The unearthing and exploration of the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum began in the middle of the eighteenth century. Examination of the papyrus scrolls is still ongoing, but a great deal has already been discovered, notably many of the ethical discourses of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara. A near-contemporary of Horace, Philodemus’ influence on the Augustan poets has already come under some scrutiny, for example in D. Armstrong et al. (edd.), Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans (2004). In this study Y. looks particularly at the connection between the works of Philodemus and Horace's Satires, and brings new and convincing interpretative perspectives to these poems. His book constitutes an important contribution to Horatian scholarship and should be of interest to all scholars concerned with the intellectual background to first-century bc Rome.

After the introduction, the first chapter, ‘Philosophical Background to Epicureanism in the Satires’, sets out the history of scholarship on Philodemus and the philosophical aspects and influences in Horace's Satires: Philodemus’ works On Property Management, On Frank Criticism and On Flattery are the most pertinent. Chapter 2 concerns the first three diatribe satires of Book 1, looking in particular at Philodemean influences with regard to moderation, flattery and frankness. In Chapter 3 Y. looks at Horace's invocation of his father in Satires 1.4 and his relationship with Maecenas in 1.6 in connection with Philodemus’ discourses on frankness, and by extension friendship and flattery. Y. deals with the influence of On Flattery in regard to Horace's satire on inheritance-hunting (Sat. 2.5) and his portrayal of the pest (Sat. 1.9) in Chapter 4. Lastly, Chapter 5 concerns the three diatribe satires of the second book, with particular attention to Philodemus’ works dealing with wealth and frankness.

In making the case for Philodemus’ influence in Chapter 1, Y. draws attention to the links between Philodemus and the Augustan poets mentioned in Philodemus’ own works (p. 16). Notable examples of the scholarship include the work of M. Gigante, both with regard to his organisation of Philodemus’ treatises and (particularly relevant here) in pointing out connections between Philodemus and Horace – particularly his assertion that Philodemus had read Horace's Satires (M. Gigante, Altre Ricerche Filodemee [1998], p. 48). But while Chapter 1 provides a trove of information, which will undoubtedly be useful for those relatively unfamiliar with Philodemus’ works, it does somewhat delay the discussion of the Satires themselves. This does not really get underway until page 76 in Chapter 2, where discussion turns to the influence of Philodemus’ On Property Management in Satires 1.1.

Y. not only highlights here the influence of Philodemus, but also treats the subject of economics – in this context, the handling of one's property and wealth – in the Satires in a new light and in greater depth: it is considered afresh in the context of contemporary Epicurean ethical advice rather than of the older Epicurean pronouncements on moderation (particularly Epicurus’ Principal Doctrines, which deal with kinds of desire) – these latter having been fully accounted for in most commentaries and other comprehensive studies of the Satires. Another aspect of Y.’s fresh approach is his consideration of the Epicurean doctrine of the pleasure, or ‘hedonic’, calculus, which he regards as playing a significant role in how Horace adopts his mainly Epicurean standpoint in the opening satires of Book 1 (pp. 15, 36–8, 107–10). The hedonic calculus involves the measurement of the desirability or potential detriment of actions in terms of the pleasure and/or pain that such actions will likely incur. Again, in its mediation through Philodemus, the application of the hedonic calculus puts the Satires in a more contemporaneously Epicurean light.

In Chapter 3 Y. makes comparisons between the relationships of Horace and Maecenas, and Philodemus and his patron Piso (and Epicurus and his benefactor Mithres). For Y. it is a relationship that ‘involves many of the characteristics of Epicurean patronage, including the peaceful withdrawal from politics, an intimate bond between client and receptive patron, and, as Epicurus stipulates, the exchange of benefits for advice from an ethical expert or sage’ (p. 171). One might also wish to add that the reference to advice from an expert is an observation that in Horace is perhaps tempered – even subverted – by irony. Indeed, irony also needs to be considered when looking at the possible influence of Philodemus’ On Frank Criticism. The term ‘frank criticism’ (i.e. as not necessarily attributed to Philodemus) might seem compatible with satire, but an aspect of Horatian satire that makes this alignment problematic is Horace's use of irony. At least, one might be wary of there being a possible tension between irony and frankness – the latter perhaps even suggesting an absence of irony. If one takes on board the ways in which scholars have suggested ironic subversions in these poems (and Y. does this himself to some extent: pp. 11, 108–9), then does this irony happily co-exist with frank criticism – and if so, how? Y. touches on the idea that Horace's irony can in part be seen as a way of toning down the harshness of his satire. He suggests too that this can be viewed as compatible with Philodemus’ moderate, reasonable (rather than excessively censorious) style of frank criticism (pp. 74–5). However, there is still a potential friction here that needs more direct consideration.

Having said that, with detailed referencing to Philodemean passages, Y. makes a strong case for the influence of Philodemean frank criticism on the three diatribe satires in the second book – Satires 2.2, 2.3 and 2.7 (Chapter 5). Indeed, the discussion of 2.3 and 2.7 is in part a discussion of bad frank criticism and slightly better (more succinct, personal) frank criticism respectively, though still not as good as Horace's more reasonable, Epicurean frank criticism in the diatribes of the first book. In dealing with this influence and that of ‘economic vice’, again through a mainly Philodemean lens, Y.’s consideration of 2.3 and 2.7 results in what might appear to be a somewhat skewed interpretation of 2.3, and a relatively fresh, detailed interpretation of 2.7. At least, the overarching theme of 2.3 – the Stoic paradox that all fools are mad – is rather underplayed. In looking at economic vice in 2.3 Y. makes many original observations, both in relation to Philodemus and other philosophers (e.g. Aristotle and Theophrastus, p. 274), but one is left with a rather unbalanced thematic overview. The discussion of frank criticism in relation to the shorter 2.7, on the other hand, is helped by the fact that the Stoic paradox that underpins the poem is very much kept alive by its being so integral to any discussion of the main interlocutor, Davus, who is a slave, and the fact that the paradox in question is ‘all fools are slaves’.

Y. argues for the influence of On Frank Criticism in the Satires as complementing that of the so-called cynic–stoic diatribe. At the start of Chapter 1 he speaks of the ‘Epicurean diatribe’, noting that Philodemus himself was influenced by the Cynics in this regard (pp. 72–6). Again, this is convincing when made in the context of Philodemus’ probable influence on certain Augustan poets, and given the more identifiably Epicurean allusions in the Satires, but I think one question needed a little more direct engagement, namely: how far can the common-sense, advisory nature of Horace's Satires be said to be due to a strictly Philodemean influence when so much of it coincides with ethical or indeed literary commonplaces?

Particular highlights of Y.’s discussion include Epicurean views on the relationship between philosophy and poetry, where Y. argues that satire, as ‘pure conversation’ (merus sermo), is most suitable for communicating philosophy (pp. 140, 147–8). The link between envy and wealth found in Philodemus is an important additional source for Satires 1.1 (pp. 83–4), and Y. convincingly highlights linguistic similarities between Philodemus and Horace, such as their use of medical analogies (p. 106).

While it may have benefited from addressing the question of how Horatian irony accommodates or even complements some of these Philodemean influences, Y.’s book still certainly succeeds in highlighting an ethical thread that runs through and unifies both books of Satires. It therefore makes a valuable contribution both to scholarship on Horace's Satires and to our understanding of Epicurean thought and discourse in first-century bc Rome.