stercore mordicus tollere " in the Satyricon (Ch. 43, supra). In noticing all similar correlations as far as v. 73, I should merely be repeating myself. We come thence to Pentheus. Horace's first recorded thought of this story, in association with Murena's case, is in Sat. II. 3, 203, but he uses it a second time in Ode II. 19, 14, one of his Bacchic rhapsodies, commonly accounted a "mere study" from the Greek. Until we cease to regard Horace as a simple parodist, fonder of sound than sense, who mixes his Muses with the same effect on his coherence as is proverbially produced by the mixing of one's liquors, we are not likely to understand him very well, and to this may be added that the case will be the same until we realise that Horace's continued recurrence to similar thoughts, often in words resembling those previously used, is not the sign of poverty of invention, or of a mind with but a few stock subjects on which to moralise, but is a feature necessarily appearing in poetry produced under the conditions and in obedience to the stimuli of his. 103. In my former book I have pointed out my conception of Horace's meaning in his references to Bacchus and Pentheus. The god is used to symbolise the functions and powers of Augustus, and the relevance of Pentheus lies in the fact of his opposition to the new Bacchic cult and worship (cf. my notes to II. 19). Pentheus fared as ill, in his collision with the unwarlike deity, as did Rhoetus the giant, and that is the lesson Murena had to learn. A reader of the Bacchae of Euripides will see that in Pentheus Horace had an analogy not less useful for his purpose than that of Telephus (see my notes on III. 19). The following extract from Schöne's introduction to the play (Haupt and Sauppe's collections; translated by Browne) will show this :-"The miraculous power of the god appears in the sudden influence which he exercises over the mind, first by seductive persuasion, then by a total derangement of the senses and the understanding, by means of which he entangles his victim in the portentous irony, that he, the man and king, by showing himself in the attire of the Maenads -the very persons whom he is persecuting-and therewithal by a ridiculous vanity of speech and action, exposes himself to the public derision; and under the guidance of the person whom he has so exceedingly despised and treated with such overbearing insolence (Dionysus disguised in human shape), possessed by the delusion that he is going forth to win high honours, rushed forward to meet his own most ignominious destruction. Quite in accordance with the sublimity of the god is, lastly, the part acted by him on Cithaeron, where he delivers Pentheus to the instruments of his will for the execution of his fearful punishment (1057-1082), himself remaining in the background." The learned writer later on says also: "The poet has with great skill developed the irritability and impetuous vehemence of the character of Pentheus." Such is practically the point made in Ode II. 19. Here it is somewhat different; Horace is in effect arguing against Murena on the question-" Who can rightly be called good and wise?" and puts this case :-"Supposing you were Pentheus, and a man were brought before you as Bacchus was in Euripides' play. If he were really wise and good he would say, 'You intend to strip and to imprison me. Well, do it, God will release me '-his meaning being, 'I can die,' and he (being wise) would know that death ends all. The contrast in you, who are both bad and foolish, is that you do not face adversity with courage, and though maintaining that death does not end all, you fear it, and run to save your skin from the very persons whom you designed to crush." It is noticeable that the metaphor in "Mors ultima linea rerum est " is drawn from the racecourse, and sends our thoughts back to the "pulverem Olympicum" and the "metaque fervidis evitata rotis," etc., of the prologue to the Three Books. 104. In the following Epistle, No. 17, the ethics which have offended critics lose all their foundations of reproach to Horace when it is perceived to consist largely of reflections upon Murena. I need not enumerate them, for if anyone has followed me thus far, he will be able to trace them in the Epistle. Verses 32-52 contain, as Horace says, the kernel of the nut, and perhaps it will be more interesting if I leave the reader to digest it for himself. I may add that the third satire of Persius, which opens with an adaptation of v. 4, is an instructive piece to read in comparison. 105. Passing on to Lollius in No. 18 (see supra §74), one may utter a word of warning against the old notion, derived from the scholiasts, that he and Scaeva were one. This Epistle follows in natural sequence with the last, but the difference of address, apart from other internal evidence, is sufficient to show that Lollius and Scaeva are distinct. The question of Lollius' identity must be dealt with very shortly (for the data of the problem, see Wilkins ad loc.). I think that Epistle I. 2 and this one are addressed to the son of the Lollius who was consul in B.C. 21, and leader of the forces in Gaul in B.C. 16, and who is the Lollius of Ode IV. 9. He had a son whose daughter married Caligula, and as the elder Lollius was in such close intimacy with Augustus as to be appointed the governor of his grandson, Gaius, it is not at all unlikely that this son was a friend of some young member of the imperial house, circa B.C. 20-probably, as Bentley thought, Tiberius, who had already come into public life, as we know, and therefore to whom the description "venerandus " and "potens amicum" would not be inappropriate. When we remember Horace's train of thought throughout the book, we see that Ritter's difficulty, that Tiberius was absent from Rome at the probable date of this Epistle, vanishes. It is quite enough if any such friendship was known to exist. Tiberius long afterwards became hostile to the elder Lollius, but that does not affect the case. My reason for thinking that Ode IV. 9 is addressed to the father is given in my Translation. I there show that he may have been the Praetor before whom the CaepioMurena conspirators were tried, and this address to his son contains what are possibly complimentary reflections upon his conduct on that occasion. Several illustrations are clearly drawn from Murena's case, and the adroit way in which, when the subject become too" warm," Horace turns it aside with Ambigitur quid enim ? Castor sciat an Docilis plus; is to be observed. He walks most circumspectly when the persons addressed are real and prominent. |