Advertisements
Advertisements

Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary

Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary

SATIRE 1:4 Horace[H\orace Book1 Satire4 Summary

1. Horace- His Life and Literature
 Horace was born somewhere at Venusia, in South East of Italy in 65 B.C. He was the son of a freedman and had his early education in Rome under the famous flogging schoolmaster Orbillius Pupillus (a grammarian), and later, he proceeded to Athens to study philosophy where he encountered the Greek poets who profoundly influenced his work. While he was there, Julius Caesar was assassinated. Brutus, who came to power after Caesar, offered Horace a command in the Republican Army. He fought in the battle of Philippi, on the losing side of Brutus and Cassius.
His Italian Estate was confiscated by the new Government, formed by Octavius Caesar and Antony. However, with the help of his friend Virgil, he came to receive the patronage of the new Government that conferred a number of benefits on him including a fine estate near Tiboli. Although much courted by the Emperor Augustus, he held aloof from politics for a long time, but eventually, made warm friendship with him and addressed several of his finest poems, addressed to him, to show his admiration for him. Horace died in 8 B. C.
Horace was one of the celebrated authors of ancient Roman literature. He was particularly famous for his Ars Poetica (On the Art of Poetry). He was also the author of a number of epistles, such as The Epistle to Julius Florus, The Epistle to Augustus, the great Roman Emperor, besides a verse epistle Epistula ad Pisones. Of course, Horace is particularly known and remains famous for his critical writings on the art of poetry, where his position is very close to the great Greek authority, Aristotle.
2. A General Introduction – Satire in Literature
Satire, in general, means a literary composition in prose or verse, the function of which is to expose the vices or follies of some person or persons. The purpose here, of course, is to ridicule or banter the person or persons concerned. But strictly speaking, ‘satire’ originally meant a poem aiming at the expose of the prevalent vices or follies of some society or a section of the society.
The objective of satire is, no doubt, critical, to prove one ludicrous, ridiculous or despicable. But a good satire, in the language of Dryden, has a clinical and curative effect. In his language, “The true end of satire is the amendment of the vices by correction; and he who writes honestly is no more an enemy to the offender than the physician to the patient as he prescribes harsh remedies to an inveterate disease.”
Of course, satire is not merely poetical now. There are, today, more powerful prose satires than poetical. In fact, the range of satire is no more confined to poetry alone. The word ‘satire’ comes from the Latin term ‘Satura’ which originally meant ‘a medley or miscellany’. In the earliest form, satire probably meant a farce or a parody.
Satire is found to have originated in Roman Literature. It is claimed that the only literary form invented by the Roman is the satire. Of course, such a contention may not be very accurate. There has been the clear indication that the Greek writers, particularly the comic dramatists, indulged in the composition of that, which now may well go in the name of satire. There is sufficient evidence in the early Greek dramatic literature to testify to the contention that in the early Greek drama the element of satire is not found absent. A fine blending of satire and poetry characterises the mighty comic works of Aristophanes. 
But satire, as a particular form of literature and a potent influence on the later European writers, is mainly a creation of Latin masters. The inventor of ‘satire’, as a characteristic poetic form, was Casius Lucilius. He was followed by a more brilliant figure, Horace. Horace wrote several realistic, humorous and satirical poems in which he investigated and castigated social abuses. Horace’s satire, however, is not merely personal. It bears a certain note of universality and philosophy.
Next to Horace, comes the name of Persius, who has displayed both philosophical outlook and literary originality in his satirical works. But, perhaps, the greatest Roman satirist is Juvenal. His originality is found to lie particularly in his introduction of a rhetorical strength and a tragic grandeur into verse satires.
Besides the satirical poems, Rorian literature has some prose satires, too. The names of Seneca, famous tragedian, and Petronius are remarkable as prose-satirists.
3. Horace’s Satires-His Gift of Satire Writing of His Time
The Satires are a collection of satirical poems written by the Roman poet Horace. Composed in dactylic hexameters, The Satires explore the secrets of human happiness and literary perfection. Published probably in 35 BCE and at the latest by 33 BCE, the first book of Satires represents Horace’s first published work. It has established him as one of the great poetic talents of Europe in the Augustan Age.
In his Sermones (“conversations”) or Satires (“miscellaneous poems”), Horace combines Epicurean, originally the Greek philosophy mixed with the Roman good sense to convince his readers of the futility of their ambitions and desires. As an alternative, he proposes a life that is based on the Greek philosophical ideals of autarkeia (Greek for “inner self-sufficiency”) and metriotes (Greek for “moderation”). Horace illustrates what he means by describing a typical day in his own simple but contented life. Although the Satires are considered to be inferior to the Odes, they have been received positively in recent decades.
Horace’s direct predecessor in Satires was Lucilius from whom he inherits the hexameter, the conversational “prosaic” tone of his poetry along with the tradition of personal attack. In contrast to Lucilius, the victims of Horace’s mockery are not members of the nobility, but over-ambitious freedmen, anonymous misers, courtesans, street philosophers and bad poets. Following the Epicurean Principle, Horace consciously does not get involved in the complicated politics of his times, but advocates instead a life that focuses on individual happiness and genuine virtue.
Next to Horace, comes the name of Persius, who has displayed both philosophical outlook and literary originality in his satirical works. But, perhaps, the greatest Roman satirist is Juvenal. His originality is found to lie particularly in his introduction of a rhetorical strength and a tragic grandeur into verse satires.
Besides the satirical poems, Rorian literature has some prose satires, too. The names of Seneca, famous tragedian, and Petronius are remarkable as prose-satirists.
3. Horace’s Satires-His Gift of Satire Writing of His Time
The Satires are a collection of satirical poems written by the Roman poet Horace. Composed in dactylic hexameters, The Satires explore the secrets of human happiness and literary perfection. Published probably in 35 BCE and at the latest by 33 BCE, the first book of Satires represents Horace’s first published work. It has established him as one of the great poetic talents of Europe in the Augustan Age.
In his Sermones (“conversations”) or Satires (“miscellaneous poems”), Horace combines Epicurean, originally the Greek philosophy mixed with the Roman good sense to convince his readers of the futility of their ambitions and desires. As an alternative, he proposes a life that is based on the Greek philosophical ideals of autarkeia (Greek for “inner self-sufficiency”) and metriotes (Greek for “moderation”). Horace illustrates what he means by describing a typical day in his own simple but contented life. Although the Satires are considered to be inferior to the Odes, they have been received positively in recent decades.
Horace’s direct predecessor in Satires was Lucilius from whom he inherits the hexameter, the conversational “prosaic” tone of his poetry along with the tradition of personal attack. In contrast to Lucilius, the victims of Horace’s mockery are not members of the nobility, but over-ambitious freedmen, anonymous misers, courtesans, street philosophers and bad poets. Following the Epicurean Principle, Horace consciously does not get involved in the complicated politics of his times, but advocates instead a life that focuses on individual happiness and genuine virtue.
The influence of Greek diatribe is felt equally. Horace’s Satires share with this genre some of their themes, typical imagery and similes and the fiction of an anonymous interlocutor whose objections the speaker easily refutes.
In addition, Horace refers to another inspiration, the poet Lucretius whose didactic epic De rerum natura (“On the Nature of Things”), also written in hexameters, popularized Epicurean physics in Rome. For example, Horace’s comparison of his satires with cookies that a teacher uses to encourage his students to learn their letters reminds of Lucretius’s more traditional comparison of his poetry with the sugar that sweetens the bitter medicine of philosophy. Moreover, the use of Lucretian stock phrases has given Horace’s philosophical “conversations” a subtly Lucretian flavour.
Both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, Horace was much better known for his Satires and the thematically related Epistles than for his lyric poetry. In the century after his death, he finds immediate successors in Persius and Juvenal, and even Dante still refers to him simply as “Orazio Satiro”. Conte (1994: 318) writes, “Over 1,000 medieval quotations from his Satires and Epistles have been traced, whereas only about 250 from his Carmina.”
4. Horace’s Satires-Theme of Book I
Most people, the satirist argues, complain about their lot, still they do not really want to change it. Our insatiable greed for material wealth is trivial. Man’s two basic needs, food and water, can be easily satisfied. A person who recognizes the natural limit (modus) set for those desires, the Just Mean between the extremes, and at the end, will leave the Banquet of Life like a satisfied guest, full and content.
Satire 1.2, Ambubaiarum Collegia (“The trade unions of flute playing geishas”), deals with adultery and other unreasonable behaviour in sexual matters.
 The satirist claims that there is also a natural means with regard 10 sex. Our basic sexual urges are easily satisfied (any partner will do). So, it seems meaningless to run after married noble women instead.
Satire 1.3, Omnibus hoc vitium est (“Everyone has this flaw”), demands fairness when we criticize other people’s flaws without being discriminant about friends, for whom we are generally found to be lenient.
Satire 1.4, Eupolis atque Cratinus (“Eupolis and Cratinus”), is set in a programmatic declaration of Horace’s poetic views regarding some critical principles to poetry and shows that his own satires follow them.
Satire 1.5, Egressum magna Roma (“Having left great Rome”), describes a journey from Rome to Brundisium. It is, thus, also known as the Iter Brundisium or Iter ad Brundisium.
Alluding to a famous satire in which Horace’s poetic model, Lucilius, described a trip to his knightly estates near Tarentum. The satire offers a comic self-portrait of Horace as an insignificant member in the retinue of his powerful friend Maecenas when the latter negotiated one last truce between Antony and Octavius, the Peace of Brundisium.
The critical point of the satire is the central verbal contest that differentiates scurrility from satire. Here, Horace pitches a “scurra” (“a buffoon”) from the capital, the freedman Sarmentus against his victorious local challenger, Messius Cicirrus (“the Fighting Cock”).
Satire 1.6, Non quia, Maecenas (“Not because, Maecenas”), rejects false ambition.
With the same modesty, with which he has just depicted himself in Satire 1.5, Horace explains why he is not interested in a career in politics even though he once, during the Civil War, served as the tribune of a Roman legion. People would taunt him because of his freedman father, but his father taught him to be content with his status in life even though he had never hesitated to give his son the opportunity for enjoying the same education as an aristocrat.
Satire 1.7, Proscripti Regis Rupili pus atque venenum (“The pus and poison of the proscribed Rupilius Rex”), deals with a trial that Persius, a Greek merchant of a dubious birth (hybrida), won against the Roman Rupilius Rex.
Following the account of Horace’s youth in 1.6., this satire tells a story from his service under Brutus during the Civil War. Just like 15, it features a verbal contest in which two different kinds of criticisms are used against each other. Initially, Greek verbosity seems to succumb to Italian acidity, but in the end, the Greek wins with a clever turn of phrase, calling on the presiding judge, Brutus the Liberator, to do his duty and dispose of the “king”.
Satire 1.8, Olim truncus eram (“Once I was a tree trunk”), describes a funny victory over witchcraft and superstition.
Another hybrida like Persius in 1.7, Priapus, half garden-god, half still a barely shaped piece of wood, narrates the visit of two terrible witches to Maecenas’ garden where he is supposed to protect against trespassers and thieves. Maecenas’ garden on the Esquiline Hill used to be a cemetery for executed criminals and the poor, and as a result, it attracts witches that dig for magic bones and harmful herbs. The god is powerless until the summer heat makes the figwood when he may explode and chase the terrified witches away.
 Satire 1.9, Ibam forte Via Sacra (“I happened to be walking on the Sacred Way”), the famous encounter between Horace and the Boor, relates another funny story of a last-minute delivery from an overpowering enemy.
Horace is accosted by an ambitious flatterer and would-be poet who hopes that Horace will help him to worm his way into the circle of Maecenas’ friends. Horace tries in vain to get rid of the loudmouth. He assures him that this is not like Maecenas and his friends. He, by chance, manages to get rid of him when finally, a creditor of the Boor appears and drags him off to the court, with Horace offering to serve as a witness.
Satire 1.10, Nempe incomposito (“I did indeed say that Lucilius’ verses hobble along”), functions as an epilogue to the book.
Here Horace clarifies his criticism of his predecessor Lucilius, jokingly explains his choice of the genre (“nothing else was available”) in a way that puts him and his Satires among the foremost poets and poetry of Rome, and lists Maecenas and his circle as his desired audience.
5. Horace’s Contention to The Satire 1:4
Satire 1.4 contains Horace’s first statement on the nature of his own writing, and writing in general. Its difficulties cannot be explained away on the ground that it is early and, therefore, a little closed and clumsy. A poet with Horace’s ‘dedication to self-criticism’ would not have allowed the survival of something which he did not think lived up to his ideal scribendi recte. Similarly, it would be a mistake to conclude that, because his argumentation is playful, Horace is not saying seriously about the ethics and poetics of satire. Here, it is his own character which holds together the two seemingly disparate threads of the argument – the moral justification of satire and its definition as an artistic form.
The poem takes the form of an argument. Whether Horace had really been criticizing or not is a question that need not detain us, since an answer to it would not, in any case, help us to understand the poem better. What matters is that Horace has adopted this strategy in order to explore certain issues that arise from the fact that he is now a writer of satire. These matters – the character of the satirist, the form and method of satire, both as writing and as social criticism, and, more widely, the relationship of satire to life-are all for him interdependent, and so, for us, only to be understood in the context which gives them full meaning. It is necessary, therefore, to define the way in which 1.4 is an argument. Some found that Horace is ‘illogical’ and ‘deliberately clouds issues’. On the other hand, others describe 1.4 as ‘closely argued’.
This genuinely pretends to be a “reasoned exposition of arguments’ and that it is no less. It is also characterised by ‘evasion of issues’ through the ‘shifts of position and the ambiguities of language’, if this is how we choose to describe the play of ideas in the poem. It has often been remarked that Horace’s ‘illogicality’ and his avoidance of a systematic exposition of literary or ethical theory are typical of his technique in the Satires.
 The central argument of Horace revolves round the question that whether ‘satire’ is a kind of poetry and how it is to be read for the sake of the words. It claims a function that implies an unusual degree of involvement with life. Horace humorously focuses this dilemma in front of his audience. The readers come to realise in a consistent manner how to read a satire.
The poem opens with a standard piece of literary history, an innocent-looking disguise for one of the basic matters of the aggressiveness in satire. Lucilius is said to depend on the Old Comedy. This implies that certain expectations have been formed as to its style and content, especially those expectations that any subsequent writer has to take into account.
Horace, therefore, begins by outlining the traditional conception of satire as the public exercise of critical wit, directed at individuals. He intends to dissociate himself from this kind of satire, and to propose a new definition with the milder spirit of his own work. Horace wants to maintain the function of social criticism in the definition of satire.
The correspondences as showing Horace’s position in relation to society is analogous to that of the Attic comedians and Lucilius, “parallel but not exactly the same.” The difference in expression indicates a difference in approach.
It is worth pausing for a moment while reading line 9, since so much of the poem is about uitia. In the context this refers first to technical faults, uitium and uirtus being technical terms of stylistic analysis, indicating Horace’s tendency to slide between “literature and morality”. >
There is the fear of the victim of satire. The way in which the answer to this complaint is postponed to lines 65ff. has often been noticed. What is presented as a counter-argument develops into an apparently unrelated discussion on the nature of poetry. The argument takes off from line 33. Horace replies, “I am not a poet’. What is he getting here? The initial disclaimer of the title of ‘poet’ may be motivated by the injunction in the Twelve Tables against ‘mala carmina’, but the passage leaves the joke behind to discuss the position of satire as a genre, again in the light of uerba and res. Horace will only give the status of poet to someone writing in the grand style, with the inspired force and ability to match a subjectmatter of a high quality.
Horace argues distinctly on the method taught by his father. He sees two informers, but he can say he is unlike them on the point of public criticism, even if their victims are like his targets. The attack is directed not only against the scurra (and there is good illustration of this in Ullman) but also against those whose hypocrisy allows them to approve the perversion of civilised values.
Finally, Horace, while describing the account of his upbringing by his father, has expressed his deep and sincere regards for him. Some commentators have been worried by an inconsistency between what Horace says here and the earlier implication that he was following Lucilius. But if it is critically analysed, there is no serious inconsistency, since his following of Lucilius is a matter of the choice of a genre, while the teaching by his father is the process of the formation of his character.
Not that these are separate questions, indeed, it is the purpose of the poem to trace their interdependence. Actually, in literary imitation, Horace is not the kind of writer who cannot see the real faults and virtues of his model; the reason-he is able to do this lying in his own character, in the habit of making moral distinctions that he has formed. ?
The device of attributing this habit to his father’s concern for him is most elegant, and more than a simple piece of autobiography. It shows Horace as generous enough to recognise his debts to others, and it also allows him to continue his game of ironic self-revelation. But while appreciating all that this simultaneously tells us about the character of the satirist, it should not be overlooked what it says about the method of satire. Its relevance to this theme is clearly signified in line 106.
This is the sense in which satire is ‘personal’ poetry, not so much ‘autobiographical’as venturing into that kind of moral philosophy spoken of by Plato as ‘conversation of the soul with itself’. This is the reason why the character of the satirist himself is of much importance in the vindication of satire as a genre. The dialectical form of the satire reflects the satirist’s internal debate, the logical evasions and gaps allowing both sides of the case to be represented in a way prohibited by a systematic description of the argument.
Perhaps, the use of irony and ambiguity, the constant prompts that every idea comes into the world with its equally valid thoughts and that life allows us to put our feet up on a very few certaintiesperhaps all these undermine the status of this piece as a contribution to any poetics. But it is the merit of this poem to have transformed literary critical common places into issues of vital apprehension for the poet himself and for the reader linked to him in their common initiative.
6. A Critical Analysis to Satire 1:4
When critically analysed the question that arouses first is, who is being criticized here?
While reading through the verses it is felt that Lucilius and other satirists are being attacked by Horace. Also, he criticizes those who wish to censor him and believe he is malicious.
Immediately that strikes the question of the vice for which the poet is criticized.
The satirists claim to be poets and Horace disagrees on the question of merit. Also, some people wish to censor his work because they are somehow convinced that it contains some kind of contempt that can never be appreciated.
Obviously, the question is why is this controversy or is there any necessity for such bitterness?
Horace believes that it is very unpleasant and absolutely disagreeable that his work is not as respected or loved as it should be. Comical note steps in here and there but these are not holistically presented themes in the piece.
Though there is much irony as well as where he mentions about his admiration for his father who has taught him how to live life correctly and dignifiedly.
If the consideration comes with an optimistic perspective, the point remains what is the satire’s moral or how is it going to heal or how does it spread its moral.
To answer this, with reference, it can be stated that this is well evident in the piece and the advice is given mainly to satirists indicating that they should be happy in writing prose and their own kind of writing, instead of trying to be romantic like poets. They need to remember that they are not poets, they are just satirists.
Let us not forget the following apt extract from the piece“If something I say is too outspoken, perhaps too calculated to raise a laugh,
You’ll be forgiving and grant me this measure of justification: My excellent father taught me the habit, By marking out the various vices by examples, So that I should steer clear of them.”
7. The Autobiographical Elements in the Satire 1:4
One important matter concerning the Satirel:4 is the poet’s self-revelation. Horace here intentionally or unintentionally gives out something of his own self and art as well as, in particular, of his own father whom he had admired much.
No other ancient poet offers the sense of affectionate intimacy which Horace’s “autobiography” in the satire frankly speaks out. First, it is consequently with some initial regret that readers recognize that Horace has left very little about himself and his family.
Secondly, to add furthermore, the “information”, he supplies, was driven by its poetic context, rather than by the desire for confessing his life through his books.
Satires 1.4 and 1.6 are the well-known admission of Horace’s upbringing by his father, told in the context of his relation to Lucilius, his satiric morale, and to Maecenas, the man conventionally known as Horace’s patron.
All four figures — father, son, satiric predecessor and patron-are artefacts of the poet’s generic construction, dramatis personae, structured to provide a definition to Horace’s satiric art.
The style of attributing the concern of his father for him is extremely elegant and can be referred to as more than a piece of simple autobiography. It also depicts Horace’s generosity in acknowledging his debts to others and allows him to continue his ‘game of selfeffacement, while appreciating others.
The freedman father who so famously raised his son, by hand as it were, serves to organize the relation between Horace and the two figures Horace makes to loom in his poetic life-Lucilius and Maecenas. Paired in their respective poems with Horace’s father, they are given a fatherly relationship to Horace only to be displaced by the biological parent. 
More remarkably, Horace’s biological father emerges from the poems as Horace’s poetic father, too, and this leaves Lucilius and Maecenas deprived of the poetically crucial role which they seemed bound to assume in the satire and the life of the poet. These paternal maneuvers in the Satires 1.4 as well as in 1.6 make the persona of Horace the poetic cause of his art, while converting the constructed “self” of Horace the unshakeable source of his poetry, just to secure a particular disposition for his satire.
Horace, at times, appears to subordinate art to life, extracting the causes of his persona and his poetry from his father’s training and social status. The eventual outcome of the works is in reverse, and turns the poet’s life subordinate to his art.
Horace’s description of his upbringing in Satire 1.4 (103-129) is a one of the most important scenes in the entire collection, because it not only creates the poet’s ethical credentials but also justifies his role as a professional critic. It is also one of the most complex sections that has built his persona where Horace blends various philosophical influences in a dignified as well as creative manner. In the Satire 1:4 it is especially important to recognize the artful selectivity of Horace’s self-portrait in the satires, because the satirist’s persona emerges as a crucially defining element of the genre of his satire.
In Satire 1:4 Horace has used his own persona to explain, justify and limit the satiric poetry he writes. He categorically begins the poem by distinguishing himself from Lucilius stylistically, but what evolves, in the course of the poem, is on the observation of human character in. which the poetic style is just one outcome of that character. Horace’s defence of his satire in 1.4 rests on a self-description, couched in ethical, not poetic, terms. The merging of the poetic style and personal character produces a picture of the satiric genre which is identified with the poet himself who feels that poetry is the inevitable outcome of the nature of man.
When Horace asks whether his poetry is justifiably suspectable, he answers by telling us who he is so as to make the style and ethos thus indistinguishable.
That art can be wholly identified with its human source is in some sense a radical view, but it is nevertheless congenial to satire, a genre peculiarly fixed in the avarage life, whose muse is, as Horace says later, pedestris.
The previous considerations of Horace’s description of his father’s method have emphasized this scene’s literary and philosophical background. Leach (1971), Hunter (1985) and Freudenberg (1993, 2001) have interpreted parallels between the satiric father and the fatherly rusticism of the Roman comedy as a characterization of Horace’s own persona as ignorant and therefore comically incompetent at some sections. Closely related to this reading is the assertion, maintained by Fiske (1971) and Freudenberg (1993), that Horace’s moral training incorporates the concerns and methods of popular
philosophy, as expressed by the flamboyant and roughshod cynics, who, like the poets of Old Comedy, branded vicious individuals by employing the finger-pointing method alluded to in 1.4.106 ; “by branding each of the vices through examples”.
Others have appreciated these influences but detected a more serious engagement with the philosophical tradition in general, especially through connections between Horace’s father’s method and Plato’s pedagogical concerns. Although Horace’s father does not deny the importance of abstract doctrines, the fact that his pedagogical concerns are essentially practical, was communicated by his casual reduction of pedagogical instruction (1.4.116).
Indeed, Horace’s upbringing relies on practical sense-perceptions of everyday life, which, in addition to resembles the Cynics’emphasis on gentle yet firm logic and informal dependence on empirical observation. It also expresses the Epicurean doctrine of sensation as the starting point of all knowledge. In order to qualify examples of vicious behaviour, his father’s use of universally accepted ethical terms such as “turpis’and ‘inhonestus’, which are inconsistent with the principles of moral magnanimity, so also recalls Epicurus’s insistence on the use of conventional language in ethical disquisitions in his Letter to Herodotus. As a result of his exposure to the terrible consequences of economic and sexual vice (1.4.114-19), Horace reveals that he learned to calculate the potential outcomes of ethical decisions in terms of foreseeable pleasures, thus alluding to the hedonic calculus as seen elsewhere in the Satires.
Finally, it may be observed that these lessons are communicated to Horace not in the spirit of overly harsh criticism or invectively typical of Stoic and Cynic diatribes; rather, they are motivated by the genuine concern of a loving teacher, whose frankness, in accordance with the Epicurean practice, is preventive and intended for the sake of correction
We must not forget to mention here that the satire constantly finds its wisdom in parody, or bite in ordinary material reality. So, Horace’s strategy of equating the poem with its material cause is commendable.
9. A Critical Assessment
Horace’s Satire 1:4 is to be critically assessed both thematically and technically. His theme is the nature of satire and his own attitude as a satirist. His satire is based on the true nature and the talent of the great satirists.
According to Horace, Lucilius entirely depends, having imitated them, upon changing only their feet and numbers. Horace feels Lucilius, being a man of wit, of great keenness, sophisticated in the composition of verse, was in this respect faulty. Horace, therefore, begins by outlining the traditional conception of satire and proposes a new definition with the spirit as exists in his own work. On this account, the question arises – whether comedy is a poem or not; because of its spirit and force, neither in the style nor the subjectmatter it differs from prose by a certain measure, though it is a mere prose. The stylistic criticisms of Lucilius should not be thought of as opposed to the definition of satire by content. By claiming that his practices as a writer are an intrinsic part of his own character, he suggests a positive value of ethical commitment to his tactical humbleness.
Horace only gives the status of a poet to someone writing in a а grand style, with the inspirational force and verbal power to match an elevated subject matter and well share the status to someone who has a genius, a greatness of expression. He next puts the question-Is a satirist true poet? Horace answers this in his explanation of the satire as a whole. According to him, the demonstration is not complete, however, until the defining feature of the satire is shown clearly. At the same time, he asserts that the very quality of the satire that is suspected to be redefined is a desirable virtue. Even if Horace does not explicitly claim the role of liber amicus for the satirist, he shows that it is frankness and friendliness that distinguish him as a satirist. In his satire, Horace accounts for his upbring ing by his father. The attribute and acknowledgement of his father’s concern for him is here most elegant, and more than a simple piece of autobiography. Horace, indeed, is generous enough to recognise his debts to others.
Horace’s first statement on the nature of his own writing, as well as writing in general, speaks about his dedication to selfcriticism that would not have allowed the survival of something which he has not thought that could live up to his ideal. He has adopted a strategy with the intent to explore certain issues that arise from the fact that he wants to establish himself as a writer of satire. He brings out the relationship of satire to life, the interdependence of form and method in satire, the connection of writing and consideration as a social criticism, and so on, through arguments. He thereby tries to establish a new perception to the concept of satire.
 The central criticality in the theory of satire is that it is poetry and wants to be read for the sake of the words, while it claims a function that implies an unusual degree of involvement with real life and day-to-day practices. Satire, of course, is not written simply to replicate life, but also to improve the state of life-style. Horace, therefore, begins by outlining the traditional conception of satire as a practice of critical wit, directed at individuals. He wants to propose a new definition of satire in accordance with the style of his own work. He has not thought of eliminating the function of social criticism from the definition of satire. Technically analysing his stylistic study, often it is noted that Horace has a tendency to slide between literature and morality, which may be considered as an indication of the moral task of a satirist. From the stylistic point of view, it is the discourse of everyday life or a kind of dialogue appropriate to the realistic content in order to bring back the question of the content of the satire.
Horace’s satire is said to reveal a fault of his own character. The poet’s style of presentation convincingly distinguishes himself from the scurra, who is described in lines 81ff. and the attack is
directed not only against the scurra (and there is a good illustration of this in the poem) but also against those whose hypocrisy allows them to approve the perversion of cultured values that scurrilitas represents.
Indeed, the purpose of the poem is to trace the interdependence between his follower Lucilius and the instruction by his father in the development of his character. Horace is not the kind of writer who cannot see the real faults and virtues of his model. As a result, the reason he is able to do this lies in his own character, is to sharply create the moral distinctions that he has formed as a satirist. This is the model to which Horace as yet only desires, since he presents himself still in need of improvement, in the taught rather than in the teacher, or more precisely the teacher of self.
It should be noted that Horace has portrayed himself and his father as characters from comedy. The difference between the description of satire and that of comedy is that while comedy gives the impression of people acting autonomously, satire approaches its characters subjectively, presenting an interpretation of the spectacle of life mediated through an individual human consciousness. This also does not mean that all seriousness is excluded. The Terentian reference throws an ironic light on the whole and prevents readers from reading it simply as a piece of autobiography. There is, in fact, a significant overlapping between the dramatis personae of satire and that of comedy and the ethical-rhetorical tradition.
This is the sense in which Horace’s satire is ‘personal’ poetry, not so much ‘autobiographical’as venturing into that kind of moral philosophy spoken of by Plato as “conversation of the soul with itself’. This is the reason why the character of the satirist himself is of such importance in the justification of ‘satire’ as a genre.
The dialectical form of the satire reflects the satirist’s internal dialogue, the logical ambiguities and gaps allowing both sides of the case to be represented in a way, prohibited by a systematic elucidation of the arguments. Perhaps the use of irony and ambiguity constantly reminds us that every idea comes into the world with its bindings to counter-ideas and that life allows us to put our feet up on a very few certainties. But it has to be accepted that it is the merit of this poem that has transformed literary critical commonplaces into the issues of the vital concern for the poet himself and for the readers with a common outlook.
                                                                                      *****************************
Read More…
Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary
Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary Horace Book1 Satire4 Summary

Leave a Comment

error: Content is protected !!
× Join Chat