ethical analysis of the Lucilian theory of satire," while the Tenth, composed under the smart of hostile criticism, is a vigorous polemic directed, not so much against Lucilius himself, as against those critics of Horace's own day, who upheld the standards or lack of standards illustrated by the Satires of Lucilius. It is "only in the general recognition of his predecessor as the originator of the poetical form, and in acknowledgement of his skill in the employment of the harshest weapons of satire," that Horace here "treats Lucilius with consideration.” a And as the Fourth and Tenth Satires are a defence of his art, so the Sixth is a defence of the poet himself, as well as of his noble patron and the circle of friends to which Horace has been admitted. The fragments show that in the Thirtieth Book Lucilius had discussed his own relations to some patron, and had placed > the poet's calling above the lure of wealth, as Horace places it above political ambition." If we had the whole poem, we should doubtless find that Horace had drawn a contrast between his own lowly birth, and the aristocratic origin of Lucilius.

In the Second Book of the Satires, published as we have seen in 30 в.C., Horace finds it no longer necessary to make a serious defence of his satire. His position as a writer is now well established, and the controversies underlying Book I. have been settled in his favour. Yet the poet is not wholly

a Hendrickson, Horace and Lucilius, in Studies in Honor of B. L. Gildersleeve, p. 162 (Baltimore, 1902).

Fiske, p. 318.

See Sat. i. 6. 58, 59, where claro natum patre probably refers to Lucilius, who, according to Cichorius, had estates near Tarentum. Cf. Fiske, p. 320.

free from anxiety, for there were certain legal restrictions that might prove embarrassing to the writer of satire." Horace, therefore, in the First Satire of this book, asserts his right to freedom of speech, and makes an attack, however disguised in its humorous form, upon the libel laws of Rome, proclaiming at the same time that, as a satirist, he is armed for defence not offence, and that he must have the same privilege as Lucilius enjoyed, that of writing down his inmost thoughts and his personal comments upon the world.

""

The Second Satire of Book II. corresponds in theme, as well as position, with the Second of Book I. It applies the philosophic doctrine of "the mean to daily living, eating and drinking, just as the earlier one applied it to sexual morality. It is strongly under the influence of Lucilius, though, like Sat. i. 2, it abounds in ideas which were common in the sermons of philosophers.

Closely connected with the Second are the Fourth and Eighth, which belong to a genre whose history is outlined in the introduction to the Fourth. The satiric deiπvov, of which the Cena Trimalchionis of Petronius is the most famous example, was represented in Lucilius by at least five satires.

The influence of Lucilius is still strong in the lengthy Third Satire, which deals with the Stoic paradox, ὅτι πᾶς ἄφρων μαίνεται, a theme which it would seem Lucilius had handled at least twice. It is interesting to find that even the scene reproduced

a See Lejay, pp. 289-292. In Book I. twenty-four contemporaries are criticized; in II. only four. So Filbey, cited by Fiske, p. 416.

Fiske, pp. 390 ff.

by Horace (11. 259-271) from the Eunuchus of Terence, was also utilized by Lucilius.a

In the remaining Satires of Book II., the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh, the influence of Lucilius seems to be very slight. The Sixth, it is true, illustrates the autobiographical element so conspicuous in Lucilius, and epic parody, exemplified in the Fifth, was doubtless employed by Lucilius, even as it had figured in the Middle and New Attic Comedy, but Horace is no longer under his sway, and when in the Seventh we find the poet professing to make himself a target for the shafts of satire, we realize that now at least he can be independent of his model.

The Epistles belong essentially to the same literary class as the Satires. Both kinds are conversational: epistulis ad absentes loquimur, sermone cum praesentibus, says Acron. In subject matter the Epistles cover much the same field as the Satires. They deal with human foibles and frailties, discuss philosophic principles, open windows upon the poet's domestic circle, and give us incidents and scenes from daily life.

Lucilius had used the epistolary form in a satire of his Fifth Book, and Horace came to realize that this was the most satisfactory mould for him to adopt, when expressing his personal feelings and when passing judgement upon the literary and social problems of his time. As to thought and contents, however, the influence of Lucilius upon the Epistles is relatively very slight. These poems, indeed, are the offspring of Horace's maturity, and themes

с

• Fiske, pp. 394 ff.

66

Hendrickson, Are the Letters of Horace Satires?" American Journal of Philology, xviii. pp. 312-324. • See Fiske, pp. 427-440.

xxi

already handled in the Satires are now presented in more systematic fashion, the writer disclosing a riper judgement and a more subtle refinement of mind. "Good sense, good feeling, good taste," says Mackail," these qualities, latent from the first in Horace, had obtained a final mastery over the coarser strain with which they had at first been mingled.”a The Epistles, indeed, with their criticism of life and literature, are the best expression of that " urbanity," which has ever been recognized as the most outstanding feature of Horace.

The two Epistles of the Second Book are devoted to literary criticism, which is an important element in the First Book of the Satires, and which, we may well believe, was first suggested to Horace by his relation to Lucilius. Even in these late productions, therefore, may be found traces of Lucilian influence," but Horace writes with a free spirit, and in his literary, as in his philosophic, life, he is

nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri.c

66

σ

11

As to the puzzling Ars Poetica, it is evident from the researches of Cichorius d and Fiske that it is quite largely indebted to Lucilius, who had a theory of literary criticism formulated according to the same rhetorical oxýμara, and under substantially the same rhetorical influences as Horace's Ars Poetica." Moreover, a detailed comparison of the fragments of Lucilius with the Ars Poetica show numerous and striking similarities. To the present a Latin Literature, p. 111. Fiske, pp. 441-446. Epist. ii. 1. 14. a Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, pp. 109-127. Fiske, p. 468.

1

e

e

writer it would seem to be an obvious inference from these facts that the Ars Poetica was largely composed some years before it was published. It may have been written originally in the regular satiric form, and afterwards adjusted, for publication, to the epistolary mould.

D. MANUSCRIPTS AND COMMENTARIES

The text of Horace does not rest on as firm a foundation as that of Virgil. Whereas the great epic writer is represented to-day by as many as seven manuscripts written in uncial or capital letters, all of the extant Horatian manuscripts are of the cursive type, and not one can claim to be older than the ninth century. Yet, putting Virgil aside, Horace, in >comparison with the other Augustan poets, has fared very well, and his text has suffered comparatively little in the process of transmission.

The мss. number about two hundred and fifty, and have given rise to endless discussion as to their mutual relations, their classification, their line of descent from a common original, and their comparative value. Such questions have been rendered more uncertain by the incomplete knowledge which we possess of the four Blandinian мss. which were destroyed in 1566, when the Benedictine abbey of St. Peter, at Blankenberg near Ghent, was sacked by a mob. These мss. had, however, been rather carelessly collated a few years earlier by Cruquius, who, beginning with 1565, edited separate portions of Horace, and finally in 1578 published a complete edition of the poet at Antwerp. Of these lost Blandinian мss. Cruquius