The Liber Amicus: Studies in Horace Sermones I Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Mark Bradley Wright, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: William W. Batstone: Advisor Julia Nelson-Hawkins Richard Fletcher HELLO1 Copyright by Mark Bradley Wright 2014 i Abstract The goal of this dissertation is to re-evaluate the importance and function of the moral content of the first book of Horace’s Sermones. I contend that the moral content constitutes part of a pragmatic program that seeks to ameliorate the discord of first century Rome by utilizing the Roman concept of amicitia. Horace faces the problem of adapting satire, a poetic discourse of invective and moral policing to amicitia, which he achieves by adapting satire as part of a system of moral and dialogic pedagogy for both oneself and one’s friends. This reading places Horace’s first book of Sermones at the intersection of a number of Roman discourses: exemplarity, moral pedagogy, amicitia and libertas. Such a reading achieves three results: first, an appreciation of the importance and complexity of the moral content of the Sermones; second, a better understanding of Horace’s distinct contribution to Roman satire; and third an account of Horace’s reactions to the civil wars, as traditional Roman ways of viewing and understanding the world began to break down and new ways needed to be created. In my first, introductory chapter, I sketch the critical problems of Horace’s first book and the scholarly responses to them, their limitations and the place of my own work, before outlining the main points of my methodology and argument. I then establish how the issues of the diatribe satires set the ii foundation for the concerns of the rest of the libellus. In my second chapter, I turn to the programmatic satire, 1.4 to examine how this poem deals with the problem of the antithetical relationship between friendship and satire and then offers a solution of a Roman satire based on moral pedagogy engaged amongst and with friends coupled with the constant self-satire and moral correction of the satirical subject. My third chapter offers a reading of S. 1.5 and 1.6 that shows how various kinds of friendship work in a real world situation and how the focus the poet’s own life demonstrates the efficacy of Horace’s satiric program in the previous satire in his friendships with fellow poets like Vergil and most importantly with Maecenas.. My fourth chapter looks to the seventh satire of the first book as an antithetical example of the program of satire and friendship Horace has created thus far and a justification for Horace’s non- participation in Roman political life described in 1.6. In my concluding fifth chapter, I sum up the argument and give brief analyses of the anti-example of sermo in 1.8, of S. 1.9 as a test case of evaluating a potential new friend and then of S. 1.10 where both the moral and aesthetic values of the Sermones are developed and expressed in self-pedagoy and dialogic pedagogy, both of which are dependent on amicitia. iii For my father, grandfather and godfather John Warren Wright John Joseph Bradley, Jr. † And John Francis Mahoney † iv Acknowledgements Throughout writing this dissertation I have been aided and supported by many friends, colleagues and loved ones. My gratitude is especially important since, as various personal circumstances threatened to quash this project at different stages, the following friends, teachers and colleagues made sure it was brought to completion. My greatest debt is to my doktorvater, Will Batstone, who first changed how I read Latin in a seminar in the autumn of 2007. Since then his wit, keen eye and careful reading of well…just about everything, have influenced all of my own work. His encouragement and guidance of a young man from Boston, as well as his uncanny ability to help me articulate what I’m really trying to say has meant more than I can express in words. Most important, Will has always believed in me even when I had given up on myself and this project. I also owe great thanks to my teacher, Julia Nelson-Hawkins, who has offered her time, advice and generosity in countless ways since I arrived in Columbus in 2007 and kindly offered her guidance with the dissertation even before she officially joined the committee. Julia has helped keep this dissertation grounded and he has been an important mentor and guide during my graduate years, not least in improving my writing style. Further, her kind invitation to present my ideas on Roman exemplarity and triumviral literature to her seminar v on Roman epic in 2011 provided an excellent opportunity to begin to focus my ideas on the subject. I owe much to Richard Fletcher, whose ineffably fertile mind has opened up new pathways even when I thought I had hit a dead end. Whether over beer, baseball or the Boss, I’ve learned about reading critically from Richard as much as I have marveled at his creative wizardry. This project is richer for his involvement and the marvelous, unexpected ideas he has concocted in his conversation and comments with me, and also for pointing out to me that Bruce Springsteen’s “Dancing in the Dark” is really about writing a book (or, in this case, a dissertation). Finally, I have Richard to thank for my title. At Ohio State I owe thanks to many, especially Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Frank T. Coulson, Joseph Danielewicz, Samuel Flores, Gabriel and Michele Fuchs, Fritz Graf, David T. Gura, Corey Hackworth (who always keeps me intellectually honest), Tom Hawkins, Erica Kallis, Wayne Lovely, Stephen Maiullo, Benjamin McCloskey, Aaron Palmore, Maxwell Paule, Anna Peterson, John Richards and Katrina Väänänen. One could not ask for a better graduate program and people to work with. I have also profited much from the time and advice of Christopher L. Caterine, the late Brian P. Donaher, Lee M. Fratantuono, Kirk Freudenburg, Joseph Gecan, Timothy Joseph, Michele Lowrie, Jonathan C. MacLellan, Kara McShane, Lakshami Mahajan, Thomas R. Martin, Jack Mitchell, Kevin Modestino, Jessica Nowlin, Gregory Pellam, C. Emil Peñarubia, Ellen Perry, Aaron Poochigian, John van Sickle and Susan Stephens. vi I owe a special debt of gratitude to my teacher and mentor at the College of the Holy Cross, Blaise Nagy, who not only first guided me through Horace’s Sermones I while I was a student at Holy Cross, but whose invitation to speak to his seminar on Horace’s Sermones in the spring of 2012 ended up saving the dissertation, as well as affording me a friendly forum in which to test my nascent ideas on Horace’s satiric project. My parents, John and Clare Wright, have always been exempla of love and support. Like Horace, I could not wish for better parents. Horace Sermones, in many ways a meditation on the relationship between fathers and sons, taught me much about my own relationship with my pater optimus and has been a good text to think with over the years. Thus, my father’s influence and moral pedagogy, like Horace’s own father, will be found all over these pages. Finally, my grandfather, John J. Bradley Jr., was an important intellectual and educational influence on me for my entire life. Sadly, he did not live to see the completion of this dissertation, though he always maintained a keen interest in its arguments and progress and never let me give up, mindful of his regret at never finishing his own dissertation many years ago. So I dedicate this study to my grandfather, my late godfather and my own father, the three Johns who made me the scholar and man I am today. vii Vita August 3, 1985…………………………………………………..Born, Boston MA May, 2007………………………………………………………….B.A. Classics (cum laude) College of the Holy Cross December, 2008……………………………………………….. M.A. Greek and Latin The Ohio State University September 2007-May 2013…………………………….. Graduate Teaching Associate September 2013-Present………………………………… Lecturer Publications “Libanios 9: On the Kalends. Translation,” (2012) Archiv für Religionesgeschicte 13, 205-212 Fields of Study Major Field: Greek and Latin viii Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………………………iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………………...v Vita……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...viii Chapter 1: Horace Sermones I: The Satirist and his Critics………..…………………..…1 Chapter 2: Pugnantia Secum? Friendship and Satire in Triumviral Rome: Satire 1.4……………................................................................................................................………………...45 Chapter 3: The Program in Action: S. 1.5 and S. 1.6.....................................................….98 Chapter 4: Sermones 1.7: The anti-example of odium……………………………………160 Chapter 5: Concluding Conversations: S. 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10…………………..…………215 Bilbiography……………………………………………………………………………………………….241 ix Chapter 1 Horace Sermones I: The Satirist and his Critics1 In this dissertation I argue that we must begin to read Horace’s Sermones differently, specifically we must pay renewed attention to the effects and function of the moral content within the Liber Sermonum. Doing so confronts a long-standing problem in studies of the Sermones: What is the point of all this moral content? Is it parody, or something else entirely? In reading these poems with their moral content in mind and not just passing over that content as parody or mere superficiality we can see a powerful meditation on key Roman concepts: friendship (amicitia), the value and role of tradition and exemplarity (e.g. the mos maiorum) as well as the place of fathers and sons in passing on tradition, and finally the effectiveness of satura, Rome’s very own home-grown poetic genre, as a moral corrective force.