2 The Sermones (Satires): Preparing for the Future as a Political Commentator 2.1 Introduction to the Chapter Horace wrote two collections of Sermones, the name he gave his poems which are generally known as Satires.51 Book 1 of the Sermones is his debut. It is generally held that he began writing the book in 42 or 41 B.C. (although I will argue below that 38 B.C. is more likely), and that this was probably released in 36 or 35 B.C. Book 2 appeared five years later.52 He wrote the Epodi, and some of the Carmina and Epistulae, in the same period. In this monograph I will focus on the first book of Sermones (S.1). However, I will briefly consider in section 3.3 the political issues he raised in the second book of Sermones (S.2) and in two other genres he wrote in the period of 38 B.C until 30 B.C., the Epodi and a number of Carmina. The name of Sermones is a more appropriate representation of Horace’s intentions than the name of Satires. I suggest that Horace wrote in S.1 a lot about satire, but that it is not satiric blame poetry levelled directly at an audience: adapting the words of Schlegel (2005, 6) “he presents the bite [in S.1], but does not do the biting.” The view that Horace in S.1 didn’t write much satiric poetry is contrary to that of Freudenburg in 1993, where he presents Horace as “the satirist,” but conforms Freudenburg’s view in 2001. For example, he (2001, 7) makes the point that S.1.1-1.3 fail to bear evidence of satiric poetry: “But neither is he [Horace] much of a satirist.”53 I will interpret S.1 from a functional point of view, and I intend to show that Horace’s main purpose in writing S.1 is to show that he is and intends to remain a trustworthy member of the circle of Maecenas. Hence, the title of this monograph: Horace’s Sermones Book 1: Credentials for Maecenas. Thus, when Horace explored, particularly in S.1.1-1.4, in S.1.6 and in S.1.10, the most effective way of presenting his message, he also depicted, both openly and by allusion, a well-considered view on 51 For Horace’s poetry in general, see: Von Albrecht (1997, 565-587); Fraenkel (2002); Rudd (1993b). For his Sermones, see: Brown (2007); Freudenburg (2001, 15-124; 2010); Gowers (2003; 2005; 2012); Griffin (1993); Kiessling (1886/1959); Lefèvre (1993, 37-60; 85-111); Lyne (1995, 21-26); Muecke (1993; 2007); Oliensis (1998, 17-63); Rudd (2007). For the different literary influences on Horace’s Sermones, see: Barchiesi (2001); Ferriss-Hill (2015); Freudenburg (1993, 103-108); Harrison (2015); Muecke (2005); West (1974, 22); Zetzel (2006, 38-52). For the names Sermones/Satires, see Freudenburg (2001, 2); Gowers (2005, 48-49; 2012, 12-15). 52 For the dating of the Sermones, see Gowers (2003, 59; 2012, 1-5) (book 1); Freudenburg (2001, xii) and Muecke (1993, 1-2) (books 1 and 2). 53 The suggestion that Horace in S.1 is not much of a satirist is contrary to Oliensis (1998, 17- 41), who (1998, 20) writes for example “that Horace’s satiric eye, so sharp to see the failings of the man in the crowd, etc..” Open Access. © 2019 Leendert Weeda, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.2478/9783110642636-003 Introduction to the Chapter 33 specific contemporary social and political evils which were in evidence in definite groups of Roman society. He identified those distinct social groups not only to determine the poetic genre he would use and the style that would be most suitable for his future role as political observer, but also to demonstrate to Maecenas that he did not adhere to the views or support the actions of a number of those groups, for example the Stoics or worse: the new rich. After all, he was himself a freedman’s son who had achieved some financial independence, but who did not share their cultural views. His commentary on the conduct of those groups is often misinterpreted as satire. When he writes about the character of satire, for example about Lucilius’ poetry, it is neither because he sees himself as a successor to Lucilius as a satirist nor because he explores whether satire is the right genre for his commentary. I interpret those lines as part of his main purpose, that is that he gives thought to the manner in which to deliver his message. Further, he prepares himself and his audience within the circle of Maecenas for his future role as political observer and commentator. In other words, his search for his poetic orientation was not the focus of S.1; the most important focus was his self-presentation.54 There is also a gradual shift in focus; in S.1.1-1.4 the emphasis is on self-presentation in order to become an acceptable member of the circle of Maecenas, in the later sermones (S.1.5 and S.1.7-1.9) the poet operates as one who sees the desired goal within reach. Lefèvre (1993, 85-111) gave his chapter on S.1 the appropriate name of Selbstfindung: Das erste Satiren-Buch (Finding himself: the first book of Satires). Both the discussion about his views on socio-political issues and his self-presentation are not public ones, as he regularly asserts, but it takes place with his associates of the circle of Maecenas. This also explains his choice of the name Sermones (Conversations or Discussions). Consequently, contrary to common practice I use the latter name in this book. I will also examine Horace’s relationship with his associates not only in the present section below, but also in the analyses of many of the individual poems of S.1. As a result of my assumption of the purpose of writing S.1, I suggest that Horace started the writing of the majority of the sermones of the first book most likely from 38 B.C., the year that he was admitted to Maecenas’ group. I will argue below that his membership of this group was not a matter of course. A few years before he was invited to join the group, he fought at Philippi on the losing side with Brutus. In addition, his social background was not impressive. Horace does not only set out his theory and programme of writing in book 1 of the Sermones, but he also gives some initial political commentary. I will review Horace’s views on the genre of satire – which in his case I rather call commentary writing – with the aid of the extensive scholarly literature that considers Horace’s poetry within the literary frame.55 I intend to add to the discussion about the poetic nature 54 For Horace’s self-presentation in the Sermones, see also Harrison (2007c). 55 For Horace’s views on the satiric genre and the influences of his predecessors, see Anderson (1982, 14-27); DuQuesnay (1984); Freudenburg (1993; 2001, 1-51; 2005b, 7-11; 2010, 273-276); Gowers 34 The Sermones (Satires): Preparing for the Future as a Political Commentator an examination of his political objectives within the functional frame. His political views become apparent by examining the social and political issues he raises, often only briefly or by allusion. When Horace presents his critical commentary on political issues, I note that he makes a distinction between several social and political groups he describes. I will identify those by distinguishing four groups, that is Maecenas’ circle and his friends, the political elite, the new classes of nouveau riche in Rome (like the pushy fellow of S.1.9), and the Roman populace. The nature of Horace’s poems in S.1, and his relationship to Ennius (239-169 B.C.) and Lucilius (180 – ab.102 B.C.), the first Roman poets to write satire, and other predecessors is much discussed.56 Originally, the genre that later developed into satire drew from a variety of, among others, Hellenistic genres with differing subject matters and meters. Quintilian saw the genre of satire as being typically Roman, so much so that he began his section on Satire in the Institutio Oratoria (10.1.93) with the famous lines Satura quidem tota nostra est (Satire, indeed, is entirely ours).57 Quintilian points out already that Horace is special in being less caustic and vindictive, and recognized the unsatirical character of the latter’s Sermones. He places Horace firmly within the group of Latin satirists like Lucilius and Persius. He says in Inst.10.1.94: Nam et eruditio in eo mira et libertas atque inde acerbitas et abunde salis. Multum est tersior ac purus magis Horatius et, nisi labor eius amore, praecipuus (For he [Lucilius] has an extraordinary learning and candor, and hence satirical severity and an abundance of wit. Horace is much more correct and purer of style, and he is special, unless I am mistaken by my love for him). Much later, the nineteenth century scholar Kiessling wrote in his commentary: Der Satiriker Horaz ist kein ergrimmter Kämpfer wie Lucilius, der in heiligem Eifer mit den Waffen verletzenden Spottes oder beißenden Witzes seinen Gegner zu vernichten trachtet: er [Horace] ist kein strafender Richter der einen Delinquenten vor sein Tribunal zieht und unbarmherzig züchtigt, kein Prediger, der dem Sünder zu Herzen und ins Gewissen redet: er ist vielmehr der menschenkundige philosophische Beobachter (The satirist Horace is not an angry fighter as Lucilius was, who in holy fire using the weapon of hurting derision or caustic mockery tries to demolish his opponent: he [Horace] is not a punishing judge, who drags a culprit before his court and merciless chastises him, not a preacher, who appeals to a sinner’s heart and conscience; he [Horace] is much more the philosophical observer with insight into human character).58 I mention above that my working assumption is that Horace’s S.1 displays some of his views on contemporary political issues, but that the focus is on self-presentation and marking out his role as a political observer and commentator.