Satire 1.9 by Horace
Satire 1.9 by Horace is a notable example of Roman satire that humorously explores the theme of social annoyance through the encounter between the poet and an unnamed bore. In this piece, Horace recounts a one-sided conversation with the bore, who is eager for recognition and seeks an introduction to Horace's patron, Gaius Maecenas. The bore's lack of social awareness and his misunderstanding of the dynamics between poets and patrons highlight his shallow nature. Rather than targeting a specific individual, Horace generalizes the experience to critique the common human tendency towards dullness and insensitivity in social interactions. The humor arises from the relatability of the situation, as many readers can recall similar encounters in their own lives. Horace’s approach is not to incite change in behavior but to invite readers to reflect on this shared folly with a sense of amusement. Through this satire, Horace effectively underscores the quirks of human interaction, leaving readers with a smile rather than a moral lesson.
On this Page
Satire 1.9 by Horace
Excerpted from an article in Magill’s Survey of World Literature, Revised Edition
First published: 35 b.c.e. (collected in Satires, 35 b.c.e.; English translation, 1567)
Type of work: Poem
The Work
Horace’s description in Satire 1.9 of his encounter with a bore is an excellent example of his satirical style. The bore is never named, and though several critics have attempted to identify him with the poet Sextus Propertius, Horace provides no clues as to his identity. The reason is that Horace does not wish to create a poem filled with invective against a particular individual. Rather, Horace’s intention is to satirize dullness in general. Humor in the poem is derived from the reader’s identification with Horace’s predicament. Everyone can recall an incident in which an annoying individual would not leave despite numerous hints. In this way, Horace criticizes the behavior of the bore and of others like him rather than attacking the person by name.
During their (rather one-sided) conversation, the bore reveals that he is a poet and is hoping that Horace will introduce him to Gaius Maecenas (Horace’s wealthy patron). In so doing, the bore alienates Horace still further by completely misunderstanding the relationship that poets such as Horace have with their patron, by stressing his ability to write quickly (elsewhere in the Satires, Horace makes it clear that he prefers polished writing to swift writing), and by assuming that Horace wants to compete with the other poets in Maecenas’s circle. The bore, therefore, appears shallow and insensitive, as well as annoying.
It is unlikely that Horace, in this satire as elsewhere, really sought to correct the fault that he is ridiculing. Few readers will leave this work with a renewed desire to be more interesting and less annoying to others. Rather, by gently mocking this common human flaw, Horace leaves his readers smiling at a situation that they will recognize and a type of folly with which they are well familiar.
Bibliography
Commager, Steele. The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1964.
Freudenburg, Kirk. Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Harrison, Stephen, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Horace. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
McNeill, Randall L. B. Horace: Image, Identity, and Audience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.
Perret, Jacques. Horace. Translated by Bertha Humez. New York: New York University Press, 1964.
Richardson, Leon J. Quintus Horatius Flaccus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1935.
Rudd, Niall. The Satires of Horace. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
Showerman, Grant. Horace and His Influence. New York: Cooper Square, 1963.
Wilkinson, L. P. Horace and His Lyric Poetry. 2d ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1951.
Woodman, Tony, and Denis Feeney. Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.