Finally, in the homely, unconventional wisdom which fills _Satire_ and
_Epistle_ and sparkles from the _Odes_, Horace is again the national
interpreter. The masses of Rome or Italy had little consciously to do
with either Stoicism or Epicureanism. Their philosophy was vigorous
common sense, and was learned from living, not from conning books.
Horace, too, for all his having been a student of formal philosophy in
Athens, for all his professed faith in philosophy as a boon for rich and
poor and old and young, and for all his inclination to yield to the
natural human impulse toward system and adopt the philosophy of one of
the Schools, is a consistent follower of neither Stoic nor Epicurean.
Both systems attracted him by their virtues, and both repelled him
because of their weaknesses. His half-humorous confession of wavering
allegiance is only a reflection of the shiftings of a mind open to the
appeal of both:

And, lest you inquire under what guide or to what hearth I look for
safety, I will tell you that I am sworn to obedience in no master's
formula, but am a guest in whatever haven the tempest sweeps me to. Now
I am full of action and deep in the waves of civic life, an unswerving
follower and guardian of the true virtue, now I secretly backslide to
the precepts of Aristippus, and try to bend circumstance to myself, not
myself to circumstance.

Horace is either Stoic or Epicurean, or neither, or both. The character
of philosophy depends upon definition of terms, and Epicureanism with
Horace's definitions of pleasure and duty differed little in practical
working from Stoicism. In profession, he was more of the Epicurean; in
practice, more of the Stoic. His philosophy occupies ground between
both, or, rather, ground common to both. It admits of no name. It is not
a system. It owes its resemblances to either of the Schools more to his