^{page 149 note 1} Morris, E. P., Satires and Epistles (New York, 1909), p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Quint, Inst. Or. 10. 1. 93. Cf. Tac. Dial. 23.

^{page 149 note 3} Varro in Gellius 6. 14. 6.

^{page 149 note 4} This is on the testimony of Quint. 1. 8. 11: ‘summa non eruditionis modo gratia sed etiam iucunditatis, cum poeticis voluptatibus aures a forensi asperitate respirent.’

^{page 149 note 5} Cic. De Or. 3. 171.

^{page 149 note 6} Id. De Fin. 1. 3. 8.

^{page 149 note 7} This has been maintained at length by G. C. Fiske in his book Lucilius and Horace, and in his earlier article ‘The Plain Style in the Scipionic Circle’, Wisc. Stud. iii 1919.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} See e.g. Knoche, U., Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft (1936), pp. 500 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} Fiske, , L. and H., pp. 278–9Google Scholar; Hendrickson, , A.J.P. xxi (1900), 126Google Scholar, and Studies presented to B. Gildersleeve, P. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 3} So Schütz. Oltramare, however, thinks that Horace found fault with Crispinus on aesthetic grounds only (Les Origines de la Diatribe Romaine, P. 130).Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 4} In view of the close connexion between the two satires it seems that Klingner is being rather over-cautious when in his index nominum he hesitates to identify the two Fannii.

^{page 150 note 5} Postgate, , C.R. xv (1901), 302 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} Gow's interpretation is surely mistaken: ‘You should not hate poets because you hate me, for I am no poet.’ Such an argument would have no bearing on Horace's defence.

^{page 151 note 2} Campbell, A. Y., for instance, calls this passage ‘a dust-raising diversion’ (Horace. A New Interpretation, p. 162).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 3} Fairclough, , A.J.P. xxxiv (1913).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 4} Cf. Ep. 1. 3. 14; 2. 1. 165; 2. 1. 250 ff.; A.P. 89 ff.

^{page 152 note 1} Hendrickson, , A.J.P. 21, 1900, p. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 2} Ullman, , T.A.P.A. 48, 1917, p. 115.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 3} Dindorf, , Scholia Graeca in Aristophanis Comoedias, Tom. 4, p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} Ibid., p. 27.

^{page 152 note 5} Aristotle, Poetics 1448^b26 (subject-matter), 1449^a26, and 1459^a12 (diction).

^{page 153 note 1} Dindorf, , op. cit., p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} e.g. De Leg. 2. 15. 37; De Off. 1. 104; Brut. 224.

^{page 154 note 1} Ullman, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} I have accepted much of what Ullman says, but in regard to comoedia (Serm. 1. 4. 45) he uses one argument which is not valid. After pointing out that in 1. 4. 2 and 1. 10. 16 Horace designates the Old Comedy by the epithet prisca, he continues ‘Why, then, in the passage under discussion should he say merely comoedia if he meant only the New Comedy and not Comedy in general?’ An opponent of Ullman's could justifiably answer that Horace is following the normal practice of using comoedia by itself to denote the New Comedy.

^{page 154 note 3} e.g. Heinze, Fairclough, Wickham, and Hendrickson.

^{page 155 note 1} Hendrickson, , Cl. Ph. xi (1916), 253.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Id. A.J.P. xxi (1900), 129. See also p.130.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} Ibid. 125. This is accepted by Fiske, , L. and H., pp. 282 and 345.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} I would agree with Ullman who takes facetus in the general sense ‘witty’ as against Kiessling-Heinze who equate it with comis et urbanus (Serm. 1. 10. 65) and Hendrickson who interprets it as harsh wit.

^{page 156 note 2} I hope to discuss this point at another time. See Rackham, , C.R. xxx (1916), 224.Google Scholar