Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T06:19:47.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horace, Odes i 12. 33-6: A Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

A. Treloar
A. Treloar*
Affiliation:
University of New England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My suggested interpretation of Horace, Odes i 12. 35 has been severely criticized by Professor Jocelyn. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reply.

J. himself agrees that the ancient scholars could not agree which King Tarquin was intended (68 and n. 1): this at least leaves open the possibility that some third Tarquin was meant. This was the possibility I sought to investigate.

J. further agrees that the structure of the whole ode must be considered in interpreting any particular stanza (68, I), but rejects my belief in the triadic structure of this ode, which is not peculiar to this ode and has the support of the majority of Horatian scholars. He offers no alternative analysis of the whole poem.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 6 , 1972 , pp. 60 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 zAntichthon iii (1969), 48–51.

2 Jocelyn, H.D. ibid, 5 (1971), 68–76.Google Scholar References to these two articles will be by page only.

3 Cf. his associates at Odes i 28. 7–13.

4 Since I do not accept Christ’s theory that Roman heroes must belong to a much more distant age of Roman history than men, J.’s implication that I am improperly trying to have both triads and Cato (71) is quite irrelevant.

For the idealization of Cato, see Nisbet and Hubbard ad he. For Horace’s continuing loyalty to the Republic and those who fought for it, I need only refer to the references in my article (49 n. 3). The view is too well founded to be dismissed curtly by J. as absurd (72).

5 Cic. De or. i 5. 18; 42. 187; 60. 256. Cf. now Bowen, J.A History of Western Education, Vol. 1 (London, 1972), p. 188.Google Scholar

6 Livy iii 5. 12.

7 Livy ii 8. 4; Polybius iii 22. 1 and Walbank ad loc.

8 Cf. Badian, E. ‘Archons and Strategoi’, Antwhthon 5 (1971), 1–34 (at 12),CrossRefGoogle Scholar for the association of magistrates’ names with historical events.

9 He further implies that my reference to Odes a 16. 9–12 was misleadingly curtailed. I had no sinister purpose in referring briefly to a point made long ago in the course of Horatian scholarship that I took to be common knowledge (see Andrewes, M.CR 62 [1948], 111).Google Scholar In any case I do not agree that the quoting of gazae would have seriously affected the surprise effect of mentis, since one cannot even be sure of the case of gazae until the sentence is completed and by then mentis has had its surprise effect.

10 On the relationship of these young men to Tarquinius I stand corrected by Professor Jocelyn (75 n. 63). I can only offer my apologies to readers of the journal for my indefensible error.