¹ Brink, C.O., On Reading an Horatian Satire: an Interpretation of Sermones 2.6 (The Sixth Todd Memorial Lecture, Sydney 1965), 10.Google Scholar

² Rudd, N., The Satires of Horace (Cambridge 1966), 243–57.Google Scholar

³ Wieland, C.M., Horazens Satyren (Leipzig 1790), cited by Fraenkel.Google Scholar

⁴ Fraenkel, E., Horace (Oxford 1957), 140 f.Google Scholar

⁵ This traditional view is followed by O.A.W. Dilke in his comments on the relationship between Horace, Maecenas and Augustus: ‘Horace too had to be as tactful in his relationship with Augustus and Maecenas as was consistent with his love of independence’, in his ‘Interpretation of Horace’s Epistles’, ANRW II.31.3 1839.

⁶ For the delay in naming Maecenas in several of the poems which are addressed to him, see Fraenkel 222: ‘To begin with a characterising invocation and postpone the vocative of the proper name is a device well known from early Greek hymns.’ Unexpectedly.in this poem, Maecenas does not appear in the vocative. Instead we have Maia nate (v.5) and Matutine pater (v.20), a contrasting pair, the former responsible for Horace’s rustic felicity, the latter for Horace’s urban toils; in reality Maecenas was responsible for both.

⁷ For a recent and detailed survey of this relationship, see Lefevre, E., ‘Horaz und Maecenas’, ANRW 2. 31.3 1983–2029;Google Scholar this article includes an exhaustive discussion of relevant secondary literature.

⁸ See e.g. Seneca, De ben. 6.33.1 f.;De ira 3.13.3–4;Epist. Mor. 25.1; 112.1 f.

⁹ Brink 11.

¹⁰ Rudd 243; for a flat rejection of Rudd’s view, see West, D., ‘Of Mice and Men: Horace, Satires 2.6.77–117‘Google Scholar in Woodman, and West, , Quality and Pleasure in Latin Literature (Cambridge 1974), 78;Google Scholar he also denies that the poem is about prayers in what is a brief, lively and perceptive piece of criticism, even iconoclastic.

¹¹ Fraenkel 140 f.

¹² op. cit. 138 n.l. His parallel reference is to Virg. Aen. 12.259.

¹³ For recent work on the patron/client relationship, see Saller, Richard P., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Courbaud, E., Horace: sa Vie et sa Pensée à l’Epoque des Epitres (Paris 1914), 61 f.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a discussion see Fraenkel 1–23.

¹⁶ Cf. Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (31 B.C. — A.D. 337) (London 1977), 116:Google Scholar ‘The role of amicus of the emperor thus on the one hand conferred a real public honour and privilege, and the ability to distribute benefits to others, and on the other hand was actually unstable, and exposed a manto pressures and suspicions both from the emperor himself, and from other persons at court and from society at large’; cf. also Syme, R., ‘Some Friends of the Caesars’, AJPh 77 (1956), 264.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The fact that Horace’s father had been a freedman would have been a genuine embarrassment at court — ‘The very appearance of a freedman or slave with such influence must be devoid of dignitas’, Cic. Ad Q.F. 1.2.3; cf. Suet. Aug. 74 where the author recounts that, although Augustus was on good terms with some freedmen, he would not invite them to dinner, because he wished to avoid an affront to public ideas of decorum.

¹⁸ Cf. Horace’s own comments on this necessity at Sat. 1.6.100–11.

¹⁹ Sat. 1.5.31.

²⁰ Sat. 2.6.32.

²¹ On the question of Horace’s independence, see van Ooteghem, J., ‘Horace et l’Indépendance’, Latomus 5 (1946), 185–8,Google Scholar also Fraenkel’s comments on Epist. 1.7.34–9 (op. cit. {above, note 4] 335).

²² On the significance of the concept of slavery in this poem, see my article, ‘A Discussion of Various Tensions in Horace, Satires 2.7’, Prudentia 10 (1978), 85–98.

²³ See Sat. 1.6 for a description of the relationship’s tentative start, esp. w.45–64.

²⁴ E.g. the beginning of Sat 2.6 itself, but also Epodes 1.23–34 and Odes 3.16.42–4.

²⁵ See Fraenkel, op. cit. 70 n.2: ‘The close parallelism of the two relationships is emphasized by a subtle stylistic device: the syntactic pattern of vv.3 f., omne Caesaris periculum subire, Maecenas, tuo (scil. periculo), is not mechanically repeated but slightly varied in 15, tuum (scil. laborem) labore quid iuvem meo.’

²⁶ Fraenkel 70 f.

²⁷ Sat 2.6.50–6.

²⁸ Reckford, Kenneth J., ‘Horace and Maecenas’, TAPA 90 (1959), 204.Google Scholar

²⁹ The most significant passages quoted by Charlesworth are: Plaut. Persa 99; Cic. Cum senat. grat. egit 8 and Virg. Ecl. 1.7–9. To these one should add, of course, Lucr. De rer. nat. 5.8–12. Perhaps the most amusing is Cic. Ad Att. 5.21.7. Note also Fordyce’s comments on Catullus 1.9 in his commentary (Oxford 1961 ): ‘… the poet is Calliope’s cliens: the characteristically Roman notion which represents the relation between divinity and worshipper as that of clientela appears in 34.1.’

³⁰ Weinstock, S.. Divus Julius (Oxford 1971), 3.Google Scholar

³¹ Starr, Chester G., Civilisation and the Caesars (Cornell 1954), 61.Google Scholar

³² Sailer, op. cit. (above, note 13)71, who also quotes from Pliny, Epist. 10.51 : ‘cui referre gratiam parem ne audeo quidem, quamvis maxime possim. itaque ad vota coniugio deosque precor, ut iis, quae in me adsidue confers, non indignus existimer.’

³³ This is especially true when requests were being addressed to Augustus, e.g. Ovid, Ex Ponto 3.1.131–8, with which one might compare Mart. 5.6.7–11, written when the tradition was becoming established; cf. also Hor. Odes 1.2.41–52.

³⁴ Weinstock, op. cit. 19.

³⁵ On interpreting Horace’s autobiographical revelations, see the fascinating article by Anderson, W.S., ‘Autobiography and Art in Horace’, Perspectives of Roman Poetry, ed. Galinsky, (Texas 1974), 33–56.Google Scholar Anderson provides an intelligent reply to questions raised by Brink, op. cit. (above, note 1)12, who suggests that Horace is not as frank about himself as we sometimes suspect.

³⁶ Fraenkel, op. cit (above, note 4) 225.

³⁷ Hornsby, R.A., ‘Horace, Ode III.29’, CJ 54 (1958–9), 129–36.Google Scholar

³⁸ The most famous picture of the Epicurean gods is that of Lucretius 2.646–51, which ironically, is borrowed from the Homeric descriptions of the gods of Olympus; cf. Epicurus, KD 1.

³⁹ Reckford, op. cit. (above, note 28) 203.

⁴⁰ It appears from the forms of several of the Odes that Horace was interested in the poetic challenge presented by hymns, see Fraenkel, op. cit. 168–76.

⁴¹ See my article on Horace, Sat. 2.2: ‘The Characterization of Ofellus in Horace Satires 2.2 and a Note on v.123’, Antichthon 14 (1980), 112–26, esp. 119 f.

⁴² Rudd, op. cit. (above, note 2) 305 n.3.

⁴³ For a discussion of Augustus’ invitation to Horace, see Millar, op. cit. (above, note 16) 85.

⁴⁴ For cura as an unpleasant urban companion, see Hor. Sat. 2.7.114 f.:

‘iam vino quaerens, iam somno fallere curam:

frustra; nam comes atra premit sequiturque fugacem.’

⁴⁵ Aristotle’s belief that friendship was difficult, if not impossible, between individuals of unequal status is expounded in Book 8 of the Nicomachean Ethics. This view is reflected, or perhaps paralleled, by the traditional Roman view; Sailer, op. cit. (above, note 13) 15 goes so far as to say: ‘Where the term amicus occurs with respect to a friendship between men known to be of unequal status, we can assume a patronage relationship’; the implication being that difference in social status is an obstacle to anything but that type of amicitia which could not exist ‘without reciprocal exchange’. It is interesting that atalater stage of Roman history Fronto, Ad M. Caes. 1.3.4 f. felt the need to make a distinction between amicitia, which required constant tending, and amor which did not. One could argue that, by the time of the Odes, Horace uses the language of amor to Maecenas (esp. 2.17.5), rather than that of necessarily mercenary amicitia.

⁴⁶ E.g., again Lucr. 5.8–12.

⁴⁷ Starr, op. cit. (above, note 31) 60, suggests that there had been voluntary worship of Octavian from the defeat of Sextus Pompeius, as early as 36 B.C. Cf. also Millar, op. cit. (above, note 16) 466, who quotes Nicolaus FGrH 90 F 127 on the reverence towards Octavian of the Saguntines, and also Appian, B.C. 5.132.

⁴⁸ See e.g. Cic. De leg. 1.18.49.

⁴⁹ Note here Epictetus, Discourses 3.16.3: ‘It is impossible that a man can keep company with one covered with soot without being a partaker of the soot himself.’

⁵⁰ Nussbaum, G., ‘Sympathy and Empathy in Horace’, ANRW 2.31.3.2113.Google Scholar Section X of this article (‘si et carus vivo amicis: a Genius for Friendship’), 2113–27 is particularly useful.

⁵¹ Epicurus, KD 23.

⁵² Bailey, C., The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford 1928), 520.Google Scholar

⁵³ Rist, J.M., Epicurus: an Introduction (Cambridge 1972), 127–39:Google Scholar cf. Steinmetz, K.. Die Freundschaftlehre des Panaitios, 40 ff.Google Scholar for a discussion of the views of the Middle Stoa on friendship.

⁵⁴ Op. cit. 128 f.

⁵⁵ See West, op. cit. (above, note 10) 70, who denies that this is a ‘simple tale’, partly because of the complexity of such language as this.

⁵⁶ Lejay, P., Horace, Satires (Paris 1911).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ By ‘all the devices’ I mean, for example, those categorized by Fronte, Ep. ad M. Ant de Eloqu. 1.146: ‘attende quid cupiat ipse Chrysippus. num contentus est docere, rem ostendere, definire, explanare? non est contentus: verum auget in quantum potest, exaggerat, praemunit, iterat, differt, recurrit, interrogai, describit, dividit, personas fingit, orationem suam alii accommodat: ταΰτα δ’ εστίν αΰξειν, διασκευάζειν, εξεργάζεσθαι, πάλιν λέγειν, έπαναφέρειν, παράπτειν, προσωποποιεΐν.’ Of course, part of Horace’s poetic purpose in such Satires as 2.3,2.6 and 2.7, also 2.2, was to test his ability to cast the diatribe into the mould of the hexameter verse of his Sermones.

⁵⁸ I am indebted to the staff of the Department of Classics and Ancient History of the University of Queensland, especially to Mr. Michael Dyson, whose comments and criticisms have modified this paper considerably from the embryonic form in which it was presented to them in April 1983; also to the delegates of AULLA XXII held in Canberra in Aug./Sept. 1983, especially Prof. W.K. Lacey.