A commentary on horace odes book III

1985, Latin Poets and Roman Life, London.. The ‘Roman Odes’ The first six poems of Book III have been called the Roman Odes atleast since Plu¨ss 1882.. Apart from the Roman Odes a few poe

HORACE: ODES

BOOK III

This page intentionally left blank

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 ISBN 0–19–926314– 

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

Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk

PR EFAC E

Th i s work follows the same lines as the commentaries by Nisbet andHubbard on Books I and II of the Odes (Oxford, 1970 and 1978) Itconcentrates on individual poems and problems, and aims to elucidatethe poet’s meaning at the most literal level; it is not another book aboutthe Odes in general Yet in view of the lapse of time since the earliervolumes we have repeated a few facts in the General Introduction, and

at the same time have summarized our approach, particularly on troversial matters

con-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 ClassicalCommentary (Leiden, 2002) In the case of Horace the size of thebibliography causes particular difficulty; inevitably our own readinghas been selective While a commentary should be clear at all costsand 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 ations by citing parallel passages; these may record an allusion to apredecessor, exemplify a commonplace, provide the reason for prefer-ring a textual variant, illustrate a syntactical usage, or give evidence for ahistorical or antiquarian point We use the catch-all ‘cf.’ to introducethese 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 Horacesignificantly modifies his predecessor a note is normally supplied Toavoid clogging the exegesis with lengthy lists, we have often selected theearliest or most interesting parallels and then added a cross-reference toTLL, OLD, or a more expansive commentator like Mayor, Pease, orBo¨mer We do not hesitate to cite classical authors later than Horace, asthey may exemplify a standard locution or be derived from a commonsource We have sometimes quoted imitations of Horace in majorEnglish poets; these should not be allowed to determine the interpret-ation of our text, though of course the reception of Horace is animportant theme in the study of European literature (see for instancesthe introduction to 3 30)

interpret-Needless to say, in recording parallels we are not denying Horace’soriginality, as some critics of the first volume supposed In fact weregard him as one of the most original of ancient poets for his ability

to integrate political and philosophical themes in his lyrics, his ity in adapting Greek metres to the heavier Latin language, his use oftraditional forms to present his unique personality, and above all therange of his style and tone which his imitators have found inimitable.

virtuos-As our collaboration developed we reached a large measure of ment In the few places where we differed, rather than attempt anunsatisfactory compromise we have used our initials to indicate ourseparate positions As before, the editors owe much to previous com-mentators, especially Bentley, Orelli–Hirschfelder, and Kiessling–Heinze, and to the interpretation of the Odes by H P Syndikus (edn

agree-3, Darmstadt, 2001); the attractive short commentary on Book 3 byDavid West (Oxford, 2002) appeared too late to be consulted Itremains only to thank the staff of the Oxford University Press forbringing the book to completion

Corpus Christi College, Oxford R G M N.University of Bristol N R.August2003

CO N T EN T S

This page intentionally left blank

B I B LI O G R A P H Y

This bibliography lists books cited in abbreviated form in the tary; references like ‘Kroll 24’ can be elucidated here It does not includeeither articles or commentaries on other works In the commentary aselect bibliography is prefixed to each ode; the expression ‘op cit.’normally refers to those bibliographies, not to this one For furtherdetails see W Kissel, ANRW II 31 3 (Berlin, 1981), 141 ff.;

commen-E Doblhofer, Horaz in der Forschung nach 1957 (Darmstadt, 1992);

W Kissel in S Koster (ed.), Horaz-Studien (Erlangen, 1994), 116 ff

(a) texts and commentariesFor fuller lists see Schanz–Hosius 2 152 and 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), 2 vols., 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 ClassicalTexts

Darnley Naylor, H (1922), Cambridge

Heinze, R (edn 7 of 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 (Book 3 only)

Quinn, K (1980), London

Borzsa´k, S (1984), Leipzig (text only)

Shackleton Bailey, D R (1985, revised 2001), Stuttgart (text only)

Syndikus, H P (2001), Die Lyrik von Horaz edn 3, 2 vols., Darmstadt (a literarycommentary with valuable detail).

West, D (2002), Dulce Periculum, Oxford (Book 3 only)

(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 (1965 and 1978), Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of ClassicalLatin, 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 lateinischenDichtersprache, Lund

Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S R (1998), Religion in Rome, 2 vols., bridge

Cam-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 derGewerbe und Ku¨nste bei Griechen und Ro¨mern, Leipzig

—— (1911), Die Ro¨mischen Privataltertu¨mer, Munich

Bo, D (1960), De Horati poetico eloquio, vol 3 of Q Horati Flacci opera (CorpusScriptorum 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 ofGriechische 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

Capponi, A (1979), Ornithologia Latina, Genoa

Carter, J B (1902), Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Latinos leguntur, ment in Roscher, vol 7, Leipzig.

supple-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¨bingerBeitr 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 andLondon

Copley, F O (1956), Exclusus Amator: A Study in Latin Love Poetry (Amer.Philol Assoc monograph 17)

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, Berkeleyand 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 languelatine, 2 vols., 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 ofPlautinisches im Plautus (1922), Berlin

—— (1964), Kleine Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Philologie, 2 vols., Rome

Fu¨hrer, R (1967), Formproblem—Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der chischen Lyrik (Zetemata 44), Munich

fru¨hgrie-Galinsky, K (1996), Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton.Gatz, B (1967), Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen (Spudas-mata 16), Hildesheim

Grassmann, V (1966), Die erotischen Epoden des Horaz (Zetemata 39), Munich.Griffin, J (1985), Latin Poets and Roman Life, London

Gutzwiller, K J (1998), Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, ley and Los Angeles

Berke-Hand, F (1829–45), Tursellinus seu de particulis Latinis commentarii, Leipzig,repr (1969) Amsterdam

Handford, S A (1947), The Latin Subjunctive: Its Usage and Development fromPlautus to Tacitus, London.

Hardie, P (1986), Virgil ’s Aeneid: 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 nean History, Oxford

Mediterra-Housman, A E (1972), Classical Papers (ed J Diggle and F R D Goodyear), 3vols., 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, 2 vols., 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 inLanguage and Literature 28), 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 zurhistorischen 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 ’s Aeneid, Oxford

—— (1989), Words and the Poet: Characteristic Techniques of Style in Vergil ’sAeneid, Oxford

—— (1995), Horace: Behind the Public Poetry, New Haven and London.Maltby, R (1991), A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Arca 25), Leeds.Marquardt, J., and Mau, A (edn 2, 1886), Das Privatleben der Ro¨mer, Leipzig.Meiggs, R (1982), Trees and Timber in the Ancient Roman World, Oxford.Millar, F., and Segal, E (edd.) (1984), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford

Murray, O., and Tecus˛an, M (edd.) (1995), In Vino Veritas, London.

Neue, F., and Wagener, C (edn 3, 1892–1905), Formenlehre der lateinischenSprache, 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, AnnArbor

Nisbet, R G M (1995), Collected Papers on Latin Literature, Oxford.Nissen, H (1883–1902), Italische Landeskunde, 2 vols., Berlin

Nock, A D (1972), Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, 2 vols., Oxford.Norden, E (1913), Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religio¨serRede, Leipzig–Berlin, repr (1956) Darmstadt

O’Hara, J J (1996), True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of logical Wordplay, Ann Arbor

Etymo-Oliensis, E (1998), Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge

Onians, R B (edn 2, 1954), The Origins of European Thought about the Body, theMind, and the Soul , Cambridge

Oppermann, H (ed.) (1972), Wege zu Horaz (Wege der Forschung 99), stadt

Darm-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 men, Brunswick, repr (1959) Graz

Eigenna-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,

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 reprintedarticles

Richardson, L., Jr (1992), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome,Baltimore and London

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¨mischenMythologie, 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 andLondon

Schanz, M., and Hosius, C (vol 2, edn 4, 1927), Geschichte der ro¨mischenLiteratur, Munich

Schmidt, E A (2002), Zeit und Form, Heidelberg

Scho¨nbeck, G (1962), Der Locus Amoenus von Homer bis Horaz (Diss.), berg

Heidel-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 (Spudasmata 19), Hildesheim

Syme, R (1939), The Roman Revolution, Oxford

—— (1978), History in Ovid, Oxford

—— (1979–91), Roman Papers, 7 vols., 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, 2 vols., Basel.Weinstock, S (1971), Divus Julius, Oxford

West, M L (1992), Ancient Greek Music, Oxford

White, K D (1970), Roman Farming, London.

White, P (1993), Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, bridge, Mass

Cam-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 Einzelschriften 16), baden

Wies-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 ofAugustus, Cambridge

—— and Feeney, D (edd.) (2002), Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry ofHorace, 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

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, 2 vols (1993)

Coll Alex Collectanea Alexandrina, ed J U Powell (1925)

CRF Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, ed O Ribbeck (1898).DNP Der Neue Pauly (1996– )

D–S C Daremberg and E Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquite´s grecques

et romaines (1877–1919)

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 2 ed

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, 2 vols

(1965)

H–Sz J B Hofmann and A Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik

(Handb der Alt 2 2 2), 1965

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,

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

TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (1900– )

TRF Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, ed O Ribbeck (1897).TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed B Snell, R Kannicht, S

Radt (1971– )

This page intentionally left blank

G EN ER A L I N T RO D U C T I O N

1 Horace’s early life

Horace was born on 8 December 65 bc (3 21 1, epist 1 20 27 f., Suet.vita 71R) at Venusia in Apulia (serm 2 1 34 ff., carm 3 4 9 ff.) Hisfather had once been a slave, probably as a result of capture in the SocialWar (G Williams ap Harrison, 1995: 296 ff.); the stigma of servileorigin, however unfair, remained and is made clear at serm 1 6 5 ff.and 45 f After his emancipation the father made good as an auctioneerand provider of credit (serm 1 6 86, Fraenkel 4 f.), and could afford toeducate his son not only at Rome (serm 1 6 76 ff.) but also at Athens(epist 2 2 43 ff.); Horace exaggerates the humbleness of his origins(3 30 12, epist 1 20 20), but by the standards of his later friends hisbackground was undoubtedly restricted In 42 bc he served as a tribunusmilitum under Brutus at Philippi (serm 1 6 48, carm 2 7 9 ff., 3 4 26),evidence of energy and organizational ability; but though he lost hispatrimony (epist 2 2 50 f.), within a few years he had made peace withOctavian’s victorious faction, obtained a high-ranking post in the treas-ury (serm 2 6 36, Suet vita 8, Fraenkel 14 f.), and resumed his position

as an eques Romanus (serm 2 7 53, Lyne, 1995: 3 n.) About 37 bc he wasbefriended by Maecenas (serm 2 6 40), under whose auspices he wrotetwo books of sermones or satires (issued about 35 and 30) and completedhis collection of iambi or epodes (again about 30) In 36 he saw some-thing of Octavian’s war against Sextus Pompeius (3 4 28 n.), and in 31 heseems to have accompanied Maecenas to Actium (epod 1 and 9, cf.perhaps carm 3 1 38–9 n.).1

In the meantime Maecenas had presentedhim with a property in the Sabine hills (serm 2 6 1 ff., carm 1 17, 3 1

47–8 n.) that gave him an income from his tenants’ rents, and the leisure

to write For further biographical detail see Enciclopedia oraziana 1 217 ff

2 The date of Odes I–III

The first three books were issued together (epist 1 13 2 speaks ofvolumina), but the poems were not in chronological order The datewas probably 23 bc in the consulship of Sestius (whose position in 1 4 isotherwise hard to explain), before the death of Marcellus later in the

same year (N–H vol 1, p 145 on 1 12 45 f.), and before the disgrace ofMurena (the recipient of 2 10),2

which is put by Dio 54 3 in 22 bc.Some of the non-political poems may have been written earlier thanActium (Encicl oraz 1 220), before the Satires were completed, butpolitical allusions are the most reliable criterion of date It is sometimessaid that Horace might have made revisions up to 23; but though anelegiac or hexameter poet might have done it, this would have beenmore difficult with the complex structures of the Odes G O Hutch-inson now argues that the three books were issued separately (CQ 52,

2002: 517 ff.); though he does not persuade us, he provides some valuabledetails

3 The ‘Roman Odes’

The first six poems of Book III have been called the Roman Odes atleast since Plu¨ss (1882) They share the Alcaic metre in contrast toHorace’s usual variatio, a substantial length, an absence of individualaddressees, a subject-matter that concentrates on the political and moralissues which were thought important by the new regime, and an im-pressive seriousness of style 3 4 seems to belong to 29, when Octavianreturned in triumph from the East and demobilized his army (38 n.), 3 6looks forward to his repair of the temples in 28 (res gest 20 4), a datethat also suits the apparent abandonment of his first attempt at morallegislation (see the introduction to that poem) In January 27 he as-sumed the name ‘Augustus’, by which he is described at 3 3 11 and 3 5 3;later that year he departed for Gaul, from where he was expected toinvade Britain (cf 3 5 3–4 n and possibly 3 3 56) 3 2 cannot be dated;

3 1 serves as an introduction to the series and perhaps to the book as awhole

Many have seen in the Roman Odes not just a common form andpurpose but a carefully planned unity of design Mommsen thought theseries celebrated the new constitution of 27 bc (cf Reden und Aufsa¨tze,

1905: 168 ff.), but this seems too late for nos 4 and 6 Domaszewskifound in poems 2–5 the qualities represented on the shield presented toAugustus in 27, virtus, iustitia, clementia, pietas (RhM 59, 1904: 302 ff.);but that, apart from being incomplete, is far too schematic a treatment.Many have claimed to detect various patterns of arrangement andcross-reference,3

but these are often arbitrary and unconvincing: for

example, the simplicity of life commended in 3 1 is not the same as thepauperies that the young soldier must learn to endure (3 2 1); 3 1 7 ‘clariGiganteo triumpho’ (of Jupiter himself ) has a different function from 3 4.

49ff (the defeat of the Titans), which is a clear political analogy to theoverthrow of the Antonians Some have even thought of treating theseries as one long poem,4

but the dates of the odes are different, theirsubjects quite distinct, and all have convincing openings and closures

4 Horace and Augustus

In considering this question we reject two contradictory approaches Aformer generation of scholars, well represented by Fraenkel (1957), wascontent to accept Augustan ideology on its own terms, without regard

to the violence and deception that characterized Octavian’s seizure andretention of power, and to assume that Horace felt the same in everyrespect A contrary and more recent approach has been to exaggeratethe 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 byAugustus’ wish to make him his secretary (Suet vita 18), and also todisregard the feelings of loyalty that counted for more in Rome than thepolitical independence valued in modern democracies It can be debatedhow far Horace was sincere in his support of Augustus’ policies, indeedwhether the concept of sincerity is relevant to the public utterances of acourt-poet (see the introduction to 3 6); but whatever view one takes ofhis private commitment, it must be agreed that Horace showed greatskill 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 theprisoners in Parthia is justified by invoking the legendary self-sacrifice

of Regulus (3 5); references to the ruler-cult in Rome are confined tothe future (3 3 11, 3 5 2), where they would cause less offence totraditional attitudes

Apart from the Roman Odes a few poems in the book are concernedwith Augustus 3 24 (like 3 1) denounces materialism and (like 3 6) callsfor moral revival; the implication that earlier attempts have failed(vv 25 ff.) suggests that it too should be assigned to about 28 bc In

111 ff For the independent composition of the six odes see R Heinze, Vom Geist des Ro¨mertums, edn 3, 1960: 190 ff., L Amundsen, SO suppl 11, 1942: 1 ff (¼ Oppermann,

3 25, under the inspiration of Bacchus, the poet talks of celebrating thePrinceps; this is often thought to refer to the Roman Odes, but thecelebration may not look beyond the poem itself In 26 bc Augustus wasabsent in Spain fighting the Cantabrians in the north, and in 25 he wasseriously ill at Tarraco on the east coast; see the introduction to 3 8,which we assign to the latter year In 24 bc Horace celebrates the greatman’s return to Rome in an ode that combines his roles as a public and aprivate poet (3 14); here he emphasizes what all reasonable people musthave felt by that date, that the survival of Augustus is at once thestrongest guarantee against the renewal of civil war and the best hopefor the country’s regeneration.

5 Maecenas and other addressees

Three odes in the book are addressed to Maecenas: 3 8, 3 16 (beginningthe second half ), and 3 29 (the last poem before the epilogue); inaddition 3 1 has some pointers in the same direction (see the introduc-tion to that poem) Maecenas was not Horace’s patronus (a word notused in the Augustan period of literary patrons), but rather his amicus—even if an unusually grand one (Saller, 1982: 8 ff., P White: 1993, 29 ff.,

280f.) The poems mentioned above allude to various aspects of his lifeand personality—his pride in his Etruscan ancestors, the grandeur of hislife-style, his wide learning, his munificence, and the worries caused byhis political responsibilities (especially in the absence of Augustus) Atthe same time Horace is ready to tease him about his eminence (Lyne,

1995: 102 ff.), and even to hint, perhaps, that his wealth has not broughthim so much happiness as the Sabine estate has brought to the poet (see

3 1 and 3 16) In Book 4, when Maecenas’ political power seems to havewaned (Lyne, 1995: 136 ff., 189 ff.) Horace still speaks of him warmly (11

17ff.), and we are told that Maecenas’ final commendation to Augustuswas ‘Horatii Flacci ut mei memor esto’

In the period of Odes 1–3 Maecenas was still close to Augustus, and inspite of his equestrian status he had a deserved reputation for diplomaticskill (serm 1 5 27 ff., carm 3 16 15 n.) One no longer thinks of him as apropaganda-minister issuing fiats to poets, but the emphasis is nowsometimes too much the other way It is not enough to point out thatpeople absorb their opinions from the prevailing atmosphere, for in thetwenties Augustus was still consolidating his position, and positiveguidance was needed In the Roman Odes Horace seems to havefollowed the official line in every particular (see also 3 24 54 ff forthe criticism of young men’s sports), and Maecenas was the obviousintermediary between the Princeps and the poet; no one, least of allHorace himself, would have regarded the gift of the Sabine estate as anact of wholly disinterested benevolence

Only three other poems are addressed to identifiable people, namelyAelius Lamia (17), Murena the augur (19), and the great orator andstatesman Messalla Corvinus (21) As usual Horace includes tactful orhumorous allusions to the personalities and families of the recipients.Yet, unlike the second book of odes and the first book of epistles, Odes 3puts rather little emphasis on friendship.

6 Horace’s ‘love-poems’

Horace’s Kæø
، show little of the emotional involvement found inCatullus or Propertius One of his roles is that of the urbane andexperienced consultant Thus he urges Asterie to ignore her serenadinglover (7), consoles the love-lorn Neobule (12), and warns Pyrrhus not tocompete 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 thetraditional situations of love-poetry, the paraclausithyron in 10, therenuntiatio amoris in 26, the propempticon in 27; when he remindsLyde of the heroically loyal Hypermestra (11) and Galatea of the spec-tacularly indiscreet Europa (27), his exempla are entertaining rather thanmoving His amusement is often directed wryly at himself: Lydia isgiven the last word in her tart exchanges with the poet (26), if Lyce andNeaera are unresponsive (10 and 14), he will not persist, and though hepretends (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 manyrelationships with both puellae and pueri (epod 11 4, serm 2 3 325, carm

4 1 29 ff.), and his references to hetaerae no doubt reflect personalexperience (Griffin, 1985: 20 f.), but that is not to say that the namesand situations are to be taken as historically authentic He does not layclaim to lasting affections (4 1 30 ff., cf 1 13 17 ff.), whether because ofthe ambiguity of his social position or simply his inborn nature Some-times he is more brutally sexist than any other Augustan poet (see epod

8and 12, serm 1 2 116 ff., carm 1 25, 2 5, 3 15, 4 13, epist 1 18 71 ff.); yettowards the end he seems to have regretted the loneliness which hisbachelor life-style has brought (4 1 30 f.) For further discussion seeN–H vol 1, pp xvi f., Lyne (1980), 201 ff., B Arkins ap Rudd (1993),

106ff., Encicl oraz 1 527 ff

7 Religion in Horace

Other people’s religions are often hard to understand That of ancientRome may seem unattractive because of its blood-sacrifices (3 13 3 ff.),its bargaining spirit (3 18 5 ff.), its legalistic insistence on verbal accur-acy (3 21 5 n.), the absurdity of its superstitions (3 27 11 n on augury),its complacency about Rome’s role in the divine purpose (3 6 1 ff.) YetHorace, like Virgil, conveys some of the deeper feelings that antiquarian

pedantry and anthropological speculation cannot illuminate: the ring festivals reflect the age-old rhythms of the agricultural year (3 13,

recur-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 ofpeace and order (3 1 2 n., 3 14 5 ff., 3 30 8 f.), as in the tableaux of theAra Pacis Moreover, Roman religion was unusually tolerant and inclu-sive, as is shown by the incorporation of Greek cults even in the earliesttimes (3 3 9 n., 3 14 1); it found a place for slaves and freedmen (see

3 23 on the Penates), women had goddesses to suit their special needs(3 22 2 ff.), and as it was not constricted by any formal creed it couldaccommodate even a sceptic like Horace See further Wissowa (1912)and Latte (1960) for antiquarian detail; for more modern approachesadd Beard–North–Price (1998), D Feeney, Literature and Religion atRome (1998), especially the summary at 2 ff

8 The meaning of the author

To establish Horace’s meaning on the most literal level may seemdifficult when one is dealing with a dead language; yet in this respectHorace 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 thedifficulties in the concept,5

and underestimates the amount of commonground shared by poetry and everyday communication: if even a tenth ofour ordinary discourse were as problematic as poetic discourse is sup-posed to be, social life would soon become chaotic So in dealing withbasic questions of language we have followed a long and well-triedtradition, inviting others to refute our views (or to supplement them)

by evidence and argument

On broader issues, which Horace may not have consciously sidered, modern theory has more to offer When he dreams of swim-ming down the Tiber in pursuit of Ligurinus (4 1 40), a Freudianpsychologist 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, weourselves have no doubt been influenced by feminists in our criticism ofHorace’s treatment of women On more literary matters the critic canstudy ‘interaction in imagery’ (3 11 41–2 n.), or the point of view in anarrative (see the story within a story at 3 7 9 ff.), or the poem thatrefers to itself (3 25 7 n.), or the part of nightfall in closures (3 28

con-16n.); such things were not discussed in ancient rhetorical theory, whichnaturally concentrated on prose, yet they are clearly relevant to the

5

See N Rudd, Phoenix 18, 1964: 221 ff., M Heath, Interpreting Classical Texts, 2002: ff.

understanding of ancient poems Where we take issue with moderns is over their dogmatic fervour6

post-and their esoteric use oflanguage, which implies that their subject is not for the profani If suchcritics would apply their insights more often to the exegesis of particularpoems, 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 thecombination of wine-jar and divinity (3 21) Often the associations of aword allow a verbal play not transferable to English (3 4 44 ‘fulminesustulerit caduco’, 3 27 22 ‘orientis Austri’) In aiming at precision thecommentator may make unnecessary distinctions: thus it can be debatedwhether at 3 4 75 Orcum is the underworld or the god or both at once.Some would argue that we have given too much weight to precisesyntactical labels that would have meant nothing to users of the lan-guage; see for instance the note on donec firmaret (3 5 45–6) Moreimportantly, Horace can say things where the superficial meaning is notthe real point: thus at 3 2 26 f ‘betraying the mysteries’ seems to referprimarily to state secrets; at 3 14 27 f., when the poet mentions his hot-headedness consule Planco, he is referring not so much to his pursuit ofwomen as to his youthful bravado in joining Brutus’ army

Such ambiguities present no problem, but it is another matter whencritics tell us that all language is ambiguous and may contain the seeds

of its own contradiction; communication between sensible people ally works better than that Of course there may be special problems ininterpreting poets, who sometimes extend normal usage; but thoughVirgil’s expressions not uncommonly have a penumbra that is hard toanalyse, Horace is usually more straightforward Some recent criticshave been too ready to imagine implausible layers of meaning (we quote

usu-a few exusu-amples, which could eusu-asily be multiplied, usu-at the end of theintroduction to 3 13) Of course we ourselves may sometimes have madethe wrong choice, as at 3 15 4 where we prefer one interpretation ofpropior to 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’scentral meaning, such uncertainty is more troublesome (as at 3 26 11 f.,

3 27 69 ff.), but a poet who in principle (ars 448 f.) and practice isgenerally 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

We take comfort from the reservations of M Silk (ap Harrison, 2001: 26 ff.), himself

a modern theorist from whom we are prepared to learn.

10 Person and persona

Fraenkel thought that Horace never lied (1957: 200 and 260), but manynow go to the opposite extreme and assume that, while the poet playsvarious roles, the man remains invisible In fact discrimination is neces-sary It is usually possible to distinguish statements where inventionwould have been pointless and in principle detectable from poeticalfantasies (2 19 1 ff., 3 4 9 ff., 3 25 1 ff.); we must not be tempted intothe absurd scepticism of those who regard Ovid’s exile as a poetic fiction.Moreover, while Horace undoubtedly adopts various personae, forexample 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 commonwith the country mouse (serm 2 6), this device does not prevent us fromdrawing valid conclusions about his views and character.7

When hepresents himself in several genres as sceptical and pleasure-loving, and

at the same time hot-tempered (3 9 22–3 n.), it is hard to believe that he ismaking it all up We do, however, have to make a sensible allowance fortactical self-depreciation (‘irony’ in Aristotle’s sense) Was the young manquite so overwhelmed at his interview with Maecenas (serm 1 6 56 f.)?And later so utterly ignorant about matters discussed at the dinner-tables

of the great (serm 2 6 51 ff.)? Such passages may lead us to underrate hisposition 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 socialfunction, and each had its appropriate style and topics; yet even in earlyGreece the drinking-songs of Alcaeus and the love-poems of Sapphoneed not be exactly what they profess Hellenistic and Roman poetrywas written primarily for a reading public and was not limited by therequirements of any particular performance; Horace can allude to theformulae of hymns (11, 13, 18, 21) or dedications (22, 26) withoutfollowing them precisely Genres in the strict sense should be distin-guished from the situation-poems analysed by Cairns (1972), which cancut across generic categories; thus a propempticon or ‘sending-off ’poem can be found in lyric, bucolic, and elegy, to say nothing ofelements already present in Homer (see the introduction to 27) Cairnsmakes use of the rhetorical treatises of Menander Rhetor of about ad

300(edited by D A Russell and N G Wilson, 1981); although thesegave prescriptions for ceremonial prose orations (real or artificial) andemployed technical terms that need not all have been familiar to theAugustans, they can be relevant to our purpose as they draw on topics of

7 See N Rudd, Lines of Enquiry, 1976, 167 ff.

early Greek poetry Wilhelm Kroll identified the ‘crossing of the genres’

as a feature of Hellenistic and Roman poetry (1924: 202 ff., cf

A Barchiesi ap Harrison, 2001: 142 ff.); thus 3 11 includes a hymn, apoem of courtship, and a mythological narrative, and in 3 14 thecelebration of Augustus’ adventus is followed by another type of situ-ation-poem, the preparation for a symposium Though the Augustanswere obviously influenced by these various conventions, great flexibilitywas possible; the poet was always in charge, and we should not judge thequality of a poem by its correspondence to some preconceived form (cf.Griffin, 1985: 48 ff.) For further discussion see L E Rossi, BICS 18, 1971:

69ff., G B Conte, Genres and Readers, 1994 and OCD 630 f., Lyne(1995), 59 ff., A Barchiesi, Encicl oraz 2 35 ff

12 Style

The style of the Odes (more than that of any other Latin poetry) makesthem 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, emphasizinghis incisiveness, artificial constructions (including Graecisms), and his

‘unpoetical’ vocabulary (for a clarification of Axelson’s term see 3 5 53–

4n.) In N–H vol 2 more attention was paid to word-play, partly underthe influence of D West ap Costa (1973), 40 ff In this volume we sayrather more about word-order and the emphasis given by hyperbaton andposition (see further Nisbet ap Adams–Mayer, 1999: 135 ff.); in thesematters 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 (3 ff.) and

by R G G Coleman (21 ff.); they underline the ambiguity of ‘prosaic’where a term like ‘neutral’ would often be more appropriate On syntax werefer not only to the standard works of Ku¨hner and Hofmann but to thearticle by Frances Muecke in Encicl oraz 2 755 ff

13 Structure

Every ode is carefully organized, so that as a rule nothing could be takenaway without impairing the whole The opening tends to be arresting(not least in the first poem), and may pose a puzzle that needs to beresolved (8, 16, 19, 21); apart from the Roman Odes and some otherexceptions most poems are addressed to a real or imaginary person, agod (4, 18, 22), or a sacred object (the lyre in 11, the spring in 13, the winejar in 21), so that they often begin with a question (7, 8, 20, 25) or animperative (4, 11, 15, 21) Closures are no less important,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 thepoem can act as a pivot; see the introductions to 8 and 14 Sometimesthere is an element of ‘ring-composition’ (13, 25), sometimes the odeends far from where it began, describing, in A Y Campbell’s phrase, aparabola 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 maybreak 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), 17 ff., Y Nadeau, Coll.Latomus 266, 2002: 362 f (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 agroup, though it is less integrated than is sometimes supposed 3 1with its Epicureanism and its possible hints at Maecenas is balanced

to some extent by 3 29, the great ode to Maecenas that precedes thepersonal epilogue Maecenas is also addressed at the beginning of thesecond half of the book (16); for the significance of this position cf 1 20and 4 8 (which though it has no reference to Maecenas is written in thesame metre as 1 1 and 3 30), epod 9, serm 1 6, and G B Conte, YCS 29,

1992: 147 ff When he came to arrange the book Horace no doubt putsome poems together because they invited comparison or contrast: thelight-hearted warning to Asterie (7) comes after the stern denunciation

in 6; 22 and 23 both deal with rustic offerings; it may be significant that

26(fifth last in the collection) balances 1 5, just as 30 balances 1 1 Butthose who look for significance in every juxtaposition, and discerncomplicated sequences and cycles, forget that such a work would havebeen impossible to organize (Nisbet, 1995: 423 f.) We do not believe thatthe comparison of the poet to the Adriatic (9 22 ff.) is linked to the badweather of 10 3 ff., or that the stern father of 11 45 balances the sternuncle of 12 3, or that the boar-hunt of 12 12 leads to the sacrifice of thekid in 13 3 It has been suggested that when he came to prepare the bookfor publication Horace made various changes here and there to producethe kind of relationships envisaged; but, except perhaps for the opening

of 3 1, there is no evidence to support such a theory, and it is incrediblethat he would have tampered with carefully organized poems to achievesuch trivial results

15 The text

Horace’s manuscripts are all medieval, with none earlier than the ninthcentury; for some details see Brink, The Ars Poetica, 1971: 1 ff., R J.Tarrant in Texts and Transmission (ed L D Reynolds), 1983: 182 ff.,

C Questa in Encicl oraz 1 319 ff They divide roughly into twofamilies, 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 evidencemost clearly by keeping the symbol  and breaking the ˛ group intoits components Well-attested readings presumably go back to theancient world and so are seldom complete nonsense (contrast the text

of Catullus); this may be a snare for those whose only method is tofollow the manuscripts through thick and thin When the transmittedreading 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 totake conjectures seriously; Shackleton Bailey offers interesting newproposals but is too ready to print them in his text In the presentvolume the lemmata provide a continuous text, though without anapparatus or testimonia (for the latter see Klingner or Borzsa´k) Wehave put only two of RN’s conjectures in the lemmata (3 1 42 Sidone,

3 26 6 lurida), but in the notes have suggested some thirty others withvarying degrees of confidence or diffidence

16 The ancient commentators

The most important is Pomponius Porphyrio (ed A Holder, 1894, repr

1967), who probably lived in the third century; the commentary of theso-called ‘pseudo-Acro’ (ed O Keller, 1902–4) is a compilation byvarious hands that goes back to the fifth century; the ‘commentatorCruquianus’ is an amalgam printed by Cruquius in his edition of 1611and contains little of significance that is not found elsewhere Porphyrio

is much more reliable than ps.-Acro, but even he combines basic mation (notably on prosopography) with curious misapprehensions Intextual criticism the scholiasts’ comments deserve more attention thantheir lemmata, which usually repeat what is provided elsewhere Forfurther detail see N–H vol 1, pp xlvii ff., Brink, op cit 33f., 38 ff., Encicl.oraz 3 17 ff and 3 695 ff (a complete text of Porph and ps.-Acro),

infor-S Diederich, Der Horazcommentar des Porphyrio im Rahmen der zeitlichen Schul- und Bildungstradition, 1999 (reviewed by L Holford-Strevens, Gnomon 74, 2002: 501 ff.)

Commentary on

Horace Odes, Book III

This page intentionally left blank

1 O D I P RO FA N V M V V LG V S

[K Barwick, RhM 93, 1950: 259 ff.; F Cairns, PLLS 8, 1995: 91 ff.; Fraenkel 261 ff.;

W D Lebek, ANRW II 31 3 (1981), 2065 ff.; Lyne (1995), 158 ff.; G J Mader, Acta Classica (South Africa) 30, 1987: 11 ff.; Pasquali 649 ff., 833 ff.; V Po¨schl, HSCP 63, 1958: 333 ff ¼ Horazische Lyrik edn 2, 1991: 144 ff.; E T Silk, YClS 13, 1952: 145 ff and 23, 1973: 131 ff.;

F Solmsen, AJP 68, 1947: 337 ff ¼ Oppermann 139 ff.; T Woodman ap Woodman and West (1984), 83 ff.]

1–8 Let the uninitiated depart; I am teaching new chants to a freshgeneration Know that even dread kings must fear the rule of Jove 9–16.Men compete in landed wealth and political advantages, but high and lowalike are subject to Fate 17–24 The overweening cannot enjoy their luxury

or be lulled to sleep even by music, but sleep does not disdain lowly dwellingsand a shady valley 25–32 The man of limited desires is undisturbed by thebad weather that harasses the acquisitive merchant and the dissatisfiedlandowner 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, whyshould 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 theMuses, bids outsiders depart (1 n.), asks for silence (2 n.), and sings hisnew song to the boys and girls who may be thought receptive (4 n.) Hisproclamation is earnest and uncompromising: dreaded kings, for alltheir earthly power, are subject to divine law (5–8) This thought isgiven a particular application in the next two stanzas (9–16), thoughwith less solemnity: in spite of men’s various ambitions (here describedwith some satire), everybody dies in the end The reader is expected tokeep 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 ofsimplicity; but except in the first and most extreme example (that ofthe tyrant), there is no talk of actual impiety The emphasis is on privatehappiness and how it is threatened by the anxieties of wealth

When we consider the appropriateness of the ode as an introduction

to a political series, we are confronted with an awkward fact: its enance is predominantly Epicurean (Pasquali, Po¨schl, locc citt., Lyne,

prov-1995: 162 f.), notwithstanding the different tone and content of the firsttwo stanzas (Lebek, op cit overstresses the non-Epicurean elements)

In particular the poem is strongly influenced by the proem of Lucretius

2 (a passage already imitated by Horace in 2 16) In Horace as in his

exemplar the shortness of life makes nonsense of our strenuous rivalries,

we are often anxious about matters of minor importance, indulgence and ostentation do nothing to assuage our fears, happiness

self-is to be found in the simple life and the acceptance of what self-is there.Many of the details, too, have counterparts in Lucretius, though thearrangement of the original has been changed (again as in 2 16): e.g.competition for status (10 ff., cf Lucr 2 11 ff.), elaborate banquets (17 ff.,

cf 2 23 ff.), the sound of music (20, cf 2 28), the repose of the poor(21 ff., cf 2 36 ff.), the shady bank (23 f., cf 2 29 ff.), mankind’s limitedneeds (25, cf 2 20 f.), anxiety that cannot be shaken off (40, cf 2 48),useless purple (42, cf 2 35, 52), the concluding quodsi (41, cf 2 47) Thecentral doctrine obviously comes from Epicurus himself: P ºØ
c
B

¼ºº
Ø
H Ææa
a IØæ
ı ÆN
Æ (sent Vat 81, cf 2 16 9 withN–H) In 3 29, the corresponding poem before the epilogue of thewhole collection, the Epicurean element is equally clear: there as herethe luxury and anxieties of the city are contrasted with simple meals inthe country ‘sine aulaeis et ostro’ (15)

These Epicurean elements can to some extent be reconciled withtraditional Roman attitudes Criticisms of avaritia and luxuria hadbeen popular since Cato with moralizing orators, and had recentlyfound forceful expression in the monographs of Sallust Augustanideology pointed in the same direction: aristocratic ostentation madefor disharmony, and the rivalries of selfish and ambitious men were nolonger encouraged; contentment and acceptance made for peace andstability 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 remainsthat in our poem Horace rejects luxury because it does not lead tohappiness, not because it is socially and politically unacceptable (Lyne,

1995: 162 f.); contrast 2 15, which concentrates on ancestral norms ratherthan Epicurean precepts While it would be absurd to suppose that he isundermining the very system that he professes to support (even Lyne’sphrase ‘benignly subversive’ goes too far), it is true that by adopting apredominantly private stance, Horace has written a poem which is lessovertly patriotic than the other Roman Odes There is some reason inthe conjecture that the portentous opening has been grafted onto amore personal piece to serve as an introduction to the series

We have spoken so far of Lucretius, but Horace was also influenced

by the end of the recently issued second Georgic, which in the samephilosophical tradition had drawn a contrast between the happiness offarmers and the pomp of the rich (2 461 ff.):

H O R AC E : O D ES I I I

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 a domus alta (46 n.) with ornamental doors(45 n.) and a crowd of clients (13 n.), a mention of exotic dyes (42 n.), and

an instance of the periphrastic usus Virgil then goes on to speak oftempe (469, cf 24 n.), ‘mollesque sub arbore somni’ (470, cf 21 n.), thecountryman’s lack of envy (498 f.), and the misguided ambitions ofpolitical life (508 ff., cf 10 f.); for further details see B Fenik, Hermes

90, 1962: 72 ff Perhaps Horace took a hint from his friend about how toconform 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 thefamiliar 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: 74 f

on the eucharisticon); for similar acknowledgements in opening poems,

cf 1 1 35 f., epod 1 31 f By the same token, sublime atrium (46) mayinclude 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: 126 ff.); he would cite the references at v 9

to extensive estates (cf 3 16 41 n.), at v 13 to crowds of clients (cf 2 18 8with N–H), at vv 20 f to music as a treatment for insomnia (see note adloc.), at vv 33 ff to a villa maritima (also perhaps at 2 18 20 ff.), 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 44 to royal perfumes (cf perhaps 3 29 4) When Care ridesbehind the eques (40), RN thinks of the equestrian Maecenas and hisneurotic obsessions; Maecenas may also have owned a ‘private trireme’like that mentioned in v 39 (see note) While it would be absurd tosuppose that Horace is sneering, he can suggest that his benefactor hasgiven him a happier life than his vast wealth has secured for himself

At 2 18 17 NR sees the objectionable tu as quite different fromMaecenas (the potens amicus of v 12); tall houses and broad acres, likeclients, music and purple, were among the appurtenances of any richman and belonged to the tradition of the diatribe (see Lucretius andVirgil above) There is no proof that Maecenas built over the sea orowned a private trireme; most important, Horace would never havesuggested that he was greedy or ambitious So if he is present, he is verymuch in the background What we can say is that, whatever Horace’s

1 O D I P RO FA N V M V V L G V S

intentions were, and whatever innuendoes were perceived by his emies, such correspondences did not cause serious offence (see epist 1 1.

en-1ff.), and that they should not be given undue prominence in a poemwhich derives its weight from the generality of its truths

The stanzas of 3 1 break into groups of two, as in the similar 2 16(Barwick, op cit.); the articulation is underlined by the enjambment atthe end of the odd-numbered stanzas (except the first) Each group(after the first) implies a different sphere of rivalry and discontent: theownership of estates and and the pursuit of political power (3 and 4), thepossession of luxuries (5 and 6), dissatisfaction with available sufficiency(7 and 8), pretentious and unnatural building (9 and 10), followed by thepersonal conclusion ‘if all this restless striving is not satisfied by materialluxuries, why should I leave my Sabine valley?’ (11 and 12) The twohalves of the poem end with pictures of rural serenity: the first (stanza 6)expressed in general terms, the second (stanza 12) centred on the poethimself (tempe in v 24 is picked up by valle in 47) There are noconnections between the pairs, except for the final quodsi at v 47 Thesymmetry of the structure is not easily paralleled in Greek, and Syndi-kus (2 12) is right to distinguish the abrupt transitions of Pindar Onemight compare the sententiae of declamation which often repeat thesame 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 thecontemporary Roman scene—a technique that is very typical of theSatires Though the style is dry and rather formal, it is less solemn than

is sometimes implied (cf 9 n., 33, 35 ff.) And though Horace beginswith a hieratic pronouncement, when he comes back to himself at theend his tone is human and personal

Metre: Alcaic

1 Odi profanum vulgus et arceo: odi (‘I shun’) balances arceo (‘I keep it

at a distance’); here the former verb emphasizes overt rejection, thoughemotional dislike is not excluded (cf 1 38 1 ‘Persicos odi, puer, appar-atus’, epist 1 7 20 ‘spernit et odit’, ars 188, Fraenkel 263) profanum maymean not ‘in front of the temple’ (Varro, lL 6 54) but ‘away from thetemple’ (Charis gramm p 305 20 Barwick ‘porro a fano positus’,Cairns, op cit 94); it is used in religious contexts of the uninitiated

ƺØ) or those not participating in a rite For the sacral arceo cf.Pacuv TRF 304 f ‘quamquam aetas senet, satis habeam virium ut te araarceam’, Ogilvie on Liv 1 12 4 Ancient religion had a strong feelingfor the sacred space; cf Ar Ach 239 ff., ran 369 f., Eur Bacch 68 ff


›fiH
 ›fiH;
 ;

H O R AC E : O D ES I I I

Aen 6 258 ‘procul o procul este, profani’, Paul Fest 72L¼ 82M ‘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), 386 f For the application of the theme to

A real Roman priest did not speak for himself (Fraenkel 264) or makeportentous announcements (5 ff.), and already Porph sees a metaphorfrom the mysteries; for the pattern cf the Orphic testamenta fr 247

1 Kern Łª ÆØ x ŁØ K
, ŁæÆ  KŁŁ, ºØ Porph.interprets the metaphor by indoctos and Musarum profanos, and nodoubt H has been influenced by Callimachean manifestos about poetry;

BÆŒÆ Oºe ª , S J Heyworth, MD 33, 1994: 54 ff But here thereligious metaphor refers primarily to content rather than literary style;

Œı
ÆØ, 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 thingsthat matter more; similarly in the ensuing odes he emphasizes suchvirtues as courage, piety, and chastity The upper-class girls and boyswho are contrasted with the profanum vulgus are chosen primarily fortheir untainted idealism, though NR thinks they may also be expectedeventually to regard Horace’s new poetry with less prejudice than theirelders (epist 2 1 18 ff.)

2 favete linguis: ‘hold your peace’ (for the short opening syllable cf.tumultuosum in v 26, N–H vol 1, p xl); for sacred silence cf 2 13 29with N–H, 3 14 11 f., 3 30 9 The religious formula originally meant

‘make favourable utterance’ (hence the instrumental linguis), but thesafest 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 the profani, as at Eur Bacch

68ff cited in 1n above; it preceded a sacred song, as at Ar Thesm 39 f.For the application of the motif to literature cf Ar ran 354, cited above

in 1 n., Prop 4 6 1 ‘sacra facit vates, sint ora faventia sacris’

2–3 carmina non prius / audita: the plural refers to the Roman Odes as

a whole; in the religious context carmina suggests sacred chants, and the

1 O D I P RO FA N V M V V L G V S

assonance of carmina canto suits the sacral style (cf 4 15 30 ff.

‘carmine canemus’) Roman poets, like their Greek predecessors(both early and Hellenistic), often lay claim to originality (3 25 7 f

‘adhuc / indictum ore alio’, 3 30 13 n., N–H on 1 26 10 and 2 20 1);Porph should not have restricted the issue to Latin lyric, as there isnothing like these poems in Alcaeus, and even an early piece like 1 2cannot equal the combined authority of the Roman Odes Newness wasalso emphasized in Bacchic and other mysteries, as later in the world

of the New Testament (E Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, 1924: 46 f.);for other literary adaptations of this idea cf Prop 3 1 3 f ‘primusego ingredior puro de fonte sacerdos / Itala per Graios orgia ferrechoros’

3 Musarum sacerdos: a poet could be compared to a priest for a variety

of reasons (for some references see Kroll 24 ff., O Falter, Der Dichterund sein Gott bei den Griechen und Ro¨mern, diss Wu¨rzburg 1934, Kam-bylis 12 ff., Newman 99 ff., N–H on 1 31 2) In early Greece he might becalled the æ
 or interpreter of the Muses, because like theDelphic priestess he imposed form on material that seemed to presentitself spontaneously (Pind fr 150 Æ
, MEÆ, æÆ
ø  Kª).Hellenistic poets and their Roman imitators underlined the arcanecharacter of their art, their awareness of their high calling, and thesplendour and formality of their procedures Horace uses vates for theinspired bard (N–H on 1 1 35), sometimes ironically (e.g epist 2 2 102

‘genus irritabile vatum’); sacerdos on the other hand emphasizes theauthority and dignity of the poet’s pronouncements (for the distinction

cf Lyne, 1995: 184 f.) At Rome there was an aedes Herculis Musarum, butthe Muses had no independent priesthood (contrast Greece) andHorace’s reference is entirely literary (N Horsfall, BICS 23, 1976: 85)

4 virginibus puerisque canto: the collocation of virgines and pueriseems to suggest that H is training a choir; cf 1 21 1 ff., 4 6 31 f.,carm saec 6, epist 2 1 132 ff ‘castis cum pueris ignara puella mariti /disceret unde preces vatem ni Musa dedisset?’, Cairns, op cit 102 ff.That in no way implies that the Roman Odes were literally sung; themotif of a choir is not sustained (as Cairns claims), for it does not suitthe content and manner of the poem or the series (Pasquali 650) H’smessage is directed to a sinless new generation, including future wivesand mothers, because they are still open to moral instruction; cf Porph

ad loc ‘dicit se carmen proditurum quod teneras aetates ad utiliainstituat, quibus ad beatam vitam pervenire possint’, epist 2 1 128 ff.Later poets echo H’s line simply to suggest an absence of impropriety(Ov trist 2 370, Mart 3 69 8)

H O R AC E : O D ES I I I

5–6 regum timendorum in proprios greges, / reges in ipsos imperiumest Iovis: the sacerdos now makes his proclamation (ŒæıªÆ) Just askings rule their subjects, so Jupiter rules kings: the emphasis lies on thesecond clause (cf 9–16 n.) In the same way the Orphic testamenta, afterdismissing the profane (1 n.), proceed to the praises of the supreme god(245 9 f Kern) H is not just paying the conventional tribute of anexordium to Jupiter (N–H on 1 12 13, Pasquali 654); it is central to hismeaning (here expressed in Stoic terms) that even the rich and powerfulare subject to the laws of the universe.

The kings are Eastern rulers who, because of their total and arbitrarypower, are dreaded by their own subjects (Tarrant on Sen Ag 72 f.), butmust dread Jupiter in turn H is not arguing that the rulers are God’srepresentatives on earth (Call h 1 79, N–H on 1 12 50 ff., cf 3 6 5), and

he would not have regarded Augustus as either a rex or as timendus inthe sense required here (otherwise D P Fowler ap Harrison, 1995: 264);

cf rather 1 35 12 (to Fortune) ‘(te) purpurei metuunt tyranni’, Philemon

31(PCG 7, p 244), 4 f FºØ Æغø N, › Æغf ŁH,= › Łe IªŒ , Manil 4 93, Sen.Thy 612 ‘omne sub regno graviore regnumest’ For H’s use of in cf 4 4 2 ‘regnum in aves’, Plaut Pers 343, Ter.eun 415 proprios implies ownership, but its main function is to underlinethe limits of a king’s imperium; Jupiter on the other hand rules overeverything (cuncta in v 8) greges is as often disparaging: a good king may

be the shepherd of his people (Hom Il 2 243 etc.), but it is anothermatter to call the people the grex of the king

7 clari Giganteo triumpho: the Giants in their arrogance would notsubmit to the moral order of the universe (Cic sen 5 ‘quid est aliudGigantum modo bellare cum dis nisi naturae repugnare?’), but in spite

of their strength they were subject to the limitations of the earth-born

25, quoting Homer, loc cit
F ØÆ
 Oºªfiø Æ
Ø
H Oæø

e Æ
Æ ! ˇºı For movet cf Plaut rud 1 ‘qui gentes omnesmariaque et terras movet’, Ov met 1 180, TLL 8 1544 53 ff For other

1 O D I P RO FA N V M V V L G V S

comments about the use of the eyebrows see Plin nat hist 11 138,Quint 11 3 79, Sittl 92.

9–16 est ut viro vir latius ordinet / arbusta sulcis : these two stanzashave 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 allmen are mortal (14–16, the climax or ‘apex’ of the argument); for similarpatterns cf 1 1 3 ff (with N–H p 2), 1 7 1 ff., 3 27 1–2 n Theconclusion follows naturally from the second stanza, though it is nowexpressed in specifically Roman terms: all men, however successful, aresubject to Jupiter or Fate Woodman maintains that the lives referred

to in the preamble are all meritorious and provide a foil to the impius of

v 17 (op cit 92 f.); on the contrary, they are by implication competitive (Mader, op cit 15 f.) and lead up to the criticisms ofgreed and ambition that occupy the latter part of the poem

over-The periphrastic est ut means ‘it happens that’ (K–S 2 237); theformula binds the four clauses together and sets them against theinevitability of death (Heinze) The polyptoton viro vir (i.e the repeti-tion of a word in a different case) recalls sardonically the combats ofepic; cf Hom Il 16 215, Furius Bibaculus, FLP 10 ‘pressatur pede pes,mucro mucrone, viro vir’, Virg Aen 10 361 etc., Wills 195 ff arbusta wasparticularly applied to plantations of trees on which vines were trained(Virg georg 2 416, OLD s.v 2) Such trees were arranged in neat ranks(Cic sen 59, Varr rust 1 7 2, Colum 3 13 5 ‘ordinent vineam paribusintervallis’); ordinent also suits an army on parade (cf Virg georg 2

279ff.), and so sustains the heroic tone of viro vir latius means ‘over awider area’ (cf 2 2 9 ‘latius regnes’), not ‘at greater intervals’ (Virg.georg 2 277 ‘indulge ordinibus’); H is critical of latifundia, and viticul-ture was particularly profitable

The sulci are the trenches in which the supporting trees were planted(Colum 5 6 10 ‘sulci qui arbores recipiant praeparandi’); shallowerfurrows 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 itspattern sulcis is 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 avilla) sulcis belongs to the laborious side of country life, like ‘hedgingand ditching’ (cf epist 1 7 84 ‘sulcos et vineta crepat mera’); as such it isset against the pretensions of latius ordinet

10–11 hic generosior / descendat in Campum petitor: the verb suits acandidate going down from the hills of Rome, where the rich lived, tothe Campus Martius, where the comitia centuriata elected consuls and

H O R AC E : O D ES I I I

in n., Prop ‘sacra facit vates, sint ora faventia sacris’

2–3 carmina non prius / audita: the plural refers... changed in the same way (F Williams on Call h 17).The request was made after the exclusion of the profani, as at Eur Bacch

68ff cited in 1n above; it preceded a sacred song, as at Ar Thesm 39... class="text_page_counter">Trang 38

assonance of carmina canto suits the sacral style (cf 15 30 ff.

‘carmine canemus’) Roman poets, like their