Two Notes on the Satires of Horace

Author(s): J. H. Kells and Horace

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Dec., 1959), pp. 202-205
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/702113 .
Accessed: 02/03/2012 19:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
202 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
dona vel antiquo positas a rege coronas.
haec ibi si non sunt, minor exstat sacrilegus qui
radat inaurati femur Herculis et faciem ipsam
Neptuni, qui bratteolam de Castore ducat.
an dubitet solitus totum conflare Tonantem ?
Knoche deletes the last line, as Housman wished to do. Clearly there is no
help in hau (Leo) . . . solus (Goth. 52 and 53) or stolidus (Hadr. Valesius). In
solidumI think there is. Juvenal addressesa friend who has been cheated
(I44
ff.): 'Look at the greater crimes all around us, robbery, arson, sacrilege. If
there are no great golden cups or wreaths to steal in the temples, a lesser thief
comes to scrape the gilding from parts of the statues.' 153 answers a possible
objection, that so far as the value went, the thefts of 150-2 were no great matter.
That, saysJuvenal, is only because thereis nothing better to steal. The man who
scrapes the gilt from a lesser god's thigh would not hesitate to melt down
Jupiter himself in solid gold entire-if he had the chance.
Jesus College,Cambridge D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY

TWO NOTES ON THE SATIRES OF HORACE

(I) Sat. i. 3- 25-27
cum tua peruideasoculismala lippusinunctis,
cur in amicorumuitiis tam cernisacutum
quam aut aquila aut serpensEpidaurius?
peruideas]non uideas recc.,praeuideasBentl., praetereasMervilius mala] male recc.
Bentl.

peruideashas never been explained satisfactorily,nor emended convincingly.

The general sense required is 'when you overlook your own faults, why is your
sight so keen where those of others are concerned?' (Cf. the comic poet cited
avOpwrrEfaOKavWcTcLE,/
I,IrT.E5Ovitlas8: -l rdTAAdI'pLov,
by Plutarchr. roAmvTpayp.
KaKOV 8~VSOpKELS,rO 8' Y8LovrrapahArTELs; the form of the apophthegm is
merely inverted in Horace, and also he has embroidered in, after his fashion,
certain details, i.e. oculislippusinunctisand the hyperbole of the eagle and the
Epidaurian serpent.)' But peruidere cannot in itself mean 'to overlook', and in
fact means the opposite: as Bentley said, ' "peruidere"ubiquesignificat acute et
perspicueetpenitusremuidere.'The answer to this difficultywhich was usual in his
day, and which goes back to the scholiasts ('cum tua mala oculis inunctis
lippus peruideas, i.e. cum tua mala uideas quasi caecus', 'cum tua mala uideas
uelut si lippiens inunctus sis') was that peruideashas its natural meaning here
effectively modified by its association with oculislippusinunctis,so as to give in
fact the required meaning; peruideas together with oculis lippus inunctis is an
example of oxymoron (so Dacier), in which it is the second element which
dominates the sense; for to 'see clearly or discern like a purblind man' is not to
discern at all, i.e. is to overlook; comparable are Horace, S. i. 2. 91 Hypsaea
caecior illa, / quae mala sunt spectes, and Od. iii. 7. 21 scopulis surdior Icari /
uoces audit. Bentley, however, pointed out the weakness in this interpretation
when he said that the examples would support only 'lippus uideas'.For the
I
The sentiment recurs in Latin coupled sumus; Cat. 22.2 1 sed non uidemus manticae
to the image of the two knapsacks: Phaedr. quod in tergo est; Pers. 4. 23 f. ut nemo in
iv. 10o. 4 f. hac re videre nostra mala non sese temptat descendere, nemo, / sed praece-
possumus; / alii simul delinquunt, censores denti spectatur mantica tergo.
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 203
association of the intensive compound peruiderewith an adjective of opposite
meaning, no strict parallel is quoted, nor is there any reason to be seen why
Horace should have combined the two here: as Bentley remarked, you do not
get over a difficulty by merely calling it a figure. Unfortunately, editors have
not attended to Bentley's objection, and are mostly content to repeat the old
explanation, some (e.g. Krtiger, Wickham, Lejay, Kiessling) adding that
peruideashere is 'ironic': again, one askswhat is the point of the irony (that the
general tone of the passage is ironic is no reason why particularironic emphasis
should reside in this particular word), and whether some more literal expres-
sion of the sense 'overlook' is not required to balance the literal cernisacutum?
(Antithesisis also a figure, and most editors do not seem to see that a very good
example of it is spoiled here by this peculiar interpretation of peruideas.)
Those, however, who, either from the above objectionsor from a general feeling
that peruideasoculislippusinunctisis an impossibly clumsy way for Horace to
express 'overlook', reject the interpretation have either (like Bentley) offered
unconvincing emendations of peruideas,or attempted, equally unconvincingly,
to show that the word here means something different from its accepted
meaning.x
The difficulty disappears, and all becomes clear, if male is read2 and, as
Gesner tentatively suggested,3 construedwith peruideas:maleperuidereis one of
a host of expressions*in which a verb, the natural meaning of which is deter-
mined in one sense either by the simple meaning of the verb or by the prefix
with which it is compounded, is negatived, or so modified as to bear a sense
opposite to its original sense, by male. maleperuidereexpresses the opposite of
peruidere,i.e. 'notto discern', 'to overlook', and soperuideasmaleprovides a clear
antithesis to cernisacutum:not merely do these two phrases balance each other,
but also the other elements in the lines fall into symmetry, quamaut aquilaaut
serpensEpidaurius(two elements) balancing oculislippusinunctis(two elements):
the lines become elegant, instead of being a hotch-potch.
This interpretation is so satisfying that it may well seem a mystery why it
has been ignored. The explanation no doubt depends upon word-order. If
malewere read, it is assumed that it would go with lippus,6 the association of
malewith a following adjective being common, whereas malemodifying a verb
is rarely found following that verb,6 and there is no other instance, as far as
I e.g. peruidere= 'quasi de longinquo ui-
abstinere; Cic. Verr.ii. 3. 227 m. perceptos
dere'(Baxter),'parum fructus (here = 'not sufficiently garnered
odermaleuidere(Hirsch-
felder), 'dartiber hinsehen' (Schmalz). in', 'inadequately received', a meaning
Palmer thought that 'the preposition is which shades into the plain negative 'not
not to be too much pressed',but it is diffi-
[received] at all', according to context);
cult to see why he thought that Ov. M. Hor. Epist. i. 20. 15 m. parentem asellum;
xiv. 375 qui peruidetomniasolemsupports S. ii. 6. 87 tangentis m. singula dente superbo
this idea. ('practically not touching'); Ov. Am. i. 14.
2 male(despitethe lines of Phaedruscited
51 lacrimas m. continet, Pont. i. 2. 111 m.
in note , p.2o2) is in any casethe betterread-
compositos cineres, F. i. 559 seruata m.
ing. malais not needed in the Horatianline,
parte boum (i.e. 'lost'); Tac. H. i.
since uitiacan easilybe suppliedfromuitiis-172 m. coercitam famam, etc.
a subtler and more elegant form of expres- s Bentley, who printed male, took it with
sion. But a scribe in a hurry to give a con-
lippus; Orelli assumes that, if read, it would
structionto tuamight easily change maleto go with lippus.
mala. 6 Examples of negative male so placed are
3 'possis etiam ita, cum tua uitia male S. ii. 6. 87 and Ov. F. i. 559 (both quoted
peruideas.' above). For maleafter an adjective cf. Cat. i o.
4 Cf. Cat. 61. 141 m. te a tuis glabris 33 sed tu insulsa male et molesta uiuis.
204 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
I know, of its doing so and at the same time being separated from the verb in
hyperbaton. And if male is taken with lippus, the phrase oculis male lippus
inunctisbecomes an even clumsier qualification of peruideas.But the argument
from word-orderis invalidated by the following lines 31-32 rusticius.. .toga
defluit et male laxus / in pede calceus haeret: here, despite the word-order,
sense demands that male go with haeret (it may of course go drrl KOLVO) with
laxusas well, as it need not be prevented from doing with lippuson the suggested
reading of line 25).' The fact is that, once granted the licence of hyperbaton, it
is scarcely possible to lay down hard-and-fastrules as to when and how a writer
might employ it, particularly a writer like Horace, who constantly uses the
figure to give novelty and diversity to the otherwise pedestrian tone of the
Satires.2My contention is that we should read malewith peruideashere, if for
no other reason than the very good one that the sense requires it.
(2) Sat. i. 6. 3-6
nec quod auus tibi maternusfuit atque paternus
olim qui magnislegionibusimperitarent,
ut pleriquesolent, naso suspendisadunco
ignotos,ut me libertinopatrenatum.
6 ut D Rp. ras..; aut ut S (acc.g); aut Y1(acc.q); at ut E natum f (acc.KM); natus
C; natos avE g R'n.l.
The vulgate (ancient as well as modern, as far as concerns ignotos)version of
line 6, printed above, cannot be the true reading, since it could never have
produced the existing manuscript readings (cited here according to Klingner's
apparatus). Seeing this, Arthur Palmer proposed ignoto aut,ut me, libertino
patre natos (= the reading of g apart from the substitutionof ignotofor ignotos).
ignotos,as Palmer remarks, 'was the only corruption in the archetype': i.e.
ignotowas originally altered to ignotos(very likely by a scribe not seeing what
ignotoagreed with and in haste to give it a construction). Then aut (or its
corruption at, preserved in E) dropped out, as metrically superfluous,in D and
Rprior.natos,having nothing to agree with, was changed to natum.
It is difficult to see how this reasoning can be faulted, and Palmer's reading
not accepted in consequence.3It can, however, be strengthenedstill further by
two other considerations, first, that ignoto aut, ut me, libertinopatre natos is to be
preferred here on literary grounds, second, that there was a further cause for
the corruption of this reading into the vulgate version in the shape of the
recurrence of the phrase (me) libertinopatrenatumtwice over at lines 45-46:
nunc ad me redeolibertinopatre natum, / quemroduntomneslibertinopatre natum.
To take the literary superiorityfirst. Palmer'sreading gives two emphasesin
the line, ignoto--libertino,rising to a climax which throws peculiar stress on
libertino.This is just what is required for the sense, since the Satire is to be
I
For intensive male with an adjective of sibly correct as against the vulgate saxis
negative quality cf. maleparuus (S. i. 3. 45) late), 49 namquepila lippis inimicumet ludere
But male is not found elsewhere with lippus crudis, 72 paene macrosarsit dum turdosuersat
in Horace or, as far as I know, in Latin. in igni. The reason for the peculiar order of
2 The
following may be taken as samples our line 25 is partly also the necessity to
from Book i: 1. 70-72 saccis-tamquam throw tua into prominence.
parceresacris / cogeris;2. 62-63 quid inter/ est 3 I believe that Housman, in his Cam-
in matronaancilla peccesnetogata?;4. 74-75 in bridge lectures on the textual criticism of
medio qui / scripta foro recitent, sunt multi Book i of the Satires approved Palmer's
quique lauantes; 5. 26 impositum late saxis emendation on textual grounds.
candentibusAnxur (the reading of Kga, pos-
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 2o5
about snobbery and false values as theyrelateto Horace'sownlife and particularly
(in the early part from line 7 to line 48) to servile or near-servileparentage.' We
should expect, then, Horace's own 'libertine' origin to be here more prominent,
if anything, than the condition of personswho are generally ignoti.The vulgate
reading, on the other hand, throws all the emphasis on ignotos,and makes the
condition in which Horace is primarily interested a not particularly emphatic
illustration of this general class of persons of lowly origin. The case is different
at 45-46, where there is no prior emphasis in the lines, and libertino patrenatum
by itself bears the main emphasis. The repetition of the expression in the two
adjoining lines shows the intense bitterness of Horace's feelings on the subject.
But (my second point) an ancient editor of more preciosity than sensibility
might well seek to bring (ignotoautut) melibertinopatre natosinto conformitywith
the tag-like and twice-repeated (me)libertino patrenatumof 45-46, even if more
immediate palaeographic factors did not otherwise contribute to such a result.
CollegeLondon
University J. H. KELLS

THESMOPHORIAZUSAE
ADDRESSINGa variety of deities, the chorus
sing -ro'peve7rav q'J&v,if the text is correct.
dropev would surely bring to mind the fine
art of TopeVT&Kr.But none of the commenta-
tors seems to have taken it in this sense. The
Scholiast explains the line as meaning ropcZ
Kal Ppavg Ay 7TV &81V.2 In L.S.J. the
meaning of iopev'win this context is given as
'to sing a piercing strain'. In fact a shrill
piercing strain is hardly appropriate to the
song which the women sing jiav Jpyta
Lepatt cupat&avi~xwopv (948).
ce••d Oeatv
Editors who do not emend ropevE mostly
accept the explanation of the Schol. Trans-
lators give some vague equivalent which
abandons the metaphor.
Bentley's suggestion3 that one should read
'rdpvrevhas been favourably received. Blaydes
986
keeps o'peve, but remarks 'reponendum
suspicor Xdpeve',which weakens the line in-
tolerably. Van Leeuwen takes up this sug-
gestion and rewrites the line Xodpeve•Tri
(a'
,•8f. is no need to emend ro'peve.
There
dopvEveof course gives a good metaphor; it is
used in line 54 of this play and elsewhere of
verses and phrases skilfully rounded off.*
rodpev gives an even better one. There is
no need to take ro'pevein any other sense
than its usual one of working metal in
elaborate designs.
L.S.J. correctly, if a little vaguely, gives
the metaphorical sense of TopEVT7o as
elaborate,quoting A.P. ix. 545 (Crinagoras),
KacM&tdXov3' 'ropevurv ~sro To'.s The
Schol. on ropevo'dv (see Stadtmiller) begins

' Cf. line

9 ante potestatem Tulli (the
slave-girl's son, cf. Livy 4. 3, patre nullo,
matre serua, and Juv. 8. 259) atque ignobile
regnum, 21 ingenuosi non essem patre natus,
29 quis homo hic est? quo patre natus? 36
quo patre sit natus, num ignota matre in-
honestus, pointed by 38 ff. 'tune, Syri Damae
aut Dionysi filius, audes / deicere de saxo
ciues aut tradere Cadmo ? / at Nouius collega
gradu post me sedet uno; / namque est ille,
pater quod erat meus (i.e. a libertinus),and of
course 45-46. These allusions show that,
within the general question of the relation-
ship of the well-born and the lowly free, it
is the social problems connected with the
near-servile origin of the latter that peculiarly
interest Horace in this early part of the
Satire. As the Satire proceeds to describe the
later days of Horace's social security (lines
49 to the end), the viewpoint widens, and
the specific issue of near-servile origin tends
to be lost sight of in the general problems of
a lack of social 'background': cf. 58 non ego
me claro natumpatre (narro), 64 (qui turpi
secernis honestum) non patre praeclaro, 91
quod non ingenuoshabeat clarosqueparentes
(as if the two things were much the same!),
130 f. his me consolor uicturum suauius ac
si / quaestor auus pater atque meus
patruusque fuisset (or whatever is the true
reading in this disputed line).
a Cf. Suidas, TopEu;vt,
opE .
3 On
Horace, A.P., 441 (tornatos).Dindorf
gives rdpveve (1825) but later prints rdpeve
and notes 'scribendum ordpvrvecum Bent-
leio' (1835); Coulon gives ropveve.
SCf. Plato, Phaedrus,234 e.
s In A.P vii. 274. 4 on the other hand
Plan. Trv7wTcv)the word is
(ypdppa ropev ev,
used literally of an epitaph cut in a rock.