PA 
 
 6393 
 
 S8 
 
 M8 
 
 1893 
 
 MAIN 
 
ON THE EIGHT LINES 
 USUALLY PREFIXED TO HORAT. SERM. I. 10 
 
 BY 
 
 WILFRED P. MUSTARD, PH.D. 
 
 (Reprinted from Colorado College Studies, Vol. IV.) 
 
 COLORADO SPRINGS: 
 
 The Gazette Printing Company. 
 
 1893. 
 
am 
 
 ON THE EIGHT LINES USUALLY PREFIXED TO 
 HORAT. SERM. L 10/ 
 
 By ^^ZyiLRRED F». MUSTARD. 
 
 The eight lines usually prefixed to Horace, Satires, 
 I. 10 are found only in some of the mss. of Keller and 
 Holder's third class. They are unknown to the mss. of 
 classes I and II, and to z and the whole Rtt family of 
 class III . They were apparently unknown to the Scholiasts, 
 who would surely have considered them obscure enough 
 to require some explanation. Mavortius did -not know 
 them. In FA' and some other mss. they appear as the be- 
 ginning of satire 10, while in A^np they form a continua- 
 tion of satire 9. 
 
 On this external evidence almost all the editors have 
 condemned the lines as an interpolation, and either 
 marked them off by brackets or omitted them altogether.^ 
 They appear as part of the text in Zarotto's Milan edition, 
 in the first and second Aldine editions, and in the Paris 
 edition by R. Stephanus. But even in the fifteenth cen- 
 tury Landino rejected them, and most of the older editors 
 followed his example. Some editors have separated them 
 from the text but prefixed them to the satire, others have 
 printed them separately in their commentaries, while 
 many have omitted them altogether. Thus they do not 
 appear in ten of the Venice editions (for the omission in 
 the first eight Landino was responsible), in Ben tley's, Wake- 
 field's and some twenty others. Lambin ascribes them to 
 some 'semidoctus nebulo' who wished to explain the open- 
 
 ^ This paper offers no new theory as to the meaning, authorship or date of 
 these obscure lines. It is merely an attempt to collect and arrange the various 
 opinions that have been expressed with regard to them. 
 
 2 1 owe the greater part of the facts presented in this and the following para- 
 graph to Kirchner's edition of the first book of the Satires (Leipzig, 1854), p. 142. 
 
• -•' 
 
 • •••/•• • 
 
 • • • •« • • • 
 
 2 Colorado College Studies. 
 
 ing word 'nempe.' Jacobus Cruquius barely mentions 
 them in his commentary as the words of a 'simius Hora- 
 tianus.' Bentley omits them without mention. 
 
 Others have defended the lines. Gesner restored them. 
 Valart thought they were the work of Horace. Heindorf, 
 followed by Bothe and others, thought that Horace had 
 written them as an introduction to this satire but after- 
 wards threw them aside and commenced in a different 
 tone; or that they were an unfinished introduction to some 
 satire discovered after his death and, with the addition of 
 the expletive words 'ut redeam illuc,' prefixed to Sat. I. 
 10, on account of the similarity of subject. Jo. Val. 
 Francke proposed to insert them after verse 51 of this 
 satire, Reisig after verse 71. Morgenstern held that Horace 
 had written the lines, but afterwards rejected them. 
 Schmid^ virtually said that they were the work of Horace. 
 Apitz* ascribed them to Horace, but bracketed verse 8. 
 Urlichs^ said that the old question is really one of sub- 
 jective feeling as to what is worthy or unworthy of Horace. 
 He thought the lines genuine, though he admitted their 
 obscurity and considered the text corrupt. Doderlein 
 found nothing seriously objectionable in the lines, and 
 was quite certain of their genuineness. He maintained 
 that the fact that they are not found in many mss. 
 does not prove them spurious; this might_be the result 
 of chance, or even of a recension by Horace himself. 
 W. Teuffel's^ verdict was similar to Morgenstern's. 
 
 The text of these obscure lines is very corrupt. The 
 mss. of most importance for determining the original 
 reading are FA'/5'. F, the principal representative of the 
 large third class, is the assumed common source of the 
 ' gemelli Parisini' <p 7974 and 4' 7971 ; )' the archetype of 
 a similar pair, X Leidensis and 1 Parisinus; /5' that of 
 i? Bernensis and f Franckeranus (now Leeiiwardensis) . 
 
 sPWfoi. XI. pp. 54-59. 
 
 * Coniectan. in Q. H. F. Satiras (Berlin 
 
 ^ Rhein. Mus. XL p. 602. 
 
 oiJ/iem. Mus. XXX. p. 621. 
 
HoEAT. Seem. I. 10 (1-8). 3 
 
 These mss. agree very closely, and establish the text as 
 follows : 
 
 Lucili, quam sis mendosus, teste Catone 
 
 defensore tuo pervincam, qui male factos 
 
 emendare parat versus, hoc lenius ille 
 
 quo melior vir est, longe subtilior illo 
 
 qui multum puer et loris et funibus udis 
 
 exoratus, ut esset opem qui ferre poetis 
 
 antiquis posset contra fastidia nostra, 
 
 grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. ut redeam illuc, 
 
 " How full of faults you are, Lucilius, I shall clearly 
 prove from the testimony of Cato, your champion, who is 
 preparing to revise your ill made verses. He will deal 
 more gently with them inasmuch as he is a better man, of 
 far finer tastes, than the scholar who in his boyhood felt 
 the vigorous persuasion of moistened thong and rope, in 
 order that there might be one who could lend a helping 
 hand to the poets of old against the carping criticism of 
 our day, the cleverest of aristocratic grammarians. To re- 
 turn to that point," 
 
 NOTES ON THE TEXT. 
 
 Vs. 1. 'quod sis' (codd.pleriqueap.Lamh.). Some of 
 the abbreviated forms of 'quam' and 'quod' in minuscular 
 writing are very much alike.'' Unless very carefully written 
 these words might be readily confused, and so 'quod' may 
 have appeared here. When once it had appeared in a ms. 
 it might easily be retained because of its use in late Latin 
 to introduce substantival clauses after 'verba dicendi et 
 sentiendi.^ 
 
 Vs. 2. 'convincam' {ed.Landini ex mss.) for 'pervin- 
 cam,' which as the more difficult reading should be re- 
 tained. One ms. {Kirchneri cod. L in Dresd. III.) gives 
 'devincam.' Peerlkamp suggested 'prope vincam.' 
 
 Vs. 4. 'quo melior vir est.' This is the reading of the 
 most important mss. The false quantity in 'vir' has 
 
 ^Chassant, Dictionnaire des abreviations, latines et francaises, Paris, 1876, p. 77. 
 sDraeger, Hist. Syntax der latein. SprachCy Vol. XL, p. 229. 
 
 A[\€\f\G I 
 
4 Colorado College Studies. 
 
 given rise to many attempts at improving the line. Thus 
 one ms. has 'quo vir est melior,' another 'quo est vir 
 melior,' while several read 'est quo vir melior.' The last 
 arrangement of the words gives undue emphasis to 'est.' 
 Lambin conjectured 'quo melior is est,' and the Martinius 
 of Cruquius, the only one of his mss. that contained 
 these eight lines, had 'quo melior hie est.' But there 
 are pronouns enough already in ' ille . . . illo.' Several 
 mss. had 'quo melior vir et est longe subtilior.' Meineke 
 defended this hyperbaton for 'quo melior vir est et longe 
 subtilior,' appealing to Sat. I. 3, 63; I. 4, 68; I. 9, 51. 
 This, however, gives the impossible combination 'quo 
 longe subtilior.' Heindorf found 'adest' in Berol. 5 and 
 accepted it. 
 
 Vs. 5. 'puer et.' The obscurity of this line has given 
 rise to several emendations: 'puer est' (Gesner); 'pueros' 
 (Urlichs); 'puerum est' (Reisig); 'nuper' (Kutgers); 
 'fuerit' (Praedicow, who also read 'quem' and 'exhorta- 
 tus'); 'pueros' (Nipperdey®). W. TeuffeP" suggested 'me 
 olim' for 'multum' and defended 'olim' by a reference to 
 Sat. I. 4, 105. 
 
 Vs. 6. ' exoratus ' is confirmed by the number and im- 
 portance of the mss. in which it is found. The other 
 mss. readings 'exortatus' and 'exhortatus' are only pos- 
 sible with ' puerum ' in the preceding line, for there is very 
 little authority for the active form or passive meaning of 
 'exhortor.' In any case the omission of 'est' is a diffi- 
 culty, and hence, apparently, Peerlkamp's conjecture ' est 
 hortatus.' The conjectures 'exornatus' (Glareanus) and 
 'est ornatus' (Yalart) are obviously suggested by such ex- 
 pressions as ' adeo exornatum dabo, adeo depexum, ut dum 
 vivat, meminerit mei.'" Horkel apparently wanted a good 
 strong word after 'loris et funibus,' and settled upon 'ex- 
 coriatus,' which Meineke and Schtitz approve. 
 
 9 Opusc. 493. 
 
 lOiJ/iein. ilftts. XXX. p. 622. 
 
 "Ter. Heawf. 5,*!, 77. 
 
HoRAT. Serm. I. 10 (1-8). 5 
 
 Vss. 4-6. In the Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie, 
 XLI. pp. 552-556, F. Marx offered the following emen- 
 
 ^a^i^^* -hoc lenius ille, 
 
 quo melior versu est, longe eubtilior illo 
 qui multum puerum et loris et funibus ussit 
 exoratus, — 
 
 His explanation and defense of these changes are given 
 below. 
 
 COMMENTAKY. 
 
 In the very first verse there is evidence of the spurious 
 nature of this fragment, for (1) the promise 'quam sis 
 mendosus, teste Catone, pervincam' is not fulfilled, and (2) 
 the sentiment is unlike Horace. In the tenth satire he 
 defends the opinion he had pronounced upon Lucilius in 
 Sat. I. 4, but with full recognition of his peculiar merits, 
 and elsewhere he very modestly claims for himself a lower 
 place than for his predecessor.^^ "To Lucilius he pays also 
 the sincerer tribute of frequent imitation. He made him 
 his model, in regard both to form and substance, in his 
 satires; and even in his epistles he still acknowledges the 
 guidance of his earliest master." ^^ 
 
 'Teste Catone.' The Cato here referred to is the gram- 
 marian Valerius Cato, who is mentioned in Suetonius^* as 
 'poetam simul grammaticumque notissimum,' 'summum 
 grammaticum optimum poetam,' ' Cato grammaticus, latina 
 Siren.' Another section of Suetonius tells of Cato's in- 
 terest in the works of Lucilius, 'quas {sc. Lucili saturas) 
 legisse se apud Archelaum Pompeius Lenaeus, apud Philo- 
 comum Valerius Cato praedicant.'^^ 
 
 Those who see in the person here compared with Cato 
 the 'plagosum Orbilium' of Horace, Epp. II. 1, 70, assume 
 that the writer of these lines knew that epistle, which is 
 
 12 Sat. II. 1, 29, 'me pedibus delectat claudere verba, Lucili ritu, nostrum 
 melioris utroque.' Ibid. 74, 'quicquid sum ego, quamvis infra Lucili censum 
 ingeniumque.' 
 
 "Sellar, The Romayi Poets of the Republic, 3ded., 1889, p. 249. 
 
 1* De Gramm. 4 and 11. 
 
 ^'"De Gramm. 2. 
 
6 Colorado College Studies. 
 
 assigned by Vahlen to B, C. 14. Suetonius, de gramm. 11, 
 says of Cato, 'vixit ad extremam senectutem,' so that 
 ' emendare parat ' might be literally true if the lines were 
 genuine. Marx claims that the words need mean only 
 'emendare studet, emendationi operam dat, emendaturus 
 est,' comparing Juv. 8, 130, 'per oppida curvis unguibus 
 ire parat nummos raptura Calaeno.' Moreover, he main- 
 tains, the author of these lines pronounces upon the whole 
 recension of Cato, implying that it was already finished, so 
 that they were not necessarily composed in the time of 
 Horace. 
 
 Keller objects even to the sentiment of ' teste Catone ' 
 that (1) Horace required no one's authority to confirm his 
 opinion of Lucilius, and (2), in view of Epp. I. 19, 39-40, 
 it is not likely that he would have appealed to the author- 
 ity of any grammarian.^*' This he regards as another evi- 
 dence of interpolation. 
 
 Vs. 3. Some editors punctuate with a period after 
 'versus,' and another after 'doctissimus,' verse 8. With 
 this punctuation 'hoc' would most naturally be taken as 
 accusative after a finite verb understood. It seems better 
 to point with commas and supply such a participle as 
 'facturus,' taking 'hoc' as the ablative corresponding to 
 'quo.' 
 
 Vs. 4 is certainly corrupt. 
 
 (a) It is strange that 'melior' should be given as a 
 reason for 'lenius.' It must have been this difficulty that 
 gave rise to the variant 'lenior.' Cato's moral character is 
 not at all concerned. All that is required of him is ability 
 to correct metrical errors and halting sense in Lucilius' 
 verses, defects which had probably been multiplied even 
 in his day by mistakes of the copyists. Nor does 'sub- 
 tilior' suit 'lenius,' for Lucilius' verses are 'male facti.' 
 
 (6) There is a false quantity in 'vir.'" 
 
 ^^'non ego, nobilium scriptorum auditor et ultor, 
 grammaticas ambire tribus et pulpita dignor.' 
 17 The Italian' dialects show that the 'i' in 'vir' was once long {veir) : cp. 
 Buecheler, Lex. Ital. p. 30. 
 
HoEAT. Serm. I. 10 (1-8). 7 
 
 ( c ) ' Longe subtilior' is irregular. " Cicero and the older 
 writers did not use ' longe ' to strengthen the comparative, 
 though it appears in poets of a later age and in the more 
 recent historians." ^^ Wolflinn^^ says that Horace kept 
 strictly to the old rule of 'multo' with the comparative, 
 using 'longe' only in one anomalous case. He would 
 therefore not have written 'longe' here instead of its met- 
 rical equivalent 'multo,' and its use is one proof of the 
 spurious nature of these eight lines. 
 
 (d) ' Hie ' and ' illo,' ending consecutive lines and refer- 
 ring to different persons, are strange and confusing as to 
 meaning. Suetonius rejected a certain prose epistle which 
 purported to have been written by Horace, ' epistula etiam 
 obscura, quo vitio minime tenebatur'."** He would scarcely 
 have found the transparency of genuineness in verses 8-4. 
 To avoid the difficulties in 'lenius' and 'ille . . . illo' Schtitz 
 would strike out the two half- lines and read 'emendare 
 parat versus subtilior illo." 
 
 Vs. 5. If the genuineness of verse 4 may be questioned 
 on the ground of obscurity, still more objectionable is 
 verse 5. It seems impossible to explain this and the fol- 
 lowing lines in their best attested form. For example, 
 who is the person compared with Cato? 
 
 (a) Because Horace says, Epp. II. 1, 70, that he studied 
 the poems of Livius Andronicus in his boyhood under the 
 'plagosus Orbilius,' many editors have made 'qui puer . . . 
 exoratus' refer to the poet himself. It may be doubted 
 whether Horace would have thus spoken of himself, but a 
 greater difficulty awaits us inverse 8, 'equitum doctissimus.' 
 These words most naturally refer to the same person as 
 'qui . . . exoratus,' and Horace was not an 'eques.' 
 
 (6) Reisig, who reads 'puerum . . . exhortatus,' makes 
 'puerum' refer to Horace, 'qui' to Orbilius. But to this 
 Schtitz objects that ' puerum ' would be too indefinite with- 
 out 'istum' or 'ilium.' 
 
 18 Hand, Tursellinus, III. p. 551. 
 1^ Comparation, p. 40. 
 ^^ Horatii Poetae Vita. 
 
8 Colorado College Studies. 
 
 Schmid'^ also read 'qui . . . puerum . . . exhortatus,' re- 
 ferring ' qui ' to Orbilius. 
 
 W.Teuffel"^ refers 'puerum' to Scribonius Aphrodisius, 
 'qui' to Orbilius. To this also Schtitz objects that Scri- 
 bonius was 'Orbili servus atque discipulus,'^^ and that 
 'puerum' would not imply all this. He might more rea- 
 sonably have repeated his objection to Eeisig's explanation, 
 that the unmodified 'puerum' is too indefinite. 
 
 These three interpretations are obviously based upon 
 the mention of the 'plagosus Orbilius,' Epp. II. 1, 70, and 
 they receive some support from the words ' grammaticorum 
 equitum doctissimus,' in verse 8. These words naturally 
 refer to the same person as the clause 'qui . . . puerum . . . 
 exhortatus,' and Orbilius might, at least ironically, be 
 called a knight.^* There is, however, no evidence that he 
 revised Lucilius' 'ill made verses,' or that he paid special 
 attention to them. 
 
 (c) J. Becker^^ thought that either Florus or Titius is 
 meant. Very little is known of these men except from 
 Horace, Epp. I. 3, and II. 2. Horace merely says that 
 Florus has ability enough to win distinction in oratory, 
 in law, or in poetry .""^ Porphyrio says 'hie Florus [scriba] 
 fuit satirarum scriptor, cuius sunt electae ex Ennio, 
 Lucilio, Varrone.' Kiessling hints that the old commen- 
 tator inferred all this from Epp. I. 3, 21, 'quae circum- 
 volitas agilis thyma ? ' Whether right or not, Porphyrio 
 apparently means that Florus rewrote some of the poems 
 of these earlier authors, adapting them for the readers of 
 his own day. Even if this be accepted, it is hard to sup- 
 pose that Horace would refer to Florus in the language of 
 these eight lines, and yet address him fifteen years later 
 as a young man who had not written much."' Of Titius 
 still less is known. Horace asks Florus whether he is still 
 
 sipWioL XL pp. 54-59. 
 
 ^Rhein. Mus. XXX. p. 622. 
 
 23Sueton. De Grarnm. 19. 
 
 2*Sueton. De Gramin. 9, ' deindo in Macedonia corniculo, mox equo meruit.' 
 
 25p/iiioi. IV. p. 490. 
 
 26 Epp. I. 3, 2:3-25. 
 
 STEpp. L3,22-25. 
 
HoRAT. Seem. I. 10 (1-8). 9 
 
 writing odes or trying his hand at tragedy, 'Titius Romana 
 brevi ven turns in ora.'^* All that the scholiasts have to say 
 about him may very well have been derived from the text. 
 Thus Becier's theory seems to have very little support, 
 except Porphyrio's statement that Florus was a writer of 
 satires, and the fact that Titius and Florus were both 
 noblemen of a literary turn, and might be called ' equitum 
 doctissimi.' That either of them could be called ' gram- 
 maticorum equitum doctissimus' is by no means apparent. 
 
 ' Loris et funibus udis.' The mention of 'lora' and 
 'funes' suggests a rather savage treatment of the un- 
 known youth referred to in this line. References to the 
 use of 'funes' for the purpose of punishment are not very 
 numerous. Horace, however, has ' Hibericis peruste funi- 
 bus latus,'"^ on which Orelli remarks that 'funes' made 
 from the Spanish broom were used for flogging the ma- 
 rines. No very satisfactory explanation of the word 'udis' 
 has ever been offered. It is not clear that savage masters 
 sometimes used a moistened lash, or that a lash so treated 
 would cause the victim more pain. Marx*" quotes Petro- 
 nius, 134 B, 'lorum in aqua,' as inconsistent with such ex- 
 planations. It is unfortunate that the wisdom of the 
 scholiasts was not brought to bear upon this word; their 
 comments would certainly have been interesting. 
 
 Vss. 3-6. The changes in these three lines suggested by 
 F. Marx have been mentioned on page 35. First he empha- 
 sizes the importance of the word ' exoratus ' in the interpreta- 
 tion of this fragment, a word which is preserved by all the 
 best mss. of the third class. This word, he says, may here 
 be equivalent to 'though vainly implored for mercy,' like 
 'exorata' in Juvenal, 6, 415, ' vicinos humiles rapere et con- 
 cidere loris exorata solet.'*^ Then reading 'puerum' for 
 'puer,'^^ as many earlier scholars have done, he looks about 
 
 28Epp. I. 3,9. 
 
 "^Epod. 4, 3. 
 
 ^Rhein. Mus. XLI. p. 552. 
 
 31 A similar use of ' exorare,' which he might have quoted, is found in Hor. 
 Epp. 1. 1, 6, 'latet abditus agro, ne populum extrema toties exoret harena.' With 
 this meaning of ' exoret,' ' toties ' may be taken literally. 
 
 22 An easy change paleographically. 
 
10 Colorado College Studies. 
 
 for a finite verb of ' striking' or ' cutting.' This, he thinks, 
 is lurking in 'udis,' which is certainly very weak and has 
 never been well explained. The verb is probably ' ussit.' 
 It should be noticed that the word 'udis' appeals Hn ras. /?,' 
 and that very often in mss. the termination '-it' shows a 
 medial 'd.' ^^ For similar uses of the verb ' urere ' cp. Horace, 
 Epp. I. 16, 47, 'loris non ureris'; Epod. 4, 3, 'Hibericis 
 peruste funibus'; Sat. II. 7, 58, 'virgis uri.' The conjec- 
 ture 'quo melior versu est' in the fourth line he puts for- 
 ward with less confidence. 
 
 Marx then refers his new reading, 'qui multum 
 puerum . . . ussit exoratus,' to Vettius Philocomus, Cato's 
 teacher, who was one of the first to revise the work of 
 Lucilius.^* This man, as being 'Lucilii familiaris,' and 
 possibly th« same person who was censured by the poet 
 'propter sermonem parum urbanum,'^^ may have been like 
 Aelius Stilo and Servius Clodius, a Roman knight. His 
 name, however, suggests a Greek origin, and in the absence 
 of any special statement as to his rank, it is not easy to 
 assume that he was an 'eques.' 
 
 Vs. 8. The words 'grammaticorum equitum doctissi- 
 mus' are very difficult both in reference and in meaning. 
 They would most naturally refer to the same person as 
 'qui . . . exoratus,' but they can hardly apply to the per- 
 son who is so unfavorably compared with Cato. Schtitz 
 claims that such irony as this is quite impossible here, and 
 failing to find any other person to whom the epithet could 
 easily be referred, would strike out the words altogether. 
 Apitz'^^ bracketed the whole of verse 8. 
 
 Kirchner and Doderlein would refer 'doctissimus' to 
 the same person as 'melior' and 'subtilior,' ^. e., to Cato. 
 
 33 Examples of this interchange in Horatian mss. are cited by Keller and 
 Holder, Epilegom. III. p. 853. A similar list is given in Mayor's The Latin Hepta- 
 teuch, p. 251. 
 
 34Sueton. De Gramm. 2. 
 
 35 Quint. Inst. Or. I. 5, 56, taceo de tuscis et sabinis et praenestinis quoque : 
 nam et eorum sermone utentem Vettium (Vectium?) Lucilius insectatur, quem- 
 admodum Pollio reprehendit in Livio Patavinitatem, licet omnia italica pro 
 romanis habeam. 
 
 36 Coniectan. in Q. H. F. Satiras, 1856, p. 86. 
 
HoRAT. Serm. I. 10 (1-8). 11 
 
 The long separation is decidedly against this, and, besides, 
 Cato could hardly be called an 'eques.' According to 
 Suetonius, De Gramm., 11, his social position was doubtful 
 in his manhood and he probably never had a knight's in- 
 come in his old age. To meet this last difficulty Kirchner 
 proposed to read 'equidem' for 'equitum.' 
 
 The reading 'doctissime' has been proposed, but this 
 is obviously suggested by the knowledge that Lucilius 
 was a knight, and the objectionable interval is only in- 
 creased. 
 
 The words 'grammaticorum equitum' are especially 
 obscure. As they stand they would seem to imply a class 
 of knights who were grammarians, or of grammarians who 
 were knights,^^ but such guilds are quite unknown. 
 
 Doderlein punctuated with a comma after 'grammati- 
 corum.' As has been mentioned above, he considered 
 these eight verses the genuine introduction to Sat. I. 10, 
 so that in trying to avoid one difficulty he created another 
 almost as serious, by making Horace class himself among 
 the grammarians — 'fastidia nostra grammaticorum.'^® 
 
 Badius Ascensis thought Maecenas was the 'eques'; 
 another old scholar thought of Laberius. Orelli came to 
 the conclusion that the writer of these verses, whoever he 
 was, knew no more who the 'eques' was than we do. 
 
 'Ut redeam illuc' Cp. Sat. 1. 1, 108, 'illuc, unde abii, 
 redeo,' and Nepos, Dion., 4:, 'sed illuc revertor'; Agesil. 4, 
 'sed illuc redeamus.' 
 
 It is hard to find anything in the preceding lines to 
 which 'illuc' can well be referred. As Krtiger^^ remarks, it 
 cannot refer to the promised proof that Lucilius is full of 
 faults, for this promise is not fulfilled, or to the proof of 
 his faults on Cato's evidence, for Horace does not return to 
 this at all. Voss and Francke made 'illuc' refer in a gen- 
 eral way to Sat. I. 4, or its subject. 
 
 37 Like Juvenal, VIII. 49, nobilis indocti, ' a nobleman who is an ignoramus.' 
 
 38 This is contrary to the sentiment of Epp. I. 19, 40, ' non ego . . . grammati- 
 cas ambire tribus et pulpita dignor.' 
 
 '^Drei Satirenfuer den Schulzioeck erklaert, 1850, p. 17. 
 
12 CoLOEADO College Studies. 
 
 It seems almost certain that these three words were in- 
 serted on account of the abrupt opening, 'Nempe etc.'*" 
 The preceding lines were probably written with the text 
 of Sat. I. 10 on account of the similarity of subject, and 
 some later scribe, mistaking them for the introduction to 
 this satire, would add the words ' ut redeam illuc ' to serve 
 as a bridge to the lively opening ^ Nempe incomposito dixi 
 etc.,' though, as Schiitz remarks, they would serve better to 
 connect the verses with verse 2, 'quis tam Lucili fautor 
 inepte est?' The long introduction to Sat. I. 7 (followed by 
 *ad Regem redeo,' vs. 9) may have suggested the expletive 
 words that were felt necessary. Keller and Holder cite as 
 similar interpolations the four lines once prefixed to the 
 Aeneid and the ten lines at the beginning of Hesiod's 
 Works and Days. It is incontestable, they add, that the 
 satire is complete without these eight verses, and that 
 nothing is wanting at the beginning. On the contrary, 
 the fact that Persius, the deliberate imitator of Horace, 
 begins one of his satires (the third) with 'nempe' speaks 
 for the genuineness of the introductory 'nempe' here. 
 
 The external evidence that these eight verses are an 
 interpolation to Sat. I. 10 is given in the first paragraph 
 of this paper; a careful examination of them can only re- 
 sult in the conclusion that they are not the work of Horace 
 at all. They have been assigned to different writers and 
 to different periods. 
 
 Kirchner ascribed them to Furius Bibaculus (circ. 700 
 A. U. C), arguing from Sueton. DeGramm.ll, that Valerius 
 Cato, if still alive when Horace wrote this satire (A.U. C. 
 720), must have been over seventy years old, too old to be 
 contemplating a revision of Lucilius. This argument was 
 soon afterwards disposed of by Schmid," who proved from 
 the/ same section of Suetonius that Cato could not have 
 been more than sixty-two years old in A. U. C. 720, and 
 
 <o ' Soil, ut transitus ad Horatium sit.' Baehrens, Fragm. Poet. Roman., 1886, p. 329. 
 4iPWioZ. XL p. 54. 
 
HoKAT. Serm. I. 10 (1-8). 13 
 
 was probably alive several years later.*" O. Fr. Hermann 
 ascribed them to Fannius. Lucian Mtlller, in his edition 
 of Lucilius, 1872, says they were undoubtedly composed in 
 the time of Horace, though their authorship is uncertain. 
 These three scholars insisted on taking 'emendare parat' 
 literally. 
 
 Schtitz says that the writer of the fifth verse appar- 
 ently knew not only Epod.4, 3, 'Hibericis peruste funibus' 
 and 4, 11, 'sectus flagellis . . . praeconis ad fastidium,' but 
 also Epp. II. 1, 70, 'plagosum . . . Orbilium, etc' This 
 epistle is assigned by Vahlen to B. C. 14, so that these 
 verses could not have been written by Fannius or by 
 Furius Bibaculus. He would put the composition of the 
 fragment as late at least as the beginning of the second 
 century A. D. Just as Tacitus*^ says that there are men 
 in his day who prefer Lucilius to Horace, and Quintilian** 
 insists that Horace's criticism is unfair, so the unknown 
 writer of these lines objects to Horace's treatment of his 
 own model, appealing to the authority of Oato, who was of 
 course not satisfied with the work of Lucilius as he found 
 it, but still thought it worth revising.*^ The third verse, 
 Schtitz maintains, is not necessarily older than Sueton. 
 De Gramm. 2. The writer may have known Suetonius' 
 account of Cato and yet made him an editor not merely a 
 student of Oato in his younger days, either by mistake or 
 because he knew or thought he knew better. 
 
 Orelli remarks that the passage has ' antiquum colorem,' 
 and assigns it to the time of Fronto. Keller would put it 
 as late as Ausonius (circ. 350 A. D.), hinting at Tetra- 
 dius who is addressed in Auson. Ep. 15, 9, as rivalling 
 Lucilius.*® 
 
 F. Marx, whose beautiful emendation of these lines is 
 often referred to in this paper, says that they are impor- 
 tant for the history of grammar at Rome and for our 
 
 ■*2 ' vixit ad extremam senectutem.' 
 *^Dial. de Or at. 23. 
 ^Imt. Or. X. 1,93. 
 
 ^ It would be hard to show that Horace's estimate of Lucilius was any lower 
 than this. 
 
 ^ ' rudes Camenas qui Suessae praevenis aevoque cedis, non stilo.' 
 
14 CoLOEADO College Studies. 
 
 knowledge of the fate of Lucilius' poems. The whole pass- 
 age, he insists, suggests the philologist and reviewer, who 
 prefers Cato's edition of Lucilius to his master's earlier 
 one. There is a vast difference between the points of view 
 of Horace and the author of these interpolated lines: the 
 former speaks of Lucilius himself and his works, the latter 
 of editors and editions. 
 
 If it once be assumed that the words ' emendare parat ' 
 do not necessarily imply that these lines were written in 
 Cato's lifetime, it is hard to say how late they may have 
 been composed. Whatever their age, it is quite impossible 
 to name their author. 
 
 The fragment — and it is only a fragment, for the promise 
 in the first verse is not fulfilled — seems to have been trans- 
 ferred to this satire from some source rather than composed 
 as an introduction to it, to explain and complete it. Apart 
 from the fact that the general sentiment of the lines (so 
 far as this can be discovered) is not in accord with that of 
 the satire to which they are unnecessarily prefixed, it is 
 hard to see what Horace had to do with Cato's alleged re- 
 vision of Lucilius or. with the savage treatment of the un- 
 fortunate youth referred to in verse 5. Keller and Holder 
 say that the 'Urhandschrift' of their third class of mss. 
 was older than Priscian, and so also this interpolation, 
 adding, however, that while Priscian quotes the spurious 
 lines prefixed to the Aeneid, these eight verses are not 
 mentioned by any of the ancient commentators. 
 
•• • • • 
 
 
 Colorado College Scientific Society, 
 
 COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO. 
 
 The following is a complete list of the papers read at 
 the monthly meetings of the Society during the past 
 year. The fourth volume of Colorado College Studies 
 contains the three designated below by asterisks, while 
 others will be published elsewhere. 
 
 October 18, 1892: 
 
 Folk Etymology in Latin, - - - W. P. Mustard. 
 
 November 18, 1892 : 
 
 A Construction for the Imaginary Points 
 
 and Branches of Plane Curves, - - F. H. Loud. 
 
 December 16, 1892: 
 
 *State Bank Notes, W. M. Hall. 
 
 January 21, 1898 : 
 
 Friction Tests in Water-pipes and Fire- 
 hose, - W. Strieby. 
 
 February 24, 1893: 
 
 Prayer in a Universe of Law, - - - E. S. Parsons. 
 
 March 24, 1893 : 
 
 Acidimetry, D. J. Carnegie. 
 
 *0n the Eight Lines Usually Prefixed to 
 
 Horat. Serm. I. 10, - - - - W. P. Mustard. 
 
 April 28, 1893 : 
 
 Kant's Theory of Space and Time, - - Marion McG. Noyes. 
 
 On the Multiplication of Semi-convergent 
 
 Series, Florian Cajori. 
 
 May 19,1893: 
 
 The Essential Element of Religion, - - F. R. Hastings. 
 
 Multipolar Dynamos, - -. - - Florian Cajori. 
 
 *The Circular Locus, F. H. Loud. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 2l0ct'62fe 
 
 REC'D LI 
 
 OCT 22 1962 
 
 . iv . .--^''V1'f 
 
 JAN 25 1965 
 
 LD 21A-50m-3,'62 
 
 i'C7097sl0)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of Californi 
 
 Berkeley 
 

 crc . 
 
 O7 ? . . 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
5': 
 
 Cf^^ ■ 
 
 -y- 
 
 W'\ 
 
 
 l^V^^ 
 
 t' 
 
 iV 
 
 
 1 
 
 '^-^ ^\T 
 
 X ? ^^ >^ 
 
 r::f-v>::^:.^.:.