Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T21:16:23.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horace, Epistles 2.2.89

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Edward H. Bispham  and
Don P. Fowler
Edward H. Bispham
Affiliation:
Jesus College, Oxford
Don P. Fowler
Affiliation:
Jesus College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At Epistles 2.2.87–9 Horace introduces an argument against writing poetry based on the unpleasant mutual admiration required in poetic society with an anecdote about an orator and a jurisconsult:

†frater erat Romae† consulti rhetor, ut alter

alterius sermone meros audiret honores,

Gracchus ut hic illi, foret huic ut Mucius ille.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , May 1990 , pp. 280 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Quoted from the third edition (Berlin, 1869).

2 Ed. Berlin, 1883.

3 ‘Horatiana’, CQ 39 (1945), 113–18, at 118: ‘if space permitted I should defend it further’.

4 Gnomon 58 (1986), 611–15Google Scholar at 613–14. There is no sign of the conjecture even in the extensive lists of Joliffe, H. K., The Critical Methods and Influence of Bentley' Horace (Chicago, 1939).Google Scholar

5 Aeguales; cf. Cic. De or. 1.180, Brutus 145, RE xvi.1 437.28ff.

6 cf. Wilkins, ' edition of Cicero, De Oratore (Oxford, 1892), p. 23.Google Scholar

7 Fr. 86 Marx = 86 Warmington (Cic. De Or. 3.171).

8 cf. Wilkins, , op. cit. (n. 6), p. 12.Google Scholar, Douglas on Brutus 143.12, Stroux, J., Summum ius summa iniuria (Leipzig, 1928), pp. 29–31.Google Scholar

9 3.93; cf. Suet. de gramm. 25Google Scholar, Tac. dial. 35.Google Scholar

10 ‘Horatiana, III’, Classical Papers (Cambridge, 1972), i. 136–61 at 153–4.Google Scholar

11 CR 15 (1965), 11–13.Google Scholar

12 For the dative, see Bentley, ad loc., TLLGoogle Scholar x.1.19.36ff.

13 McGann, Contra M. J., CR 16 (1966), 266–7.Google Scholar

14 We are most grateful for comments and corrections to Dr R. O. A, M. Lyne and Professor R. G. M. Nisbet.