3. MacNeice, L., ‘The Satirist’ (1941–1944) in Collected poems (1966)Google Scholar.

4. For this verdict on the poem's recent reception, see the analysis of Latacz, J., ‘Horazens sogenannte Schwätzersatire’, AU 23 (1980) 5–22Google Scholar. Try Lefèvre, E., Horaz. Dichter in augusteischen Rom (1993) 52–4Google Scholar.

5. Fraenkel, E., Horace (1957) 113Google Scholar.

6. Rudd, N., ‘Horace's encounter with the Bore’, Phoenix 15 (1961) 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The J.A.C.T. recording pairs 1.9 with L. P. W., 's Ad Pyrrham on Latin Readings, Volume 1 (1966)Google Scholar: 8.25 minutes of embarrassment, for Horace, before the Archipoeta takes us out.

7. Brown, P. M., Horace, Satires I (1993) 175Google Scholar: closely reproducing the Fraenkelian account, which was effectively destabilised by a paragraph in Zetzel, J. G., ‘Horace's Liber Sermonum: The structure of ambiguity’, Arethusa 13 (1980) 71Google Scholar (Zetzel's account of the Liber rightly informs Freudenburg, K., The walking muse. Horace on the theory of satire (1993) passim)Google Scholar.

8. The only comment on the ‘anecdotes’ 1.5,7–8 is from Griffin, J., ‘Horace in the thirties’, in Rudd, N. (ed.), Horace 2,000: a celebration. Essays for the bimillennium (1993) 1–22Google Scholar, in resistance to the (weighty) arguments of DuQuesnay: ‘Of real politics, in fact, barely a trace’ (8). But arguments about words and such are politics, cf. Fairclough, N., Language and power (1989) 23Google Scholar, ‘Politics partly consists in the disputes and struggles which occur in language and over language’. Griffin's text itself found but a page: ‘Satire 1.9 is, by comparison, straightforward and can be dealt with briefly’ (Le, I. M.DuQuesnay, M., ‘Horace and Maecenas’, in Woodman, T. and West, D. (edd.), Poetry and politics in the age of Augustus (1984) 52–3)Google Scholar.

9. Freudenburg (n. 7) 208–11, in the wake of Buchheit, V., ‘Homerparodie und Literaturkritik in Horazens Sat. 17 und 19’, Gymnasium 85 (1968) 519–55. 1.5Google Scholar is similarly played down and 7–8 are virtually missing. The book shows well how the practice of each poem dominates the agenda it displays; this is the ‘Theory’ of satire, where civic discourse is framed as the in/effectual locus of cultural politics, cf. Shotter, J., cultural politics of everyday life. Social constructionism, rhetoric and knowing of the third kind (1993)Google Scholar: ‘sub-cultral polities’, as 1.9 suggests (sub cultro, ‘ready for the chop’, 74).

10. Signalled retroactively or finally confirmed at the end of the poem, Anderson, W. S., ‘Horace, the unwilling warrior’, in Essays on Roman satire (1982: 1956) 84–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is much less in the detail of this than consensus has since credited.

11. ‘Erfolgsjägersatire’: Büchner, K., ‘Horaz, S. I, 9, 44’, in RCCM 3 (1961) 3–15Google Scholar(= Horaz. Studien zur römischen Literatur Bd. III (1962) 113–24)Google Scholar cf. Di Benedetto, A., ‘La Satira Oraziana 19 nelle interpretazioni più recenti’, Helikon 20–1 (1980–1980) 396Google Scholar, Latacz (n. 4) esp. 16 n. 32.

For Rudd, cf. (n. 6), ‘Horace's encounter with the Bore’ (1961), but The satires of Horace (1982 ²: 1966) 74–85Google Scholar, ‘I shall call him “the pest”.’ Shackleton-Bailey, D. R., Profile of Horace (1982) 20Google Scholar produces ‘The “bore”, who is really a vulgar place-hunter’; Latacz (n.4) 5–22 works reflectively through the poem's sketching of a ‘Karrierist’ against the background of a century's readings of the poem.

12. Purdie, S., Comedy, the mastery of discourse (1993) 150Google Scholar.

13. Damrosch, L. Jr, The imaginative world of Alexander Pope (1987) 123Google Scholar. Cf. Freudenburg (n. 7) 208, ‘The satirist is not far from the pest whom he despises.’

14. Dylan, B., Positively 4th Street (1965)Google Scholar.

15. They Might Be Giants, ‘My evil twin’, on Apollo 18 (1992).

16. Cf. Pollock, G., Vision and difference. Femininity, feminism and the histories of art (1988) 67–75Google Scholar, on the male bourgeois flâneur, ‘the impassive stroller [who] symbolizes the privilege or freedom to move about in the public arenas of the city observing but never interacting, consuming the sights through a controlling but rarely acknowledged gaze’ (contrast the d. p.'s and outlaws of 1.7, and the furtive females abashed in 1.8).

17. Cf. McGann, M. J., ‘The three worlds of Horace's Satires’, in Costa, C. D. N. (ed.), Horace (1973) 62fGoogle Scholar. Anderson, W. S., ‘Paradise gained by Horace, lost by Gulliver’, in Rawson, C. (ed.), English satire and the satiric tradition (1984) 155Google Scholar remarks that from this point on Horace will treat his non-Us as an epidemic, no longer to be quarantined or eradicated: (the effect of his Apolline poetry on) Maecenas will ‘save’ him from Rome – with a Sabine retreat (seruare could be a one-word summary of Horatian psychology, cf. 1.1.89, 3.54, 4.117, 6.83 …).

18. Lem, S., ‘Raymond Seurat: Toi’, in A perfect vacuum (1979) 114fGoogle Scholar.

19. On ‘Satire’, cf. Purdie (n. 12) 115, Howes, C., ‘Rhetorics of attack: Bakhtin and the aesthetics of satire’, Genre 10.3 (1986) 25–43Google Scholar.

20. Hodge, R., Literature as discourse (1990)Google Scholar, ‘Introduction’ 10, cf. 143–51, ‘Problematizing modality’.

21. Cf. Hodge, R. and Kress, G., Language and ideology (1993 ²) 127Google Scholar, Purdie (n. 12) 48.

22. In this sense, satire does duty for our ‘novel’, on which cf. Morson, G. S., ‘Who speaks for Bakhtin?’, in Morson, G. S. (ed.), Bakhtin. Essays and dialogues on his work (1986) 13fGoogle Scholar.

23. Cf. Purdie (n. 12) esp. 60, 66.

24. Cf. LaFleur, R. A., ‘Horace and Onomasti Komodein: the Law of Satire’, ANRW 2.31.5 (1981) 1790–1826Google Scholar.

25. On nugae as poetry, e.g. Buchheit (n. 9) 535; for ill- ∣, cf. esp. 7.25, 2.126, 3.57, in a distribution of 1.1×2, 1.2×7, 1.3×5, 1.4×4; vs. 1.5×1, 1.6×1, 1.7×1,1.8×0, 1.10×1; vs. 1.9×10. On name-calling as sticking like napalm, cf. Sornig, K., ‘Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion’, in Wodak, R. (ed.), Language, power and ideology. Studies in political discourse (1989) 100Google Scholar. For Horace's determined thinking before he writes – and mum's the word, cf. 4.137–9, haec ego mecum ∣ compressis agito labris; ubi quid datur oti ∣ illudo chartis; his promenades through the Forum, 6.113f.

26. Cf. Oliensis, E., ‘Canidia, Canicula, and the decorum of Horace's Epodes’, Arethusa 24 (1991) 119 for this comparisonGoogle Scholar.

27. Lennanon, J., ‘Steel and glass’, on Walls and bridges (1974)Google Scholar.

28. For this ‘worming’, cf. Shackleton-Bailey (n. 11) 20; for the Horatian qui s'excuse s'accuse, Bernstein, M. A., Bitter carnival. Ressentiment and the abject hero (1992) 41Google Scholar; rather swallowing the self-exoneration, e.g. DuQuesnay (n. 8) 53, Braund, S. H., Roman verse satire (1992) 21Google Scholar.

29. Bakhtin, M., ‘Introduction to extracts from “The problem of speech genres”’, in Morson, (n. 22) 95Google Scholar; cf. Leith, D. and Myerson, G., The power of address. Explorations in rhetoric (1989), ‘Introduction’ 12Google Scholar, Pechey, G., ‘On the borders of Bakhtin: dialogisation, decolonisation’, in Hirschkop, K. and Shepherd, D. (edd.), Bakhtin and cultural theory (1989) 47Google Scholar, Tannen, D., Talking voices. Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse (1989) 12Google Scholar.

30. Cf. Holquist, M., Dialogism. Bakhtin and his world (1990) 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Quote from Holquist, M., ‘Answering as authoring: Mikhail Bakhtin's trans-linguistics’, in Morson, (n. 22) 63Google Scholar, cf. Tannen (n. 29) 12. On turn-taking/-infringing, Pocock, J. G. A., ‘Verbalising a political act: towards a politics of speech’, in Shapiro, M. (ed.), Language and politics (1984) 35Google Scholar.

32. Brown, P. and Levinson, S., Politeness. Some universals in language usage (1987 ²) 13Google Scholar: ‘Negative Face’ and (wait for it) ‘Positive Face’. Cf. Goffman, E., Encounters (1972)Google Scholar, A. Kendon, ‘Goffman's approach to face-to-face interaction’, Heath, C., ‘Goffman and the analysis of conversation’, and other essays in Drew, P. and Wootton, A. (edd.), Erving Goffman. Exploring the interaction order (1988)Google Scholar.

33. Cf. Purdie (n. 12)105.

34. See Hodge, R. and Kress, G., Social semiotics (1988) 45, 123Google Scholar.

35. Cf. Quasthoff, U. M., ‘Social prejudice as a resource of power: towards the functional ambivalence of stereotypes’, in Wodak, (n. 25) esp. 186Google Scholar; for conversation as ‘practical metadiscourse’, see Taylor, T. J., Mutual misunderstanding. Scepticism and the theorising of language and interpretation (1992) 11ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Cf. Jaworski, A., The Power of silence. Social and pragmatic perspectives (1992) 122ff.Google Scholar, 109 on these silences: 146, they can be walls/bridges, and/or gadflies, 49; Hodge and Kress (n. 21) 77 for defensive shutters; Connor, P., Horace's lyric poetry: the force of humour (1987) 103Google Scholar for the Pest as ‘disarming’ and ‘wry’ to tell Horace that he's after Maecenas through Horace.

37. E.g. DuQuesnay (n. 8) 52: industria, no fides, self-interest above law and before civic duty; Rudd (n. 11)78.

38. Brown and Levinson (n. 32) 1, after E. Goffman.

39. Cf. Hatim, B. and Mason, I., Discourse and the translator (1990) 77ffGoogle Scholar. on ‘illocutionary structure’, Leith and Myerson (n. 29) 120f., Jaworski (n. 36) 56, Brown and Levinson (n. 32) 40 on greetings and adjacency, Holquist (n. 30) 61 on what is assumed, Zijderveld, A. C., On clichés. The supersedure [sic] of meaning by function in modernity (1979), esp. 50Google Scholar.

40. Satire, J.-P., Nausea (1965) 228Google Scholar.

41. Dylan (n. 14).

42. Grossmith, G. and Grossmith, W., The diary of a nobody (1945: 1892) 13fGoogle Scholar.

43. See Bodenheimer, A. R., Warum?: von der Obszönität des Fragens (1984) 264–75Google Scholar. For analysis of the poem into four scenes, cf. Rudd (n. 11) 75: 1–20, 21–43, 44–74, 74–8; Van Rooy, C. A., ‘Arrangement and structure of satires in Horace, Sermones book I: Satires 9 and 10’, A Class 15 (1972) 37Google Scholar suggests a ring of: 1. Introduction, 1–5 ∼ 6. Conclusion, 74B–8; 2. 6–21A ∼ 5. 60B–74A; 3. 21B–36A ∼ 4. 43B–60A, with 36B–42 as the kernel, centre and turning-point.

44. Cf. Bogaert, R., ‘Est tibi mater …? (Horace, Sat. I, 9, vv. 26 ss.)’, in LEC 31 (1963) 159–66Google Scholar, Rudd (n. 6) 81 n. 9, Shackleton-Bailey (n. 11) 21. Most ‘relevant’ is 1.84f., non uxor saluum te uult, non filius …, with 9.26f., est tibi mater, ȣ cognati, quis te saluo est opus (cf. 1.88, nullo … labore, with 9.59f., nil sine magno … labore, 1.901, ut si quis asellum ȣ …, with 9.201, ut … asellus ȣ … onus, and 6.99, onus …).

45. Rudd (n. 11) 285 n. 54.

46. Brink, C. O., ‘Horatian notes IV: despised readings in the manuscripts of Satires book I’, PCPS 213 (1987) 31Google Scholar argues against uiuimus (as e.g. Rudd (n. 6) 83).

47. Cf. Johnson, T. and Dandeker, C., ‘Patronage: relation and system’, in Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.), Patronage in ancient society (1990) 223fGoogle Scholar.

48. Cf. Johnson and Dandeker (n. 47) 226.

49. Copley, F. O., Latin literature. From the beginnings to the close of the second century A.D. (1969) 150Google Scholar.

50. Cf. Rudd (n. 11)78.

51. Cf. Rudd (n. 11) 76.

52. For adsectatores, who make themselves useful all day, cf. Wiseman, T. P., ‘Pete nobiles amicos: poets and patrons in late Republican Rome’, in Gold, B. K. (ed.), Literary and artistic patronage in ancient Rome (1982) 29f.Google Scholar, nominating Horace's ille ‘a familiar character in Latin literature’, ‘the ardelio’ [sic]. For material on the ardalio, cf. Henderson, J., ‘Anecdote and satire in Phaedras: commentary and discussion’ (Oxford Ph.D. thesis, 1976) 31fGoogle Scholar.

53. Cf. Pocock (n. 31) 39ff.

54. Cf. Brown and Levinson (n. 32) 16.

55. Thus a first impression of the order of ‘talkativeness’ must be fine-tuned from the arena of performance to the range of underlying personality traits (Cf. Cohan, S. and Shires, L. M., Telling stories. A theoretical analysis of narrative fiction (1988) 75)Google Scholar.

56. Virg. Ecl. 9.32–4.

57. Dylan (n. 14): reading ‘what it’ for ‘when he’, Herdman, J., Voice without restraint (1981) 22Google Scholar: ‘The purpose of [using ‘it’ here] … is to reduce his status to that of an object.’

58. Cf. Van Rooy, C. A., ‘ “Imitatio” of Vergil, Eclogues in Horace, Satires, book I’, A Class 16 (1973) 69–88Google Scholar. Would-be poet Lycidas pesters bard Moeris on a perambulation in the presence-to-thought of ‘Menalcas’ (∼ ‘Maecenas’); Varius is dragged in, with a further luminary, as top poet of the day (35 ∼ 23).

59. Rudd(n. 11) 76.

60. Cf. Leith and Myerson (n. 29) 226, Cohan and Shires (n. 55) 104ff.

61. Cf. Moore, T. and Carling, C., The limitations of language (1988), 164–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘Telling stories and telling the truth’, esp. 168, Leith and Myerson (n. 29) 176 on the notion of ‘exploration’ of a story's import. On ‘over-dramatisation’ in 1.9, Connor (n. 36) 103.

62. Modality intervenes to modify or negate the tie of mimetic content to the world of referents. Social relations inscribe modal signals in regimes of social ‘truth’, or doxa, cf. Hodge (n. 20) 143–51.

63. For the teller's and jokester's long ‘turns’, cf. Leith and Myerson (n. 29) 27, Purdie (n. 12) 128.

64. Chambers, R., Story and situation. Narrative seduction and the power of fiction (1984) 4 and passimGoogle Scholar.

65. Leith and Myerson (n. 29) 26–31, ‘Storytelling’, esp. 29. For law-abiding narrators and bungling, fouling, discursively inept butts, cf. Purdie (n. 12) 59.

66. Cf. Tannen (n. 29) 99ff., 110ff. on ‘constructed dialogue’, forever veiling its ‘fictive’ status. Conversation analysis has discredited ‘reported’ or ‘indirect speech’ as presentational phenomena that aspire to a false autonomy.

67. See Chambers (n. 64) esp. 214–18.

68. Purdie (n. 12) 67.

69. Cf. Brown and Levinson (n. 32) 28, Hodge and Kress (n. 21) 151. For the claim, Rudd (n. 11) 80.

70. Cf. Van Rooy (n. 43) 40.

71. Cf. Legman, G., Rationale of the dirty joke. An analysis of sexual humour. Volume II (1972) 118f.Google Scholar, ‘hostility against the listener’, Purdie (n. 12) 39, Nash (n. 1) 118–23, ‘The defective exchange’.

72. Dylan (n. 14).

73. Reed, L., ‘Hangin round’, on Transformer (1972)Google Scholar.

74. For the lemma that leaps from the page, cf. Morson (n. 22) 125.

75. Esp. White, P., ‘Amicitia and the profession of poetry in early Imperial Rome’, JRS 68 (1978) 78Google Scholar. See instead Griffin, J., ‘Augustus and the poets: “Caesar qui cogere posset”’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds.), Caesar Augustus. Seven aspects (1984) 204 and n. 43Google Scholar.

76. So Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Introduction’, in Wallace-Hadrill, (n. 47) 10Google Scholar. Zetzel, J. E. G., ‘The poetics of patronage in the late first century B.C.’, in Gold, (n. 52) 87–102Google Scholar, for a venture tries ‘denying utterly the importance of patronage to Latin poetry’, but mind that baby!

77. This type of persona has stalked far and wide through recent criticism, cf. McGann (n. 17) 61, Ulmer, G. L., Teletheory: grammatology in the age of video (1989) 167Google Scholar, Brand, D., The spectator and the city in 19th-century American literature (1991)Google Scholar, Rignall, J., Realist fiction and the strolling spectator (1992)Google Scholar, Fer, B., ‘The hat, the hoax, the body’, in Adler, K. and Pointon, M. (edd.), The body imaged. The human form and visual culture since the Renaissance (1993) 167f.Google Scholar, essays in Caws, M. A. (ed.), City images. Perspectives from literature, philosophy, and film (1990)Google Scholar, Pollock in n. 16.

78. Barthes, R. in Duncan, J. S. and Duncan, N. G., ‘Ideology and bliss: Roland Barthes and the secret histories of landscape’, in Barnes, T. J. and Duncan, J. S. (edd.), Writing worlds. Discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape (1992) 31, q.v.Google Scholar

79. Dudley, D. R., URBS ROMA. A source book of classical texts on the city and its monuments selected and translated with a commentary (1967) 78Google Scholar, cf. Patterson, J., ‘The city of Rome: from Republic to Empire’, JRS 82 (1992) 202 and nnGoogle Scholar.

80. See the break-through discussion of Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Patronage in Roman society: from Republic to Empire’, in Wallace-Hadrill, (n. 47) 74, 80Google Scholar. Historians have now focused their analysis of patronage on the jockeying of individuals in their variously proliferating and re-negotiated social relationships around liaisons of specifically constituted/contested/invisible/obfuscated superiority, inferiority, solidarity and affect. More than this, however, Horace's melodramatics (along with other texts neglected as literary, so … atypical, purblind, slippery?) can point to the glaring prospect that the historicity of patronage consisted in the discourse of patronage, ranged between cultural traces of discussion of patronage such as Sermo 1.9 and documents of patronage such as litterae commendaticiae, and oral communication, formal or otherwise, both at the meta-discursive level and in speech-acts such as traditio. This ensemble of ‘talk’ was the reality of patronage, far from both neatly systematised analytical models with conventional notation and agreed codings for nomenclature, and far from any analytic extra-discursive ‘reality’. It is not, Dr Beard explains to me, as if patronage existed in some other space than the satire, nor the poem in some other cultural domain than patronage. Be alert to the inscriptional graphematics of cultural order (what else?).

81. For such strategies of ‘de-politicization’, cf. Connolly, W. E., ‘The politics of discourse’, in Shapiro (n. 31) 139Google Scholar.

82. Cf. Fairclough (n. 8) 10. Crowley, T., ‘Bakhtin and the history of the language’, in Hirschkop, and Shepherd, (n. 29) 76fGoogle Scholar. explains the totalizing power of the myth of equality (haven of unity, stability and security of definition).

83. On the squeeze between civic libertas and discreet amicitia, cf. Hunter, R. L., ‘Horace on friendship and free speech (Epistles 1.18 and Satires 1.4)’, Hermes 113 (1985) esp. 487ff.Google Scholar, cf. Freudenburg (n. 7) 86ff., 209. ‘The antithesis of freedom of speech is not censorship but excommunication: the denial of the right to participate’ (Harris, R., ‘On freedom of speech’, in Joseph, J. E. and Taylor, T. J. (edd.), Ideologies of language (1990) 159)Google Scholar.

84. Crook, J. A., Law and life of Rome (1967) 75fGoogle Scholar. explains the detail, after Roby, H. J., ‘Horat. Sat. I. 9. 39; 75’, JPhil 13 (1885) 233–41Google Scholar. Cloud, J. D., ‘Satirists and the law’, in Braund, S. H. (ed.), Satire and society in Ancient Rome (1989) 65–7Google Scholar, ‘The problem of the pest’, counsels incisively that the law plays an ‘emblematic role’ here, rescuing Horace for order from outrage. The stirring citizen's arrest may serve for ‘comic insulation’, humorously overdone to make sure it amuses us more than it hurts ille (Purdie (n. 12) 61; cf. Cloud, loc. cit. 66).

85. Cf. Wallace-Hadrill (n. 80) 66.

86. So McGann (n. 17) 70, ‘Is the poet, unconsciously no doubt, pointing to …?’ Caesar qui cogere posset … (3.4, to Maecenas) reads as easily with ‘Maecenas …’

87. Cf. Zetzel (n. 7) 69, Rambaux, C., ‘La composition d'ensemble du livre I des Satires d'Horace’, REL 49 (1971) esp. 179Google Scholar.

88. White, P., ‘Positions for poets in early Imperial Rome’, in Gold, (n. 52) 63Google Scholar says ‘Horace gives no clue to the age of the acquaintance’.

89. Petron. Sat. 83.9. ‘Aesop blessed the poet fishing for applause: he should blow his trumpet – no one else is going to’ (Phaedr. Appendix 9, cf. Henderson (n. 52) 366–70, ‘His own best critic’, for similar material).

90. Dylan (n. 14).

91. They Might Be Giants, ‘Particle Man’, on Flood (1990).

92. Byron, G., Don Juan XIII, xcvGoogle Scholar.

93. McGann (n. 17) 89. Cf. Bardon, H., La Littérature latine inconnue. Tome II L'Epoque Impériale (1956) 115 n.5Google Scholar.

94. See Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M., A commentary on Horace Odes, Book I (1970) 261f. on Carm. 1.22Google Scholar.

95. Cf. Purdie (n. 12) 58ff., ‘The Butt. The Third Position’, Thus ‘The Importunate’ and Aiistius Fuscus both orbit in ‘one of [Horace's] favourite strategies’, the switching of perspectives and exchange of roles, cf. Bernstein (n. 28) 41.

96. For the comedy of ‘contempt by breaking wind in the direction of someone else. The terms are ϰαταπέρδεσθαι and προσπέρδεσθαι’, cf. Henderson, J., The maculate muse (1975), 197Google Scholar. I may not forgive Emily Gowers for pointing out to me (inter alia: not to steal her thunder) the force of Fuscus' ‘disclaimer’ ignosces (72) in ‘calling Horace's bluff’, since ‘Horace himself is on trial – to see if he will put his charitable theories from 1.3 into practice’, e.g. 3.21–3, ignoras … ignotum … ignosco. On the rhetoric of obfuscation, cf. Usher, S., ‘Occuhatio in Cicero's speeches’, AJPh 86 (1965) 175–92Google Scholar. For Jews in Roman eyes, cf. MacMullen, R., Roman social relations. 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (1974) 180 n. 92Google Scholar. It is not clear what Horatian critics are holding back on this subject: Van Rooy (n. 43) 49 n. 49 [sic], or (esp.) Fraenkel (n. 5) 116. Inter alia, Feldman, L. H., Jew and Gentile in the ancient world (1993) 510 n. 103, 558, n. 41Google Scholar, sees satirical victimization appropriating circumcision for its self-constituting image (morselization of the social fabric or body politic; masculist symbolic power set over phallic virtility) in the linkage of sub cultro with curtis (and, credat Iudaeus Apella, of Apollo with Apella (*a-pellis, ‘Les Foreskin’?) in 5.100.

97. See Legman, G., No laughing matter. Rationale of the dirty joke, second series (1978) 1012Google Scholar, cf. 1006–17, ‘Pet-en-Gueule’: ‘the fetichistic interest in the farting and flatus of the erotic partner, which it is desired to see and smell as close up as possible’.

98. Fiumara, G. Corradi, The other side of language. A philosophy of listening (1990) 103 and passimGoogle Scholar.

99. Jaworski (n. 36) 25, 28.

100. Dylan (n. 14): cf. Herdman (n. 57) 23, ‘what must be the ultimate in gestures of rejection. … The refined cruelty of this is remarkable. The repetition of the proposition keeps the listener in suspense, perhaps hoping for a more sympathetic line … ‘could stand inside my shoes’ might be expected to mean ‘understand my point of view, rather than what it does mean, ‘see you as I do’; and in the light of that expectation ‘And just for that one moment / I could be you’ could even seem to express an outgoing impulse instead of the sneer which it later proves to be.’ As in Horace, the victim's anonymity makes the song satire on the poet's fix of ‘negative capability’.