No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 April 2017
In the famous and widely cited opening of his Satires (henceforth, Sat.) 1.4, Horace states (1–5):
Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae
atque alii quorum comoedia prisca uirorum est,
si quis erat dignus describi, quod malus ac fur,
quod moechus foret aut sicarius aut alioqui
famosus, multa cum libertate notabant. 5
For their useful comments, I wish to thank the anonymous referee and the editor of CQ, as well as W. Fitzgerald and R. Mayer. I am also grateful to the Fondation Hardt (Vandœuvres) for providing support and ideal working conditions.
1 To the best of my knowledge, only Halliwell, S., ‘Comic satire and freedom of speech in Classical Athens’, JHS 111 (1991), 48–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 52 and Freudenburg, K., Satires of Rome. Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal (Cambridge, 2001), 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar have spotted that the reference to a sicarius at line 4 is not compatible with the content of any Greek Old Comedy, which Horace could have read (Freudenburg's exegesis of the passage is addressed below).
2 Cf. Sommerstein, A.H., ‘Comedy and the unspeakable’, in Cairns, D.L. and Knox, R.A. (edd.), Law, Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens. Essays in Honour of Douglas M. MacDowell (Swansea, 2004), 205–22Google Scholar, at 214: ‘No one in comedy is accused of murder.’ To be precise, there are two references to murderers in Aristophanes’ plays. The first is to a woman who ‘bashed her husband with an axe’ (Thesm. 560); the second is to some ‘feverish people who choked their fathers and strangled their grandfathers by night’ (Vesp. 1039). However, in neither of these cases does the poet criticize or lampoon killers nominatim, which is what Horace means in the passage from Sat. 1.4. There is in fact no ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν in Thesm. 560 (where the reference—even if it is to a contemporary event, as ΣR suggests—is clearly inspired by a parallel with Clytemnestra); and the reference in Vesp. 1039 is a metaphor (see MacDowell, D.M., Aristophanes Wasps [Oxford, 1971], 262Google Scholar) pointing at the untrustworthiness of the sophists or the sycophants, whom Aristophanes had criticized in a previous play (see Starkie, W.J.M., The Wasps of Aristophanes [London, 1897], 316–17Google Scholar).
3 The identification of these references with the spirit of the ὀνομαστὶ κωμῳδεῖν is generally acknowledged by modern scholarship: cf. e.g. Fraenkel, E., Horace (Oxford, 1957), 126Google Scholar; Brink, C.O., Horace on Poetry. Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles (Cambridge, 1963), 157Google Scholar with n. 2; Rooy, C.A. van, Studies in Classical Satire and Related Literary Theory (Leiden, 1965), 62Google Scholar and 146 with n. 7; Witke, C., Latin Satire. The Structure of Persuasion (Leiden, 1970), 56Google Scholar; LaFleur, R.A., ‘Horace and onomasti komodein: the law of satire’, in Temporini, H. and Haase, W. (edd.), ANRW 31.3 (1981), 1790–826Google Scholar, at 1794–5 (with rich bibliography in n. 7); Fedeli, P., Q. Orazio Flacco: le opere. Vol. II, tomo 2 (commento): le Satire (Rome, 1994), 387Google Scholar.
4 Cf. Halliwell (n. 1), 49–51. For the sake of precision, it must be noted that the plural form ‘laws on slander’ would be more appropriate, because we are talking of a series of partial restrictions to παρρησία which were introduced in the Athenian legal system over time (the very first law can be dated to Solon): cf. Wallace, R.W., ‘The Athenian laws against slander’, in Thür, G. (ed.), Symposion. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Cologne, 1994), 109–24Google Scholar, at 110–18.
5 Cf. Henderson, J., ‘Attic Old Comedy, frank speech, and democracy’, in Boedeker, D. and Raaflaub, K.A. (edd.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge, MA and London, 1998), 255–73Google Scholar, at 264: ‘the comic poets, like the orators, generally avoided the aporrēta: there is no personal ridicule of acting magistrates or generals (though these may be ridiculed as a class), no accusations of murder, parent abuse, aspirations to tyranny, asebeia.’
6 Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1–11 (Oxford and New York, 2007), 634Google Scholar. See also Gernet, L. and Bizos, M., Lysias, Discours. Tome I (Paris, 1974), 142Google Scholar.
7 Keane, C., Figuring Genre in Roman Satire (Oxford, 2006), 77Google Scholar observes that ‘[t]he function of marking out thieves, murderers, and adulterers aligns these critic figures with their state laws’. This statement needs to be reformulated.
8 The word exemplaria refers to the actual scripts or libretti: see Brink, C.O., Horace on Poetry. The ‘Ars Poetica’ (Cambridge, 1971), 306Google Scholar.
9 Cf. Cucchiarelli, A., La satira e il poeta. Orazio tra ‘Epodi’ e ‘Sermones’ (Pisa, 2001), 33Google Scholar.
10 Freudenburg (n. 1), 17–18.
11 Cf. Dunbar, N., Aristophanes Birds (Oxford, 1995), 483Google Scholar.
12 Cf. Scholia Aristophanica codicis Ravennatis on Lys. 725, with the comments by Sommerstein, A.H., Aristophanes Lysistrata (Warminster, 1990), 195Google Scholar.
13 Cf. Scholia vetera et recentiora Triclinii on Eq. 608 and Scholia vetera, recentiora Tricliniana et Aldina on Vesp. 43.
14 Cf. Scholia vetera et recentiora Triclinii on Pax 348.
15 The translation is by Edmonds, J.M., The Fragments of Attic Comedy (Leiden, 1957), 1.191Google Scholar.
16 See e.g. Davidson, J., ‘ Gnesippus paigniagraphos: the comic poets and the erotic mime’, in Harvey, D. and Wilkins, J. (edd.), The Rivals of Aristophanes. Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (Swansea, 2000), 41–64 Google Scholar and Prauscello, L., the, ‘Looking for “other” Gnesippus: some notes on Eupolis fragment 148 K.–A.’, CPh 101 (2006), 52–66 Google Scholar, at 53–63.
17 The translation is by Storey, I., Eupolis, Poet of Old Comedy (Oxford, 2003), 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Cf. Prauscello (n. 16), 64.
19 Ferriss-Hill, J.L., Roman Satire and the Old Comic Tradition (Cambridge, 2015), 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Implicitly, this seems to me to be a conditio sine qua non for the interesting interpretation of the poem given by Gowers, E., ‘Eupolitics: Horace, Sermones I, 4’, in Felgentreu, F., Mundt, F. and Rücker, N. (edd.), Per attentam Caesaris aurem: Satire – die unpolitische Gattung? Eine internationale Tagung an der Freien Universität Berlin vom 7. bis 8. März 2008 (Tübingen, 2009), 85–98 Google Scholar (see below).
21 See Freudenburg, K., The Walking Muse. Horace on the Theory of Satire (Princeton, 1993), 72–86 Google Scholar.
22 Ferriss-Hill (n. 19), 8.
23 Gowers, E., Horace Satires, Book I (Cambridge, 2012), 153Google Scholar.
24 Grünewald, T., Bandits in the Roman Empire. Myth and Reality (London and New York, 2004; English translation of the 1999 German original by J. Drinkwater), 15–16 Google Scholar.
25 Gowers (n. 23), 141.
26 This does not necessarily mean that a correlation between Sat. 1.3.103 and Sat. 1.4.4 does not exist. My point is that the latro of the former passage cannot be identified with the sicarius of the latter. The parallel already works thanks to the references to a thief (fur) and an adulterer (adulter; moechus). If a third term is to be found in Sat. 1.4.3–4 in order to correspond to the triad of Sat. 1.3.103, this could be malus, a word which could be used in Latin not only with the general meaning of ‘evil’ but also with the legal connotation of ‘guilty of a serious crime’: cf. Fedeli (n. 3), 387. A latro was in fact the opposite of a ciuis bonus: see Milan, A., ‘Ricerche sul latrocinium in Livio I: latro nelle fonti preaugustee’, AIV 138 (1979–1980), 171–97Google Scholar, at 191–2.
27 Cf. ps.-Acro on latronibus (67: male uiuentibus, uitiosis), latronum (69: uitiosorum) and the identification of Caelius and Burrius (perditi adulescentes fuerunt). Gowers (n. 23), 170 observes that ‘latronibus is used here for generic criminals’, but then oddly identifies Caelius and Birrius with two ‘armed robbers’. Fedeli (n. 3), 399–400 is more consistent.
28 Forty-eight, if we count Asconius Pedianus’ comment on Cicero's In toga candida, fr. 21.1.
29 Cf. ps.-Acro on sicarius: sica gladius est permodicus, quem solent ferre in manicis dolosi interficientes cum illis homines, a quibus sicarii dicuntur.
30 One might compare the English word ‘homicide’, the use of which in the sense of ‘killer’ is now considered outdated by the Oxford English Dictionary but is still not uncommon in the contexts of trials and in judicial news.
31 Thomas, R.F., ‘Grist to the mill: the literary uses of quotidian in Horace, Satire I.5’, in Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (edd.), Colloquial and Literary Latin (Cambridge, 2010), 255–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 265.
32 Cf. e.g. Freudenburg (n. 1), 17 and Gowers (n. 23), 152. In particular, some scholars have linked Horace to Aristophanes, and the opening of Sat. 1.4 to the parabasis in lines 498–550 of Knights: see Müller, C.W., ‘Aristophanes und Horaz. Zu einem Verlaufsschema von Selbstbehauptung und Selbstgewißheit zweier Klassiker’, Hermes 120 (1992), 129–41Google Scholar; Keane, C., ‘The critical contexts of satiric discourse’, CML 22 (2002), 7–31 Google Scholar, at 25; Ferriss-Hill (n. 19), 10.
33 Μοιχός. Cf. e.g. August. Quaest. Hept. 2.61. Fur is also a term of Greek origin (φώρ), although this could hardly be perceived and acknowledged in Horace's time: cf. e.g. Gell. NA 1.18.4; Serv. on Verg. G. 3.407; Prisc. Inst. 2.11.2; Paul. Dig. 47.2.1. Sicarius is, then, the only truly Latin element of the list of the alleged comic-satiric targets.
34 Cf. TLL 8.1324.15-21.
35 Fedeli (n. 3), 387.
36 This cannot be a case of callida iunctura, since the ratio here is two Greek words to a single Latin word (cf. e.g. Carm. 1.1.35: lyricis uatibus, one Greek and one Latin; see Romano, E., Q. Orazio Flacco: le opere. Vol. I, tomo 2 [commento]: le Odi, il Carme Secolare, gli Epodi [Rome, 1991], 469Google Scholar). Moreover, the iunctura would not be truly callida with regard to the relationship between Greece and Rome, given that sicarii are not to be found either in Greek Old Comedy or in Roman satire.
37 I am aware that the word etsi would be an hapax legomenon in Horace's works, but there are other words which the poet uses only once (e.g. quamlibet in Epod. 11.23; sex in Epist. 1.1.58) and which are not uncommon in Latin poetry (unlike sicarius). For the absence of caesura in the third or fourth foot of the hexameter in Horace's Satires, cf. 2.3.134 (an tu reris eum occisa insanisse parente) and 2.3.181 (uestrum praetor is intestabilis et sacer esto). In these cases, as well as in my emendation, the third foot is a spondee, where the first syllable is the first part of a compound word: see N.-O. Nilsson, Metrische Stildifferenzen in den Satiren des Horaz (Uppsala, 1952), 47.
38 This translation accepts the common interpretation of famosus as ‘carrying disreputable fame’. However, it is worth pointing out that the adjective may be coordinated with etsi clarior (and not with malus…fur…moechus): ‘despite being a more/rather eminent figure, or an otherwise famous one’, i.e. although the kōmōdoumenos was primarily famous for reasons other than his vice (e.g. for being a politician). For this use of alioqui, cf. Lucr. 3.415 (the only occurrence of alioqui prior to the Horatian passage). It is not impossible that Horace may be playing with the two meanings of famosus, exploiting the adjective as a vox media.
39 LaFleur (n. 3),1800.
40 LaFleur (n. 3), 1800. For an example of the Old Comedy playwrights’ picture of their poetry as beneficial to the Athenian society, see Ar. Ach. 628–58.
41 Cf. the result of the survey of the kōmōdoumenoi of Old Comedy by Sommerstein, A.H., ‘How to avoid being a kōmōdoumenos ’, CQ 46 (1996), 327–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 327: ‘the greater and more prolonged the political prominence of an individual, the more likely he was to attract the attention of comic dramatists’.
42 For a survey of names, see Ferriss-Hill (n. 19), 219.
43 See Fedeli (n. 3), 547.
44 This figure has been identified with C. Cassius Sabaco: see Cichorius, C., Römische Studien: Historisches, Epigraphisches, Literargeschichtliches aus vier Jahrhunderten Roms (Leipzig and Berlin, 1922), 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krenkel, W., Lucilius Satiren (Leiden, 1970), 1.263Google Scholar; Gruen, E.S., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca, NY, 1992), 294Google Scholar. The political closeness between Cassius Sabaco and Scipio can be inferred from the fact that the former was an associate of C. Marius (Plut. Mar. 5.3–4), who was in turn personally close to the latter (cf. e.g. Plut. Mar. 3.3–4): see Carney, T.F., A Biography of C. Marius (Assen, 1961), 15Google Scholar with n. 80; Dillon, M. and Garland, L., Ancient Rome. From the Early Republic to the Assassination of J. Caesar (Abingdon and New York, 2005), 453Google Scholar. Cassius Sabaco was expelled from the Senate in 115 b.c. as a result of the revenge by the powerful family of the Metelli against Marius: see e.g. Badian, E., ‘P. Decius P. f. Subulo. An orator of the time of the Gracchi’, JRS 46 (1956), 91–6Google Scholar, at 94; Valgiglio, E., Plutarco. Vita di Mario (Florence, 1956), 26Google Scholar. The Metelli opposed the Scipiones politically, and were harshly lampooned by Lucilius in his Satires: see Raschke, W.J., ‘ Arma pro amico – Lucilian satire at the crisis of the Roman Republic’, Hermes 115 (1987), 299–318 Google Scholar, at 304–18 and Delignon, B., Les Satires d'Horace et la Comédie Gréco-Latine: une poétique de l'ambiguïté (Leuven, 2006), 206–16Google Scholar.
45 Cf. frr. 1228–34 M, where Lucilius states his intention to brand ‘people and senators alike’.
46 Cf. Ruffell, I.A., ‘Beyond satire: Horace, popular invective and the segregation of literature’, JRS 93 (2003), 35–65 Google Scholar, at 36: ‘The reputation of Old Comedy in Antiquity was characterized by three factors: freedom of speech, the public nature of its political criticism and argument, and, above all, personal invective, onomasti komodein’.
47 For Platonius' sources, see Kaibel, G., Die Prolegomena ΠΕΡΙ ΚΩΜΩΔΙΑΣ (Berlin, 1898), 47–9Google Scholar and Perusino, F., Platonio. La commedia greca (Urbino, 1989), 14–16 Google Scholar. I have used the latter volume for my references, but the translation of individual sentences is mine.
48 Cf. Gowers (n. 20), 89.
49 Gowers (n. 20), 86. I agree with Gowers's reading of the passage, although I am not convinced by the reasons and consequences she points out with regard to Horace's rejection of the political role of satire.
50 See Pasquali, G., Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (Florence, 1952 2), 378–9Google Scholar and Brink (n. 8), 27–8.
51 Cf. Tarrant, R., ‘A new critical edition of Horace’, in Hunter, R. and Oakley, S.P. (edd.), Latin Literature and Its Transmission. Papers in Honour of Michael Reeve (Cambridge, 2016), 291–321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 300: ‘The text of Horace is indeed far better preserved than that of, say, Catullus or Ovid's Heroides or even Juvenal … . But that does not mean that Horace can be edited without recourse to conjecture, as Wickham and Borzsák nearly did.’
52 These are all very common kinds of errors and phenomena: cf. Reynolds, L.D. and Wilson, N.G., Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford, 1991 3), 222–3Google Scholar for some examples and parallel cases.
Please note a has been issued for this article.