Irony and Aequabilitas : Horace, Satires 1.31

Abstract

Les contenus des la revue Dictynna sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale-Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

FOOLS RUSH IN: SEX, ‘THE MEAN’ AND EPICUREANISM IN HORACE,SATIRES1.2

“… 2 E.g. Rudd (1966) 1–35; Armstrong (1989) 32–4; Moles (2007) 165–80; Kemp (2009) 84–107. On the philosophical aspects of the Epistles : Macleod (1983) 280–91; Moles (1985) 33–60, (2002) 141–57.…”

“… 17 Cf. Kemp (2009) 88–9. On the Epicurean influences: Rudd (1966) 22–6; Armstrong (1989) 32–4; and the commentaries of Brown (1993) 89–126 and Gowers (2012) 58–147. …”

“… 48 For the illogical transition between the general, opening remarks on discontent in 1.1 and the ensuing argument concerning greed see e.g. Palmer (1883) 113, cited by Zetzel (1980) 70, who adds: ‘As the poem continues, our speaker's tact and logic both fail him … it is clear that the speaker “Horace”, not the poet, has forgotten where he is.’ For the narrator's inconsistencies in Satires 1.3, a poem largely concerned with the wisdom of consistency, see Kemp (2009) 88. …”