Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T07:09:15.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horace, Odes i 12.35

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

Romulum post hos prius an quietum Pompili regnum memorem an superbos Tarquini fascis, dubito, an Catonis nobile letum.

The stanza presents a number of difficulties:

(1) the grammatical structure of memorem; (2) the identity of Tarquin and hence the meaning of superbos; (3) the propriety of a reference to Cato.

As often in Horace an examination of the structure of the ode will help in the solution of problems within a stanza.

The clear reference to Pindar’s Second Olympian in verses 1-3 is an indication that the ode will be in Horace’s ‘Pindaric style’, in which there is a characteristic development of his thought in groups of stanzas. In this case the ode is constructed in triads of stanzas, the nearest approach Horace could make to the structure of a Pindaric ode. The ode may be analysed as follows:

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 3 , 1969 , pp. 48 - 51
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 Cf. Highbarger, E.L., ‘The Pindaric Style of Horace’, TAPA 66 (1935), 222–53.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Fraenkel, E., JRS 36 (1946), 188.Google Scholar

3 If it is still possible to use the term after E. A. Judge’s examination of the evidence for it in a paper read to the AULLA Congress in Sydney in August, 1967 (to be published in summary form in Proceedings of the XIth AULLA Congress).

4 The Roman Revolution, p. 317, cf. also p. 464.

5 Cf. Fraenkel, E., JRS 36 (1946), 193. See also his Horace, pp. 291–7, on this ode.Google Scholar

6 Reported by Richardson, L.J.D., Hermathena 60 (1942), 95.Google Scholar

7 Note that the Scholiasts did not find sinister overtones unavoidable in superbos. Pseudo-Acro writes: ‘superbos fasces’ nobites dixit, and aut nobiles aut revera superbos; while Porphyrio has: ineptum est, si, quia ‘superbos’ dixit, Tarquinii Superbi intellegamus; Tarquinius enim Superbus dignus non est, cui laudes inter deos et hos quos nominat principes dicantur. ‘Superbos’ ergo magnificos intellegamus, ut Tarquinii Prisci fasces dicat, non Tarquinii Superbi. Pseudo-Aero says more briefly: hic Priscum posuit, non Superbum.

8 Even if we assume a second-century origin for any particular scholium, we find the pi eference for shortened versions of histories already established in the time of Martial who refers to an epitome of Livy (xiv 190).