No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Horace, Odes i 12 yet again
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Extract
Three articles in recent numbers of this journal have discussed Odes i 12 quem uirum, particularly lines 33-6. In Vol. iii (1969), 48-51, A. Treloar accepts a theory of a ‘triadic’ structure of the ode by which all those persons referred to in stanzas 7-9 (lines 25-36) are to be regarded as ‘heroes’: he further accepts the παρὰδoσις Catonis (35) and suggests that in Tarquini (35) is a reference to L. Tarquinius ‘Collatinus’. In Vol. v (1971), 68-76 H. D. Jocelyn expresses mistrust of such a structure, and after discussing what the words ήρως and heros are capable of meaning argues that Horace may only have been referring to two categories of beings, namely ‘gods’ and ‘men’. He further suggests that the Tarquin referred to is ‘Superbus’. In Vol. vi (1972), 60-2 Treloar responds. From now on these articles will be referred to as T1, J and T2 respectively, with the addition of the appropriate page-number.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1973
References
1 It is hard to understand why Nisbet, and Hubbard, , A Commentary on Horace Odes Book 1 (Oxford, 1970), p. 146,Google Scholar after naming the metre of i 12 as Sapphic add the comment ‘not altogether appropriate for the matter in hand’, having previously made no comment on that of i 2.
2 J (68 n. 3) has the appropriate references. It is rather odd that E. L. Highbarger, to whose article on ‘The Pindaric Style of Horace’ T1 (48 n. 1) refers, sets out to deal ‘primarily with the architectural structure of these poems’ and manages to do so without any reference at all to von Christ!
3 ‘Ueber die Verskunst des Horaz …’, SB bayer.Akad. (1868), 41: ‘Es gibt nun in der That eine Ode, auf deren Composition κατα τριαδα man nur aufmerksam gemacht zu werden braucht, um sofort die Richtigkeit der gegebenen Analyse zu erkennen.’
4 Ibid.
5 In the circumstances, J’s use of the verb ‘ape’ (69) is not too strong. Fraenkel, (Horace [Oxford, 1957], p. 291)Google Scholar uses the term ‘quasi-triad’ and later (p. 371 n. 1) refers to the ‘modified (non-metrical) sense in which 1 use the term “triad”’.
6 Bowra, C.M.Pindar (Oxford, 1954), pp. 319–20.Google Scholar
7 For this term see Fraenkel, op.cit., p. 159 n. 2.
8 Such a further adoption after a ‘motto’ is in itself quite unusual. It should also be noted that the words lyra nel acri / tibia interposed in the ‘motto’ strike a very un-Pindaric note.
9 (73).
10 T2 (60).
11 Orelli-Baiter-Hirschfelder (ed.4 Berlin, 1886), p. 85 suggest that Catullus xlv (for so emend lxv) and Ixii are similarly structured. There is symmetry of construction in both these poems but no grounds at all upon which it could be argued to be on the analogy of a triadic grouping of strophe, antistrophe and epode. Indeed Fraenkel, (JRS 45 [1955], 3 n. 2)Google Scholar points out that the only argument in favour of the loss of a line after line 41 is ‘the petitio principii of a consistent and mechanical symmetry’!
12 See for example op.cit., pp. 143 and 155.
l3 See his Horace on Poetry (Cambridge,, 1971), p. 452. J in my view rather under-emphasizes the reservations that Nisbet and Hubbard and Brink obviously have.
14 J (69 n. 5).
15 There are indisputably three questions in Pindar. Apart from anything else, would Horace, in using a ‘motto’, have altered so basically the sense of the opening words?
16 Liber/Bacchus presents somewhat of a problem. Sometimes, as for example already noted in Odes in 3.9 ff., he is classed with Hercules/Heracles and the Dioscuri. See J (71 n. 26). At others he is a god, though not included in the original canonical Greek twelve (see, for a start, Guthrie, W.K.C.The Greeks and their Gods [Methuen, 1950], pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar [app. to ch. 2]) nor their Roman counterparts: luno Vesta Minerua Ceres Diana Venus Mars Mercurius louis Nepttinux Vulcaniti Apollo. (Enn. frag. 62–3 V3) The most appropriate comment here is perhaps Cicero, De natura deorum 2 62Google Scholar ‘… hi’nc Hercules, nine Castor et Pollux, nine Aesculapius, hinc Liber etiam (hunc dico Liberum Semela natum, non eum quern nostri maiores auguste sancteque Liberum cum Cerere et Libera consecrauerunt, quod quale sit ex mysteriis intellegi potest, sed quod ex nobis natos liberas appellamus, idcirco Cereri nati nominati sunt Liber et Libera quod in Libero seruant, in Libero non item) hinc etiam Romulum quern quidam eundem esse Quirinum putant, quorum cum remanerent animi atque aeternitale fruerentur rite di sunt habiti, cum et optimi essent et aeterni.’ This is not the place to discuss the complexities of this passage: however in itself it explains why Horace could cite Liber in i 12 as a god though elsewhere classing him in a different category.
17 For attempts to link Horace’s choice of persons with statues in the Forum see Duckworth, G. ‘Animae dimidium meae’, TAPA 87 (1956), 297–8Google Scholar and the bibliography in n. 57.
18 Aug. Ciu.dei ii 14.
19 See for example n. 16 above.
20 Horace, Ep. i 6.27.
21 Suet. Aug. 85.
22 Havet, Manuel tie critique verbale (Paris, 1911), p. 57Google Scholar sec. 218 makes this point well.
23 For this reason Hamacher’s otherwise excellent ac superbos is to be rejected, as it has the effect of conjoining the reigns of Numa and Tarquin.
24 Suggested in his Animadversiones in Benlleii, R. notas et emendationes (Hagae Comitum, 1721), p. 126.Google Scholar
25 Ausonius, Professores 8.Google Scholar
26 Ep.ix 59.16.
27 Od. i 30. 8 Mercuriitsque, ii 6.8 militiaeque, iv 11.28 Bellerophontem and i 12.40 Fabriciumque. Another in i 12 would make two in the same ode in successive stanzas.
28 For Augustus’ desire to spread the fame of the sidus liilium see Scott, K. ‘The sidus lulium and the Apotheosis of Caesar’, Class. Phil, 36 (1941), esp. pp. 261 ff.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and for its appearance in the literature of the Augustan Age pp. 265 ff.
- 2
- Cited by