"INQUIT" «PERPETUA FORMULA»? STORIA DI UNA QUESTIONE DELICATA (HOR., "SAT.", 1, 4, 79 E 2, 2, 99)

Richard Bentley, in his seminal edition of Horace's work, wrote that in Sat., 1, 4, 79 the variant inquis had to be replaced by the obvious inquit, a «perpetua formula» used by Cicero, Seneca and other ancient writers. The same is even more true for Sat., 2, 2, 99. This note has had an enormous success by the editors (not only of Horace' work), and the last century's editions of the Satires have followed the authority of Bentley. However, the dialogical structure of Sat., 1, 4 is in some important ways different from that of other 'monological' satires, because of the relevance of a main Gegner with which Horace argues. Within this structure, inquis can be the right variant, having the support of the manuscripts, whereas Sat., 2, 2 shows a different — and in a way misleading — dialogical frame: therefore inquit can be accepted. This article offers the history of the issue in the modern editions and commentaries and deals with the so-called «perpetua formula» in other writers.