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>::^:.^.:.