designate the hero of the Iliad. Will this comparison help us to explain the construction of IV. 6? One point at least, the most difficult of all, it will clear at once-and that is the purpose of the third and fourth stanzas. The sharp antithesis between the treacherous surprise which Achilles would have disdained and the open enmity which (alas!) was not inconsistent with his character-all this is as much to the real purpose of Horace, as it is alien from the practice for the Carmen Saeculare. Horace had earned the right to speak his mind; if he consented to celebrate the victories of Tiberius, it was because Augustus condescended to beg, and the poet, as he himself says, poterat pretium dicere muneri (Iv. 8, 12). The price which he took of the emperor and his step-son was the liberty to say, plainly enough for them and the higher society of Rome, what in his former book he hardly dared to hint-that a certain person, though he was, as the poet had said before, both arrogant and inhumane, and though, as an enemy to Apollo', he had used an insolence (magna lingua) for which he paid dear, nevertheless was an honourable enemy, and not, as the senatorial judges were pleased to decide, a treacherous assassin. Like the huge pine, which courts the winds, was his overtopping greatness (II. 10. 10); like the pine beneath the axe or the cypress bowed by the East wind he fell, and the towers that shook at his spear were but symbols of his own overthrow before a mightier than he (II. 10. 11). There is very little in the description which even for us has not a traceable reference to the Murena of the first three books; and it is reasonable to suppose that if Caepio's plot and Murena's life were better known to us, we could interpret much that is now without meaning.

Thus the strange construction of the poem, if not technically justified, is at least historically explained. The real importance of the two parts is inversely as their ostensible importance; and the very irrelevance of the preface to the sequel is practically not without advantage, when it is to be understood that the 'sequel' is a mere excuse for the 'preface.' And indeed there is connexion enough between the two, though it is not the wire-drawn thread of mythical logic

V. H.

6

which is seen at first view. Between the Saecular Festival and the death of Achilles there is no real connexion at all; but between the retrospective defence of Murena and the writing of the Carmen Saeculare there is a connexion, and a very significant one. To the success of the vates Horatius as poet of the Roman nation in the Carmen Saeculare, as much as to the fame of his three books, might be attributed the request or injunction of the emperor that he should bend his powers to the praise of Tiberius. In no way, therefore, could he better dignify his compliance than by thus conjoining the renown of 'Apollo' vindex magnae linguae with an allusion to the Rhaetian war, with his own dignity as author of the Carmen, and above all with an emphatic declaration that treachery was not in the character of Achilles'. If the result is not very artistic, the immediate object was something more important even than art to 'the honour of the Daunian Muse'; it was to be shown that Phoebus had given the poet not only 'art' but spirit''.

1 The literary and moral meanings of spiritus are precisely those of its modern representative (see the Dictionary s.v.), and the equivoque is the same in Latin as in English. It has not been forgotten in the somewhat

similar passage г. 16. 37

mihi parva rura et

spiritum Graiae tenuem Camenae parca non mendax dedit, et malignum spernere volgus.

NOTE A. (See pp. 16 foll. and p. 68.)

IN the foregoing account of Murena will be found no mention of two points usually given in the books of reference (Smith Dict. Biog., Drumann Geschichte Roms) and editions of Horace, (1) that he was consul suffectus in B.C. 23, (2) that he conducted the war against the Salassi in B.C. 25.

The first statement, which is indirectly of the greatest importance, is founded, so far as I can discover, entirely upon an error-indeed, a double error. The consuls for the year 23 mentioned by Dion Cassius (53. 30 and Argumenta) are (1) Augustus XI., (2) Cn. Calpurnius Piso, (3) L. Sestius, suffectus in the place of Augustus after his resignation. These statements are confirmed so far as they go, by the various Fasti and other authorities. But from the Fasti Capitolini, as restored apparently with certainty by Th. Mommsen, we learn that Piso, as well as Augustus, had a predecessor, who died in office, named A. Terentius Varro Murena, (Corp. Inscr. Vol. I. p. 441). The omission of this person by Dion, who was not writing a calendar but a history, is only natural. His tenure of office must have been exceedingly brief, for Piso had succeeded him before the illness of Augustus, the very first event mentioned in the year. The conspirator, then, if identified with this A. Terentius, would be not 'consul suffectus' but original consul for that year. The identity is generally assumed and apparently not denied by the editor of the Fasti (Corp. Inscr. note on p. 450). But it is not merely unproved, it is clearly impossible. The one thing we know of Aulus is that he died early in 23, a full year before Lucius conspired. To make them identical, it would, in the first place, be necessary to throw over the whole account of the conspiracy of Caepio

and Murena given by Dion in the year 22, in natural sequence after the death of Marcellus (autumn of 23), and to transfer it, against both authority and probability, to the very beginning of the previous year. The date of Dion is confirmed by Velleius (II. 93), who allows 'about three years' between the conspiracy of Egnatius (B.C. 19) and that of Murena. Further, we should have to account for the fact that neither Suetonius nor Velleius (who is careful to sketch the official career of Egnatius, II. 91) nor Seneca nor Tacitus gives a hint that Murena was actually consul at the time of the conspiracy, surely a circumstance not to be omitted if true. It seems hardly necessary to discuss further a hypothesis without base. and contradicted by all the evidence.

The only suggestion of identity is the partial resemblance of name, and even this will not bear inspection. The conspirator is called-by Horace Licinius or (twice) Murena, by Suetonius Varro Murena (Aug. 19, Tib. 8) or Murena (Aug. 56 ib. 66), by Velleius (l. c.) L. Murena or Murena, by Dion (l. c.) Licinius Murena or Murena, by Seneca Murena (de Brev. Vit. 5. 4, de Clem. 1. 9. 5.) All the authorities agree in showing that his proper name was Licinius Murena, Varro being an acquired distinction. There is no proof that he ever assumed the gentile name Terentius, and the only prænomen which he receives is Lucius. He is not called even Varro simply, except in an anecdote, probably referring to him, in Suet. de Grammaticis 9-Orbilius interrogatus a Varrone diversae partis advocato, quidnam ageret et quo artificio uteretur, gibberosos se de sole in umbram transferre respondit, quod Murena gibber erat,' where it is plain from the context that we ought to restore the passage to conformity with the usage of Suetonius in the Vita Caesarum by writing in the first place Varrone Murena. Tacitus (Ann. I. 10) writes Varrones in an allusion, interfectos Romae Varrones Egnatios Iulos 'a Varro, an Egnatius, an Iulus'; but this is explained by the invidious purpose, for which the illustrious name of the great scholar is much more effective than Murenas would have been. As for the consul of 23 A. Terentius Varro Murena, the modern authorities are

probably right in connecting him, by identification or descent, with the Varro Murena mentioned in Cic. ad Fam III. 22, and immediately afterwards called 'Varro' simply, with the A. Terentius of Cic. pro Caec. 9, and the A. Varro of Cic. ad Fam. 16. 12 and Caes. Bell. Civ. 3. 19. On the one hand we have an A. Terentius Varro, who had acquired and sometimes bore the distinctive addition Murena, on the other a L. Licinius Murena, sometimes also called Varro-not a strong ground for identifying two persons whose histories are quite irreconcileable. How this branch of the Terentii Varrones came by the name Murena, we do not know and need not enquire. How the conspirator came by the name Varro, we do need to know and, I think, may discover. If he ever took the name Terentius at all, it was probably with the prænomen Marcus; but we do not know that he did.

The second point, whether Murena the conspirator was commander in the war against the Salassi and founder (on behalf of Augustus) of Aosta, cannot be so easily decided. The commander is called Terentius Varro both by Dion Cassius and Strabo. Supposing that he is identical with some Terentius Varro otherwise known to us, the most probable is the consul of B.C. 23. On the other hand, if the conspirator could ever have been described by these names, the year 25 would be a very natural time; for the Romans, like ourselves, sometimes assumed the name of a testamentary benefactor for a time and afterwards dropped or modified it; and the identification would bring an additional point to the allusion in Hor. Od. III. 4. 38 (see above p. 59). On the whole, however, probability seems against it. The name Terentius Varro is itself a difficulty, and there is no evidence to show that Murena ever stood in such relations to the imperial government, as to have been selected for a command so important and, if abused, so dangerous. To make him senator and augur was another thing.

A few words may be added on the name of the conspirator's sister, wife of Maecenas. The historians, all whose notices date from times after 22, call her Terentia, Horace in II. 12 Licymnia. It is generally said (see Orelli and others) that this represents