Horace's Ars Poetica (PDFDrive)

^^
vK\ ,'
ONIV.DF
Toronto
Library
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
PROGRAMME OF THE FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
of
JAMES SHERIDAN
B.A. (National University of Ireland) 1934
M.A. (University of Toronto) 1940
MONDAY, MAY 22nd, 1944, AT 9.30 A.M.

IN THE SENATE CHAMBER
COMMITTEE IN CHARGE
Dean G. S. Brett. Chairman
Professor E. A. Dale
Professor N. W. DeWitt
Professor H. Bennett
Professor J. T. Muckle
Professor E. T. Owen
Professor C. B. SissoNS
Professor C. N. CncltRANE
Professor S. M. Adams
Professor M. D. C. Tait
BIOGRAPHICAL
1914 — Born, Legga, County Ivongford, fiirc.
1934 — B.A., National University Ireland.

of
1940 — M.A., University of Toronto.

1939-44— Professor of Latin, St. Augustine's Seminary.
1942-44 — Lecturer in Latin, St. Michael's College, University of Toronto.
1938-44— Graduate Student, University of Toronto.
—
THESIS
IJoi\ul-'s ".!rs Poclica"and its Relation to previous IVorks on
Literary Criticism.
(Abstract)
Horace was born Venusia in 65 B.C. He sprang from a freedom-loving,
at
independent, peasant stock, and tliroughout his life manifested tlie qualities that
characterized the sturdy tenant farmers of his native place. He was educated
in Rome and .\thens, but before he had completed his studies, he joined the
Republican forces. After the battle of Philippi he returned to Italy and fovmd
that his father's farm had been confiscated. Faced with poverty he <4|jurned
to literature. The exigencies of his position left him no choice in his earlier
works he was forced to cater to the depraved taste of those on whose reception
:
of his works his livelihood depended. In improved conditions he was in a

position to follow his real inclinations in the field of literature. He devoted
his attention successively to Epodes, Satires, Lyrics and Epistles, and on
everything that he wrote he left the indelible impress of his own peculiar genius.
His writings are characterized by perfection of workmanship, originality or
freshness of approach, delicate wit, humour and irony, and a commonscnse
philosopliy of life. —
One genre he did not touch the Drama. It was not a
type of literature suited to Horace and his references to it w'ould incline us
to think that it was not a genre of which he had a high estimation. Never-
theless, in the closing years of his life, he was faced with the task of supplying
systematized advice to two young aspirants to fame in the field of Drama. The
sons of his friend Lucius Calpurnius Piso, decided to devote their energies to
the writing of satyr-drama, and the family appealed to Horace for literary
guidance for these young men.
Horace's literary background, literary connections and admiration for the
writings of the Golden Age of Greece are a guarantee that he would have his
own definite ideas on the drama. The work that he now had to do, called for
a systematic exposition of these ideas. By nature, he was not systematic. To
elaborate a system or scheme of treatment on his own initiative would not be
for him a congenial task. He had become acquainted, through his friend,
Philodemus of Gadara, with a work written by one Neoptolemus of Parium.
This work treated of poetry under three headings 7rotr;/ia, TrotJjcris and
Trotr/Tijs. The dividing line between the first two of these subdivisions
was not very clearly defined. Philodemus found fault with Neoptolemus'
division as to what topics should be treated under Trolrj/ia and what under
Trot r; at J. Horace had no interest in a question so theoretical and
speculative. Moreover, he was faced with the task of producing a work suitable
for young men with a practical interest in satyr-drama. The first section of
his work had to be written with an eye continually directed towards this genre,
and the subdivisions of a theorist interested in poetry as a whole would not
suit his particular purpose. He abandoned this first subdivision and decided to
treat his subject under two broad headings
—
".'Krs" and "artifex". He decided
to cast his production in the form of an Epistle. He had already achieved
considerable success in this genre, and it was eminently adapted to the familiar
tone that would be required in a work offering advice to personal friends.
Literary theory in Rome at the time when Horace wrote was by no means
so simple and elemental as it had been in the .^ttic period. Aristotle's Parties
and Rhetoric were influencing literary questions in different ways. The texts
themselves were now available and were no doubt exerting a direct influence.
Side by side with this, however, there was a metamorphosed version of
.Aristotle. This came to Rome from the Hellenistic world and represented a
fusion effected between an Aristotelian tradition and the peculiar genius and
problems of the age that followed the eclipse of Athens as the literary centre
of the Greek world. Rome inherited more than this from the Hellenistic world.
Of particular interest in this regard is the fact that in Hellenistic times attempts
had been made to apply the t ixva i of Rhetoric to Poetics. Traces of the
influence of this attempt are noticeable in the Ars Poclica. Like every other
age the Hellenistic had a number of literary controversies in regard to which
theorists could never reach anything in the nature of an unanimous decision.
These controversies passed on to the Rfniian world. Together with these Rome
inherited soinc of the Hellenistic interest in Form and perfection of work-
manship. In the age that immediately preceded Horace, Rhetoric had been
supreme and literary questions liad been approached with a marked rhetorical
bias. Horace was conversant with all these questions and influences. However,
we moist not look for an exhaustive treatment of them in his Ars Poclica.
He was not writing a theoretical treatise and moreover he was by nature
original in ideas, independent in judgment and the least given to imitation of
any w/iter of his age.
A comparison of his work with the Poetics of .Aristotle shows that he
agreed witli the Greek writer in many points. However, the agreement is
generally in fundamentals, and even here we find additions, omissions or
changes made to suit the particular end which Horace had in view and the
changed circumstances in which he lived. The changes, particularly in the
attitude to, and treatment of, Tragedy, are so far reaching that we can
legitimately conclude that the agreement, except in the treatment of the "'Dif-
ferent -Ages", is accidental and is due to the fact that two men of keen literary
discernment would naturally agree on many points.
From Neoptolemus he took the framework for his treatise and, it would
seem, some few ma.xims that were practical and suited to his purpose. This
is particularly evident in his treatment of the object which the poet must keep
in view. Even here, however, Horace did not forget that his main concern
was the success of a play as it personally affected the dramatists and not as it
affected the audience.
Much of the literary criticism found in 'Cicero is of the stereotyped and
conventional kind. His interest was almost entirely in oratory. Some recent
studies have professed to see a close parallelism between the .-Jr.f Poctica
and Cicero's rhetorical works in the matter of divisions and have even tried to
establish a close bond between the critical vocabulary used in the two works
and the development of the ideas of the poet and poetry and the orator and
oratory. Further examination seems to reveal that there are no grounds to
justify such claims. There are, no doubt, resemblances but they are not due
to an attempt on Horace's part to elaborate a treatment of the poet and poetry
closely parallel to the treatment of the orator and oratory found in works on
Rhetoric. Such resemblances are due rather to the fact that poetry and oratory
were sister disciplines which had recourse to the same general aesthetic theory.
Those who push these resemblances too far attach too much importance to
vague analogies and verbal resemblances and ignore the peculiar problems of
poetry in general and of the Ars Poctica in particular.
A comparison between Horace and Dionysius of Halicarnassus serves to
bring into relief the wide gulf that separates Poetics from Rhetoric. It further
shows the extent to which Horace's special purpose permeates every section of
his work. Dionysius had the public good in mind and was writing in the
interests of the state. This purpose of his gives a definite tone and colour to
his writings. Horace was writing to help two friends and never at any stage
of the work allows himself to forget this.
GR.\DU.\TE STUDIES
Major Subject:
Greek and Latin: Literary Criticism —^Professor E. .A, Dale.
Minor Subjects:
M..\. Course — Professor
E. A. Dale,
Professor J. T. Mucklc.
Professor L. A. MacKay.
Livy's Third Decade —
Professor H. Bennett.
A Thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the decree of D o ctor of Philosophy in the University
of Toronto.
(\A ^
James J. Sheridan.
Arîk'^'^l
^»A .A^^
'n^,
HORACE'S "ARS POETIGA" AND ITS RELATION
TO PREVIOUS V70Ri^.. ^.. LITERaRY 0RITICIS..1.

ly
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction I-XVII
SECTION I
Title i
Nature of the Work 2
Purpose of the Work 3
Divisions in the "Ars Poetica" 11-22

Rhetorical Pattern 13
Divisions based on Neoptolemus 16
Other Divisions 19
Divisions based on the Nature and Purpose
of the Work 20
"Ars Poetica" and Horace's Other Works on Criticism 22-29

Satires 22
Epistles 23
Date of the "Ars Poetica" 29-41

External Evidence 30
Internal Evidence 32
Rostagni's Date 40
SECTION II
Introduction 42
Aristotle and Horace 46-76
Aristotle and Horace: Resemblances 46-63

Unity and Simplicity 48
Diction 49
Metre 50
Tragedy and Comedy: Separate Diction 51
Plot and Character 53
Matter Treated and Mode of Treatment 54
Drama:
Different Ages 55
Action, Length, Deus ex Nachina 56
Number of Actors . 58
Literary Genres 59
Decorum 61
11
Contents
SECTION II - Cont. Page
Aristotle and Horace: Differences

Attitude to Tragedy 64
Plot 66
Character 67
Music 68
Satyr-drama and History of Drama 69
Estimate of Relationship hetween Aristotle and

Horace:
Resemblances In Doctrine 73
Resemblances In Terminology 75
Neoptolemus and Horace
Reconstruction of Neoptolemus 77
Neoptolemus and Horace: Comparison 80-96

Causes of Failure In poets 87
The poet's Knowledge 89
Brevity and Clarity 90
Other Qualities Required 95
Estimate of Relationship between Neoptolemus

and Horace 96-101
Division of Work 98
Teaching in Neoptolemus and Horace 99
Appendix: Phllodemus, Col. I-XIV 101
Cicero and Horace
Poetry and Rhetoric 109
"Ars Poetlca" and "Orator" 110-126
Ars
Decorum 110
Inventlo Ill
Ordo 112
Elocutlo 112
Choice of Words 113
Delivery .
Character {hQ<^S
^ ):
/
Feeling {^'A.(^cS ) . . . .
114
115
The Three Styles 117
ill
Contents
SECTION II - Cicero and Horace - Cent. Page
Artlfex
Role of Horace and Cicero 121
De Instrumentls Poetae 122
De Officio Poetae 122
Degree of Perfection Attainable 124
Genius and Labour 125
"Ars" Poetica" and "De Oratore" 126-138
Ars
Decorum 126
Artifex 129-138
De Instr\imenti8 Poetae 129
De Officio Poetae 130
Perfect Poot and Perfect Orator 131
Genius and Labour 134
Vesanus Poeta: Malua Orator 137
Estimate cf Relationship between Cicero and Horace. 138
Horace and Dionyaius
Introduction 141
Virtues of Style 142
Diction 145
Three Styles of Diction 145

Composition 146
Decorum 147
Aims of Good Composition 147
Rhythm 148

Relation of Prose to Poetry 151
Summary 151
Bibliography 153
\^l
INTRODUCTION
HOilACE THE MAN
Horace wos bom at Venusia in Southern Italy in
65 B.C. amid purrovndings that left an indelible mark on his
life. His birthplace wija an old Latin colony that had Joined
the Msreic revolt agoinPt Rome. A strong tradition of freedom
flourished among the r^turdy tenant farmers, a tradition which
in later years had rrobably no little influence in moulding
Horace's indepondence of spirit in m«itterR literary as well
as political. His father refused to senr* him to the local
school, took him personally to Rome and placed him under the
charge of Orbiliua. This teacher was evidently of Pome stand-
ing as Suetonius considered him worth a short biography. Later
Horace went to Athens to complete his studies. Horace had al-
ways a grateful appreciation of the sacrifices his father made
for him, and thi? probably helped to keep him from casting his
time as his fellow-pupil, Marous Cicero, did.
His studies were soon interrupted. The Republican
party realized that the death of Caesar did not end the con-
flict. Caesar had left beaind frienos who were willing to
accejt the legacy of his j o"" itioal frogrymme. The armies of
Syria under Cnssiua rere pledged to support the Republican
party. Recruits, however, vere neoded, and in 44 B.C. Brutus
appeared on a recruiting mission in Athens. Horace enlisted
in the Republican army and shared in the defeat of Philippi.

However, he retained both hiP Hepublican pjnnpathies and his
Republioan friend p throughout his life. He could apjrove of
the world peace that followed the successes of Augustus, for
he had seen too much civil war and bloodshed. The regime
iteelf he could approve only by regard inp Augustus, perhaps
with delicate irony, as the restorer of the Republic. Ve can
see here a proof of Horace's indeponrenoe of raind, a trait
that had greater influence than is credited to it in hiR sub-
sequent literary theories.
Back in Italy and employed as a quaestor's olerk,
Horace, feeling the pinch of poverty, turned to literature in
the hope of attracting notice and patronage. With an eye
on our main concern, the "Ars Poetloa," I would like to try to
estimate the main traits of this man as he embarked on his
literary career.
By nature he wns independent in spirit and original
in ideas. He v.h8 somewhat proud of the fact that Rome had
at least one literary genre, retire, that could not be re-
garded as an imitation of a Greek fenre. In hir lyric p he
imitated Aloaeus and Sappho, but his indebtedness to them is,

2
I think, not nearly so great as is sometimes supjosed. The
scholiasts were not able to bring forward many reek pasaapes
which ve could, with reasonable certainty, consider to have
been imitated by Horace in his Odes. Editors of Horace have

not found much in the fragments of the Creek poets that would
1. Vid. aoKay: Class. Rev. XLVI, p. 24?. ff.

2. Parallels are also cited from Pindar, Anacreon, Archilochup,
Slmonides.
.
Ill
suggest an extensive indebtedness on Horace's part."^ Where
he imitated, he admitted it. He was proud of having natural-
ized the Greek lyric metres in Italy but claimed some original-
ity there too, or at least maintained that he was a pioneer,
evidently ignoring what had been accomplished by Catullus.
In his life and his writings he wanted to be free and master
of his soul. He refused to become secretary to Augustus,
declining a post that most men of his time v/ould have gladly
accepted, fthen Maecenas was urging him to return from the
country, he writes that he is ready to return all his ji;ifts
unless his freedom is guaranteed. In an age of imitators
Horace stands out as a man ready to accept the inevitable in
world conditions, but proud of and Jealously guarding his
Independence in the direction of his own life and the inde-
pendence of his own ideas in matters political, literary or
moral
If we may Judge from his writings, he was not in the
least syateroatic. He was unrivalled in expressing a passing
mood but was Incapable of a sustained flight of imagination.
He was far too intense to be able to extend his ideas into an
epic or drama. Moreover, his keen eye for the anomalous made
him a humorist, a quiet humorist, who could draw a simple
picture with unparalleled sklil but who would be lost in the
complicated meshes of a long work.
1. Vld. Ed. of Keller and Haussner (1805); Gow: Horace,

Odes and Epodes, introd. XXXVIII.
IV
It is more ciftioi^lt to evaluate his philosophical
baokground. Like most Romanp he was interested not ô nraoh in
metaphypica as in othioe, philosophy as a guiJe to life and
happiness. In his day there were two main systems, Epiouroanism
and Stoioiam. Horace waa no doubt influenced by the Epicurean-
ism preached by Lucretius. ThiP sombre creed, with its veneer
of science, seems to have apj ealed to the young men of his
time, probably because it was destructive of traditional be-
liefs. I do not think that Horace was ever a convinced
disciple of Epicurus, tiis profession of recantation, y:hether
we regard them as seriously offered or jocose, ehow that he never
was a dogmatic subscriber to the creed, Ihe Stoic system
was more idealistic, and as the years progressed Korace seems
to have come closer to this doctrine. No doubt he drops back
towards iipicureanisra at times, or rather, I vfould say, towards
the Hedonism of Aristippus, #10 taught that the pleasure of
the moment is the highest end of life. However, in his "nil

2
admirari" and his struggle to be independent of external goods,
he shows Stoic influence, Horace's wavering is, I would think,
due to the fact that He was affected by the eclecticism inhioh
waa the distinguishing mark of all philosophical schools at
the time, including the school at Athens where the poet studied
ujnder Theonnestus,
More important thign the philosophical creeds that
Horace may have imbibed in Athens was the fact that he became
r; Vid. Od. 1, liJilV. Cf. Lucret. \ri, 400.

2. This precept is, however, attributed to other schools. Vid,
Wickham, p. 241,
enamoured of the prlncipln of the Golden Mean, that principle
that ?enms to h^ve formed the central core of the Hellenic
conceition of life and literature. tO-^jo^v ciy<iv wss the
constant theme of Greek thinkers and poots. The common-
sense of the sturdy ptook from -fhloh Horace sprang would pre-
dispose him toward? this principle, and his stay at Athens
seems to have crystallized it in him and made it a dominating
factor in his life. In the "Ars Poetica," as in everything
he wrote, he inculcates balance, moderation and the avoidance
of excess. In thi?, os in .-nany other respects, he was cloeer
to the :iellenio spirit than any other Roman poet.
HORACiJ th:i: poet
Thus equipped, Worace, feeling the pinch of poverty,
turned to literature. His first productions are somewhat
marred by an artistic vulgarity and occasional lapses into a
flatness that is difficult to reconcile with the perfection of

1
his later works. .Ve must remf?mber that we are not acre
dealing with the real Horace. The circumstances that dTOve
him to write did not nllow him to ignore the strong tradition
of coarseness in literature, and his independent spirit,
yearninf for free-play of the fancy, would cause him at times
to sink to a flatness that is un-Horatian but intelligible in
the circumstances. In improved oiroumstances the real Horace
emerged. rJpodes, Satries, Lyrics, Kpistles successively
claimed hia ettention, and every genre that he touched reached
17 vTdTXackoil: Latin Literature, p. 109.

VI
In him its highest perfaction. One genre he did not touch -
the Drama. It v/as not a type of literature suited to Hcrace.
He would be irked beyond endurance by the boring task of hav-
ing to be continually on his guard against small inconsis-
tencies and contradictions. The piecemeal development of a
plot he would regard us drudgery. He would be able to catch
the mood of a character at a given point and express it with
his own "curiosa felicitas," but to take that character
through his or her successive moods ur^til a climax was reached
would be an experiment in psychology too protracted for a
genius so restlessly brilliant and so prone, as the Odes show
us, to be carried off into digressions, which, beautiful as
they are in themselves, would be out of place in a drama.
Besides most of his references to the drama would incline us
to think that it was not a genre of which he had a high esti-
mation. He would not himself enter the field of drama.
Horace's interest was never in theoretical ir.etters.
Literary theory was no exception. The drama is the only genre
that offers wide scope for systematized theorizing, and he
had little interest in the drama. He must, however, have had
a concept, though not a clearly defined one, of the requisites

for a successful play. He belonged to a literary coterie and
must have listened to and shared In Discussions on the drama.
Horace might have been somewhat interesteo in such discus-
sions, since they must have frequently taken the participants
back to the (Jolden Age in (Jreece - away from the Alexandrians

"
711
for vhofe ? owy qualitie." lie had not the admiration that Pome
of hiP oontemporariep had. Amongst the member? of this
ooterie vms one Philodemus, whose friendship with Horace ex-
tended beyond a mutual intereot in literature. To judpo from
hiP writings, he was a dogmatic type of individual and some-
what of an extremist. His oriticiPm of existing literary
theories lacked the balance and moderation that Horace loved.
.
orse Ptill, it lacked an understanding of theories that he
roundly condemned. It would seem that lorace, either from
the remarks of Philodemus or an examinr.tion of the text itself,
had concluded that the original of Neoptolemus was on the
whole a .sound production, much sounder than the criticism of
his own personal friend.
If my interpretation of the occasion and nature of
the "Are Poetica" is correct, Horace wn?, when matters were
somewhat as outlined above, faced with a difficult rituation.
His Iricnd and patron, Lucius Piso Caesoninup, hsd two young
sons. True to the tradition of their family, they were int^ r-
ested in literature, and seem to have been attracted towards
the dramatic medium. I shall later try to show that they
were particularly interested in satyr-drama. They were
young, and some guidance was needed. The family turned
to Horace for tils guidance. It was a case of "posoi-
mur. Horace's insistence on the difficulty of the task
18 primarily motiVF.ted by his idea of the high perfection
necessary in a work, but perhaps, too, he entertained a hope
T, THT p. 2 ff. infra.

VIII
of deterring these young men from their proposed attempt.
His previous excursions into the field of literary-
criticism had been of a restricted nature. He had defended
Satire, offered a little literary advice to friends and writ-

1
ten an epistle to Aueûstus dealing with literary matters.
This last was his most ambitious attempt in the field of lit-
erary criticism, but was in reality not so much a literary
theory as a criticism of the unbalanced and \morthodox attitude
of the average Roman theatre audience and would-be judge of
literature. He had ideas of his own on the subject but they
were not in any set order or system. He turned to the Poetics
of Neoptolemus of Parium, ignoring, with his usual independ-
ence of judgment, the adverse criticism of his friend, Phil-
odemus . From Neoptolemus he took the framework for his
proposed production and perhaps some iraxims that he felt he

2
could make his own.
The question to which Horace addressed himself was:-
"What are the conditions that these young men must fulfill
if they are to produce a work that will be acceptable to the
audience?" To answer this he had to draw on his own origin-
ality and sound common sense, his keen understanding of men
and their eccentricities, his own poetic genius - especially
his innate sense of decorum - and his knowledge of both theory
and practice in Greek and Roman literature. He was influenced
primarily by the end he had in view. Other factors, however,
were at work. Amongst them we mi^^ht mention his predilection
1. For the order of comrosition which follow vid.p. 2?^f|. infra.

I
^' 'id. p. 96 ff. infra.
IX
for the literature of the Golden Age of Greece and the influ-
ence oxerted on him by Rome's inheritance from Hellenistic
literature, especially in the matter of the adoption of
rhetorical diviPions und i rinciplep by theorist? in the field
of poetics. This latter factor had not the influence that
is Fometimes attributed to it, but it mupt nevertheless be taken
into account. There were a niunber of unfinished contro-
versies in the air too. These had furniPhed material
for diacuseion in every age, and no age had settled them
either to its o?rn satisfaction or to that of the succeed-
ing age. Chief among them were the questions about the
relative merits of plot and character, of matter and fonn,
and of native genius and technical skill. Horace took therê
into account in the "Ars Poetioa." 7men we compare his work
with the i^ritingi^ of the other great literary critics, Aris-
totle, Neoptolemua, Cicero and Dionysius, we can see that he
was conversant with literary questions both theoretical and
practical, ma work, however, is much more than a summation
of accepted literary maxima. Through every section of it
there breathes Horace's freshneas of approach and independence
of Judgment. Its tone is entirely Horatlen, and his peculiar
touch can be sensed in every section of it. Ve can see the
emphasis laid on the qualities that Horace loved - painstaking
care and perfection of workmanship, the aversion to vulgarity,
the delicate Irony, the hatred of hypocrisy, the keen, gentle
ironic eye for the anomalous, the warning against excesses.

Faced with his task, Horace gave satyr-drama a cen-
tral position in his work. His gaze was fixed on the class-
ical Greek drama. There tragedy was the outstanding dramatic
genre. It offered a wide field for study and a varied and
abundant supply of examples of what to do and what to avoid.
The laws of tragedy were equally applicable to aatyr-drama.
For young men it would be much easier to see the implication
and application of rules and advice if they kept their atten-
tion focused on the wide field of tragedy rather than on the
narrow field of satyr-drama. Horace decided to keep tragedy
before their eyes while giving his maxims at length and in
detail, and then to point out that these same rules must be
applied to the writing of satyr-drama and to indicate briefly
how this should be done. There were other matters like dic-
tion, metre, etc., which pertain to several genres, and Horace
devoted a section to these but in it kept his eye fixed on
their particular application to the drama. In another sec-
tion, the opening section of the work, he treats matters like
\inity, simplicity, diction, etc., which apply to every piece
of writing and to every aspect of the orama. They are quali-
ties of a transcendental kind. The requirements for a suc-
cessful dramatist are many and call for long and serious pre-
paration. Horace, following Neoptolemus, added a long section
on the poet. Here he called the poet's attention to the need
for a high standard of perfection in his work, pointed out
that a philosophical training is indispensable, discussed the
relative merits of genius and labour, treated the object which

1. îd. 220-E50.
XI
the poet must keep in mind, and drew a humorous picture of
the eccentricities of the mad poet.
ARGUMI1.HT
A work must have the qualities of unity and simplic-
ity. It must be of a uniformly high standard; a few "purple
patches" in an otherwise mediocre work are not enough. To
achieve this a writer must choose a subject that he can handle
and have a suitable order in his matter. In the question of
diction he need not restrict himself unduly. He should not
ignore the happy result that may be attained by placing an
ordinary word in a new setting. If the need arises, he may
use archaic words or even coin new ones from the Greek, but
he must observe a due moderation in these matters. In a word,
then, the diction will be the ordinary diction of cultured
men but somewhat refined and sublimated.
Different metres are associated with different genres,
dactylic hexameter with epic, elegiac couplets with laments
and prayers, iambic measure with lampoons. Dramatists found
this latter metre appropriate for their purpose. It suited
dialogue and action and proved best when the din in the theatre
threatened to drown out the actor's voice. Dramatists adopted
it. As the various genres have their appropriate metre, so
also have they their appropriate diction. The diction of
tragedy is not that of comedy, althoui^h the language of one
may at times legitimately appear in the other. Other factors

XII
mxist be taken into accovint In determining the proper diction
to be employed. Different emotions will express themselves
in different ways. The actor must be assigned a diction that
varies according to the age, rank, occupation and national
backgro\ind of the person he may be representing at a partic-
ular time. The person represented may b© one of the tradi-
tional characters, and if so, his traditional qualities must
be ascribed to him; or he may be a new creation, and if so,
he must be self -consistent throughout.
The plot, too, may be a treatment of a traditional
legend or something entirely new. Even though it is a tradi-
tional story, often used before, there will be scope for
originality of approach and treatment. One must guard against
the pretentious beginnings so common in epic. They are bom-

bastic and contrast ludicrously with the lower tone of the
subsequent sections of the piece. Homer may be taken as an
example. He begins quietly and works up to a climax. When

he saw that he would not be able to bring the treatment of
some incident into line with the general tone of his work, he
omitted all reference to it. The result is a wori£ that is
uniform, harmonious and beautiful.
Those who, like the Pisos, are writing for an audience
must not forget what the audience will expect and demand. They
will demand that the different ages be represented with their
appropriate characteristics. They will react unfavourably to

the actual representation on the stage of some things, for
XIII
example, murders, unnatural deeds and outlandish marvels. To
suit their taate a play miist have five acts - no more, no less.
No more than three speaking characters may be used. A "deus
ex machina" may be used, but only to solve a difficulty worthy
of the intervention of a god. The chorus must he an integral
part of the play and should maintain its traditional role by
praising, the good, admonishing the evil, and praying that
Justice may triumph. The lyrical part of the drama was simpler
in the old days. As audiences became more mixed, the music
became more elaborate.
The desire for novelty was accovmtable for the intro-
duction of satyr-drama. All the rxiles given above for tragedy
are applicable to satyr-drama. Its diction must be in keeping
with its characters - the dramatic characters - who in the
satyr-drama unbend somewhat and relinquish some of their dig-
nity and gravity. It must be neither too lofty nor too low.
Do not seek for an original plot for the satyr-drama. Aim at
freshness of treatment, elevate the commonplace by perfection
of workmanship, do not try to avoid the appearance of simplic-
ity but let it be a simplicity combined with a beauty that
others may in vain try to reach. The chorus of satyr-drama
must not lapse into coarse language. The audience must be
kept in mind and where possible one should cater to the better
element amongst those present.
Care must be taken with the rhythm. Appreciation of
good rhythm is not by any means easy. Romans have not been
XIV
careful enough on this score. It is not enough merely to
avoid reproach in this matter. Turn to the Greeks for your
example, and do not be lulled into a false security by the
fact that Plautus ' rhythm was praised. This is to be construed
rather as a reflection on the taste of the critics than a
commendation of Plautus.
Thespis is said to have invented tragedy; Aeschylus
perfected it. Old Attic Comedy was once an honoured genre
but its liberty degenerated into licence and the law stepped
in and restricted its freedom, silencing the chorus. Roman
poets have attempted a national drama but their work was
marred by their failure to take pains with their productions.

Painstaking care and continual revision are absolutely neces-
sary.
The requisites for a successful poet are many.
Democritus thinks the poet must be eccentric, ana some iragine
they can gain the reputation of poet by deliberately cultivat-
ing idiosyncrasies. The poet must rather be eminently rational.
He must have a sound grounding in philosophy. He must nave
learned much from a close observation of men and morals. This
last alone can produce a tolerably successful play. The
Greeks had genius, eloquence and ambition; the Romans are too
practical, too eager for gain, to be successful dramatists.
The poet's object is either to profit or to please,
or, best of all, to bring profit and pleasure simultaneously.
For this the poet murt be brief and realistic - brief to

XV
profit, realistic to please. Every play must have at least
a little element of both profit and pleasure, but the perfect
blend of the two makes the great production.
Absolute perfection Is unattainable. Even the great-

est work will show a few defects, but they should be few and
the result of human frailty, not of carelessness. Mediocrity
cannot be tolerated in poetry, as it can in the commercial
branches of literature such as oratory. Despite this, men
lacking talent insist on writing poetry. You, Pisos, will
not, I know, do this. To reduce further the number of blem-
ishes, submit your work to competent critics, and even then do
not rush its publication; wait a decade before you ilve it to
the world. You may decide to destroy it. Do not be ashamed
of the lyric muse and of the time you spend on poetry. Con-
sider its civilizing influence and what It has contributed to
the progress of man.
There is an old and frequently asked question as to
whether a praiseworthy poem is the work of art or nature. Both

native genius and technical training are. In my opinion, nec-
essary for a good poet. Men today Ignore the value of technical
training. This is all the more unintellitiible when we consider
the long years of toil that aspirants to honours in other
fields devote to preparation. Not alone do these poetasters
Ignore study and practice, but they foolishly seek criticism
from people under x\5> obligation to them; auch criticism is

XVI
prejudiced and worthless. The good critic must be honest and
fearless in pointing out mistakes.
Consider the tragic picture of the "mad" poet with
his deliberately cultivated eccentricities. He goes about
with his head in the air and falls into a pit. Do not pull
him out. Let him die. He is a danger to himself and a nuis-
ance to his friends.
Such is the "Ars poetica." As a theory of poetry it
has obvious limitations, but it was never meant to be a com-
plete theory of poetry. It was meant to be a guide for yoiang
men Interested in writing satyr-drama. Considered as such.
It leaves nothing to be desired. Some have found fault with
it on the ground that it contains little judicial criticism.
Judicial criticism would not be in Horace's line. He was no
Sante-Beuve or Dlonysius who could analyze a piece and discover
what gave it its appeal. Judicial criticism would not serve
his purpose, even if he were competent In that field. He was
writing for the Pisos. They did not want or ask for a work
that would help them to understand and discuss Aeschylus,
Euripides or Plautus . That would not help them very much.
They wanted something that would help them to be successful
in writing satyr-drama. They did not gain lasting fame as
dramatists, but this is not Horace's fault. Ii they perse-

vered in their ambition to become dramatists, they rrust have
often quoted Horace's maxims. They were but the first in a

XVII
long line, for the "Ara Poetica" is by no means the least
quoted work of the most quoted Roman poet.

SECTION I
TITLE
The title "Are Poetlca" or "De Arte Poetlca Liber"
Is found In practically all MSS. The earliest extant appli-
cation of this title to the work is found in Quintilian, who
twice referred to it as an "Ars Poetlca." These references
cannot, however, be adduced as proofs that «ciuintilian re-
garded the composition as an "ars" or that the present title
originated with him. In the context the name is purely
incidental, as Quintilian was not formally dealing, with the
question of a possible or suitable title, and was, it would
seem, merely giving the generally accepted name. Later
grammarians regularly use the same title, and it is employed
also by Porphyrion and the so-called Acron. The title has
proved somewhat unfortunate, as it carriea with it the sug-
gestion of a set treatise or "T^Xl^*^ on the subject of poetry,
and many commentators accepting it "prima facie" as such
found themselves faced with numerous difficulties arising
from its apparent inconsequence and lack of system. How-
ever, a name that has been so long in use cannot be abandoned
without inconvenience, and it may be accepted on the author-
ity of tradition, provided we do not allow it to prejudge
the real character of the work.
1. Instlt. Or. VIII, 3, 60; Ep. ad Tryph. 2.

2, E.g. Scallger, Heinslus.
PLACE ASSIGNED TO THE "ARS PGETICA" IN HORACE'S V>ORKS
Every modern edition of Horace which I can find
places the "Ars Poetica" at the end of Book II of the
Epistles. This arrangement, however, is not supported by
any very ancient authority. In the MSS it appears either
after the Fourth Book of the Odes, or after the Carmen
Saeculare. Stephanus first placed it at the end of his
edition, and Cruquius first styled it Epistolarum Lib. II,
Ep. III. How far these men, and the editors who later fol-
lowed the fashion set by them, were influenced by their
ideas about the date of the work it is not easy to say.
NATURE OF THE WORK
Horace was not the first to employ epistles in
verse as a form of literature. Archilochus is said to have
practised this among other forms of composition. 2 One Mum-

's
mlus wrote some letters in verse from Corinth in 146 B.C.,
and it seems certain that Lucilius used the epistolary
form In his satires. The formal letter of exhortation dated
at least from the time of Isocrates; it had afterwards become
a feature of Hellenistic cultural life, and in Horace's day
was devoted to instruction in matters historical, legal,
grammatical and the like. This was the device adopted by
1. Horace's works were used in the schools at an early date

(Juvenal 7,227). The Odes and "Ars Poetica" were most
suitable for this and naturally got together.
2. Wilkins: Horace, xxl.
3. Cic. ad Att. 15,6,4.
Horace in has "Ars Poetlca," but he avoided the severely
Impersonal tone that generally characterized letters of exhor-
tation, and infused into his work all the charm, familiarity
and personal tone of a genuine letter. Thus we have in the
"Ars Poetica" a subject matter associated with the formal
letter of exhortation, combined with the form and tone of a
genuine letter. Horace was the first to adopt this method of
giving expression to views on literature, a method which
became so popular at the tlrre of the Renascence and subse-
quently in France and England.
PURPOSE OF THE WORK
An examination of the Epistles of Horace reveals
that they are not all epistles in the same sense. They have
this feature in common, that they all have some personal
allusions and practically all are at least nominally
addressed to a definite individual. Apart from this, how-
ever, we find ttiat they range from genuine letters to composi-
tions which are letters in form only. Thus, for example, in
Book I, Epistles 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 are real letters; Epis-

2
ties 1, 2, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19 are letters in form only. As
regards the "Ars Poetica," even a cursory glance should con-
vince us that it is a genuine letter, in which the writer
never loses sight of his addressees and tneir particular needs.
1. Bk. I, 20, and perhaps, too, 14 seem to^be exceptional.

2. In some cases (e.g. 1,6) the only indication of a letta?
is the vocative case.
He formally addresses them, either by name or equlvalently,
seven times in the course of the composition. The personal
pronoun of the second person, the use of which indicates
emphasis, is found some fifteen times in the work; the verb
is used in the second person about thirty-five times. The
use of the personal pronoun of the first person would indi-
cate terms of intimacy with the addressees, and this use is
found upwards of thirty-five times. It is worthy of note
also that every important topic treated has one or more of

2
these personal touches. In adoition to the above the whole
tone of the letter, with its pointed advice and practical
details, shows that it was no merely theoretical work, nom-
inally addressed to a literary family. Should further proof
of this be necessary, we have but to compare the letter on
this score with the first letter of the Second Book. This is
addressed to Augustus and yet, with the exception of the
formal introduction and the conclusion, the addressee does
not appear in any way in the work; and the artificiality of
the transition from the introduction to the main body of the
letter shows plainly that Augustus' connection with the work
is purely incidental. The personal touches could be removed
from this work without interfering in the least with the rr.ain
part of the work or any one doctrine in it. On the other
1, Allen and Green oug;h, 178; Elmer 114.

2. 6, 291, 560, 386.
hand, the personal tone and touch are so subtly interwoven
with the doctrine of the "Ars Poetica" and so penneate the

whole that any attempt to exclude them ana make the work
impersonal would call for interference with the selection to
such an extent that the new product would be unrecognizable.
We are then justified in accepting the description
of the "Ars Poetica" as "an epistle in the Horatian sense,
that is, a letter in verse addressed to actual correspondents,
written in a lively and discursive fashion, and with primar-
ily the needs of the correspondents in mind." It will
clarify matters to point out here that Horace's attitude is
not the same towards all three of the addressees. The
father's role is to be that of a reliable critic,^ and one
passage at least gives the impression that at least this
section of the letter is directed primarily to the elder
son. It would, however, I think, be rash to conclude from
this that the younger son is included merely for the sake of
courtesy. This is the only place where the mode of address
can be shown to leave him out of account, and it is explic-
able on other grounds. No doubt, the elder son would have
a more immediate need for advice as normally he would be the
first to turn to writing. In addition, it is quite possible
that Horace knew that this son was inclined to accept opin-
ions contrary to the doctrine in this passage - Horace's
1. Atkins: Literary Criticism in Antiquity, Vol. II, p. 69.

2. A. P. 388.
S. A. P. 566.
favourite doctrine, the need of perfection. We may say, then,
that Horace foresaw that the elder son would have need of
these literary maxims in the near future and the younger son,
in all probability, in the more distant future. For what
purpose would they need these maxims?
On reading the "Ars Poetica," we are at once struck
by the apparently disproportionate amount of space devoted to

the treatment of the drama. Some editors and commentators,
when dividing the work, consider that the section on the

drama begins at v. 153 and ends at v. 294. In reality, the
drama begins to dominate the work much earlier than this.
After the general maxims of vv. 1-72, Horace turns to partic-
ulars. There are some remarks on various metres, but the
fact that, on reaching the drama, ^ Horace changes his mode
of treatment and begins to go into details, issue warnings
and refer to exceptions to the general rule, shows that
vv. 73-86 are of an introductory nature. They make one of
Horace's almost imperceptible transitional passages and save
him from plunging abruptly into the subject which is his
main concern. The drama, introduced here, is never lost
sight of again. Vv. 112-113, "if the speaker's words sound
discordant with his fortune, the Romans, in boxes and pit
alike, will raise a loud gviffaw," show that the drama has
been the genre in mind in w. 99-112. The mention of the
1. Rostagni: Arte Poetica di Orazio, p. 48; Gilbert, Liter-

ary Criticism: Plate to Dryden, p. 126; Immisch; Horazens
Epistel Ueber die Dichtkunst, p. 120; Atkins, op. cit.
p. 70.
2. A. P. 87.
"stage" in v. 125 proves that the idea of the drama dominates
w. 119-127, and the "acts" of v. 129 proves the same thing
for w. 128-1S5. Vv. 136-152 seem to refer to the epic, but
the svuranary nature of these lines and the fact that they are
wedged in between sections, which vindoubtedly deal with the
drama, convince me that Horace is using epic as an example
to show the would-be dramatist what to avoid. If his treat-
ment of the epic constituted anything more than a aide-issue,
Introduced not for its own sake but to help explain something
else, I cannot understand the inaccuracy of his reference to
Homer and "Diomede's return."-^ We should also keep in mind

p
that epic and drama were closely allied in the classical mind,
and that epic offers the best opportunity for noting the evil
effects of the faults in question here, anticlimax and lack
of uniformity.
The drama is treated at great length. Later It will

be shown that Horace's main concern throughout is the per-
sonal success or failure of the dramatist.'^ He is not trying
to set forth the idea of a theoretically perfect drama, but
throughout addresses himself to the problem of how a dramatist
may produce a work that will hold the interest of the audience.
In elaborating this theme, he goes into details, leaving no
1. A. P.146. The explanations of many editors are more ingen-

ious than convincing. Vid. Wilklns, op. cit., p. S62;
Wickham: Horace, II, page 403; Biakeney: Horace on the Art
of Poetry, p. 75j Klessling: Horatius Eriefe, p. 216;
Rostagni, op. cit., p. 45.
2. Aristotle: Poetics, 1449b, 1456a, 1460a, 1461b, 1462a.
3. Vid. p. 64, ff. infra.
8
aspect untouched, treats things like music - a practical
detail which Aristotle referred to in passing and Neoptolemus
did not treat at all, as far as we can Judge from Philodemus.

It is worth noting, too, what passages commentators find most
difficult and baffling. His hirtory of the drama is such
that some have been forced to conclude that he confused the
origin of tragedy with that of comedy. The history of drama
la, however, a theoretical question of very secondary import-
ance to the one who contemplates writing a drama. When he is

dealing with matters of practical importance for the aspirant
to dramatic honours, we may have to discuss the origin of his
maxims and the genesis of the doctrine prior to his time, but
the meaning of his maxims and instructions is generally
clear; in a word, what he requires is easy to see; why he
requires it Is not always so obvious.
In view of all this, there is, it seems to me, only
one explanation that will satisfactorily meet the questions
arising from the length and nature of the treatment of the
drama. The young Pisos, or at least the elder of the two,
must have been contemplating an attempt at drama-writing.
It would be no help in explaining these questions to say
that Horace himself was thinking of writing a drama. ^ The
directing of every maxim tQl;he Pisos shows that this was not
the case. This explanation would make statejrents like that
1. Vid. Pickard-Cambridge: Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy,

p. 114.
2. Vid. CampDell: Horace, p. 253.
9
advising the Pisos to axibmit their works "to a Maeclus, to

1
your father, to me ," sound meaningless. A far more cogent
reason against this theory would be the tone that It would
give to certain other statements. Horace said: "my aim will
be poetry, so moulded from the familiar that anybody may hope
for the same success, may sweat much and yet toll In vain
p
when attempting the same." If Horace were thinking of writ-
ing a drama himself, these words could not be taken In a
general sense but would be a definite statement of Ideals and
plana. They would sound Insufferably boastful and the pre-
sumptuous and arrogant nature of them would be entirely out
of keeping with Horace; and a man gifted with his iênlus for
self-criticism could not fail to see the light in which he
would be revealing himself.
When we examine further the section on the drama,
we find that satyr-drama is treated in detail. In his treat-
ment of this genre he briefly recounts the things treated at
length in the general discussion of drama. Character, dic-
tion, plot, history and the need for keeping the audience in
mind are treated again. This section is then complete in
Itself and holds a central position (vv. 220-250) in the work.
Tragedy and satyr-drama were always closely connected in
ancient times. ^ Tragedy had been treated more frequently.
1. A. P. 387-388.
2. A. P. 240-242.
3. Vld. Sat. 2,7.
4. Plckard-Cambridge, op. clt. p. 90.
10
laws and maxims for it had been worked out in greater detail.
To one writing a treatise on drama, it offered a wider field
and more opportunity for selecting examples than would satyr-
drama. Horace treated tragedy at length and then showed how
the rules were to be applied to satyr-drama. The Pisos must
have been thinking of writing a aatyr-drama.
Many editors and commentators are puzzled by the

inclusion of satyr-drama at all. They consider that satyr-
drama was non-existent as far as Rome was concerned, and that
Horace's treatment of it is of historical interest only. It
seems certain, however, that Rome had an Interest in satyr-
drama and a satyr-drama of sorts. Quintus Cicero translated
the "Banqueters," a satyric play of Sophocles.^ One Pomponius
wrote at least three satyric dramas, Atalanta, Sisyphus and

2
Ariadne. This Pomponius was known as a writer of
"Atellanae, "2 and this point is not without its significance.
It is quite likely that this writer Introduced some elements
of the Atellan farce into his satyr-drama and that Horace is
issuing a warning against this when he says: "it will be
fitting . . . so to pass from grave to gay, that no god, no
hero, who shall be brought upon the stage, shall descend to
the level of low comedy."^ There is one other reference.
Dlomedes, the grammarian, recognlEes the "Graeca Setyrica"
1. Cic. ad Q. Pr. 2,15,3.

'^
2. Porphyrlon on A. P. 221.
3. Macrob. Sat, 1.10.
4. A. P. 227-229.
11
as a form of Latin drama superior to the Atellanae. Horace
himself says: "our own poets have left no style untried,"^
but we could not interpret this too strictly. Enough evi-

dence is available to show that there was a Roman satyr-
drama and a more than academic interest in it.
To summarize: the whole tone of the "Ars Poetlca"
shows that Horace had a practical end in view. The treatment
of the drama shows that that end was to supply his literary
protegees with help in writing a drama. The treatment of the
satyr-drama shows that this was the type of drama in mind.
There is evidence to show that there was in Rome at this tiBe
an interest in satyr-drama; and the Pisos, connected with
Horace, Philodemus and the Greek tradition, would very likely
be more than ordinarily interested in tiiis literary genre.
DIVISIONS IN TtlE "ARS POETICA"
There is hardly an aspect of the "Ars Poetica" con-
cerning which there has been so much discussion and so little
agreement as the question of how the work should be divided.
Practically every writer has his own theory on the subject.
There have been some who have thought that it was
useless to try to find logical divisions in the work. They
regarded the work as akin to satire and considered that Hor-
ace deliberately excluded any set plan. Others, in their
quest for a plan, postulated extensive corruption in the
TI Vld« "»Jettleship: Essays in Latin Literature, p. 179.

2. A. P. ^85.
12
existing MSS and made attempts, some of them rather erratic,
to restore what they thought was the original. Still others,
amongst them many comparatively modern editors, give a plan
of the work but do not make clear whether. In their opinion,
this plan goes back to Horace or is offered merely as a help
in understanding or remembering the "Ars Pootica."
If we may judge from Horace's works in general, he
was hardly the type to elaborate a detailed plan on his own
initiative. He mi^ht adopt an already existing plan or mode
of treatment, but even then he would not be likely to hold
hinself to it too rigidly. Nevertheless, the "Ars Poetica"
differs from his other works. We have shown above that in
composing it he had a definite purpose in view. This cen-
tral motivating idea would give a certain plan and unity to
his work without much conscious effort on his part. We may
then conclude that there is some kind of plan in the work
and proceed to seek it. Modern works may be divided into
three categories from the point of view of their theories
on the plan of the "Ars Poetica." Some have a plan based
on a rhetorical pattern; others derive their plans froir the
threefold division which, according to Philodemus, was in
Neoptolemus; still others put forward independent views en
this question.
-
13
RHETORICAL PATTERN
In 1905 Norden published in "Hermes" an article,
entitled "Die Composition und Litteraturgattung der Horazis-
chen Eplstula ad Pisones." The introductory part is a
synopsis of various opinions relative to the plan of the
"Ars Poetica." He then proceeds to trace a rhetorical pat-
tern in the work and succeeds, to his own satisfaction at
least, in making the work conform closely to this pattern.
He finds two very clear-cut divisions in the selection -
one dealing with the art of poetry and embracing vv. 1-294,
the other treating of the poet and extending from v. 295
to 476. He then subdivides these sections as follows:
I. De arte poetica, 1-294
A. De partibus artis poeticae, 1-130

1. De argiimentorum tractatione et inventione, 1-41
2. De dispositlone, 42-44
3. De elocutione, 45-130
a) De verbis singulis, 45-72
b) De verbis continuatis (i.e., de metris),
73-85
c) De verborum coloribus, 86-130.
B. De generibus artis poeticae, 131-294

Transltio, 131-135
1. Epos, 136-152
2. Drama, 153-294
Propositio, 153-155
a) Greek Kinds, 156-250
1) Traîedy and Comedy, 156-219
ii) Satyr-drair,a, 220-250
b) Comparison of Greek and Roman Drama, 251-294
1) In Form, 251-274
il) In Kinds, 275-294.
II. De poeta, 295-476

Transitlo (295-305) et Propositio (306-308)
A. De Instrumentis poetae, 309-332
14
B. De officio pcetae, 553-S46.
C. De perfecto pceta, 347-452

1. The need of the greatest possible perfection,
547-407
2. The attainment cf this through earnest study,
408-452.
D. De inaano poeta, 455-476.
A glance at this formidable plan is enough to show

us that it could be followed only by one who kept the plan
in front of him while working, or by one to whom the plan
was otherwise so familiar that It had become second nature
to him. It is most unlikely that either alternative could

hav3 been the case as far as Horace is concerned. The
nature of the man and the nature of the work would eliminate
the conscious adoption of a plan so stereotyped and so
mechanical. It Is still more unlikely that Horace had ab-

sorbed this rhetorical plan to such an extent that he fol-
lowed it unconsciously; if he were so familiar with It,
traces of it would have been found in several other parts of
his works - in fact in all his works except those of a lyric
nature. In so far as I can discover, only one other attempt
has been made to show the existence of a rhetorical plan in
another work of Horace, •'•

and the attempt is not a conspic-
uous success.
These are general reasons against the adoption of
this plan. The particular reasons are much more cogent.
1 . Sat . 1,6. Vld. HendrlckBon: "The Literary Form of Horace,"

American Jcurnal of philology, XXIII (19id2).
"
15
Norden and those wh>) follow him iiave done some very ingenious
forcing to make the "Ars Poetica" fit their scheme, but many
sections cannot stand the strain. Vv. 1-41 are set down
as dealing with "de argumentorum tractatione et invent lone,
These verses really deal with unity and simplicity; only
vv, 38-41, as far as I can see, have any relation to the
"argumentorxxm tractatio et inventio" and here Horace is giv-
ing general advice on how one may attain the unity and sim-
plicity demanded in vv. 1-37. From v. 72 on this plan
Ignores the role played by the drama. It turns the section,
which it assigns to the drama. Into a mechanical discussion
of Greek drama and its relation to Roman drama. The iden-
tification of "de verbis continuatis" and "de metris" is
ingenious but extremely farfetched. Vv. 86-130, on this
plan, deal "de verborum colorlbus." Other matters, however,
are treated In this section - character, decorum, possible
material for plot, etc. The sam.e criticism applies to prac-
tically all the subdivisions of this rhetorical plan. Super-
ficial resemblances and vague analogies are pressed too far.
Passages are put into a rhetorical subdivision because small
sections of them have some relation to a rhetorical topic.
Tlie fact that the peculiar problems of poetry often makes
resemblances merely verbal is Ignored. The purpose of the
"Ars Poetica" is lost sight of. Finally the advocates of the
1. The relation of the "Ars Poetica" to Rhetoric will be

treated from other aspects later. Vid. p. 109 ff. infra.
.
16
rhetorical pattern cenrot agree among themselves as to the
application of their plan tc the "Are Poetica," though each
can be dogmatic enough in pvtting forward his own view.
There is one division, t.lven by Norden, which can be
accepted. I have left it until last as it is by no means the
peculiar property of the advocates of a division on rhetor-
ical lines. The "Ars Poetica" falls into two large divisions.
Vv. 1-294 deal with the art of poetry; vv. 295-475 with the
poet. I do not think that there is any need to try to prove
this. A reading of the work makes it plain, and it is ad-
mitted by all modem editors and commentators.*'
DIVISIONS BASED CM KEOPTOLEtlUS
The two Horatian scholars who put foirward a division
based on Neoptolemus are Rostagni and Iminisch. They agree as
regards the two main divisions referred to above, but dis-
agree in their subdivisions of the first section.
Later it will be necessary to deal at greater length
with questions arising from Hellenistic poetics.*' Here we
are interested in the question of divisions introduced into
Hellenistic treatises on poetry. According to Philodemus,
one Andromenides introduced a three-fold division into the
study of poetics. The three main sections were riot*nô.^
^<p'»7t?"/^ and '1î:?/tq'^t]^ • Of these -<c7^*ja^ dealt with matters
of form, the various genres and their component parts; '^/o/t^S'/s
1. Vld. Norden, op^ c,it. 507, ana Earwlck: Die Gliederung der
rhetoriachen ^^t^ûnd die Horazlsche Epistula ad Pisones,
p. 48 ff
2. Vid. p. 98, note 1, infra.
3. Vid. p. 77 ff, infra.
.
17
dealt with poetry ae a wholei, with special reference to eub-
ject matter; '^/s'/*7'r»«S dealt with the poet himself. This divi-
sion was not accepted by all. At least we know that Philo-
demus, the friend of Horace, was bitterly oppotiod to £.dmitting
the division between 'a**' /*;/*.«- and "TtK/ft^^rS • Amongst other
reasons he urged the impossibility of makJni;, a clear-cut divi-

sion of the section on the art of poetry into subsections on
^(On^/4.a. and tioitîTiS
Can we find a division into ôfyj/iA-CL and <«?/^«r/S 1b
the .section dealing, with the art of poetry in Horace (vv. 1-
J^94}? Rosta^ni flrtis auch a division and assigns verses 1-41
to ôiyjTiS and verses 42-294 to "Ha^tt^â. . This division
is very unsatisfactory. Vv. 1-41 have only a few lines that
could be referred in a special way to ^c-'>7ir/ff and in these
(w. 58-41) the subject matter is treated in a very general
way and in relation with what is gone before. How can sim-
plicity and unity (vv. 1-37) be referred to ^xyniCT/S while

order, choice of words and composition (vv. 42-86) are assigned
to <,oiyi/iA.CL ? The selection of line 41 as the point of divi-
sion is very arbitrary anc seems to be motivated by the rhetor-
ical division of Norden.
Immlsch divides this section at v. 152. Cn the face
of it this division labours under the disadvantage that it
fails to keep the proportion which existed between ^<^//7</'/5
and
y /
in Hellenistic works in general and in Neoptolemua
'/r<»^f^««.
18
In particular. The section on <'<:»/ #r^<Jt was generally longer
and contained a more extensive troatment than that onîcnyfîs ,^

/
The restriction of -^*>/«f/iirt. to the section formally dealing
with the drama seems very rigid. This section would cer-
talnly belong to "<»/'7/<^ , but no satisfactory reasons are
urged to justify the exclusion from this section of tie pass-
ages on the relation between style and character (86-92),
types of character (119-127), originality (128-162), etc.
Philodemus, with Neoptoleraus before him, spoke of
the difficulty of distinguishing between 't'e"lJ'/S and '^la'tîia..
If Horace followed Neoptolemus in this division, the diffi-
culty certainly passed on to him. There is hardly a place
where this division could be located without raising doubts
and difficulties. Because of what I believe to have been
Horace's special purpose In writing the "Ars Foetica," I am
inclined to think that no such division is to be found in
the work. With a particular and practical purpose in view,

which called for eirphasizing certain pcinte from different
aspects and keeping the particular reed of the addressees in
mind, it would be very difficult to follow, except in the
broadest outline, s work meant for other men and other times.
We should not, either, forget the possible influence of
Philodemus. He was closely connected with the Pisos and with
Horace. Very probably it was through him that Horace became
1. Philodemus VIII. Cf. Atkins, op. cit. I, p. 171,

acquainted with the works of Neoptolemus. He was bitterly
opposed to this subdivision in the work of Neoptolemus and
this opposition must have been known to Horace and may have
Influenced him. Considering then the nature of the man, the
natvire of the work, the difficulty of maintaining the divi-
sion and the influence of Philodemus, we have grounds for
concluding that Horace abandoned this division of the first
section.
OTHER DIVISICNS SUGGESTED
Wickham divides the work at v. 284 and subdivides
the first section at v. llC . In his plan vv. 1-118 deal
with general principles and vv. 119-284 with the application
of these principles to the various genres, especially the
drama. The role of the drama, however, begins to predominate
before v. 118. His division at v. 284 is easy to understand.
Vv. 285-508 are transitional and could form the introduction
to the new section or be regarded as the conclusion to the
section before. Wlckham, I tnlnk, makes his division for
convenience, sake and does not seek to maintain that it traces
its origin back to Horace.
Wilklns subdivides the first section at v. 72 and
regards w. 1-72 as treating of some general principles and
vv. 73-288 as containing the application of these principles
to various kinds of poetry, especially the drama. His

20
division, with some few modifications, will suit the plan
postulated by the special nature and purpose of the work.'^
DIVISION BASED ON NATURE AND PURPOSE

OF THE WORK
I have set forth above some coneideretions that go
to show that Horace was Interested in directing the Plsos In
an attempt at writing satyr-drama. If this is so, the work
must be built around the section on satyr-drama (vv. 220-250).
This section Is preceded by a passage on tragedy niainly,
where the application of rules is easier to see and examples
more abundant. Before this is a section dealing with metre,
diction, plot-material, character, written with an eye on
the drama. Before this is a general section on unity, sim-
plicity, etc.
Thus I would divide the work as follows:
Maxims of universal application - vv. 1-72

The Drama - vv. 72-294
The Poet - vv. 294-476.
Before giving the sequence in greater detail a word on the
final section (294-476) and its subdivisions will be appropri-
ate. Here there is not so much ground for disagreerrent. The
advocates of the rhetorical plan endeavour to see in this
section a close parallel to the treatitent of the orator in
works specifically devoted to rhatoric. The same general
criticism as given above applies to their handling of this
1. Wilkin 8 does not accept the presence of a practical

purpose in the work.
21
section. More will be said on this head in the section
dealing with Horace and Cicero.
We may here set down the plan of the "Ars Poetica"
in detail:
Section 1; w. 1-72
1-37 Unity and simplicity.

36-41 Selection of suitable subject.
42-45 Order.
46-72 Choice of words.
Section 2; 75-294
73-79 Metre for various genres, leading up to

79-80 Metre for drama.
81-82 Reason for adoption of this metre.
83»88 Diction - general remarks, loading up to
89-118 Diction of drama:
(a) 89-98 Separate diction of tragedy and
comedy: exceptions.
(b) 99-113 Diction must te appropriate to
passions represented.
(c) 114-118 Diction must be appropriate to type
of character, his age, rank,
occupation, national background.
119-127 Possible characters for drama.
128-150 Original versus traditional plot for drama.
131-135 How to use traditional plot.
136-139 Do net make in drama the mistake so often made in
the kindred genre, epic, viz., a beginning too
pretentious.
139-152 Take example rather from Homer.
153-178 Treatment of various cnaracters.
179-188 Tragic action.
189-190 Length of drama.
191-192 Deua ex Ma china.
193-201 Chorus.
202-219 Music.
220-250 Satyr-drama:
(a) 220-224 History.
(b) 225-239 Diction.
(c) 240-243 Plot.
(d) 244-247 Treatment of character.
(e) 248-250 Keep the audience in mind.
251-274 Metre for drama; more detailed ano concrete treatment.
275-294 History of drama.
1. Vld. p. 121 ff . infra.

2
22
Section g; 295«476
29O-308 Transition.
309-332 Need of training in Philosophy.
333-346 Object to be kept in view,
347-360 It is impossible to escape all blemishes.
361-390 Mediocrity, however, cannot be tolerated.
391-407 High office of poet.
408-452 Relative places of genius and labour.
453-476 Eccentricities to be avoided; typical Horatian
ending in lighter vein.
ARS POETICA AND HORACE'S OTHER liiORKS ON CRITICISM
Satires
Horace's Interest In criticism came early in his
literary career. His Satires contain a no Inconsiderable
amount of material on this subject, bub there is little of
It that can be brought into relation with iriis "Ars Pootlca."
On the whole it revolves round a few points. One of his
Satires^ contained a good deal of bitter attack on individ-
uals, and the question was raised as to what right anyone
had to indulge in personal invective of this kind. Tills
was not the first time that this question was raised.
Luclllus had been forced to answer vsimilar questions,
Horace, In his answer, defended satire, maintaining that it
was the successor of the Old Comedy, 3 thou^î th<3 changes
through which it had passed were sufficient to warrant its
being considered a new genre, ^ ;Te argued that the strictures
1. I, 2.
2. Frs. 1017; 1027-1028.
3. Sat. I, 4,3.
4. Sat. I, 10,66.
of satire were directed towards vice ana that only evil-doera
had anything to fear, evidently overlooking the fact that men
to be safe would need to conform to the satirist's concept
of virtue and vice. In going over this ground, he was
forced to put forward his own views on Satire and attempt a
kind of "operis lex" for the genre. The remainder of his
literary criticism in the Satires is directed towards defend-
ing himself against the censures which his strictures on
Lucilius brought upon him from the latter' s admirers.
There are in the Satires some indications of the
growth of the traits that later were so characteristic of
Horace. Perhaps the most outstanding is his insistence on
the need of perfection and of what he later called the "limae
labor. "2 This is implicit in practically all the judicial
criticism of the Satires.
Epistles
The First Book of Horace's Epistles was published
in 20 B.C. Literary criticism does not loom large in this

Book. Nevertheless there are a nianber of things which are,
it seems to me, of interest in view of what appears in the
"Ars Poetics. " Horace maintains that he is resolved to
abandon "versus et cetera ludicra" and to study the more
serious problems of life.^ This is worth noting when we
1. A. P. 135.
2. A. P. 291.
3. Ep. I, 1,10. Horace himself realized that his tone in gen-
eral was inclined to be on the lij^hter side. Vid. Od. 1, VI,
20: "non praeter solitum ieves."
24
examine the general tone of the Epistles of the Second Book.
Here, in Epistles I and II, Horace Is endeavouring to treat
seriously of literary questions. Yet occasionally the old

spirit of sportive satire carries him away, and he comments
on human foibles and social conditions to a noticeable
extent. When we come to the "Ars Poetica," we find almost
none of these satirically hiomorous digressions, as if Horace
had at last overcome, as far as It was possible for one of
his temperament, his natural tendency to satire. Again in

this Book, he emphasizes the role of philosophy as an abso-
lute requisite for a happy iife,^ Just as in the "Ars
Poetica" he insists on the need of It for effective writing.^
He pays tribute to Homer as a teacher of philosophy here
and in the "Ars Poetica" proclaims his merits as a literary
model. ^ His practical advice to Celsus on the use to be
made of literary models foreshadows his more detailed advice

on the same subject in the "Ars Poetica."
It Is in the literary Epistles of the Second Book,
however, that we find the more important part of Horace's
literary views, apart froqtthose fo\ind in the "Ars Poetica."
Epistle II of this book was published first. In form it seems
1. Ep. I, 2. Cf. 5,25.

2. A. P. 309.
S. Ep. I, 2,3-4.
4. A. P. 140 ff.
5. Ep. I, 3, 15 ff, Cf. 1,19.
6. A. P. 128 ff. We may note, too, that Ep. I, 3 has a some-
what humorous simile, while the A. P. contains cold
facts.
25
more closely akin to the milder Satires than to the Epistles,
From a quantitative point of view, the amount of real liter-
ary criticism contained in this Epistle is small. The letter
purports to deal with literary questions, but Horace almost
seems to be seeking opportunities to digress into htunorous
sketches, which, though used in the manner of explanations
and similes, are drawn with such vividness and detail that
it requires an effort not to forget the main theme and con-
centrate on the digression. A person who approached this
Epistle and read it thro\igh, without having decided before-
hand to concentrate on some one aspect of it, would be likely
to remember it, not by the literary criticism contained in
it, but rather by its satiric pictures of the slave-sale,
the plvmdered soldier, life at Rome, the man of Argos,*
etc. In addition to this, a considerable amount of space is
devoted to an inculcation of the doctrine of the necessity
of being content with little and "nil admirari." The general
tone of the letter, thus shown, is not, I think, without its
significance when we come to consider the date of the "Ars
Poetica," and will be treated later vinder that heading.
Amongst the literary questions treated here and also
found in the "Ars Poetica," we have the question of the need
of a self-criticism and an honest criticism from another^
1. 1-17.
2. 26-40.
3. 65-87.
4. 128-140.
5. Ep. II, 2.110; A. P. 386 ff.
26
and the danger of the overlndulgent and sycophantic criti-
cism. The remarks are far less pointed than in the "Ara
Poetica" and are conveyed by means of a hvmorous story.
The closest relationship between the "Ars Poetica"
and this Epistle is to be found in the treatment of the

p
question of Diction. In both the role of "usus" as a criter-
ion is stressed. The utility of coining new words and re-
viving ones now obsolete is recognized. Finally in both we
find a metaphor from irrigation, thou^ its application is
not the same in both.*^
The Epistle to Augustus is more consistently devoted
to literary matters, but I cannot find a great deal in it
that can be compared or contrasted with the "Ars Poetica."
Horace's mind seems to be here dominated by a feeling of
despair, arising from a realization of the unorthodox criteria
of the literary judges and the eccentric desires of the aver-
age Roman theatre audience. He realized that a Roman play-
wright was faced with a dilemma. His audience would be made
up of two classes - the "equites" and the "plebs virbana" -
and that it required a very nice discretion to avoid antag-
onizing one or the other. In this Epistle he refers to the
danger of losing the attention of the plebs, ^ while in the
1. Ep. II, 2,87 ff; A. P. 419 ff.

2. Ep. II, 2, 111-125; A. P. 46-72.
5, The metaphor in the Epistle is clear-cut ana obvious; the
one in the A. P. is not so clear, but is, as Wickham points
out, contained in the "Graeco fonte cadent" of v, 53.
4. Ep. II, 1, 182 ff.
. ^
27
"Ars Poetica" he warned against ignoring the "equites."
His treatment of the question of the audience is not without
Its significance, when we consider the purpose behind the
writing of each of these pieces of Horace. The Tplstle to
Augustus is perfunctory and theoretical in its treatment of
the audience. One can see Horace's longing for a radical
change in the standards of criticism and the apprerietlon of
the audience. The "Ars Poetica" has a practical end in view.
In It Horace accepts the audience as it is, and advises the
poet as to how he must accommodate himself to its tastes.
In like manner in this Epistle he treats at length of the
question of "ancients versus moderns." This, too, is a ques-
tion of a theoretical nature as is referred to in passing in
the "Ars Poetica."
He refers to the universal "scribbling craze," then
in evidence at Rome, and as in the "Ars Poetica" bemoans the
fact that, while men realize and recognize the need for tal-
ent and technical preparation in other matters, everyone
regards himself as equal to the task of writing poetry.^
This "madness," he admits, has its advantages, if it can but
be effectively directed - the task which he undertook for the
Pisos in the "Ars Poetica," In connection with this there is
a passage' in praise of the poet's power for good. It has
1. A. P. 248 ff
2. On the score of date, could it not also be reasonably urged
that the stage of resigned acceptance of an audience is
subsequent to the state of desire to reform it?
3. Ep. II, 1, 103 ff; A. P. 379 ff.
4. 124 ff.
£8
many of the characterlstica of a rhetorical ^ '«<?$' ^ but
is not so extreme in tone as the corresponding passage In the
''Ars Poetica." Its presence here is not to be wondereci at,

y
for though akin to a rhetorical ô'iioS , it is no doubt but
an extension of the idea that the poet "serves the State. "^
This would be the aspect of poetry that woulc appeal most to
Augustus. The passage ends with a section dealing with the
role of the chorus.^ We shall refer aâin to the section on
the chorus in the "Ars Poetica,"^ but we may point out here
that the section In the "Ars Poetica" would seem, both In f ona
and content, much more suited to this Epistle than the on©
that is actually found there, since ttie former assigns to the
chorus th© role of praising frugality, Jvatice, law and peace,
while the latter deals exclusively with prayers to Gods in
whom neither Horace nor Augustus in all probability believed.®
We may, however, note that the chorus' prayers in tnis Epistle
are connected with obtaining prosperous harvests and averting
dangers, and this is, I would think, due to Augustus' desire

7
to return to the fiindanental idea of the old Roman worship*
The same aspect of the religious revival under Augustus would
•eoi to influence the lines that follow this passage.^
1. Vid. p. 153 ff , infra.

2. A. P. 391 ff.
5. Ep. II, 1,124 - the first line of the passage under discussion.
4. rb. 134 ff.
5. A. P. 195 ff. Vid. p. 58, infra.
6. Vid. Rostovtzeff: Augustus (Univ. of Vtis. Stud, in Lang, and
Lit. No. 15), p. 134 ff.
7. Vid. Fowler; "The Religious Experience of the Roman People,
p. 430 ff.
8. Ep. II, 1, 139 ff.
.
S9
He disclaims any idea of turning to the writing of
drama himsolf,^ and begs Augustus not to ignore those who

p
write not for spectators but for readers. Again he blames
the poet who hesitates to blot, or resents criticism,'^ and
points out that a "purple patch" is not sufficient grounds

5
for recoinmending a piece of literature. In all these
instances the Epistle seems less developed than the "Ara
Poetica"; the teaching on these points seems less crystal-
lized and is not put forth as forcibly and as positively as
in what I believe to be the later work. There are other
smaller points common to the t%vo Epistles and in every
instance the treatment in the "Ars Poetica" seems fuller and
more detailed. This may be seen in tne following passages,
common to both;- the influence of the temperament of the
Greeks and Romans on their literatures; the defects result-
ing from the Roman vice of avarice; the drama; the attack
on Plautus by name
DATE OF THE "ARS POETICA"
The date of this Epistle, like most other aspects
of it, has given rise to much discussion. In general
Horatian scholars have assigned the work to one of two per-
iods - either to the lyrical period of 24-20 B.C. or to the
closing years of Horace's life about 12-8 B.C. We must now,
1. lb. ISO
2..lb. 214 ff. Via. Pairclough: Horace, p. 594.
3. Ep. II, 1, 167 ff.
4. lb. 221 ff . Cf. A.P. 438 ff.
5. lb. 73 ff. Cf . A.P. 15,
so
however, take cognizance of a third suggestion, txiat of
Rostagni, which assigns the work to the year 15 E.C.-^
After examining the evidence on both sides, I am led
to two conclusions - that no one date can bo established with
certainty and that the evidence points to the later date as
the more probable, I shall first give the arg-uraents in
favour of tais date and later try to rr-eet the objections of
the advocates of an earlier date.
External Evidence
The scholiast, Porphyrion, states that the father
of the youths addressed was Lucius Calpurnius Piso, "a poet
and a patron of liberal studies." "A priori," there is
hardly another family more likely to be addressed In a lit-
erary epistle by Horace. Tne father of this piso was Lucius
Plao Caesonlnus, the friend and patron of Philodemus, to
whom Horace owed so much, and In whose villa at Herculaneiun
the fragments of Philodemus' work were found. Moreover,
Horace himself was connected with this house. Unless very

strong evidence to the contrary can be brought forward, we
should, I think, accept Porphyrion' s statement. This Lucius
Calpurnius Piso was bom in 49 B.C.^ At the time of Horace's
death he would be forty-one years old. His sons would have
1. Rostagni: Arte Poetica Dl Orazlo, p. XVI ff.

2. Vld. Atkins: op. cit. II, 49.
3. Vld. V.ickham: Horace, 2, 532. Some say 48 E.G. Vid.
Atkins: oda clt. II, p. 68; Vkilkins: Horace Epistles,
p. 321. ^9 E.G. seema more probable. Cf. Tac. Ann. 6,10.
31
graduated from the school of the "grîrjTiatlcus" at the age of
seventeen, or even when yovmger, and at that age would enter

p
on their "tlrcclnluir" for some profession. We know that
Romans generally married at an early age.*^ Assuming that
Lucius Calpurnius Piso married at the age of twenty, there
is no reason to think that his sons would not te old enough
to te addressed in s literary epistle during the closing
years of Horace's lifej and moreover, if family tradition
counts for anything, these young men would certainly be inter-
ested in literature. Horace speaks of them as "sons worthy
of their father,"^ and It may not be amiss to see here an
indication that he saw in them some signs at least of the
literary qualities which, according to Porphyrion, character-
ized their father.
It is of course quite possible that Pcrphyrian
could have made a mistake. It is well, however, to remember
that some were able to marshal an imposing array of proofs
to show that the same commentator covild not have teen correct
when he spoke of Horace's dett to Neoptolemus.^ Later dis-
coveries were to prove that he was quite justified In his
statements in that instance.^ Nor can it be forcefully
urged that a mistake is rendered m.ore probable ty the fact
1. Vid. Marquardt: Prlvatleben der Romer, p. 130 ff.

2. Vid. Fowler: Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero,
p. 194 ff.
3. Vid. Johnston: Private Life of the Romans, p. 61.
4. A. P. 24.
5. E.g., Hitter's edition (Leipzig 1857); Michaelis: "De
Auctoribus quos Hcratius in libro de Arte Pcetica secutus
esse videtur (Kiel 1857). Wickham: Horace 2, Sb5.
6. Vid. p. 80 ff infra.
^
32
that there were sevaral notable men with the name of Piso.
Porphyrion too knew tills and took pains to Identify the one
he had In mind.
In view of all tils it is, to say the least of It,
strange that some editors should, almost withovit examination,
re^jard Porphyrion 'a statement as impossible or nearly so.
Internal Evidence
In Ep. I, 1,10, Horace sets forth his determination
to stop trifling and devote hiirself to more serious matters.
We may expect that, in his dealing with those serious matters,
he will manifest a more sober and restrained tone. We have
his own dictum that "jests become the merry, solemn words the
grave." If we examine the Epistles of Book II from this
aspect, we can easily see that there is a considerable dif-
ference in tone between the three Epistles. All three purport
to deal with literary matters. Nevertheless in Epistle II,

which came first in time, the tone is definitely light. The
witty observations on the foibles of iren , the brilliant,
lively dialogue and repartee, the humorous stories dominate
the Epistle to such an extent that they almost overshadow
entirely the literary theory found there.
Epistle I contains much less of these digressions
and explanations in lighter vein. Horace's struggle "ponere
1. A. P. 107.
2. Vid. p. 25 supra for specific references to these stories,
etc.
53
ludicra" evidently meets with more success liere. Occaaion-
aily, however, the old tendency to "oecome somewhat sportive
manifests itself.-'- In the ''Ars Poetica," however, tnere is
little In this sportive vein, and what there is of this Is
not spontaneous but celiberate. It would seem that at last
Horace had succeeded in his attempt "ponere luaicra."
As regards the matter contained in these literary
Epistles, there are certain points of resemblance - espe-
cially between the "Ars Poetica" and Epistle I. Among the
topics common to both are: comparison of the temperament
which the Greeks and Romans brought to literature; the detri-
mental influence of avarice on Roman literature; tue evil
influence of a sensation-seeking audience; a rhetorical '0<ioS
on tho value of poetry; a comparatively long treatment of
the drama; specific mention of the same men - Plautus and
Choerllus; criticism of the belief that anyone can write
poetry. In all these instances the treatment In the "Ars
Poetica" Is fuller, more pointed, and more detailed, and con-
veys an impression of greater maturity. This at least points
to a later date of composition. This argument seems to me
to be considerably strengthened by a reference which some
have assumed to indicate that the "Ars Poetica" preceded the
Epistle to Augustus. Suetonius in his life of Horace says.
1. E.G., S3 ff; 87; 109-110; 204 ff.

2. Some of these topics are treated on p. ff , supra.
3. Via. Fairclough: Horace, Satires, Epistles, Ars Poetica,
p. 3b>2-39£.
54
in reference to the Epistle to Aut,ustus, "Augustus appreci-
ated hie writings so highly that after reading some of his
'Sermones' and finding no mention of himself in them, he sent
him this complaint: 'I would have you know that I am angry
with you, because in your many writings of this kind you have
nothing specially directed to me. Do you fear that posterity
will consider it a aiscredit on your part if you seem to have
been intimate with me?' And so he wrung from the poet the
selection addressed to Mm, which opens witxi txxe words 'cum
tot sustineas.'" Vi/ith few exceptions-'- the accuracy of this
statement of Suetonius is not questioned. There Las, however,
been much discussion as to what is to be understood by the
"Sermones" referred to by Suetonius. V.'e are not here con-
cerned with their identification, but whatever they were, the
"Ars Poetlca" cannot be included amongst them. If we include
it, we are forced to the conclusion that Horace, in answer
to Augustus' remonstrances, "honoured" him by sending him an
abridged edition of an already existing selection. This
would be in the most doubtful taste, and the thinly veiled
sliest that it would imply could not possibly escape one of
Horace's keen, sensitive perception. Vke might go further

here and maintain that, even though Augustus had net the "Ars
1. Hitter, op. cit. thinks that Suetonius was ir.istaken. He

accepts the story of Augustus' complaint, but thinks that
the Epistle written in answer n&s the t':irteenth of Bk. I.
This Epistle seems entirely too uniirportant to meet the
facts of the case.
2, Vid. Mommsen in Hermes XV, p. 105 ff; Fairclough, op. cit.
p. 393.
od
Poetica" in mind, it could not have been published. Augustus

would certainly have known of ita existence and the sli^t
referred to above would still have to be considered.
Metre and Language
The Hexameter of Horace's earlier and later poems
shows a marked divergence. In the later poems there is a
marked decrease in monosyllabic endings, broken rhythms at
the beginning, elision of monosyllables, etc. Hovifever, the
big divergence is between the Satires and Epistles. The
changes between one Epistle and another are not marked enough
to Justify basing any argtiment on them. This may be seen in
the fact that advocates of the aifferent dates can find some
support for their claims in the management of the Hexameter
and also in the caution and reserve with which men, so posi-
tive on other scores, offer their proofs from metre. More
consideration, too, should be given to the fact that Horace
was using a Greek source here. This could have influenced
his rhythms ccansiderably. At least it seems certain that the
source is accountable for the frequercy of monosyllabic and
quadrisyllable endings in Book X of Virgil's Aeneid. Haupt,
Mlchaells and Waltz examined the question of the metre, and
when one seeks to reduce their observations and tabulations
to brief form, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that
in some points the "Ars Poetica" is close to the epistles of

Ofi
Book I and In others to those of Book II. It would seem, then,
that no worth-while argxanent can be based on the metrical
structure of the work.
Arguments for an Earlier Date
The argximents for an earlier date are all arguments
from internal evidence, and unless definite references can be
produced, it is always wise to be cautious in dealing with
this type of evidence. German so-called "Higher Criticism"
of the last century had recovirse to internal evidence as a
sort of panacea to settle all disputed questions. The con-
clusions of the critics in many instances have had to be
drastically modified, and even their best exponents have at
times allowed their faith in the inerrancy of Internal evi-
dence to lead them into ridiculous positions.-^ Remembering
the need for caution, let us examine the arguments of the
advocates of an early date.
Maecius is mentioned as a critic whose judgment
should be sought. 2 Cicero mentions, with evident disapproval,
a Maecius, who presided over some functions at the opening
of the first permanent stone theatre, erected by Pompey in
1. The classic case is that of Dr. Melnhold's "Bernsteinhexe"

(The Amber Witch). This story was written in 1826 and
first published in its entirety in 1843. Dr. Meinhold, its
author, pretended that it was from an old MSS dating back
to 1631. The famous school of "Higher Criticism" at Tubin-
gen, after some hesitation, declared it genuine. England
followed the German lead and waxed enthusiastic about the
work. Both had to admit later that they had been trapped
into making a puerile mistake. For full acco\int vid. The
(London) Quarterly Review, No. CXLVII, Vol. 74, pp. 199-
223; The Athenaeum, No. 876, 10 Au£,ust, 1849.
2. A. P. 387.
37
55 B.C. Advocates of an early date assume that the person
referred to in both instances is the same and further assume
that he was so old in 55 B.C. that it would be impossible
for him to be still living in 10 B.C. This line of reasoning
contains two gratuitous assumptions - relative to the iden-
tity of the persons m.entioned and the age of the man mentioned
In Cicero. It is quite possible that there are two different
men in question. Moreover, it is quite possible that the
Maecius of Cicero was only about twenty years old,^ and was
still living at sixty-five in 10 B.C. There still remains
the interpretation of the line which I regard as the correct
one, viz., that the name Maecius is used in this instance in
Horace as a type of critic*^ Just as he uses Craterus as a
type of physician.^ The arguments used above (or at least
the first two of them) may be used also to answer the objec-
tion based on the fact that Cascellius,^ who was at least
known as a lawyer in 56 B.C., could not have been living in
10 B.C. In addition, from the text of Horace it is not at
all necessary to postulate that Cascellius was living when
the line was written, as the coupling of his name with that
of Messalla, who certainly was still alive, does not necessi-

n
tate this. As regards the reference to (ûintllius Varus,
1. Fam. 7,1: "nobis autem erant ea perpetienda quae Sp.

Maecius probavisset," The letter was written in 55 B.C.,
probably in October.
2. Could it be that Cicero's disapproval was on account of
Kaecius' youth?
S. Vid. Vkickham, note ad loc; Fairclout£,h' s translation shows
that this is his interpretation too.
4. Sat.- 2,3,161. 5. A. P. 371. 6. Macrob. 11,6,1.
7. A. P. 438.
58
the tense shows that he was dead, but despite the statement
of Wllklns,! I can see nothing, in these lines to incicate
that his death was of recent occurrence.
Another set of arguments is based on the silence of
Horace as regards certain matters. Attention is called to
the fact that there is no mention of Auj-ustus, no mention
of the poet's advancing age, little mention of Virgil. It
is further argued that the one reference to Virgil supports
the theory of an early date, since it implies the existence
of a controversy which must have been ended by the time the
Aeneid had been nine or ten years before the public.
The most formidable of these arguments is the one
connected with Virgil. His almost complete silence about
Virgil is certainly str&nge. In tals respect, I do not
think that sufficient attention has been paid to the purpose
of the "Ars Poetica" as a factor explaining this silence.
Horace was writing to direct young men interested in the
writing of Satyr-drama. It is difficult to see how his pur-

pose could In any way be served by references to Virgil.
Besides, why should we expect to find praise of Virgil in a
work written in 10-8 B.C.? Top?aise Virgil then would be
but to "gild the lily"; it would sound trite and commonplace,
if not positively presumptuous and patronising. Virgil was

by this time accepted and recognized by the critics and the
public generally. However, when we reflect on the tenacity
1. Op. cit. 331.

39
with which men cling to literary opinions, we may be sure

that there were some who still found i<,rounds for adverse
criticism in the Aeneid, and it is to such as these no ooubt
that line 55 is directed, though I consider it very likely
that "Vergilio" is used here to mean "a man like Virgil,"
Before leaving this topic we might remark that the Eplatle
to Augustus belongs at the earliest to the years 14-13 B.C.
Virgil was five years dead. The selection contains one
reference to him-'- and the compliment is only indirect.
Directly, Horace is praising Augustus and pointing to the
superiority of his literary Judgment over that of Alexander.
Why should we expect that three or four years should have

produced a change so great that Virgil would loom large in
a work of 10-8 B.C.?
In connection with the arg\iment based on Horace's

silence in regard to Augustus, there are two factors to be
considered. Firstly, the definite and serious purpose which
Horace had in mind would tend to exclude obiter dicta and
irrelevant references. Secondly, Augustus had attempted to
write a play*^ and had been forced to admit failure. It would
not be in good taste to refer to him in a work dominated by
maxims on drama-writing.
Horace was silent as regards himself. He had never
attempted to write a play. There was no past experience of
1. 247.
2. D' Alton: Roman Literary Theory and Criticism, p. 452.
40
his that could help the Pisos. Therefore we find no biograph-
ical details and consequently no reference to advancing age.
The same reason, I think, explains the omissions of any ref-
erence to Maecenas.
Rostagni's Date -*-
Rostagni sets the date at 15 B.C. His argument rests
on a two-fold basis. He recognizes the close affinity between
the "Ars Poetlca" and the Epistle to Augustus, and argues
from that that they must have been written within a few years
at most of each other. He accepts the theory that the
"Sermones" mentioned by Suetonius includes the "Ars Poetica."
Therefore it must antedate the Epistle tD Augustus. Accord-

ingly, he argues, the "Ars Poetica" was written before the
Epistle to Augustus but only a short time before. The Epistle
to Augustus was written in 14-15 B.C., and he selects 15 B.C.
as the date for the "Ars Poetica."
We may admit the affinity between these two selec-
tions, though Rostagni seems to overemphasize it. This affin-
ity points to proximity in date, but does not of itself settle
the order of composition, unless when taken in conjunction
with the second assumption - that the "Sermones" of Suetonius
include the "Ars Poetica." This last point has been dealt
with before and the theory placing the "Ars Poetica" among
these "Sermones" has been rejected. There is no need to go
over the ground here again.
1. Op. cit. p. XVI ff.

41
Siimniary
The principal reason for selecting a late date for
the "Ars Poetica" is the statement of Porphyrlon and the
fact that there seems to be no cogent reason for rejecting
this statement. We do, however, know that scholiasts some-
times, with a tone of perfect knowledge, offer interesting
biographical details about persons mentioned where they must
be either drawing on their imagination or quoting unreliable
authorities.-^ Nevertheless, I would tnink that, in the
absence of strong evidence to the contrary, the statement of
a scholiast, not generally regarded as unreliable, should be
presxamed true.
When we leave Porphyrlon 's statement, we are deal-
ing with internal evidence, and the subjective factor plays
80 large a part in tnis that conclusions are always suspect.
In the question at issue here, I would, with all caution,
offer the opinion that even the internal evidence, for what
it is worth, points to the later date.
1. The scholion on petlllius Capitolinus in Horace, Satires,

1,4,94, is an example of this.
SECTION II
42
TRENDS IN LITERft^RY CRITICISM FFCM ARISTOTLE TO HORACE
For Aristotle, the great literary type was the drama.
In drama, tragedy was for him the all important section, and
when he came to deal with tragedy, he devoted his attention

go
largely to plot. It is not necessary to/into Aristotle in
detail, when dealing with subsequent trends in literary crit-
icism. His writings were not available to writers of the
Hellenistic period. •'•

They had, however, become available in
Rome before Horace wrote his "Ars Poetica."
Aristotle died in 322 B.C. Even before his death,
Athens had ceased to be the leading political power that it
had been. Its intellectual influence was already on the
wane, and by 300 B.C. it had ceased to be the centre of
Greek intellectual life. Its place was taken by Alexandria
and later by Pergamum, while other centres, like Antioch,
Syracuse, Rhodes, Hallcarnassus, Tarsus and Ephesus, became,
to some extent, the focal points of a new and somewhat modi-
fied Greek culture. Libraries were founded. Princes patron-
ized literature. For a while at least, the chief interest
was in preserving the ancient Greek culture.
Conditions were widely different from what they had
been in Athena. Life was no longer so simple, and the changed
times are reflected in the literature of the period. The
drama lost its privileged position. This was particularly
1. Vld. p. 46 infra.
43
true of tragedy. Menander's plays did something to keep
comedy alive, and there was a recr\adescence of satyr-plays
In the third century. Literary coteries sprang up and,
through their influence, considerable attention was paid to

technical skill In handling a theme. The elegy, the idyll,
the didactic poem and the pastoral took the place of the
old lyric and epic. A new style of oratory developed through
the influence of Hegeslas of Magnesia. This style, known as
"Astanism," was highly artificial, and later developed into
the sonorous, bombastic oratory of the first century B.C.
The treatment of poetry \inderwent a considerable
change. Aristotle had considered some of the profounder
problems of poetry. Men now sought a practical exposition
of the nature of poetry, and above all, sought for rules and
methods which would enable one to write poetry. They turned

to a consideration of the '^<^X'i/A/ that had been so success-
ful in the field of rhetoric, and sought to transfer them to,
or parallel them In, the domain of poetry. Aristotle's view

of poetry as dynamic was abandoned in favour of a theory of
poetry as static. The works of the Attic period were taken
as models for the guidance of all future writers. The styl-
istic Characteristics of the various forms of literature of
the Attic oeriod were emphasized, and this save rise to the
idea of various genres conforming to hard and fast stereo-
typed rules.
Schools of Philosophy had their influence in this

44
period too. Their influence is most clearly seen in the
attempts to answer the question: "What is the purpose of
poetry?" The Stoics maintained that the purpose of poetry
Was to teach. Some isolated, but nevertheless influential
theorists, thought that the function of poetry was to give
pleasure. The Peripatetics compromised and assigned to
poetry a double function - to teach and give pleasure. This
question of the purpose of poetry goes deeper than might seem
at first sight. On our attitude to this aspect of poetry
depend* our ideas as to the relative importance of style and
subject matter. If we accept the Stoic view, then subject
matter is the all important thing. If we maintain that the
primary purpose of poetry is to give pleasure, then the

subject matter is relatively unimportant and the form very
Important. If we compromise with the Peripatetics, then
form and subject matter are equally important.
The age in Rome that iirimediately preceded Horace
was dominated from the point of view of critical theories
by Cicero. Cicero's interest was almost entirely in
rhetoric. He has no formal treatment of any other genre,
although references to other literary types do appear as
"obiter dicta" or by way of explanation in his works. Such

references show that Cicero had a deep and keen insight into
poetry and its problems, but they are far too few to have
had any jb rceptible influence on poetics in his own day or
subsequently. His influence on poetry was through his

-
45
theories of rhetoric, not through his casual digression into

poetics.
Before Horace, then, there were:-
1) The age of Aristotle dominated by tragedy,
2) The Hellenistic period, with:

a) Influence of changed political and social
conditions.
b) Interest in technical side, of poetry.
c) Influence of rhetorical -r/jci/^t.
d) Loss of interest in the drama.
e) Evolution of literary genres.
f) Influence of schools of philosophy,
3) The early Graeco-Roman period, the period of the

supremacy of rhetoric.
M^
ARISTOTLE AND HORACE

46
ARISTOTLE AND HORACE; RESEMBLANCES
Plato (428-348 B.C.) set out to reform human life;
his pupil, Aristotle (384-322) set out to reform human know-
ledge. Aristotle wished to effect a rational order in the
existing sciences. These he divided into three classes:
productive sciences (poetry and rhetoric), practical sciences
(politics and ethics), theoretical sciences (mathematics,
physics and metaphysics). The "Poetics" and "Rhetoric" con-
tain his attempt to apply his scientific method to literature.
The productive and practical sciences for Aristotle dealt
with mutable human things and their treatment admitted only

of general rules which could not possibly be of a final
nature. They would need to be changed to suit different tlir.es
and different circumstances. Later ages were to forget this
and convert Aristotle's general rules into immutable laws.
This acceptance of Aristotle's "Poetics" as something final,
together with the scientific nature of the treatise, and its
wealth of aphorisms, helped to increase its influence since
it was easy to remember and did not call for continual refer-
ence to the text. Such was to prove necessary, too, for
Hellenistic literature had not the Poetics or Rhetoric in
their entirety. On the death of Theophrastus (287 B.C,) the
texts of Aristotle came into the possession of a certain
Neleus of Scepsis in the Troad, who hid them to preserve them
from the book-collecting zeal of the Attalids. They were

47
restored to Athens about 100 B.C., and came to Rome after
86 B.C. They may, of course, have been procured from the
library of Alexandria before 100 B.C., but it Is more prob-
able that the doctrine and some of the terminolo^^y filtered
through in compilations and surmiarles.-*- Neoptolemus of P&rlum
used these In his attempt to popularize the teaching of
Ar?stotle and Theophrastus. Neoptolemus* original work is
lost and the only means we have of estimating its content
is the adverse criticism of Phllodemus of Gadara. Horace,
as we shall see, used Neoptolemus extensively and in all
probability had not the complete text of Aristotle at hand.
Thus it is easy to see the nvimber of missing links in the
chain that unites Horace and Aristotle. In addition to this,
we must remember that Horace was not composing a theoretical
work. He was here, as always, writing with his eye on the
concrete circumstances and with the particular needs of hi«
own time in mind.^ For this reason, even if Horace is at
times using Aristotle, he Is adapting him to special circum-
stances and may take liberties with his original by trans-
ferring the concepts and terminology of Aristotle to settings
which they did not have in the original text, or by extending
pithy statements by examples, or by working in some of the
satire from which he could never wholly free himself.
The most we can hope to accomplish in these circum-
1. Atkins: Literary Criticism in Antiq.i ity, I, 167.

2. Kiessling-Helnze, Hcratlus Briefe (ed. 1914), 288.
3. Kroll: Die hlstorische Stellung von Horazens Ars Poetica,
p. 90.
4. Klinger: Hcrazens Brief e an die Pisonem.
48
stances is to point to the main points of reseirblance between
these two writers, Indicating later the exact connection be-
tween the two.
Unity and Simplicity
In vv. 1-41 Horace sets forth his ideas on unity and
simplicity. The keynote is in v. 25 - "In short be your sub-
ject what you will, only let it be simple and one": "Denique
sit quod vis, simplex dumtaxat et unum," The remainder of
these verses are examples in a satiric vein, calculated to
show the absurdities that result from neglect of the prescrip-
tion of V, 25. Throughout these verses painting is used as a
basis of comparison, and the living organism the main figure
used. Aristotle deals with unity In two separate places,
unity for the epic in the Poetics, Ch. XXIII, and for the
drama in Poetics, Ch. VII. In both these cases Aristotle is
referring to unity of plot and in both instances, biologist
as he was, demanded the unity of a living organism - the
structural union of the parts must be such that if any one
of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be dis-
jointed and disturbed."-^ Aristotle was referring here to
structural unity, not to subject matter or finish in treat-
ment. Moreover, comparisons between the poet and painter
are to be found in Aristotle.*^ The similarity of figures
1. Poetics, 1451-a.
2. Atkins, op. cit. 88.
S. 1445-a, 1460-b, et passim; cf. Plautus: Cept. 614, Asin. 729,
49
used and the terminolOi^y (simplex et unum, totum; it/ â.*-
O Ae>\/^ x^/otAÂi '/eA^lc^.,'rÂefol/r^fi.^^ would seem to point to
close resemblance between Horace and Aristotle. However,
If there is any connection, he was adapting the Greek orig-
inal, not merely rendering it in Latin. He extends the
Greek concept of unity considerably, from plot to poetry in
general and from structure to subject matter, treatment and
finish.
In this matter, the doctrine of both Aristotle and
Horace traces its origin back to Plato. He laid down the
law that "every discourse ought to be constructed like a
living creature, liaving a body of its own as well as a head
and feet and with a middle ano extremities also in perfect
keeping with one another and the whole." It is interesting
to note that Plato here was referring to oratory and his
pupil transferred tne concept to drama and epic, while Horace
extended it and further changed its setting.
Diction; 234; 46-72
Aristotle gives an analytic account of the various
kinds of words and of the various elements that may be com-
bined to form a metaphor. We may sum up Aristotle's divi-
sion in two classes:- usual (current) words and lonusual
words (strange, metaphorical, ornamental, newly-coined, leng-
thened, contracted, altered). He says: "The perfection of
T7 Phaedrus, 264 C. Menendez Y Pelayo, Historla de las Ideas

Esteticas in Espana, Vol. I, p. 8, attributes this doc-
trine to Corax but t.lves no references.
50
style is to be clear without beinf prosaic." For t lia we
must effect a nice fueion of usual words, to make it clear;
and of iinusual words, to raise it above the coni'T,onplaoe.
Horace deplores too preat a use of bald, everyday terms.
New words may be coined if they are necessary to make an
abstruse fub.lect clear. Words oomFaratively new may be used,
too, if from a Greek source. ,.ords sanctioned by "usus" may
always be used. Good effect may be obtained by putting a
familiar word in new setting?, thus giving it «j new vigour

and appeal.
It may be seen that both Aristotle and Horace admit

a use of strange, new and coined words, but for opposite
purposes, the one to cain elevntion, the other to attain
clarity in abstruse matters. Despite this, however, there
seems to be a close resemblance between Aristotle and -.orsce.
The terminology here brings them close together, as it does
^lo^Wî^rodrcK /^nJ-T/Kot/^-
in other passages.'^ Dixeris egregie s "''i^
verba dominantia * Oi/o/â-Tcx, fô^fa .

ygj-^j^ inornata =
fditJîL{t^ nomina verbaque - odoârcL Kat p-^/A^fcu .

;
nova fictq perhaps = "^ uôi tiêt/cc ; non exaudita perhaps =
Metre; 7^-86
Aristotle makes Homer the first Iambic poet known
by name; Horace names Archilochus as the first as he was
TT FoeTTcs, 1458a.
£. Vid. p. 5£ infra.
3. Poetics, 1457b-1458b. A. p. 47-72; 224 ff.
61
here following Alexandrian scholars. Their disagreement on
this point would incline one to think that Horace was using
some other source here. However, when Horace said that
Iambic is "fitted for dialogue . . . and born for action" he
may have been going back, directly or indirectly, to Aris-
totle's statement that the iambic is "the most colloquial of
metres, as is shown by the fact that we very often fall Into
it in conversf^tion, " and the iambic and trochaic are metres

2
of movement. This seems more probable when we consider the
resemblance in terminology between the two, e.g, ,t>t*-A6^K''i'cf^ ,
sermo; ^P A.rfi i{^) 1/ , res agore.
Tragedy and Comedy; Separate Diction
As regards diction, Horace and Aristotle are in agree-
ment. In his Poetics, Aristotle made a division between trag-
edy and comedy on a character basis: "Comedy aims at repre-

senting men as worse, tragedy as better than in real life ...
worse, however, not as regards any and every sort of fault,
but only as regards one particular kind, the Ridiculous, wMch

is a species of the ugly."^ Elsewhere he says that the lan-
guage must be "appropriate," and that it will be so "if it
expresses emotions and character and if it corresponds to its
subject." Correspondence to subject means that we must neither
speak casually about weighty matters, nor solemnly about
1. Gilbert, op. cit. p. 150.

2. 1449a; 1459B.
3. Poetics, 1448, 1449.
^
52
trivial ones ... "Each class of men, each type of disposi-
tion, will have its own appropriate way of letting the truth
appear."-^ Tragedy and comedy present a different set of
characters; the characters speak in accordance with their
class and disposition; consequently the diction of tragedy
differs from that of comedy.
Horace's teaching is the same as that of Aristotle,
with concrete satirical comments thrown in. He, however,
admits that tragic diction may at times be found in comedy and

2
vice versa. He was here, perhaps, influenced by the concrete
example of what is found in one of the plays of Terence.
It is quite possible that he was here stating a fact without
committing himself to approval or disapproval. It is worthy
of note, too, that his idea of Comedy seems to be that of
Theophrastus rather than Aristotle.^
Pulchrvnn and Dulce; v. 99
In verse 99 Horace made a distinction between "pul-
chnam" (
i^^ A<J». ^ £?t/) and "dulce" (^^t/). He gives no defin-
ition of "pulchrum," but would, no doubt, like Dionysius of
Halicarnassus^ associate it with IT'^-Uy/oJ and/a^yA.AfTtt?^?/^^.
The "dulce" is that which appeals to the feelings ('Mg.^tiM.A'fCL )
of the hearers, inducing them to tears or laughter, and is
1. Rhetoric, 1408.
2. A. P. 93 ff.
3. Heauton Timoroumenos, Act V, Scene 4.
4. "A harmless brineîng together of private affairs," c.f.
Gilbert op. cit. 131. ;2).^/r/iC.i^/ ^,p^>4ju.A^^^/
iLK(v\ux/oS
5. De Comp. Verb. XI.

53
thus a means of U/l/J(.(X.yiJ\^ fA, (animum agvmto of v. 100),
whereby a man engenders In his audience the emotions which he
hirrself feels. To attain this a man must really feel these
emotions: "if you would have me weep, you must first of all
feel grief yourself; then, and not till then, will your mis-
fortvines, Telephus or Peleus, touch me." The "voltum" of
vv. 105-107 is, no doubt, an echo of the Greek "^p o TiJ ê> t/ •
The same doctrine is fourd in Aristotle; "Those who
feel emotion are most convincing through natural sympathy
with the characters they represent; and one who is agitated

storms, one who is angry rages with the most life-like real-
ity." Aristotle and Horace a^ree as to the means of effect-

•
Ing Cî/XAyt/y/*^ ; and in Horace emotions connected with pity
furnish the majority of the examples, something which may
trace itself back to the "pleasure from pity and fear" of

2
Aristotle. This doctrine came to Horace not directly, but
in all probability through Neoptolemus.
Plot and Character
Aristotle pointed to the existence of plots based on
the traditional legends, and one^ where "the incidents are ''' ^^~
"^'^^^^f,^
fictitious."^ He will not allow the dramatist to interfere
with the received legends, but admits that an entirely fic-

titious plot, constructed on the lines of probability and
1. Poetics 1455a, cf Cicero Orator 132.

.
2. Ibid, 1453b.
3. Neoptolemus, p. BB Infra.
4. 1451b.
54
necessity, may fulfil the purpose of drama. He visualizes
the same possibility as to characters, traditional charac-
ters which must he represented v/ith their traditional traits,
or fictitious characters which must, amongst other things, be
consistent.
By Horace's time the divisions implicit in Aristotle
had, through the influence of rhetoric, become explicit and

^ /
had emerged into a threefold division. /f'ôO/o, (fama)
included the true or real; -tTAa^^^J^ (res flcta), the
probable; iLulfoS (fabula) the absurd or fabulous.*^ Horace

admitted the first two of these: "aut famam sequi aut sibi
convenientia flnge,' agreeing in effect with Aristotle.
For new characters, he agreed with Aristotle in demanding
consistency.^
Compass of Matter Treated and Mode of Treatment; 155-152
Horace deplores the tendency of poets to try to
encompass too much in a single production. He does not crit-
icize any particular poet, but rather the tendency to diffuse-
ness, and the lack of simplicity in dealing with themes. The
cyclic poet had no architectonic sense and did not, as Homer
did, know what to omit. Both doctrine and examples here are
1. Poetics, 1451-b.
2. Ibid, 1451-b, 1454-a.
3. Sextus, Adv. Math. I, 263. Vid. Atkins op. cit. 174.
4. V. 119.
5. Vv. 126-127. See also p. 67 infra.
6. Lines 141-142 are a compressed version of opening lines
of Odyssey.
55
reminiscent of Aristotle: "Observe the v/ondcrful excellence
of Homer, He never attempts to make the whole Trojan war the
subject of his epic, because it would have been too vast.
What he did was to select a single portion and elaborate that."^
Again Horace objects to long preambles and points to Homer as
B model in avoiding this fault. ^ Aristotle, too, paid tribute
to Homer's excellence in this matter: "Homer, after a few
prefatory remarks, brings in a man or woman or other person-
age ..."'-' Here, too, Horace follows Aristotle in paying
tribute to Homer's power of blending true and false: "He
(Homer) so employs fiction, so blends false with true, that
beginning, middle, and end all strike the same note.^ "It is
Homer who has chiefly taught other poets the art of telling
lies skilfully."^
The nature of the material and the characters men-

shov/
tioned ii4sr»/that in these passages Horace was following some
Greek source. The doctrine, the typical Horatian extension
of pithy remarks and the examples used, would incline one to
think that Aristotle was the Greek original he had in mind.
The Drama; 163-219
The Different Agest 156-178 . In assigning charac-
teristics to the different ages, Horace was following Aristotle.
1. Poetics, 1459-a.
2. A. P. 146-149.
3. Poetics, 1460-a.
4. 151-152.
5. 1460-a. Cf. Sextus Adv. Math. 297; Strabo I, 2, 23;
Plautus Pseudolus, 401; Vide p. i?4 infra.
66
The terminology leaves no doubt as regards this. Horace is

evidently trying to render Aristotle's expressive compounds
in Latin. We may see this in: iram colligit, et ponlt temere,
mutatur in horas, £UU£>fA-pt>hoî utilium tardus provisor,
^<LiA<9i/' O.jpût/'fa.C <PA.f'fî\/ 'tU /iA/\A. 'itoy/ FUJiA.<pipQV"fl^l/;
a\xhli.mt3, ^^ya^XiPCfôX/'^j cupldua, ipl\o'ff/*i^ ; amata

c /
relinquere pemix, Alfil^cPoS ; quaerit et inventis miser
abstinet ac timet utl, *biA, '^ni^ t/A.'u6.ipia.i/ iTA.S'it/ k/S
res omnes timide gelideque mlnlstrat, 7)^'A^^ KA" -^î/îiL
îftocpopfl-fnôl ; avidus futuri, ^lAoS**^^S ;
difflcilis, quenilus, O^hup-Tllôi /(a^ OuK, ôrÂr^^\o<- f^'^^^
Action, Length, the "Deus ex machlna"; 179-192 .
Horace remarks that a thing may happen before the eyes of
the spectators or may be slir.ply reported. The things actu-
ally seen affect us much more than things heard only. Never-
theless, certain thin^^s should be kept from view on the stage
and narrated only: "An action either takes place on the stage
or is announced as having taken place off It. What finds
entrance through the ear strikes the mind less vividly than
what is brought before the trusty eyas of the spectator him-
self. And yet you will not present Incidents which ought to
1. Rhetoric II, 1588-a - ISgo-b. Via. p. Vb infra.

2. Rhetoric II, 1388-a - 1390-b.
67
be enacted behind the scenes, and will remove from sight a
good deal for the actor to relate on the stage by and by -
so that, for example, Medea may not butcher her boys or
savage Atreus cook human fleah in front of the audience...
Anything you thrust under my nose In this fashion moves my
disgust and incredulity."
The germ of the distinction between things to be
enacted on^he stage and things tc be reported ie contained
In Aristotle, but in the context he is dealing ex professo
with another matter - the "Deus ex machina." He speaks of
events "which require to be reported."*^ Everything irra-

tional should, if possible, be excluded; or, at all events,
it should be outside the action of the play." (Cf.^yy^X/A,

refertur.) Aristotle refers also to the fact that things
seen make the deepest impression, but perhaps we should not
attribute much significance to this, as it comes from a work
which Horace is not, I tnink, likely to have read: "Not only
with a view to action, but even when we are not ôing to do
anything, we prefer sight to everything else."^
There is no echo in Aristotle of Horace's prescrip-
tion that a play should have five acts - no more, no less.^
It has no basis in the classical tragedy of Greece and it is
1. 17S ff.
2. Poetics, 1454-b.
3. Ibid, 1450-a.
4. Metaph. 1,1. 1^ language here^ls reminiscent of,
Serodotus 1,6:,(J<a. Y«lA'. -TuyXA*^^' Ai/f/Pk/T/o/S oi/^cu
5. 189. Poetics 1455-b, 14-27, is probably an interpolation.

"
S8
probably due to Hellenistic theorists and may have come to
Horace from Neoptolemus. The divisions of the plays of
Plantus and Terence into five acts is due to grammarians
(influenced no doubt by Horace) and shows in many instances
a deplorable lack of skill. ^ Both agree on the inartistic
nature of the "Deus ex machina." Aristotle says: "It is
therefore evident that the unravelling of the plot ... must
arise out of the plot itself; It must not be brought about
by the 'Deus ex machina, ' as in the Medea."'^ Horace pre-
scribes: "A god must not be introduced unless a difficulty
occurs worthy of such a deliverer." Here we have general
agreement, although Horace's use of "nodus" would seem to
indicate that he could visualize the necessity of the device
to rescue the plot from the hopeless entanglement into which
it had been driven by an unskilful dramatist.
Number of Actors; Chorus; 192-201 . Horace rigidly
restricts the number of actors to three: "Nor should a fourth
actor be forward to speak." Here Horace had in mind those
actually taking part in the dialogue. As regards the chorus,
Horace demands: "The chorus should discharge the part and
duty of an actor with vigour, and chant nothing between the
acts that does not forward the action and fit into the plot
4
naturally.
1. E.g., end of 2nd Act of Mostellaria.

2. 1454-b. I can find no deit^ in the Medea.
3. 191.
4. 193-195.
59
Aristotle merely points to the fact that "Aeschylus
first Introduced a second actor ... Sophocles raised the num-
ber of actors to three. "^ He gives no definite rule. Aris-
totle has the same rules for the chorus as Horace: "The
chorus, too, should be regarded as one of the actors; it
should be an Integral part of the whole, and share In the
action. "2
Literary Genres
Aristotle attempted a division Into genres, accord-

ing as the literary pieces differed in the means, the objects,
and the manner of Imitation* He cannot, however, be regarded
as holding the doctrine of genres rigidly. He recognizes
the development of one genre from another - Comedy from the
Phallic Songs, Tragedy from the Dithyramb. Els real purpose
was to draw up working rules, based on the practice of Homer
and the more outstanding Greek dramatists, for the two great
genres of Epic and Tragedy. As we saw before,*" Aristotle had
no Intention of laying down hard and fast rules. In later
times new genres sprang up, due in no small measure to the
craze of the Alexandrians for novelty.^ Despite, this, how-
ever, the custom arose of drawing up Canons of the great
writers of clapslcal Greece and thus giving their works a
regulative authority. This led to an emphasis on the complete
1. 1449-a.
2. Poetics, 1447-a - 1448-b.
3. Vid. p. 46 supra.
4. Vellius I, 17.
60
distinction between the various poetic genres and the formula-
tion of a set of rules to deal with each. This Is reflected
In the "operls lex" of Horace. This hardening of the divid-
ing line between genres was applied particularly to Tragedy
and Comedy. Plato was the first to set Tragedy and Comedy
in strong antithesis when he declared that the same man can-
not be successful at both. New Comedy gave rise to the con-
ception of this genre as a "species vltae," having as Its
characters hxxmble persons of private station, with a language
akin to the speech of everyday life. Thus both characters
and style of Comedy were in contradistinction to those of
Tragedy, with Its lofty characters and correspondingly high
diction.' The laws of the two genres were worked out so as
to stand in direct opposition. Horace was, perhaps, Influ-
enced by such traditions when he wrote: "A subject for Comedy
refuses to be handled in tragic verse. "^ He, however, recog-
nizes that Comedy may rise above the ordinary level at tines
and Tragedy descend to the same level. "^ The same tradition
may account for the "species" of v. 8 and the "descriptas
vices ... operumque colorea" of v. 86.
1. Accius, Didascalica fr. 8.

2. 135.
3. Republic 395.
4. Poetics, 1448-a, 1449-b.
5. 89.
6. 93 ff.
61
Decorvun
Great Importance was attached to the principle of
Decor\iin (
"^^ %pe'T,k>x,
) in the classical theory of art. This
principle traces its origin hack beyond Aristotle and Plato
to Damon, the musician and sophist so closely connected with
Pericles. To him Plato owes his concept of Decorum. The
concept turns up under the form of '^ <^f>/A.o-77'^*^ in
Aristotle's Poetics, and is especially prominent in the
Rhetoric.'^ In Hellenistic times the concept was extended
from Rhetoric to Poetics, as we may see from Philodemus.
When we come to Horace we find that the concept looms
large in his teaching. This quality, however, is so trans-
cendent that one could extend It to every part of Horace's
teaching and indeed some have done this. We must, there-
fore, be content by pointing out its most prominent manifes-
tations, particularly those where the terminology seems to
indicate that Horace had this virtue specifically in mind.
In V. 92 he sums up the precepts with which he has
been dealing in the words: "Let each particular thing with
decorum (decenter) fill its place." Decorum, too, required

that the words and character should be in harmony: "Sad words
suit (decent) a gloomy countenance, menacing words an angry
1. Kroll: Die historische Stellung von Horazens Ars Poetica,

p. 91.
2. 1454-a.
3. 1408-a.
4. Fr. 7, vid. p. 104 infra.
5. Hack, The Doctrine of Literary Forms, p. 21 ff.
6. The omission of this line by some (Lehrs, Rib!:,eck) and its
transposition by others seems unjustified (others - IVilller).
Vid. Cicero, Orator 75, for discussion of the meaning of
"aecere.
6S
one (voltum, cf.

^npoS'iAJ-tiov/I
/
).-^ The poet will Ignore
decorvun here at his own peril: "If a speaker's words are out
of gear with hla fortune (absona, A.^lP4:<l^^. ) all Rome will
guffaw." The proper use of this quality depends on the
poet's knowledge of character: "You must observe the charac-
teristics of each age and assign a fitting grace (decor) to
natures that change with the years. ""^ The part played by
the chorus must, too, conform to the requisites of decorxom:
"The chorus should ... chant nothing that does not forward
the action and fit into the plot naturally." (Apte, <ip&-
ôt/-f*t/S .)4 Even in the Satyr-drama decorvun may not be

Ignored: "It will be well (conveniet) so to commend to your
audience the quips of Satyrs ... that no god or hero ... sink
5
to the level of tavern talk." Horace thinks that, in the
role of teacher, he must give an important place to incul-
cating the necessity of decorum: "Though I write nothing,
I'll teach the business and duty of a writer ... what becomes
him (deceat), what does not."^ In addition to the above one
may, perhaps, also see reflections of the concept of decorxam
in Horace's teaching on the faults of style,''' the need of
unity, ° the law of the genre, ^ the Deus ex machina,-^^ and
woodland Fauns on the stage. ^'•
1. 105 ff. 7. 24 ff.

2. 112 ff. 8. 1 ff.
3. 156. 9. 86.
4. 194. 10. 191.
5. 225 ff. 11. 244.
6. 306. It can, however, be maintained that "deceat" here
has different meaning and refers to the "officium poetae."
Vid. Norden, op. cit. 498.
63
The foregoing contains at least the main points of
resemblance between Aristotle and Horace and a reference to
the doctrines of Horace which could possibly be considered
as developments or adaptations by the poet himself of tenets
found in Aristotle. Most editors of the Ars Pcetlca point
to at least some of these resemblances;^ the same can be said
for most works on tnis piece of literature.^ I can, however,

find little or nothing written on the subject of the dlffer-
ences between these two writers. Nevertheless these differ-

ences are, in my opinion, both far-reaching and significant.
They touch the vital problem of Horace's indebtedness to
previous works and his idea in writing the "Ars Poetica." I
shall endeavour to treat what seem to me to be the main diff-
erences between the "Ars Poetica" and the "Poetics."
ARISTOTLE AND HORACE; riFFERENCES
The greater part of Aristotle's Poetics is devoted
to Drama, and the greater portion of the section on Drama is
given to a consideration of Tragedy. Horace's, too, devotes

a comparatively large portion of his treatise to Tragedy.
Between these two sections one would expect to find the
closest links between the two authors. There are resemblances
which have been pointed out above. The dirferences, however,
are, I think, greater and more fundamental.
1. Postagnl, Kiessling.
2. Immisch, Norden Kroll, D' Alton.
,
3. With the exception, perhaps, of the five actors and three

act law, and the theory of the origin of drama.
64
Attitude to Tragedy
Aristotle views Tragedy from the point of view of
its effect on the audience. His remarks on the various types
of plots and characters are all conditioned by his view of
the end of Tragedy - a "katharsis" of the emotions of pity
and fear."^ Even In the advice directed to the poet, one
can see that Aristotle's thoughts are not directed towards
success or failure as they concern the poet personally, but
with the success or failure of the piece in producing the
salubrious "katharsis" of the emotions of the spectators.^
Aristotle's idea of Tragedy was, one m.lght say, a social
idea. Drama was a valuable medicine; the profit or fame
which It brought to its discoverer was a matter of little or
rather no importance.
When we turn to Horace we find a totally different
outlook. Horace shows no concern whatsoever with the effect
of the drama on the spectators, either as individuals or
citizens. He does not seem to be the least Interested as to
whether the spectators shall leave the theatre better fitted
to perform their public or private autles. He looks at the
drama from the point of view of the personal success or fail-
ure of the dramatist; what he wants Is a play that the spec-
tators will come back to see a second time, or at least will
1. Poetics, 1453-a, 1454-b.

2. Poetics, l^â-^J^ />!^m Ou .
.
65
see from beginning to end: "If you want an appreciative
audience that will sit quiet until the curtain drops ... you
must observe the characteristics of each age." "A play which
is to be in demand, and, after production, to be revived,
should consist of five acts - no more, no less." If certain
faults appear in a play, it will fall; in this contingency
Horace is not concerned with what the evil effects may be on
the audience, but warns the poet of what he willsuffer - the
audience will fall asleep, or laugh, or guffaw. There is
not in Horace one thing that could be construed as a direct
or indirect reference to the "katharsis" that is so Important
a feature of Aristotle's concept of Tragedy.
This is all the more surprising when we consider the
age in which Horace lived. Augustus did not want to have

about him men like Lucretius of the previous age, who kept
aloof and had no interest In the common people. He wanted
men who would consider how literature could be used to influ-
ence the citizens and make them better members of the commun-
ity and the larger "respublica conservata." Yet here we find
a man closely connected v.lth Augustus and one of the two
outstanding poets associated with the emperor, who completely
ignores the social value of the drama. It is intelligible, I
think, only on the assumption that Horace was concerned only
with the success of one of his addressees in a proposed
1. 189 ff
2. 104-105, 112.
66
attempt at drama-writing and further that In this matter
he was making no attempt whatsoever to reproduce or adapt
Aristotle, for if he were, it Is hardly conceivable that no
hint of this important aspect of Aristotle's concept of
drama would find its way into the Latin work.
Plot
In Aristotle's account of Tragedy, plot predom-
inates. He treats it in the greatest detail, going at length
Into Unity, Poetic Truth, Simple and Complex PD.ots, Reversal
of the Situation, Recognition, examples of Tragic incidents,
analysis of Tragic emotions, relation of Plot and Scenery,
etc. Many of these he further subdivides for a more detailed
treatment. Moreover, he gives an exhaustive account of the
various types of Plots, pointing out the excellencies of each.
In the same connection, on the negative side, he points to
Plots which cannot be successfully employed, assigning reasons
From the point of view of quantity. Plot occupies almost half
the entire space given to Tragedy. It seems hard to believe
that anyone could be reproducing, adapting, or evervlnfluenced
to any great extent, directly or indirectly, by Aristotle
without this predominance of Plot manifesting Itself. Even
should the one using Aristotle decide that undue prominence
had been given to Plot , we would expect at the last that some
1. Nor can it be argued that Horace was not alive to this

aspect of Poetry. Vld. Ep. II, 1,124, where the poet Is
.
said to be "utilis urbi " A. P. 391 ff. seems by the hum-
orous exaggeration of its examples to be more than half
sarcasm.
67
reasons would be given or suggested to justify the compara-
tively restricted role of Plot In the new work.
When we turn to Horace we find nothing on Plot; the
few lines dealing with incidents unsuitable for representation
on the stage could, perhaps, by stretching matters, be re-
garded as having a alight connection with Plot, but if they
have they only serve to emphasize the unimportance of the
role assigned to this part of drama. There is no analysis of,
or reference to, the different types of Plot; stranger still,
there are no suggestions as to the best type of Plot to be
used; and strangest of all, perhaps, no humourously satiric
comments to expose the absurdities that would arise from the
employment of the wrong kind of Plot. If Horace had Aris-
totle in mind, when writing his account of Drama, his omission
of any treatment of or reference to Plot seems inexplicable.
Character
Aristotle is brief in his teaching on Character, but
his treatment is complete and far-reaching. Four things are
to be aimed at - that the character be good, true to life,
consistent, and that propriety be maintained. Some have
seen a reflection of at least three of these requisites in
Horace. That the character be true to life is supposed to
be incorporated in Horace's treatment of the characteristics
1. 17S ff.
2. 1454-a. His treatment of the Ideal Tragic Hero refers to
Plot.
3. D'Alton, op. cit. p. 406; Rostagnl ad loc.
68
of the various ages. "If you are bold enou^j^ to create a

o
fresh character, let him remain ... consistent" is referred
to Aristotle's demand. for consistency. His aemand that char-
acter and diction correspond/ and that the traits correspond
to the type of character,^ is referred to Aristotle's propri-
ety. Aristotle's demand for tioodness is notperalleled in
Horace.
As regards the passages referred to above, there
are some things to be noted. They are scattered throughout
the "Ars Poetica," and it is strange that Horace, if follow-
ing Aristotle, did not put them together and place them in
the section on Trama where only one of them is found. This
would involve repetition, but Horace was not afraid to repeat

himself in other instances.^ Moreover, these passages in
Horace could all well be but applications of the principle of

7
decorvun. All in all, Horace and Aristotle cannot be very
closely associated from their treatment of the sutject of
Character.
Music
Aristotle refers once to Music in nis treatment of
the relative merits of Tragedy and Epic and styles it an
'Important accessory."^ His master, Plato, and his own pupil,
1. 156 ff.
2. 126-127.
3. 112.
4. 316.
5. True to life. This, too, is the most disputed of
Aristotle's demands.
6. Vid . p. e& infra.
8. Odes, I, 1.
.
Arlstoxenus, went deeper into the matter. Horace devotes a
not inconsiderable section to the treattrent of irusic and the
whole thing is characteristically Horatian. He resents the
Influence which the "profanixm volgus" has had on the devel-
opment of the role of Music. Everything points to the fact
that this section is due to Horace himself, and is put in
here for the sake of completeness and because it Is a prac-
tical detail.
Satyr-drama and History of Irama
Aristotle and Horace differ entirely in their idea
of the origin and nature of Satyr-drama. Aristotle regarded
this genre as a stage in the evolution of Erama.^ Horace
regarded it as a separate creation.^ This question, of course,
is Involved in the further question of the history of Drama,
Aristotle refers to the claims of various peoples (Dorians,
Megarians) to the invention of Tragedy and the grounds for
Buch claims. '^'

Later he says that Tragedy originated with
the autfeoYs of the Dithyramb, Comedy with the authors of
phallic songs. In Tragedy Aesciiylus added a second actor -
the first evidently being the î^ÔXf^^ of the Dithyramb^ -
Sophocles, a third, and scene painting. Comparatively late
1. Odes, I, 1.
2. A. p. 201 ff . The tendency of the music to predominate over
the words had been attacked at a very early date. Vid.
Garrod's treatment of a fragirent of Pratlnas in Class.
Rev. XXXIV.
3. 1449-a.
4. 220 ff
5. 1448-a.
6. Pickard - Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy, p. 125.
°
70
in its development, Tragedy emergeo from the Satyrlc stage,
abandoned its grotesque diction, and adopted the Iambic
metre. "^ Comedy, however, "has had no history, because It
was not at first treated seriously." The crucial point for
us in these passages Is to determine Aristotle's idea of the
relationship between Tragedy and the Satyr-drama. Some have

/I
thought that the word tT^Lto^nio^! in 1448-a, 20, is used meta-
phorically, not literally, and refers not to Satyr-drams as
such, but to a stage in the development of Tragedy when it
was grotesque in shape and diction. This would, it seems to
me, close the whole question, for it would remove Aristotle's
only alleged reference to Satyr-drama. However, this meta-
phfflrical interpretation of the word, though possible,*^ seems
improbable.^ We may safely take it that Aristotle regarded
Satry-drama as an early srage of Tragedy. Apart from this
much has been written on the :)ther points of his historical
account. Some have accepted his account at its face value.
Others believe that the Dithyramb referred to is not the
cyclic Dithyramb. Still others that Aristotle was reasoning
a posteriori and trying to give a rational account of the
Tragedy, Satyr-drama and semi-dramatic Dithyramb, which he
found existing side by side in his own day. This last explan-
1. 1449-a.
2. 1449-b. /I. Or-^c
oi J\toi/a6-o$
. V ^
3. Vld. LUC Ian ^'^^'^'^/^'^ ^^^^ 5

4. Vld. Bywater, Pcetics, 5S.
5. Bywater, Poetics; Iftllamowitz, Einleltung in die
Griechlschen Tragodie. For a different view vid.
Ridgeway: The Origin of Tragedy.
.
71
ation seems most satisfactory, but destroys the historical
value of his account. To ô into the question of the origin
of Greek Tragedy would be to enter a field where the great-
est experts fail to agree. However, in view of what Horace
writes, we may point out that one well-supported theory main-
tains that Tragedy grew out of the union of the rustic, but
non-satyrlc, plays of Thespis with the choral lyric of the
Dorian people. On this theory Satyr-drama would bo a sep-
arate Invention brought to Athens from Phllus by Fratinas.^
Aristotle's account in brief, then, would be a
development from Llthyramb into Satyr-drama into Tragedy
complete, with the original Dithyramb and Satyr-play remain-
ing also.
Horace's accoiint presents difficulties. He seems
to confuse the origin of Tragedy with that of Comedy^ and
certainly regarded Setyr-drami as distinct in its origin and
unconnected with Tragedy.^ He ascribes the invention of
Tragedy to Thespis . There is certainly enough ancient author-
Ity for this. Thespis carried his plays about in txmbrlls.
This seems a strange assertion and Is probably due to Horace's
confusing the origin of Tragedy and Comedy as wagons were
used in processions of a riotous or comic type. R-? credits
1. Plckard Cambridge, op. clt., p. 165. Aristotle's omission

of any explicit reference to Thespis Is explicable on the
third theory atove.
2. Pickard Cambridge, op. cit, p. 129.
3. 275 ff
4. 220 ff.
5. Parian Marble; Athenaeus II, 40; Plutarch Solon, XXIX;
,
Diogenes Laertius, III, 56; Aristophanes, Vmsps, 1478.

72
Aeschylus with the invention of masks, buskins, and some
stage improvements. Strange to say, he treats Old Comedy
in the next place and to the end of his account deals with
the modifications of it. His account is not very helpful,
but it may be seen that it differs entirely from. Aristotle.
ESTIMATE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWÊEN

ARISTOTLE ANE HORACE
Betv»een Aristotle and Horace there are some remark-
able resemblances and not a few important and fundamental
differences. The question arises as to whether these resem-
blances prove a dependence of Horace on the Greek author.
If Horace was influenced by Aristotle, it could have
come about in one of two ways. It is historically possible
that Horace had the text of Aristotle's Poetics, and that
the resemblances pointed to above are due not to a slavish
copying of Aristotle, but to an adaptation by the Roman of
the teachings of the Creek, which he considered applicable
to his own day and age. An examination and comparison of
the texts, however, seems to establish with certainty that
this did not take place. The differences, pointed out above,
are too numerous, too far-reaching, and too fundamental to
allow of any such explanation. In some matters Horace's
1. Vid. Donaldson: The Theatre of the Greeks, p. 110.

3. I take it to be self-evident that Horace was not producing
a theoretical work and attempting to render Aristotle's
Poetics in Latin.
theory Is in complete disagreement with that of Aristotle;
in others we find omissions of doctrines that were essential
and fundamental in the Greek teaching. It may be admitted
that there is no reason why Horace should not have disagreed
with Aristotle or why he should not omit sections, even
Important ones, of the Greek original. However, it is hardly
credible that no echo of these important disagreements and
far-reaching omissions would find its way into the Latin work,
When we add to this the fact that in the sections where we
should expect the greatest agreement not only are there dis-
agreements in fundamentals, but that the whole tone and atti-
tude are different, we have legitimate reasons for concluding
that Horace owes nothing directly to Aristotle.
We then come to question of explaining the resem-
blances noted above. We may, for convenience sake, divide
those resemblances into two classes - resemblances in doc-
trine and resemblances in terminology.
Resemblances in Doctrine
Aristotle's name is great as a literary critlo
because his work was scientific, his judgment keen, and the
questions he treated vital and fundamental. Any great critic

would of necessity agree with him in a considerable number
of things - unity, simplicity, clarity, probability, etc.
Horace's "Ars Poetica" is still worth studyin^^ and has found
1. Vld. p. 63 supra.
74
adapters because of the keenness of his literary judgment,
or even more, perhaps, because of his keen eye for what is
anomalous and absurd in literature. It is only to be expected
that between two such men there should be agreement, and close
agreement, too, c.7 many points, but such agreement cannot be
considered to mean dependence of one on the other.
The probability of chance resemblances is further
heightened by Horace's admiration for the "exemplaria Graeca."^
Although he was opposed to the excessive admiration of the

ancients,^ and at times shows his enthusiasm for some of the
poets of his own day,^ yet he had Ideals different from
either antiquarians or moderns. He regarded himself as the
apostle of a new era and looked to the creation of a liter-
ature based on the models of classical Greek antiquity. This
would mean that his mind was directed to the same field as
that of Aristotle. It is worth noting that the two outstand-
ing Tragedies of the Augustan Age had plots derived from Greek
Mythology - the "Thyestes" of Varius and the "Medea" of Ovid.
This point is especially interesting, as without this know-

5
ledge we might be inclined to connect a passage from Horace*'^
with one in Aristotle, although the resemblance is probably
quite accidental.
1. E.g. , Eolleau.
2. A. P. 268.
3. Ep. II, 1,20.
4. Sat. I, 10, 40.
5. 185 ff.
6. Poetics, 1463-b.
75
Re semblance 3 In Terminology
At first sl^ht one would be Inclined to think that
a strong bond between Aristotle and Horace could be estab-
lished on the grounds of the resemblance between the termin-
ology of the two, particularly where the Latin is unusual
or vague, and fully Intelligible only when one has the orig-
inal Greek words. However, for the validity of this argu-
ment, it would be necessary to show that these words were to
be found in Aristotle only. Not only is this not so, but we
have positive proof that these words are in other authors.
Practically every one of them is to be found in Dionysius
of Hallcarnassus, as can be seen from the "Glossary of
Rhetorical and Grammatical Terms" appended to W. Rhys
Roberts' editions of "On Literary Composition" and the "Three
Literary Letters." These tetins, then, must have been the
commonplace of literary criticism and known to all interested
in it. Besides, we know that Horace belonged to a literary
coterie and valued its opinion highly. Literary discus-
sions must have been frequent among the members of this
coterie, and technical Greek terms, like {ûXAy-yy /a,,i<^(^'*^^.

iîc^hei^'I'oS , etc., qiust have been familiar to them as
words descriptive of the weather are to ordinary men.
There is, however, one passage dealing with the
characteristics of the various ages where the influence of
1. Sat. I, 10, bl.

76
Aristotle's Rhetoric cannot "be questioned. ^ Without the Greek
several of the Latin terms would be very difficult to under-
stand, if not unintelligible. However, that particular sec-
tion of the Rhetoric is in a category by itself. The matter
It deals with, its pithy nature, its expressive epithets, and
its general interest would cause It to be known to irany who
knew nothing else from the Rhetoric and even to many who did
not know the source from which it was derived. In this con-
nection we might adduce the example of Shakespeare's "Seven
Ages." These are known to many who know nothing else from
Shakespeare, and to many who do not even know that they come
from this source. I am not suggesting that Horace did not
know who wrote the original which he was rendering in Latin,
but we may reasonably believe that he would know these with-
out having to go to the Rhetoric for them.
The other method by which Aristotle could have
influenced Horace Is indirect. This would come about by
Horace's using as a source an author who in turm had used
Aristotle. Influence of this kind is not easy to examine.
In Horace's case it is rendered still more difficult by the
fact that the work of Neoptolemus of Parlum, which is sup-
posed to be the Joining link, does not exist in the original.
However, this question is examined in the section of Neop-
tolemus and Horace.^
1, Vld. p. 56 supra.
2. Vld. p. 80 ff. infra. Horace may have been influenced by
Ariftotelian maxim? taught at Athenp. There is no vay
of estimating this influence.
^
n (.
HORACE AND NEOPTOLEKUS

77
HORACE AND NEOPTOLEMUS
Porphyrlon says in the beginning of his commentary
on the Ars Poetica that Horace in this poem collected the
main points of the teaching of Neoptolemus of Parium: "in
quern libr\im congessit praecepta Neoptolemi 'vtJ't' "pO-Oien/oU
de arte poetica, non quidem omnia sed eminentissima." For
centuries this statement of Porphyrion could not be examined
from the point of view of truth or falsehood, since the
Poetics of Neoptolemus had disappeared completely. However,
amongst the papyri recovered from the ruins of Herculaneum

->
were a number of charred fragments of a treatise " 'ff^^'
-Tioif^^H-rcoi/ " by Philodemus of Gadara. This contains not so
much literal quotations as summary statements from various

earlier writers. Prom these fragments an attempt has been
made to reconstruct the Poetics of Neoptolemus.
Attempted Reconstruction of Neoptolemus
Whatever may be the relation between the contents
of the works of the Attic Period on literary criticism and
those of the Hellenistic Period dealing with the same subject,
even a cursory examination is sufficient to show us that
there had come a great change from the point of view of
approach and method. Questions bearing on Poetry now formed
a separate branch of study and the study was for scholastic
ends and conducted by literary scholars and grammarians, not
by philosophers. There was no longer any great interest in

78
the profounder problems of poetry, but rather a search for
definite rules and classiflciations, and above all, for indi-
cations of how to write poetry. The systematlzation that was
implicit in Aristotle became explicit, and the practical,
orderly, schematic treatment that had been so successful in
Rhetoric was applied to Poetry.
According to Peripatetics, there was a number of
fundamental principles in literary composition. The first
of these was that technical training and natural genius were
both necessary for the composition of poetry. In a treatise
on poetry, then, there must be two main divisions, one deal-
ing with technical art, the other with the poet himself.
Subject matter and form were held to be equally necessary for
the composition of poetry. This led to a division of the
section on technique into two subdivisions, one dealing with
choice and arrangeirent -^kp / ^jtT i S ' of arguments, the other with
form and expression {-^'tcf^/â. ) , According to Phllodemus,-^
Andromenides was the first to Introduce this three-fold cate-
gory into the field of Poetics. According to the same
author, the section on 'Ti<i^'*^/^<^ was treated at greatest length
as one should expect from Hellenistic writers. In this sec-
tion, too, the drama predominated, due, perhaps, In some
measure at least, to the Aristotelian tradition.
As regards content, we may divide the questions
1. XXI, 33,
79
treated under toree headings:
(a) Dl?oupsion of the relative importanoe of natural
genius and teohnioal training;
(h) Discussion of the relative irnrortanoe of Ptyleand
subjeot matter;
(c) The question of the function of poetry - to please,
to benefit, or both?
As regnrds (a), as we should expect, the importance of tech-
nical training was stressed in this age of rules and system-
atization. Neoptolemtis was a Peripatetic and with a Peri-
patetic's flair for compromise, adopts the view that both
natural genius and technical training are necessary. As
regards (b), Ueoptoleraus regarded both as equally important,,
As regards (o), the answer to this question depenr s on the
answer to (b). The Stoics regarded the function of poetry as
to teach. A few (Eratosthenes and Heracleodorua) regarded the
function of poetry ^s to give pleasure. The ^Jpicureans
did not subscribe to this theory. The Peripatetics and with
them, Neoptolerans, compromised and ascribed to poetry a two-
fold function - to please and to benefit. Such was the main
trend of Hellenistic poetry. More detailed material on
Neoptolemup will bo piven in the comparison of his worlc
with that of Horace.

80
Neoptolemus and Horace ~ Co parlson
It may be well to state here that v/e accept the view

that the author criticized in Philodemus Col. I - XIII, 88,
is Neoptolemus of Pariuia. He is mentioned by name just once
in Col. X, 33, but there is no doubt that, except where the
contrary is obvious, as e.g. in Col. IX, 34, the author dis-
cussed is the grammarian poet of Parium in Bithynia.

f
On the question of the relative importance of iÔSiS
and -^6t*^*\ Philodemus says "That the statement (i.e., of
Neoptolemus) that some who play the flute are not good flute-
players, oorrespo As to the assertion that the writer skilled
in poetic technique is different from the good poet, I admit;
and when he draws in the musicians as witnesses of the truth of
this assertion, he is not having recourse to any subterfuge.
Wben he says that this distinction (i.e., between the person
with technical siill and the good poet) classifies the elements
that appertain to poetry, and that poetic technique holds
here a part not less important but more important, I 'inder-
stand him to say the same thing as when he said that in poetry
to have been well written is more important than to have a rich
supply of ideas"; and again, "I accept without qualification
the assertion that in addition to good coi position, there is
needed the 'passion' ( ^ôs ) of a good poet and that there is
a difference between a good poet and a writer with skill in
poetic technique."
1, Col. VIII ff.

81
Horace in his section on the poet says: "Whether a
good poem be the work of nature or of Art is a moot point.
For my part, I fall to see the use of study without wit, or
of wit without training: so true it is that each requires
the other's aid in helpful union. The athlete who is eager
to reach the longed-for goal has endured and done much in
boyhood, has borne heat and cold, has abstained from wom.en
and wine; the flute player who plays at the Pythian games
has first learned his lesson and trembled before a teacher."
The following lines (416ff ) are typically Horatian
in their style and content and are evidently a piece of true
Horatian satire directed towards those who ignore the prin-
ciples of lines 408-415, where Horace was evidently follow-

o
Ing some Greek source. Neoptolemus and Horace agree in
theory and both use the example of a flute player, though
for opposite purposes.
This distinction between the , ood poet and the
writer with good technique, however, goes further. It leads,
according to philodemus, to a dlvldlon of Neoptolemus' work
into two main sections - one on «^ <.^' 4m/ C^-*-- '^^Ki^'^ and
the other on the <»-y^boS <nti^y>S O'-e- t()u6'>s). \'?hatever we
may say about the threefold division of Horace's "Ars

Poetica," we must at least admit a clearly marked twofold
if<^/6n/ while lines
division. Lines 1-294 deal with ^"^
1. 408-415.
2. Pythian games, etc.
62
305-476 treat of the a.\j^ôS '^^/•ffiS.l Here, then, we
find a Greek author who has transferred the main divisions
of treatises on Rhetoric to poetry - a transference which
Horace would hardly have attempted on his own initiative.
Again Philodemus refers to the fact that the sec-
tion on ^^^ <ivie{v ig longer than the section on the
^\{aôS ôf^-^tiS, This is true of Horace also. Here, too,
it is interesting to compare the framework of another Roman
work, Quintilian's Institutlo Oratoria, where Books II-XI
deal with the Ara Oratoria, and Book XII alone with the
Orator. Philodemus regarded this Inequality of treatment
as an indication that Neoptolemus considered the ^>^ 'lio/îv
as the more important part in the composition of poetry.
This deduction is hardly justified, unless r-hiiodemus found
other evidences of this in Neoptolemus. Nevertheless it is
interesting to note Horace's insistence on the need for
continual revising and polishing: "Do you, Pisos, sprung
from Numa, censure the poem that has not been pruned by time
and many a cancellation - corrected ten times over and fin-

2
ished to the fingernail."
Let us return to the question of divisions, Philo-
demus says: "Neoptolemus was wrong, it seems, in making a
division between the arrangement of style and the thoughts,
since he assigned to style not a smaller, but a greater
1. Lines 295-304 are transitional.

2. 291-4.
83
importance, as we have seen. He acts absurdly when he puts
the one possessed of the art and the poetic power (i.u,,
'ôit^'^t^S ) as a subdivision of art side by side with
-*ii*;/<.«c and '^'Otkfxs-iS • How did he regard these as sub-
divisions of the Art? He should rather have called the fabric
poetry, or better still the poems works, and the poetry, as
it v;ere, the web, and the poet the one who possesses the
poeLio power and operates by virtue of this. If he calls the
worKmanship poetic, while the art is also styled poetic,
he is Riaking a nistake, and it is ridiculous to speak of
the poet as a subdivision of the art," Thus Neoptolemus
must have divided Poetics into three subdivisions - 'ô^^^,5^
ôiiÂKOL and <!'4»fti-^n:S . Keoptolamus evidently regarded
the <ro/*»"r*^S as the one who had two characteristic qualities,
'T6-KUh and '^Ci>^zt/5 <7o'*r'r/*<'*i , the same two qualities
contained as the "ars" and "natura" of Horace,"
As regai'ds the ôinJ'iS and ^c^t^yuL^ , the dividing
line is less clearly indicated, x^hilodeiaus says: "Strange,
too, io uia assertion that theiae alone belongs to the
<r<?»*f2r»S t
since both <ên^Â and everything without
exception have reference to ^ôi^^^rSm The 'i,'^'*^^>S is also
a <^'^>ia , as is the Iliad, for example, but the first thirty
verses of this, though a ^,m,i*îA.a, i

are not, however,
a ôft^S'tS • Streinge, too, is his statement that only the
diction has a part in the îann/xoL , but not the thoughts.
1. V, 408.
84
arrangements, actions and things expressing character. If
something technical should have its place In style, nothing
can be effectea assuredly here without these; but I think
that the arrangement of the action Is an Integral part of
the arrangement of the style. He says that it Is evident
to everyone that these and the subject matter and the arrange-
ment pertain to the poet."
The section, then, on -^t' iioK:>\j would in Neoptolemus

/
fall into two subdivisions. ^t?/»7/Â would then deal with
/
the form and expression, and '^tOni.S'tS with the subject mat-
ter. Phllodemus is opposed to this on various grounds, and
among thon it is Interesting to note that he maintains that
it is impossible to make an absolute and clear-cut division
between <t?"f«r/S and ^toiiijua. and the criticism implicitly
contained here that an attempt at such a system would in-
volve repetitions. The more one studies Phllodemus the less
respect one has for his literary judgment. Nevertheless

with the work of Neoptolemus before him, he could hardly be
mistaken as to repetitions, and we may legitimately conclude
that Neoptolemus' work contained what seemed to Phllodemus
to be unnecessary repetitions.
We have already pointed to the main division in
Horace's "Ars Poetica" - that between ^^ ^,^fmJ and
(y'Ôti^'S </'îir*iS , Cffi we find a further division in the
1. XII, 1.
85
1> ^
section on ^^ 'îof6t\/ ? Good Horatian scholars have seen
such a division and two of the most outstanding have dif-
fered as to where to place such a division. Rostagni has

2
placed it at Verse 41; Iicmisch at Verse 152. If we admit
such a division - and it is at least possible - the very
difficulty in selecting its exact location is a link between
Horace and Neoptolemus. Philodemus was logical, here at
least, in his claim that it is impossible to establish a
clear-cut division between '^ton'ji^rS and '^fiOtffÂ, .
Horace, following Neoptolemus, experienced the same diffi-
culty and Horatian scholars have not been able to mark the
dividing line. Even should we decide that no such division
can be fourd in Horace, it would still be quite iegitiir.ate
to presume that the Roman poet, either on his own Initiative
(though this is unlikely), or accepting Philodemus' objec-
tion, considered that such a division was unwarranted.
Philodemus objected to the repetitions that must
of necessity follow a division between '?r<i»/*//^<^ and 'jioty/tris.
In Horace, v. 114, we find: "It makes a world of difference
whether a god or deml-god be talking; an old man well-on
in years or a stripling in the first flush of youth; a
wealthy dame or some bustling nurse." In v, 156ff he says:
"You must observe the characteristics of each age and assiya
a fitting grace to natures that change with the years. The
1. Arte Fcetica dl Orazio, Torino, 1&30.

2. Horazens Epistel Uber die Dichtkunst.
,
86
child who can just talk and feels his feet with confidence
longs to play with his peers ... The beardless body finds
delight In horses ... Man's aim is money and friendship ...
Many are the dlscomf ituree of age." In the first instance
he is speakinij of character In its relation to style; in
the second, of character in relation to the dramatic genres.
In w. 79-81 ho says: "It was his fury that armed
Archilochus with his own device, the iambj this metre comedy
and stately tragedy adopted as fitted for dialogue, drown-
ing the din of the audience, and born for action"; in v. 251
we find: "A long syllable following a short is termed an
'lamhus' - a lively foot; hence the word 'trimeter' was
given to iambic lines, since, uniform from first to last,
they yielded six beats." The same difference of aspect, as
in the former example, explains this instance too.^
In the same section Philodsmus quotes Neoptolemus:
"He says that it is evident to everyone that these (i.e.,
things connected with '1/<£?/*^/^<X ) and the subject matter and
the arrangement pertain to the poot."^ From this one would

expect that some topics treated in the sections on ^•<s"*^/''^
and ^lOf^SiS would recur in the section on the ^/Of^-^t^S
Philodemus must have found such in Neoptolemus. In Horace
we find the sam.e thing, e.g.: The necessity for sound judg-
ment is stressed in w. 1-8 and again in v. 509. Vv. 40-41
1. Cf. Aristotle's Rhetoric, II, 12-1^ and III, 7

2. XII, 13.
87
and V. 310-311 emphasize the same point - th .t a thorough
understanding of the matter to be treated is a prerequisite
for successful writing, and that, when this prerequisite has
been satisfactorily attended to, no difficulty will be ex-
perienced in finding suitable words. The connection between
style, genre and character is treated in w« 86-92 and again
in w. 312-318. In the first instance in all these cases
the matter is treated in reference to "ars," in the second,
in reference to "artifex."
So mu ;h, then, for the reseinblance between Horace
and Neoptolemus from the point of view of arrangement. Let
us see how they compare from the point of view of the theories
propounded.
Causes of Failure in Poets
Neoptolemus considered that failure of the poem as
a vrtiole might be due to a deficiency in either of the two
main sections - <o ^*^ Ooz-^/t/ or a.yiO-voS <><3'»»r*7S
You need both good technical principles and a good poet:
"It is foolish, too, for him to have writt^sn that the subject
matter and poems do not share in the hiistalces of the poet.
It sorietimes happens that there are poor poems and poor
themes chosen for poems as a resxUt of the poet*s mistakes.
Philodemus fails to see that this statement implicitly
postulates the existence of tv/o different types of
failures. Horace, too, refers to both these types of
1 . The Sijue may be observed in -iuintilian by comparing the

sections on the "partes rhetoricae" v/ith those on the
"opera oratoris."
a. XII,
86
failures - tc the first specifically when he says: "If
artistic principles are not there, mere avoidance of a
fault leads to some worse defect"; and to the second,
equivalently, when he says: "The secret of all good writing
is sound judgment.'n2
What Must the Poet Try to Attain?
Keoptolemus says that the perfect poet ( '1'Â^(t:>S
-Tro»i4r»iS ) must not only play on the feelings of his hearers
{ \ÛK»K>j*^'^l<x ), but must benefit them ( io<^^X^\\/ )
and give them useful instruction (^)^*7ir»/^^>A^ V^«»/ ).^
We find the same doctrine in Horace with a striking resem-
blance even between the words used: "It is not enough for
poems to be fine; they must charm and draw the mind of the
listener at wlll."^ "The man who mingles the "useful with
the sweet carries the day by charming his reader*^ and at
the same time instructing hlm."^ "The poet's aim is either
to profit (prodesse = têp^X&ti/ ) or to please or to blend
in one the delightful and the useful."''' Horace's attempts
here (particularly as regards './•"/'-,' ) to render
Greek compounds by a Latin periphrasis are very similar
to his renderings of the compounds of Aristotle (Rxêtoric,
II, 12-lS) in lines 159-173. He was unquestionably follow-
1. 51.
2. 309.
3. XIII.
4. 99-100; animum agunto -
5. Delectando, cf. in fr. II, 25.
6. 343-344.
7. 333-334; idonea dlcere vltae =
89
ing Aristotle in lines 159-175, and I do not think that
there is any doutt but that he was following Neoptolemua
in lines 99-100, 333-545 and 543-544.
The Poet's Knowledge
Philodemus says: "Moreover this theory absurdly
imposes on the one who is to be a good poet a detailed know-
ledge of the special uses of dialectic, although a knowledge
of that branch in which he chooses to write is sufficient;
or it absurdly calls for a study of traits of character and
a scientific knowlediê of physics. Do not be surprised that
the poet must be able to deal with all types of things. He
is speaking as in a dream when he says that poets need to
know all Geometry, Geography, Astrology, and Legal and
Nautical Science." From this it Is easy to see what Neop-

tolemus explicitly or implicitly required of the poet in
the way of knowledge. With this we may compare Horace:

"The secret of all good writing is sound judgment. The works
of. the Socratice will supply you with the matter: get this
in clear perspective and the words will follow naturally.
Once a man has learned his duty to friend and fatherland,
the just claims of parent, brother or guest on his love, the
obligations of senator or Judge, or the duty of a general
sent on active service, he will infallibly know how to
assign to each character its fitting part. I shall bid the
clever imitator look to life and morals for his real model,
1. 11.
90
and draw thence language true to life." Here Horace demands
a knowledge of the two main points of Neoptolemus - dialectic
and character study. In fact it seems quite likely that
these tv/o were the only ones mentioned by Neoptolemus. The
second part of the quotation, given above, from Col. II,
seems to be a piece of poorly elaborated sarcasm on the part
of Philodemus, consisting in an attempt to show by a
"reductio ad absurdum" that Neoptolemus* demands lead to
ridiculous consequences.
Brevity and Clarity
Columns II and III are difficult to reconstruct.
It is rather difficult to see their exact meaning as recon-
structed b Jensen. However, certain parts are tolerably
clear and from these some deductions may be legitimately
drawn. In Col. Ill, 12ff, Philodemus says: "v/hen he says
that the first and least parts of a good proem are (respec-
tively) brevity and clarity, but of poetry, clarity and
brevity and that both of these fall under the headings of
the art and the poet, one : ight well ask what he wishes to
signify by "first" and \Yhat by "least". If "first" refers so-
lely to the proem, it is tasteless for one who has already de-
voted his oittention to a number of other things to say that
these are of prior importance. I wonder on 7«rhat grounds
he styled brevity the least and clarity the first. Mow can
the best production be also the least? How are clarity and
brevity bettew than the other qualities that pertain to the
1. 509-318
•91
poetic art? vftidt necessity is there that brevity and clarity
belong only to the narration of an actual happening, since not
only many fictions but also many highly mythological stories
are recounted by the poets mth the greatest clarity? How can
one call into question the assertion that both these pertain to
the art and the poet? To those v^ho attain brevity and clarity,
It is not obsctire, but perfectly clear that it is through the
agency of the art and from the poet that not only are these
created, but, in a word absolutely everything of recognizable
preeminence."-^ In this section the need for brevity and clarity
Is emphasized. To me it seems that the insistence on these two
characteristics is due to the influence of rhetorical theories
on poetry. True rhetoric, according to lato, consisted in a
certain enchantment of the soul.'^' For this, certain things -
brevity and, above all, cl'rity - are necessary. iristotle says:
"Style, to be good, must be clear, as is proved by the fact that
speech which fails to convey a plain meaning will fail to do just
what speech has to do." Anaximenes lays down this rule: ".Vhen
we are ourselves describing in a public speech some past event
or explaining the events of the moment or predicting what will
happen in the future, we must do each of these things briefly,
clearly and convincingly. V.e must be clear in order that our
hearers may grasp the events we are describing, and concise in
order that they may not reject our statements before we huve
supported
1. 111,12; I?, 25.

2. i'haedrus, 261a.
3. Rhetoric, 1404b.
92
them with proofs and justifications."-^
To be clear, brief and convincing, then, are the
qualities to be aimed at. Of these clarity and brevity
are the means and conviction the end or result. In Hellen-
istic criticism, as we have pointed out before, especial

emphasis was laid on the question of means whereby an end
may be obtained. Thus it is not surprising to find clarity
and brevity stressed in writings of this period. In poetry,
according to Neoptolemus, clarity takes first place and
brevity second, so that we may not sacrifice clarity in an
attempt to be brief. Brevity is one of Horace's outstand-
ing traits. He preaches it and certainly practises it.
Nevertheless he points tc the fact that one iraist avoid the
danger of sacrificing clarity to brevity. In reference to
these two qualities, he says; ''Most of us poets, father,
and sons worthy of your father, are misled by our idea of
what is correct. I try to be terse and end by being obscure."
"Whatever the lesson you would convey, be brief, that your
hearers may catch quickly what is said and faithfully retain
it. "2
Neoptolemus makes a distinction between *
and the .° It is not easy to decide Just what he

nieans here, fie seems to use to designate the
introductory or "prologue" part and the composition
1. Rhet. ad Alex. 1438a.

2. Vid., p. supra.
3. 24-25; 336-356.
4. Ill, 14.
5. Ill, 16.
93
/
strictly so called. In the he insists on the
prior importance of brevity, maintaining-, that here it holds
precedence over clarity. The question of the origin,
proper length, and function of the prologue was a tradi-
tional one in Greek criticism. Aristophanes has praise
for Euripides' use of the formal prologue to bring the
audience abreast of the situation. Later criticism, how-
ever, was to blame Euripides for going back too far to find
a suitable beginning for his prologues.^ Aristotle con-

sidered that the introduction (proem) in rhetoric fulfilled
the function of the prologue in Drama: "The introduction
is the beginning of a speech, corresponding to the prologue
In poetry and the prelude in flute playing."'^ It should

be short: "We are not to make long introductions." Hellen-
istic criticism, by both these traditions - the rhetorical
and poetic - would insist on the necessity of brevity in
introductory sections and to this Horace refers: "His
(Homer's) aim is to fetch not smoke from a flash, but light
from smoke, that afterwards he may bring you marvels of the
picturesque - Antiphates and the Cyclops, Scylla, and
Charybdis. He does not begin "The Return of Diomed" from
Meleager's death, nor the Trojan War from the twin eggs.
1. Frogs. 945.
2. Cornutus, a stoic (20-66 A.D.). Vid. Turner: A History
of Philosophy, pp.164, 19S.
3. Rhetoric, 1414b.
4. Ibid, 1416b.
94
He ever hurries to the crisis and carries the listener into
the middle of the story, as though it were already known;
what he despairs of illTiminatin^ with his touch he omits; and
so employs fiction, so blends false with true, that teginning,
middle and end all strike the same note."^ It is not easy
to decide definitely on the source of these lines. The con-
tents seem closely akin to Aristotle, containing as they do
a reference to Homer's unity and harmony, similar to that
which is to be found in Aristotle, and is introauced here in

Horace, although not strictly pertaining to the matter at
issue. Moreover, the "mentitur" of v. 151 is strongly remin-
iscent of Aristotle's " ."^
Was Horace in this passage using Aristotle directly, or had
Neoptolemus (who certainly had not the complete Poetics)
incorporated Aristotle almost literally from some summary or
tradition? The pithy form and somewhat paradoxical content
of Aristotle's reference to Homer's power of fiction would
guarantee the inclusion of the relevant words in any summary
of Aristotle. It is quite probable that Horace found them
in Neoptolemus.
Some have identified the of Neoptolemus
with the "rem provisam" of Horace. It is difficult to see
any connection, except in form, between the two terms. The
"rem provisam" of Horace refers to the poet's grasp of his
1. A. P. 146-152.
2. Poetics, 1460a.
3. Ill, 14.
4. 311.
95
subject and is the same in meaning as the dictum of Cato -
"rem tene, verba sequentur." Neoptolemus ' â?oi/<?o<
could, from its form, have the same meaning as "res provlsa,"
but I cannot see ho;v it c n possibly have that meaning in the
context. Hov/, if it meant this, could the qualities of brevity
and clarity be attributed to it?
More than Brevity and Clarity is Required
I hilodemus says: "V/hen he says that for tne better
and more 'iworth-while type of poetry he adds to the foreraentioned
qualities that it be sunotuous, weighty, not iiean, nor yet light,
and that this belongs to the hand and the business of the poet,
inasmuch as he has as his raw material a generous store of actions
and characters and an examination of original plots and themes,
and the truth that is in them, I ask what kind of poetry he
calls serious and of greater merit. In wh;it way is that which
lacks vigoxir the same as the bombastic? vVhy did he think that
these poems alone and the mediocre ones require sumptuous subject-
matter? /md why did he think that there is a theme not in mediocre
poems alone but still more in the vwry serious poems? V.Tiich kind
of theme is serious and not light? The cheap and mean should be
entirely absent from such poems as those too. l/hat is the
difference between saying that these qualities pertain to the
hand and the business of the poet and saying that they belong
to the art and the poet? Living beings furnish the themes."
1. IV-VI passim.
96
Neoptolemus, it would seem, maintained that there
was no dearth of material for the poet to work on. He could
draw on his observation of men and morals or have recourse
to the traditional legends. Success or failure then depends
on the poet himself.
Horace referred to both these as potential material
for the poet: "Either stick to tradition or see that your
Inventions be consistent."-'- "I shall bid the clever imitator
look to life and morals for his real model, and draw thence
language true to life. Sometires a play tricked out with
commonplaces and with characters well drawn, even though it
be void of charm, force or artistic skill, delights the pop-
ulace and holds their interest far better than lines without
sense and tuneful trifles."^
There are other resemblances between Horace and Neop-
tolemus, but the fragmentary nature of the first few parts
of Phllodemus' texts makes it impossible to identify sections
from the two poets with any degree of probability.'^ Enough

has been put forward to show that there are enough remarkable
resemblances between Neoptolemus and Horace to Justify Por-
phyrion's statement.
ESTIMATE OF TdE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

HORACE AND NEOPTOLEMUS
In the first century B.C., there came from the cit-
ies of the Hellenistic world to Naples a number of Greek
1. 119. 2. 517-324. 3. Cf. fr. I and II

with V. 338-540.
97
rhetoricians, philosophers, historians and poets. There a

school of hvimanistic Greek studies was founded. Augustus
and Maecenas imported a number of men from this school for
their literary coterie, and amongst these was Phllodemus.
Horace came under the influence of these men comparatively
late, but the bond between himself and Philodemus was streng-
thened by the fact that, before meeting Philodemus, Horace
had come under the Influence of the house of Lucius Piso
Caesoninus, who was the friend and patron of Philodemus.
Horace and Philodemus, no doubt, discussed literary matters
as they did other less respectable topics.-^ Philodemus

wrote a Poetics, fragments of which were found in the Hercu-
lanean villa of this same Lucius Piso Caesoninus. It is from
these fragments that we obtain whatever knowledge we have of
the Poetics of Neoptolemus of Parlum. When we consider the
close connection tetween these three men - Horace, Philodemus
and Piso - we realize that Horace undoubtedly knew of this
work of Philodemus. There seems no reason either to doubt
but that he had access to and knew the original of Neoptolemus
also. Philodemus must have had the text of Neoptolemus and
Horace would have seen it, and even if he did not, discus-
sions with Philodemus would have made him thoroughly conver-
sant with the doctrine contained in it. Thus we realize that
Neoptolemus' Poetics were of interest and were discussed In
1. Sat. I, 2, 121.
98
the tine of Horace, that one closely connected with hln wrote
a treatise partly devoted to this work, and that the whole
question was evidently of interest to another close friend
of the Roman poet. The interest shown in the work of Neop-
tolemus further proves that its doctrine must have had a
practical application to literary questions of the time. When

we add to the above the testimony of Porphyrlon - "in quern
librum congessit praecepta Neoptolemi Ha.pi " _
we certainly seem to have sufficient external evidence to ^

regard it as highly probable that Horace was influenced by
Neoptolemus. It may, however, be well to state here again
that Horace was not writing a theoretical work and that what-
ever he borrowed from Neoptolemus he took because he could
make it his own and saw that it would suit the concrete end
for which he was writing the "Ars Poetica."
Division of work
The question of the divisions and subdivisions of
the "Ars Poetica" is not by any means an easy one. However,

it would be admitted now by most^ that It falls into at least
two main divisions - verses 1-294 dealing with the art of
poetry, and verses 295-476 dealing with the poet himself.
This division did not originate with Horace hinself . He was
1. Cf. Atkins, op. cit. II, 70; Norden,ôp. clt. 486; Berwick,
"Die Gliederung der rhetorischen -T^'x/*^ und die Horazische
Bpistula ad Pisones", p. 10; Klinger (the opponent of divi-
sions) op. cit. p. 37; Rostagni, Immisch, Fairclough,
Wilkins.
99
not in the least syateniatic, as the rest of his works show;
one of his temperament would find difficulty in adhering to
a definite plan and certainly would not evolve one for him-
self.-^ On. the other hand, we know that divisions on this
basis were to be found in Hellenistic works on poetry and
rhetoric and that such a division was in the Poetics of
Neoptolemus. Horace adopted his division from some source,
and in view of the connection between Horace and Neoptolemus,
commented on above, we may legitimately conclude that the
source was Neoptolemus. There is a further division in
Neoptolemus of the first section 1^ " and '<^/i'Tij/> ,
The presence of such a division in Horace would be another
link with Neoptolemus, but it is not possible to assert defin-
itely that such a division exists. Its absence could easily
be due to the influence of Philodemus.^
Teaching in Neoptolemus and Horace
When we come to the question of the doctrines con-
tained, we are on less certain ground and tiie difficulty of
comparison is increased by the fact that we have not the
Poetics of Neoptolemus. It is very hard to form a judgment
as to what resembxances are due to chance and what not. Cer-
tain prescriptions of Neoptolemus are found in Horace, but
are of such a kind that, from what we know of Horace otherwise,
1. Cf. D'Alton, op.cit. 490. It is interesting to note that

traces of the "schematism" of Rhetoric have been noted in
Sat. I, 6. Vid. Hendrickson "The Literary Form of Horace"
in American Journal of Philology, XXIII (1922).
100
we can conclude that they would be found there if he had never
heard of Neoptolemus . Such are the prescriptions about brev-
ity, clarity, painstaking care, need of perfection. Other
doctrines would be expressed or taken for granted In any
worthwhile treatise on the subject, e.g., knowledge n&eded by
the poet. There are other instances where the terminology
seems to unite the two closely. This is particularly true of
the section dealing with the object which the poet must aim at.
The probability of the view tliat Horace was using Neoptolemus
is increased by the fact that some of the Greek words closely
followed in the Latin were not, as far as we can find out,
common literary, terms, &'S» tJ[fkifi/U , idonea dicere
vitae.-'-
To siom up, I would say that Horace had in his mind a
number of practical Ideas on literary matters. These were
not In any particvilar order or scientific arrangement. His
attention was called to the Poetics of Neoptolemus by Philo-
demus . He found that expression was given in this treatise
to a number of hia own ideas and perhaps found other ideas
with which, on reflection, he found himself in agreement. Then
when he set out to write his own work, he adopted this Hellen-
istic treatise, followed its external arrangement, changed
its scientific nature into his own free and easy epistolary
style, and touched off the whole with his own characteristic
- .//o
^^ Longinus II, 1, is in its
,
1. However, ,
.
composition curiously akin to

101
irony and satire. This seems to me to be the only explana-
tion consistent with Horace's independence of judgment, the
form of the work, and the statement of Porphyrion. Even in
this very case, we have an Instance of this independence of
spirit, for Horace went back to Jêoptolemus despite the adverse
criticism of Philodemus.
APPENDIX
1
Philodemus, Col. I-XIV
This is an unfortunate assertion, since there are
many types of benefits and he did not make a distinction as
to Ti-hich type is to be demanded of the poet, and since he has
not indicated what it is that he charms by and in v/hat charm
consists, but in both instances has left the essential quality
of the poet undefined, and since he has rejected as imperfect
the most beautiful works of the most renowned poets (on the
ground that they are productive of no benefit whatsoever) and
the most of the works of a nvimber and all the works of some.
I am not inclined even to discuss that poetry which causes
the greatest damage as far as we are concprned, nor am I
inclined to accept the statement that the most perfect is
that which benefits most, and that ore who reaches the high-
est perfection in the poetical treatment of the subject of
m.edicine, philosophy, or in the other numerous branches of
1. The text uped i? that of Jensen (Berlin, 192?). I do

not know of any EnfliPh translation.
102
solenoe, geiins nothing from these, Vfixen he writes that the
one who charms but does not benefit is the real poet, but does
II not know reality, he seems to assume that every expression of

reality benefits, and this assumption is obviously false. If
there is an expression of reality that does not benefit, there
is nothing to prevent a poet who knows this reality and expres-
ses it poetically fiôm failing to prove beneficial. Moreover,
this theory absurdly imposes on the one who is to be a good
poet a detailed study of the ppeoial uses of dialectic, although
a knowledge of that bra ich in which he chooses to ;vrite is suf-
ficient; or it absurdly calls for a study of traits of character
and a scientific knowledge of physics. Do not be surprised
that the poet must be able to deal with all types of things.
he is speaking as in a dream when he says that poets need to
know all geometry, geography, astrology, and legal and naut-

ical science. For if geography is a necessary and fitting
III accomplishment for the poet, why not also absol itely everything
not of the nature of handicrafts?
y^hen he says that the first and least parts of a
good proem are (respectively) brevity and clarity, but of
1. This is undoubtedly an involved sentence, theîueaning of

which is obscure, tfensen evidently regards o*?' as equiva-
lent to the Latin impersonal 'abest '. Vooys in his Lexicon
Philodemevun oiîts all reference to this passage. I have
accepted Jensen's reading, but I wonder if his punctuation
is correct. Should the passage take the form of a question
and'^^ be the impersonal - it is necessary? The passage
would then read: "Vftiy is it necessary even to discuss, i^tc."
103
poetry, clarity and brevity, and that both of these fall under
the headinf^s of the art and the poet, one might well ank what
he wishes to signify by "first" and what by "least". If "first"
refers solely to the proem, it is tasteless for one who has
already devoted his attention to a number of other things to
say that these (brevity and olarity) are of prior importance.
I wonder, too, on what grounds he styled brevity the least and
clarity the first.
How can the best production be also the least? How

are olarity and brevity better than the other qualities that
pertain to the poetic c^rt? Vrtiat necessity is there that brevity
and olarity belong only to the narration of an actual happening,
since not only many fictions but also many highly mythological
stories are recounted by the poets with the greatest olarity?
How can one call into question the assertion that both these
pertain to the art euad the poet. To those who attain brevity
and clarity it is not obscure, but rather perfectly clear that
it is through the agency of the art and from the poet that
not only are these created, but in a word absolutely everything
of recognizable preeminence. Then he says that for the hotter
and more worth-v»hile type of poetry he adds to the forenientioned
qualities that it be stuuptuous, weighty, not mean, nor yet
lieht, and that this belongs to the hand and the business of
the i-Ottt, inasmuch as he has as his raw material a generous
store of actions and characters and an examination of original
plots and themes, and the truth that is in them, I ask what
kind of poetry he calls serious and of greater merit.

104
In what way is that which lacks vi^rour the same as
the boaibastic? V.'hy did he think that these poems alone and the
mediocre ones require sumptuous subject-matter? And why did
he think that there is a theme not in mediocre poems alone but
still more in the very serious poems? VvTiich kind of theme is
se-rious and not light? The cheap and mean should be entirely
absent from such poems as these too. I think that on this theory
Timaeus would not present original plots and themes and reality
and originality. Further, to del'iho to the full the rich abun-
dance of things that possess reality does not differ from
gaining kno..'ledge of all things.
71 \iVhat is the difference between saying that these
qualities pertain to the hand and the business of the poet and
saying that they belong to the art and to the poet? I do not
understand why he placed the poet first. V/hat are we to urider-
stand by the raw material with v/hioh he is concerned? Moreover,
holding forth over his wine, he talks of original plots and
theme and reality. As for reality, I am entirely at a loss to
understand why he added it since living beings furnish the
themes.
VII For the requirements tliat writing should be artis-
tic, and at the same tine congruous and persuasive - all these
would be common to both poems and speeches. To present reality
is proper to every type of representation. I accept without
qualification the assertion that in addition to good composition

105
there is ne^d of the "passion" {<-a.Qc>s ) of a goocl poet,
and that there is a difference between a good poet and a
writer with good tecimical skill. For it is possible for one
to take an absurd story and theme and elaborate it artisti-
cally, and there have been some poets of this type. The one,
however, v;ho has a sense of choice in these matters is regar-
ded as a perfect and good poet,
VIII That the statement that some who play the flute
are not good flats-players corresponds to the assertion that
the writer vdth good technical skill is different from the
good poet, I admit; and when he draws in the musicians as
v/itnesses of the oi-uth of this assertion, he is not having
recourse to any subterfuge, V/hen he says that this disctinc-
tion (between good technique and go d poetry) classifies
IX the eleriieats that appertain to poetry and that technique holds
here a part no less important, but even more important, I
underst;:ind him to say the same thing as when he said that in
poetry to have been well varitton is more important than to have
a rich supply of ideas, i'oreovor, though those who, making
a selection from the qualities treated by hilomelos, think
taat the one who is most uniform in his plots and also his
characterisations and diotion is the best poet are perhaps
right, yet they do not define the good poet, Any-ine could
expound the essential quality of a mime-writer, a prattler
about virtue or any other prose-writer. It is reasonable

106
to maintain that diotion and subject-matter ore equally neces-
sary. In his first book on poetry Praxiphanes offers a dif-
ferent view on the essential quality of good poetry, to the
effect that even when the contents are good so etii'^ês this
essential quality is lacking. Different, too, is the assertion
of Demetrius of Byzantium; and since he says that first the
X argument should be artistically conceived and words chosen
that are not at variance with the subject; and finally, that
the elaboration of the diction should be beautifully executed
and produce the pleasure that is proper to the poems, let
us accept these principles as suromarizing his doctrine.
For to assume that these attributes characterize the good
poet is extremely stupid. Not only then does he not raise
the question as to what is the essence of a good vc7/*t/«Z/ »
nor yet what part of It is more important and what falls
short in importance, but rather he makes known what part of
it should be first, what second, and what last, thou^jh he
could have done this simply by adding "order" to what he had
already said. For the poems must be of beautiful conception,
find suitable words and be carefully elaborated in respect
of diction. Moreover, Neoptolemus "v/as wrong, it seems, in
making a division batween diction and the thoughts, since he
XI had assigned diotion not a smaller but a greater importance
in composition, as we have seen. He acts absurdly v/hen he
puts the one possessed of the art and the poetic power
(l,e,,<,o,^'fns) as a subdivision of cirt side by side with

107
<ioinA^^ and ^cK^r/s . How, too, did he regard these as
subdivisions of the art? Rather he should have called the

fabric poetry, or, better still, the "poe:us" v/orks, and the
poetry, as it were, the web, and the poet the one who posses-
ses the poetic povêr and operates by virtue of this. If he
calls the workmanship poetic, v;hile the art is also styled
poetic, he is making a mistake; and it is ridiculous to
speak of the poet as a subdivision of art. Strange, too,
is his assertion that theme alone belongs to the ^'oniiyts ,
f
since both '^toit^/uo. and everything without exception have
reference to 'nt'ti^îs , The <'pin^'-^ is also a '"Oiyi/A.ci , as is
the Iliad, for example, but the first thirty verses of this,
though a ^-ott^M^, are not, however, a <^,^S'iS .
XII StrEmge, too, is his statement that only the
diction has a part in the ^,ci>^/uo^. , but not the thoughts,
arrang-iments, actions, and characterizations. If soivie thing
artistic should Jriave to be invented in diction, nothing
can be invented here assuredly without these; 'oat I think
that the arrangeisent of the action is an integral part of
the verbiil composition. He says that it is evident to
everyone that these and the theme and the arrangement pertain
to the poet. It is foolish, too, for hira to have written
that the subject aatter and poems do not share in the mis-
takes of the poet. It so latimes happens that there are poor
poems and poor tuemes chosen for poems as a result of the
poet*s mistakes. To assign poems the first place (among

108
the subdivisions) is foolish, and in saying this he did not
show keenness of intellect. If he meant that the <«t>»*j^<a.
held first place in iin)ortance, he ^âs chattering in an
utterly strange manner. If he meant that the '^«p»«<,m«. was
the best (among the subdivisions), why this rather than
XIII •><o>i/iriS to which he subjoined ^/oc^m^ ? If he associ-
ated the technical composition with the thoughts, he said
the same thing before. V/hen he says that one must invest
great poenis with harmony and perfection and th it the perfect
poet to attain perfection must not only beguile his hearers,
but must benefit them and give them useful instruction, and
that Horaer charms and benefits to the greatest extent, he
omioted to prove that he benefits in most cases and to show
in what •,
ay he does it. If in most instances he charms
by virtue of the fact that he benefits, why did he write that

he v/as the greatest poet? Moreover, he has not made the
point clear as to what kind of benefit and useful teaching
must be pres -nt, so that it is open to one to 'onderstand here
the benefit that coraes from philosophy and the other sciences,
CICERO AND HORACE
109
CICERO AND HORACE
Poetry and Rhetoric
Prom earliest times poetry and rhetoric were sister
disciplines. The ancients were fond of stressing the affin-
ity between these two. Some even went so far as to find a

* 1
complete system of r^htoric in Homer. The sophists, through
excessive use of poetical ornament, developed a prose style
that savoured of the dithyramb. Isocrates went into a com-
parison between verse and emotional oratory. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus discussed the question of how prose can resemble
poetry and vice versa. ^ In Roman times Cicero especially
stressed the affinity between the poet and the orator: "For
the poet is very near akin to the orator, being somewhat more
restricted in his rhythms, though freer in his choice of words,
but in many of his methods of ornament his fellow and almost
his equal. "^ Horace, too, felt the affinity between these
two branches of literature: "Sometimes a grave style is nec-
essary, frequently a jocose one, supporting at one time the
character of the orator, and at another that of the poet."^
From this it may be seen that, strange though it
seems tc us, there is nothing anomalous in instituting a com-
parison between a classical work on oratory and one on poetry.
1. Cicero, Brut. 40; Quintilian, II, 3,12; X, 1,46.

2. Cf. Agathon's Sympos. Is Plato referring to this type of
style in Phaedrus, 238 D?
3. ^ - '.'
, 46.
4. De Compositione Verborum, 25.
5. De Or. 1, 70; Vid. also De Or. Ill, 27; Or. 67,188,201,227.
6. Sat. I, 10,10.
.
Cicero's Rhetorica comprise Ms Orator, De Oratore,
Brutus, De Optimo Genere Oratoriim, Partitiones Oratorlae,
Toplca and De Inventione. De Inventione was his earliest
rhetorical work (86 B.C.) and is Just a summary of the teach-
ing then current. The Partitiones is an analysis of rhetoric
In the form of a catechism; the Toplca, a sximmary of Aristotle's
teachin^^ on "Inventloj" De Optimo Genere Oratorum, the preface
for a lost translation; the Brutus, an historical survey of
oratory with Important digressions on current questions. It
Is in the Orator and De Oratore, together with the digres-
sions in the Brutus referred to, that we find Cicero's most
Important contributions to the theory of rhetoric. Conse-
quently it is with these that we shall try to compare the
"Are Poetica."-'-
"ARS POETICA" AND "ORATOR"
h. ARS
Decorum
p
We saw before that the doctrine of decorvun forms
an important part of Horace's "Ars Poetica." The same doc-
trine of decorum or propriety (

ô '^/^^'^'<f
) looms large in
Cicero's "Orator. "^ He insists on the absolute necessity of
1. In regard to the works in general, it is worth noting that

the De Inventione, De Partitione Oratoria and Toplca deal
with "Ars"; De Oratore, Brutus, Orator with "Artlfex."
2. Vid. p. 61 ff, supra.
3. Or. 70 ff
Ill
-Tip' -îftrfii^v and points out that "huius Ignoratlone non modo
in vita sed saepissime et in poematis et in oratione pec-
catun" He then goea on to discuss the theory of decorum in
relation to the speaker, the judge, the adversary, the words,
the time and circumstances. Later he treats decorum in its

p
relation to the plain style and in connection with rhythmic
prose. One frequently feels rather unsafe when the field
of decorum is extended too far, because it is all too easy
to see it at work in practically every prescription of a
treatise. However, there are striking resemblances between
Horace and Cicero in this respect. In addition to the gen-
eral analogies, which can be seen from a comparison of the
above with the section of Horace dealing with decorum, we
might mention the following striking parallels:- Cicero's
doctrine relative to "personae" (71) is found with typically
concrete examples in Horace, vv. 120-127. The decorum of
the actor and auditor of Orator 71 is to be found in Ars
Poetica, 93-98; the decorvan of position and influence of
Or. 71 in A. P., 114-118; the decorum of age of Or. 71 in
156-178 of A. P. An example taken from painting is found in
A. P. 1-13 and in Or. 74.
Inventio
Horace deals with "inventio" in lines 38-41; Cicero
1.Cf. Ars Poetica, 315-318.

2.Or. 123.
3. Tb. 228.
4. Vld. p. 61 ff supra.
5. Cf . "fortuna" of Or. 71 and A. P. 112.
112
in Orator 44-45. It may be seen that both treatments are short
and that both stress the Importance of sound judgment in the
matter of selecting material and both use a metaphor from human
anatomy*
Ordo
Horace treats order in verses 41-45; Cicero treats
It as "collocatio" in Or. 50. There is but little resemblance
between these two sections beyond the summary nature of the
treatment devoted to the topic and the lact that both realize
the necessity for making judicious rejections.
Elocutio
By far the largest section of both works is devoted
to a consideration of "elocutio." In Horace's lines 45-118
are devoted to this topic, in Cicero sections 51-236. The
arrangement of the matter discussed in the two writers cannot
be brought into close correlation nor is it to be expected
that there should be close parallels in arrangement. The
arrangements are as follows:
There is not general agreement as to wnere the section

on "elecutio" should end. Norden, op. cit. 507, ends
it at verse 130. Barwlck, Die Gliederung der Rhetorischen
^'^' I und die Horazische Epistula ad Pisones, 46,
seems to divide it better by ending this section at
line 118.
115
Horace Cicero
Diction 46-72
Arrangement of words 73-85
Application to genres 86-98

114
hiavlaws. Horace and Cicero are in complete agreement as
regards the deceptive appearance of a simple style - everyone
thinks he could reproduce it but, attempting it, finds that

p
he is not able.
«
As regards Cicero's treatment of prose rhythm and
Horace's metrical theory, we cannot expect to find any detailed
parallelism. Th& re is a parallelism in method in so far as

each discussed the inventors (6uê-r ) of the things with
which he is dealing. Horace treats of the inventors of the
various poetic genres, Cicero of the inventors of prose rhythm.
Horace emphasizes the function of "usus" and refers
to the natural rise and decline of words. He does not go
into a detailed account of what is to be done when "usus"
and some other criterion are in conflict. Among the criteria

discussed by Cicero "natura" and "usus" find their place.'*
Elsewhere,^ however, in hia diffuse fashion, he treats of the
conflict of "usus" and euphony and is not always consistent
in his decisions as to which is to prevail.
Delivery (Actio)
Delivery is the first topic treated in Cicero's

section on "elocutio."'^ Delivery deals in the main with
three things - voice (vox), gesture (motus), facial expression
1. Cf e.g. iunctura in Or. 77 and A. P. 47.

2. Or. 76: A. P. 240.
3. Or. 174-176; A. P. 73-85. This technique seems to be an
inheritance form Alexandrian rhetoric and poetics.
4. Orator 179-236. 179-203 deal with "natura," 203-236 with
"usus."
5. Or. 149-162.
6. Cf. Or. 153, 157, 160.
7. Or. 55-60.
^
(vultus). The keynote is a pleasing and "proper" variety.^
As regards voice, he goes into greater detail and sets forth
the type of voice adapted to various moods.
Only vv. 100-108 of Horace could be regarded as
dealing specifically with delivery. Echoes of the maxims
of Cicero have been seen by some elsewhere in 86-111.^ Here,
no doubt, there are references to voice and facial expression
and the principle of variety Is stressed. However, as re-
gards voice, Horace may be Just stating current practice, and
moreover the whole passage seems sarcastic; nor is it at all
certain that Horace is using the word "vox" in the same
sense as Cicero. Both agree that the facial expression is
the mirror of the soul and will have its effect only when
It is a true index of the feelings beneath.^ Attempts to
unite Cicero and Horace too closely on the grounds of delivery
would lead to a very unnatural straining of Horace's text and
vocabulary.
Character {f^(S): Feeling {âôS )
Cicero is brief in his treatment of *i oos . it is,
he says, accommodated to nature and rianners and every turn
of life, kind, pleasing, and adapted to produce kind feelings.^
T",lb. 59 (referring to Demosthenes).

2. lb. 56 - contenta, summissa, Inclinata, Inflexa.
3. Kroll, op. cit. 9S.
4. Or. 60, 132. A. P. 101-105.
5. Or. 128.
116
Mary A. Grant maintains that hOe>s is, according to Cicero,
an attribute of the "sermo," associated so closely with the
plain style. 1 From this we should expect to find i^Qo3
rather prominent in Horace, and so it is. He gives us a
rather general survey of its need in one place*^ and later a
designation in greater detail of the four stages of man and
the appropriate characteristics for each age.
In the same work. Miss Grant proposes the theory
that âOoS is more commonly connected with the "contentio,"
associated with the grand style. ^ Inserted between the two
passages on t^fJo^ given above, we find a passage of Horace
on the types of tragedy. These characters could be brought
under the concept of >

•' ' but it is interesting to note
that they do not fit absolutely into the classification for

hQoS made by Dionysius, and this is the widest classifica-
tion I know of .^ The adjectives applied to them are all
adjectives expressing '^lO-tôS , This passage then would
seem to correspond in the Ars Poetica to Cicero's "Orator"
128. Here he says that the ^<z^^-r/*foE serves to stir up
the soul and throw it into a whirl, and that it is vehement,
rousing, exciting.'''
1. The Ancient Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable, Univer-

sity of Viisconsin Studies In Lan^. and Lit. 1924.
2. 114-118.
3. 156-178.
4. Vid. Or. 109, where "contentio" is associated with the
epic and tragic poets. / / :> ^
6. 120-124.
7. Vid. Rhys Roberts, The Three Lit. Letters, Gloss. 198.
.
117
The Three Styles
Cicero and Horace would naturally differ as to the
style that each would prefer. The exuberant and diffuse
orator would tend towards the grand style, associated with
<iaQoS i the restrained and brief poet would lean towards
the plain style, connected with iiVoS . Thus we are not
surprised to find that the idea of the plain style seems to
permeate the Ars Poetica. The plain style would be the one
most closely akin to, if not identical with, the Stoic con-
ception of the idaal style. liogenes enximerates the virtues
of style as correctness of language, clearness, brevity,
aptness and ornament rising above the level of vulgar speech. '•
These, too, are the qualities stressed in Horace. Correctness
of langxiage is stressed in 45-72, clearness in 25 and 40,
brevity in 25 and 335, aptness throughout the whole work,
and the painstaking work that gives the ornament of artistic
finish in 438-452. There is a strong resemblance between
the words used to describe the plain style by Cicero and
Horace. Cicero, describing it, uses the words: summissus,
humilis, subtiiitas, solutxom nee vagum, verba verbis coag-
mentare neglegat, habet non inî^ratam ne^legentiam, incompta,
purus, dilucide planeque, tenuis, nee - audax, parous.
Horace speaks of it as - humilis, lucidus, parous, tenuis,
cautus
1. Diogenes, VII, 59; Vld. Volkmann, Pie Hhetorik der

Griechen vindRomer, p. 157 ff.
118
However, Horace was not the one to become a blind
partisan of any one style to the exclusion of all others,
and we may look In his work for references to uses of the
other two styles.
In dealing with drama Horace says: "Often, too. In
a tragedy Telephus or Peleus utters his sorrows "sennone
pedestrl" when, poor and In exile, he flings aside his paint
pots and words a yard long. In eagerness to touch th3 spec-
tator's heart with his lamentable tale."-'- This passage by
Inference asserts that tragedy normally employs the grand
style. Once again we may see that it would be impossible
for the tragic characters listed In Horace^ to speak in any
but the grand style.
When we come to the middle style, we are on less
certain ground. This style is not in itself very clearly
defined. Cicero's description of It Is mainly a comparison
between it and the other two styles, and it would not be
easy to set its exact limits. He emphasizes the fact that
it has "suavltatla plurimum," selects Demetrius of Phalerum
as its best exponent, and gives as his outstanding charac-
teristic the ornament he attains by "translate verba atque
immutata." It is highly polished, graceful and charming.
1. 95-98. These lines would also seem to show Horace's idea

that the grand style runs the risk of appearing insincere.
Cf Or. 98, and Ars Poetlca, 187-188, 338-340.
.
2. 120-124.
3. Or. 91-96.
119
When we turn to Horace for indications of this style, we do
not easily find them. A priori one would be inclined to
think that the influence of the peripatetics, with their love
of compromise, might incline Horace to prefer this triddle
style. The only reference T can find to "suavitas" would he
contained in the "duloia" of vorpe 99. Here, however, he i8
not thinking of the oharaoteriFtic virtue of the middle style
but of pomethinf else.
Again throughout the work Horace emphasizes the need
for thorough polishing and painstaking care, but this can hardly
be connected with the middle style but rather represents a re-
action on hie J art agaiiuat such hastily and carelessly construct-
ed works as he had in mind when he wrote: "pcribimus indooti doc-
tique poemata passim."^ On the vhole his prescription for the

n,
writlQg of satyr-drama*' seems to be most closely assooiated
with the middle style. Hero he calls for a style that rises
above the level of ungamlshed (inornata) overyday speech
and does not, in Phunninf the ground, "catch at clouds and
emptiness." Thi e, then, would be the middle style with Its
1. Cf. p. 52 supra and also Kroll, op. cit. 89.

2. Bp. II, 1, 117.
3. 220-250. It ip worth noting that one of the uses of
iunotura falls within this paspage.
4. Or, 92, Huio ... ornamenta conveniunt.
6. 2S0. In 229 he ppeaka of the h umili sermone, i.e., plain
stylo, which is to be here avoided.
-
120
language standing somewhere between the plain style of comedy
and the grand style of tragedy. This style would fit the
characters too. They are gods and heroes, unbending somewhat
In their dignity, but by no means becoming entirely "dechar-
acterised."
Cicero is of the opinion that the orator must be
master of all three styles if he is to be really efficient.
Horace says that the diction of tragedy sometimes descends to
the level of comedy, and conversely the language of comedy at

4
times exalts Itself to the plane of tragedy. Thus the dram-
atist in either genre must be capable of reaching the style
of the other. He must be master of the plain style and the
grand style, and if so, it would seem, also master of that
fusion of the two which produces the middle style.
II. ARTIFEX
Norden has pointed out that the "nomen poetae" of
V. 299 marks Horace's transition from the subject of "Ars"
to that of "Artlfex," and points to a parallel in Cicero Or.
64, where we find a similar terminology used. The same writer
also divides the part dealing with "artlfex" from the point
of view of rhetoric.^ His division is as follows:
1. Vid. liUlkins, Horace, 380,

2. 225 ff.
3. Or. 113.
4. 93-98.
5. Op. cit. 497-498.
6. Op. cit. 508.
De Poeta
Transitio, 295-505, and Proposltio, 506-308.
A. De Instrumentis poetae, 309-332,
B. De officio poetae, 333-346.
C. De perfect© poeta, 347-452

(1) Degree of perfection attainable, 547-407
(2) Genius and labour, 408-462.
D. De insano poeta, 455-476.
This division would not find favour with all. Many, no doubt,
would change it or modify it. However, it will serve as a
basis for a comparison of the "Ars Poetica" and "Orator."^
Role of Horace and Cicero
Horace was one of Rome's greatest poets; Cicero was
certainly Rome's greatest orator. For this reason, it seems
strange that when each in turn proceeded to write a critical
book on his own branch, he insisted that he was writing not
as a professional in that branch, but as a cultivated critic,
and therefore would not feel obliged to go into minutiae and
technical details. Horace states this once, when he says
that "nil scribens" he shall treat the poet in outline.
Cicero is particularly insistent on this aspect of his work,^
returning to emphasize it even in contexts where it seems
irrelevant.^

2. 504 ff.
3. Or. 45, 112.
4. Vid. Or. 117.
De Instrumentla Poetae
Horace Insists on the absolute necessity of a train-
ing In philosophy for the poet: "the secret of all good writ-
ing is sound Judgment. "1 What he means by "sapere" is evident
from the lines that follow. It refers to philosophical train-
ing. Cicero also emphasizes the need for a sound grounding

2
in philosophy: "philosophy is the basis of eloquence."
Horace says that the "Socratlcae chartae" will supply the
facts, and Cicero, on his part, says that his proficiency as
an orator has come to him "ex Academiae spatlis."^ Both, too,
stress the necessity of a thorough knowledge of the subject
matter.^
De Officio Poetae
Horace maintains that the poet's work is to profit
or to please or, best of all, to effect a union of these two
and bring profit and pleasure simultaneously.^ Cicero speaks
of the orator's work and says that it is "ut probet, ut
delectet, ut flectat."^ Here he is referring to the orator
In the law courts and his three requisites correspond to the
"docere, movere, delectare," commonly associated with the
orator.''' In these divisions "prodesse" would correspond to
1. 309.
2. Or. 70.
3. A. P. 310; Or. 12.
4. A. P. 311: Or. 119.
5. 333-334, 343-344.
6. Or. 69.
7. Cf. Quintilian III, 5, 2. De Partit . Or. has a twofold
division, "docere" and "movere."
123
"docere"; "delectare" is common to both. Horace does not
treat "movere" In this context. It might be dangerous to
press analogies too far in this context - at least to the
extent of maintaining that the Idea of the poet's mission is
worked out to correspond to that of the orator. The question
of the poet's mission was an old and frequently discussed one.
It goes back at least as far as Aristophanes,-^ He declared
that the poet's mission is "docere" but is here thinking of
moral teaching. This is, I think, the idea found in "docere"
when it is applied to the poets, while the same word in ref-
erence to orators means enlightening the Judge or audience
on the points of the case. When Plato in his Republic dealt
with poets and specified what they were to teach, he had

moral teaching in mind. He grudgingly admitted that the
poets had the power of "delectare," Aristotle, in the main,
based his judgments on aesthetic ground but was not blind .
to moral considerations either.^ Later ages were to face
the question more frankly and become more dogmatic in their
utterances. Eratosthenes explicitly stated that the purpose
Of poetry was "delectare" not "docere," while the Stoics
maintained that the chief fvinction was "docere."^ In Roman
times there was a tendency to compromise, but also, it
1. Frogs 1009, 1053; Achar. 500.

2. Vid. Butcher, op. cit. 213.
3. Strabo I, 1,10; I, 2,3.
4. Vid, Jensen: Zur Poetik des Stoikers Ariston von Cnios,
130 ff,
5. Cf. Tate: Horace and The Moral Function of Poetry,"
Class. Quart. XXII, 65 ff.
124
seems to me, a tendency towards instability of view In this
matter. Cicero seems to change ground frequently.-^ We may
see from this that there is no need to think that the
"officla poetae" were deliberately worked out to form a per-
fect analogy to the "offlcia oratoris." The analogous terms
correspond in form only, not in meaning.
Degree of Perfection Attainable
Horace admits that absolute perfection Is unattain-
able, but the highest possible relative perfection is to be
alned at: "Mediocrity in poets has never been tolerated by
gods, men or booksellers." Cicero, too, speaks of the dif-
ficulty of painting the perfect orator and the danger that
the ideal may deter others. 3 He says that there is a place
for mediocre and second-rate orators. Horace also recog-
nized that the standard of the law courts was different from
that by which poetry is to be Judged and that every Jurist
need not be a Cascellius.^ When Cicero in the same context
speaks of poetry, he seems to be more liberal in his views
than Horace. It is, however, not easy to draw a definite
comparison between them because of the vagueness of the
descriptions. Both will admit poets Inferior to Homer, but
wotdd the "aecxindi" and "infra secundos" of Cicero be high
1. De Fin. I, 4; Acad. Post. 10; De Opt. Gen. 1, 10;

Tusc. II, 49.
2. 347 ff.
3. Or. 3-6.
4. A. P. 371.
125
enough to escape the "medio ere a" of Horace? The fundamental
difference between the standards for jbaginî poetry and ora-
tory lies, I would think. In the fact that poetry is a luxury,
while oratory is a practical utility with a coTranercial value
where you get what you pay for.
Genius and Labour
Horace treats of the old question of the need and
relative merits of nature and art in 408 ff. He maintains
that each is useless by Itself and that it is only when both
meet in helpful \inion that satisfactory results can be
obtained. Cicero, too, discusses "natura" and "ilia prae-
stantls ingeni vis" in Or. 4, and clearly Implies that for
the best results both are necessary. Nevertheless it seems
ridiculous to me to try to establish a dependence of this
question in poetics on the same question in rhetoric. The
relative role and merits of nature and art was one of the
oldest questions in poetical theory and even antedates any
formulation of poetical theory. Pindar formally discussed
this question and said that "man is a true poet who knows
much by natural genius, while those who have learnt ... are
as crows that laly chatter at,ainst the divine bird of Zeus."*^
This was before there was any formal rhetoric or rhetorical
theory. Later the question of inspiration and its relation
1. Cf. Cic. De Or. I, 26, 118.

2. Vld. De Or. I, 118.
3. Olymp. II, 85 ff. Cf. Olymp. IX, 100: "that which comes
by nature is in all cases the best."
to natural genius occupied men's minds and somewhat obscured
the early antithesis of art and nature. The Romans, however,
returned to the earlier question and discussed it under
"ingenixan" and "ars." This discussion became a commonplace
In Roman criticism of poetry. It is this traditional and
never fully resolved question that is in Horace's mind rather
than any rhetorical theories.
"ARS POETICA" AND "DE ORATORE"
I. ARS
Decorum*'
The discussion of decorum does not, I think, per-
meate the "Ee Oratore" to the same extent to which it did
the "Orator." Although there are references to it in other
contexts,^ the whole doctrine is summed up and treated for-
mally in III, 209-213. Here he says that decorum must be
considered in regard to the "causa," the "auditor," the
"persona" and the "tempus." As regards the case (causa),
we must consider whether it calls for something in keeping
with deliberation, panegyric, consolation, discussion or

historical treatment. The type of audience (auditor) too
will make a difference, e.g., whether a speech is directed
to the senate, the people or the Judges in a law court, to
1. Plato, Meno 96C ff; Arlst. Rhet Ill, 7, Poet. 1455a.

.
2. Vid. p. 61 ff for growth of this doctrine in Greek times.

3. E.g., Ill, 37 - "apte congruenterque."
127
a large crowd (frequentes) , a small gathering (paucl), or
an Individual (sintûllj, considering also the type (quales)
of people in every instance. Due consideration must also
be given to the age, office and authority of the speaker
(persona). The question of tire must be considered - whether

It Is a time of peace or war, a tlire of haste or leisure.
We now turn to Horace in search of indications of
rules of decorum akin to these of Cicero. To the "causae"
of Cicero would correspond, I think, In broad analoj^y, the
different types of poetry In Horace. We trust, he says, "note
the differences of subject and shades of style," at the risk
of falling to deserve the name of poet. He treats the
requisites of various types of poetry more in detail else-
where, '^ but only in regard to the various metres which have
been found suitable. On the whole this treatment occupies
a very large section of Horace. No comparison can be estab-
lished between the types of oratory ano the types of poetry
In themselves, and the analogy between the sections in gen-
eral is purely accidental. At the most we could say that
Just as there are various types of oratory, so too there are
various types of poetry. This would be a pointless remark,
for the same could be said of the relation between oratory
and music or practically any other of the fine arts. Cicero
classifies oratory on a functional basis, according to the
1. 86 ff.
2. 73 ff; 251 ff.
3. 73-294. Other matters, however, find a place In this section.
result which various types are expected to produce. It would
be Impossible to have a classification on tliis basis in
poetry, and no attempt at such is made by Horace.
Cicero treats the audience on a quantitative and
qualitative basis. In Horace there is no such clear-cut and
well defined treatment. He realizes the different tastes of
different classes and points out that the one with "horse,
father or estate" v>ill not receive with favour "everything
the purchaser of fried peas and chestnuts may approve."'^

2
The same piece will not be acceptable to both old and young.
Every class will react unfavourably to some faults.'^ Cnce
again the resemblances here are faint and we cannot safely
venture beyond the assertion that each writer in turn was
conscious of the fact that the type of audience made a
difference - an assertion not worth making, since this con-
sciousness would of necessity be present to any writer treat-
ing of any production which must stand or fall according to
the Impression it makes on an audience.
Age, office, and authority are the things that must
be considered in regard to the speaker. It is under this
heading that we find the closest resemblances between Horace
and Cicero.^ The speaking characters in the dram^ must speak
according to their age,^ their office and authority. Never-
1. 248 ff.
2. 341 ff.
3. 112 ff.
4. Norden, op. cit. 493.
5. 156 ff.
6. 112 ff.
^
129
theless, between the character who faces his audience from
the stage and the orator who faces judge or senate there is
an obvious and fundamental difference. One seeks to win over
his audience to his way of tninkingj the other wishes to to
impress his hearers that they will remain quiet "until the
curtain drops"-'- and desire to see the play again. This
fundamental difference of purpose colours all the advice
given and makes us realize that resemblances are mostly acci-
dental and may not be pushed too far.
In regard to tha other subdivisions of "Ars," the
"De Oratore" is not as close to the "Ars Poetica" ad the
"Orator." A comparison between them could add nothin^^, new,
but would be substantially a repetition of matter treated
before.^
II. ARTIFEX
As regards the section of Horace dealing with the
poet, we shall follow the divisions given by Norden.^
De Instrumentls Poetae
Like the "Orator," the "De Oratore" stresses the
need for a philosophical and broad training on the part of
the orator. However, the earlier work goes into this question
much more in detail in its attempt to show the absurdity of

5
the divorce between rhetoric and philosophy. The would-be
1. 155 ff.
2. 189 ff.
3. P. 110 supra.
4. Vid. p. 121 supra
5. Ill, 56 ff.
^
130
orator may possibly succeed without a knowledge of dialectic
or physics, but it is absolutely necessary that he have a
thorough grounding in ethics and know "de vita et moribus."-'-
Books on rhetoric alone are not sufficient. Various schools
of philosophy are discussed and in the end the conclusion
reached that the training of the perfect orator must be based
on the philosophic rhetoric of Aristotle, Arcesilas and
Cameades. p
Horace, as we have seen, insists on a philosophic
training based on the "Socratlcal cnartae" ana bids the

. "
clever imitator "respicere exemplar vitae moruirque
De Officio Poetae
The "De Oratore" is more diffuse in its treatment of
the "Officla oratoris" than the "Orator." Nevertheless, I
cannot see that it adds anything which might profitably be
compared with any part of Horace's theory on the "Officia
Poetae." Cicero sums up the officla from various points of
view in different places, but each summation is substantially
the sam.e - "ut probemus vera esse, quae defendlmus; ut con-
cillemus eos nobis, qui audluntj ut animos eorum ad quemcumque
causa postulablt motum, vocemus."^ This Is again the docere,
movers, delectare referred to before.^ One or other of these
1. I, 69.
2. Ill, eO. Carneades represents the Academy; Arcesilas, the
New Academy, cf III, 67,
3. Vld. p. 122, supra.
4. 310, 316.
5. II, 115, cf. 11, 121, 128.
e. Vld. p. 122, supra.
131
may be more to the fore in different parts of the speech, but
all three must be continually kept In rolnd.^ The least
stressed of the three in the "De Oratore" seems to be the
f\inction of "docere," which is sometimes omitted entirely.
There is nothing to add to the comparison already
made on this score between Cicero and Horace. It might,
however, be pointed out that the concept of the orator and
poet as being each a "vir bonus peritus dicendi" is to be
found in both writers. Tills is a stoic concept and is found
in the "De Oratore," III, 65, and in the "Ars Poetica," 511-
322.
Perfect Poet and Perfect Orator
Both Cicero and Horace realized that oratory and
poetry differed in the perfection which they demanded. Cicero
says; "On the same principle in those arts whose aim is not
some immediately practical utility, but some less restricted
intellectual enjoyment, how critically, and with what a nice
fastidiousness, do we pass Judgment I" Here Cicero agrees
that in certain arts nothing but the highest is good enough.
Horace makes this demand for poetry: "A poem, created to
give delight, if it fails but a little of the highest, sinks
to the lowest."^
1. II, 82;III, 104.

2. 30-32; I, 53; I, 202.
I,
3. Vld. p. 122 ff supra.
4. De Or. I, 118, "Those arts" would certainly include poetry.
5. 377 ff.
.
Degree of Perfection Attainable
As In the "Orator," so too in the "De Oratore" we
find a distinction between absolute and relative perfection.
There can be no such thing as the absolutely perfect orator,
as a glance at the (sarcastic?) sumiiary In De Oratore, I, 28,
may show us. Here Antonlus, comparing oratory with other
arts, says that the orator must have "the subtlety of the
logician, the thoughts of the philosopher, the language atoiost
of the poet, the memory of the lawyer, the voice of the
tragedian, the gestures I may add of the constimmate actor."
No man could ever hope to attain this ideal, but the aspirant
to oratorical fame must, nevertheless, keep it before his
eyes.-'- The heights to which the perfect orator must attain
are commented on, implicitly or explicitly, in various sec-
tions of the "De Oratore," as one or other of the many accom-
plishments necessary to him is stressed. 2 Connected with
this la a passage of extravagant praise of the power and util-
ity of the orator.^ Its connection with the context is thin
and it comes from the enthusiastic and effervescent Crassus.
We have already spoken of the substantial agreement
between Horace's requirements for the perfect poet and Cicero's
for the perfect orator. ^ it need only be added here that
1. De Or. Ill, 85. How far Plato's theorv of Ideas, which Hack
saw, or thought he saw, in the "Orator" is operative here la
not easy to determine. Vld. Hack: The Doctrine of Literary
Forms, p. 57 ff, and Kroll: M. Tulll Ciceronis Orator, ad.
72 ff.
2. Of. I, 59, 64, 202; III, 80.
S. I, 202 ff
.
Cicero would agree to the differences pointed out there as we
can see from "De Oratore," I, 118, cited above.
There remains, then, the question of the praise of
the orator in Cicero and of the poet in Horace. •' Passages
of this kind seem to be a commonplace in Cicero's rhetorical
works. The passage in the "De Oratore" and the one in
Horace are both alike in the fact that both fit rather poorly
Into their contexts, so poorly tnat each writer has to invent
an excuse for dragt,ing them in - Crassus to prevent anyone
from thinking that a full account of the orator can be given
in a brief space, and Horace J st any of his friends should
be ashamed of the lyric Muse j though I can find no evidence
that there was any danger of either contingency. In addition
to this there runs through each a note of extravagance which,
though Ciceronian enough and quite appropriate In the mouth
of Crassus, is entirely un-Horatian. How then are we to
explain the presence of this passage in Horace? Certainly
It is not a case of Horace's seizing upon this as an opportun-
ity for bursting into a piece of epic grandeur. The passage
would then be an instance of the "purpureus pannus," which he
disliked so much.^ We cannot think, either, that Horace was
serious in the tributes paid to poetry here. The note of
obvious exaggeration that runs throut>h the whole thing would
1. De Or. 1, 202 ff; A. P. 391 ff.

2. Cf. De Or. I, 30 ff; De Invent. I, 2 ff. The same type of
praise for philosophy is to be found in Tusc. Dlsp. Bk.
II, ch. IV ff
3. A. P. 15. Cf. A. P. 137 ff.
-
be entirely out of keeping with the poet so enamoured of the
"golden mean." I would say that its presence in Horace is
due to rhetorical influences where such passages were a
commonplace, and that it is in Its nature sarcastic and
ironical, a satire on the extravagant claims made for poetry.
There is no need to think that Horace was following Cicero
when he introduced this passage, though he would no doubt

feel inclined, as Antonlus did, to caricature Crassus.
Such passages were traditional in v;orks on rhetoric and must
have been well known to Horace and his coterie.
Genius and Labour
Plato sets down q>Ub/S , /4,6-A6r<i^ and ^»irr*i/x*^
aa necessary for a perfect orator.' We saw something before
of the divisions introduced in works on poetry and rhetoric
in Hellenistic times, ^ and Heraclides assigned the treatment
of these qualities to the section on the "artifex." Later
their treatment became a commonplace in works on poetry and
rhetoric. Simylus, a didactic poet of the Hellenistic per-
iod, has admirably summed up the question at issue in verses
which Sandys has aptly translated:
1. Od. II, IX, 5. It may be admitted, however, that the account

of the characteristics of the different ages is somewhat of a
"purple patch."
2. Vid. Hubbell: The Influence of Isocratea on Cicero, Dionysius
and Aristides, p. 54 ff and passim.
S. Phaedrus, 269 D.
4. Vid. p. 79 supra. (
5. Barwick: Die Gliedierunt, der rhetorischon ^^J^l^l und die
Horazische Epistula ad Piaones, p. 56 ff.
135
"Nature of Art bereft will not suffice
For any work whate'er in all ths world;
Nor Art again, devoid of Nature's aid.
And, e'en if Art and Nature join in one.
The poet still must find the ways and means,
Passion and practice; happy chance and time;
A critic skilled to seize the poet's sense.
For, if in aught of these he haply fail.
He cannot gain the goal of all his hopes.
Nature, good wllj, and pains, and ordered grace
Make poets wise and good, while length of years
Will make them older men, but nothing more."^
For the sake of completeness, I add to the above
Professor Shorey's translation of a passage from the Anony-
mus lamblichl:^
"If a man desire to work anything out to the end
in the best manner, alike whether it be wisdom, bravery,
eloquence, or virtue in whole or any part, these are the con-
ditions of success. Natural capacity for it is the first
requirement, and this must be attributed to fortune. This
assumed, the conaitions that depend upon the man himself are
that he shovild be a lover of toil, a learner early in life,
and abiding in the pursuit a long time. If even one of these
conditions shall be lacking, it is not possible to bring
1. J. E. Sandys: "History of Classical Spholarshlp," p. 56.

,
2. P. Shorey: " '- /^^>^'r^' l^MiT-riu r:

Tr. Amer. Phil. Assoc. XL, 185-201.
anything to the highest perfection. But where all are united,
whatever a man practises is unsurpassed."
In these passages we find the three main requirements
and in addition a number of aids mentioned.
In Cicero's "De Oratore" the relative values of
"natura" {fos-i6 ), "exercitatlo" (/iÂ^rn ) and '"doctrina"
( t'îiS^'fi^f^*^ ) are discussed again and again. In different
places one -or other of them is stressed. ' I cannot find any-
thing that would help me to add to the comparison already made
between Cicero and Horace." I bring the matter up here to
remark on some of the subsidiary aids, mentioned above, which
seem to find a place in both writers. These subsidiary aids
are: passion (^P«^5 ), happy chance ( K«-/^t7S 6oi(>u^S j^
time {j^Pist/£>S ), a critic { K.i)iî45 ), study early in life

('npcjtcn^ci'Ta/ j!A.a.\/§&)/o\/^&.) ^ love of toll ( d?\)\t><i9{/oi ).
We find the need for some of a lover's passion for
the art (ardorem quendam amoris, 6p*^'S ) stressed in one place
In Cicero.*^ However, one small section later^ contains in
itself all the mention of these subsidiary aids which I can
find in Cicero. Here Crassus mentions the need for passionate
devotion (studium, ^fi**^^ ), early learning (doctrina puerlll,

îpt>/(o.iâ.<a^ /t^/Â.i/oi/'T^- ), love of toil (infinitls dls-
ceptatlonibus exercitatus, (îXO'îtî/c^t/ ) and perhaps
1. I, 113, 134-159, 147, 223; II, 86-69; III, 16.

2. ¥id. p. 125, supra.
3. I, 134.
4. Ill, 125.
137
time also In his reference to the need for becoming acquainted
with the best speakers and writers.

More of these qualities can be found, I think, in
Horace. He stresses the time element when he advises that
the completed mqntisjrlpt be "let stand for over a decade." ^

He refers, too, to the need for an education begtim in early-
youth, for, in his analogy drawn from athletics, the man who
would succeed "has done much in boyhood."^ Moreover, he has
worked, or at least borne toll, for "he has borne heat and
cold."^ He has had to give his whole devotion to his calling
and "has abstained from women and wlne."^ Horace Is insis-
tent in his demands for the service of a true critic {Hpf'i'HS ,
iudex). He sets forth the function of true criticism,^ warns
against the criticism that proceeds from selfish motives,^
and advises the Pisos to submit their work to no fev/er than

7
three critics.
Vesanus Poeta; Malus Orator
We have seen before® something of the ideas of Horace
and Cicero on perfection and mediocrity in poets and orators
and that each would agree that the other's art made different
demands in regard to these.
1. 388.
2. 413.
3. 413.
4. 414.This cannot be pressed too far, as Horace has physical
fitness rather than freedom of fancy in mind. However, the
former in the athlete is closely analogous to the latter in
the poet.
5. 438 ff. 7. 386 ff.
6. 419 ff. 8. Vid. p. 132, supra.
The bad orator, in Cicero, Is the one who lacks the
ability for his task and has not the saving grace to realize
this. He gathers a crowd by crying his own wares like an
auctioneer.! He ia devoid of prudence and to grant him free-
dom of speech is but to arm a madman.
Horace applies the fiîure of the auctioneer to the
Incompetent poet who gathers an audience by his wealth. His
picture of the mad poet, however, is permeated with irony.
It depicts the mad poet as one lacking a sense of reality and
dangerous, not to the community, but to himself.^ It has
analogies with Cicero's mad orator, but there are wide differ-
ences.
ESTIMATE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

HORACE AND CICERO
It seems to me that the attempt to establish a very
close connection between the theory of poetry and that of
rhetoric is a con5)aratively modern tendency. I can find little
evidence of it before 1905, when Norden published his article -
"Die Composition und Litteraturgattung der Horazlschen Epistula
ad Pisones" - in "Hermes." Since then, however, the theory
has had a rapid growth so that later studies convey the Im-
pression that poetical theory is entirely dependent on rhetor-
ical theory. These scholars, however, seem to miss, or more
1. II, 86.
2. Ill, 55.
3. 419 ff.
4. 455 ff.
159
probably deliberately Ignore, a number of important consider-
ations.
Everything must be Judged in reference to its end or
purpose. I have referred before to the different aim of the
poet and the orator. In brief, the orator's aim is to win
over his audience to his way of thinking, while the poet's
aim is "prodesse aut delectare," which, in Horace's case at
least, is expected to affect the audience in such a way that
they will remain to the end of the piece and perhaps come back
2
to see it a second time. This difference of aim or purpose
is fundamental and colours every rule and advice that is to .
lead to this end - ars, ingenivun; -îclOo^ ^ h vOS ;
inventio, dispositioj elocutio; perfection, mediocrity, etc.
Due to this, it often happens that a similarity in terminology
between poetry and rhetoric is a mere verbal resemblance cov-
ering a complete, or almost complete, dissimilarity in the
Idea underlying the word.
We must not forget either that rhetoric was deeply
Indebted to poetry. We can see that Cicero's own speculations
owed a good deal to this source."^ Norden would be forced to
modify his views considerably if he were writing after Phil-
odemus " "^p> <'t:>iyf/x4,'ru)^ « i^^d become available. We now
know that Horace used Neoptolemua and that the parallels
adduced are no proof of Horace's dependence on Cicero.
1. Vld. p. 122 ff, fiupra.

3. Cf. Orator, 3S, 66-63, 163, 174. Via. D'Aiton, op. cit. p. 469,
When we come to the vexatious question of division
in the "Ara Poetica," we may admit that we can find some
trace of the stereotyped divisions of rhetoric, such as
inventlo, dlspositlo and elocutlo. Such, however, are no
more than broad resemblances and any attempt to push them too
far results In an unnatural straining of Horace's text and
meaning. The difficulty of forcing the "Ars Poetica" into a
rhetorical pattern becomes more evident when we consider that
the strongest advocates of the existence there of such a pat-
tern disagree on several points.
The resemblances between Horace and Cicero should
not surprise us. They are due to the fact that the same
factors were exerting their influence on both writers. We
have referred before to the fact that poetry and rhetoric
were regarded as sister disciplines. They both had recourse
to the same general aesthetic theory. We may even allow that
there are some striking parallels between the "Ars Poetica"
and the schematic treatment found in Cicero. However, if we
try to bring the theory of poetry in Horace into complete
conformity with that of rhetoric and prove dependence, we are
attaching too much importance to mere vague analogies, and
forgetting both the peculiar problems of poetry and the influ-
ence of a body of doctrine beyond both Horace and Cicero and
affecting both. To sum up, we might say that the resemblances
between Horace and Cicero are due not to derivation but to
cognate origin.
1. Vld. Norden, op. cit. p. 489; Barwick, op. cit. p. 48.

HORACE AND DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
HORACE AND DIONYSIUS l
Dlonyslus of Hallcarnassus came to Rome in 30 B.C.
and lived there until at least 8 B.C.^ In Rome he practised
as a teacher of rhetoric and may have kept an open school
there. ^ He was a member of one of the literary coteries that
flourished in Rome in those days, and it is to members of his
coterie, or pupils, that his literary works are primarily
directed.^
Horace and Bionysius had many points in common. They
were contemporaries in Rome for twenty-two years, and quite
probably met one another.^ Both were members of a literary
coterie.^ Both turned for models to the writers of classical
Greek times,' but neither would admit the theories of the
extreme Atticists.° Both wrote with a practical end in view.

Q
We have dealt at length with Horace's purpose before. He
wished to be of service to two of his friends. Dionysius
1. References throughout are as follows: For "De Comp. Verb."

and the "Three Literary Letters" - to the editions of Vt. R.
Roberts; all other references are to the Leipzig edition,
"Dionysii Hallcarnassensis Opera Omnia."
2. Antiq. Rom. I, 7.
3. De Comp. Verb. XX. Blass: Die griechische Beredsamkeit in
Zeitraum von Alexander bis auf Augustus, p. 172; for the
opposite opinion, vld. Egger: Denys d'HallcarnaPse, p. 7.
4. De Lys. 20.
5. Fiske: Lucilius and Horace, p. 77, states that they did
meet. He gives no reference, and I have been unable to find
anything that could establish the fact of their meeting with
certainty,
6. Vld. p. 74 supra, for Horace's connection with a coterie.
7. A. P. 268-269. For Dionysius, vld. Jebb: "Attic Orators,"
I, Ixv.
8. Vld. D'Aiton, op. clt. p. 215.
142
wished to be of service to the state, and In this was a child
of his age, much more than Horace was.^
Both these men turned to literary criticism and cast
their works in the same mould, using the epistle as the mode
of conveying their teaching. One would be inclined to think
that between these two there would be many points of resem-
blance, and yet the passages in which they can be brought into
correlation are few. Nothing, it seems to me, emphasizes the
gulf that separates poetics and rhetoric so much as the lack
of points of contact between two writers who had so much in
common otherwise.
VIRTUES OF STYLE
As we should expect from one dominated by the influ-
ence of rhetoric, Dlonyslus devotes a considerable amount of
thought and space to the virtues of style. For Aristotle,
style had one virtue, lucidity i'^^-

3'^' )^ , although one
remark of his would seem to indicate that even in his own day
the nvunber was being increased.^ It seems certain that
Theophrastus had a fourfold division of the virtues of style.
Later writers increased the number by rearranging and sub-
dividing. ° Dlonyslus had a division which, as far as I can
1. De Isoc. 4. Vid. Hubbell: op. cit., p. 41 ff.

2. Rhet. Ill, 2.
3. Rhet. Ill, 6. The remark is quite probably oirected against
Theodectes. Vid. Qulntll. IV, 2, 63.
4. Vid. Stroux: De Theophrasti virtutibus dlcendi, p. 30 ff.
5. Vid. divisions of Diogenes of Babylon in Diogenes Laertius,
VII, 59. Cf. p. 95, supra.
J.410
see, he originated himself. He divides the virtues of style
Into "necessary" [O-^^^^ ^^lO-i )^ and "supplementary"
{ tîi'^^-icL ) virtues. The necessary virtues are: purity of
diction, clearness, brevity. The supplementary virtues com-
prise: vividness, skill in character delineation and repre-
sentation of emotions, grandeur, energy, charm and propriety.
We have dealt before with Horace's treatment of
diction, brevity, aptness, lucidity,'' and charm. "^ References
can be found in the "Ars Poetica" to the other virtues men-
tioned by Dionysius, but in some cases the reference Is of a
passing kind and could not be interpreted as an insistence
on Horace's part on the need for making this virtue a criter-
ion of the piece produced or contemplated. Indirectly, he
emphasizes the need for vividness when he says that the actor,
to be successful, must feel the emotions he is trying to por-
tray,^ and again when he refers to the fact that the mind is
5
less vividly stirred by what is heard than by what is seen.
Skill in character-drawing and representation of emotions is
treated at greater length in the "Ars Poetica." The need for
maintaining the natural correlation between the emotions and
the fortunes of the character and his speech is explained with
examples.* The fact that age must be considered in character
1. Vld. Letter to Pompelus, III (Roberts, p. 115 ff), and De

Thucydide, 22.
2. Vld. p. 117, supra, and p. 147, infra.
4. A.?., 102-103.
5. A.?., 180-181.
6. A. P., 105 ff.
^ ^
delineation is stressed. Later, the general methods by
which one may prepare for portrayal of character l?a set forth.
Grandeur is treated rather in the manner of an obiter dictum.
It is implied that it is desirable if it can be maintained,^
but that its use must be restricted to its proper place.
Horace realizes that an exaggerated attempt to attain smooth-

5
ness may result in loss of vigour and that, although other
excellencies may at times compensate for this failing, the
good critic should advise that an attempt be made to reshape
passages deficient in energy. 7
Elsewhere, with a true rhetorician's love for tech-
nical divisions, Dionysius has subdivisions of many of these
virtues of style. ^ There is so much difficulty in finding
references to the virtues themselves in Horace that it is
hardly necessary to state that it would be vain to seek for
indications of the subdivisions. Despite this multiplication
of virtues, Dionysius never loses sight of the need for cul-
tivating at all times the virtue of lucidity. Like Horace,
he realized that the desire for brevity might at times prove
an enemy to lucidity.^
1. A. P. 156 ff.
2. A. P. 309 ff.
3. A. P. 14 ff.
4. A. P. 19.
5. A. P. 26-27.
6. A. P. ?19 ff.
7. A. P. 445.
8. Vid De Lys., especially Chs. 4, 8, 9, 15, 16.
9. A. P. 25-26; De Thucydid, 24.
145
riCTION
For Horace the usage of men of taste constituted the
basis of the language of poetry. He admitted a use of archaic
words, new words, and words coined from the Greek, but stip-
ulated that this licence was to be used with prudence and
sparingly."^ Dlonysius praises the use of the common idiom

2
and the absence of archaic words in Isocrates, and gives the
Impression that archaic and obscure words could well be dis-
pensed with entirely. However, his criticism of Isocrates is
conditioned almost entirely by rhetorical theory and this
would account for the narrowness of outlook on the question of
diction.^
THREE STYLES OF DICTION
Dlonysius recognizes three styles of diction ( h^S^^S )4
and three styles of composition {'c>i^cpt>P^^ ) .^ The tliree
styles of diction are the elaborate, the plain and the mixed;
the three styles of composition, the austere, the florid and
the middle. The styles of diction are concerned with the
choice of words; the styles of composition with the arrange-
ment of words. 6 The styles of diction and styles of composl-
1. A. P., 46-72; 234 ff.

2. De Isoc. 2.
3. For a broader outlook, vld. De Comp. Verb., Ill,
4. De Demosth., I-III.
5. De Comp. Verb., XXI-XXIV.
6. Vld. J6bb: Attic Orators, 1, 21.
X<iO
tlon are analogous, and one style of diction would ordinarily
go with the corresponding style of composition. If there is
any echo of this rhetorical division of styles in the "Ars
Poetica," it will, I think, be found, as was pointed out
before, in Horace's prescriptions for the diction of tragedy,
comedy, and satyr-drama.-^ The diction of drama and the dic-
tion of oratory present analogies with each other, as the
emotions felt or simulated would, in both cases, determine the
appropriate language; but we must not lose sight of the fact
that the different end in view In each case would have its
influence on every means leading to that end, diction included.
COMPOSITION
Dionysius, in his usual analytic method, goes to
great lengths to prove the magical effects of 41,000 composi-

p
tion or word order. He selects passages in prose and poetry
and analyzes them to show that their charm can come only from
the word order. Horace, practical here as elsewhere in the
"Ars poetica," points to the fact that good word order makes
a considerable contribution to a piece. Like Dionysius, he
realizes that it may invest commonplace words with a new
grandeur: "moreover with a nice taste and care in weaving
words together, you will express yourself moat happily, if
a skilful setting makes a familiar word new."^
1. Vid. p. 117, supra.

2. De Comp. Verb. III.
5. A. P., 46-48.
DECORUM
Dlonysiua points out that language must change to
suit the circumstances and the emotions in qiestlon: "V/e do
not put our words together In the same way when angry as when
glad, nor when under the Influence of any other emotion, as
when conscious that there is nothing at all to agitate or
annoy us."^ He implies that no general rules can be laid

2
down on this point, but we must trust to nature. This doc-
trine is closely akin to that of Horace: "Sad tones befit
the face of sorrow; blustering accents that of anger; jests
become the merry, solemn words the grave. For, Nature first
shapes us within to meet every change of fortune; she brings
joy or impels to anger, or bows us to the ground and tor-
tures us under a load of grief; then, with the tongue for
Interpreter, she proclaims the emotions of the soul."
AIMS OF GOOD COMPOSITION
According to Dlonysius, the effect to be aimed at
In composition is charm {t'lbeî/r ) and beauty ( )

.^
These two qualities are, he maintains, separable; a writer
may have one and lack the other. Horace demands that poems
have also these two qualities, and his words show that he too
regarded them as separable: "not enoxigh is it for poems to
1. Da Comp. Verb. XX; cf. ibid. VIII.

2. Vld. Roberts: De Comp. Verb., p. 200, n. 1.
3. A.P, 105-111.
4» De Comp. Verb. X.
have beauty (pulchra esse, Piî''- ); they must have charm
(dulcia axmtf nt>o\'. ),
RHYTHM
Dlonyslus seems to think that an average theatre
audience would be. In general, a tolerably sound Judge of
rhythm, for "all of us have a sort of natural appreciation
for correct melody and good rhythm." Horace would not, I
fear, credit the audience with this capacity. His estimate
of the average audience's capacity in any manner of taste
was not a high one,^ and he considered appreciation of
rhythm no easy matter, since "not every critic discerns
unmusical verses,^
We have dealt before, at some length, with Horace's
treatment of character and feelings. These two elements are
stressed very much in Dlonyslus' "De Imitatione." He con-
siders in this work some eleven poets, and his Judgment of
seven of them is largely on the t rounds of their emotional
power and skill in character delineation. This fact furnishes
us with a telling example of the bias with which a rhetorician
1. A. P. 99. Vid. p. 52, supra,

2. De Comp. Verb. XI.
3. Ep. II, 1; cf. A. P., 212.
4. A. P. 263.
5. Via. p. 115 , supra.
6. Homer, Pindar, Simonides, Stesichorus, Aicaeus, Aeschylus,
Sophocles.
149
approaches works that were never meant to be judged on rhetor-
ical grounds. It should also prove a warning to those who
would Identify prescriptions of poetics with those of rhetoric.
Dionyslus approached these great Greek poets. He was pre-
occupied with rhetorical matters and, passing over all the
other Important poetical qualities, he brought practically
everything In these writers Into some type of relationship
with hUb'^ or 'UcLUaS . Some, who would undoubtedly dis-
agree with Dlonyblas' standard of criticism, build up a frame-
work of rhetorical theories and proceed to force the prescrip-
tions of the "Ars Poetlca" Into this framework. Like Diony-
slus, they fall to distinguish analogy from Identity, and
insist on applying a standard never envisaged by Horace
himself.
Dionyslus enumerates five duties of the historian:
to choose a noble subject and one pleasing to his readers;
to determine where to begin and how far to proceed; to con-
sider which occurrences he should embody in his work; and
which he should omit; to arrange his materials so that every

thing shall be found in its proper place; to be impartial.
Horace emphasizes the role these factors play in
the work of the poet. He points out that the selection of
suitable subject matter is fundamental and will determine
1. Letter to Pomp., III.

to a great extent the sucoess or failure of the piece. He
bids writers look to Homer for example as to where to begin,
and compliments the same writer's skill in making rejections.^
The virtue and value of order are mentioned by Horace more
than once.^ There is no treatment of impartiality in Horace,
nor Indeed is it stressed very much in Dionysius. A glance
at these £^p\ie^ shows that they are fundamental for the writer
in any genre, either in prose or poetry. There is no reason
to think that Horace adopted or adapted thorn from rhetoric.
Their chief interest lies in the fact that they show the
thoroughness of detail that Horace aimed at in iiis work. The
writing of history calls for concrete, definite rules. A
comparison of Dionysius and Horace shows that the latter,
with a practical end in view, offered rules equally definite

and concrete for writing poetry.
DEGREE OF PERFECTION ATTAINABLE
Both Horace and Dionysius admit that absolute perfec-
tion is unattainable, for "the man who aspires to great things
must sometimes fail,""* and "even Homer nods."^ The hit,hest
relative perfection should be aimed at, and writers should
realize that there is no place for mediocrity and that a great
1. A. P., 40-41.
2. A. P., 140 ff.
3. A. P., 40 ff; 92.
4* Letter to Pomp., II.
5. A. P., 559.
161
man "should be perpetually on his tiuard against any censure."^
There are, however, faults which we can gladly pardon, ^ when
they are "extremely light and venial."^ In a word, we should
not look askance at a work, when "the beauties are more in
number,"^ and the writer's "mistakes are only a small fraction
of his successes."
RELATION OF PROSE TO POETRY
Dionysiu6 devotes two chapters^ to a discussion of
the question as to how prose may come to resemble poetry and
vice versa. This stresses the kinship which the ancients
envisaged between these two, but also stresses the fact that
they realized that these two types of literature, though
akin, were really distinct. Horace, too, points out that
the tragic character sometiives expresses his grief "in the
language of prose" and that in poetry we need a style "sup-
porting at one time, the character of the orator, and at
another, that of the poet."®
SUMMARY
There is a very wide difference in method between
Horace and Dlonysiua. Dionysius devotes the greater part of
1. Letter to Pomp. II; A. P., 372 ff. The need for striving
for perfection is stressed all throuj^h the "Ars Poetica."
2. A. P., 347.
3. Letter to Pomp. II.
4. A. P., 351.
5. Letter to -'omp. II.
6. De Comp. Verb., XXV, XXVI.
7. A. P., 95.
8. Sat., 1, 10, 12.
152
his efforts to judicial criticism, the application of critical
principles to already existing literature. Many of these
principles he assumes as necessary, and hardly mentions them
as such at all. His outlook on literature is more dominated
by rhetoric than any of the others with whom we have had to
deal in connection with Horace; and tnis seems, at every turn,
to make the gulf between the two men wider. Horace has little
judicial criticism in the "Ars Poetica." When he refers to
already existing works, it is by way of fumishintj: examples
of what to do and what to avoid. He was writing for a prac-
tical purpose, to direct two young men who were as yet nov-
ices in literary matters. He took nothing for granted, but
treated every detail that had a practical value. Drama, and
not rhetoric, was the dominant idea in his mind. It seems
to me that a comparison between Horace and Dionysius serves
to bring Into relief both the ground common to poetics and
rhetoric, and at the same time the wide gulf that separates
them*
1. Vid . Roberts: De Comp. Verb., Intrcd., p. 17.

16'i
COITCLUGIQIJ
Goethe ie quoted ae havirii]; once eaid that no two peoi)lo
oan ai^ree ahout tli© "Are Poetica" and no one pereon con rauintain
the eame opinion about it for ten coneccutive yeaxe. TliiB will
continue ae long as scholars approach the "Are .iôotica** with pre-
conceived ideaB ae to ite form and content. The work will not
conform to such ideas, for like ite author it ie not eonetiain^
turned out to dlecuBB trauitioiial queetiona in a conventional
and stereotyped manner.
ivome inherited the literary legacy of the tireek world
and the liellenistic world, together with their unf iaieneu contro-
vereiee. i'hia ureek iriheritance fused ;.:ore or less euccoatf ally
\7ith the ::.oman genius and oonditioas in the otôn world. iien
this union had existed for a considerable period of time, a
man of originality, sound coiamon sense and un^ralleled literary

ability was asked to furnish practical (guidance for two younij
men interested in Eatyi>arama. The result \7as the ^;rs i?ootica".
It is, 1 think, uceless to try to establish ideutity or oven cio&e
kineiiip between its maxima and those of ^..ristotle, êoptoleraus,
Cicero or Dionysiua. We may find striking reeeiablancee, but in

the last analysis the work is definitely the product of orace,
tlie age in »hlch ho lived and the purpose for which he wrote.
n
7
l^
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. .
154
BIBLlOGRAPIiY
Atkins, J.W.H. - Literary Critioism in Antiquity.

Cambridge Univei^sity Press, 1934,
Bar;vick, K. — Di^ Gliedering der rhetorischen

und die Horazi^che Epistula
'T'^Xt/'n
ad Pisones (Hermos LÎI, 19^2 ), 'Y
Blakeney, E.H. - Horace on the /irt of Poetry.

London, 1928.
Blass, F. - Die grleohisohe Beredsamkeit in

Zeitraum von iilexander bis auf /•
^.
Augustus. Berlin, 1865. I
(/Sf?-)^*
Boileau, N." - L'Art ?o/tique. Paris, 1674.
Butcher, S.H, - Aristotle 's Theory of Poetry and

Fine i\rt. London, 1895.
Bjrwater , I - Aristotle on the ^crt of Poetry.

Oxford (Clarendon Press), 1909.
Bosancuet, B. - A History of Aesthetic. London, 1910.
Campbell, A.G. - Horace, A New Interpretation.

London, 1924.
Cruquius, J. - Edition of Horace (Antv/erp, 1573).
D» Alton, J.T^. - Roman Literary Theory and Criticism.

London, 1931.
D 'Alton, J.F. - Horace and His Age, London, 1917.
Donaldson, J.vV. - The Theatre of the Greeks,

London, 1891,
Egger, E. - Essai siar I'Histoire de la Critique

Chez 163 Grecs. Paris, 1887.
Egger, K. - Benys D'Halicarnasse. Essai ^sur la

Critique Litteraire et la Rhe'torique
Chez les Grecs au siecle d'Auguste.
Paris, 1902.
Falrclough, H.R. - Horace, Satires, Epistles, Ars

Poetioa (Loeb Class. Lib, London, 1936)
155
Fiske, G.C. - Lucilius and Horace. A Study in

the Classical Theorj'' of Imitation
(Univ. of V/iscon. Stud, in Lang,
and Lit. VII). Madison, 1920.
Fo\/ler, V/.V/, - The Relifjious Experience of the

Roman People. London, 1933.
Fov.'ler, ?/.V/. - Social Life at Rome in the Age of

Cicero. London, 1929.
Garrod, H. - The Hyporcherae of Pratinas (Class.

Rev. 7'J:XIV, 1920).
Gilbert, A. - Literary Criticism: Plato to Dryden.

Nev/York, 1940.
Grant, LI, A, - The .^cient Rhetorical Theories of

the Laughable (Univ. of Wisoon.
Stud, in Lan?3. and Lit. 1924).
Hack, R.K. - The Doctrine of Literary Forms (Har-

vard Stud, in Class. Phil. XXVII, 1916),
Heinsius, D, - Edition of Horace (Leyden, 1605).
Hendrickson, G.L, - The Literary Form of Horace (Amer.

Jour, of Phil. }3CIII).
Hubbell, H.M. - The Influence of Iso crates on

Cicero, Dionysius and ôristides.
New Haven, 1913.
linmi s ch , . - Horazens Bpistel Ueber die Dioht-
kunst. Leipzig, 1932,
Jebb, R,G. - The ^ttic Orators from Antiphon

to Isaeus. London, 1876.
Jenseu, C, - Philodemus Ueber die Gedichte,

Berlin, 1923,
Jensen, C. - 2ur Poetik des Stoikers Ariston

von Chios. Berlin, 1923.
Jolmston, H.W. - Private Life of the Romans, I
Chicago, 1932,
Kiessling-Heinze - Horatius Brief e. Berlin, 1914,

156
Klingner - Horazens Briefe an die Plsonen,

Leipzig, 1937.
Kroll, V/. - M. Tulli Ciceronis Orator. Berlin, 1913.
Kro.l, V.^ - Die Ilistorische Stellung von Horazens

Ars Poetica (Soicrates LXII, 1918).
Lehrs, ". - Edition of Horace (Leipzig, 1859). /^
Marquardt, J, - Privatleben der Romer. Leipzig,^ 1886.
MictLaelis, A. - De auotorlbus quos Horatius in

libro de /irte Poetioa secutus esse
Tideatur. Kill, 1857.
Moraasen, T. - Die Litteraturbriefe des Horaz

(Hermes XV, 1080).
Mtiller, L. - Edition of Plorace (Leipsig, 1893).
Nettleship, H. - Essays in Latin Literature.

Norden, E. - Die Composition und Litteratur-

gattung des Horazischen Spistula
ad Pisones (Hermes XL, 1905).
Pelayo, U, - Historia de las Ideas Esteticas in

Espana, Madrid, 1909.
Pickard-Cambridge, A, - Dithyramb, Tragedy and Coraedy.

Ritter, F, - Edition of Horace (Leipaig, 1857).
Roberts, V/.H. - Dionysius of Halicarnassus. On

Literary Composition. London, 1910.
Roberts, V/.R. - Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The
Three Literary Letters. Cambridge
University Press, 1901.
Rostagnl, A. - Arte Poetica di Orazio. Torino, 1930.
Rostovtzeff, M.I. - Augustus (Univ. of V/iscon. Stud,

in Lai-ig. and Lit. XV), 1922.
t .
157
Saintsbury , G. - A History of Criticism and Literary

Taste in Europe from the Sarliest
Texts to the Present Day, Vol. I.
Edinburgh and London, 1908.
Sandys, J.S. - A History of Classical Scholarship.

Cambridge TJniversity Press, 1906.
(2nd ed. ).
Shorey, P.
(Tr. Araer. Phil. Assoc. XL), 1909.
Stephanas , n. -Edition of Horace. f
Stroux, J. - De Theophrasti virtutibus dlcendi.

Leipzig, 1912.
Tate, cT. - Horace and the Moral function of

Poetry (Glass. Q,ua^. XXII, 1928). / n.
Volkmann, R. - Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Roraer.
Leipzig, 1885, (2nd 3d.).
Vooys, C.J. - Lexicon Philodemeum (only A to K

available). Purmerend, 1936.
Wickham, E. - Horace (edition). Oxford (Clarendon

PressJ, 1891.
Wilamowltz, M. - Elnleitung in die Griechen Tragodie.
/\
Wiltlns, A, - Hor-ice (edition), London, 1929.
o
^ o
ft
V
1
d
^ m
«M r-( <U
O •> O
•H jg
w a,
a
h * • •
0) u
> « t-s
•H «Q •
O a) ^V^,
•P
C
X) - -i
>-^
o
u
o
EH CO
yJ V
J
ti«:3 EH

Horace's Ars Poetica (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Horace's Ars Poetica (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

^^

PROGRAMME OF THE FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

M.A. (University of Toronto) 1940

MONDAY, MAY 22nd, 1944, AT 9.30 A.M.

1914 — Born, Legga, County Ivongford, fiirc.

1934 — B.A., National University Ireland.

1940 — M.A., University of Toronto.

of his works his livelihood depended. In improved conditions he was in a

for the decree of D o ctor of Philosophy in the University

HORACE'S "ARS POETIGA" AND ITS RELATION

TO PREVIOUS V70Ri^.. ^.. LITERaRY 0RITICIS..1.

Nature of the Work 2

Purpose of the Work 3

Divisions in the "Ars Poetica" 11-22

"Ars Poetica" and Horace's Other Works on Criticism 22-29

Date of the "Ars Poetica" 29-41

Aristotle and Horace 46-76

Aristotle and Horace: Resemblances 46-63

SECTION II - Cont. Page

Aristotle and Horace: Differences

Satyr-drama and History of Drama 69

Estimate of Relationship hetween Aristotle and

Neoptolemus and Horace

Neoptolemus and Horace: Comparison 80-96

Estimate of Relationship between Neoptolemus

Appendix: Phllodemus, Col. I-XIV 101

Cicero and Horace

Poetry and Rhetoric 109

"Ars Poetlca" and "Orator" 110-126

SECTION II - Cicero and Horace - Cent. Page

"Ars" Poetica" and "De Oratore" 126-138

Estimate cf Relationship between Cicero and Horace. 138

Horace and Dionyaius

Three Styles of Diction 145

Aims of Good Composition 147

Degree of Perfection Attainable 150

Horace wos bom at Venusia in Southern Italy in

65 B.C. amid purrovndings that left an indelible mark on his

the Msreic revolt agoinPt Rome. A strong tradition of freedom

flourished among the r^turdy tenant farmers, a tradition which

in later years had rrobably no little influence in moulding

Horace's indepondence of spirit in m«itterR literary as well

as political. His father refused to senr* him to the local

charge of Orbiliua. This teacher was evidently of Pome stand-

ing as Suetonius considered him worth a short biography. Later

Horace went to Athens to complete his studies. Horace had al-

ways a grateful appreciation of the sacrifices his father made

time as his fellow-pupil, Marous Cicero, did.

His studies were soon interrupted. The Republican

flict. Caesar had left beaind frienos who were willing to

accejt the legacy of his j o"" itioal frogrymme. The armies of

Syria under Cnssiua rere pledged to support the Republican

party. Recruits, however, vere neoded, and in 44 B.C. Brutus

appeared on a recruiting mission in Athens. Horace enlisted

in the Republican army and shared in the defeat of Philippi.

Republioan friend p throughout his life. He could apjrove of

the world peace that followed the successes of Augustus, for

iteelf he could approve only by regard inp Augustus, perhaps

with delicate irony, as the restorer of the Republic. Ve can

see here a proof of Horace's indeponrenoe of raind, a trait

that had greater influence than is credited to it in hiR sub-

sequent literary theories.

Back in Italy and employed as a quaestor's olerk,