WRITING AND POWER.

PROPAGATING IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY IN

HORACE`S SERMONES

PhD. Roxana Lazarescu

The aim of this paper is to treat the subject of powerful and influential literature in Horace`s
Sermones. In Rome`s siecle d`or literature was used as a tool of imperial propaganda, being highly
politically engaged, as it can be noticed in the literary circle of Maecenas. Two expressions of power
describe Latin literature: power over texts (literary circles) and power exercised by means of literary
use (manipulation, persuasion and influencing). The target audience of this literature was
represented by the elite classes, voting classes and a restricted group who can operate with the
encoded information hidden in the allusion of the text, as it can be observed in the case of Horace`s
satires. Humour is used by Horace in order to implement some imperial ideas, considering satire a
smooth path to the audience`s heart. Analysing these two books of satires it can be observed that they
are an expression of rhetorical persuasio. The satires not only reject, but they want to convince that
certain ideas and actions are foolish and vicious. Horace`s satires not only reject, but they want to
convince that certain ideas or actions are foolish and vicious. The satiric complexity relies in the
hidden message of a literary work (allusion, metaphoric discourse, intertextuality), an ideological
wire that encompasses in its scope an understanding of social and political vision.

Key words: satire, power, persuasion, audience, ideological wire

The satiric frame of mind, of which (someone/something) is an emblem, comprises complex

and paradoxical qualities. Distinguishing itself from the other forms of power, throughout
which we detect force, manipulation, authority, and persuasions, satire uses persuasive
techniques in order to achieve its goals. A persuasive manifestation of power form refers to
any influence means such as arguments, appeals or exhortations whereby the writer gains
compliance of the followers, also protecting the freedom of the follower in order to exercise
moral and political responsibilities. In this particular case, we detect the satire of Horace as a
manipulative form of expressing socio-political ideas in the advantage of Octavian and
Maecenas, as previously Lucilius was exploited for propaganda purposes by the Republican
cause and Pompeians in extension.

The satirist is an observer of humanity and an irate attacker of particular vices and
individuals. In consequence, the study of satire defines two main dimensions: the ironic
perspective on the socio-historical subject and the parodic borrowing from literature. His
method of observation and attack is the versified satire. Satire becomes specific, even when it
uses allusive methods and the true subject of satire isn`t the object of criticism, as we can
observe in the fifth satire of the first book of Sermones where the purpose is revealed
gradually. Speaking about Lucilius and his uncensored and bitter type of discourse:

Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae

Atque aii, quorum comoedia prisca virorum est,

Siquis erat dignus describe, quod malus ac fur,

Quod moechus fore taut sicarius aut alioqui

Famosus, multa cum libertate notabant.

Hinc omnis pendet Lucilius, hosce secutus,

Mutatis tantum pedibus numerique, facetus,

Emunctae naris, durus componenre versus. (Horace, Sermones I. IV:1-8),

Horace recognizes the true intention of his satire, as it can be observed in the fourth satire
where the moral reform is set as the purpose of his attack:

(…) Quod vitium procul afore chartis

Atque animo prius, ut siquid promittere de me

Possum aliud vere, promitto. Liberius si

Dixero quid, si forte iocosius, hoc mihi iuris

Cum venia dabis: insuevit pater optimus hoc me

Ut fugerem exemplis vitiorum quaeque notando.

Cum me hortaretur, parce frugaliter atque viverem uti contentus eo, quod mi
ipse paresset (Horace, Sermones I. IV:101-108)

In this order of ideas, Lucilius libertas1 is a shield used by Horace to justify his own satirical
speech, a type of discourse about he states that is not very admired and approved, mainly
because it reveals some truths about public individuals, but to evaluate the style of a public
speaker involves a high level of personal taste:

(…)Beatus Fannius ultro

Delatis capsis et imagine, cum mea nemo

1
While debating the problematic of Lucilian influence over Horatian satires, Dustin Griffin correctly states: ``In
defending himself Horace makes opportunistic us of his predecessors to make the best case for his own practice:
Lucilius was outspoken before me; so were the writers of Old Comedy, who censured fools <<multa cum
libertate>> (Satire 1:4.5)`` (Dustin Griffin, Satire. A critical reintroduction, The University Press of Kentucky,
Kentucky, 1994, p.7).
 Scripta legat vulgo recitare timentis ob hanc rem,

Quod sunt quos genus hoc minime iuvat, utpote plures

Culpari dignos (Horace, Sermones I. IV: 21-25)

Given the indirection of satire, it seems appropriate to look closer to the political context as
well as the author`s method of propagating certain imperial ideologies. Two expressions of
power and influence describe Horatian satire: power over texts (literary circles) and power
exercised by means of literary use (manipulation, persuasion and influencing). Literary
circles were in a close relationship with the political affairs, as it was observed by I.M. Le
M.DuQuensnay:

``His technique is both less direct and more positive. His basic strategy is to present an
attractive image of himself and his friends as sophisticated, cultured and intelligent men who
are humane in their attitudes to others and mindful of the mos maiorum. Above all he exhibits
a concern with moral issues. But for the contemporaries of Sallust the distinction between
morality and politics was not a meaningful one`` (I.M Le M.DuQuensnay, Horace and
Maecenas: The propaganda Value of Sermones I, p. 43)2.

Maecenas` literary circle served Octavian`s new policies and is no reason to think otherwise,
mainly because all Horatian satires were written between the years 38 and 36/35, more
precisely since their amicitia began and since the satires were published. This period of time
is marking also the second Triumvirate – the Bellum Siculum, stressing the potential of the
satires as propaganda. Their relationship began as a professional one, were the role of amici,
expressed in terms of writings, was rewarded with pecunia and honores. Maecenas started
recruiting poets since 38 (along with Virgil and Varius Rufus) and Horace served him,
crossing the limits of patronage and becoming more of an amicus and conuictor. Throughout
this friendship, Horace became a public person being able to make public statements 3. In the
first step, he dedicates the Sermones to Maecenas, admitting that these satires are in
accordance with Maecenas` point of view:

Plotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque,

Valgius et probet haec Octavius optimus atque

Fuscus et haec utinam Viscorum laudet uterque!

2
I.M Le M. DuQuensnay, Horace and Maecenas: The propaganda Value of Sermones I, in Kirk Freudenburg
(ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Horace: Satires and Epistles, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2009, p. 43.
3
Horaces`s second Epistle reveals the fact that poetry brought him wealth (Horace, Epistles, II.2). By revealing
and publically accepting this benefactor relationship, Horace underlines the fact that there is nothing unusual or
dishonourable in it.
 Ambitione relegate te dicere possum,

Pollio, te, Messalla, tuo cum frater, simulque

Vos, Bibule et Servi, simul his te, candide Furni,

Complures alios, doctos ego quos et amicos

Prudens praetero; quibus haec, sint qualiacumque,

Arridere velim, doliturus, si placeant spe

Deterius nostra. (Horatius, Sermones, I.X:81-90).

Encouraging audience to interpret ``the poems as the work of an amicus of Maecenas and so
invites them to draw what inferences they can about himself and his friends``(I.M Le
M.DuQuensnay, Horace and Maecenas: The propaganda Value of Sermones I, p. 53). This
method of invoking someone else`s power in order to gain your own describes an apart way
of persuasive rhetoric. Along with this public and political association, another fine
connection is intended and suggested: the one with the appreciated predecessors. Lucilius is
set as Horace`s model, in which he sees not only the pillar of Roman satire, but a reputed
author with high literary achievements. Throughout this association, Horace (Horace,
Sermones, I.X:1-6) is suggesting that he is not only the friend of Maecenas, but the
contemporaneous equivalent of Lucilius, the poet who was the voice of the Republican
libertas.

Satire as persuasio confirms that a poem wasn`t considered a naïve expression of a poet`s
feelings into the Roman world, but it was a powerful tool used in propagandistic purposes.
The satires were highly contextualized and conditioned by audience`s expectations, as David
Hooley states: ``Yet within that range of expectations a poet had enormous liberty to consider
and express ideas through generic structures; in fact those structures became the means
whereby poets said things`` (David Hooley, Roman satire, p.33)4. Who was this audience is
one of the main questions that arise. In an extended appreciation, all the educated individuals
will have access to literature, but only the ones who have the right to vote and manifest
influential attitude publically will matter. Unobtrusively, Horace addresses to powerful men
that are capable of sustaining or changing a political affair 5, in more specific terms, he
sustains the new Principate of Octavian.

4
David Hooley, Roman satire, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2007, p. 33.
5
By Horace`s admition into Maecenas circle, he becomes part of the new political regime sustained by
Octavian Augustus.
The persuasive technique is constructed and revealed gradually, for the reader not to feel
shocked and overwhelmed by the novelty of Octavian`s regime. Horace starts accordingly
with a direct and detailed poetical image of the Republican regime, as it can be seen the short
satire from book I, which describes the incident in Brutus`camp in Asia (43/42 B.C.):

Proscripti Regis Rupili pus atque venenum

Hybrid quo pacto sit Prsius ultius, opinor

Omnibus et lippis notum et tonsoribus esse.

Persius his permagna negotia dives habebat

Clazomenis, etiam lites cum Rege molestas,

Durus humo atque odio qui posset vincere Regem,

Confidens tumidus, adeo sermonis amari,

Sisennas, Barros ut equis praecurreret albis.``(Horace, Sermones I.VII:1-8)

The link between the Republican Rome and the new Principate is set by the concept of
libertas. Examples of libertas are set in language too, as it was previously argued in the case
of Lucilius` imitation. A comparison can be made in the following cases6:

"Nam si tu fluctus undasque e gurgite salso

Tollere decreris, venti prius Emathii vim,

ventum, inquam, tollas t. c. q. i.1." (Lucilius, I:45)

Nonius, 285, 5 : 'Durus,' noccns ... — et saevo ac duro in bello multo optimus liostis.
(Lucilius, XXX:1124)

and

Tum Praenestinus salso multoque fluenti

Expressa arbusto regerit convicia, durus

Vindemiator et invictus, cui saepe viator

Cessisset magna compellans voce cuculum (Horace, Sermones, I.VII:28-31),

6
More examples are given by I.M Le M. DuQuensnay, Horace and Maecenas: The propaganda Value of
Sermones I, in Kirk Freudenburg (ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Horace: Satires and Epistles,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, p. 69. Some other strong worlds were avoided by Horace, mainly
because they were of Greek origin (i.e. ballista, catapulta, androgyni, cercopithecos etc.). These language
borrowings in terms of insult are largely debated by Niall Rudd, The satires of Horace, Cambridge University
Press, London, 1966, p. 111-115.
where the language similitudes between Horatius and Lucilius can be easily observed. More
far for a modern reader are the messages hidden in personal names, how it can be observed in
the second satire from the first book: Villius in Fausta Sullae gener, hoc miser uno/ nomine
deceptus, poenas dedit usque superque/ quam satis est (Horace, Sermones, I.II:64-66). The
persons which Horace talks about it would have been very easy to identify for a Roman
reader, as N. Rudd affirms: ``A Roman reader would have known that Sulla was Sulla the
Happy (Felix) and that his daughter was called Joy. So language conspires with love to
deceive the wretched Villius`` (N. Rudd, 1966, p. 146). We may add that this direct and
personal address is used by Horace as an evasive attack, meant not only to denigrate and
reveal facts about a public figure, but to point out vices.

Bibliography

Freudenburg Kirk (ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Horace: Satires and Epistles,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.

Griffin, Dustin, Satire. A critical reintroduction, The University Press of Kentucky,

Kentucky, 1994.

Hooley, David, Roman satire, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2007.

Rudd, Niall, The satires of Horace, Cambridge University Press, London, 1966.