Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of Satire

372 Pages·2018·1.954 MB·English

by  Sergio Yona

Title Pages
Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of
Satire
Sergio Yona
Print publication date: 2018
Print ISBN-13: 9780198786559
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2018
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198786559.001.0001
Title Pages
Sergio Yona
(p.i) Epicurean Ethics in Horace (p.ii)
(p.iii) Epicurean Ethics in Horace
(p.iv)
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade
mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Sergio Yona 2018
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in
Page 1 of 2
Title Pages
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as
expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the
scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University
Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944153
ISBN 978–0–19–878655–9
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Page 2 of 2
Acknowledgements
Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of
Satire
Sergio Yona
Print publication date: 2018
Print ISBN-13: 9780198786559
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2018
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198786559.001.0001
(p.v) Acknowledgements
Sergio Yona
This book, which is an expanded and revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation
(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2014), would not have been possible
without the help and generosity of a number of scholars and friends. First and
foremost I owe many thanks to my committee members Ariana Traill, Kirk
Sanders, and Kirk Freudenburg, who were a constant source of support
throughout the writing process and whose guidance is greatly appreciated.
I owe special thanks to my dissertation director, mentor, and friend Antony
Augoustakis, whose patience and advice over the years has made all the
difference. To David Armstrong, whose generosity, insight, and support every
step of the way have contributed enormously to the improvement of the project,
I am profoundly grateful. I also wish to thank Elizabeth Asmis, who was kind
enough to look at a portion of the manuscript.
My interest in Horace began at Queen’s University at Kingston, where I had the
great pleasure of learning from the late Professor Ross S. Kilpatrick. To him I
will always be thankful, not only for having introduced me to the joys of Horace
(as well as Lucretius) but also for his genuine interest in my progress and kind
support early on.
I also wish to thank the editorial staff at Oxford University Press, Charlotte
Loveridge, Catherine Owen, and Georgina Leighton, whose assistance has made
the publication process a truly pleasant one. Many thanks are also due to the
Press readers, whose feedback and recommendations have been invaluable.
Finally, to my wonderful family: to Angela, my loving wife, to our children, and to
my parents, whose unconditional support and encouragement over the years has
Page 1 of 2
Acknowledgements
been a greater source of inspiration to me than they will ever know. To all of
them I dedicate this book. (p.vi)
Page 2 of 2
List of Abbreviations
Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of
Satire
Sergio Yona
Print publication date: 2018
Print ISBN-13: 9780198786559
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2018
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198786559.001.0001
(p.ix) List of Abbreviations
Sergio Yona
ANRW
Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. 1972– . Berlin
Arr.
Arrighetti, G., ed. and trans. 1962. Epicuro: Opere. 2nd edn. Turin:
Einaudi
CIL
1863– . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin
DK
Diels, H. and Kranz, W., eds. 1951–2. Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann
DL
Diogenes Laertius
Hdt.
Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus
KD
Epicurus, Principal Doctrines (Κύριαι Δόξαι)
LSJ
Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., rev. H. S. Jones 1925–40. Greek–English
Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press
M
Marx (Lucilius)
Men.
Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus
OCD
Hornblower, S., Spawforth, A., and Eidinow, E. 2012. Oxford Classical
Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press
OLD
Page 1 of 2
List of Abbreviations
Glare, P. G. W., ed. 2012. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
PCG
Poetae Comici Graeci
PHerc.
Papyrus Herculanensis
Pyth.
Epicurus, Letter to Pythocles
RE
Wissowa, G. et al. eds. 1893–1980. Paulys Realencyclopädie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Munich–Stuttgart
SV
Epicurus, Vatican Sayings (Sententiae Vaticanae)
SVF
Von Arnim, H., ed. 1905 (vols. 1–3), 1924 (vol. 4). Stoicorum Veterum
Fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner
TrGF
Snell, B., Kannicht, R., and Radt, S., eds. 1977–2004. Tragicorum
Graecorum Fragmenta. 5 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
U
Usener, H., ed. 1887. Epicurea. Leipzig: Teubner (p.x)
Page 2 of 2
Introduction
Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of
Satire
Sergio Yona
Print publication date: 2018
Print ISBN-13: 9780198786559
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2018
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198786559.001.0001
Introduction
Sergio Yona
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198786559.003.0001
Abstract and Keywords
The introduction serves to explain the general thesis of the book and its place in
the scholarship tradition by providing a brief review of literature in connection
with Horace’s Satires. Of particular importance are the contributions of scholars
who regard persona theory as a useful tool for understanding and better
appreciating these poems, as well as the views of those who consider the
question of Horace’s audience. The introduction also defines the present study’s
position with regard to both of these issues, which is then followed by a
rationale behind the order in which individual poems are examined and an
outline of the content of the chapters to follow.
Keywords:   Horace, Roman satire, Philodemus of Gadara, Epicurus, Herculaneum
Horace, in describing the unreservedness of his predecessor Lucilius, notes that
he “entrusted his secrets to his books as if they were faithful companions” (S.
2.1.30–1: ille velut fidis arcana sodalibus olim | credebat libris), with the result
that the poet’s whole life “is open to view, as if painted on a votive tablet” (33:
votiva pateat veluti descripta tabella).1 The self-revelatory expression of what
appear to be one’s inner thoughts and convictions, which is at the heart of
Roman satire,2 continues in Horace’s Satires but with one important shift
regarding intention: whereas the revelation of Lucilius’ character and
disposition is a by-product (cf. 32: quo fit, ut omnis…) of his criticism of
contemporary society, Horatian satire is consciously introspective and, as such,
revolves almost entirely around the poet’s reflections—whether explicit or made
through implied contrast—concerning his own development and presentation in
the context of satiric observations of Roman society. One would be justified in
Page 1 of 13
Introduction
assuming that such intimacy should ultimately reveal substantial information
about the author’s own life, but the fact that both Horace, his predecessor, and
all Roman satirists chose to disclose autobiographical details through poetry
rather than prose suggests otherwise.3 Many have referred to Horace’s self-
presentation as (p.2) a persona, which is informed by and responds to various
literary traditions,4 often without staking any real claims or expressing the
serious convictions of the man behind the mask. Kirk Freudenburg, for instance,
who is part of a tradition beginning with Alvin Kernan’s 1959 The Cankered
Muse and continuing with W. S. Anderson, regards any autobiographical
information “not as documentary evidence for who [Horace] was, but as the first
moves of a back-and-forth game played between reader and writer.”5 As the
carefully crafted expression of poets, Roman satire first and foremost
incorporates and often plays with the elements of many other traditions: there
are comic situations and characters, parodies of epic poetry, literary criticism,
and frequent engagement with philosophical teachings at every turn. Of course,
the fact that not everything Horace says about himself is true—take, for
example, his dubious claim in Epistles 2.2.51 to have been forced by paupertas
audax to compose verses for survival, or his insistence that virtue rather than
poetry was the cause of his successful encounter with Maecenas in Satires 1.6—
further confirms that there is indeed an important theatrical or artistic
component to his works. On the other hand, while persona theory has
undoubtedly contributed to a more sophisticated or at least less naive
understanding of Horace as poet, its over-application has often contributed to
the view that satire is little more than an author’s entertaining but learned and
intergeneric jeu d’esprit. According to this view, Horatian satire is disjointed,
inept, and even schizophrenic at times, with the author employing different
“masks” for different purposes without any real underlying connection.6
In order to restore balance by tipping the scales toward a more serious reading
of the Satires but without denying the presence of fictional autobiography and
humor, this study argues that Horace (p.3) portrays this poetic persona as
consistently and competently engaged with Epicurean ethics throughout the
entire collection. Its purpose is not to reveal definitively who the “real” Horace
was or to uncover exactly what his convictions, philosophical or otherwise, were
in life, which admittedly would be a fruitless attempt and one that any prudent
scholar would consider misguided.7 Nor does it go to the extreme of claiming
that Epicureanism is the only element in the Satires. Rather, it aims to show that
in his earliest works Horace creates a coherent persona whose observations,
criticisms, and views are perfectly consistent with Epicurean teachings
regarding ethics, and that this engagement reveals a profound understanding of
and interest in the intricacies of ethical doctrines that were a topic of polemical
debate at the time. The notion that Horace’s persona is unified and
communicates a coherent message is similar to the interpretation of Suzanne
Sharland, who posits the predominant role of a “second self,” which is the
Page 2 of 13
Introduction
“overriding persona who is there in a sense throughout the Satires.”8 More
specifically, this examination will suggest that it is possible to identify in these
poems certain themes that, as will be shown in the following chapters, pervade
most of the Satires and therefore provide overall unity,9 such as the poet’s self-
proclaimed disposition as purus et insons (S. 1.6.69), his relationship with
Maecenas, his attitude regarding wealth and his place in society, and the correct
approach to applying criticism.10 These themes also determine the manner in
which individual poems will be examined in this study and how this (p.4)
organization contributes overall to Horace’s self-portrayal as an Epicurean
moralizer: the strong views in Satires 1.1–3 regarding money, sex, and
friendship, all of which rely heavily on the Epicurean calculus of pleasure and
pain, are justified by the portrayal of his quasi-philosophical upbringing in
Satires 1.4. This poem, which is at the heart of the first collection, also looks
ahead to Satires 1.6 and explains, from a philosophical and moral point of view,
how the poet’s persona made a positive impression on Maecenas, which is
appropriately followed by the negative portrait of the pest in Satires 1.9 and the
revelation of the members of Maecenas’ circle of friends in the last satire.11 In
Book 2, Satires 2.1 and 2.5 revisit the topic of friendship in connection with
frankness and flattery before turning once again to a positive description of
Horace’s healthy relationship with Maecenas in Satires 2.6. Following this
description of idealized friendship and philosophical discussion in the country,
which is facilitated by the gift of the Sabine estate, is that of Ofellus in Satires
2.2, a rustic who resembles Horace’s persona but has recently experienced
financial misfortune. Finally, in contrast to Ofellus’ Epicurean equanimity in the
face of a crisis and his useful moral advice concerning how to live happily,
Horace introduces Satires 2.3 and 2.7, which parody two Stoic novices’
misguided approach to what Horace’s persona does so well, namely, the offering
of frank criticism that is generally cheerful and useful.12 One will immediately
recognize that all of these topics and descriptions easily fall within the realm of
ethics, which is not surprising given that Horace is often distinguished from
other satirists by his significant concern with moral correction.13 Insofar as the
Satires are largely introspective and deal with ethical issues, moreover, one may
be justified in speaking of the “psychology of satire” with respect to Horace’s
critical examinations, which are largely about his persona’s mental health (ψυχή;
cf. S. 1.4.128–9: teneros animos…ego sanus) as (p.5) considered through
prolonged and repeated conversations (λόγοι; cf. S. 2.6.71: sermo oritur) that
function as a kind of therapeutic antidote to contemporary vices. Although his
informal, and, especially in Book 2, dialectical style has been linked to that of
Plato,14 most commentators recognize the predominant role of Hellenistic ethics
in Horatian satire.15 By highlighting the role of Epicurean ethics in particular in
the Satires, this study also attempts to demonstrate how Horace shows
consistency in developing a persona throughout the collection that is not only
concerned with “saving face,” as Ellen Oliensis argues,16 but with actively
justifying his virtus and defending his place in society. The poet accomplishes
Page 3 of 13
Introduction
this goal not only by engaging closely with the works of Lucretius and Cicero,
but by working largely within the framework of Epicurus’ moral doctrines as
Philodemus of Gadara presents them in his treatises.
The idea that in the Satires Horace constructs a coherent persona whose
observations and criticisms are constantly engaged with Epicurean doctrine
begs the question: to what end, or, on a related note, for whom did the poet
intend such a persona? This leads to the question of audience, with which many
scholars have grappled over the years and which has led to a variety of
interesting theories. In reading Satires 1.1, Barbara Gold posits four layers of
audience, including an internal one consisting of Maecenas and the addressee
within the satire, and an external one consisting of upper class Romans and
anyone else who might have had access to the poems.17 Frances Muecke
similarly identifies two main groups, one fictitious (i.e. the nameless
interlocutors) and the other actual (i.e. those actually hearing or reading the
poems).18 Randall McNeill, on the other hand, suggests that there are five
“rings” of possible audiences, with Maecenas in the middle (first ring), then
Horace’s close friends and fellow poets (second ring), followed by the social elite
(third ring), outsiders in general (fourth ring), and finally, those who “have no
contact with the poet (p.6) and no hopes of advancing in his society but who
read and respond to his poetry all the same” (fifth ring).19 Denis Feeney regards
Horace as making a distinction between “aristocratic Romans who are his ideal
readers,” such as those named at the end of Satires 1.10 (81–6), and “the babel
of hybrid lowlife professionals who are also his readers, but his ‘unideal’
readers,” although he cautions against regarding this division as a “real state of
affairs.”20 Although all of these theories contribute something to the
understanding of audience in Horace’s earliest works, the following study adopts
the view of Benjamin Hicks, who identifies the list of names in Satires 1.10 as
the inner reading circle of his friends, who would have appreciated the
convictions of an Epicurean persona (as opposed to outsiders, who may “fail to
grasp the subtleties of satire”21). He states the following:
Satire is characterized by its moral critique of human behaviors, not
merely by the jokes and parodies. Some behaviors are inappropriate or
inconsistent, but the implication of critiquing behavior is that a
recognizably appropriate behavior does exist. This appropriate behavior
stems from one’s culturally derived worldview, of which philosophical
preferences are a part. Horace’s reading circle shows strong connections
to Epicurean philosophy: Many of Horace’s friends were trained by
Philodemus, and many other upper-class Roman males studied Greek
philosophy extensively enough to engage in sophisticated arguments over
the correct moral actions of their lives. Thus, philosophy and the debates
between schools become focal points of intellectual sparring.22
Page 4 of 13