Search

The fourth and tenth satires of Horace's first book are sources of the first importance for the history of Latin literature, for they present the theories about literary style which Horace held at a critical time, not only in his own life, when he was producing his first permanent work, but also in the progress of the literature of the Augustan Age. Virgil, Varius, Pollio, Horace, and others' had been and still were working out the characteristic features of Augustan literature. We may look upon Horace as a spokesman, more or less official, for the whole group.2 But, unfortunately, Horace's remarks were intended for contemporaries fully familiar with details which are lost to us. Hence the interpretation of these poems has been very uncertain. Yet we need not despair of attaining an approximate certainty on some of the matters in doubt by careful study of the shreds of evidence.3 In this paper it is proposed to deal with the opening portion of the tenth satire, particularly with Horace's attitude toward Catullus as there displayed. It seems desirable, however, to take up first a related matter, the identity of the Tigellius Hermogenes mentioned in the tenth satire, for the two subjects throw light on each other.

M \ /[ARTIAL'S thirteenth book consists of two-line poems intended to accompany gifts, all of them articles of food or, in a few cases, appurtenances of a dinner. The fourteenth book consists of similar verses about other gifts. Each poem in the two books has as title the name of the object involved. The thirteenth book is called Xenia ("gifts"), the fourteenth, Apophoreta ("favors carried away from" dinner parties). These poems are very helpful in explaining an obscure and much misunderstood passage in Petronius (56. 7-10), which I read as follows: Iam etiam philosophos de negotio deiciebat cum pittacia in scypho circumferri coeperunt, puerque super hoc positus officium apophoreta recitavit: "Argentum sceleratum": allata est perna super quam acetabula erant posita. "Cervical": offla collaris allata est. "Serisapia et contumelia": opsophagi e sale dati sunt et contus' cum malo. "Porri et persica": flagellum et cultrum accepit. "Passeres et muscarium": uvam passam et mel Atticum. "Cenatoria et forensia": offlam et tabulas accepit. "Canalem et pedalem": lepus et solea est allata. "Muraenam et batiam"2: murem cum rana alligatum fascemque betae.

Some of the letters added to the alphabet by the Greeks (xi, phi, chi, psi) have caused much perplexity. In the Western Greek alphabet xi, phi, chi, with the forms X 4) Y, come at the end of the alphabet. In Eastern Greek xi, with the form I, the Semitic samekh, comes in the same place as the Semitic letter, after nu; phi, chi, psi, with the forms ) X 'Y, come in that order at the end. The confusion has given rise to all sorts of explanations. By some attention to the names of the letters, a little more light can be obtained. First of all, however, it must be pointed out that there must be a definite relation between the Eastern and Western alphabets as regards these added letters. The similarities, partial or complete, of forms, function, position, and name make that certain. The fatal weakness in Nilsson's treatment of these letters in his otherwise admirable article' is the implicit assumption that these letters developed independently in the two main branches of the Greek alphabet. It is obvious that each of the four letters is named in the same way, by attaching one and the same vowel2 to the consonant sound which the letter represents. This is true of no other letter of the alphabet except pi, and here the name is a natural development of the Semitic name pe. It seems, therefore, that pi is the prototype of the others. But why was pi picked out rather than nu, rho, or any other letter? Was the first of the new letters the xi, for example? If so, why was it named on the analogy of pi, with which it has nothing in common? Scholars have noted this fact and have tried to explain it by the nearness of xi to pi in the alphabetic order. But mere nearness, without actual juxtaposition, is a conclusive argument against rather than for this explanation. It will be noted that the four added letters consist of two aspirated mutes (chi, phi) and these same mutes followed by s (xi, psi), or, putting it another way, of the palatal surd k followed by 1 "Tbernahme u. Entwickelung d. Alphabets durch d. Griechen," Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Hist.-fil. Meddelelser, I (1918), 6. 2 For our purpose it is immaterial whether the spelling 41?, etc., or 41s, etc., is used.