HoKAT. Serm. I. 10 (1-8). 35 



Vss. 4-0. In the Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie, 

 XLT. pp. 552-556, F. Marx offered the following emen- 



•iat^oi^^ —hoc lenius ille, 



quo melior vei'su est, longe subtilior illo 

 qui multum puerum et loris et funibus tissit 

 exoratus, — 

 His explanation and defense of these changes are given 



below. 



COMMENTARY. 



In the very first verse there is evidence of the spurious 

 nature of this fragment, for (1) the promise 'quam sis 

 mendosus, fesfe Catone, perviucam' is not fulfilled, and (2) 

 the sentiment is unlike Horace. In the tenth satire he 

 defends the opinion he had pronounced upon Lucilius in 

 Sat. I. 4, but with full recognition of his peculiar merits, 

 and elsewhere he very modestly claims for himself a lower 

 place than for his predecessor." "To Lucilius he pays also 

 the sincerer tribute of frequent imitation. He made him 

 his model, in regard both to form and substance, in his 

 satires; and even in his epistles he still acknowledges the 

 guidance of his earliest master." ''* 



'Teste Catone.' The Cato here referred to is the gram- 

 marian Valerius Cato, who is mentioned in Suetonius" as 

 'poetam simul grammaticumque notissimum,' 'summum 

 grammaticum optimum poetam,' 'Cato grammaticus, latina 

 Siren.' Another section of Suetonius tells of Cato's in- 

 terest in the works of Lucilius, 'quas {sc. Lucili saturas) 

 legisse se apud Archelaum Pompeius Lenaeus, apud Philo- 

 comum Valerius Cato jDraedicant.'^^ 



Those who see in the person here compared with Cato 

 the 'plagosum Orbilium' of Horace, Epp. II. 1, 70, assume 



that the writer of these lines knew that epistle, which is 



_ — -, ^ 



i-Sat. II. 1, 29, 'me podibus i' loctat clat re verba, Lucili ritu, nostrum 

 melioris utroquo.' Ibid. 74, ' quicquid sum ego, quamvis infra Lucili cousum 

 iugeniumquo.' 



i^Sellar, The Roman Poets of the Republic, 3dod., 1889, p. 249. 



'*Z)e Grumm. 4 and 11. 



'*Z)e Gramm. 2. 



