« PredošláPokračovať »
A. Y. Campbell, Horace, a new Interpretation, London,
1924. Elizabeth H. Haight, Horace and his Art of Enjoyment,
New York, 1925. There are also many pamphlets and periodical articles, too numerous to record, which must be consulted by an editor of Horace.
A.J.P. = American Journal of Philology.
name of the editor alone, e.g. Lejay=the Lejay edition of the Satires.
THE RACE FOR WEALTH AND POSITION
The opening Satire serves as a dedication of the whole book to Maecenas, and deals with a conspicuous feature of social life in the Augustan age.
Everybody, says Horace, is discontented with his lot and envies his neighbour. Yet, if some god were to give men a chance to change places, they would all refuse. The cause of this restlessness is the longing for wealth. Men will assure you that the only reason why they toil unceasingly is that they may secure a competence and then retire. They claim to be like the ant, which provides so wisely for the future; but the ant enjoys its store when winter comes, whereas the money-seeking man ceases from his labours, so long as there is one richer than himself (1-40).
And yet what is the use of large possessions? If a man has enough, more wealth will prove a burden and a peril. The miser claims that the wealthier he is the more highly will men think of him. I will not argue the point, says Horace, but will leave him to his self-esteem. He is like Tantalus, tortured with thirst though the waters are so near.
Your avaricious man suffers all the pain, and enjoys none of the pleasure that money can buy. There is indeed
no more certain cause of misery than avarice. Yet one must not run to the other extreme, but should observe the golden mean (41-107).
To return to the starting-point : everybody is trying to outstrip his neighbour in the race for wealth. People are never satisfied, and therefore we seldom see a man who is ready to quit the banquet of life like a guest who has had enough (108-119).
But enough of this preaching, or you will think that I have rifled the papers of Crispinus (120, 121).
Palmer thinks that this Satire “ was probably the last composed of those in the first book," and Morris speaks of its “maturity of style and treatment.” Campbell, however, points out “distinct signs of immaturity,” such as the Lucretian echo in 11. 23-26, a passage which “ smacks of the novice in satirewriting” (cf. Lucr. i. 936 ff.), the weakness of l. 108, and the 5 lame conclusion in 11. 120, 121 (Horace, p. 165). Lejay thinks that our author composed the discussion of avaritia (28-117) first, and later, when dedicating his book to Maecenas, added the beginning and the end. This is a very plausible view.
A minute analysis of this Satire is given by Charles Knapp in the Transactions of the American Philo. logical Association, xlv. pp. 91 ff.
Qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo, quam sibi sortem seu ratio dederit seu fors? obiecerit, illa contentus vivat, laudet diversa sequentis ? “o fortunati mercatores !” gravis annisa miles ait, multo iam fractus membra labore.
5 contra mercator, navem iactantibus Austris, “militia est potior. quid enim ? concurritur : horae momento cita mors venit aut victoria laeta.” agricolam laudat iuris legumque peritus, sub galli cantum consultor ubi ostia pulsat. 10 ille, datis vadibus qui rure extractus in urbem est, solos felices viventis clamat: in urbe. cetera de genere hoc, adeo sunt multa, loquacem delassare valent Fabium. ne te morer, audi quo rem deducam. si quis deus en ego ” dicat, 15
i fors V Mss.: sors B.
2 annis mss. : armis conjectured by Bouhier and accepted by Vollmer.
3 cantat B.
a The reference is not so much to the professional lawyer as to the influential citizen, whose humble clients come at daybreak to ask for advice. Such a citizen would commonly have had a good legal training. With him is