Horace and the Creation of a New Imperial Free Speech in the Satires and Epodes
By Joshua Rose, University of Pennsylvania 2023
Introduction
“How come, Maecenas, that no man lives satisfied with his own lot, whether given to him by his own choice or thrown his way by fortune, but looks enviously on those who follow different careers?” (1.1-3). This first line from Horace’s Satires Book 1 is one of the best encapsulations of the poet's political outlook and writing style. His acknowledgment of his benefactor Maecenas is mentioned in the same breath as a veiled comment on the importance of maintaining the status quo. And this professed desire to preserve the status quo comes on the heels of Horace’s own rapid rise through the artistic ranks of the new Roman society following the death of Julius Caesar. Quintus Horatius Flaccus, known today as Horace, is one of the best-known and most frequently studied poets of the late Roman Republic and early days of the Empire. Of course, Horace’s poetry in and of itself is well-deserving of praise and detailed scholarship, both of which have been readily applied to his works already. However, it is the time period and political turmoil that surrounds Horace’s career, and his ability to seemingly say nothing while in fact saying a lot, that makes his poetry particularly interesting and keeps his work in the spotlight of modern scholarship. Even before Horace published his first poem, Rome underwent seismic sociopolitical change. Horace’s earliest published work, Book 1 of the Satires, was published sometime around 35 BC [1]. By that point, Horace had lived through the entirety of the conquest of Gaul, Caesar crossing the Rubicon and the subsequent civil war that followed, Caesar’s assassination, and then yet another civil war between the Second Triumvirate and the assassins of Julius Caesar [2]. However, it is the period following Caesar’s death and leading up to the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Actium that the works of poetry being examined in this paper, Satires 1 and Epodes, were written [3]. In particular, I will be analyzing how these collections of poems helped to promote a new, more restricted set of free speech norms for Roman elites at the end of the Republican period leading into the Empire.
Before diving into the principal arguments of this essay, I believe it will be useful to acknowledge two points that will shape my analysis of Horace. First, not all poems in Satires 1 and the Epodes will be mentioned to an equal degree, or even at all. I made this choice not because I believe some poems to be irrelevant to the political messages I argue that Horace makes in the Satires and Epodes. If anything, I think the opposite is true. Previous scholars have attempted to split Horace’s poems into sections [4], with some being seen as more worthy of study than others, and I believe this to be a mistake [5]. It is for the simple and prosaic motive of brevity, something I think Horace himself would appreciate, that I do not discuss every available poem. The second point to note is a recognition of our modern perspective and my decision to use our contemporary world to ground the discussion of Horace’s impact on free speech in Rome. People often like to make connections between Rome and the Unites States because the Roman Republican government seemed to have a great impact on our Founding Fathers and the construction of the American Constitution [6]. It is no surprise then that people like to draw comparisons between pivotal events in American history and politics and Roman examples [7]. Entire books could be written on the similarities and differences between the Roman and American conceptions of free speech. Therefore, it is not because of a lack of material that I will generally avoid discussing Horace’s Rome through an American lens, but rather because I believe there to be more fruitful modern comparisons to analyze. So instead, throughout this paper, I will refer to how Horace’s political situation looks in many ways similar to modern authoritarian regimes. Current comparisons to Rome will primarily focus on Russia and China in this paper because I hope to illustrate that in both of these states, like in Horace’s political context, there is an emphasis on friendship over official political appointments, self-censorship, and a general degree of opacity in the machinations of the political elites. Of course, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between first century BC Rome and any modern authoritarian regime. However, the fact that differences do exist should not dissuade us from learning about modern authoritarian governments, or anything else for that matter, from ancient sources [8].
Horace’s Praise
It seems natural to begin the analysis of Satires 1 and the Epodes with one of the most common forms of political speech that Horace engages in throughout both of these collections: the praise of the current political order, and especially of his benefactor and friend Maecenas, a high ranking politician close to Octavian. In fact, in the very first line of the Epodes, Horace refers to Maecenas as his “dear friend,” and goes on to praise Maecenas’ dutiful companionship to Octavian, who is preparing for a conflict with Marc Antony (1.1-4). Throughout the rest of Epode 1, Horace continues to profusely express his admiration and love for Maecenas, even going so far as to say to him, “Gladly I'd fight in this and every other war in hopes of pleasing you…” (1.23-24). While Epode 1 is probably the most blatant example of this effusive devotion to Maecenas among the poems analyzed in this paper, there are several other instances where Horace indicates just how important his relationship to Maecenas is. In Satire 6, Horace describes how he was allowed into Maecenas’ social circle. According to Horace, this allowance only happened since, despite being of extremely noble birth, Maecenas still had the good sense not to look down upon those of lower social status, like Horace himself, who was by his own admission the son of a freedman (6.1-6).
It is true that Horace most frequently compliments Maecenas among those in Rome’s ruling elite, but he spreads this effusiveness to others in the upper echelon of Roman politics as well. Most notable among these, of course, is Octavian. Generally, Horace avoids mentioning topics that are explicitly political. When he does, he goes to great lengths to avoid describing any potentially sensitive aspect of whatever event he is discussing. In other words, he is selective about which politics he includes. He can feign oblivion when he thinks it necessary, which is a subject that will be discussed in more detail at a later point [9]. Epode 9 is one of the few exceptions to this rule. Here, Horace is celebrating Octavian’s victory over Marc Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium. Obviously, this battle is an extremely important political event, and the fact that Horace makes a big show of praising the martial power of Octavian while deriding the forces of Marc Antony makes this particular Epode significant in terms of free speech [10]. Horace compares Octavian to the famed Roman general Publius Scipio Africanus, who defeated the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War (9.25). Horace also states that the Roman generals of the Jugurthine War, Marius and Sulla, leading men from the previous era of the Roman Civil Wars, did not measure up to Octavian and his victory at Actium (9.23-24). As for Marc Antony’s troops, they had become “... a woman’s slaves…” (9.11) and “...at the beck and call of wrinkled eunuchs…” (9.13-14).
Friendships, Philosophy, and Power
In addition to Octavian, Horace also refers warmly to other famous poets of the time, like Virgil, Plotius, and Varius, who were all close to Maecenas, and thus also part of the political establishment that was being developed at this time [11]. In Satire 5, Horace refers to these three poets as “... the purest souls the earth has produced, and men whose friendship no man values more deeply than I” (5.40-42). That Horace states he is close friends with these men in Octavian’s political circle is a clear sign of where his political allegiances lie. But why is friendship necessarily indicative of political association? Let us once again return to Maecenas, who was clearly important enough of a figure to be trusted with critical political tasks, such as being sent as a representative of Augustus to negotiate with Marc Antony about the new terms of the Triumvirate (5.32-34). And yet, Maecenas never officially held any position in government [12]. His job description can essentially be boiled down to “trusted friend of Augustus.” Despite his lack of official appointments in the government, Roman historians such as the great Sir Ronald Syme thought of Maecenas as Augusutus’ culture minister, or perhaps his chief of propaganda [13]. The title might not be accurate, but Maecenas’ actual duties and responsibilities seem to be fairly close to what Syme and others suggest. Clearly, then, in this increasingly authoritarian Rome friendships and unofficial connections can weigh quite heavily, perhaps even more so than official government positions.
This emphasis on unofficial relationships is not unique to Roman authoritarianism, but in fact continues to this day. A compelling modern example of the opaque nature of authoritarian power structures that has also been swirling in the mainstream news cycle centers on Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, who has been given the moniker “Putin’s Chef” due to his catering businesses and restaurants which have close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin [14]. As with Maecenas, we know relatively little about Prigozhin’s exact role as an advisor to President Putin. However, it has been somewhat of an open secret that he has had significant influence in the Putin regime, and this information has been confirmed when he revealed that he is in fact one of the founders of the mercenary group Wagner, which has been deployed by the Kremlin in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Africa [15]. The exact path Prigozhin took from being a simple hot dog stand owner to helping found one of the most ruthless private military companies in the world will likely never be known, and in any event, is far beyond the scope of this article [16]. What is important to note here though, is that it is not necessarily an official position in government that matters when analyzing power in authoritarian regimes. These more unofficial roles based on connections to the autocrat are what allow men like Prigozhin to not only influence Russia’s military operations but also their disinformation and electoral tampering network through another one of his companies [17]. This is an excellent case study to support the idea that Horace and Maecenas do not need to have official positions in the Roman government for them to be close confidants of Augustus and help him to advance his agenda.18 Even the mere association or friendship with someone of Augustus’ or Maecenas’ position is enough to place Horace firmly in their political, and not just social, entourage.
The preceding paragraph focused on the personal connection between President Putin and Yevgeny Prigozhin in order to emphasize the importance of friendship in autocratic power structures. This of course is significant for Horace, who often discusses the nature of friendship and his friendships with prominent political figures, like Maecenas. One aspect of autocracies that enables informal relationships to hold so much power is that the official political structures become less defined than in more democratic systems. When Augustus rose to power as the sole leader of Rome, he began to acquire a vast list of titles, including princeps Senatus, tribunary status for life, and even pontifex maximus, Rome’s chief priest and the same position that his adoptive father Caesar held for many years [19]. And yet, despite this ever-growing list of titles, Augustus wanted to avoid the association with kingship, and therefore appeared to take a backseat in the political hierarchy [20]. This is similar to authoritarian governments today, where even the official political systems are difficult to pin down. The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, has quite a complex hierarchy [21]. Even now, we do not know for sure how the highest levels of government are chosen, right up to the Politburo Standing Committee, the most powerful politicians in the country [22]. This level of opacity is common for autocracies and seems to provide them with the flexibility to delegate power in ways unconstrained by the official, democratic channels.
This appears to be a system in which Horace and Maecenas did quite well. Perhaps even more telling than Horace’s attitude towards the political elites themselves, are his beliefs regarding society and his general outlook on life. Throughout Satires 1 and the Epodes, Horace consistently indicates that his philosophical leanings align him with the school of Epicureanism, which in essence advocates for moderation in all things with the overall goal being a constant state of moderate pleasure [23]. Simply ascribing to the philosophy of Epicureanism in and of itself is not indicative of any political philosophy, but the way in which Horace uses Epicurean beliefs in these two works of poetry is noteworthy through a free speech and political lens. Horace espouses his variant of Epicureanism very early on in both the Satires and Epodes. In Epode 2, Horace calls “fortunate” those who are unencumbered by debt or the duty of being a soldier, who avoid the Forum and political power (2.1-8). This policy of avoiding too much responsibility and taking the middle road is common throughout the works of poetry being analyzed here, and it is a belief that Horace spreads through all aspects of life [24]. Satires 1, 2, and 3, all discuss how moderation in life is essential on a wide variety of subjects, including money, passion, and love. Perhaps the best synthesis of this sentiment comes in Satire 2, where Horace states “... in seeking to avoid one fault fools rush to embrace its opposite” (2.24-5). This quote from Horace is in direct response to how various Romans attempt to hide either their profligate or miserly use of money, but in Horace’s mind the advice applies to most aspects of life.
In Satire 3, Horace wonders to himself why people are so quick to harshly judge the flaws of others, and yet for themselves, they turn a blind eye (3.25-35). He advocates that we all try to be less judgemental of other people, especially regarding our friends, whose faults we should do our best to overlook or even put a positive spin on (3.41-56). Considering whom Horace deems to be his friends, this is an extremely convenient way of suggesting that the people of Rome should overlook any potential flaws in the current political elite, just as Horace does. He even takes this one step further when he talks about how he hopes that Maecenas overlooks Horace’s faults as someone who is open and talkative (3.63-67). The converse of this philosophy on friendship being that Horace certainly overlooks any faults he finds with Maecenas.
This is certainly not the last instance where Horace provides an example from his own life that indicates he practices the Epicureanism he preaches. In Satire 6, as I have already mentioned briefly, Horace heaps praise upon Maecenas, especially regarding his discerning nature in choosing friends for his social circle (6.50-55). Satire 6 is also noteworthy for another reason, however, and it is here where we see one of the clearest glimpses of what Horace believes about political power, and who should wield it [25]. In another rare political statement, Horace admits that he was, in fact, a tribune in the army of Brutus and Cassius at the battle of Philippi, and thus would have fought against Octavian and the other Caesarians (6.47-48). Despite this relatively high military position, Horace comes out later and says that actually, it is the common man, and not a man of power or importance, who leads the most comfortable life because he is not one of the “... prisoners of wretched and oppressive ambition” (6.130). In other words, the common man is free from the expectations and responsibilities of being in power, which in Horace’s words, include having to travel with a retinue everywhere you go outside of the city, receive clients and political callers every day, and be careful about the type of company you keep.
While these obligations do seem somewhat burdensome, and the avoidance of them seems to plausibly fit what an Epicurean philosophy might suggest in order to achieve happiness, the context in which Horace makes these claims is significant. First, as I touched on earlier, Horace served as a military tribune in the army of Caesar’s assassins, which, despite being a military appointment, would have been quite a political position with lots of the political responsibilities that Horace seems to actively avoid. This seems to indicate to his readers, especially those in power, that since the ambitions of his earlier days, Horace is now content in his current social and political status, and has no intentions of moving up the ladder or rocking the boat. Second, he is also indicating to readers both inside and outside of the political elite, that the stresses of power are not worth the benefits that come with said power, and that furthermore, it is actually the simple man who enjoys more freedoms than those in charge. This is a highly convenient and also common selling point for governments that are attempting to restrict political rights and access. Turning once again to modern authoritarianism, this promise of a compromise where the everyday citizen gets to enjoy increased economic and personal freedom as long as they do not get enmeshed in any political subject, nor do they seek to get involved in disruptive politics is seen today in Russia [26]. That Horace seems to be advocating for the same compromise here indicates just how much his poetry seems to reinforce the existing political structures.
Good Speech is Brief Speech
Even Horace’s thoughts on poetry can be seen through a political lens. One of the common themes that Horace points out about his own work as opposed to that of his predecessors in the genre is his brevity and concision. This commentary on the nature of “good” poetry is contained in the Satires, where Horace often compares his work to Lucilius, someone he sees as a direct forebear and was widely regarded as the “Father of Satire” (he makes this comparison in Satires 4, 5, and 10) [27]. In fact, this description of Lucilius’ role in satire does not do his influence justice. Kirk Freudenburg goes even further by suggesting that Lucilius’ name had essentially become synonymous with satire, to the point where satire could be called “the kind of poems Lucilius wrote” [28]. The essential criticism leveled by Horace against Lucilius is that he writes too much in his poems and that his work seems to meander “like a muddy river” with excesses of unnecessary material included (4.9-14). He chastises Lucilius for his verbose poetry both directly, as in Satires 4 and 10, and also indirectly, such as in Satire 5 where he seems to mimic a scene from Lucilius but pares it down to what Horace believes to be an acceptable length, including the appropriate amount of detail. This emphasis on brevity can be seen in connection with Horace’s general Epicurean advice against excess, and here it seems he is advising against excess speech. He goes so far as to say that the conditions of Lucilius’ era were “unfavorable” to the creation of poetry that was succinct or “finished and smoother” (10.57-58). Horace’s choice to attack Lucilius’ version of Satire is significant not only because of Lucilius’ prominence in the genre, but because of what his poetry represented. His longer, more outspoken form of satire is sometimes considered to be an “emblem of Republican free speech” [29]. By challenging the Lucilian satire, specifically on grounds of brevity, he is by extension challenging the very idea of Republican free speech. To hammer home the dangers of excess speech, Horace points to the pestering chatterbox from Satire 9 who is given his comeuppance by his legal opponent in an ongoing court case, after failing to heed Horace’s signals about leaving him out of his social schemes. The operant message of course is that there are new standards for acceptable speech, and venturing outside of those rules can lead to some nasty consequences.
Horace then moves on to discuss how his poetry is narrowly focused on appealing to a specific audience. He seems to suggest that the wordy poetry of Lucilius and others like him tended to appeal to the masses, and thus lack sophistication. Horace’s shortened and polished and one might say self-censored poetry on the other hand appeals to the elites of society, those whose admiration is worth receiving. Specifically, Horace states that he is “‘... satisfied if the knights give me their applause…’” (10.76). The “knights” here seem to be referring to the Roman Equites, who were of course the political and social elite in Roman culture. Horace goes even further by listing some of the people whose opinions he cares about, and it should be no surprise that he lists many of the people in the political elite that he already rubs shoulders with, like Maecenas, Varius, Plotius, and Virgil (10.82). By specifically listing those whose approval Horace seeks out when creating his work, he made it abundantly clear just whose opinion really matters both for himself and his readers.
It seems clear to me that the ability, and more importantly the willingness to self-sensor is absolutely critical for the new norms on free speech that are being developed in Rome, in part by Horace himself, but more so by the political figures around him [30]. And yet, there needs to be some outlet for these political issues to float around in the marketplace of ideas, even in a highly regulated market. Looking again at modern China, with its highly developed surveillance capabilities, it is still extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevent all discussion of potentially dangerous political topics [31]. A specific example of this can be seen in Peter Hessler’s experience teaching at Sichuan University [32], one of the top 40 schools in China [33]. During Professor Hessler’s time there, he had his students study potentially dangerous texts—such as 1984, Animal Farm, and Brave New World—in an authoritarian state. Contrary to what one might believe considering the strict censorship laws in China, many of the students in Professor Hessler’s class saw the dangers in the dystopian worlds from these famous works of literature and even voiced these concerns to the class and their professor, such as when several students said that they “... hated the jubao behavior,” or the practice of reporting a professor of political wrongdoing in the classroom. And yet the moral of this story is that despite the astute level of political awareness among the students in Professor Hessler’s literature class, they are mostly content with the system that has developed and often refrain from discussing politics when given the option to do so [34]. The situation for Horace seems to be quite similar. Throughout these poems, Horace, Maecenas, and Augustus seek to manage the way such matters are discussed, specifically by suggesting that these sensitive discussions (and perhaps more broadly a career in politics) are simply not worth the trouble.
Horace’s Political Omissions
Turning away from what Horace does include in the Satires and Epodes, let us now take a look at what is deliberately left out of these poems, and how these omissions indicate Horace’s stance on what political speech should look like under the new regime. Earlier in the paper, I mentioned that Horace generally tries to avoid political matters except when mentioning them serves to flatter his benefactors and the new elite in Rome. There are several examples where Horace discusses highly political events, and yet leaves out all of the interesting details. The most famous instance of deliberate political omission comes from Satire 5, where Horace recounts a journey that he took with Maecenas and others in Octavian’s social circle [35]. The specific trip that Horace is referencing in this poem is difficult to nail down, in no small part because he refuses to provide the reader with any exact information that might give away which political meeting it is he is traveling to. Despite this lack of explicit details, historians can deduce from chronology and context that this journey Horace undertakes is to either Brundisium or Tarentum for a summit between Marc Antony and Octavian [36]. In fact, throughout this entire poem, Horace provides only one snippet of the seriousness of the trip he is on, and that occurs in line 28, where Horace states that he is waiting for his “fine friend Maecenas” and another politician named Cocceius to join them on the journey because they are “envoys on important business” (5.28-29).
The rest of the poem is spent discussing trivial details surrounding the nature of Horace’s short trip, including descriptions of boatmen arguing with their slaves in the town of Forum Appii, a battle of words between two men called Sarmentus and Messius Cicirrus, which Horace finds extremely entertaining, and even Horace’s disappointment at being stood up by a romantic interest of his on the road near a place called Trivicum. And then, as abruptly as the journey begins, it ends, with Horace saying “Brundisium marks the end of a long story and a long journey” (5.104). Clearly, the “long story” mentioned by Horace here is in jest, as this is a relatively short Satire, even by Horace’s standards, and continues in the recurrent emphasis throughout the Satires on brevity [37]. Perhaps one insight into Horace’s thoughts on this highly politically charged event comes right after the arrival of Maecenas and Cocceius that I mentioned earlier. In lines 30-31, Horace applies some ointment to his eyes to deal with conjunctivitis, which had been impairing his vision. The timing of this bad eyesight is noteworthy for Horace mentions it just after his only real political statement in the entire poem, and this blindness appears to stop Horace from “being a political participant or even an observer” [38]. There are a substantial number of sources to consult on this Satire and its implications. Oliensis 1998, Reckford 1959, and Gowers 2002 all discuss this subject in some detail, and they are but a short list of possible authors to investigate. I however will point here to Freudenburg 1992, 201-205, who makes a thorough analysis of this poem, specifically pointing out the lack of important political details, the noticeable connections to, and criticism of Lucilius, and the focus on brevity.
This issue with Horace’s eyes occurs several more times in the Satires 1. He uses his sore eyes as an excuse to again avoid describing an aspect of the trip he made in Satire 5, this time when Maecenas apparently goes to watch some kind of ball game (5.49-50). Despite its limited appearance, this excuse of conjunctivitis is representative of Horace’s frequent omission of political details as he sees it necessary for the overall message in his poems [39]. In Satire 7, for instance, Horace describes a legal dispute between two individuals, a Roman man called Rupilius Rex and an at least partially Greek man called Persius, which takes place under the authority of Marcus Junius Brutus in Asia. Initially it seems surprising to hear that relevant political information is left out of the story, given that the entire narrative seems to be highly political as Brutus himself is involved. Upon further inspection, however, the political nature of this poem is superficial only. This story is told as an anecdote, which is politically dangerous in the sense that it indicates Horace’s presence or at least affiliation with the trial and those who participated in it. Again, Horace was one of the many Romans who journeyed to the Roman east in support of Brutus and the other conspirators, and this is an era in his life that he would like to downplay as much as possible [40]. And in spite of the subject matter, Horace actually does downplay his association here by never mentioning in this poem the fact that he was in Asia personally around 43 BC, he merely insinuates this through his recounting of the legal dispute. And the risks that Horace takes with the charged content of the poem are in reality quite low. The most seemingly dangerous part of the poem occurs at the very end, where Persius makes a pun using Rupulius’s last name, Rex, which also means king in Latin, to ask Brutus to cut Rupulius’s throat because Brutus has experience killing kings [41], or in other words, people called Rex (7.34-35). This seems like a strange reversal of Horace’s general aversion to political topics, and in fact, it is, but not in an altogether surprising or out-of-character manner at least regarding his overall message. This last pun actually seems to ridicule Brutus as a judge or magistrate, because what Persius is suggesting here is that Brutus is “good” at arbitrarily deciding to execute people in a highly extralegal way just because it suits him. And in fact, the rest of the court scene is portrayed as equally ridiculous and illegitimate. Horace sets up this legal dispute as a clash equivalent to that of Hector and Achilles or other such heroes of old (7.11-12), and yet, the entire case is essentially a barrage of insults traded between the two misfit legal opponents. So while it is true that this satire does have a political element, Horace uses it to disparage Brutus’ authority and shore up his standing with his new friends, Maecenas and Octavian.
Another critical observation about Satire 7 is that of the poems in the first book, it is the shortest by far. One may point to the change in style from the satires earlier in the book as one possible explanation for the dramatic decrease in length. A more plausible explanation seems to be that because Satire 7 focuses on such a politically sensitive story, Horace is very careful about what details he decides to include. Besides avoiding any specific political details that might put his work at odds with the new Octavian-led regime in Rome, Horace also leaves out another very interesting aspect of the court case between Persius and Rex: essentially all of the supposedly nasty barbs that were exchanged between the two litigants. At one point in this Satire, Horace states that Rupilius Rex “... hurled back insults squeezed from the vineyard, as tough and invincible as any vine-dresser…” (7.29-30), but Horace does not go on to describe what those insults were. Seeing that this work is supposed to be satirical, one would think that such an amusing back-and-forth should be the most prominent aspect of this story, but instead, the specifics are entirely avoided as Horace seems to be worried about any potential reprisal for his poems.
The “Problematic” Poems and the Importance of Genre
Based on what I have said thus far about the Epodes, it might seem that they are largely devoid of political commentary, with the exceptions of the patently partisan Epodes 1 and 9 that I have mentioned earlier. But this is not entirely true. In fact, at first glance, several poems such as numbers 4, 7, and 16 seem dangerously neutral in political expression. Perhaps the most dangerous is Epode 16, which laments the seemingly endless quagmire of civil war that threatens Rome far more than external enemies like the Etruscans or Hannibal ever had, at least according to Horace (16.1-14). He then spends the rest of the poem advocating that the Romans abandon the city and go where their feet take them to escape the bloodshed that has engulfed Rome’s territory (16.21). Nowhere in these “neutral” poems does Horace explicitly place blame on any of the belligerents in Rome’s civil wars up to this point. There are sections where he seems to hint that Sextus Pompeius, the son of Pompey Magnus, who fought against the Second Triumvirate in the Sicilian War bears some culpability for Rome’s strife. One example occurs in Epode 7, where Horace wonders if “... too little Latin blood has poured upon the plains and into Neptune's sea” (7.3-4). Because Sextus Pompey was famous for his naval prowess, he was often associated with Neptune, and thus Horace may be referencing his bloodthirstiness as one reason why Rome continues to suffer from continuous internal conflict. Horace eventually rejects this possibility, though, and places the blame for Rome’s troubles on Fate rather than any political entity (7.17-20).
Perhaps some readers are at this point still wondering why Horace included any of the politically “troublesome” or dangerous poems in the published versions of his works at all. If indeed such poems potentially hurt his credibility with Augustus’ inner circle, or even worse, put his freedom or life in danger, then why would he risk including them? One possible reason is that the poems were simply too well known already and that deliberately leaving these poems out would have seemed suspicious to Horace’s readers. In the Epistles, Horace states that he had to turn to poetry because he had become destitute after his childhood estate had been confiscated during his repose in Greece with Brutus (2.2.51-52). If he had previously begun distributing his poems individually in an effort to support himself, then by the time he was prepared to publish the entire collection, it might have been past the point of no return for any poems he wished to exclude. Another point to understand is that Horace wants to maintain his independence from Maecenas and Augustus, even if he is in their social circle. He does not want his readers to think that he is a complete puppet of those in power and that he has no agency even in his own poems. And given his life circumstances, this would have been a real concern for Horace. If it is true that Horace was the son of a freedman who lost everything he had by choosing the wrong side in one of Rome’s many civil wars, then his rise to prominence as a poet in Maecenas’ circle would look like the sort of brazen social climbing that he spends the entirety of Satire 1.9 speaking against [42]. Indeed, the relationship with Maecenas that he spends much of the Satires cultivating begins to work against him as his Roman readership questions just how much his voice matters in his poetry, given that he seems to owe everything to Maecenas and Augustus. As a result, not including these potentially problematic poems would have made Horace look particularly sycophantic, and cost him even more credibility as an independent voice than he had already lost [43].
This desire for credibility also potentially answers another nagging question, which is about why Horace decides to write Iambic blame poetry and Satiric poetry in the first place. Throughout much of this paper, I have attempted to illustrate how Horace tried to change the norms of both genres to suit what he believed to be the proper speech etiquette of the new political situation. The proximate cause of this generic reorientation that I have attempted to prove is that Horace was a supporter of Maecenas’ and by extension Augustus’ political program, either because he genuinely believed it or he thought it was his best option, or some combination of the two. And it is based on this reasoning that Horace makes the changes to his poems’ genre that reflect and promote the evolving political and free speech norms of the time in order to affirm those changes to his readers. His choice of Iambic and Satiric poetry is significant to accomplish this goal because of the credibility factor that is the theme of this section. Both genres of poetry were quite well established by the time Horace began his artistic career, and this is especially true of Iambic poetry, as the poet Archilocus whom I have already discussed was writing around 600 years before Horace’s time [44]. Therefore, deciding to write in these genres would orient Horace in the same tradition as such greats as Archilochus, Hipponax and Lucilius. One could call him a poetic descendent of these renowned artists, and this would certainly give Horace literary heft should he succeed in the same genres as these men. The timing also was auspicious for Horace in terms of selecting these genres. Iambic poetry for instance was often turned to during moments of transition in history to enable the poet to preach to the public about acceptable behavior [45], and I believe it is evident that Horace is doing something similar, especially in the epodes that attack Canidia or the Roman matrons.
Consequently, it is because iambic and satiric poetry have such storied traditions even before Horace that he seeks to change their norms to better fit with the new political order that is developing in Rome. But this presents a problem. In the same way that writing in iambic poetry or satiric poetry confers some sort of artistic credibility on Horace, they also create stylistic confines within which he must operate that or else risk the very credibility he sought to develop. Therefore, he includes invective language, politically neutral poems, and the occasional lament of the status of the Roman state not only because he does not want to be seen as an Augustan puppet, but also because he needs to, given the fact that he already has eschewed many of the conventions of iambic and satiric poetry and has to retain some generic integrity. The upside, of course, for both Horace and Augustus, is that if Horace’s interpretation of these genres becomes accepted and mainstream, then that would provide a strong indication that the new free speech norms are also becoming normalized, given the significant weight of tradition behind these poems.
Conclusion
While I have not explicitly mentioned this until now, there is and will likely continue to be a thorough debate about Horace’s level of political interest and involvement. Throughout this paper I have been resolute in the belief that, despite some noticeable absences of political content, Horace’s Satires 1 and the Epodes are in fact quite political, and are part of an effort to reorient what acceptable political discourse looks like with Maecenas and Augustus in charge. There is, of course, the opposite viewpoint where Horace’s work “…implies a conscious rejection of public life” [46]. Given the quantity of available scholarship on this subject, it would be vain to think that this project will shift this discussion one way or the other. However, I do hold a modicum of hope that my use of modern examples to contextualize Horace’s decisions, and my use of poetic genre in this politicized context might add some fresh perspective to this well-studied puzzle.
Perhaps even more important than understanding Horace’s exact views or goals with his poetry, I wrote this paper in the hope of shedding light on the tradeoff that Horace and many others like him have made by exchanging part of their agency for increases in personal welfare. As I have pointed out several times, this sort of deal is common in autocracies, even up to today. Horace’s position as an influential figure in Rome’s artistic world enabled him to reach a sizable and important audience. However, it also constrained him, in that he had to watch his language and his choice of subject matter very carefully, especially early on in his career. Nevertheless, his choices helped shape free speech norms transition from the republican period to the empire. And given the current discourse over what free speech should look like in America today, we should continue to seek answers from any possible source, even from societies very far removed from our own.
Notes
1 Freudenburg 2001, xii.
2 Cassius Dio, (Cary 1914). For a general history on these events, I simply used Cassius Dio’s Roman History which for the events of this time period is quite intact. It is true that Dio lived some time after the events discussed here, and so the exact accuracy of his history is certainly debatable. For our purposes though, the events and timeline he lays out is sufficient.
3 All of the translations I use for these poems of Horace, in addition to the few references to the Epistles come from the Oxford World’s Classics Online Edition. See the bibliography for more information.
4 Kiernan 1999, vii. One example of this, but far from the only example, can be seen here in Kiernan’s work which divides the Epodes into three sections (Political, Satirical, and Amorous), and the Satires in a similar manner. Actually, Kiernan’s analysis is quite good, and I do not believe that he necessarily privileges any of these sections he created over the others, but the division itself is noteworthy.
5 For a more detailed discussion of the history of past scholarship on these collections of Horace, and why it is necessary not to dismiss out of hand any of Horace’s poems, no matter the subject, see Oliensis 1998, 64-5. In short, though, the argument is that because Horace published these works and whole collections, they must be read in concert, with the meanings of each poem synergizing with and informing the others. I will attempt to make this argument throughout the paper.
6 Ames and Montgomery 1934, 19.
7 It is true that people like to draw comparisons between specific events in ancient Rome and the US. Recently, this has often been done regarding the dangers of populism. For an example, see Eliot 2020. Another common method, however, is to connect what some see as a general decline in American democracy with the slow erosion of Roman republican institutions. For an example of one such long-term view, see Murphy 2008. This is far from the only example though.
8 One last point to note on the modern analysis is that the examples I will bring up are of course relevant to the discussion at hand, however their specific mode of investigation will be inherently less scholarly than my work on Horace himself. Brevity is, of course, a factor again here. Perhaps more importantly, though, is the fact that these modern examples only serve as framing devices to help illustrate my larger points about Roman free speech, and thus in my view do not require extensive literature of their own.
9 See Gowers 2002, 151-2. This mostly article mostly focuses on Satires 1.5 and 1.7, but the logic can be applied to other poems too.
10 Watson 2007, 97.
11 Dalzell 1956, 151.
12 For a detailed description of Maecenas’ position, see Syme 2002, 459-75.
13 Buchan 1937, 162. The minister of propaganda is the exact term here used by John Buchan, and I believe his specific language and picture of Maecenas’ role is influenced by Buchan’s time period, location, and position in government. As I have stated, though, the exact, technical position of Maecenas is not necessarily important at this moment, more so his apparent power as an advisor to Augustus.
14 U.S. Department of State 2022.
15 The Economist 2022.
16 The Associated Press 2022.
17 Frias and Lee 2022.
18 One very interesting argument about Maecenas’ career is that after Augustus had consolidated power around 29 BC, he went into semi-retirement at least in part because Augustus wanted to make his regime seem like the Republic of old, and it would be improper for such a mysterious and technically unelected (or even appointed) private citizen to hold as much power as Maecenas did before Augustus’ consolidation. So more republican institutions (at least in name) created less opportunity for informal relationships to be the bedrock of power. See Reckford 1959, 198.
19 For a list of these titles, see The Res Gestae of Augustus (1924). See also Cassius Dio Book 52-54, (Cary 1914). 20 Dufallo 2015, 320.
21 For a detailed description of all the political structures, see Joseph and Li 2019, 201-36. 22 Lim 2012.
23 Konstan 2022.
24 For a detailed description of Horace’s Epicureanism, see Yona 2018, 129-89. This chapter discusses the Satires, but Horace’s promotion of moderate pleasure and the avoidance of pain and pressure is applicable throughout his poetry.
25 One of the main attributes of Augustus and Maecenas, according to Horace, is that they are discerning, and this certainly applies to who they give power to. For more on this, see Oliensis 1998, 32. In short, she makes an excellent observation about Horace suggesting that his stint as a military tribune under Brutus was irresponsible as he was unqualified. Augustus and Maecenas, on the other hand, do not make this mistake.
27 There are many examples of people describing Lucilius in this manner, however one specific instance of the exact words “Father of Satire'' can be found in Kiernan 1999, 27.
28 Freudenburg 2001, 25.
29 Muecke 2007, 116.
30 Muecke 2007, 116.
31 Albert and Xu 2017.
32 Hessler 2022.
33 In case I need to justify this example more than what exists already in the body of text above, I believe the higher education system in China to be a good mirror for Horace’s situation (even if it does not map perfectly), because of the tense and rigid political structure, as well as the great importance that system has on one’s social mobility that are shared between the two circumstances. Also, this literature class is one that seems, on the surface at least, very similar to one that I took and inspired me to write this essay to begin with.
34 This article was written before the recent spate of COVID protocol protests in China, so the degree to which this selective political apathy continues remains to be seen.
36 Dufallo 2015, 325.
37 Oliensis 1998, 32.
38 Gowers 2002, 152.
39 Gowers 2002.
40 The question remains, though, if mentioning this part of his past was so dangerous then why did he do it at all? I will discuss this in more detail in the section regarding genre later in the paper.
41 Specifically Julius Caesar is being referenced here as the “king” who was killed by Brutus. There is lots of evidence that Caesar himself wanted to be seen as a king, especially an eastern monarch. For one such example, see Cassius Dio Book 44, (Cary 1917). Specifically look at the Lupercalia Incident, where Marc Antony, in a likely pre-planned stunt, offered a diadem to Caesar who then refused it twice (as a show to the watching crowd). Diadems were common with Eastern kings from Asia at the time. While Caesar was more open about his political power, Augustus apparently learned from his adoptive father’s mistakes, and dialed down his overt shows of authority. For more on this, see Dufallo 2015, 314.
42 Oliensis 1998, 17-8.
43 It is possible that Horace did indeed remove some of the most problematic poems from his final collection, but if this is the case then these poems are lost to us. I think given the information we do have, it is likely that Horace would have included all of the potentially problematic poems he had written to that point for the credibility reasons I have stated above. If there were any truly politically toxic poems, for instance, one that criticized Augustus, then I doubt he would have ever been let into Maecenas’ circle to begin with.
44 Lavelle 2002, 344. There is some debate about when exactly Archilochus lived and was writing, however for our purposes all that matters is that it is clear that he wrote very much earlier indeed than Horace.
45 Watson 2007, 96.
46 Rudd 1981, 37.