![]() ![]() Horace brings up this idea again later in the poem, and to my mind clearly shows his disapproval of the money-making mentality. Furthermore, the phrase "virtus post nummos" is not put into his own mouth, but in the mouth of Janus, whose temple was the hang-out of the money-lenders. 'O citizens, citizens, money must be sought first, virtue after money.' This is what Janus teaches from top to bottom young and old men alike sing back these things after they have been dictated." The lesson "virtus post nummos" clearly contrasts with what Horace says in two lines above, i.e. "silver is worth less than gold gold is worth less than virtue (another way of translating would be gold is dearer than silver and virtue dearer than gold). 'O cives, cives, quaerenda pecunia primum est, virtus post nummos.' haec Ianus summus ab imo prodocet, haec recinunt iuvenes dictata senesque. The lines surrounding this passage (52-55) go thus (please excuse my not separating the lines): vilius argentum est auro, virtutibus aurum. I think we have our work cut out for us, trying to see what place money and virtue should play in our lives, and whether we can agree that one of them is more important than the other.ĭear oudeis oudamou, I accidentally happened upon your sight and must say that as someone writing on the Epistles of Horace I was intrigued by your interpretation of the phrase "virtus post nummos" in 1.1.54 and I wanted to ask if you took the larger context of the poem into account when thinking through your interpretation. “But what about a life that lacks the moral virtues?” Yes, let’s look at that life too. Is it a livable life and life we’d care to live? We should look at a life that does not know how to make money and see what happens to it. He says only one set of skills is more important, which is not the same thing. Notice he doesn’t say that one set of skills is essential to a good life and the other isn’t. Does Horace imply that he’s doomed to a bad life?” He does not say that either. “But suppose someone is very bad at money making. He says only that money making is more important in our lives than virtue. Horace never implies that money is the most important thing or something to be pursued for its own sake. We may pursue money to support our art or our family responsibilities or our recreations or whatever we place at the center of our life. We look in vain for the line omnia vincit pecunia in his letters and odes. Certainly Horace never says that money is THE thing. And neither, I think, does Horace the poet. “So is Horace claiming that money making should be the most important thing in our lives, because I don’t accept that.” And neither do I. ![]() As a first approximation we take Horace’s view to be that we gain much more and more important things with the money making arts. We can looking at what we gain by being good money makers, then what we gain by being good at the moral virtues, and finally compare them. That’s still not very clear, but perhaps it give us a way to start. Horace is saying the gains from the first will be much more important and substantial than anything we get from the second. If we become good at the moral virtues, here’s what we can do and accomplish. If we become good money makers, here’s what we can acquire in our life and accomplish. So how do evaluate the claim that one set of skills, aimed at money making, is more important than another set of skills, aimed at acting justly and kindly and generously? Well, perhaps we could look at what each set of kills is likely to achieve by itself when practiced well. No, I think we should intrepret Horace as commending the arts of pursuing money as the foundation for virtually any kind of life. That money making is more important only if you wealth above other things. But I don’t think that assumption was behind Horace’s recommendation. Many of you will probably think at this point, why does this even need to be argued? If we aspire to wealth, then the arts of money making are central and crucial. More important for acquiring the kind of life we desire and aspire to. How would we go about examining such a claim as this? And what exactly is Horace saying? That one group of skills is more important than another? More important for what? But we have one easy answer to that question. But its value is inferior to the skills that acquire wealth and what wealth can buy. On the contrary, he implies that it does have value. Notice that Horace isn’t saying that virtue, or least the reputation for it, is worthless. The former skills, he was saying, come first and take pride of place over the latter. By virtue he meant the moral virtues such as justice and kindness and generosity. ![]() By money he meant the arts of money making. And he wasn’t comparing apples and oranges. O cives, quaerenda pecunia primum est, virtus post nummos. Horace wasn’t kidding when he exhorted his fellow citizens to pursue money first and virtue second. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |