¹ See Hantsch, I., ‘Bibliographic zur Gattungspoetik (2). Theorie der Satire (1900–1971)’, Zeitschr. f. fr. Sprache u. Lit. 82 (1972), 153–6Google Scholar, and Brummack, J., ‘Zu Begriff and Theorie der Satire’, Deutsche Viertelj. Lit. ?Ass. u. Geistesgescb. 45 (1971), Sonderhefte Forschungsreferate, 275–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Of special importance are the studies by A. Kernan (1959; 1962, 1965), R. C. Elliott (1960), L. Feinberg (1963; 1967), U. Gaier (1967), and J. Schönert (1969).

² Earlier work on Roman satire is listed by W. W. Ehlers in Knoche, U., Die römische Satire³ (Gottingen, 1971), pp.123–36Google Scholar; for the most recent studies I have to refer to L'Annie philologique.

³ e.g. Brummack, J. loc. cit., p.276-contraGoogle Scholar: Classen, C. J. (Gymn. 80 (1973), 235–50)Google Scholar-or P. L. Schmidt in a paper read at the meeting of the MommsenGesellschaft at Trier on 18 Apr. 1974 (to be published in Poetica). In 1860 L. Doederlein even denied the satirical character of this poem: Horazens Satiren (Leipzig, 1860), pp.253–5.Google Scholar

⁴ Horace (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar; on the problems of writing a book on Horace see Friedrich, W. H., GGA 212 (1958), 173–8.Google Scholar

⁵ Op. cit., p.137, also p.145.

⁶ Op. cit., pp.136–7; the quotation is taken from the beginning of Matron's Convivium Atticum (Parod. Epic. Graec. p.60 Brandt). Rudd, N. (The Satires of Horace (Cambridge, 1966), p.206)Google Scholar takes this satire to be a ‘disquisition on eating and drinking’, by which Horace is ‘making fun of Catius’ without ‘really attacking luxury’ (p.213, similarly Ludwig, W., Poetica 2 (1978), 307–8)Google Scholar; see further the rather brief, but more satisfactory remarks by Anderson, W. S., ‘The Roman Socrates: Horace and his Satire’ in Critical Essays on Roman Literature: Satire (ed. Sullivan, J. P. (London, 1963)) p.33Google Scholar, and Ramage, E. S. (D. L. Sigsbee, S. C. Fredericks), Roman Satirists and their Art (Park Ridge, 1974), p.84.Google Scholar Most recently, M. Coffey has remarked ‘To assess the tone and intention of this work is unusually difficult’ (Roman Satire (London, 1976), p.85Google Scholar).

⁷ See e.g. Schröter, R. (Poetica 1 (1967), 8–23Google Scholar), Buchheit, V. (Gymn. 75 (1978), 519–55)Google Scholar, Schetter, W. (Ant. u. Abendl. 17 (1971), 144–61)Google Scholar, Sallmann, K. (Hermes 98 (1970), 178–203Google Scholar, and in Musa locosas Festschrift A. Thierfelder (Hildesheim, 1974), pp.179–206)Google Scholar, and West, D. in Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry (ed. Woodman, T. and West, D. (Cambridge, 1974), pp.67–80)Google Scholar; in general: Cèbe, J. P., La Caricature et la parodie dans le monde romain antique des origines a Juvégnal (Paris, 1966), who discusses (pp.301–2)Google Scholar parodies in Sat. 2.4 on the basis of Leich, G., De Horatii in Saturis sermone ludibundo (Diss. Jena, 1910).Google Scholar

⁸ In interpreting a Horatian satire one has to consider two aspects, the ‘ridentem’ and the ‘clicere verum’, and for this reason it seems inadequate merely to explain the mechanism of parody and humour as Sallmann does in his paper on Sat. 1.5 (1974); see my remarks in German Studies 9, iii (1976), 46–7Google Scholar, also Sallman, himself, loc. cit. (1970), p.181.Google Scholar

⁹ Loc. cit., p.33.

¹⁰ Op. cit., p.136. Numerous similarities between Plato and Horace are indicated by Heinsius, D., De Satyra Horatiana Liber (Leiden, 1612), pp.62–9, 131–2, and in general 118 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Op. cit., p.301 n.21; he does not mention A. M. Prowse's expansion of Fraenkel, 's suggestion (‘Orazio Serm. II 4 e il Fedro di Platone’, RFIC 91 (1963), 199–201).Google Scholar

¹² Pace Lejay, P., Oeuvres d'Horace. Satires (Paris, 1911), p.447Google Scholar, and A. Kiessling-R. Heine, who claim that ‘clas Geschlecht der Catii wird nicht selten erwähnt’ (Q. Horatius Flaccus. Satiren⁶ (Berlin, 1957), p.267).Google Scholar Catia, to whom they refer, testifies more to the notoriety of herself than to the large number of members of the gens Catia; for later bearers of the name see PIR² ii (ed. Groag, E., Stein, A. (Berlin, 1936)), 129–31 (nn. 562–74).Google Scholar

¹³ The same applies to Q. Catius Aemilianus (Cic. Tull. 19).

¹⁴ Cic. Fam. 15.16.1; 15.19.1; 2; Quint. 10.1.124; Plin. Ep. 4.28.1; Porph. ad Sat. 2.4.1 (p.308 Holder).

¹⁵ Manso, J. C. F., Verm. Abhandl. u. Aufs. (Breslau, 1821), pp.284–8Google Scholar, accepted by Palmer, A., The Satires of Horace (London, 1883), pp.314–15Google Scholar, and Morris, E. P., Horace. The Satires (New York, 1909), p.202Google Scholar, and, not without hesitation, by Rudd, N., op. cit., p.148.Google Scholar

¹⁶ I am using the categories suggested by Rudd, N., op. cit., p.133.Google Scholar A member of my audience at Cambridge suggested a wordplay on catus.

¹⁷ I do not believe in Frank, T.'s suggestion (CP 15 (1920), 393)Google Scholar that Heliodorus was Apollodorus, (see Gymn. 80 (1973), 238 n.21).Google Scholar

¹⁸ This characteristic feature of satire- rightly emphasized for this poem e.g. by Heindorf, F. L., Des Quintus Horatius Flaccus Satiren (Breslau, 1815), p.337Google Scholar, and often stated by later writers on the theory of satire-should never be ignored by scholars when interpreting satires, nor should it be exaggerated (see below, n.117); indeed, it does not preclude the satirist's intention also to address an audience beyond his own life and time (see Feinberg, L., Introduction to Satire (Ames, 1967), p.8).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Cic. Inv. 1.23; Auct. ad Her. 1.7.

²⁰ The educated reader who has just been reminded of the great philosophers may well think of Socrates being disturbed by Strepsiades, (Aristophanes, Clouds 133 ff.)Google Scholar, as Dacier, A. (Oeuvres d'Horace (Amsterdam, 1735), vi.156) aptly remarks.Google Scholar

²¹ See Rudd, N., op. cit., p.211Google Scholar; for examples of the ‘majestueux impératif memento, courant dans la grande poesie’ cf. with Cèbe, J. –P., op. cit., p.301 n.7Google Scholar (following G. Leich) Lucr. 2.66; Verg. Buc. 3.7; Georg. 2.259; Aen. 2, 549; 6 6.851; etc.

²² For this unusual word see Ch. Wieland, M., Horazens Satiren ii (Leipzig, 1786), 148.Google Scholar

²³ On the ambivalence of tenuis see H. Schütz's pertinent remarks on line 9 (Q. Horatius Flaccus. Satiren (Berlin, 1881), p.212).Google Scholar This poem is full of word-plays and double entendre–a typical feature of genuine satire. However, I would not go as far as K. Witte, who claims that inmorsus (line 61) is not only ‘doppelsinnig’, but to be taken both as inmorsus and in morsus (Horaz, i (Erlangen, 1931), 102; 105).Google Scholar

²⁴ 15–16; 20–1; 27–9; 30–4; 37–9; 40–1; 42; 43; 44; 47; 48–50; 55–7; 59–62; 63–6; 70–1; 76–7; 78–80; 81–2 (question).

²⁵ 25–6; 64–6; 71; not suitable: 42; 76–7; 82.

²⁶ 17–20; 51–4; 58–9; 67–9; 72; 83–8; also individually in the first (45–6; 73–5) or third person (21–3; 24–6); warnings: 35–6; 48–50.

²⁷ 12–14; 26–7. Cartault, A. (Étude sur les satires d'Horace (Paris, 1899), p.265)Google Scholar rightly stresses ‘la variété très grande de la forme donnée aux préceptes’.

²⁸ See the compilation ascribed to Apicius (ed. Andre, J. (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar) or the fragments of cookery books, listed by Bilabel, F., RE 11 (1922), 932–44.Google Scholar

²⁹ 12–14; 15–16; 20–1; 30; 31–4; 40–1; 42; 43; 44; 45–6; 59–60; 60–2; 70–1.

³⁰ 17–20; 51–4; 58–9; 72; see also 23 (selection).

³¹ 24–6; 27–9; 37–9; 55–7; 63–6; 67–9; 73–5; see in general 35–6; 49–50.

³² 13; 20; 27; (32); 56; bad: 18; 21; 42; 49.

³³ 38; 64–6; 71; 72;. contrary: 25.

³⁴ 12–14;16; 20; 25–6;40–1; 53–4; 55–7; 59–60; 71.

³⁵ 21–3; 26–7; 27–9; 38; 59–60; negative: 24–6.

³⁶ 15–16; 19–20; 38–9; 40–1, 43;44; 45–6; 48–50; 51–4; 58–9; 60–2; 70; 73–5.

³⁷ This has been pointed out by several commentators, e.g. Lejay, P., op. cit., pp.450–1Google Scholar; Rudd, N., op. cit., p.212Google Scholar, lists four exceptions: Coan wine (29), African snails (58), Byzantine brine (66), and Corycian saffron (68)-not very much, I think, for a cosmopolitan place like Rome; for Coan wine even Cato gives a recipe (Agr. 112).

³⁸ See e.g. Dacier, A., op. cit., p.164Google Scholar (on line 44) ‘Jamais on n'a preferé les épaules du lièvre au rable’ (despite Horace's own testimony at Sat. 2.8.89–90); N. E. Sanadon, ibid., p.159 (on line 15) merely states ‘Autre prècepte faux’, similarly on lines 20 and 22 (ibid., pp.160 and 161), without supporting his verdicts by references to ancient authors; see also his remarks on line 42 (ibid., p.164) and in general ibid., p.154.

³⁹ Cf. A. Dacier on line 25 (op. cit., p.161) ‘Voici encore un general que ce philosophe condamne’, also N. E. Sanadon, ibid., and Müller, L. (Satiren and Episteln des Horaz (Vienna, 1891), p.214Google Scholar on lines 24–7, who refers to Plin. N.H. 22.113. See further A. Dacier on line 42 (p.164, also Orellius, I. G.-W. Mewes Q. Horatius Flaccus ii⁴ (Berlin, 1892), 224Google Scholar, who cite Stat. Silv. 4.6.10, or Müller, L., op. cit., p.216Google Scholar with reference to Mart. 10.45.3 f.) or on lines 22–3 (p.160; cf. also Orelli-Mewes, , op; cit., p.221Google Scholar with references to Plin. N.H. 23.135 and Celsus 2.29) and in general Schütz, H., op. cit., p.213Google Scholar; Orelli-Mewes, , op. cit., p.218Google Scholar; contra: Doederlein, L., op. cit., pp.254, 256Google Scholar. On line 15 Dacier, A. (op. cit., p.159)Google Scholar, after referring to Plin. N.H. 19.8 (who agrees with Catius) states ‘Palladius n'étoit pas de ce sentiment’ (the reference is to 3.24) and adds, characteristically, ‘nos jardiniers n'en sont pas non plus’. While, obviously, on several points the ancients held different views, the whole of Catius' lecture is an odd mixture of the ordinary and the most unusual, a ‘mèlange d’ indications sèrieuses et de prescriptions ridicules’ (de Saint-Denis, E., Essais sur le rire et le sourire des Latins (Paris, 1965), p.174 n.11).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Kiessling-Heinze, , op. cit., p.273,Google Scholar quoting Archestratos F 3 (p.141 Brandt).

⁴¹ ‘Ab ovo usque ad mala’ (Sat. 1.3.6 f.), cited by Porph. on line 12 (pp.308–9 Holder). Few commentators seem to agree on the rationale of the arrangement so that one hesitates to subscribe to Kiessling-Heinze's ‘Klar and durchsichtig ist der Aufbau’ (op. cit., p.266).

⁴² Cabbage is recommended by Cato, Agr. 156.

⁴³ Rudd, N., op. cit., pp.209–10Google Scholar points out that there is a modern parallel to this procedure, yet one which is not widely known.

⁴⁴ Heinze, R., op. cit., p.270Google Scholar, seems to doubt that there is any connection at all.

⁴⁵ Suggested by Müller, L., op. cit., p.213Google Scholar on line 22 with reference to Lipsius; contra: Orelli-Mewes, , op cit., p.221 on line 22.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The marked division ‘est operae pretium’ renders this most unlikely (contra: Heinze, R., op. cit., pp.275–6Google Scholar on line 63, accepted even by Witte, K., op. cit., p.105).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Kiessling-Heinze assume that line 48 ‘parodiert gewiss... ein den Lesern bekanntes Dichterwort’ (op. cit., p.274).

⁴⁸ 45–6; 73–5; Ludwig, W. compares Lucr. 1.66; 3.2 (loc. cit., p.308).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ As Feinberg, L., Introduction, p.3Google Scholar, remarks: ‘The essence of satire is revelation of the contrast between reality and pretense’ see also pp.176–205, and Schibert, J., Roman and Satire im 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1967), pp.10–11.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Thus Catius is unmasked; for though he is called ‘doctus’ here, all his learning finally proves neither adequate nor satisfactory, see e.g. Sanadon, N. E., op. cit., pp.172–3Google Scholar (on line 88) or Baxter, W., Q. Horatii Flacci Eclogae (London, 1701), p.353 on line 88.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Lucr. 1.927–8 (= 4.2–3) and most of the commentators. Those who doubt that Horace has Lucretius in mind, should not forget that Horace is not quoting, but alluding to Lucretius (as he does throughout the poem), both to individual passages and to characteristic features of De rerum natura (see below, n.78, also above, n.48, and that in a parodying manner (on which see Highet, G., The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, 1962), p.68Google Scholar; also pp.128–31 and below, n.113).

⁵² For this reason Athenaeus calls him (310 A) and his poem (320 F), a phrase which is interesting in view of the third line of this satire. No less interesting is the fact that Archestratus, also, obviously wanted to show the way to a better life.

⁵³ See Brandt, P.'s introduction in his edition Parodorum Epicorum Graecorum et Archestrati Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1888), pp.123–4Google Scholar; he also registers the imitations (pp.140–70).

⁵⁴ See J. Vahlen's edition (Berlin, 1903), pp.218–20, or Warmington, E. H.'s Remains of Old Latin (London, 1956), i.406–11.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For a convenient collection of references see Dohm, H., Mageiros (Zetemata 32 (Munich, 1964))Google Scholar, on Maison and Tettix pp.11–22, on Epicharmus, pp.22–30, on Old Comedy, pp.30–66 (catalogues 59–61), on passages ridiculing philosophy and philosophers, pp.163–73; for Horace and the New Comedy see Sat. 2.3.11, for his models here e.g. Lejay, P., op. cit., pp.446–7Google Scholar, Kowalski, G., ‘De Horatii satira II 4’ in Commentationes Horatianae (Cracow, 1935), pp.25–6Google Scholar, or Rudd, N., op. cit., pp.202–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Anaxippus F 1; Damoxenus F 2; Euphro F 1.1–12; 10.11; 11.1–5 (all references are to Th. Kock's CAF); art: apart from Menander see Anaxippus F 1; Athenio F 1.1; 14–16; 37–38; Damoxenus F 2; Posidippus F 26; Macho F 2; Hegesippus F 1.6–10; Sosipater F 1; Nicomachus F 1.2–3; 11–15;

⁵⁷ Cf. Damoxenus F 2.16–61; Sosipater F 1.15–18; 25–57; Nicomachus F 1.16–42.

⁵⁸ Cf. Anaxippus F 1.11–13; 21–2; 27; Athenio F 1.41–3; Hegesippus F 1.410; Euphro F 1.13–15.

⁵⁹ See Athenio F 1.14–16; 34–8; 42–3; Nicomachus F 1.22; (cf. Hor. Sat. 2.4.35).

⁶⁰ See Anaxippus F 1.21; Damoxenus F 2; Euphro F 1.11–12, cf. Pascal, C. (Athenaeum 8 (1920), 2–5).Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Damoxenus F 2 and Hegesippus F 2.

⁶² Ath. 546 f = F 409 Usener who cites several parallels (Epicurea (Leipzig, 1887), pp.278–9)Google Scholar; more apt ones are noted by Diano, C. (ed.), Epicuri Ethica et Epistulae² (Florence, 1974), p.174Google Scholar ad F 36, also id., Scritti Epicurei (Florence, 1974), pp.92–4Google Scholar, Arrighetti, G. (ed.), Epicuro. Opere² (Turin, 1973), pp.562–4Google Scholar, and Adam, H., Plutarchs Schrift ‘non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum’ (Amsterdam, 1974).Google Scholar

The translation in the text is taken from Bailey, C., The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford, 1928), p.488Google Scholar, the next from Bailey, C. (ed.), Epicurus. The Extant Remains (Oxford, 1926), p.89.Google Scholar

⁶³ Cf. A. P. (Philod.) 11.44; Cic. Fin. 2.101–3; Plut. Mor 1089 C; Ath. 298 D.

⁶⁴ The first seems to have been Timocrates (Cic. Nat. d. 1.113; Plut Mor 1098 D); see further the passages cited in the two previous notes.

⁶⁵ Stoic. Vet. F. F 709 (iii.178).

⁶⁶ F 1 and 2 (in F. Bücheler and W. Heraeus's edition of Petronius (Berlin, 1922), pp.226 and 227, F 403 and 404), see also F 315 (p.216) ‘et hoc interest inter Epicurum et ganeos nostros, quibus modulus est vitae culina’.

⁶⁷ Ps. -Acro on line 32 quotes F 1233 (Krenkel); cf. also F 1172–3 (Krenkel) with line 54.

⁶⁸ As the anonymous referee points out to me, this Lucilius passage is ‘in contrast to exhortations to simplicity of diet like Laelius on the virtues of sorrel’ (F 1130–2 Krenkel). Coffey, M., op. cit., p.85Google Scholar draws attention to such satirical writings as Varro's nescis quid vesper serus vehat (F 333–40, pp.218–19 Bücheler-Heraeus).

⁶⁹ Op. cit., p.268 on line 10 (and in general p.266); see also Leich, G., op. cit., p.31Google Scholar (suggesting an Ennian model with reference to Ovid, Met. 3.580), who stresses (35) that Horace ‘... tots satura II 4 Catium ludibundus grandi et magnifico sermone utentem facit’ (adding parallels for line 1 (Lucr. 2.216; 3.259; 5.1019 etc.) and lines 12 and 89 (see above, n.25)); see also Leich, G., op. cit., p.44Google Scholar (on line 11, cf. Cebe, J. -P., op. cit., p.301 n.6Google Scholar and Orelli-Mewes, , op. cit., p.220Google Scholar with reference to Ovid, Met. 15.146) and 10 (on line 63, cf. below, n.76).

⁷⁰ See-apart from the commentators and writers on Horace's satires-e.g. Highet, G., op. cit., p.13Google Scholar; Frye, N., Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, 1957), p.233.Google Scholar It seems not always sufficiently realized that parody itself aims at ridiculing its model (apart from causing fun), while satire often employs parody to mock a third party (here not Lucretius, but Catius and Pseudo-Epicureans like him are the victims).

⁷¹ See e.g. Plat. Resp. 583 B 5–6; Chrm. 161 B 8-C 1; Meno 81 A 5–6; also Ti. 21 A 7–8; Crat. 413 D 3–4. I am grateful to K. Gaiser for supplying me with some useful references from the Plato-Index at Tübingen. Orelli-Mewes, op. cit., refer to Lucian, Par. 4.

⁷² See e.g. Heinze, R., op. cit., p.266Google Scholar; de Saint-Denis, E., op. cit., p.170Google Scholar; Rudd, N., op. cit., p.211Google Scholar, also above, nn.21, 47, 51, 69, 70; and the following notes.

⁷³ Cf. Lucr. 2.1137, see also 6.704.

⁷⁴ Cf. Lucr. 1.112; (see also lines 20–1 and Lucr. 1.71; 303 etc., cf. Leich, G., op. cit., pp.11–12Google Scholar, and Cèbe, J. -P., op. cit., p.302Google Scholar with nn.1 and 2); this may also go back to Ennius, cf. Archestratus F 3 (p.141 Brandt) and for the subject-matter Damoxenus F 1.16–24; Sosipater 1.30–5; and especially Nicomachus F 1.19–23 (cf. lines 35–6 of this satire).

⁷⁵ See Lucr. 6.703–4, also 3.370 and Heinze's comment, quoted above, n.47

⁷⁶ Cf. Enn. Ann. 465 Vahlen, also used by Horace, Sat. 1.2.37; the phrase is not uncommon in prose; see Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.73; more frequent is ‘operae pretium est’: SRosc. 59; 108; Verr. 2.1.143; 2.2.131; Cat. 4.16; Fin. 4.67. On ‘pernoscere iuris naturam’ see Lucr. 1.949–50; 3.1072, also 4.385, on ‘natura’ at the beginning of a line see above, n.74.

⁷⁷ Cf. above, n.21; on ‘doctus efis’ cf. Fritzsche, A. Th. H., op. cit. (n.83), 81 on line 19.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Leich, G. writes (op. cit., p.11)Google Scholar ‘complura exempla versuum Lucretianorum deflexorum inveniuntur libri II sat. IV, qua Catius Horatium praecepta culinarum docet festiva adhibita dicendi elegantia, quae iocose a rerum tractatarum vilitate distat’ and lists several parallels (pp.11–13), comparing e.g. line 46 with Lucr. 1.926–7, see also above nn.74, 76; further 21, 69, 73, 75; also the general remarks in n.51.

⁷⁹ See e.g. Kruger, G. T. A., Des Q. Horatius Flaccus sämtliche Werke ii.11 (Leipzig, 1885), 127Google Scholar, similarly already Badius, Jodocus (Josse Bade) Ascensius in Opera Q. Horatii Flacci (Paris, 1528), fo. 203r.Google Scholar A comparison with medieval preaching or later satire denouncing this vice does not only reveal Horace's restraint and taste, but indicates that his is a different target.

⁸⁰ See Lejay, P., op. cit., p.453.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibid., pp.448–9.

⁸² Porph. on line 1; Landino, Ch. in: Horatius cum quattuor commentarius…(Milan, 1508) fo. 217^rGoogle Scholar; J. Badius, op. cit., fo. 203^v; Lambin, D., In Q. Horatium Flaccum... (Frankfurt, 1596), p.175Google Scholar; Schutz, H., op. cit., pp.209–11Google Scholar; most recently Büchner, K., Horaz. Die Satiren (Bologna, 1970), p.221Google Scholar; see also next note.

⁸³ Baxter, W., op. cit., p.348Google Scholar, similarly Dacier, A., op. cit., p.152Google Scholar; Ritter, F., Horatii Satirae et Epistulae (Leipzig, 1857), p.187Google Scholar; Fritzsche, A. Th. H., Des Q. Horatius Flaccus Sermonen ii (Leipzig, 1876), 78–9Google Scholar; Müller, L., op. cit., p.209Google Scholar; Cartault, A., op. cit., pp.337–8.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ First by Wieland, Ch. M., op. cit., pp.133, 148Google Scholar; later by Manso, J. C. F., op. cit., p.284Google Scholar, who is followed by Palmer, A., op. cit., p.316.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Wieland, Ch. M., op. cit., p.134Google Scholar, perhaps Horace himself: ibid., p.136, contra: Manso, J. C. F., op. cit., p.285.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Heindorf, L., op. cit., p.337Google Scholar, accepted by Teuffel, W. S. (Rhein. Mus. 4 (1846), 215)Google Scholar, rejected by Manso, J. C. F., op. cit., p.285Google Scholar; Fritzsche, A. Th. H., op. cit., p.78Google Scholar and Müller, L., op. cit., p.210.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ps. -Acro on line 11 (p.162 Keller); Heinsius, D., op. cit., p.65Google Scholar (by implication; contra: Dacier, A., op. cit., p.157)Google Scholar; Schütz, H., op. cit., p.210Google Scholar (but see ibid., p.221 on line 89); Pascal, C., loc. cit., p.11.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Unnamed scholar, according to Schütz, H., op. cit., p.210Google Scholar, without giving an exact reference.

⁸⁹ Düntzer, H., Des Q. Horatius Flaccus Satiren and Briefe (Paderborn, 1868), p.111.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Palmer, A., op. cit., p.315.Google Scholar Most writers refrain from making guesses; many assume that Horace deliberately chose ambiguity.

⁹¹ See above, n.15; Cartault, A., op. cit., p.34Google Scholar, suggests that ‘La S. II, 4 peut avoir eu pour occasion l'apparition d'un livre culinaire, qui fit sensation dans un monde de millionaires plus riches qu'intelligents’, Gow, J., Q. Horati Flacci Saturarum Liber II (Cambridge, 1909), p.84Google Scholar, that ‘The satire is evidently a skit on some recent work in which culinary recipes were prescribed with great solemnity’, see also Kowalski, G., loc. cit., p.27.Google Scholar

⁹² e.g. by Orelli-Mewes, , op. cit., p.218Google Scholar; Ritter, F., op. cit., p.187Google Scholar; and not without hesitation by Kruger, G. T. A., op. cit., p.127Google Scholar; Kiessling-Heinze, , op. cit., p.267Google Scholar; contra: Palmer, A., op. cit., p.314Google Scholar; Cartault, A., op. cit., pp.299, 316.Google Scholar

⁹³ Porph. on line 1; Badius, J., op. cit., fo. 203 ^vGoogle Scholar; Erasmus, D., ‘Colloquia familiaria’, Opera omnia, i (Leiden, 1703), fo. 662Google Scholar; Lambin, D., op. cit., pp.175, 177–8Google Scholar; Heinsius, D., op. cit., p.64Google Scholar; Dacier, A., op. cit., pp.152–4Google Scholar; Doederlein, L., pp.257–8Google Scholar; Diintzer, H., op. cit., p.110Google Scholar; Fritzsche, A. Th. H., op. cit.; p.79Google Scholar; Schutz, H., op. cit., pp.209–11Google Scholar; Wickham, E. C., Quinti Horatii Flacci Opera omnia, ii (Oxford, 1891), 160Google Scholar; Lejay, P., op. cit., pp.447–55Google Scholar; Cambilargiu, L., Athenaeum 7 (1919), 177–9.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See e.g. Sanadon, N. E., op. cit., p.154Google Scholar (who refers also to Vander Bèken (i.e. Laevinus Torrentius) and Le Fèvre (i.e. Tanaquil Faber); Wieland, Ch. M., op. cit., p.147Google Scholar; Heindorf, L., op. cit., pp.335–7Google Scholar; Palmer, A., op. cit., p.316Google Scholar; Orelli-Mewes, , op. cit., p.218Google Scholar; Arnim, H. v.-Wissowa, G., RE 3 (1899), 1792Google Scholar, and especially Kiessling, A.-Heinze, R., op. cit., p.267Google Scholar; most recently by Nardo, D. in: Dignam Dis a G. Vallot (Venice, 1972), pp.115–16 n.l.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ For the juxtaposition of Horatian poems on Stoic and Epicurean themes see also Odes 2.2 and 2.3 (A. A. Long); cf. Epist. 1.1 16 ff.

⁹⁶ For an even longer list of philosophers attacked by the Epicureans see Plut. Mor. 1086 E (beginning with Aristotle, Socrates, and Pythagoras); for the practice of the members of the school to learn their master's principle doctrines faithfully by heart-like Catius-see Cic. Fin. 2.20, also Diog. Laert. 10.35–6.

⁹⁷ See Cicero's general characterization: ‘qui certis quibusdam destinatisque sententiis quasi addicti et consecrati sunt eaque necessitate constricti’ (Tusc. 2.5).

⁹⁸ Later writers explicitly distinguish between satire and invective or pasquil or lampoon, as e.g. DrJohnson, , A Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755), ii, s.v. satireGoogle Scholar: ‘A poem in which wickedness or folly is censured. Proper satire is distinguished, by the generality of the reflections, from a lampoon which is aimed against a particular person’.

⁹⁹ Cf. e.g. Cartault, A., op. cit., p.285.Google Scholar Horace is not afraid to do so-unlike Juvenal and most later satirists (cf. Meyer-Minnemann, K., Die Tradition der klassischen Satire in Frankreich (Bad Homburg, 1969), pp.76–7).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Frye, N., op. cit., p.225Google Scholar, says ‘For effective attack we must reach some kind of impersonal level’; it seems worth remembering that Cicero, a decade earlier wrote (Tusc. 4.7) ‘post Amafinium autem multi eiusdem aemuli rationis multa cum scripsissent, Italiam totam occupaverunt.’

¹⁰¹ Cf. Palmer, A., op. cit., p.316.Google Scholar

¹⁰² It is not possible here to discuss at length to what extent Horace may be called an Epicurean. Clearly, he was not hostile to or critical of the basic tenets of Epicurus’ school, see e.g. PhMerlan, (JHI 10 (1949), 445–51)CrossRefGoogle Scholar nor did he fully subscribe to all aspects of his philosophy, cf. e.g. Diano, C. (AIV 120 (1961/2), 43–58Google Scholar = Sagezza e poetiche degli antichi (Vicenza, 1978), pp.13–30)Google Scholar and (arguing differently) Buchner, K. in Actes Vill^e congrès G. Budè (Paris, 1969), pp.457–69.Google Scholar In ‘A Discourse concerning the Original and Progress of Satire’ (1693) J. Dryden, points out that Horace ‘is sometimes an Epicurean, sometimes an Eclectic, as his present humour leads him’ (The Poetical Works of Dryden, ed. Noyes, G. R. (Cambridge Mass., 1950), p.307).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Cf. Palmer, A., op. cit., p.316Google Scholar; see also Sanadon, N. E., op. cit., p.154.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Sanadon, N. E., op. cit., p.154Google Scholar; Palmer, A., op. cit., p.316.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Tanaquil Faber according to Dacier, A., op. cit., pp.152–3Google Scholar (who rejects this view, however, with inadequate arguments); Kiessling-Heinze, , op. cit., p.267Google Scholar; see also next note; contra: Doederlein, L., op. cit., p.257.Google Scholar Some have assumed an absurd chronology to enable Horace to attack Catius the Insubrian during his lifetime.

¹⁰⁶ Boll. Stud. Lat. 1 (1971), 407–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Heindorf, L., op. cit., p.335Google Scholar; Orelli-Mewes, , op. cit., p.218Google Scholar; Turolla, E., Q. Orazio Flacco. Satire (Turin, 1958), 174Google Scholar; contra: Schütz, H., op. cit., p.209.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ I do not mean to imply that Horace merely wanted to make fun of this particular book.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Sat. 1.4.105–29, cf. Sallmann, K., Hermes 98 (1970), 185Google Scholar; Boll. Stud. Lat. 1 (1971), 412–13.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ This is Wieland, 's view (op. cit., p.134)Google Scholar ‘Ich glaube, dass das ganze Stück bloss zur Belustigung des Maecenas and seiner vertrautern Tischgesellschaft geschrieben worden.’

¹¹¹ Frye, N., op. cit., p.224.Google Scholar

¹¹² Kernan, A., The Cankered Muse (New Haven, 1959), p.29.Google Scholar

¹¹³ This is a common device of satire, cf. Highet, G., op. cit., pp.52–3.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Cf. Gaier, U., Satire (Tubingen, 1967), pp.338–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who refers to R. C. Elliott's definition, and Sallmann, K., loc. cit., p.180Google Scholar, who refers to Gottsched. This features is frankly admitted by Horace himself, who denies ‘laedere gaudere’ (Sat.1.4.78 ff.), not ‘Iaedere’, cf. also Lucil. F 1089.

¹¹⁵ For the term see already J. Hall, ‘Virgidemiarum’ lib. I prol. 20 (1598) in: The Collected Poems of J. H., ed. Davenport, A. (Liverpool, 1949), p.11Google Scholar; see further Kernan, A., op. cit., p.23Google Scholar; Feinberg, L., The Satirist (Ames, 1963), p.6Google Scholar (referring to Johnson, E., A Treasury of Satire (New York, 1945)Google Scholar, which is not accessible to me); id., Introduction, pp.212–15; Schiinert, J., op. cit., pp.10–11.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ See above, nn.21, 47, 51, 69, 70, 72 ff.; and below, n.118 in general: Highet, G., op. cit., pp.13Google Scholar, 67 ff., 256 ff. with reference to Lelièvre, F. J. (G & R 23 (1954), 66–81)Google Scholar; Schönert, J. op. cit. 18 ff.Google Scholar; Feinberg, L., Introduction, 184–92.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Lejay, P., op. cit., p.449Google Scholar; cf. also n.91; see in general Highet, G., op. cit., pp.17–18Google Scholar; Kernan, A., op. cit., pp.3, 6, 23Google Scholar; Feinberg, L., Satirist, pp.39–40, 292–305, 310–28, etc.Google Scholar; Gaier, U., op. cit., p.260.Google Scholar This must not be taken to mean that the poem has nothing but an actual relevance, see nn.18, 108.

¹¹⁸ Cf. Highet, G., op. cit., pp.3, 5, 69, 148 ff., 190 ff.Google Scholar; Lazarowicz, K., Verkehrte Welt (Tubingen, 1963), pp.42–59 etc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feinberg, L., Introduction, pp.4, 90–1, 105–19Google Scholar. For this satire see Heinsius, D., op. cit., pp.66–9Google Scholar; in view of this there is no need to assume that Horace is mocking (or attacking) the author of a cookery-book or an expert on cooking; the amusement of the audience by means of the literary form (also an essential feature of satire, cf. Feinberg, L., Introduction, pp.87–8Google Scholar) is more likely to have been achieved by Catius’ recipes as parody of philosophical precepts than as parody of culinary ones; see also n. 60.

¹¹⁹ For the philosophical relevance of eating and digestion, especially the importance of the knowledge of the nature of food, of its preparation and of the process of digestion see Gourèvitch, D., ‘Le menu de l'homme libre. Recherches sur l’alimentation et la digestion dans les oeuvres en prose de Sènèque le philosophe’ in Mèlanges P. Boyancè (Rome, 1974), pp.311–44.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ I owe this point to the anonymous referee.

¹²¹ Feinberg, L., Satirist, pp.7, 81Google Scholar; id., Introduction, p.19.Google Scholar

¹²² Flögel, C. F., Geschichte der komischen Literatur i/iv (Liegnitz, 1784–7), 294Google Scholar; Worcester, D., The Art of Satire (Cambridge Mass., 1940), pp.1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²³ Cf. Schiller, F. v.: ‘In der Satire wird die Wirklichkeit als Mangel dem Ideal als der höchsten Realität gegenübergestellt’ (‘Uber naive and sentimentalische Dichtung’ in Sämtliche Werke 12 (Stuttgart, 1905), 194Google Scholar; see also Highet, G., op. cit., pp.3, 5, 158 ff.Google Scholar; Poulson, R., The Fictions of Satire (Baltimore, 1967), p.5Google Scholar: ‘Satire's purpose ordinarily is not to create something new but to expose the real evil in the existing’; Gaier, U., op. cit., pp.331–8.Google Scholar