^{page 161 note 1} I have not seen the unpublished dissertation by Filbey, E. J. referred to by Fiske, G. C., Lucilius and Horace, p. 416Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} Vogel, , Berl. Phil. Woch. xxxviii (1918), 404–6Google Scholar; Becher, Ibid. lii (1932), 955–8; Marouzeau, , L'Ant. class, iv (1935), 365 ffGoogle Scholar

^{page 161 note 3} Cartault, , Étude sur les Satires d'Horace (Paris, 1899).Google Scholar The work as a whole is still of value, but in his chapter on the names G. was apt to look for individuals where none existed.

^{page 161 note 4} e.g. Tanais, and Visellius, ' father-in-law (1. 1. 105)Google Scholar, Balbinus, (1. 3. 40)Google Scholar, Trausius, (2. 2. 99).Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 5} Keller's findings on the scholiasts are summarized by Wickham, , i. 10–12.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 6} Fausta, Sulla's daughter, was married to Annius Milo. Her lover Villius was such a regular feature of her life that Horace called him ‘Sulla's son-in-law’. Not all the scholiasts missed the point.

^{page 161 note 7} For Trebatius, (2. 1. 4)Google Scholar see Sonnet, , R.E. vi A 2, 2251–61Google Scholar and Fraenkel, E., J.R.S. xlvii (1957), 66–70.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} Crispinus, : 1. 1. 120, 1. 3. 139, 1. 4. 14, 2. 7. 45Google Scholar; Fabius, : 1. 1. 14, 1. 2. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} See Vita Epicuri 118 (Bailey)Google Scholar and for the general theme Seneca, , De Constantia Sapientis.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 3} What we know of Sarmentus comes mainly from the scholiast's comment on Juv. 5. 3. It is all set out in Palmer's note on Serm. 1. 5. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 4} Horace must surely be referring to an individual. The authenticity of the name may be open to question, but the sceptics have to show why it should have been applied here if it was not genuine. Vogel's, theory (op. cit., p. 406)Google Scholar that Marsyas, being the symbol of freedom, could not bear the sight of Novius the upstart strikes me as over-ingenious, and his further association of Novius' position with that of Horace does not seem at all likely.

^{page 163 note 1} 6. 24–26 and 107–11. On political have been the brother of Tillius Cimber the conspirator. See Münzer, , R.E. vi A 1, 1037.Google Scholar (Subsequent references are to Münzer unless otherwise indicated.)

^{page 163 note 2} I am assuming that Galba (46) belonged to a branch of the gens Sulpicia. Sallustius (48) was a man of some social consequence—probably not the historian, since the latter was alleged to be an adulterer (Gell. 17. 15) whereas this man made a point of avoiding matronae (54). It may be the historian's grand- nephew. See R.E. i A 2, 1955Google Scholar (Stein) and Carm. 2. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 3} Cic. Att. 5. 8. 2.Google Scholar Fausta's twin brother was killed after Thapsus in 46 B.C. Her lover Villius is usually equated with the Sextus Villius mentioned in Fam. 2. 6. I (53 B.C.).Google Scholar Longarenus is unknown. Another of Fausta's paramours, Macula, Pompeius (Macrob. 2. 2. 9)Google Scholar, was probably the man referred to in Fam. 6. 19. I (45 B.C).Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 4} This is the traditional view, see Klebs, in R.E. i. 1472Google Scholar and Frank, in C.Q. xiv (1920).Google Scholar Such an eminent contemporary, however, appears rather out of place in this satire. The word vafer is of little assistance, for Alfenus must have improved his position after closing his shop and this would be enough to suggest shrewdness whether or not he took up law. The authority of Schulz, F. (Hist, of Roman Legal Science, p. 42)Google Scholar has to be used with caution. Fraenkel is right in saying that Schulz rejects the scholiast's story (Horace, , p. 89)Google Scholar, but Schulz nevertheless be lieves that Horace had the jurist in mind.

^{page 163 note 5} Att. 12. 33. IGoogle Scholar; also Fam. 7. 23. 2 and 3.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 1} M. Antistius Labeo, the lawyer, is possible temperamentally but not chronologically, having been born c. 50 B.C. His father who died at Philippi, is of the right age, but there is no evidence of any insania. The tribune C. Atinius Labeo committed an act of insania, but this took place in 131 B.C. Fraenkel, (Horace, p. 89)Google Scholar suggests that we overcome this chronological difficulty by assuming that the name occurred in Lucilius.

^{page 164 note 2} Att. 11. 15. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} He was alive in 52 B.C. (Pro Mil. 46), but dead before the Brutus was composed—i.e. before 46 B.C. R.E. ii. 1253 (Klebs).Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 4} Staberius, 2. 3. 84Google Scholar; Ummidius, 1. 1. 95Google Scholar; Aristippus, 2. 3. 100Google Scholar; Volanerius, 2. 7. 15Google Scholar; Marsaeus, I. 2. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 1} Cic, . Att. 13. 49, 50, 51Google Scholar; Fam. 7. 24.Google Scholar The evidence is summarized by Wickham in his introduction to Serm. I. 3. I have distinguished the Sardinian Tigellius of 1. 2. 3 and 1. 3. 4 from the Hermogenes (Tigellius) mentioned in I. 3. 129, 1. 4. 72, 1. 9. 25, I. 10. 17–18, 80, 90. The two men were regarded as identical by the scholiasts and this opinion has been held in recent times by Münzer, (R.E. vi Ai, 943–946)Google Scholar, Ullman, (C.Ph. x [1915], 270–96)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Fairclough, (Loeb, 54).Google Scholar But since Kirchner many scholars have recognized two different men. Argument has centred on personal characteristics, on the names employed, on the relationship with Calvus, and on the question whether Hermogenes was alive or dead. Nothing can be proved under the first two headings; the traits and names could belong to one person but need not do so. As regards Calvus, we know that he ridiculed the Sardinian (Sardi Tigelli putidum caput venit), but according to 1. 10. 17–18 he was admired by Hermogenes and his friend (nil praeter Calvum et doctus cantare Catullum). The natural interpretation of this point is in favour of the separatists. Realizing this, Ullman wanted to take cantare either ironically or else in the sense of ‘satirize’ (op. cit., pp 295–6).Google Scholar But cantare cannot mean ‘satirize’ without considerable help from the context, as in 2. 1. 46. Fairclough, who purports to follow Ullman, translates it by ‘droning’, but this does not bring out the opposition required by Ullman, namely Horace-Calvus-Catullus-Atticists versus Lucilius-Tigellius-Asianists.

We know that the Sardinian was dead. What about Hermogenes? He certainly appears to be alive, because his actions occur in the present tense, except at 1. 10. 18 and there the perfect is always taken as primary. Again the unitarians have to provide another explanation, and they do not offer the same one. Münzer says that Hermogenes had become a type figure and could therefore be referred to in the present tense. Ullman regards Hermogenes as a very specific individual and would explain the tense in terms of idioms such as ‘Horace tells us to enjoy our youth’. Münzer's is the more plausible theory (Ullman's idioms are not strictly analogous), and it must be tested by an examination of each passage. Now in 1. 3. 129, 1. 4. 72, and I. 9. 25 it is possible to substitute some general phrase for Hermogenes, e.g. ‘a Hermogenes’, or ‘someone like Hermogenes’. But in the other passages this cannot be done so easily. In 1. 10. 18 Hermogenes is associated with a particular ape (iste); in 80 he is closely connected widi Fannius, and almost as closely with Demetrius and Pantilius. And if they are all banished from reality, the following lines with their references to Maecenas, Virgil, and the rest are gravely weakened. Finally, in 90–91 a general substitution of this kind is virtually impossible.

^{page 166 note 1} Vogel, (op. cit.) points to the antithesis Scaeva-dextera. I should think, however, that dextera was put in on account of Scaeva rather than vice versa.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 2} Warmington, , Remains of Old Latin, iii. 200–7.Google Scholar I give references to W. since Marx is not so widely available.

^{page 166 note 3} W. 1136–7. In 180 B.C. when Cato was buying land for the Basilica Porcia, Maenius sold his house, reserving the right to build a balcony on one of the columns of the new Basilica. This is the column to which Porph. is referring. Lehmann-Hartleben, (A.J.P. lix [1938], 280–90)Google Scholar rejects the evidence for an earlier column in honour of C. Maenius.

^{page 166 note 4} W. 174–5.

^{page 166 note 5} See Friedländer, , Roman Life and Manners, iv. 257–63Google Scholar of the Eng. trans. The other two names do not help us. Fulvius is common enough. Rutuba may be a significant name. Varro used rutuba in the sense of perturbatio (Non. 167. 9), hence Marouzeau, (op. cit., p. 374)Google Scholar renders Rutuba, by Le Grabuge.Google Scholar All this proves nothing about the figure's reality. No one who saw ‘The Brown Bomber’ in action would have mistaken him for an abstract type.

^{page 166 note 6} W. 450–3.

^{page 167 note 1} W. 84–93.

^{page 167 note 2} See Cichorius, , Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, pp. 187 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 3} Lucilio auctore is a conjecture of Marx's (1212 in his edition).

^{page 167 note 4} 1. I. 102; 1. 8. II; 2. I. 22; 2. 3. 175, 224; 2. 8. 23, 25, 60.

^{page 167 note 5} But I do not see how W. arrives at his translation.

^{page 167 note 6} C.Q. i (1907), 59.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 7} Donatus ii, P. Wessner (Teubner), 536.

^{page 167 note 8} Op. cit., pp. 244 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 9} Op. cit., p. 288.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 10} The occurrence of Lucilius in the Pseudo-Acron's comment on 2. I. 22 makes no sense and must be a slip.

^{page 168 note 1} Fraenkel has suggested that Labeo (1.3. 82) and Barrus the fop (1.6. 30) may have figured in Lucilius, (Horace, p. 89Google Scholar, and Festschrift Reitzenstein, p. 130, n. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 2} See W. 744.

^{page 168 note 3} Pantolabus is identified by the scholiasts with one Verna, Mallius; in Epist. I. 15. 26Google Scholar he is equated with Maenius. Franke wanted to alter Mallius to Maenius, and some editors, e.g. Orelli and Palmer, have disposed of Naevius (I. 1. 101) in the same way. These changes simplify matters, but the method is a drastic one.

^{page 169 note 1} Caprius, and Sulcius, (I. 4. 65 f. and 70)Google Scholar also present a problem. Radermacher, (Wien. St. liii [1935], 80 ff.)Google Scholar thinks (a) that the names suggest figs called caper and sulca—an inference from caprificus and Columella 5. 10. 11, (b) that this in turn suggests the Greek , an informer (cf. Porph.'s note: hi acerrimi dclatores et causidici fuisse traduntur), (c) that the names also hint at caper and sulcus (= cunnus). (c) is scarcely apposite, (b) is ingenious but somewhat far-fetched. It also depends on (a) which is by no means certain.

I have not seen caper alone in this sense, and the reading at Columella 5. 10. 11 is doubtful. On the whole it is probably best to take the names as referring to contemporary lampoonists. See Ullman, , T.A.P.A. xlviii (1917), 177–18.Google Scholar This would be still more likely if we followed Fraenkel's suggestion [Horace, , p. 127, n. 3Google Scholar) and read Sulgius.

^{page 169 note 2} Cic, . Att. 2. 19. 3.Google Scholar The Roman audience was always on the look-out for a line which could be given a contemporary application. Cf. Sest. 57, 120.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} Stertinius, 2. 3. 33Google Scholar; Furius, 2. 5. 41Google Scholar; Philodemus, 1. 2. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 2} A.P. 5. 115.Google Scholar Cf. Epig. ascribed to Martial 20. 4–5 (Demophilus).Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 3} Palmer, , p. xvi.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 4} Luscus, 1. 5. 43Google Scholar; Nasidienus, 2. 8. IGoogle Scholar; Arellius, 2. 6. 78Google Scholar; Gargonius, 1. 2. 27Google Scholar; Scetanus, 1. 4. 112.Google Scholar These suggestions are to be found in Palmer, , p. xviGoogle Scholar, and Marouzeau, , op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 5} Tantalus, 1. 1. 68Google Scholar; Sisyphus, 2. 3. 21Google Scholar; Agave, 2. 3. 303Google Scholar; Orestes, 2. 3. 133Google Scholar; Atrides, 2. 3. 187 ff.Google Scholar; Ulysses, 2. 5. 100Google Scholar; Ajax, 2.3. 187Google Scholar; Teiresias, 2. 5. 1Google Scholar; Penelope, 2. 5. 76Google Scholar; Helen, 1. 3. 107. Tyndaridae (1. 1. 100) should also be included.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 6} Dama, 1. 6. 38Google Scholar; 2. 5. 18, 101; 2. 7. 54; Davus, 1. 10. 40Google Scholar; 2. 5. 91; 2. 7. 2.

^{page 170 note 7} Apella, 1. 5. 100.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1} C.P. xv (1920), 393.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 2} Sen. Epist. 114 and Mayor on Juv. 1. 66 and 12. 39.

^{page 171 note 3} Palmer, , pp. 314 and 368.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 4} Frank, , Class. Stud. presented to Capps (Princeton, 1936), pp. 159 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 5} Frank, Ibid.; Hahn, A., T.A.P.A. Ixx (1939), 231 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1} Courbaud, , Horace. Sa vie et sa pensée à l'époque des Épitres, p. 5, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} The quotations are taken respectively from Palmer, , p. xiiGoogle Scholar; Morris, , p. 15Google Scholar of the introduction to his edition; Palmer, , p. xiiGoogle Scholar; Fiske, , Lucilius and Horace, p. 370Google Scholar;. Page, p. xv of his edition of the Odes; Hadas, , A Hist, of Lat. Lit., p. 167Google Scholar (cf. Wright's article on Horace in O.C.D.: ‘Horace's humour … is directed against types rather than individuals, foibles rather than vices.’ Are we to regard greed, malice, adultery, and murder as foibles?); Highet on Satura, in O.C.D.Google Scholar; Wilkins, , Rom. Lit., p. 95Google Scholar; Palmer, , p. xiii.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} 2. I. 23.

^{page 174 note 1} So even the cautious conclusion of Smith, R. E., C.Q. i (1951), 178Google Scholar, should be modified; the same applies to my own remarks in Hermathena, xc (1957), 51.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} Festschrift Reitzenstein, pp. 119 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 3} See e.g. 87–88, 101, 144, 152.

^{page 174 note 4} Horace, , p. 101 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 5} Ibid., p. 103. Cf. Fest. Reitz., p. 130.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 6} It is a short step from this to the not uncommon idea that what Horace took from Lucilius was not ‘his own’, and that the early poems did not really indicate his ‘true self’. The violence and grossness of certain epodes are often excused by reference to the Greek iambic tradition or the harsh circumstances of the poet's life at that period—circumstances which are supposed to have goaded him into writing poems essentially alien to his nature. The ultimate stage in this approach is reached by Courbaud, (op. cit., p. 21), according to whom neither epode, nor satire, nor ode provided the natural vehicle for Horace's genius; the epistle, it appears, was the only genre for which ‘il fût réellement né’. One can only feel thankful that the poet discovered his proper mdtier befor it was too late.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} Horace, p. 14

^{page 175 note 2} Ibid., p. 145.

^{page 175 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 175 note 4} Fest. Reitz., p. 135Google Scholar: ‘das Stadium der Oberreife eingetreten ist’.

^{page 175 note 5} Horace, , p. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 6} Op. cit., p. 11.Google Scholar On the same page cf. the remark that ‘une telle oeuvre … n'est plus du tout une satire.’

^{page 175 note 7} Introd. to Serm. I; Introd. to Epist. I; cf. Porph. on Serm. 2. I.

^{page 175 note 8} Hendrickson, , A.J.P. xviii (1897), 316, maintains that Quint. 10. I. 93–94 includes 144. the Epistles in satura. This seems improba hence the brackets around B.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 9} Silv. I. 3. 103–4.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} Vita Horati, Rostagni, , p. 118.Google Scholar Was Suetonius consciously including Epist. 1. 4. 15 and 1. 20 24 in the term saturis? Or did he think in a moment of forgetfulness that the obesity reference came in Serm. 2. 3. 308 ff. ? Certainty is impossible, hence the query after B.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} 9. 211 ff. Anderson (Loeb) renders ‘After the medleys of the Epistles, the witty sallies of the Satires’. In punctuation and interpre tation this is preferable to the view advanced by Hendrickson, , op. cit., p. 318Google Scholar, who wants to take per satiras as generic and epistularwn sermonumque sales as subdivisions.

^{page 176 note 3} The scholiast's suggestion has been undeservedly neglected: ‘castigavit … ita ut amici, qui eum audirent recitantem, putarent non tangi vitia eorum. Deinde eum dicta diligentius apud se pertractarent viderunt vitia sua per ilium descripta’ (Jahn, , p. 275Google Scholar). All we need take from this is the idea of delayed action. Cf. quid rides? mutato nomine de te / jfabula narratur (Serm. I. 1. 69–70).Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 1} Brower, R. A., Alexander Pope. The Poetry of Allusion (Oxford, 1959), p. 184.Google Scholar There is a fine appreciation of Serm. a. 6 on pp. 168–76.

^{page 177 note 2} e.g. ‘On abandoning the writing of satires …’ (Horace, p. 147)Google Scholar, ‘He returned to the writing of sermones … but not as is satires’ (Ibid., p. 153), ‘The potentialities of the Horatian satira were exhausted, the potentialities of the Horatian sermo were no’ (Ibid., p. 309).