I continue on die lines set out in the last volume but one of these Proceedings. 1. C. II. 2. 19–20 numero beatorum / eximit Virtus (Prahaten). The noun beatus is well established in classical verse as well as prose, although naturally it never reached the substantival status of bonus or honestus. D. R. Shackleton Bailey's repointing of 1. 37. 9–10 contaminato cum grege turpium, / morbo uirorum, etc.,2 assumes a noun tur pis; thus Hor. S. 1. 6. 63–4 qui turpi secernis hones turn / non patre praeclaro, sed uita et pectore puro, A.P. 213 rusticus urbano confusus, tur pis honesto. These two passages suggest that it was the likeness of such terms as bonus or honestus that facilitated this usage. A search in the materials of the Latin Thesaurus (for which I am much obliged to Dr W. Ehlers) shows that this development is, as one might expect, much older than Horace. I am not thinking of Pl. Poen. 338 (where the notion is ‘plain, ugly’, promoted by the contrast with pulchra), but Cic. Att. x. 8. 2 turpissimorum honores, cf. Sen. Dial. VII. 8. ι nec minus turpes dedecus suum quam honestos egregia delectant, 24. 3 in turpes indignos que, Quint. I.O. III. 38 honestis contrasted with apud turpes.
Shackleton Bailey pays tribute to Bendey's taste when he said ‘in illa locutione, uirorum turpium morbo, non agnosco elegantiam Flacci’, while (rightly) refusing the same critic's conjecture opprobriorum for morbo uirorum. At first I found it hard to believe that turpium could be divorced from morbo uirorum, the words immediately following. But now I think that the pun morbo uirorum, ‘men only in vice’, is highly persuasive, and likely, even in a text without punctuation, to be effective in dissociating uirorum from turpium.