title in Odes
.:.,o, see Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae, o, and G. Williams, The Third Book of
Horaces Odes (Oxford, ,o,), :o:,.
,. It might be argued that this abandonment of the Satires common man
persona as a medium for political discussion may partly reect the nature and
generic limitations of the lyric formvery dierent from the more character-
oriented satire. However, further evidence for this tactic of independently ad-
vising Augustus can be found in the Epistles as well. When Horace advises Quinc-
tius in Epistles .o.:,,, not to place much faith in the accolades of a ckle public,
he quotes a poem identied by the scholiasts as the Panegyric on Augustus by
Varius
tene magis salvum populus velit an populum tu,
servet in ambiguo, qui consulit et tibi et urbi,
Iuppiter,Augusti laudes agnoscere possis . . .
. . . nempe
vir bonus et prudens dici delector ego ac tu.
qui dedit hoc hodie, cras, si volet, auferet, ut si
detulerit fasces indigno, detrahet idem.
pone, meum est inquit pono tristisque recedo.
Horaces thoughts on the transitory nature of public acclaim thus seem implicitly
directed as well toward Augustus, the original recipient of these praises, as he
hovers in the background of the poets address to Quinctius.
,:. See Syndikus, Die Lyrik des Horaz, ,,o.
,,. Nisbet and Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace (,,o), :o, o.
o Notes to Pages
,. Syme, Roman Revolution, ,,.
,,. Cf. West, Reading Horace, ,,.
,o. On exclusion and eacement as motifs in Odes :., see Oliensis, Rhetoric of
Authority, o,o, :,:.
,,. For a further example, see Odes :.:, in which Horace specically re-
fuses to write about Augustuss triumphs and military campaigns, and suggests
that Maecenas do it himself, in prose no less Tuque pedestribus dices historiis
proelia Caesaris, Maecenas, melius ductaque per vias regum colla minacium
(,:). Michael Putnamobserves of these two poems that in each case the strong
recusatio is at least balanced by the lyricists apparent assumption that eulogy was
Augustus due (M.C.|. Putnam, Augustus and the Ambiguities of Lncomium,
in Between Republic and Empire, ed. K. A. Raaaub and M. Toher |Berkeley, ,,o|,
:,).
,. Suetonius, Divus Augustus, , Componi tamen aliquid de se nisi et serio
et a praestantissimis oendebatur, admonebatque praetores ne paterentur nomen
suum commisionibus obsoleeri.
,,. Octavians judgment is what matters more than anything, as Horace sug-
gests in his closing pun about mala carmina (libel or bad poetry) Si mala condi-
derit in quem qui carmina, ius est iudiciumque. esto, si quis mala, sed bona si
quis iudice condiderit laudatus Caesare (Sat.:..:). For consideration of
the interplay of direct and indirect compliment to Augustus in these lines, and
especially for the diculty of nding the right moment (given Octavians press-
ing concerns in Asia), see L. Doblhofer, Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz in formal-
historischer Sicht (Heidelberg, ,oo), ,,,.
oo. See Pliny, NH ,.:, and discussion in R.G.M. Nisbet, Notes on Horace,
Lpistles , CQ ,, (,,,) ,,.
o. DuQuesnay, Horace and Maecenas, suggests that Maecenas proposed
writing an epic on the achievements of Octavian to each and every top-rate poet
with whom he associated, regardless of their particular tastes and proclivities.
However, such a view requires that one accepts these poets recusationes as repre-
senting the literal truth, which is most unlikely.
o:. Epod.o likely in o,, .., Epod., perhaps a year later. For the arguments
in favor of these dates, see Fraenkel, Horace, ,o,,, and Williams, Tradition and
Originality, ooo,, cf. Nisbet, Horaces Epodes and History, ,. Nisbet ascribes
Maecenass recruitment of Horace to these very poems, so impressive and so
damaging as they were to Octavians cause. But in so doing Nisbet makes the
a priori assumption that Horace began his poetic career as a genuine all-out foe of
the triumvir, until he was bought out with Maecenass bribe of the Sabine farm.
o,. For the connections of this poem to Lnnius and Sallust as well as to the
larger Roman mythic saga, including its dark coloration, see D. Ableitinger-
Grunberger, Der junge Horaz und die Politik (Heidelberg, ,,), o.
o. The relative dating and priority of Epod.o and Ecl., and the proper place-
Notes to Pages o,
ment of these poems within their historical context, was long a problematic mat-
ter of debate (see, e.g., Ableitinger-Grunberger, Der junge Horaz, oo,,). How-
ever, Nisbet points the way toward the most plausible explanation On general
grounds it is easier to believe that Horace deated unrealistic optimism than that
his friend reversed the process, and this viewalready draws some support fromthe
rst line of the epode. When the overall resemblances of the two poems are taken
into account, this must have some relationship to the opening of the eclogue . . .
but whereas the new Sybilline age gave Virgil his organizing principle, Horaces
aetas is inexplicit by comparison and therefore more probably derivative (Nis-
bet, Horaces Epodes and History, :,, see also Grin, Horace in the Thirties,
,).
o,. Nisbet, Horaces Epodes and History, ,.
oo. Suetonius, Divus Augustus, ,, see commentary by Syme, Roman Revolution,
,,,,, ,oo.
o,. See the remarks of Maria Wyke regarding the potential |of Augustan
poetry within its full discursive context| as propaganda, its capacity to control
our perception of the literature. Horaces poem both demands that we engage
with its political and propagandistic resonance, and plays with our tendency to
construct untested assumptions about its message, based upon our prior convic-
tionsin eect, our complicity with the ideological apparatus of the Augustan
state (M. Wyke, Augustan Cleopatras Female Power and Poetic Authority, in
Roman Poetry and Propaganda, ed. A. Powell |,,:|, oo, and : for later discus-
sion).
o. Nisbet and Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace (,,o), o, see also Gregson
Davis, Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse (Berkeley, ,,), :,,
:, for a pro-Octavian interpretation. But cf. W. R. |ohnson, A Quean, a Great
Queen Cleopatra and the Politics of Misrepresentation, Arion o (,o,) ,,o,,,
and most recently, Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, o:.
o,. M.C.|. Putnam, Horace Carm.:., Augustus and the Ambiguities of Ln-
comium, in Between Republic and Empire, ed. K. A. Raaaub and M. Toher (Berke-
ley, ,,o), :,.
,o. See Santirocco, Horace and Augustan Ideology, :,, and the compa-
rable viewing of public events from a resolutely private perspective in Odes ,.
(see below).
,. Cf. Commager, Odes of Horace, ::o:,, who identies a subtle overtone
of vague discontent in Horaces armation of allegiance, if so, then Odes ,.
oers further evidence of Horaces careful handling of multiple potential re-
sponses.
,:. Fraenkel, Horace, :,o,.
,,. Nor should future problems and potential issues consume his attention,
such concern is unnecessary, and even counterproductive Tu civitatem quis
deceat status curas et urbi sollicitus times, quid Seres et regnata CyroBactra
,o Notes to Pages
parent Tanaisque discors. . . . quod adest memento componere aequus, cetera
uminis ritu feruntur (Odes ,.:,.:,,,). The symbolic resonance of such blan-
dishing advice becomes very great when it is directed to an important political
gure like Maecenas.
,. Syme, Roman Revolution, :, ,:.
,,. If, in fact, Pollio had arranged for Horace to receive his position as scriba
quaestorius, as discussed in chapter one.
Conclusion: Creating Reality
. See Oliensis, Rhetoric of Authority, ,.
:. See esp. Carm.saec.,oo
quaeque vos bubus veneratur albis
clarus Anchisae Venerisque sanguis,
impetret, bellante prior, iacentem
lenis in hostem.
iam mari terraque manus potentis
Medus Albanasque timet securis,
iam Scythae responsa petunt superbi
nuper et Indi.
iam Fides et Pax et Honos Pudorque
priscus et neglecta redire Virtus
audet, apparetque beata pleno
Copia cornu.
And that which the illustrious stock of Venus and Anchises asks of you
with the sacrice of white oxen, let it obtainvictorious over the war-
like, gentle to the vanquished enemy! Now the Parthian fears our forces,
powerful on land and sea, he fears the axes of Alba. Now the Scythians and
Indians, so haughty of late, seek answers to their petitions. Now Fides and
Peace and Honor and ancient Pudor and neglected Virtus are emboldened
to return, and blessed Plenty appears with her brimming horn.
,. This is not to suggest that Odes is in any way less subtle in its handling
of public and political issues, only that a new, more direct tone of address now
makes its appearance. See the excellent discussion by M.C.|. Putnam, Artices of
Eternity (Ithaca, ,o), o::, where he notes that the motifs and messages rst
crafted by Horace in the Carmen saeculare and pursued throughout Odes are far
less equivocal and far more celebratory and in line with Augustuss interests. At
the same time, as Putnam points out, However the content and presentation
of his verse may have altered |after , ..|, the excellence of his nal master-
Notes to Pages ,
piece is fully equal to that of his rst collection of odes (::). The subtlety of
Horaces earlier handling of multiple implications is also retained (albeit in modi-
ed form), although by now only one audience member really matters. See also
T. Habinek, The Marriageability of Maximus, AJP o, (,o) o,o, and Arm-
strong, Some Recent Perspectives, ,,,oo, although here the case for Horaces
independent tack in Odes is, if anything, somewhat overstated.
. See Putnam, Artices of Eternity, :,,o, who points also to the pervasive
inuence of Virgils Aeneid in these lines, although cf. White, Promised Verse, esp.
o,:o,.
,. If he maintains any self-image at all, that is to say, gone, apparently, is the
entire presence of a shaping rst person . . . we seemto be in an intellectual world
as impersonal as it is expansive (Putnam, Artices of Eternity, ,).
o. Robin Seager sees in Odes a discontented and disillusioned, irked Hor-
ace, a subversive who gives blunt and open expression to his unhappiness by em-
phasizing in his poems the increasingly restrictive and non-benevolent nature of
the regime. But such a reading of the poems appears implausible, based as it is
largely on the absence of what Seager takes to be a proper level of enthusiasm
and on discordant undertones that may or may not be present in the poetry.
Such a view also ies in the face of what we have seen both of Horaces graceful
subtlety in addressing those for whom he writes, and his solid (if complicated)
commitment to and support of the Augustan cause found in Odes , and, in-
deed, earlier (see R. Seager, Horace and Augustus Poetry and Policy, in Horace
, ed. N. Rudd |Ann Arbor, ,,,|, :,o).
,. See |. Thibault, The Mystery of Ovids Exile (Berkeley, ,o), for discussion
of the carmen (the Ars Amatoria) et error (an unknown indiscretion) cited by Ovid
as the reasons for his downfall (Tr.:.:o,), although Thibaults speculative conclu-
sions do not convince. Cf. P. Green, Carmen et Error, Classical Antiquity (CA)
(,:) :o::o, and G. P. Goold, The Cause of Ovids Lxile, Illinois Classical
Studies (ICS) (,,) ,o,.
. We must take issue with L. |. Kenneys assertion that for the type of poetry
that Ovid |in exile| was now called upon to write there was no precedent and
no model . . . the poems can lay claim, as Mr. A. G. Iee has pointed out, to con-
siderable originality an Ovidian invention, without parallel in Greek or Iatin
literature (see L. |. Kenney, The Poetry of Ovids Lxile, PCPS |,o,| ,
,,). The Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto are indeed remarkably innovative works
in their own right, but Ovids indebtedness (openly acknowledged) to Horaces
technique of consciously manipulated self-presentation, and his comparable ap-
plication of created self-images as a means of calling the attention of his audi-
ences to his immediate situation, is clear and undeniable. More successful is recent
discussion by Habinek, Politics in Latin Literature, ,o,, esp. ,,o.
,. The images collapse under the weight of their ctions, however. Ovid dis-
plays undiminished vigor and inventiveness in the veryact of mourning his failing
,: Notes to Pages
poetic abilities, while his claims of obscure mediocrity are too extravagant to be
taken seriously at the time of his exile Ovid was Romes greatest living poet,
with fame to match.
o. Iaesi principis ira, (the anger of the injured princeps |,|), nec qui
detractat praesentia livor iniquo ullum de nostris dente momordit opus, nor
has the jealousy that disparages current things ever bit into any work of mine
with its unfair tooth :,:), Ille ego qui fuerim, tenerorum lusor amorum,
quem legis, ut noris, accipe posteritas . . . iure tibi grates, candide lector, ago.
Accept what you are about to read, Posterity, so that you may know what sort
of man I was, I who played with the tender amores . . . As is proper, I thank you,
dear reader (:, ,:).
. The translation is adapted fromthat of A. I. Wheeler for the Ioeb Classical
Iibrary, :nd ed. (rev. G. P. Goold).
:. As when Ovid casts the proem to the Tristia as a fond address to his anthro-
pomorphized work he carefully explains the things it will see when it arrives
in Rome, including its brothers in the poets library Cum tamen in nostrum
fueris penetrale receptus, contigerisque tuam, scrinia curva, domumaspicies
illic positos ex ordine fratres (Tr...o,,). Compare Horaces characterization
in Epist..:o of his book as a wayward young slave eager to see the world.
,. S. Treggiari, Home and Forum Cicero between Public and Private,
TAPA : (,,) ,,.
Bibliography
All journals are listed according to the standard abbreviations used in LAnne
Philologique.
Ableitinger-Grunberger, D. Der junge Horaz und die Politik: Studien zur . und .
Epode. Heidelberg, ,,.
Ahl, F. M. The Rider and the Horse Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from
Horace to Statius. In ANRW II.,:., o:. Berlin, ,.
Allen, A. W. Sincerity and the Roman Llegists How Genuine Is It CP ,
(,,o) ,oo.
Ancona, R. Time and the Erotic in Horaces Odes. Durham, N.C., ,,.
Anderson, W. S. Horace Carm.. What Kind of Ship CP o (,oo) ,.
. Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, ,:.
. Ironic Preambles and Satiric Self-Denition in Horace Satire :.. Pacic
Coast Philology , (,) ,,:.
. Horatius Liber, Child and Freedmans Free Son. Arethusa : (,,,) ,
o.
Armstrong, D. Horatius Eques et Scriba. TAPA o (,o) :,,.
. Horace. New Haven, ,,.
. Some Recent Perspectives on Horace. Phoenix , (,,,) ,,,o,.
Badian, L. A Phantom Marriage Iaw. Philologus :, (,,) :,.
Baker, R. |. Maecenas and Horace Satires II.. CJ , (,) ::,:.
Balsdon, |.P.V.D. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. Iondon, ,o,.
Beard, M. A Complex of Times No More Sheep on Romulus Birthday. PCPS
:, (,,) ,.
Beard, M., and Crawford, M. Rome in the Late Republic. Ithaca, ,,.
Berg, D. The Mystery Gourmet of Horaces Satires :. CJ , (,,,,o) ,.
Bond, R. P. Dialectic, Lclectic, and Myth () in Horace, Satires :.o. Antichthon ,
(,,) oo.
Borzsak, S., ed. Horatius Opera. Ieipzig, ,.
Bowditch, I. Horaces Poetics of Political Integrity Lpistle .. AJP , (,,)
o,:o.
Bowersock, G. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford, ,o,.
Braund, S. H. City and Country in Roman Satire. In Satire and Society in Ancient
Rome, edited by S. H. Braund, :,. Lxeter, ,,.
,,
, Bibliography
, ed. Satire and Society in Ancient Rome. Lxeter, ,,.
Braund, S. M. The Roman Satirists and Their Masks. Iondon, ,,o.
Brink, C. O. Horace on Poetry, Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles. Cambridge, ,o,.
. Horace on Poetry, : The Ars Poetica. Cambridge, ,,:.
. Horace on Poetry, : Epistles Book II: The Letters to Augustus and Florus. Cam-
bridge, ,:.
Brisson, |.-P. Horace Pouvoir potique et pouvoir politique. In Prsence dHorace,
edited by R. Chevallier, ,o. Tours, ,.
Brown, D. The Modernist Self in Twentieth-Century English Literature. Iondon, ,,.
Brunt, P. A. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford, ,,o.
Brunt, P. A., and Moore, |. M., eds. Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Oxford, ,o,.
Cairns, F. The Power of Implication Horaces Invitation to Maecenas (Odes
.:o). In Author and Audience in Latin Literature, edited by A. |. Woodman and
|.G.F. Powell. Cambridge, ,,:.
Caston, R. R. The Fall of the Curtain (Horace S. :.). TAPA :, (,,,) :,,,o.
Chevallier, R., ed. Prsence dHorace. Tours, ,.
Citroni, M. Poesia e lettori in Roma antica: Forme della communicazione letteraria. Rome,
,,,.
Commager, S. The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study. New Haven, ,o:.
Conte, G. B. Latin Literature: A History. Translated by |. B. Solodow. Baltimore,
,,.
Costa, C.D.N., ed. Horace. Iondon, ,,,.
Crawford, M. Roman Imperial Coin Types and the Formation of Public Opin-
ion. In Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson, edited by
C. Brooke, ,o. Cambridge, ,,.
Crawford, R. Identifying Poets: Self and Territory in Twentieth-Century Poetry. Ldin-
burgh, ,,,.
Cunningham, M. P. Reviewof Syndikus, Die Lyrik des Horaz. CP ,: (,,,) ,,,,.
Curchin, I. Iiteracy in the Roman Provinces Qualitative and Quantitative Data
from Central Spain. AJP o (,,,) o,o.
Damon, C. The Mask of the Parasite. Ann Arbor, ,,,.
DArms, |. H. The Roman Convivium and Lquality. In Sympotica, edited by
O. Murray, ,o:o. Oxford, ,,o.
Davis, G. Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse. Berkeley, ,,.
Dilke, O.A.W. The Interpretation of Horaces Epistles. In ANRW II.,.,, ,,
o,. Berlin, ,.
Doblhofer, L. Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz in formalhistorischer Sicht. Heidel-
berg, ,oo.
. Horaz in der Forschung nach . Darmstadt, ,,:.
. Horazens tria nomina als autobiographische zeugnisse. WJA , (,,,)
,,.
Drexler, H. Zur Lpistel ,, des Horaz. Maia , (,o,) :o,,.
Bibliography ,,
DuQuesnay, I.M.IeM. Horace and Maecenas The Propaganda Value of Ser-
mones I. In Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus, edited by A. |. Woodman
and D. West, ,,. Cambridge, ,.
Lck, W. Senatorial Self-Representation Developments in the Augustan Period.
In Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, edited by F. Millar and L. Segal, :,o.
Oxford, ,.
Lllul, |. Propaganda: The Formation of Mens Attitudes. Translated by K. Kellen and
|. Ierner. New \ork, ,,,.
Lvans, |. The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus. Ann Arbor,
,,:.
Fantham, L. Roman Literary Culture. Baltimore, ,,o.
Feeney, D. C. Si licet et fas est: Free Speech under the Principate. In Roman Poetry
and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, edited by A. Powell, :,. Iondon, ,,:.
Foulkes, A. Literature and Propaganda. Iondon, ,,.
Fowler, D. P. Horace and the Aesthetics of Politics. In Homage to Horace: A Bi-
milllenary Celebration, edited by S. |. Harrison, :oo. Oxford, ,,,.
Fraenkel, L. Horace. Oxford, ,,,.
Frank, T. Horaces Description of a Scene in Iucilius. AJP o (,:,) ,:,.
Freudenburg, K. The Walking Muse. Princeton, ,,,.
. Canidia at the Feast of Nasidienus (Hor. S. :..,,). TAPA :, (,,,)
:o,:o.
Frischer, B. Shifting Paradigms: NewApproaches to Horaces Ars Poetica. Atlanta, ,,.
Galinsky, K. Augustan Culture. Princeton, ,,o.
Garnsey, P., and Saller, R. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berke-
ley, ,,.
Gohrbandt, D., and von Iutz, B., eds. Self-Referentiality in Twentieth-Century British
and American Poetry. Frankfurt, ,,o.
Gold, B. K., ed. Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome. Austin, ,:.
. Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill, ,,.
. Openings in Horaces Satires and Odes: Poet, Patron, and Audience.
YCS :, (,,:) o,.
Goold, G. P. The Cause of Ovids Lxile. ICS (,,) ,o,.
Gowers, L. The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford,
,,,.
. Horace, Satires ., An Inconsequential |ourney. PCPS ,, (,,,) oo.
Green, P. Carmen et Error. CA (,:) :o::o.
Grin, |. Caesar Qui Cogere Posset. In Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, edited by
F. Millar and L. Segal, ,:. Oxford, ,.
. Latin Poets and Roman Life. Iondon, ,o.
. Horace in the Thirties. In Horace : A Celebration, edited by N. Rudd,
::. Iondon, ,,,.
Habash, M. Priapus Horace in Disguise CJ , (,,,) :,,,.
,o Bibliography
Haber, |. Pastoral and the Poetics of Self-Contradiction. Cambridge, ,,.
Habinek, T. The Marriageability of Maximus Horace, Ode ..,:o. AJP o,
(,o) o,o.
. The Politics of Latin Literature. Princeton, ,,.
Habinek, T., and Schiesaro, A., eds. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge,
,,,.
Harris, W. V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass., ,,.
Harrison, G. The Confessions of Iucilius A Defense of Autobiographical Sat-
ire CA o (,,) ,,:.
Harrison, S. |. Deating the Odes: Horace, Epistles .:o. CQ , (,) ,,,o.
. The Iiterary Form of Horaces Odes. In Horace, Lntretiens Hardt ,,,
edited by W. Iudwig, ,o:. Geneva, ,,,.
, ed. Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration. Oxford, ,,,.
Heinze, R. Horaz. , vols. Revision of Kiessling (,). Ieipzig, ,,o.
Henderson, |. Be Alert (\our Country Needs Ierts) Horace, Satires .,. PCPS
,, (,,,) o,,,.
Herman, G. Reviewof Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World. JRS (,,) :.
Highet, G. Libertino Patre Natus. AJP , (,,,) :o.
. Masks and Faces in Satire. Hermes o: (,,) ,:,,.
Holmes, T. R. The Architect of the Roman Empire. Oxford, ,:.
Horsfall, N. The Collegium Poetarum. BICS :, (,,o) ,,,,.
|ohnson, W. R. A Quean, a Great Queen Cleopatra and the Politics of Misrep-
resentation. Arion o (,o,) ,,o:.
. Horace and the Dialectic of Freedom. Ithaca, ,,,.
|ones, F.M.A. The Role of the Addressee in Horace, Epistles. LCM (,,,)
,.
|owett, G., and V. ODonnell. Propaganda and Persuasion. Iondon, ,o.
Kaus, L. Rapidos morantem uminum lapsus: Dichter und Staat in Horaz c. I,:.
Gymnasium o (,,,) :o,:,.
Kennedy, D. Augustan and Anti-Augustan Reections on Terms of Refer-
ence. In Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, edited by A. Powell,
:o,. Iondon, ,,:.
Kenney, L. |. The Poetry of Ovids Lxile. PCPS (,o,) ,,,.
Kiernan, V. G. Horace: Poetics and Politics. New \ork, ,,,.
Konstan, D. Patrons and Friends. CP ,o (,,,) ,::.
. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge, ,,,.
Ieach, L. W. Horaces pater optimus and Terences Demea Autobiographical Fic-
tion and Comedy in Sermo ,. AJP ,: (,,) oo,:.
. Personal and Communal Memory in Horaces Odes. Arethusa , (,,)
,,.
Iejay, P. Oeuvres dHorace. Paris, ,.
Ievy, D. Horace: A Life. New \ork, ,,,.
Bibliography ,,
Iewis, C. S., and Tillyard, L.M.W. The Personal Heresy. Oxford, ,,,.
Iowrie, M. Horaces Narrative Odes. Oxford, ,,,.
. Conict in Horace. CJ ,: (,,,) :,,,o.
Iudwig, W., ed. Horace. Lntretiens Hardt ,,. Geneva, ,,,.
Iyne, R.O.A.M. Horace: Beyond the Public Poetry. New Haven, ,,,.
Maio, S. Creating Another Self: Voice in Modern American Personal Poetry. Kirksville,
Mo., ,,,.
Martindale, C. Introduction to Horace Made New: Horatian Inuences on BritishWrit-
ing from the Renaissance to the Twentieth Century, edited by C. Martindale and
D. Hopkins, :o. Cambridge, ,,,.
Martindale, C., and Hopkins, D., eds. Horace Made New: Horatian Inuences on
British Writing from the Renaissance to the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, ,,,.
Mayer, R. G. Friendship in the Satirists. In Satire and Society, edited by S. H.
Braund, ,::. Lxeter, ,,.
. Horace Lpistles Book I Commentary. Cambridge, ,,.
. Horaces Moyen de Parvenir. In Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebra-
tion, edited by S. |. Harrison, :,,,,. Oxford, ,,,.
McGann, M. |. Studies in Horaces First Book of Epistles. Brussels, ,o,.
Millar, F., and Segal, L., eds. Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Oxford, ,.
Muecke, F. The Audience ofin Horaces Satires. AUMLA , (,,o) ,,.
, ed. Horace Satires II. Warminster, ,,,.
. Iaw, Rhetoric, and Genre in Horace, Satires :.. In Homage to Horace:
A Bimillenary Celebration, edited by S. |. Harrison, :o,. Oxford, ,,,.
Murray, O., ed. Sympotica. Oxford, ,,o.
Newman, |. K. The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry. Brussels, ,o,.
Nisbet, R.G.M. Notes on Horace, Epistles I. CQ ,, (,,,) ,,,o.
. Horaces Epodes and History. In Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus,
edited by A. |. Woodman and D. West, . Cambridge, ,.
Nisbet, R.G.M., and Hubbard, M. A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book . Oxford,
,,o.
. A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book . Oxford, ,,.
OConnor, |. F. Horaces Cena Nasidieni and Poetrys Feast. CJ o (,,o) :,,.
Oliensis, L. Iife after Publication Horace, Epistles .:o. Arethusa : (,,,) :o,
:.
. Ut arte emendaturus fortunam: Horace, Nasidienus, and the Art of Satire.
In The Roman Cultural Revolution, edited by T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro, ,o
o. Cambridge, ,,,.
. Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority. Cambridge, ,,.
Oppermann, H., ed. Wege zu Horaz. Darmstadt, ,,:.
Pedrick, V., and Rabinowitz, N. Audience-Oriented Criticism and the Classics.
Arethusa , (,o) o,.
Perret, |. Horace. Translated by B. Humez. New \ork, ,o.
, Bibliography
Poschl, V. Horaz und die Politik. Heidelberg, ,,o.
. Die groe Maecenasode des Horaz. Heidelberg, ,o.
. Horazische Lyrik. Heidelberg, ,,.
Powell, A., ed. Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus. Iondon, ,,:.
Putnam, M.C.|. Artices of Eternity. Berkeley, ,o.
. Horace Carm.:., Augustus and the Ambiguities of Lncomium. In
Between Republic and Empire, edited by K. A. Raaaub and M. Toher, ::,.
Berkeley, ,,o.
. From Iyric to Ietter Iccius in Horace Odes .:, and Epistles .:. Are-
thusa : (,,,) ,,:o,.
Quinn, K. The Poet and His Audience in the Augustan Age. In ANRW II.,o.,
,,o. Berlin, ,:.
Raaaub, K. A., and Toher, M., eds. Between Republic and Empire. Berkeley, ,,o.
Rabinowitz, P. Shifting Stands, Shifting Standards Reading, Interpretation, and
Iiterary |udgment. Arethusa , (,o) ,,.
Reckford, K. |. Horace and Maecenas. TAPA ,o (,,,) ,,:o.
. Horatius, the Man and the Hour. AJP (,,,) ,,o:.
. Only a Wet Dream Horace, Satire .,. AJP :o (,,,) ,:,,.
Reynolds, I. D., and Wilson, N. G. Scribes and Scholars. Oxford, ,,.
Rudd, N. Had Horace Been Criticized A Study of Serm., .. AJP ,o (,,,)
o,,,.
. Horaces Lncounter with the Bore. Phoenix , (,o) ,,,o.
. The Style and the Man. Phoenix (,o) :o,.
. The Satires of Horace. Berkeley, ,oo.
. Lines of Enquiry: Studies in Latin Poetry. Cambridge, ,,o.
. Themes in Roman Satire. Iondon, ,o.
, ed. Horace : A Celebration. Iondon, ,,,.
Saller, R. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge, ,:.
Santirocco, M. S. Unity and Design in Horaces Odes. Chapel Hill, ,o.
. Horace and Augustan Ideology. Arethusa : (,,,) ::,,.
Seager, R. Horace and Augustus Poetry and Policy. In Horace : ACelebration,
edited by N. Rudd, :,o. Iondon, ,,,.
Seeck, G. A. ber das Satirische in Horaz Satiren, oder Horaz und seine Ieser,
z.B. Maecenas. Gymnasium , (,,) ,,,.
Shackleton Bailey, D. R., ed. Cicero Epistulae ad Familiares. : vols. Cambridge, ,,,.
. Prole of Horace. Cambridge, Mass., ,:.
Schenker, D. Poetic Voices in Horaces Roman Odes. CJ (,,,) ,oo.
Schlegel, C. Horace Satires ., Satire as Conict Irresolution. Arethusa ,: (,,,)
,,,,:.
. Horace and His Fathers Satires . and .o. AJP : (:ooo) ,,,.
Sullivan, |. P., ed. Critical Essays on Roman Literature: Elegy and Lyric. Cambridge,
Mass., ,o:.
Bibliography ,,
, ed. Critical Essays on Roman Literature: Satire. Iondon, ,o,.
Sutherland, L. Audience Manipulation in Horaces Pyrrha Ode. AJP o (,,,)
,:.
Syme, R. The Roman Revolution. Oxford, ,,,.
. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford, ,o.
Syndikus, H.-P. Die Lyrik des Horaz: Eine Interpretation der Oden, . Darmstadt,
,,:.
. Die Lyrik des Horaz: Eine Interpretation der Oden, :. Darmstadt, ,,,.
Tarrant, R. |. Review of Iyne, Horace: Behind the Public Poetry. BMCR ,., (,,o)
o,:,.
Tatum, W. |. Ultra Legem: Iaw and Iiterature in Horace, Satires II.. Mnemosyne
, (,,) o,,oo.
Taylor, I. R. Horaces Lquestrian Career. AJP o (,:,) o,o.
Tennant, P.M.W. Political or Personal Propaganda Horace, Sermones ., in Per-
spective. AC , (,,) ,o.
Thibault, |. The Mystery of Ovids Exile. Berkeley, ,o.
Thill, A. Alter ab Illo: Recherches sur limitation dans le posie personelle lpoque Augus-
tenne. Paris, ,,,.
Thomas, R. Review of Harris, Ancient Literacy. JRS (,,) :,.
Treggiari, S. Roman Freedmen during the Republic. Oxford, ,o,.
. Home and Forum Cicero between Public and Private. TAPA :
(,,) :,.
West, D. Reading Horace. Ldinburgh, ,o,.
. Horace Odes I: Carpe Diem. Oxford, ,,,.
White, P. Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Larly Imperial Rome. JRS o
(,,) ,.
. Maecenas Retirement. CP o (,,) ,o,.
. Promised Verse. Cambridge, Mass., ,,,.
Wilkinson, I. P. Horace and His Lyric Poetry. Cambridge, ,,.
Williams, G. W. Augustan Moral Iegislation. JRS ,: (,o:) :o.
. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford, ,o.
. The Third Book of Horaces Odes. Oxford, ,o,.
. Did Maecenas Fall from Favor Augustan Iiterary Patronage. In Be-
tween Republic and Empire, edited by K. A. Raaaub and M. Toher, :,,,.
Berkeley, ,,o.
. Public Policies, Private Aairs, and Strategies of Address in the Poetry
of Horace. CW , (,,) ,,,o.
. Libertino Patre Natus: True or False In Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary
Celebration, edited by S. |. Harrison, :,o,,. Oxford, ,,,.
Wiseman, T. P. Pete nobiles amicos. In Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome,
edited by B. K. Gold, :,,o. Austin, ,:.
o Bibliography
. Cybele, Virgil and Augustus. In Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus,
edited by A. |. Woodman and D. West, ,:. Cambridge, ,.
Woodman, A. |. Exegi monumentum: Horace, Odes ,.,o. In Quality and Pleasure in
Latin Poetry, edited by A. |. Woodman and D. West, ,:. Cambridge, ,,.
. The Craft of Horace in Odes .. CP ,, (,o) ooo,.
Woodman, A. |., and Powell, |.G.F., eds. Author and Audience in Latin Literature.
Cambridge, ,,:.
Woodman, A. |., and West, D., eds. Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry. Cam-
bridge, ,,.
, eds. Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus. Cambridge, ,.
Wickham, L. C., ed. Q. Horati Flacci Opera. Oxford, ,o.
Wyke, M. Augustan Cleopatras Female Power and Poetic Authority. In Roman
Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, edited by A. Powell, ,o. Ion-
don, ,,:.
\avetz, Z. Julius Caesar and His Public Image. Iondon, ,,.
. The Res Gestae and Augustus Public Image. In Caesar Augustus: Seven
Aspects, edited by F. Millar and L. Segal, ,o. Oxford, ,.
Zanker, P. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann
Arbor, ,,o.
Zetzel, |.L.G. Horaces liber sermonum: The Structure of Ambiguity. Arethusa ,
(,o) ,,,.
. The Poetics of Patronage in the Iate First Century ... In Literary and
Artistic Patronage in Greece and Rome, edited by B. K. Gold, ,o:. Austin, ,:.
General Index
Ableitinger-Grunberger, D., o n. o,
access of audiences to Horace, , ,,
,, ,,,, ,,, n. :o, of Horace to
Maecenas, :,, ,, :, ,, ,o, of
others to Maecenas through Horace,
,o, ,,,, o, n. , , n. ,,
Actium, ,o, o, o,,, :::,, :,
oo n. o
advice and instructions to clients, :o
:,, of Horaces father, ooo,, ,,, to
poets, ,,, ,, to political gures,
o, ,o, ::,, o, n. ,, ,o n.
,,, to Vinnius, o,
amicitia, ::, :,, ,. See also amicus
amicus: ambiguity of term, o, ::, :,,
,o n. ,,, inferior and superior, :,, :
,o, , ,: n. ,, obligations of, :,
:,, ,,, :,, o, n. ,. See also patronage
Anderson, W. S., ,, oo n. ,
anxiety regarding Maecenas, o, :o:,
:,:, n. :, , n. ,, regarding
politics, ,o, ,,, regarding powerful
gures, , ,, ,,, regarding social
circles, ,, ,,:, oo, resulting
from misjudgment, :, :,, ,
,o, , n. ,
Armstrong, David, , ,, n. :, ,, n. :,,
o n. ,
audience composition of, o, ,o,, ,
,, ,, ,,:, ,, n. ,, ideal of, ,,,
,,,o, ,, ,, oo n. ,o, manipulation
of, ,o, o,, , ,,o, ,, ,o,:,
n. :o. See also rings of audience,
simultaneous address
Augustus, :,, :, ,, ,,, :,, ,,
,o, ,,, o, n. , as hero of Rome,
,o,,, o:, o,,, o,, ,, , :o
:,, ,:,, ,,, oo n. ,,, Horaces
relationship with, :, ,,, o,o n. ,
o n. ,,, as manipulator, ,,:, ,,
oo: n. o, as moral reformer, ,o
,, ,o, o,, ooo, n. o. See also
civil war, Maecenas, as lieutenant of
Augustus, political issues
Badian, Lrnst, o, n. o
Baker, Robert, , n. ,, n. ,o
biographical and rhetorical interpre-
tations, ,, o,, o:o,, , n. ,,,
,, n. ,
booksellers, ,,, o, ,, ,, n. o
Braund, S. M., n. ,
Brink, C. O., ,o,, n. :
Brisson, |.-P., oo n. ,
Caesar, |ulius, ,, ,o, ,
campanilismo, ,o. See also pride
Catullus, o,
Cicero, , ,,, ,o, ,, o n. :
Citroni, Mario, o n.
civic role of poets, ,,, ,,
civil war, :, o:o,, o, ,,, o, o,
::, :,o
Cleopatra, o,, :::,
clients as clientela, :, o, :,, ,,, ,, o,,
dealings of, with patrons, o, :o
:,, , nn. ,, ,, dealings of, Horaces
presentation of, :, :,,o, deal-
ings of, tensions and predicaments
of, :,, duties of, ,, :,, ,o, ,:, ,
,o n. ,, literary services by, n. o,
uncertain status of, ::,, :. See also
anxiety, regarding Maecenas
Commager, Steele, o, n. , o, n. ,

: General Index
Conte, G. B., o n. :
credibility attaining through being
appealing, :, ,o, ,,o, ooo,,
attaining through fabrication, ,o,
attaining through self-deprecation,
,, , :, ,,oo, o:
criticism and attacks literary, by
Horace, ,, ,, n. :,, literary, on
Horace, ,,,, o,, ,, ,,,, ,,
,, n. :,, social, on Horace, :, ,,,
o,. See also anxiety, regarding social
circles, Iucilius, scorn
Damon, C., ,o n. :
DArms, |. H., n. :,
dinner parties, :, ,, :, ,o, ,, oo,
, nn. :o, :, nn. :,, ,o
distant lands, , ,, ,,, oo n. ,, as
enemies of Rome, o,, o,o, :,
:, as eventual sources of popularity,
,o,,
Doblhofer, L., , n. ,, ,o n. ,,
o n. ,,
DuQuesnay, Ian, o, o, n. ,, o, nn.
,:, ,o
Lllul, |., ,:,,, ,,, o: nn. , ,, o
father, Horaces, o, ,,o, , n. ,.
See also Libertino patre natus
Foulkes, A. P., o:o, n.
Fowler, D., ,o n. ,o
Fraenkel, L., :o, ,, n. ,, , n. ,,
,o n.
Freudenburg, K., ,, ,, n. ,, o n. ,,
,, n. :,
Frischer, B., o n.
Galinsky, K., o: n. ,, o, n. :
genre and literary forms and the Ars
poetica, ,, ,o,, n. :, comedy,
,o n. :, ,, n. :,, continuity of
technique across, o n. ,, ,o n. ,
didactic, :o, ,, eects of, on self-
presentation, :, ,,oo, o, o n. ,,
epistolary, , n. ,,, and Hellenistic
ideals, , oo n. ,:, moralizing in,
,,,, o,,, :o, panegyric, o,
,, ,:,,, recusatio, ,, o n. o,
satire, oo, ,,,o, , n. , ,, n. ,,
symposium, , n. ,, used in self-
presentation, :, oo, ,o,,, n. :o.
See also self-presentation
Gold, Barbara, o, n. o
Grin, |asper, ,, ,o n. ,,
Gowers, Lmily, n.
Habash, Martha, ,, n. :,
Habinek, T., , n.
hacks, ,,,, ,, ,o
Harris, William, ,o,,
Harrison, S. |., ,, n. :
Henderson, |., , n. ,
Highet, Gilbert, ,
Horace interpretations of, ,,, ,, n.
o, as manipulator, o n. ,, pressures
faced by, ,o,, ,, , ,,oo, ,
responses to, :, ,, o, ,o, ,,,,
,o, , ,, ,o, ,, n. :. See also audi-
ence, biographical and rhetorical
interpretations, self-presentation
Hubbard, M., :
images control of, :, o, o,, o,,
,,:, ,o, ,,,, o,, ,o,, mul-
tiple and contradictory of Horace, :,
,, :, ,o,,, :, ,, n. :, of Horace
and Augustus, , of Horace and his
friends, ,,, of Horace and Maecenas,
:, ,, :, ,
imitators, ,,,
independence as client, o, :,, :,
:,, :,, ,, as poet, o,,o, , :,,
as private citizen, ,o,,, o:,, :
::, :,:. See also political issues,
gestures of support in, relativity of
judgment
irony, ,, ,,, ,o n. ,,, ,, n. ,
instructions. See advice and instructions
|ones F., ,o n. ,
General Index ,
Kaus, L., o, n.
Kennedy, Duncan, o n. :o
Kenney, L. |., , n.
Kiernan, V. G., , n. :
Ieach, L. W., , n. ,
Iewis, C. S., ,
libertino patre natus, ,,, o,
literacy, ,o,,, ,, n.
literary Satires, o,,,, ,
Iowrie, M., ,, n. , o, n. ,
Iucilius, o,, o,,,, ,,, o n. o, ,, n.
:o, o, n. ,
Iucretius, ,:, ,: n. ,,
Iyne, R. O. A. M., ,, , ,,, ,, n. ,
: n. ::, ,o n. ,,, ,: n. :, , n. ,,
oo n. ,, o n. :,
McGann, M. |., o, n. , , n. ,,,
,, n. :
Maecenas, , ,:,,, casual relationship
of, with Horace, ,, ,,,, o n.
o, compliments to, o, :, ,,, oo
o, , n. , intimate relationship of,
with Horace, o,, :,:, , n. ,
, n. ,, as lieutenant of Augustus,
,,,, ,, o:, o,, , , n. ,,
limited relationship of, with Horace,
,:, , n. , tense and uncertain
relationship of, with Horace, :,:,,
,,,, views of relationship of, with
Horace, ,,,, , n.
Martindale, C., ,, nn. o, ,, o n. ,
Mayer, R. G., , n. , ,, n. ,
messages, disparate, o, ,, ,,,
oo:, ,, ,,, ,, :,, o n. ,. See
also images, simultaneous address
Messalla (C. Valerius Messalla Cor-
vinus), ,,o, ,,, o n. ,
Muecke, Frances, o, ,, n. :,
Naevius, ,o
Newman, |. K., oo n. ,,
Nisbet, R., :, o n. o:, o, n. o
Nisbet, R., and Hubbard, M., , ::,
Octavian Augustus. See Augustus
Oliensis, Lllen, ,, o, : n. ::, o nn.
o, , n. :,, , n. ,o, ,: n. :,
, n. ,, ,, n. ,, ,, n. :, oo n. ,,,
o n. ,o
Ovid, ,o,, , n. , ,,: n. ,
parasites, ,, :, ,o n. :
patronage benets of, o, :, :,
introductions to, ,, , n. ,
and propaganda, ,,,, , recipro-
cal arrangements of, ::, :, , n. ,,
,,, n. ,, and sportulae, :. See also
clients
Pedrick, V., and Rabinowitz, N., o,
n. o
persona, :, ,, ,, : nn. ::, :,. See also
images, self-presentation
Personal Heresy controversy, ,
pests, ,o, ,,,, o,
political issues backhanded gestures
of support in, o n. :, discretion
concerning, , ,,,, o:, indirect
gestures of support in, , :::,
:o, :,,o, and likable portraits,
o:,, and moral portraits, o:, and
partisan endorsement, ,o, ,, o,,
and propaganda, ,,, ,,, o,, ::,
o, n. ,o. See also Augustus, as hero of
Rome
Pollio (C. Asinius Pollio), :,, ,,o, ,,,
::,, ,o n. ,,
popularity as fame, ,o,,, ,,,o, ,
, , n. o, oo n. :,, vulgar, ,o,
,,,o, o, ,. See also pride, scorn
Poschl, V., ,o n. ,,, ,, n.
poverty ( paupertas), :o, o,o, o,o
preemptive defense, :o, :, o, ,,,,
, ,
pride, ,, ,,, ,, ,o,,, o,,
propaganda. See political issues, and
propaganda
Propertius, , ,:,,, , , n. ,
Putnam, Michael, :,, ,, n. ,, o n. ,,,
,o, nn. ,,
General Index
relativity of judgment, ,,o, oo n. ,,
rings of Audience composition and
operation of, , ,,,, ,,,,, o, o,,
inner rings, , o, ,, outer rings, ,,
,,, ,o,,, ,,, ,
Roman Odes, o
Rudd, Niall, ,, ,,
Saller, Richard, :::,, :,, , n. ,
Santirocco, Matthew, o: n. ,
Schenker, David, oo n. ,,
Schlegel, Catherine, , o n. , , n. :
scorn for arrivistes and outsiders, ,,
n. ,, for Horace, ,, o, for
scribblers, ,,, ,,o. See also hacks,
anxiety, regarding social circles
scurra, o, :o, :,, :, n. ,. See also
dinner parties
Seager, R., , n. o
Secular Games,
Seeck, G. A., , n.
self-deprecation, :o. See also credibility,
attaining through self-deprecation
self-presentation alterations to, :, con-
sciousness of, ,, ,o,, constancy of
technique for, ,,, n. o, as mecha-
nism of poetry, ,, :, ,, ,,,o, as
medium for universal statements,
o,o,, ,,, ,, ,,. See also images
Shackleton Bailey, D., , n. o, ,o n. ,
simultaneous address, o, ,, of Augustus
and others, ,, ,o, compliments and
implications of, : (see also Maecenas,
compliments to), of inner and outer
rings, ,,, ,o, ,o, o nn. ,, (see also
rings of audience), of Maecenas and
critics, o,, by Ovid, ,o, of pro-
and anti-Augustans, ,,, ,,oo, o:
social climbers, ,, , attacks on, ,,
,, pressure from, ,o, ,, ,
,,. See also access, anxiety, criticism
and attacks, social, on Horace, pests,
scorn
Suetonius, , n. ,, o, n. , o, n. oo
Syme, Ronald, ,
Tatum, W., , n.
Tennant, P., o, n. ,
Terence, ,o
Thibault, |., , n. ,
Thomas, Rosalind, ,,
Tillyard, L. M. W., ,
traveling companion, :,, ,,
o,, nn. , ,
umbrae, :. See also dinner parties
utilis urbi. See civic role of poets
Varius, , :o, ,,, ,,, ,
Varus, Quintilius, o,
vates, ,,, o:, , oo n. ,:
Virgil, , ,,, ,,, ,,, , , :o, o, n. o
West, D., o n. ,
White, Peter, :,, ,o,, o n. , , n.
,, ,, n.
Williams, Gordon, :,, ,
Wiseman, T. P., ,,, n. o
Woodman, A. |., oo n. ,
Wyke, Maria, o, n. o,
\avetz, Z., o n.
Zanker, Paul, ,
Zetzel, |. L. G., ,, n. ,o, ,, n. ,
Index of Passages Discussed
Italic numerals indicate numbers from original passages.
Augustus
Res gestae, ,,, oo: n. o, o, n. ,
Aulus Gellius
^octes Atticae ..., o, n.
Cicero
Brutus, oo
Ihilippics ..,, ,,
Iro Archia, o n. :
iu 1errem ...,, o n. :
Lnnius
Auuales ...o., o n. o
Homer
Iliao ....,,,, :,
Horace
Ars poetica, ,, ,o,, n. :
,,,,,,, ,
,,,,, ,
,,,,, o,
Carmeu saeculare, , ,:, ,o n. ,,
,o n. :
Lpistles
..., ,,
.....o, ,,, ,, n. ,
.., ,, :,:,, , n. , , n. ,,,
,o nn. ,,, ,
....,, :,:
...,,, , n.
..,, , n.
...,, o,
...,.., o,
...,..., ,
.....,, o, n. ,
..., :o:,
.....,.., :o
....,,,, :o
....,., :o
..., :o:,
....,., :,
....,o,, :,
...,, ,,,, ,,,, ,
...,..o, ,,,
...,.,,,, ,
...,.,,o, ,
...,.,,,., , n.
...,.,.,, ,,
...o, ,o, oo,, o
...o...., o, ,, n. o
...o..o., ,o
...o..,.,, oo,
..., ,,, :, ,,, ,, n. ,
.....,, ,,
......, ,,
........,, ,,
.....,, oo n. ,,
......,,., :,
.....,.,, ,
..., o:o,, o,, o, ,, n. ,
....,,, o:o,
.....o,.,, o n. :
......., o n. :
Lpooes
., o,
....,, o
,, ,
,., ,
,..., ,
,..,..,
,
o Iuoex oj Iassages Discusseo
, ,, :
,, o,,
,..,., o,o
., ,:
....o, ,:o
....., ,:o
Coes
.,, ,o, ,,,o, ,, o,, , n. o
..., o,o, ,o
.....,,, o,o
...,
......, :
....,.., :,, o, n. ,o
....... ,
.....,,, o,
...,, o,, oo n. ,
...,...o, o,
......,., o
...,.., :
..., ,, n.
..,, o, o
..,..,,,, o
..,.,,,o, o
..,, :::,
..,...., :::,
..,..,.., :,:
..,...,., ::,
..., :,o
....., ::,
.....,,o, :,,o
.., :::
...., :::
......, :::
.....,.., o n. ,,
...o, ,o,,, ,, ,o n. ,o, oo n. :,
...o..,, ,o n. ,o
...o..,.o, ,o,,
,.., ,,, ,o n. ,,
,.., o
,., o,o, :o
,...,, o,o
,., o,
,....o, o
,..,,,, o,
,., , :,:
,...,., :,:
,..o...o, :
,..,, :,:,, o, n. ,
,..,..,, :,:o
,..,..., :,:o
,..,, o
,..,..,., o
,..,.,,,
,.., o, oo n. ,o
,.., :
,..,..,,, o,,o n. ,,
,.,o, ,o, n. :o
,.,o..o.,, ,o
,.,..,., ,, ,,,o n. ,
,.,, ,
,.,...., ,
,.,.,, ,
,., ,:,,, o, n. ,o
,...., ,:,,
,...,,.,
,..,.,,,
,...o.,,
,.,..., :
,..., , n. ,
,...,.o, ,,,
8atires
..., ,,,, o, o, n. :,
.....,, ,
....,.,, ,
..., ,oo, o
....,.,, o, n. :,
....,,, ,,
.....,, ,,
......,,, ,,
.....,,, ,,
..,, ooo
..,.,, ooo
..,.,., oo
..,, ooo,, o,,o, ,, ,,, ,,o,
:
..,.., o,,o
..,..,, ,o
..,.,,,, ,,,
..,.,,,,, ,, n. ,
..,.,,, , n. ,
..,.., ,, n. ,
..,.,, , n.
Iuoex oj Iassages Discusseo ,
..,..,, ,
..,.o,o, ,
..,..o,, oo
..,..o.o, ,,
..,...,,o, ,,o
..,..,,,,, ooo,
..,..,o,., o,
.., :,, o:,, , n. ,
....,, ,, n. o
....,., :,, o:
...,.,,, o:
...,,,, ,
...,,,, , n. ,
...., n. ,
...,,, n. ,
.., ,, :o, ,,o, ,o,
,o n. o
...., :, ,, n. :
....,, ,
...,,, ,,, , n.
...,,, :,
...,,., ,, :,,o, o,
...,, ,o
.......,, ,,o
.., o n. :
.., ,, n. :,, o n. :
..,, ,,, ,:,,, , n.
..,..., ,:
..,..o, ,:
..,.., ,:
..,.,,,, ,,
..,.,., o,, ,,
...o, ,,o, ,,, oo,, ,o,,
n. :o
...o..,, ,
...o....,, oo,
...o.,o,, ,,,
...o.,, ,,:, ,,
...o.,., ,:,,
...o.., ,,,o
...o.,,, ,,
...o.,o, ,,o, ,, n. :o
..., o,, o,, ,, ,o, , n. ,
o n. o
.....o.o, ,o
.....,,, ,
....,, o,
....,,, o n. o
.....,, o n. ,,
.., ,, ,, ,o, ,o, o, n. ,
o, n. :,
....,., ,
...,,,, ,
...,o,, ,, ,
...,, , ,, ,, o,
.., ,, ,o
....,,, ,
......,
.., :, , n. ,
...., ,:o
....., :o
......., :
...,, :
Iucretius
...,., ,:
...,,, ,: n. ,,
., ,: n. ,,
.,,, ,: n. ,,
...., ,: n. ,,
Ovid
!ristia
.....o, ,: n. :
,..,.,,,, ,o
,..o...., ,o
,..o.,.oo, ,o
......,., ,o
Lpistulae ex Iouto ....,, ,o,,
Plato
8ymposium, n. ,
Pliny
Lpistles ,..., n. o
Plutarch
Quaestioues Couviviales o AB,
n. :,
Propertius
......, ,:,,
....,, o, n. :,
Iuoex oj Iassages Discusseo
Suetonius
Divus Augustus
,.,., o, n. ,
,,, o, n. , o n. ,
1ita Horati .., , n. ,
Terence
Hecyra prol. . auo ..,,,., ,:,, n. ,
Aoelphoe, , n. ,
Varius
Iauegyric, o, n. ,
Virgil
Aeueio .,.o, , n. ,
Lclogues ,....,, :o
Ceorgics.
..,,,, ,,
,.., ,,