POETRY, PHILOSOPHY
AND LETTER-WRITING
IN HORACE EPISTLES 1
Stephen Harrison
Two long-running issues in
the criticism of Horace's first book of Epistles now appear to be in a steady
state: that of whether these twenty hexameter poems are in any sense 'real'
letters, and that of whether Horace's professions of philosophical eclecticism
in the programmatic Epistles 1.1
(13-19) are borne out by the collection. On the first issue, most would now
agree that 'while the possibility remains that some of the Epistles were actually sent as letters, they are best judged as
fictional discourse' and that these poems aim at 'a lively illusion of reality'
(Kilpatrick 1986 : xvii). On the second
issue, Horace's lack of dogmatism seems to be re-established after attempts to
make him more philosophically systematic, and he is now seen as an independent
purveyor of familiar ethical generalisations. [1] These issues form the background to the
questions addressed here. First, what kind of techniques does Horace use to
present philosophical material (whatever it is) within the context of a
collection of hexameter poetry ? And
second, how does Horace's fictionalised use of the letter-form (assuming that
it is fictionalised) relate to ancient practice and prescription in the field
of letter-writing ? These issues will
be dealt with separately in what follows, but as will emerge, they are
crucially interrelated : letters were well-known as a means of presenting
philosophy in the ancient world (note the extant epistles ascribed to Plato and
Epicurus, and the lost epistles of Aristotle), and some of the techniques used
in the presentation of philosophy in the Epistles
have clear links with the prescriptions of ancient epistolographical
theory.
1 : Poetry and Philosophy
The idea of putting philosophy into
hexameter poetry was not of course original to Horace. Its history stretches
back to Parmenides and Empedocles, and the De
Rerum Natura of Lucretius had come out in the 50's B.C. There is clear
evidence that Horace knew and used the work of Lucretius
in the Satires and Odes as well as the Epistles [2], but there are some important
differences between the two poets. Horace deals not with the relatively
recondite subject of Epicurean physics but with the central matters of ethics
and personal conduct, common topics of educated conversation at Rome and
closely applicable to everyday life; here, as has long been recognised, he is
indebted to the De Officiis
of Cicero, another publication of the previous generation, which tries
similarly to apply the precepts of Greek ethics to the practice of Roman public
and private life (McGann 1969 : 10-14). There is also
the question of dogmatism, intensity and grandeur: the doctrinaire missionary
fervour and epic sublimity of Lucretius,
though tempered at times by reflection and humour, is far from the mellow and
humble protreptic persona adopted by Horace in the
first book of Epistles.
Horace's presentation of philosophy
in the first book of Epistles may be
considered under two general headings: that of the poet's own
self-representation as writer of the poems, and that of how the resources of hexameter poetry in
particular are used in the exposition of ethics.
(i) Self-presentation
The first and
programmatic poem of Epistles 1 gives
the reader vital indications of the kind of philosopher Horace will be (Ep.1.1.1-12):
Prima dicte mihi, summa dicende Camena,
spectatum
satis et donatum iam rude quaeris,
Maecenas,
iterum antiquo me includere ludo.
non eadem est aetas, non mens. Veianius armis
Herculis
ad postem fixis latet abditus agro,
ne
populum extrema totiens exoret harena.
est
mihi purgatam crebro qui personet aurem:
'solve senescentem mature sanus equum, ne
peccet
ad extremum ridendus et ilia ducat'.
nunc
itaque et versus et cetera ludicra
pono;
quid verum
atque decens, curo et rogo et omnis in hoc sum.
condo et compono quae mox
depromere possim.
Proclaimed by me in my
first poetry, to be proclaimed in my last,
Maecenas,
you seek to shut me up in my school/play of old.
Though already enough
on show and presented with my retirement-sword.
My age, my mind are not
the same. Veianius hung his arms
On Hercules’ door and
stays quiet hidden in the country,
To avoid begging the
people so often from the arena’s edge.
I have a voice which
rings in my ear, now clean of dirt :
‘Come to sense in time
and loose the ageing stallion,
So that he doesn’t
stumble at the last and split his sides’.
So now I lay aside
poetry and other playthings :
What is true and fitting
is my care and request, I’m all for that.
I fashion/store and lay
up/compose things to draw down in due course.
Horace
here describes his turning to philosophy as the retirement of a gladiator, who
does not wish to enter again the ludus, playing on the double sense of that word, which means
both 'gladiatorial school' and 'frivolous play' (West 1967 : 23-4) : the
metaphorical message to Maecenas is clearly that
Horace will not write another book of
erotic Odes after the recent
publication of Odes 1-3, and that he
is keen to put such frivolities behind him in his new ethical project. Ludus can refer
specifically to love as well as to erotic poetry, as it does in a similar
context at Epistles 1.14.36, non lusisse pudet, sed non incidere ludum, ‘I’m not
ashamed to have played, but of not cutting the game short’ (cf. TLL 7.1789.32ff) ; Horace is presenting himself as too old both
for love and for its poetry, as at Odes
3.26.1-2 : vixi puellis nuper idoneus, / et militavi non sine
gloria, ‘I have lived my life until recently as
one fit or girls, and I have campaigned not without glory’ (cf. also Odes
1.5.13-16) .
The image used there was of course the elegiac one of
the militia amoris;
here in the Epistles the same idea is
presented through the image of the retired gladiator, a decidedly down-market
and sordid version of the same metaphor (Veianius is
not an elevated character - as a gladiator he was probably a slave). The rural
retirement of the gladiator (latet abditus agro) reinforces the parallel with Horace the poet on his own
Sabine ager
(Ep.1.16.4): Horace's pensive
withdrawal to the country and its opportunities for philosophical reflection
will be a major theme in Epistles 1
(cf. Ep.1.7, 1.10, 1.14, 1.16). This
lower tone is confirmed by the image of lines 8-9, where Horace's poetry is
compared to a clapped-out nag, a reduced and comic version of the chariot of
poetry; [3] Horace
will have to slow down to a walk, suitable to the Musa pedestris of sermo (Sat 2.6.17). Explicit
allusion to philosophy comes at lines 10-12, where all poetry is renounced in
favour of moral philosophy. The protestation is solemn, but tinged with not a
little humour: Horace is after all renouncing poetry in the context of
introducing a book of poems, a type of ironic fiction found elsewhere in his
hexameter poetry (Sat.1.4.41-2, AP 306). As in the opening image of the ludus, ambiguous
language indicates this irony: condo
and compono
are technical terms for the storage or laying down of wine in a cellar, but
both verbs can also refer elsewhere in Horace to the composition of poetry
(Mayer 1994 : 90).
So the first book of Epistles begins with a
self-representation which is far from sublime, and with a renunciation of
poetry in favour of morality which is strongly stated but cannot be
literally true; the erotic and symposiastic themes of the Odes do largely disappear, but the collection is indubitably
poetic. The apparent conversion to philosophy is at least partly a fiction for
literary purposes, since philosophical concerns are far from absent from
Horace's earlier writings. [4]
The poet is not a 'born again' fundamentalist missionary in the Lucretian mould, but is able to joke about his new career
as a poetic purveyor of philosophy to
his friends. This combination of self-depreciating humour and enthusiasm in
conveying his philosophical interests is a hall-mark of Horace's
self-presentation in the first book of Epistles. This is confirmed by further
examples. In Ep.
1.4 Horace writes to Tibullus, [5] advising
his fellow-poet to enjoy the material benefits of his comfortable life while he
may, despite the emotional traumas he writes about in his love-elegies (12-16):
inter spem curamque, timores inter et iras,
omnem
crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum.
grata
superveniet quae non sperabitur hora.
me pinguem
et nitidum bene curata cute vises
cum ridere
voles Epicuri de grege porcum.
Amid hope and concern,
amid fear and anger
Believe every day to
have dawned your last.
Pleasant will be the coming
of the hour that’s not expected.
You’ll come and see me,
fat and shining with well-cared-for skin
When you want to laugh
at a porker from Epicurus’ herd.
Once
again this famous self-characterisation by Horace is clearly not an elevated
one, and here again, as in the opening
epistle, it is conjoined with earnest philosophical exhortations, here of an
Epicurean kind no doubt suited to a hedonistic elegist. [6]
Horace the philosophical teacher uses self-depreciation as a captatio benevolentiae.
Horace commonly presents himself in Epistles 1 not as the great teacher and
moral paragon but as a fallible fellow-pupil, while still urging a particular
moral line. At the end of Ep.1.6,
Horace refers to his advice as no better than anyone else's, but encourages Numicius
to take it if he knows nothing else better (67-8), while at the beginning of Ep.1.17, in an equally prominent
position, Scaeva is given instruction on the art of
friendship, a philosophical subject in antiquity (see Powell 1995), but by a Horace
who is still learning and who is like a blind man leading the way (3-4). Twice
Horace, advocating the consistent moral life, alludes prominently to his own
inconsistency (Ep.1.8, 1.15.42-6),
and the final poem of the book, although it is not concerned with philosophy as
such, continues this modest self-presentation, in a direct contrast with the
great closing claims for the poet made in Odes
2.20 and 3.30 (see Harrison 1988). The rationale behind this modesty both as
poet and as teacher of philosophy is clear enough : Horace is evidently going
to get further in interesting his friends in ethical topics by not posing as an
omniscient sage. The humorous and fallible self-image of the poet as
philosopher in Epistles 1 helps to
convey its protreptic message in the most effective
and acceptable way.
(ii)
Poetic Packaging
I now turn to the
advantages of poetry in general and of the hexameter in particular in Horace's
presentation and packaging of philosophical material in Epistles 1. Two techniques will suffice here. One is the use of
single-line sententiae,
'one-liners', through which the poet can encapsulate a thought in a single
syntactical unit in one easily-memorable hexameter. There are many examples, of
which the following list is merely a convenient selection:
1. Ep.
1.1.19 et mihi res, non me rebus subiungere conor
‘I
try to yoke events to myself, not myself to events’
2.
Ep.
1.1.52 vilius argentum est auro, virtutibus
aurum
‘silver’s
inferior to gold, gold to good qualities’
3.
Ep. 1.2.46
quod satis est cui contingit nihil amplius optet
‘let
he who has enough never
4.
Ep. 1.4.13 omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum
‘believe
every day to have dawned your last’
5.
Ep. 1.6.23 hic
tibi sit potius quam tu memorabilis
illi
‘let
him be a marvel to you rather than you to him’
6.
Ep. 1.7.98 metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est
‘it’s
a truth that each gauges himself by his own foot and measure’
7.
Ep.
1.11.27 caelum non animum mutant
qui trans mare currunt
‘those
who speed across the sea change climate, not their spirits’
8.
Ep.
1.14.11 cui placet alterius,
sua nimirum est odio sors
‘he
who likes another’s lot naturally hates his own’
9.
Ep.
1.14.44 quam scit uterque libens censebo exerceat artem
‘I’ll
rule that each of us should pursue the art he knows’
10. Ep. 1.16.17 tu recte vivis, si curas esse
quod audis
‘you
live rightly, if you take care to match your reputation’
11. Ep. 1.17.10 nec vixit male qui natus moriensque fefellit
‘he
has lived no bad life who was born and died in obscurity’
12. Ep. 1.17.36 non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum
‘not
every man gets to go to
13. Ep. 1.18.9 virtus est medium vitiorum et utrimque reductum
‘virtue
is a mean between opposite vices, far removed from either end’
These
thirteen one-line sententiae
divide into two types: those which express a very general philosophical or
proverbial idea, and those which translate or adapt known moral precepts of
Greek philosophers. Of the first type, 3 encapsulates the ideal of
self-sufficiency (autarkeia)
desiderated by most ancient philosophies, 6 the general idea that each man has
his own individual measure, 7 refers to the common idea that travel does not
ease the mind, 8 to the commonplace that each man dislikes his own lot and
wants another (mempsimoiria)
while 6, 9 and 12 are versions of known proverbs; [7]
here it is worth recalling that ancient proverbs were often expressed in
metrical units. [8] For each
of the second type, we can trace a particular Greek prose source cast by Horace
into verse, as follows : [9]
1.
cf. Aristippus in Diogenes Laertius
2.75 eÃxw
... a)ll' ou)k eÃxomai
2.
cf. Plato Laws 5.728a xruso\j a)reth=j ou)k a)nta/cioj
4.
cf. Epicurus fr. 490 Us. (Plutarch De Tranq.
474C) o( th=j
auÃrion hÀkista
deo/menoj ... hÀdista pro/seisi pro\j th\n
auÃrion
5.
cf. Plutarch De Tranq.
470 d zhlwto\n eiånai ma=llon hÄ zhlou=n e(te/rouj
10.
cf. Socrates in Xenophon Mem.2.6.39 oÀ ti aÄn bou/lv dokeiÍn a)gaqo\j eiånai,
tou=to kaiì gene/sqai a)gaqo\n peira=sqai
11.
cf. Epicurus fr. 551 Us. la¢qe biw¢saj
13.
cf. Aristotle NE 2.6 1106b-1107a ãEstin aÃra h( a)reth\ ... meso/thj de\ du/o
kakiw½n,
th=j me\n kaq' u(perbolh\n th=j de\ kat'
eÃlleiyin
Thus
it is clear that Horace is aware in the Epistles
that hexameter verse adds an extra dimension to the presentation of
philosophical precepts, enabling the poet to communicate philosophical views,
whether general or particular, with epigrammatic point and neatness in a single
regular and memorable unit not available to writers of prose.
A second resource offered by the
poetic medium is that of imagery. Of course, prose texts and prose expositions
of philosophy need not be poor in imagery (Plato's dialogues and Seneca's
letters are good counter-examples), but the Epistles
show that poetry, especially hexameter poetry with its long and rich
tradition, offers greater opportunity
for such ornament, and Lucretius had provided an
important precedent for the extensive use of imagery in the poetic exposition
of philosophy. [10] One
particular technique which the Epistles share
with Lucretius here is the use of analogy with the
familiar and visual in giving expositions of
non-visual philosophical ideas. A
few examples. In the first poem Horace compares disorder of appearance and of
soul (Ep.1.1.94-100):
si
curatus inaequali tonsore capillos
occurri,
rides; si forte subucula pexae
trita
subest tunicae vel si toga dissidet impar,
rides: quid mea cum pugnat sententia secum,
quod
petiit spernit, repetit quod nuper
omisit,
aestuat
et vitae disconvenit ordine
toto,
diruit,
aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis ?
If I meet you with my
hair done by a barber who cuts crooked,
You laugh; if a worn
shirt is under my smooth new tunic,
Or if my toga parts
unevenly, you laugh :
What then, when my mind
is at variance with itself,
Spurns what it used to
pursue, seeks again what it just dropped,
Seethes and is at odds
in the whole ordering of life,
Demolishes, builds,
changes square for round ?
Here
Horace comically implies that the elegant Maecenas is
more interested in minor aberrations in Horace's dress and appearance than in
major aberrations in his moral and internal state. The minute and everyday
details of dress and haircut give the thought a strong visual element, and
suggest that moral confusion is just as common a state as untidiness of dress,
a significant disadvantage in polite Roman society, so forcing it on the
reader's attention. Very similar is the briefer image at 1.10.42-3:
cui non conveniet sua res,
ut calceus olim,
si
pede maior erit, subvertet, si minor, uret.
If a man’s fortune
doesn’t fit him, it’s like a shoe :
Too
big for his foot, it will trip him up in time, too small, it’ll pinch him.
There
discontent with one's material lot is aptly compared to an ill-fitting shoe,
which will be uncomfortable if it is either too small or too big; again the
sartorial detail brings the moral point home to the reader. Another instance is
1.18.84-5:
nam
tua res agitur,
paries cum proximus ardet,
et neglecta
solent incendia sumere viris.
For it’s your concern
when the neighbour’s wall burns,
And fires that are left
alone usually grow in strength.
Here Horace advises Lollius to stick by friends who are attacked by others - he
may be next, and will need their support in turn. This is reinforced by the
vivid image of the burning house; in the close confines of a heavily
inflammable
The same can be said for the
deployment of another image in the Epistles,
the idea that philosophy is a cure for the soul just as medicine is a cure for
the body. Again this is an image which begins in prose texts such as Democritus
and Plato, but in Epistles 1 Horace
uses it a number of times, taking advantage of the capacity of a poetry-book to
continue and develop an image. [12]
This medical analogy appears prominently in the first and programmatic poem
(1.28-37):
non possis
oculo quantum contendere Lynceus,
non tamen
idcirco contemnas lippus inungi;
nec
quia desperes invicti membra Glyconis,
nodosa
corpus nolis prohibere cheragra.
est
quadam prodire tenus, si non datur
ultra.
fervet
avaritia miseroque cupidine pectus:
sunt
verba et voces quibus hunc lenire
dolorem
possis
et magnam morbi deponere partem.
laudis
amore tumes: sunt certa piacula quae
te
ter
pure lecto poterunt recreare libello.
Just because you
couldn’t strain your eyes like Lynceus
Doesn’t mean that you
should reject ointment when they’re sore :
And if you have no hope
of the firm limbs of the champion Glycon,
You
should still keep your body free of knotty gout.
You can always advance a
little, even if you can’t go any
Your
There are words and
expressions to soothe that kind of pain,
And to dispel a great
part of the disease.
You
swell with desire for glory: there are certain rites which can give you
respite,
When you’ve three times
read your book in purity of heart.
Here
the poet encourages Maecenas and the reader in
general to make as much effort to cure their moral ills as they would to heal
physical complaints. The illnesses named as analogies in lines 29-31 are
familiar and everyday ones, inflamed eyes and gout; the poet then goes on to
treat moral ills in terms of bodily metaphor, with some careful and elegant
ambiguity - fervet
can refer to simple feverish heat as well as spiritual warmth, lenire dolorem is as
appropriate to the relief of physical pain as to mental soothing, while tumes can
suggest malignant physical swelling as well as the metaphorical swelling of
ambition (Mayer 1994 : 95). Ter pure suggests a formula of magical or medicinal
relief of a physical kind, [13]
an idea continued in recreare,
but lecto ... libello
points the surprise and the intentional ambiguity - the illness is one of the
spirit, and its cure is a book, a text of philosophy, perhaps the very book
which the poet is writing. The reader is being encouraged to read on in hope of
a cure.
After this prominent introduction,
the theme appears again in the next poem (1.2.51-3):
qui cupit
aut metuit, iuvat illum sic domus et res
ut
lippum pictae tabulae, fomenta podagrum,
auriculas
citharae collecta sorde dolentis.
He who desires or fears
is as much pleased by his house and wealth
As painted pictures
please a man with sore eyes or dressings the gouty,
Or lyres please ears
suffering from a blockage of dirt.
Once
again the poet picks on everyday complaints, adding to the watery eyes and gout
of the first epistle the pain of ears blocked with wax, arguing that they
prevent the enjoyment of normal pleasures, and the point illustrated is
similarly a trite one; the impossibility of pleasure for the rich man beset by
cares is a favourite notion for Roman moralists. [14]
Again, the point about moral health is effectively made through physical
comparison and analogy. Equally
effective is the image at 1.3.31-2, where the poet enquires of Florus whether the
rift between Celsus and Munatius
has been properly patched up, or whether it is still in operation:
an male sarta
gratia
nequiquam coit ac rescinditur ... ?
Or has your goodwill
been poorly patched,
So that the wound is
mended in vain and then reopens ?
Here
the sundered friendship is clearly compared to an open wound where the stitches
may or may not come together and heal ; sarta, coit and rescinditur are technical terms of medicine.[15] The
point is clearly an ethical one: the moral harm of quarrelling is like the
physical harm of injury, and the reconciled friend is like the whole and healed
body.
This link in imagery between
physical and moral distemper is extended through another feature of the first
book of Epistles already identified,
the poet's detailed self-representation. Horace's own actual or potential ill-health
is mentioned a number of times in the collection, and is linked from time to
time with the unsatisfactory state of his mind. In 1.8, in a letter to Celsus, on campaign with Tiberius in the East, the analogy
is fully explored (3-12):
si
quaeret quid agam, dic multa et pulchra
minantem
vivere
nec recte nec suaviter; haud
quia grando
contuderit
vitis oleamque momorderit aestus,
nec
quia longinquis armentum aegrotet in agris;
sed
quia mente minus validus quam corpore
toto
nil audire
velim, nil discere, quod levet aegrum;
fidis
offendar medicis, irascar amicis,
cur me funesto properent arcere veterno;
quae
nocuere sequar, fugiam quae profore
credam;
Romae
Tibur amem ventosus, Tibure Romam.
If he asks how I am
doing, say that I promise many fine things
But live with neither
virtue nor pleasure : not because
Hail has battered my
vines or heat attacked my olives,
Or because my flock is
sick in distant fields,
But because I am even
weaker in mind than in my whole body,
And do not like to hear
or learn any relief for my illness :
I take offence at my
faithful doctors, rage at my friends,
Asking why they hasten
to keep me from deadly lethargy;
I pursue what harms me,
and avoid what I deem good:
Fickle as the wind, I love
Again,
as elsewhere, the terms used are neatly ambiguous: audire, discere and quod levet aegrum refer
equally well to listening to medically or spiritually curative advice, matching
the balance in line 9 between medicis and amicis which
suggests that friends try to do for the mind what doctors try to do for the
body, veterno
in line 10 can refer to physical conditions such as dropsy as well as mental
lethargy, and the pithy one-liner of line 11 presents a moral dilemma akin to
Aristotelian akrasia as well as a problem with daily diet
and habits (Mayer 1994 : 177).
In 1.7, Horace's Sabine estate is used as a
starting-point for more general analogies between bodily and spiritual health.
There Horace claims health as a reason for staying on his estate rather than coming to Maecenas in
The extension and variation of a
type of imagery illustrating a philosophical idea to provide a link with a
central theme of the whole collection is typical of the resources available for
the exposition of ideas in a poetry-book. In fact, we have seen that discussion
of the analogy between mental and physical health has also mentioned and
included the two other aspects of the first book of Epistles which have been classified above as poetic techniques -
the elaborate self-presentation of the writer and the use of 'one-liners',
showing that the poet is in full command of a range of poetical strategies, and
uses them in an integrated way towards the objective of his collection, the entertaining
and informative presentation of ethical issues both to his immediate
correspondents and to a larger readership.
2 : Letter-writing and Epistles I
Here we turn to our second issue,
that of whether the first book of Epistles
is written with some consciousness of formal works on letter-writing; we
shall see in due course that this links closely with our first issue of the
poetic presentation of philosophy. Some influence on Horace from the epistolographical tradition is not improbable;
Demetrius begins his section on
letter-writing (On Style 223-235) by
asserting that the style of letters requires plainness (ischnotes), though this should
also be combined with the more elevated quality of charm (charis). In support of this, he
cites Artemon, editor of Aristotle's letters and
certainly a pre-Horatian writer, to the effect that
'a letter may be regarded as one of the two sides in a dialogue'. This, like
plainness of style, is one of the conventional recommendations of ancient epistolography (Cugusi 1983 :
32-3).. Here Horace fits the prescription, since most of the epistles in the
first book are in effect his side of an exchange with the addressee, commonly
an intimate with whom the poet might have regular contact and converse. More
importantly, Artemon's view implies a colloquial
stylistic level for letters, a view endorsed elsewhere in the epistolographical tradition (Thraede
1970 : 27-61, Cugusi 1983 : 33); of course, this is
the natural register of Horatian hexameter sermo, making it
a natural vehicle for letter-writing. Demetrius also stresses the small scale
of the letter (228); in addition to mirroring the practicalities of ancient
correspondence, brevity itself is another stylistic topos in epistolographical
writing (Cugusi 1983 : 34-6). Here we can see an
interesting contrast between the Satires and
the first book of Epistles: the two
books of Satires show an average
poem-length of 119 lines (103 lines for Book 1, 135 for Book 2), the first book
of Epistles one of 50 lines,
dramatically different. The second book of Epistles
and the Ars Poetica are
of course rather longer, but there the epistolographical
fiction is less immediately important; in Epistles
I Horace is conforming more closely and consciously to the practice and
prescriptions of letter-writing.
Further points made by Demetrius
concern the content rather than the style of letters (227): 'A letter should be
very largely an expression of character, just like the dialogue. Perhaps
everyone reflects his own soul in writing a letter. It is possible to discern a
writer's character in every other form of literature, but in none so fully as
in the letter' . This aspect of self-revelation again fits Horatian
sermo as a
whole; Horace characterises his Satires
as self-revelatory, following the tradition of Lucilius
(Sat.2.1.30-34), and we indeed hear
much there about Horace's earlier and present life. It is even more a feature
of the first book of Epistles; as
Gordon Williams has noted, 'a most marked feature of the Epistles is the way in which the form invites, indeed compels,
statements apparently autobiographical' (Williams 1968 : 29). Horace
continually presents the topics of his own life - his turning to philosophy (1.1), his literary
studies (1.2), his social life (1.5), his friendship with Maecenas
(1.7), the publication and reception of his poems (1.13, 1.19, 1.20), his life
in the country (1.10, 1.14, 1.16), his health (1.7, 1.15), and of course the
concluding self-description in the final poem (1.20.20-28). This relentless
self-presentation recalls the intimate detail of actual correspondence such as
Most interesting of all in
Demetrius' prescriptions for our purposes are those on the content of letters
(230-2): 'We should also recognise that it is not only a certain style but
certain topics which suit letters. Let me quote Aristotle, who is admitted to
be an especially felicitous writer of letters: 'I do not write to you on this;
it does not suit a letter'. If anyone writes on logic or science in a letter,
he is writing something but certainly not a letter. A letter aims to be a brief
token of friendship and handles simple topics in simple language. Its charm
lies in the warmth of friendship it conveys and in its numerous proverbs. This
is the only kind of wisdom a letter should have; for proverbs give popular
sayings in everyday use. The man who is sententious and sermonises seems to
have lost the letter's air of a talk and mounted the pulpit'. All these aspects apply closely to the first
book of Horace's Epistles, and link
up neatly with the poetical tactics discussed in 1 above.
First, the non-technical and simple
nature of letters. This might appear to be paradoxical for a book of poems
which includes a fair amount of philosophical doctrine, but in fact, as
outlined at the beginning, Horace's exposition of philosophy in Epistles 1 is generalising, undogmatic and fundamentally concerned with ethics, the
most popular part of philosophy which was of universal interest in his own day,
and not with the grittier topics of logic or physics; it is interesting to note
that the quotation from Aristotle in Demetrius specifically refers to science
and logic being excluded as inappropriate to letters. Second, the link of
letters and friendship. In one sense, this is simply an obvious comment on the
means of intimate communication in a pre-telephonic age, but it is again worth
noting that almost all the poems in the first book of Epistles are addressed to known friends of Horace, a difference
from the Odes and even the Satires, that they contain particularly warm
expressions of personal affection (e.g. 1.1.105, 1.10.1-5), and that friendship
and its rightful conduct is a major topic in the collection (e.g. 1.7, 1.17,
1.18).
Third and perhaps most importantly, Demetrius'
stress on the non-dogmatic and non-preaching role of the letter-writer, and his
use of homely proverbs rather than technicalities and high-flown moral
prescription, fits remarkably well with Horace's self-presentation in Epistles 1 as already discussed.
Horace's humorous and self-deprecating role as author of moral protreptic in Epistles
1 is obvious from 1(i) above, but here we can see how
it fits neatly into the conventions of letter-writing. The use of proverbs,
too, can be plausibly connected with the 'one-liner' technique identified in
1(ii) above; not only does this technique resemble that of proverbial discourse
with its pithy and memorable results (discussed, incidentally in Ch.9 of
Demetrius On Style), but several of
the 'one-liners' identified in Epistles
I are, as already noted, themselves known proverbs. The homely and generalising
wisdom of proverbs may also be appropriately compared with the overall strategy
of Epistles 1 in proclaiming undogmatic and general ethical principles to which few
would take exception.
3 : Conclusion
In sum, I hope to have pointed to
two features of the first book of Horace's Epistles,
features which are crucially interrelated. First, I have indicated some of the
strategies used by Horace to present his ethical material in hexameter poetry.
Second, I have argued that some of the central features of Horace's treatment of his material are shared with
ancient strictures on letter-writing, suggesting perhaps some knowledge on his
part of epistolographical precept in his epistolary
practice.
Postscript 2007
Of
works which have appeared since I wrote this piece, Roland Mayer’s commentary
on Epistles 1 (1994) is very helpful
on a number of points, and I have included references to it throughout; a few
of the footnotes have also been updated. Beyond this, on philosophy in Horace’s
Epistles see now further Ferri 1993
and Moles 2007; Ferri 2007 is now a good starting-point on the key features of
the Epistles as a whole. The
relationship between Horace’s Epistles
and Roman epistolary theory has now been further investigated by De Pretis 2002 and Morrison 2007; on Roman epistolography
more generally see further recently Trapp 2003, Edwards 2005 and Morello and Gibson 2007.
Bibliography
Bramble, J.C. (1974). Persius and the
programmatic satire.
Cotton, H.M. (1984). ‘Greek and
Latin Epistolary Formulae: Some Light on Cicero's Letter Writing’. The
American Journal of Philology, 105 : 409-425.
Cotton, H.M. (1985). ’Mirificum Genus Commendationis: Cicero and
the Latin Letter of Recommendation’. The American Journal of
Philology, 106 : 328-334.
Cugusi, P. (1983). Evoluzione e forme dell’epistolografia
Latina.
De Pretis, A. (2002). ’Epistolarity’ in the First Book of Horace’s Epistles.
Edwards, C. (2005). ‘Epistolography’
in
Ferri, R. (1993). I dispiaceri di un epicureo. Uno
studio sulla poetica delle epistole oraziane. Pisa : Giardini.
Ferri,
R. (2007). ‘The Epistles’, in Harrison, 121-31.
Freudenberg, K.(1993). The Walking Muse. Horace on the theory of satire.
Halm,, C. (1863). Rhetores Latini minores. Leipizig : Teubner.
Harrison, S.J., ed. (2005). A Companion to Latin Literature.
Harrison, S.J., ed. (2007). The
Hercher, R. (1873).
Epistolographi Graeci.
Keyes, C.W. (1935). ‘The Greek Letter of
Introduction’. The American Journal of Philology, 56 : 28-44
Kiessling, A. and Heinze,
R.(1915). Q. Horatius
Flaccus. Briefe. (4th ed.)
Kilpatrick, R.S. (1986). The Poetry of Friendship: Horace,
Macleod, C. (1979). ‘The Poetry of Ethics: Horace, Epistles I’. Journal of Roman Studies, 69: 16-27
McGann, M. J. (1969). Studies in Horace’s First Book of Epistles.
Mayer, R.G. (1986). ‘Horace's Epistles I and Philosophy’, The
American Journal of Philology, 107: 55-73
Mayer, R.G. (1994). Horace
:
Moles, J. (1985).’Cynicism in Horace Epistles 1’, Proceedings of the
Moles, J. (2007). ‘Philosophy and Ethics’ in
Morello, R. , R. and Morrison,
A.M., eds. (2007). Ancient Letters :
Classical and Late Antique Epistolography.
Morrison, A.M. (2007), ‘Didacticism and Epistolarity in Horace Epistles
1’, in Morello and Gibson, 107-32.
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. (1970). A Commentary on
Horace,
Otto, A. (1890). Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer.
Pappenroth,
K. (1994). ‘A Note on the Dating of Demetrius’ On Style’, Classical Quarterly,
44
: 280-1.
Rehmann,
W. (1969). Die Beziehungen zwischen Lukrez und Horaz. Diss.:
Rudd, N., (1993). ‘Horace as Moralist’ in id., ed., Horace
2000: a Celebration. Essays for the Bimillennium.
Russell, D.A., and Winterbottom, M. (1972). Ancient Literary Criticism.
Thraede,
K. (1970). Grundzüge griechische-römische
Brieftopik [Zetemata
48].
Trapp,
M.B. (2003). Greek and Roman Letters.
West,
D. (1969). The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius.
Williams,
G.W. (1968). Tradition and Originality in
Roman Poetry.
Notes
[1] See e.g. Moles 1985, Mayer 1986, Rudd 1993. Kilpatrick 1986 sees Horace as an Academic, McGann 1969 as an eclectic Stoic, but both these positions seem too dogmatic.
[2] Cf. Rehmann 1969, Freudenburg 1993 : 19.
[3] For the chariot of poetry see e.g. Pindar Ol.6.23, P.6.23, Isthm.8.68, Callimachus Aetia fr.1.25-8, Virgil G.2.542, 3.18. Mayer 1994 : 89 points out the link with Ibycus’ presentation of himself as a superannuated race-horse pressed back into the competition of love : this link with archaic lyric is of course very fitting in a context where the lyric poetry of the Odes is being renounced.
[4] Here I agree with Mayer 1986 and Rudd 1993 against Macleod 1979, who takes the concept of conversion too literally.
[5] So I think with Nisbet and Hubbard 1970 : 368; for a more sceptical view on the identity of the Albius of Odes 1.33 and Epistles 1.4 see Mayer 1994 : 133.
[6] As will be seen below, 1.4.13 translates an Epicurean precept.
[7] Cf. Otto 1890 : nos. 221, 151 and 92 respectively.
[8] Cf. Otto 1890 : xxxiii-iv.
[9] All these parallels are collected by Kiessling and Heinze 1915.
[10] See still West 1969.
[11] See the material gathered by J.E.B.Mayor on Juvenal 3.7.
[12] See conveniently Bramble 1974 : 35 n.2 and 3.
[13] Cf. conveniently Murgatroyd on Tibullus 1.2.54 and 1.3.25.
[14] Cf. e.g. Odes 2.16.9-24, 3.1.17-24, 3.16.17-28; Seneca Ep.84.11, 115.16, Brev.Vit.2.4.
[15] Cf. OLD s.v. sarcio 1, coeo 5, rescindo 2b.
[16] See Keyes
1935, Cotton 1984 and 1985; for
[17] On the date see most recently Paffenroth 1994; I cite the translation of Demetrius by D.C.Innes in Russell and Winterbottom 1972. For Greek and Roman letter-writing cf. Thraede 1970 and Cugusi 1983. There is only one extant formal discussion of letter-writing in Latin from the ancient world, a few pages in the fourth-century Ars Rhetorica of C.Iulius Victor (see Halm 1863 : 447-8), which uses Greek precepts but examples from Cicero. .