No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Horace never uses epistulae of these poems; but seems to include them in the term sermones. However, evidence of MSS. and scholiasts is unanimous that the title given by the author was Epistulae. The title taken together with the poet’s inclusion of them among the sermones points to their being a continuation of the Satires in a new form. The essence of the Satires was that they were sermo, but it was difficult for the poet to make plausible the setting in which the conversation took place; so most of the Satires have no addressee. The invention of the letter as a literary form was a perfect solution to that difficulty, and it gave the poet opportunity for the swiftly changing tones and the associative connections of ideas which are the great virtues of the style of the Satires.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1972
Footnotes
1
Editions: E. C. Wickham (Oxford, 1891): Orelli–Baiter–Mewes4 II (Berlin, 1892); A. S. Wilkins (London, 1892): Kiessling–Heinze6 (Berlin, 1957)—with extensive bibliographies by E. Burck. The best modern introduction to Epist. i is M. J. McGann, Studies in Horace’s First Book of Epistles (Collection Latomus C: Brussels, 1969)— with a useful bibliography. E. Courbaud, Horace, sa vie et sa pensée à l’époque des épîtres: étude sur le premier livre (Paris, 1914), gives a careful analysis of each Epistle, but is generally naïve in its treatment. Fraenkel (Horace 308–63 and 383–99) discusses many Epistles; but his approach is close to that of Courbaud, and, in spite of excellent interpretations, this is probably the least successful part of the book. C. Becker, Das Spätwerk des Horaz (Göttingen, 1963), has many good observations, but everything is subordinated to demonstrating a somewhat monolithic consistency in all the later works.
References
page no 36 note 2 The evidence is set out in Wickham, 208 ff. The word can only be used in hexameters in the nominative singular.
page no 36 note 3 This fact makes it quite clear that the dialogues of Sat. ii are not to be regarded as a different conception of satire, but as one literary form which could be used to express the Horatian concept of sermo.
page no 36 note 4 See Syme, op. cit. 332-3.
page no 36 note 5 The name is one unifying factor in the book, just as Canidia is in the Satires: see p. 20 n. 5 above. Another unifying factor probably lies in the relationship to Odes i-iii. In Epist. i. i. i Horace addresses Maecenas as prima dicte mihi, summa dicende Camena. Since Camena is too high-flown to refer to Satires or Epistles, the most natural reference of summa dicende Camena is to Odes i—iii, which must therefore be understood to be still unpublished (the reference being either generally to the dedication of Odes i-iii or specifically to the composition of Odes iii. 30). Thus the dramatic setting of Epist. i. 1 is the near-completion of Odes i-iii. The dramatic setting of Epist. i. 13 is the occasion of the sending of a complimentary copy of Odes i-iii to Augustus (presumably the collection is still not generally ‘published’). The dramatic setting of Epist. i. 19 assumes the publication of Odes i-iii some time previously and the poem deals with some public reactions to that event. In this way Horace has constructed a chronologically developing relationship between the completion and publication of Odes i-iii and the composition of Epist. i; this should be regarded as another deliberate intrusion of autobiographical material into the framework of the Epistles.
page no 37 note 1 See Williams, TORP, 19 n. 1; Fraenkel disagrees (Horace, 315 n. 2).
page no 37 note 2 See Morris, E. P., YCIS ii (1931), 81 Google Scholar ff.; Williams, TORP, 7 ff., 518 ff.; and McGann, op. cit. 89 ff.
page no 37 note 3 See Nisbet, R. G. M., CQ N.s. ix (1959), 73 Google Scholar ff. and McGann, , CQ N.s. xiii (1963), 258-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page no 37 note 4 The same poetic attitude is involved here as in the ‘dramatic monologue’.
page no 38 note 1 Convincingly demonstrated—with some understandable exaggeration—by M. J. McGann, op. cit., Chapter 2.
page no 38 note 2 See Williams, TORP, 19-23.
page no 38 note 3 See McGann, op. cit., 20 ff.
page no 38 note 4 McGann, op. cit., 93.
page no 38 note 5 Epist. i. 10 is analysed to demonstrate this by Williams, TORP, 593 ff.
page no 38 note 6 For the facts see Kiessling-Heinze, 281 ff.
page no 39 note 1 See p. 46 below.
page no 39 note 2 The only reason for looking for a date much after 17 B.c. is 16 iurandasque tuum per numen ponimus aras (on the syntax see Fraenkel,Horace, 386 n. 3). Mommsen (Hermesxv [1880], 109) was inclined to date this to 13/12 B.c. at the earliest (for a recent statement of the evidence, see Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte[Munich, 1960], 306 Google Scholar ff.). But no more precision can be attached to this phrase than to e.g. Odes iv. 5. 31-2, which precedes Augustus’ return from Germany. J. Vahlen (Ges. Phil. Schr., [Leipzig and Berlin, 1923], ii. 46 ff.) dated the poem to 14 B.c. with an elaborate interrelation of all the Epistles. Clearly proof is lacking. For a survey of attempts at dating AP see Brink, C. O., Horace on Poetry I (Cambridge, 1963), 239 Google Scholar ff.
page no 39 note 3 For taking Suetonius post sermones vero quosdam lectos as referring to Epist. i and not (as Vahlen) to Epist. ii. 2 and AP, see Becker, op. cit. 231 n. 20.
page no 39 note 4 This is the one idea certainly common to Horace and Neoptolemus of Parium (χρησιμολογεϊν: Philod. de poem. v. col. 13), and it also occurs in AP 333-4..
page no 39 note 5 See Williams, TORP, 75-8.
page no 40 note 1 For an analysis see F. Klingner, SBAW (1950), Heft 5, and Williams, TORP, 71-8; this is in fundamental disagreement with the analysis of Brink, op. cit. 191 ff.
page no 40 note 2 For an analysis see McGann, , RhM xcvii (1954), 343-58Google Scholar.
page no 40 note 3 The basic publication of the papyrus is Jensen, C., Philodemos über die Gedichte, Fünftes Buch (Berlin, 1923)Google Scholar.
page no 40 note 4 For instance, there is a clear connection between the following: Norden, E., Hermes xl (1905), 481 Google Scholar ff.; Rostagni, A., Arte Poetica di Orazio (Turin, 1930)Google Scholar; O. Immisch, Horazens Epistel über die Dichtkunst, Philologus Supplementband xxiv (1932); and Brink, C. O., Horace on Poetry i and ii (Cambridge, 1963 and 1971)Google Scholar. Destructive of this attitude (though perhaps going too far) is H. Dahlmann, Varros Schrift ‘De Poematis’ und die hellenistisch-römische Poetik, AAM (1953) no. 3; it is essential reading for anyone interested in AP and is written with deep insight into the poetical as well as the technical tradition.
page no 40 note 5 For instance, Klingner, F., Horazens Brief an die Pisonen, BVSA lxxxviii no. 3 (1936)Google Scholar; Steidle, W., Studien zur Ars poetica des Horaz (Würzburg, 1939, repr. Hildesheim, 1967)Google Scholar; L. P. Wilkinson, Horace and his Lyric Poetry, 92 ff.; C. Becker, op. cit. 64-112; and Williams, TORP, 329-57.
page no 41 note 1 See, for example, pp. 10, 15 f., 26 f. and 39 above.
page no 41 note 2 See p. 26 above.