HORACE: ODES
A COMMENTARY ON
HORACE: ODES
BOOK III
BY
R . G . M . N I S B E T
AND
N I A L L R U D D
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© R. G. M. Nisbet and Niall Rudd
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available
ISBN0–19–926314–
3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
Typeset by Kolam Information Services Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by
PR EFAC E
Th i swork follows the same lines as the commentaries by Nisbet and Hubbard on Books I and II of the Odes (Oxford, 1970 and 1978). It concentrates on individual poems and problems, and aims to elucidate the poet’s meaning at the most literal level; it is not another book about the Odes in general. Yet in view of the lapse of time since the earlier volumes we have repeated a few facts in the General Introduction, and at the same time have summarized our approach, particularly on con-troversial matters.
Recently there has been some discussion about the commentary as a literary form: see G. W. Most (ed.), Commentaries—Kommentare (Go¨ttingen,1999), R. K. Gibson and C. S. Kraus (edd.),The Classical Commentary (Leiden, 2002). In the case of Horace the size of the bibliography causes particular difficulty; inevitably our own reading has been selective. While a commentary should be clear at all costs and not unreasonably long, these aims would never have been realized if we had done full justice even to the more important books and articles. As in the earlier volumes the editors try to support their interpret-ations by citing parallel passages; these may record an allusion to a predecessor, exemplify a commonplace, provide the reason for prefer-ring a textual variant, illustrate a syntactical usage, or give evidence for a historical or antiquarian point. We use the catch-all ‘cf.’ to introduce these different types of parallel; it is objected that this obscures import-ant distinctions and fails to show how the author is using his models, but the reason for the citation is usually obvious, and where Horace significantly modifies his predecessor a note is normally supplied. To avoid clogging the exegesis with lengthy lists, we have often selected the earliest or most interesting parallels and then added a cross-reference to TLL, OLD, or a more expansive commentator like Mayor, Pease, or Bo¨mer. We do not hesitate to cite classical authors later than Horace, as they may exemplify a standard locution or be derived from a common source. We have sometimes quoted imitations of Horace in major English poets; these should not be allowed to determine the interpret-ation of our text, though of course the reception of Horace is an important theme in the study of European literature (see for instances the introduction to3.30).
to integrate political and philosophical themes in his lyrics, his virtuos-ity in adapting Greek metres to the heavier Latin language, his use of traditional forms to present his unique personality, and above all the range of his style and tone which his imitators have found inimitable.
As our collaboration developed we reached a large measure of agree-ment. In the few places where we differed, rather than attempt an unsatisfactory compromise we have used our initials to indicate our separate positions. As before, the editors owe much to previous com-mentators, especially Bentley, Orelli–Hirschfelder, and Kiessling– Heinze, and to the interpretation of theOdesby H. P. Syndikus (edn. 3, Darmstadt, 2001); the attractive short commentary on Book 3 by David West (Oxford, 2002) appeared too late to be consulted. It remains only to thank the staff of the Oxford University Press for bringing the book to completion.
Corpus Christi College, Oxford R. G. M. N.
University of Bristol N. R.
August2003
CONTENTS
bibliography
ix
general introduction
xix
1. horace
’
s early life
xix
2. the date of
Odes
i
–
iii
xix
3. the
‘
roman odes
’
xx
4. horace and augustus
xxi
5. maecenas and other addressees
xxii
6. horace
’
s
‘
love-poems
’
xxiii
7. religion in horace
xxiii
8. the meaning of the author
xxiv
9. ambiguity
xxv
10. person and persona
xxvi
11. genre
xxvi
12. style
xxvii
13. structure
xxvii
14. the arrangement of the book
xxviii
15. the text
xxix
16. the ancient commentators
xxix
17. metre
xxx
commentary
1
index nominvm
379
index verborvm
383
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This bibliography lists books cited in abbreviated form in the commen-tary; references like ‘Kroll24’ can be elucidated here. It does not include either articles or commentaries on other works. In the commentary a select bibliography is prefixed to each ode; the expression ‘op. cit.’ normally refers to those bibliographies, not to this one. For further details see W. Kissel, ANRW II. 31. 3 (Berlin, 1981), 141ff.; E. Doblhofer, Horaz in der Forschung nach 1957 (Darmstadt, 1992); W. Kissel in S. Koster (ed.),Horaz-Studien(Erlangen,1994),116ff.
(a) texts and commentaries
For fuller lists see Schanz–Hosius2.152and Kissel (1981) cited above. Lambinus, D. (1561), Lyons.
Bentley, R. (1711), Cambridge; edn.3(1728), Amsterdam (repr.1869). Mitscherlich, C. G. (1800), vol.2, Leipzig.
Peerlkamp, P. Hofman (edn.2,1862), Amsterdam. Schu¨tz, H. (edn.3,1881), Berlin.
Orelli, J. C., revised by W. Hirschfelder (edn.4,1886), Berlin. Kiessling, A. (edn.2,1890), Berlin.
Page, T. E. (1895), London.
Wickham, E. C. (edn.3,1896), Oxford. Gow, J. (1896), Cambridge.
Keller, O., and Holder, A. (edn.2,1899), Leipzig (text and parallels). Mu¨ller, L. (1900),2vols., St Petersburg and Leipzig.
Shorey, P., and Laing, G. J. (edn.2,1910), Chicago, repr. Pittsburgh,1960. Wickham, E. C., revised by H. W. Garrod (edn. 2, 1912), Oxford Classical
Texts.
Darnley Naylor, H. (1922), Cambridge.
Heinze, R. (edn.7of Kiessling,1930; edn.10,1960), Berlin. Campbell, A. Y. (edn.2,1953), Liverpool.
Klingner, F. (edn.3,1959), Leipzig (text only). Williams, G. (1969), Oxford (Book3only). Quinn, K. (1980), London.
Borzsa´k, S. (1984), Leipzig (text only).
Syndikus, H. P. (2001),Die Lyrik von Horazedn.3,2vols., Darmstadt (a literary commentary with valuable detail).
West, D. (2002),Dulce Periculum, Oxford (Book3only).
(b)other books cited
Abbe, E. (1965),The Plants of Virgil’s Georgics, Ithaca. Adams, J. N. (1982),The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London.
—— and Mayer, R. G. (edd.) (1999),Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, Oxford.
Allen, W. S. (1965and1978),Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, Cambridge.
Anderson, J. K. (1961)Ancient Greek Horsemanship, Berkeley. —— (1985),Hunting in the Ancient World, Berkeley.
Andre´, J. (1949),E´tudes sur les termes de couleur dans la langue latine, Paris. —— (1967),Les Noms d’oiseaux en latin, Paris.
Appel, G. (1909, repr.1975),De Romanorum precationibus, Giessen.
Axelson, B. (1945),Unpoetische Wo¨rter: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache, Lund.
Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S. R. (1998),Religion in Rome,2vols., Cam-bridge.
Bell, A. J. (1923),The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction, London and Toronto. Binder, G. (1971),Aeneas und Augustus, Interpretationen zum8. Buch der Aeneis,
Meisenheim am Glan.
Blu¨mner, H. (1875–87, vol. 1, edn. 2, 1912), Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Ku¨nste bei Griechen und Ro¨mern, Leipzig.
—— (1911),Die Ro¨mischen Privataltertu¨mer, Munich.
Bo, D. (1960),De Horati poetico eloquio, vol.3ofQ. Horati Flacci opera(Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum), Turin.
Bolton, J. D. P. (1962),Aristeas of Proconnesus, Oxford. Bompaire, J. (1958),Lucien e´crivain: imitation et cre´ation, Paris.
Boucher, J.-P. (1965), E´tudes sur Properce: Proble`mes d’interpre´tation et d’art, Paris.
Bruchmann, C. F. H. (1893),Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Graecos leguntur, supplement in Roscher, vol.7, Leipzig.
Brunt, P. A. (1971)Italian Manpower, Oxford. —— (1990),Roman Imperial Themes, Oxford.
Burkert, W. (1985),Greek Religion, Archaic and Classical(Oxford), translation of Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche(1977).
Cairns, F. (1972),Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry, Edinburgh. Campbell, A. Y. (1924),Horace: A New Interpretation, London.
Carter, J. B. (1902),Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Latinos leguntur, supple-ment in Roscher, vol.7, Leipzig.
Cavarzere, A. (1996),Sul limitare: Il‘motto’e la poesia di Orazio, Bologna. Christ, F. (1938),Die ro¨mische Weltherrschaft in der antiken Dichtung(Tu¨binger
Beitr.31), Tu¨bingen.
Collinge, N. E. (1961),The Structure of Horace’s Odes, London.
Commager, S. (1962),The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study, New Haven and London.
Copley, F. O. (1956), Exclusus Amator: A Study in Latin Love Poetry (Amer. Philol. Assoc. monograph17).
Costa, C. D. N. (ed.) (1973),Horace, London and Boston. Crook, J. A. (1967),Law and Life of Rome, London.
Curtius, E. R. (1953),European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, London, translated from the German edition.
Davis, G. (1991),Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Dickey, E. (2002),Latin Forms of Address, Oxford.
Doblhofer, E. (1966),Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz in formalhistorischer Sicht, Heidelberg.
Earl, D. C. (1961),The Political Thought of Sallust, Cambridge.
Ernout, A., and Meillet, A. (edn.4,1959),Dictionnaire e´tymologique de la langue latine,2vols., Paris.
Esser, D. (1976),Untersuchungen zu den Odenschlu¨ssen bei Horaz(Beitr. zur klass. Philol.77), Meisenheim am Glan.
Flower, H. I. (1996),Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford.
Fraenkel, E. (1957),Horace, Oxford.
—— (1960),Elementi plautini in Plauto, Florence, translation with addenda of Plautinisches im Plautus(1922), Berlin.
—— (1964),Kleine Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Philologie,2vols., Rome.
Fu¨hrer, R. (1967),Formproblem—Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der fru¨hgrie-chischen Lyrik(Zetemata44), Munich.
Galinsky, K. (1996),Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton. Gatz, B. (1967),Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen
(Spudas-mata16), Hildesheim.
Grassmann, V. (1966),Die erotischen Epoden des Horaz(Zetemata39), Munich. Griffin, J. (1985),Latin Poets and Roman Life, London.
Gutzwiller, K. J. (1998),Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berke-ley and Los Angeles.
Handford, S. A. (1947),The Latin Subjunctive: Its Usage and Development from Plautus to Tacitus, London.
Hardie, P. (1986),Virgil’sAeneid: Cosmos and Imperium, Oxford. Harrison, S. J. (ed.) (1995),Homage to Horace, Oxford.
—— (ed.) (2001),Texts, Ideas, and the Classics, Oxford. Hilgers, W. (1969),Lateinische Gefa¨ssnamen, Du¨sseldorf.
Horden, P., and Purcell, N. (2000),The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterra-nean History, Oxford.
Housman, A. E. (1972),Classical Papers(ed. J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear),3
vols., Cambridge.
Hubbard, M. (1974),Propertius, London.
Irwin, E. (1974),Colour Terms in Greek Poetry, Toronto.
Kambylis, A. (1965),Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik, Heidelberg. Keller, O. (1909–20, repr.1963),Die antike Tierwelt,2vols., Leipzig.
Kroll, W. (1924),Studien zum Versta¨ndnis der ro¨mischen Literatur, Stuttgart, repr. (1964) Darmstadt.
Lacey, W. K. (1996),Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of the System(Arca
35), Leeds.
La Penna, A. (1963),Orazio e l’ideologia del principato, Turin. —— (1993),Saggi e studi su Orazio, Florence.
Latte, K. (1960),Ro¨mische Religionsgeschichte, Munich.
Lattimore, R. (1942),Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs(Illinois Studies in Language and Literature28), Urbana.
Le Boeuffle, A. (1977),Les Noms latins d’astres et de constellations, Paris. Leo, F. (1912),Plautinische Forschungen, Berlin, repr. (1966) Darmstadt. Lieberg, G. (1982),Poeta Creator: Studien zu einer Figur der antiken Dichtung,
Amsterdam.
Lo¨fstedt, E. (vol.1, edn.2,1942; vol.2,1933),Syntactica: Studien und Beitra¨ge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, Lund.
Lovejoy, A. O., and Boas, G. (1935, repr.1997),Primitivism and Related Themes in Antiquity, Baltimore.
Lowrie, M. (1997),Horace’s Narrative Odes, Oxford.
Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1980),The Latin Love Poets from Catullus to Horace, Oxford. —— (1987),Further Voices in Vergil’sAeneid, Oxford.
—— (1989), Words and the Poet: Characteristic Techniques of Style in Vergil’s Aeneid, Oxford.
Murray, O., and Tecus˛an, M. (edd.) (1995),In Vino Veritas, London.
Neue, F., and Wagener, C. (edn. 3, 1892–1905), Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, Berlin.
Newman, J. K. (1967), Augustus and the New Poetry (Coll. Latomus 100), Brussels.
Nicolet, C. (1991),Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire, Ann Arbor.
Nisbet, R. G. M. (1995),Collected Papers on Latin Literature, Oxford. Nissen, H. (1883–1902),Italische Landeskunde,2vols., Berlin.
Nock, A. D. (1972),Essays on Religion and the Ancient World,2vols., Oxford. Norden, E. (1913),Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religio¨ser
Rede, Leipzig–Berlin, repr. (1956) Darmstadt.
O’Hara, J. J. (1996),True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymo-logical Wordplay, Ann Arbor.
Oliensis, E. (1998),Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge.
Onians, R. B. (edn.2,1954),The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, and the Soul . . . , Cambridge.
Oppermann, H. (ed.) (1972),Wege zu Horaz(Wege der Forschung99), Darm-stadt.
Otto, A. (1890),Die Sprichwo¨rter und sprichwo¨rtlichen Redensarten der Ro¨mer, Leipzig, repr. (1962) Hildesheim.
Pape, W., and Benseler, G. F. (edn.3,1911),Wo¨rterbuch der griechischen Eigenna-men, Brunswick, repr. (1959) Graz.
Parker, R. (1983), Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford.
Paschalis, M. (1997), Virgil’s Aeneid: Semantic Relations and Proper Names, Oxford.
Pasquali, G. (1920),Orazio lirico, Florence, repr. with addenda by A. La Penna,
1984.
Pichon, R. (1902),De sermone amatorio apud Latinos elegiarum scriptores, Paris¼ Index verborum amatoriorum, Hildesheim (1966).
Porter, D. H. (1987),Horace’s Poetic Journey: A Reading ofOdes1–3, Princeton. Po¨schl, V. (edn.2,1991),Horazische Lyrik, Heidelberg.
Pulleyn, S. (1997),Prayer in Greek Religion, Oxford.
Raaflaub, K. A., and Toher, M. (edd.) (1990), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford. Rawson, E. (1985),Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, Oxford. Reitzenstein, R. (1963),Aufsa¨tze zu Horaz, Darmstadt, a collection of reprinted
articles.
Rohde, E. (edn.3,1914),Der griechische Roman und seine Vorla¨ufer, Leipzig, repr. (1960) Hildesheim.
Roscher, W. H. (1884–1937),Ausfu¨hrliches Lexicon der griechischen und ro¨mischen Mythologie, Leipzig.
Ross, D. O., Jr. (1975),Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome, Cambridge.
Rudd, N. (1966),The Satires of Horace, Cambridge. —— (ed.) (1993),Horace2000: A Celebration, London.
Saller, R. P. (1982),Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge. Salmon, E. T. (1967),Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge.
Santirocco, M. (1986), Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes, Chapel Hill and London.
Schanz, M., and Hosius, C. (vol. 2, edn. 4, 1927), Geschichte der ro¨mischen Literatur, Munich.
Schmidt, E. A. (2002),Zeit und Form, Heidelberg.
Scho¨nbeck, G. (1962),Der Locus Amoenus von Homer bis Horaz(Diss.), Heidel-berg.
Scullard, H. H. (1981),Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, London. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1982),Profile of Horace, London.
Simon, E. (1990),Die Go¨tter der Ro¨mer, Munich.
Sittl, C. (1890),Die Geba¨rden der Griechen und Ro¨mer, Leipzig.
Steinby, E. M. (ed.) (1993–2001),Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, Rome. Stroh, W. (1971),Die ro¨mische Liebeselegie als werbende Dichtung, Amsterdam. Suerbaum, W. (1968),Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung a¨lterer ro¨mischer
Dich-ter(Spudasmata19), Hildesheim.
Syme, R. (1939),The Roman Revolution, Oxford. —— (1978),History in Ovid, Oxford.
—— (1979–91),Roman Papers,7vols., Oxford. —— (1986),The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford.
Taillardat, J. (1962),Les Images d’Aristophane: E´tudes de langue et de style, Paris. Tara´n, S. L. (1979),The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden. Thomas, R. F. (1999),Reading Virgil and his Texts, Ann Arbor.
Thompson, D’A. W. (1936), A Glossary of Greek Birds, Oxford, repr. (1966) Hildesheim.
Thomson, J. O. (1948),History of Ancient Geography, Cambridge. Toynbee, J. M. C. (1973),Animals in Roman Life and Art, London. Treggiari, S. (1991),Roman Marriage, Oxford.
Troxler-Keller, I. (1964),Die Dichterlandschaft des Horaz, Heidelberg. Wackernagel, J. (edn.2,1926–8),Vorlesungen u¨ber Syntax,2vols., Basel. Weinstock, S. (1971),Divus Julius, Oxford.
White, K. D. (1970),Roman Farming, London.
White, P. (1993),Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, Cam-bridge, Mass.
Wilkinson, L. P. (edn.2,1951),Horace and his Lyric Poetry, Cambridge. Wille, G. (1967),Musica Romana, Amsterdam.
Williams, G. (1968),Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry, Oxford. Wills, J. (1996),Repetition in Latin Poetry, Oxford.
Wimmel, W. (1960),Kallimachos in Rom (Hermes Einzelschriften16), Wies-baden.
Wissowa, G. (edn.2,1912),Religion und Kultus der Ro¨mer, Munich. Wo¨lfflin, E. (1933),Ausgewa¨hlte Schriften, Leipzig.
Woodcock, E. C. (1959),A New Latin Syntax, London.
Woodman, T., and West, D. (edd.) (1984), Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus, Cambridge.
—— and Feeney, D. (edd.) (2002), Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace, Cambridge.
Zanker, P. (1988), The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor, translated from (1987),August und die Macht der Bilder, Munich.
(c)concordances
Cooper, Lane (1916, repr.1961),A Concordance of the Works of Horace, Washing-ton.
Iso Echegoyen, J.-J. (1990),Concordantia Horatiana, Hildesheim.
(d)abbreviations
For periodicals seeL’Anne´e philologiqueorOCDedn.3.
ALL Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik(1884–1909). ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini
and W. Haase (1972– ).
CAH Cambridge Ancient History(edn.2,1961– ).
CGL Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, ed. G. Goetz (1888–1923). CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum(1863– ).
CLE Carmina Latina Epigraphica, ed. F. Bu¨cheler and
E. Lommatzsch (1895–1926).
CMA The Oxford Guide to Classical Mythology in the Arts,1300–1990s, ed. J. D. Reid,2vols. (1993).
Coll. Alex. Collectanea Alexandrina, ed. J. U. Powell (1925).
CRF Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, ed. O. Ribbeck (1898).
DNP Der Neue Pauly(1996– ).
Encicl. oraz. Enciclopedia oraziana(1996–8). Encicl. virg. Enciclopedia virgiliana(1984–91).
FGrH Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby (1923–58). FLP The Fragmentary Latin Poets, ed. E. Courtney (1993).
FPL Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum, ed. W. Morel (1927); edn.2ed. K. Bu¨chner (1982).
GL Grammatici Latini, ed. H. Keil (1855–80).
GLP Greek Literary Papyri: Poetry, ed. D. L. Page (1942).
GV Griechische Vers-Inschriften I: Grab-Epigramme, ed. W. Peek (1955).
HE Hellenistic Epigrams, ed. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page,2vols. (1965).
H–Sz J. B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr,Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Handb. der Alt.2.2.2),1965.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae(1873– ).
IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, ed. R. Cagnat etc. (1901–27).
ILLRP Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, ed. A. Degrassi, edn.2
(1957–63).
ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau (1892–1916). K–G R. Ku¨hner and B. Gerth, Ausfu¨hrliche Grammatik der
Grie-chischen Sprache: Satzlehre(1898–1904).
K–S R. Ku¨hner and C. Stegmann,Ausfu¨hrliche Grammatik der latei-nischen Sprache:Satzlehre(1912–14).
LGPN A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, ed. P. M. Fraser, etc. (1987– ). LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae(1981–99). LSJ Liddell and Scott,Greek–English Lexicon, rev. H. Stuart Jones,
edn.9(1925–40).
MRR Magistrates of the Roman Republic, ed. T. R. S. Broughton (1951–
86).
Mus. Lap. Musa Lapidaria, ed. E. Courtney,American Classical Studies36
(1995).
N–H R. G. M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard,Commentary on Horace, Odes
1(1970),11(1978).
OCD The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edn. 3, ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (1996).
OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger (1903–5).
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare (1968–82). PCG Poetae Comici Graeci, ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin (1983– ). PG Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne
(1857–66).
PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani, edn.1, (1897–8), edn.2, (1933– ). PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne
(1844–64).
PLM Poetae Latini Minores, ed. A. Baehrens (1879–81), Leipzig, rev. F. Vollmer (1911–35).
PMG Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. Page (1962). RAC Reallexikon fu¨r Antike und Christentum(1941– ).
RE Real-Encyclopa¨die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll (1893– ).
ROL Remains of Old Latin (Loeb edn.), ed. E. H. Warmington, 4
vols. (1934–53).
SIG Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, edn. 3
(1915–24).
Supp. Hell. Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons (1983).
TGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edn.2, ed. A. Nauck (1889), suppl. by B. Snell (1964).
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae(1900– ).
TRF Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, ed. O. Ribbeck (1897). TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. B. Snell, R. Kannicht, S.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1
. Horace’s early life
Horace was born on8December65 bc(3.21.1,epist.1.20.27f., Suet. vita71R) at Venusia in Apulia (serm. 2.1. 34ff.,carm.3. 4.9ff.). His father had once been a slave, probably as a result of capture in the Social War (G. Williams ap. Harrison, 1995: 296ff.); the stigma of servile origin, however unfair, remained and is made clear at serm. 1.6.5ff. and45f. After his emancipation the father made good as an auctioneer and provider of credit (serm.1.6.86, Fraenkel4f.), and could afford to educate his son not only at Rome (serm.1.6.76ff.) but also at Athens (epist. 2. 2. 43ff.); Horace exaggerates the humbleness of his origins (3.30.12,epist.1.20.20), but by the standards of his later friends his background was undoubtedly restricted. In42 bche served as atribunus militumunder Brutus at Philippi (serm.1.6.48,carm.2.7.9ff.,3.4.26), evidence of energy and organizational ability; but though he lost his patrimony (epist.2.2.50f.), within a few years he had made peace with Octavian’s victorious faction, obtained a high-ranking post in the treas-ury (serm.2.6.36, Suet.vita8, Fraenkel14f.), and resumed his position as aneques Romanus(serm.2.7.53, Lyne,1995:3n.). About37 bche was befriended by Maecenas (serm.2.6.40), under whose auspices he wrote two books ofsermonesor satires (issued about35and30) and completed his collection ofiambior epodes (again about30). In36he saw some-thing of Octavian’s war against Sextus Pompeius (3.4.28n.), and in31he seems to have accompanied Maecenas to Actium (epod. 1 and 9, cf. perhapscarm.3.1.38–9n.).1In the meantime Maecenas had presented
him with a property in the Sabine hills (serm.2.6.1ff.,carm.1.17,3.1. 47–8n.) that gave him an income from his tenants’ rents, and the leisure to write. For further biographical detail seeEnciclopedia oraziana1.217ff.
2
. The date of
Odes
I–III
The first three books were issued together (epist. 1. 13. 2 speaks of volumina), but the poems were not in chronological order. The date was probably23 bcin the consulship of Sestius (whose position in1.4is otherwise hard to explain), before the death of Marcellus later in the
1 See E. Wistrand,
same year (N–H vol.1, p.145on1.12.45f.), and before the disgrace of Murena (the recipient of2.10),2which is put by Dio
54.3in22 bc. Some of the non-political poems may have been written earlier than Actium (Encicl. oraz. 1. 220), before the Satires were completed, but political allusions are the most reliable criterion of date. It is sometimes said that Horace might have made revisions up to23; but though an elegiac or hexameter poet might have done it, this would have been more difficult with the complex structures of the Odes. G. O. Hutch-inson now argues that the three books were issued separately (CQ 52, 2002:517ff.); though he does not persuade us, he provides some valuable details.
3
. The ‘Roman Odes’
The first six poems of Book III have been called the Roman Odes at least since Plu¨ss (1882). They share the Alcaic metre in contrast to Horace’s usual variatio, a substantial length, an absence of individual addressees, a subject-matter that concentrates on the political and moral issues which were thought important by the new regime, and an im-pressive seriousness of style.3.4seems to belong to29, when Octavian returned in triumph from the East and demobilized his army (38n.),3.6 looks forward to his repair of the temples in28(res gest.20.4), a date that also suits the apparent abandonment of his first attempt at moral legislation (see the introduction to that poem). In January 27 he as-sumed the name ‘Augustus’, by which he is described at3.3.11and3.5.3; later that year he departed for Gaul, from where he was expected to invade Britain (cf.3.5.3–4n. and possibly3.3.56).3.2cannot be dated; 3.1serves as an introduction to the series and perhaps to the book as a whole.
Many have seen in the Roman Odes not just a common form and purpose but a carefully planned unity of design. Mommsen thought the series celebrated the new constitution of27 bc(cf.Reden und Aufsa¨tze, 1905: 168ff.), but this seems too late for nos. 4 and 6. Domaszewski found in poems2–5the qualities represented on the shield presented to Augustus in27,virtus,iustitia,clementia,pietas(RhM59,1904:302ff.); but that, apart from being incomplete, is far too schematic a treatment. Many have claimed to detect various patterns of arrangement and cross-reference,3 but these are often arbitrary and unconvincing: for
2
The Murena of2.10(a poem that commends the Golden Mean) must be the alleged conspirator, one of whose associates was the Peripatetic philosopher Athenaeus (Strabo14. 5.4, N-H vol.2, p.152).
3
example, the simplicity of life commended in3.1is not the same as the pauperiesthat the young soldier must learn to endure (3.2.1);3.1.7‘clari Giganteo triumpho’ (of Jupiter himself ) has a different function from3.4. 49ff. (the defeat of the Titans), which is a clear political analogy to the overthrow of the Antonians. Some have even thought of treating the series as one long poem,4
but the dates of the odes are different, their subjects quite distinct, and all have convincing openings and closures.
4
. Horace and Augustus
In considering this question we reject two contradictory approaches. A former generation of scholars, well represented by Fraenkel (1957), was content to accept Augustan ideology on its own terms, without regard to the violence and deception that characterized Octavian’s seizure and retention of power, and to assume that Horace felt the same in every respect. A contrary and more recent approach has been to exaggerate the similarities between Augustus and the chief dictators of the twenti-eth century, and then sometimes to seek hints of subversion in Horace; this is to ignore the poet’s closeness to the regime, as shown later by Augustus’ wish to make him his secretary (Suet. vita18), and also to disregard the feelings of loyalty that counted for more in Rome than the political independence valued in modern democracies. It can be debated how far Horace was sincere in his support of Augustus’ policies, indeed whether the concept of sincerity is relevant to the public utterances of a court-poet (see the introduction to3.6); but whatever view one takes of his private commitment, it must be agreed that Horace showed great skill in selecting illustrations which he knew would have a wide appeal. Thus Antony is damned indirectly by eloquent Pindaric allegories (3.4); Augustus’ moral policy is made more acceptable by vignettes of metro-politan decadence and rustic simplicity (3.6); the abandonment of the prisoners in Parthia is justified by invoking the legendary self-sacrifice of Regulus (3.5); references to the ruler-cult in Rome are confined to the future (3. 3. 11, 3. 5. 2), where they would cause less offence to traditional attitudes.
Apart from the Roman Odes a few poems in the book are concerned with Augustus.3.24(like3.1) denounces materialism and (like3.6) calls for moral revival; the implication that earlier attempts have failed (vv. 25ff.) suggests that it too should be assigned to about 28 bc. In
111ff. For the independent composition of the six odes see R. Heinze, Vom Geist des Ro¨mertums, edn.3,1960:190ff., L. Amundsen,SOsuppl.11,1942:1ff. (¼Oppermann, 1972:111ff.).
4 Diomedes (
3.25, under the inspiration of Bacchus, the poet talks of celebrating the Princeps; this is often thought to refer to the Roman Odes, but the celebration may not look beyond the poem itself. In26 bcAugustus was absent in Spain fighting the Cantabrians in the north, and in25he was seriously ill at Tarraco on the east coast; see the introduction to3.8, which we assign to the latter year. In24 bcHorace celebrates the great man’s return to Rome in an ode that combines his roles as a public and a private poet (3.14); here he emphasizes what all reasonable people must have felt by that date, that the survival of Augustus is at once the strongest guarantee against the renewal of civil war and the best hope for the country’s regeneration.
5
. Maecenas and other addressees
Three odes in the book are addressed to Maecenas:3.8,3.16(beginning the second half ), and 3. 29 (the last poem before the epilogue); in addition3.1has some pointers in the same direction (see the introduc-tion to that poem). Maecenas was not Horace’s patronus (a word not used in the Augustan period of literary patrons), but rather hisamicus— even if an unusually grand one (Saller,1982:8ff., P. White:1993,29ff., 280f.). The poems mentioned above allude to various aspects of his life and personality—his pride in his Etruscan ancestors, the grandeur of his life-style, his wide learning, his munificence, and the worries caused by his political responsibilities (especially in the absence of Augustus). At the same time Horace is ready to tease him about his eminence (Lyne, 1995:102ff.), and even to hint, perhaps, that his wealth has not brought him so much happiness as the Sabine estate has brought to the poet (see 3.1and3.16). In Book4, when Maecenas’ political power seems to have waned (Lyne,1995:136ff.,189ff.) Horace still speaks of him warmly (11. 17ff.), and we are told that Maecenas’ final commendation to Augustus was ‘Horatii Flacci ut mei memor esto’.
In the period ofOdes1–3Maecenas was still close to Augustus, and in spite of his equestrian status he had a deserved reputation for diplomatic skill (serm.1.5.27ff.,carm.3.16.15n.). One no longer thinks of him as a propaganda-minister issuing fiats to poets, but the emphasis is now sometimes too much the other way. It is not enough to point out that people absorb their opinions from the prevailing atmosphere, for in the twenties Augustus was still consolidating his position, and positive guidance was needed. In the Roman Odes Horace seems to have followed the official line in every particular (see also 3. 24. 54ff. for the criticism of young men’s sports), and Maecenas was the obvious intermediary between the Princeps and the poet; no one, least of all Horace himself, would have regarded the gift of the Sabine estate as an act of wholly disinterested benevolence.
Only three other poems are addressed to identifiable people, namely Aelius Lamia (17), Murena the augur (19), and the great orator and statesman Messalla Corvinus (21). As usual Horace includes tactful or humorous allusions to the personalities and families of the recipients. Yet, unlike the second book of odes and the first book of epistles,Odes3 puts rather little emphasis on friendship.
6
. Horace’s ‘love-poems’
Horace’s KæøØŒ show little of the emotional involvement found in Catullus or Propertius. One of his roles is that of the urbane and experienced consultant. Thus he urges Asterie to ignore her serenading lover (7), consoles the love-lorn Neobule (12), and warns Pyrrhus not to compete with a predatory woman for the favours of a good-looking boy (20). When he professes to speak of his own case, he wittily adapts the traditional situations of love-poetry, the paraclausithyron in 10, the renuntiatio amoris in 26, the propempticon in 27; when he reminds Lyde of the heroically loyal Hypermestra (11) and Galatea of the spec-tacularly indiscreet Europa (27), hisexemplaare entertaining rather than moving. His amusement is often directed wryly at himself: Lydia is given the last word in her tart exchanges with the poet (26), if Lyce and Neaera are unresponsive (10and14), he will not persist, and though he pretends (unconvincingly) to have given up his interest in girls, he says he would like to get his own back on Chloe (26). He admits to many relationships with bothpuellaeandpueri(epod.11.4,serm.2.3.325,carm. 4. 1. 29ff.), and his references to hetaerae no doubt reflect personal experience (Griffin,1985: 20f.), but that is not to say that the names and situations are to be taken as historically authentic. He does not lay claim to lasting affections (4.1.30ff., cf.1.13.17ff.), whether because of the ambiguity of his social position or simply his inborn nature. Some-times he is more brutally sexist than any other Augustan poet (seeepod. 8and12,serm.1.2.116ff.,carm.1.25,2.5,3.15,4.13,epist.1.18.71ff.); yet towards the end he seems to have regretted the loneliness which his bachelor life-style has brought (4. 1. 30f.). For further discussion see N–H vol.1, pp. xvi f., Lyne (1980),201ff., B. Arkins ap. Rudd (1993), 106ff.,Encicl.oraz.1.527ff.
7
. Religion in Horace
pedantry and anthropological speculation cannot illuminate: the recur-ring festivals reflect the age-old rhythms of the agricultural year (3.13, 3.18), there is awe at the mystery of woods, caves, and springs (cf.3.25. 2n. and the introduction to 3. 13), the solemn rites convey a sense of peace and order (3.1.2n.,3.14.5ff.,3.30.8f.), as in the tableaux of the Ara Pacis. Moreover, Roman religion was unusually tolerant and inclu-sive, as is shown by the incorporation of Greek cults even in the earliest times (3.3.9n.,3.14.1); it found a place for slaves and freedmen (see 3.23on the Penates), women had goddesses to suit their special needs (3.22.2ff.), and as it was not constricted by any formal creed it could accommodate even a sceptic like Horace. See further Wissowa (1912) and Latte (1960) for antiquarian detail; for more modern approaches add Beard–North–Price (1998), D. Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome(1998), especially the summary at2ff.
8
. The meaning of the author
To establish Horace’s meaning on the most literal level may seem difficult when one is dealing with a dead language; yet in this respect Horace is easier than Shakespeare and far easier than many a modern. According to one theory which has been familiar for over half a century, the writer’s intention is always unknowable. This dogma exaggerates the difficulties in the concept,5and underestimates the amount of common
ground shared by poetry and everyday communication: if even a tenth of our ordinary discourse were as problematic as poetic discourse is sup-posed to be, social life would soon become chaotic. So in dealing with basic questions of language we have followed a long and well-tried tradition, inviting others to refute our views (or to supplement them) by evidence and argument.
On broader issues, which Horace may not have consciously con-sidered, modern theory has more to offer. When he dreams of swim-ming down the Tiber in pursuit of Ligurinus (4. 1. 40), a Freudian psychologist might provide analogous case-histories, a social anthro-pologist could show how the gift of an estate created binding obliga-tions, types of ancient slavery have been illuminated by Marxists, we ourselves have no doubt been influenced by feminists in our criticism of Horace’s treatment of women. On more literary matters the critic can study ‘interaction in imagery’ (3.11.41–2n.), or the point of view in a narrative (see the story within a story at3.7. 9ff.), or the poem that refers to itself (3. 25. 7n.), or the part of nightfall in closures (3. 28. 16n.); such things were not discussed in ancient rhetorical theory, which naturally concentrated on prose, yet they are clearly relevant to the
5
See N. Rudd,Phoenix18,1964:221ff., M. Heath,Interpreting Classical Texts,2002: 59ff.
understanding of ancient poems. Where we take issue with post-moderns is over their dogmatic fervour6 and their esoteric use of
language, which implies that their subject is not for theprofani. If such critics would apply their insights more often to the exegesis of particular poems, it might be easier to have a constructive debate.
9
. Ambiguity
This word may describe various phenomena. In the most obvious kind of case a double meaning is exploited for an amusing effect, as in the combination of wine-jar and divinity (3.21). Often the associations of a word allow a verbal play not transferable to English (3.4.44‘fulmine sustulerit caduco’,3.27.22‘orientis Austri’). In aiming at precision the commentator may make unnecessary distinctions: thus it can be debated whether at3.4.75Orcumis the underworld or the god or both at once. Some would argue that we have given too much weight to precise syntactical labels that would have meant nothing to users of the lan-guage; see for instance the note on donec firmaret (3. 5. 45–6). More importantly, Horace can say things where the superficial meaning is not the real point: thus at3.2.26f. ‘betraying the mysteries’ seems to refer primarily to state secrets; at3.14.27f., when the poet mentions his hot-headednessconsule Planco, he is referring not so much to his pursuit of women as to his youthful bravado in joining Brutus’ army.
Such ambiguities present no problem, but it is another matter when critics tell us that all language is ambiguous and may contain the seeds of its own contradiction; communication between sensible people usu-ally works better than that. Of course there may be special problems in interpreting poets, who sometimes extend normal usage; but though Virgil’s expressions not uncommonly have a penumbra that is hard to analyse, Horace is usually more straightforward. Some recent critics have been too ready to imagine implausible layers of meaning (we quote a few examples, which could easily be multiplied, at the end of the introduction to3.13). Of course we ourselves may sometimes have made the wrong choice, as at 3.15.4 where we prefer one interpretation of propiorto several others; if we are wrong we can be refuted by lexico-graphical analysis, but it is no solution to say that incompatible inter-pretations are equally valid. When the issue is related to the poem’s central meaning, such uncertainty is more troublesome (as at3.26.11f., 3. 27. 69ff.), but a poet who in principle (ars 448f.) and practice is generally clear cannot intend to confuse us; if we have misread the clues, we are ready to believe that it is our fault rather than his.
6
10
. Person and persona
Fraenkel thought that Horace never lied (1957:200and260), but many now go to the opposite extreme and assume that, while the poet plays various roles, the man remains invisible. In fact discrimination is neces-sary. It is usually possible to distinguish statements where invention would have been pointless and in principle detectable from poetical fantasies (2.19.1ff.,3.4.9ff.,3.25.1ff.); we must not be tempted into the absurd scepticism of those who regard Ovid’s exile as a poetic fiction. Moreover, while Horace undoubtedly adopts various personae, for example that of a simple fellow eager for advice about the law (serm. 2.1.1–23) or wine (serm.2.4.1–10), or of one who has much in common with the country mouse (serm.2.6), this device does not prevent us from drawing valid conclusions about his views and character.7 When he
presents himself in several genres as sceptical and pleasure-loving, and at the same time hot-tempered (3.9.22–3n.), it is hard to believe that he is making it all up. We do, however, have to make a sensible allowance for tactical self-depreciation (‘irony’ in Aristotle’s sense). Was the young man quite so overwhelmed at his interview with Maecenas (serm.1.6.56f.)? And later so utterly ignorant about matters discussed at the dinner-tables of the great (serm.2.6.51ff.)? Such passages may lead us to underrate his position on the fringe of the Augustan court.
11
. Genre
We include only points relevant to this commentary. Genres (e.g. lyric) and their subdivisions (e.g. paean) derive originally from their social function, and each had its appropriate style and topics; yet even in early Greece the drinking-songs of Alcaeus and the love-poems of Sappho need not be exactly what they profess. Hellenistic and Roman poetry was written primarily for a reading public and was not limited by the requirements of any particular performance; Horace can allude to the formulae of hymns (11, 13, 18, 21) or dedications (22, 26) without following them precisely. Genres in the strict sense should be distin-guished from the situation-poems analysed by Cairns (1972), which can cut across generic categories; thus a propempticon or ‘sending-off ’ poem can be found in lyric, bucolic, and elegy, to say nothing of elements already present in Homer (see the introduction to27). Cairns makes use of the rhetorical treatises of Menander Rhetor of aboutad 300(edited by D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson,1981); although these gave prescriptions for ceremonial prose orations (real or artificial) and employed technical terms that need not all have been familiar to the Augustans, they can be relevant to our purpose as they draw on topics of
7See N. Rudd,
early Greek poetry. Wilhelm Kroll identified the ‘crossing of the genres’ as a feature of Hellenistic and Roman poetry (1924: 202ff., cf. A. Barchiesi ap. Harrison,2001:142ff.); thus 3.11includes a hymn, a poem of courtship, and a mythological narrative, and in 3. 14 the celebration of Augustus’adventusis followed by another type of situ-ation-poem, the preparation for a symposium. Though the Augustans were obviously influenced by these various conventions, great flexibility was possible; the poet was always in charge, and we should not judge the quality of a poem by its correspondence to some preconceived form (cf. Griffin,1985:48ff.). For further discussion see L. E. Rossi,BICS18,1971: 69ff., G. B. Conte, Genres and Readers, 1994 and OCD 630f., Lyne (1995),59ff., A. Barchiesi,Encicl.oraz.2.35ff.
12
. Style
The style of theOdes(more than that of any other Latin poetry) makes them the despair of a translator; it is also the hardest feature to character-ize. A few generalizations are offered in N–H vol.1, p. xxii, emphasizing his incisiveness, artificial constructions (including Graecisms), and his ‘unpoetical’ vocabulary (for a clarification of Axelson’s term see3.5.53– 4n.). In N–H vol.2more attention was paid to word-play, partly under the influence of D. West ap. Costa (1973),40ff. In this volume we say rather more about word-order and the emphasis given by hyperbaton and position (see further Nisbet ap. Adams–Mayer,1999: 135ff.); in these matters we have derived some benefit from the neglected commentary of H. Darnley Naylor (1922). We call particular attention to the remarks on stylistic register made in Adams–Mayer both by the editors (3ff.) and by R. G. G. Coleman (21ff.); they underline the ambiguity of ‘prosaic’ where a term like ‘neutral’ would often be more appropriate. On syntax we refer not only to the standard works of Ku¨hner and Hofmann but to the article by Frances Muecke inEncicl.oraz.2.755ff.
13
. Structure
Every ode is carefully organized, so that as a rule nothing could be taken away without impairing the whole. The opening tends to be arresting (not least in the first poem), and may pose a puzzle that needs to be resolved (8, 16, 19,21); apart from the Roman Odes and some other exceptions most poems are addressed to a real or imaginary person, a god (4,18,22), or a sacred object (the lyre in11, the spring in13, the wine jar in 21), so that they often begin with a question (7,8,20,25) or an imperative (4, 11, 15, 21). Closures are no less important,8 and may
8
contain a trenchant aphorism (2,6,16,24), a ‘breaking-off formula’ (3) or a diminuendo (5,28), or a reference to the poet himself (1,13,25,29, 30) which is sometimes self-depreciating (10,14,19). The centre of the poem can act as a pivot; see the introductions to8 and14. Sometimes there is an element of ‘ring-composition’ (13, 25), sometimes the ode ends far from where it began, describing, in A. Y. Campbell’s phrase, a parabola rather than a circle (14,19). Sometimes the second part con-tains a narrative that may include a speech (3,11,27). Again, an ode may break neatly into pairs of stanzas (1,9), or it may, for a deliberate effect, sweep along with few pauses at the end of the line (25). For details we refer to the introductions to the separate odes; see further N. E. Collinge (1961), Syndikus ap. Harrison (1995), 17ff., Y. Nadeau, Coll. Latomus266,2002:362f. (with references to earlier articles).
14
. The arrangement of the book
Much attention has been paid to this subject, notably by Santirocco (1986) and Porter (1987). The Roman Odes (1–6) obviously form a group, though it is less integrated than is sometimes supposed. 3. 1 with its Epicureanism and its possible hints at Maecenas is balanced to some extent by 3. 29, the great ode to Maecenas that precedes the personal epilogue. Maecenas is also addressed at the beginning of the second half of the book (16); for the significance of this position cf.1.20 and4.8(which though it has no reference to Maecenas is written in the same metre as1.1and3.30),epod.9,serm.1.6, and G. B. Conte,YCS29, 1992:147ff. When he came to arrange the book Horace no doubt put some poems together because they invited comparison or contrast: the light-hearted warning to Asterie (7) comes after the stern denunciation in6;22and23both deal with rustic offerings; it may be significant that 26(fifth last in the collection) balances1.5, just as30balances1.1. But those who look for significance in every juxtaposition, and discern complicated sequences and cycles, forget that such a work would have been impossible to organize (Nisbet,1995:423f.). We do not believe that the comparison of the poet to the Adriatic (9.22ff.) is linked to the bad weather of10.3ff., or that the stern father of11.45balances the stern uncle of12.3, or that the boar-hunt of12.12leads to the sacrifice of the kid in13.3. It has been suggested that when he came to prepare the book for publication Horace made various changes here and there to produce the kind of relationships envisaged; but, except perhaps for the opening of3.1, there is no evidence to support such a theory, and it is incredible that he would have tampered with carefully organized poems to achieve such trivial results.
15
. The text
Horace’s manuscripts are all medieval, with none earlier than the ninth century; for some details see Brink, The Ars Poetica, 1971: 1ff., R. J. Tarrant in Texts and Transmission (ed. L. D. Reynolds), 1983: 182ff., C. Questa in Encicl. oraz. 1. 319ff. They divide roughly into two families, called Æ and in the Oxford text of Wickham and Garrod (1912),˛ and in the Teubner texts of Klingner (1959) and Borzsa´k (1984); Shackleton Bailey (Teubner, 1985 etc.) presents the evidence most clearly by keeping the symbol and breaking the˛group into its components. Well-attested readings presumably go back to the ancient world and so are seldom complete nonsense (contrast the text of Catullus); this may be a snare for those whose only method is to follow the manuscripts through thick and thin. When the transmitted reading causes any doubt, conjectures may be considered; it is irrational to suppose that a conjecture should not be mentioned unless it is certain. Of recent editors Borzsa´k cites insignificant variants but is reluctant to take conjectures seriously; Shackleton Bailey offers interesting new proposals but is too ready to print them in his text. In the present volume the lemmata provide a continuous text, though without an apparatus or testimonia (for the latter see Klingner or Borzsa´k). We have put only two of RN’s conjectures in the lemmata (3.1.42 Sidone, 3.26.6lurida), but in the notes have suggested some thirty others with varying degrees of confidence or diffidence.
16
. The ancient commentators
Commentary
on
Horace
1. ODI PROFANVM VVLGVS
[K. Barwick, RhM 93, 1950: 259ff.; F. Cairns, PLLS 8, 1995: 91ff.; Fraenkel 261ff.; W. D. Lebek,ANRWII.31.3(1981),2065ff.; Lyne (1995),158ff.; G. J. Mader,Acta Classica
(South Africa)30,1987:11ff.; Pasquali649ff.,833ff.; V. Po¨schl,HSCP63,1958:333ff.¼
Horazische Lyrikedn.2,1991:144ff.; E. T. Silk,YClS13,1952:145ff. and23,1973:131ff.; F. Solmsen,AJP68,1947:337ff.¼Oppermann139ff.; T. Woodman ap. Woodman and West (1984),83ff.]
1–8. Let the uninitiated depart; I am teaching new chants to a fresh generation. Know that even dread kings must fear the rule of Jove.9–16. Men compete in landed wealth and political advantages, but high and low alike are subject to Fate.17–24.Theoverweening cannot enjoy their luxury or be lulled to sleep even by music, but sleep does not disdain lowly dwellings and a shady valley.25–32.The man of limited desires is undisturbed by the bad weather that harasses the acquisitive merchant and the dissatisfied landowner.33–40.The arrogant encroach on the sea with unnatural con-structions, but anxieties pursue them even there and cannot be escaped on sea or land.41–8.So, since mental pains are not assuaged by exotic luxuries, why should I rear a grandiose edifice or exchange my Sabine valley for the troubles of wealth?
The ode opens with an arresting scene: the poet, as priest of the Muses, bids outsiders depart (1n.), asks for silence (2n.), and sings his new song to the boys and girls who may be thought receptive (4n.). His proclamation is earnest and uncompromising: dreaded kings, for all their earthly power, are subject to divine law (5–8). This thought is given a particular application in the next two stanzas (9–16), though with less solemnity: in spite of men’s various ambitions (here described with some satire), everybody dies in the end. The reader is expected to keep this idea in mind for the remainder of the poem. There, in a series of vignettes, the evils of riches are contrasted with the blessings of simplicity; but except in the first and most extreme example (that of the tyrant), there is no talk of actual impiety. The emphasis is on private happiness and how it is threatened by the anxieties of wealth.
exemplar the shortness of life makes nonsense of our strenuous rivalries, we are often anxious about matters of minor importance, self-indulgence and ostentation do nothing to assuage our fears, happiness is to be found in the simple life and the acceptance of what is there. Many of the details, too, have counterparts in Lucretius, though the arrangement of the original has been changed (again as in2.16): e.g. competition for status (10ff., cf. Lucr.2.11ff.), elaborate banquets (17ff., cf. 2.23ff.), the sound of music (20, cf.2.28), the repose of the poor (21ff., cf.2.36ff.), the shady bank (23f., cf.2.29ff.), mankind’s limited needs (25, cf.2.20f.), anxiety that cannot be shaken off (40, cf.2.48), useless purple (42, cf.2.35,52), the concludingquodsi(41, cf.2.47). The central doctrine obviously comes from Epicurus himself:P ºØ c B łıB ÆæÆc Pb c Iغª IªfiA Ææa h ºF æø › ªØ hŁ Ææa E ººE Øc ŒÆd æºłØ h
¼ºº Ø H Ææa a IØæı ÆNÆ (sent.Vat.81, cf.2.16.9with
N–H). In 3. 29, the corresponding poem before the epilogue of the whole collection, the Epicurean element is equally clear: there as here the luxury and anxieties of the city are contrasted with simple meals in the country ‘sine aulaeis et ostro’ (15).
These Epicurean elements can to some extent be reconciled with traditional Roman attitudes. Criticisms of avaritia and luxuria had been popular since Cato with moralizing orators, and had recently found forceful expression in the monographs of Sallust. Augustan ideology pointed in the same direction: aristocratic ostentation made for disharmony, and the rivalries of selfish and ambitious men were no longer encouraged; contentment and acceptance made for peace and stability. A simple life-style was commended by the Princeps himself: one thinks of his Palatine house as described by Suetonius (Aug. 72, doubtless exaggerating its austerity); and the passages on his clothes, furniture, and diet are no less relevant (ibid.73–4). Yet the fact remains that in our poem Horace rejects luxury because it does not lead to happiness, not because it is socially and politically unacceptable (Lyne, 1995:162f.); contrast2.15, which concentrates on ancestral norms rather than Epicurean precepts. While it would be absurd to suppose that he is undermining the very system that he professes to support (even Lyne’s phrase ‘benignly subversive’ goes too far), it is true that by adopting a predominantly private stance, Horace has written a poem which is less overtly patriotic than the other Roman Odes. There is some reason in the conjecture that the portentous opening has been grafted onto a more personal piece to serve as an introduction to the series.
si non ingentem foribus domus alta superbis mane salutantum totis vomit aedibus undam, nec varios inhiant pulchra testudine postis inlusasque auro vestis Ephyreiaque aera, alba neque Assyrio fucatur lana veneno, nec casia liquidi corrumpitur usus olivi . . .
Here as in the ode we have adomus alta(46n.) with ornamental doors (45n.) and a crowd of clients (13n.), a mention of exotic dyes (42n.), and an instance of the periphrastic usus. Virgil then goes on to speak of tempe(469, cf.24n.), ‘mollesque sub arbore somni’ (470, cf.21n.), the countryman’s lack of envy (498f.), and the misguided ambitions of political life (508ff., cf.10f.); for further details see B. Fenik, Hermes 90,1962:72ff. Perhaps Horace took a hint from his friend about how to conform with the current ideology without compromising his individu-alistic standpoint. But it is noticeable that whereas Virgil, like Lucre-tius, tells us little about his own way of life, the ode ends with the familiar picture of Horace on his Sabine estate.
The mention of Horace’s Sabine valley in the last stanza encourages us to see an expression of gratitude to Maecenas (see Cairns,1972:74f. on theeucharisticon); for similar acknowledgements in opening poems, cf. 1.1.35f., epod.1.31f. By the same token, sublime atrium(46) may include Maecenas’ Esquiline palace; cf.3.29.10,epod.9.3,serm.2.6.102 (the residence of the town mouse). RN detects further hints of Maece-nas’ life-style (for which see Mayor on Juv. 1. 66), comparing 2. 18, where again the great man is not actually identified as the householder (see N–H ad loc., Lyne,1995:126ff.); he would cite the references at v.9 to extensive estates (cf.3.16.41n.), at v.13to crowds of clients (cf.2.18.8 with N–H), at vv.20f. to music as a treatment for insomnia (see note ad loc.), at vv.33ff. to avilla maritima(also perhaps at2.18.20ff.), at v.41 to exotic marble (cf.2. 18. 3), at v. 42 to purple fabrics (cf. N–H on 2.18.8), at v.44to royal perfumes (cf. perhaps3.29.4). When Care rides behind the eques(40), RN thinks of the equestrian Maecenas and his neurotic obsessions; Maecenas may also have owned a ‘private trireme’ like that mentioned in v.39 (see note). While it would be absurd to suppose that Horace is sneering, he can suggest that his benefactor has given him a happier life than his vast wealth has secured for himself.
intentions were, and whatever innuendoes were perceived by his en-emies, such correspondences did not cause serious offence (seeepist.1.1. 1ff.), and that they should not be given undue prominence in a poem which derives its weight from the generality of its truths.
The stanzas of 3.1 break into groups of two, as in the similar2.16 (Barwick, op. cit.); the articulation is underlined by the enjambment at the end of the odd-numbered stanzas (except the first). Each group (after the first) implies a different sphere of rivalry and discontent: the ownership of estates and and the pursuit of political power (3and4), the possession of luxuries (5and6), dissatisfaction with available sufficiency (7and8), pretentious and unnatural building (9and10), followed by the personal conclusion ‘if all this restless striving is not satisfied by material luxuries, why should I leave my Sabine valley?’ (11 and 12). The two halves of the poem end with pictures of rural serenity: the first (stanza6) expressed in general terms, the second (stanza12) centred on the poet himself (tempe in v. 24 is picked up by valle in 47). There are no connections between the pairs, except for the finalquodsiat v.47. The symmetry of the structure is not easily paralleled in Greek, and Syndi-kus (2.12) is right to distinguish the abrupt transitions of Pindar. One might compare the sententiae of declamation which often repeat the same point but by ingenious restatement give the appearance of pro-gression. But here the argument is conducted less by aphorisms than by a series of representative vignettes, which are mainly drawn from the contemporary Roman scene—a technique that is very typical of the Satires. Though the style is dry and rather formal, it is less solemn than is sometimes implied (cf. 9n., 33, 35ff.). And though Horace begins with a hieratic pronouncement, when he comes back to himself at the end his tone is human and personal.
Metre: Alcaic.
1. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo:odi(‘I shun’) balancesarceo(‘I keep it at a distance’); here the former verb emphasizes overt rejection, though emotional dislike is not excluded (cf.1.38.1‘Persicos odi, puer, appar-atus’,epist.1.7.20‘spernit et odit’,ars188, Fraenkel263).profanummay mean not ‘in front of the temple’ (Varro,lL6.54) but ‘away from the temple’ (Charis. gramm. p. 305. 20 Barwick ‘porro a fano positus’, Cairns, op. cit. 94); it is used in religious contexts of the uninitiated (Catull.64.260, Theoc. 26. 13f. ZæªØÆ BŒø = . . . P ›æØ ÆºØ) or those not participating in a rite. For the sacral arceo cf. Pacuv.TRF304f. ‘quamquam aetas senet, satis habeam virium ut te ara arceam’, Ogilvie on Liv.1.12.4. Ancient religion had a strong feeling for the sacred space; cf. Ar.Ach.239ff.,ran.369f., Eur.Bacch.68ff.
KØŁø (with Dodds), Call. h.2.2 Œa Œa ,‹Ø IºØæ , Virg. Aen.6.258‘procul o procul este, profani’, Paul. Fest.72L¼82M ‘exesto, extra esto. sic enim lictor in quibusdam sacris clamitabat: hostis, vinctus, mulier, virgo exesto; scilicet interesse prohibebatur’, O Weinreich, Aus-gewa¨hlte Schriften 2 (1973), 386f. For the application of the theme to literature cf. Ar. ran. 354ff.PE æc ŒIÆŁÆØ E æØØ
æEØ = ‹Ø ¼Øæ ØH ºªø j ªfi c ŒÆŁÆæØ = j
ªÆø ZæªØÆMıH r Kæı, Gell. praef.20f.
A real Roman priest did not speak for himself (Fraenkel264) or make portentous announcements (5ff.), and already Porph. sees a metaphor from the mysteries; for the pattern cf. the Orphic testamenta fr. 247.
1 Kern ŁªÆØ x ŁØ K,ŁæÆ KŁŁ,ºØ. Porph.
interprets the metaphor by indoctos and Musarum profanos, and no doubt H has been influenced by Callimachean manifestos about poetry; cf. especiallyep.28. 4ØŒÆø Æ a ØÆ, aet. fr. 1. 17ºº
BÆŒÆ Oºe ª , S. J. Heyworth,MD33,1994:54ff. But here the
religious metaphor refers primarily to content rather than literary style; cf. Hippocrates, lex 5 a b ƒæa KÆ æªÆÆ ƒæEØ IŁæØØ
ŒıÆØ,ºØØ b P ŁØ æd j ºŁHØ OæªØØ KØ ,
Plat.symp.218b. H exhorts the new generation not to be too impressed by wealth and power (cf.epist.2.1.119–38) and to make time for things that matter more; similarly in the ensuing odes he emphasizes such virtues as courage, piety, and chastity. The upper-class girls and boys who are contrasted with the profanum vulgusare chosen primarily for their untainted idealism, though NR thinks they may also be expected eventually to regard Horace’s new poetry with less prejudice than their elders (epist.2.1.18ff.).
2. favete linguis: ‘hold your peace’ (for the short opening syllable cf. tumultuosumin v.26, N–H vol.1, p. xl); for sacred silence cf.2.13.29 with N–H,3.14.11f.,3.30.9. The religious formula originally meant ‘make favourable utterance’ (hence the instrumental linguis), but the safest way of avoiding ill-omened words was to say nothing; cf. Serv. auct. Aen. 5. 71 ‘praeco magistratu sacrificante dicebat favete linguis, favete vocibus, hoc est bona omina habete aut tacete’, Pease on Cic. div.1.102, Bo¨mer on Ov.fast.1.71, Courtney on Juv.12.83. The Greek
PE changed in the same way (F. Williams on Call. h. 2. 17). The request was made after the exclusion of theprofani, as at Eur.Bacch. 68ff. cited in1n. above; it preceded a sacred song, as at Ar.Thesm.39f. For the application of the motif to literature cf. Ar.ran.354, cited above in1n., Prop.4.6.1‘sacra facit vates, sint ora faventia sacris’.
assonance of carmina. . .canto suits the sacral style (cf. 4. 15. 30ff. ‘carmine . . . canemus’). Roman poets, like their Greek predecessors (both early and Hellenistic), often lay claim to originality (3. 25. 7f. ‘adhuc / indictum ore alio’,3.30.13n., N–H on1.26.10and2.20.1); Porph. should not have restricted the issue to Latin lyric, as there is nothing like these poems in Alcaeus, and even an early piece like1.2 cannot equal the combined authority of the Roman Odes. Newness was also emphasized in Bacchic and other mysteries, as later in the world of the New Testament (E. Norden,Die Geburt des Kindes,1924:46f.); for other literary adaptations of this idea cf. Prop. 3. 1. 3f. ‘primus ego ingredior puro de fonte sacerdos / Itala per Graios orgia ferre choros’.
3. Musarum sacerdos:a poet could be compared to a priest for a variety of reasons (for some references see Kroll24ff., O. Falter, Der Dichter und sein Gott bei den Griechen und Ro¨mern, diss. Wu¨rzburg1934, Kam-bylis12ff., Newman99ff., N–H on1.31.2). In early Greece he might be called the æ or interpreter of the Muses, because like the Delphic priestess he imposed form on material that seemed to present itself spontaneously (Pind. fr.150Æ,MEÆ,æÆø Kª). Hellenistic poets and their Roman imitators underlined the arcane character of their art, their awareness of their high calling, and the splendour and formality of their procedures. Horace usesvatesfor the inspired bard (N–H on1.1.35), sometimes ironically (e.g.epist.2.2.102 ‘genus irritabile vatum’); sacerdos on the other hand emphasizes the authority and dignity of the poet’s pronouncements (for the distinction cf. Lyne,1995:184f.). At Rome there was anaedes Herculis Musarum, but the Muses had no independent priesthood (contrast Greece) and Horace’s reference is entirely literary (N. Horsfall,BICS23,1976:85).
5–6. regum timendorum in proprios greges, / reges in ipsos imperium est Iovis:the sacerdos now makes his proclamation (ŒæıªÆ). Just as kings rule their subjects, so Jupiter rules kings: the emphasis lies on the second clause (cf.9–16n.). In the same way the Orphictestamenta,after dismissing the profane (1n.), proceed to the praises of the supreme god (245. 9f. Kern). H is not just paying the conventional tribute of an exordium to Jupiter (N–H on1.12.13, Pasquali654); it is central to his meaning (here expressed in Stoic terms) that even the rich and powerful are subject to the laws of the universe.
The kings are Eastern rulers who, because of their total and arbitrary power, are dreaded by their own subjects (Tarrant on Sen.Ag.72f.), but must dread Jupiter in turn. H is not arguing that the rulers are God’s representatives on earth (Call.h1.79, N–H on1.12.50ff., cf.3.6.5), and he would not have regarded Augustus as either arexor as timendusin the sense required here (otherwise D. P. Fowler ap. Harrison,1995:264); cf. rather1.35.12(to Fortune) ‘(te) purpurei metuunt tyranni’, Philemon
31(PCG7, p.244),4f.FºØ Æغø N,› Æغf ŁH,=› Łe
IªŒ , Manil.4.93, Sen.Thy.612‘omne sub regno graviore regnum est’. For H’s use ofincf.4.4.2‘regnum in aves’, Plaut.Pers.343, Ter. eun.415.propriosimplies ownership, but its main function is to underline the limits of a king’s imperium; Jupiter on the other hand rules over everything (cunctain v.8).gregesis as often disparaging: a good king may be the shepherd of his people (Hom.Il.2.243 etc.), but it is another matter to call the people thegrexof the king.
7. clari Giganteo triumpho:the Giants in their arrogance would not submit to the moral order of the universe (Cic. sen.5 ‘quid est aliud Gigantum modo bellare cum dis nisi naturae repugnare?’), but in spite of their strength they were subject to the limitations of the earth-born (Philodemus, de morte 4. 37 A ¼Łæø ,Œi Nıææ fi H
ˆØªø,Kæ KØ æe øc ŒÆd ºı). Elsewhere their
rebelliousness is associated with resistance to earthly rulers, notably Augustus (2.12.6f. with N–H, more explicitly3.4.53ff.).
8. cuncta supercilio moventis:the phrase represents a variation of an epic commonplace; cf. Hom.Il.1.528ff.q ŒÆd ŒıÆfiØ K OæØ F ˚æø =. . .ªÆ KººØ !ˇºı, Catull.64.204ff. (numine), Virg.Aen.9.106(‘adnuit et totum nutu tremefecit Olympum’). In our passage the gesture is not just a sign of assent but indicates Jupiter’s power to move the cosmos with the minimum effort; cf. Dio Chrys.12. 25, quoting Homer, loc. cit.F ØÆ Oºªfiø ÆØ H Oæø
e ÆÆ !ˇºı. For movetcf. Plaut. rud.1 ‘qui gentes omnes
comments about the use of the eyebrows see Plin. nat. hist. 11. 138, Quint.11.3.79, Sittl92.
9–16. est ut viro vir latius ordinet / arbusta sulcis . . . :these two stanzas have a bipartite structure (Mader, op. cit.13): (a) men strive for superior-ity in various fields (9–14, the so-called ‘preamble’or ‘foil’), (b) but all men are mortal (14–16, the climax or ‘apex’ of the argument); for similar patterns cf. 1. 1. 3ff. (with N–H p. 2), 1. 7. 1ff., 3. 27. 1–2n. The conclusion follows naturally from the second stanza, though it is now expressed in specifically Roman terms: all men, however successful, are subject to Jupiter or Fate. Woodman maintains that the lives referred to in the preamble are all meritorious and provide a foil to theimpiusof v. 17 (op. cit. 92f.); on the contrary, they are by implication over-competitive (Mader, op. cit. 15f.) and lead up to the criticisms of greed and ambition that occupy the latter part of the poem.
The periphrastic est ut means ‘it happens that’ (K–S 2. 237); the formula binds the four clauses together and sets them against the inevitability of death (Heinze). The polyptotonviro vir(i.e. the repeti-tion of a word in a different case) recalls sardonically the combats of epic; cf. Hom.Il.16.215, Furius Bibaculus,FLP10‘pressatur pede pes, mucro mucrone, viro vir’, Virg.Aen.10.361etc., Wills195ff.arbustawas particularly applied to plantations of trees on which vines were trained (Virg.georg.2.416,OLDs.v.2). Such trees were arranged in neat ranks (Cic.sen.59, Varr.rust.1.7.2, Colum.3.13.5‘ordinent vineam paribus intervallis’); ordinent also suits an army on parade (cf. Virg. georg. 2. 279ff.), and so sustains the heroic tone ofviro vir. latiusmeans ‘over a wider area’ (cf.2. 2. 9 ‘latius regnes’), not ‘at greater intervals’ (Virg. georg.2.277‘indulge ordinibus’); H is critical oflatifundia, and viticul-ture was particularly profitable.
Thesulciare the trenches in which the supporting trees were planted (Colum.5.6.10‘sulci . . . qui arbores recipiant praeparandi’); shallower furrows were dug for the vines (Cato, agr. 49. 2, Virg. georg. 2. 289, Colum. 3. 13. 5), but it was the former that gave the plantation its pattern.sulcisis generally taken as a local ablative, but we are inclined to see it as instrumental (‘arrays plantations with trenches’); cf. Varr. rust.3.5.11‘porticus . . . arbusculis humilibus ordinatae’, Colum.5.3.7 ‘vitibus locum . . . ordinare’, Mart.3.58.2‘otiosis ordinata myrtetis’ (of a villa). sulcisbelongs to the laborious side of country life, like ‘hedging and ditching’ (cf.epist.1.7.84‘sulcos et vineta crepat mera’); as such it is set against the pretensions oflatius ordinet.
