² The whole poem has most recently been discussed by Galinsky, G.K., Augustan Culture: an Interpretive Introduction (Princeton, 1996), pp. 350–5.Google Scholar

³ Page, T.E. Q. Horatii Flacci Carminum Libri IV. Epodon Liber. (repr. London, 1905), p. 392; Galinsky (op. cit., n. 2), p. 352, notes that laws engraved on bronze tablets could sometimes melt (Cicero, In Catilinam 3.19)Google Scholar. See also Bucher, G.S, ‘The Annales Maximi in the light of Roman methods of keeping records’, AJAH12 (1987[1995]), pp. 1–61, especially 13–20. Cf. the ‘ex aere et solido rerum tabularia ferro’ (Ovid, Met. 15.810), mentioned by Jove to Venus as an eternal record of the future glories of her Julian descendants. Does Ovid′s evocation at the end of the Metamorphoses (15.871–9) of Horace Carm. 3.30, a poem which establishes the theme of physical mutability with a reference to the transience of bronze (aere perennius), undercut Jove′s confident prophecy?Google Scholar

⁴ Parallels for this motif in Greek literature are discussed by Galinsky (op. cit., n. 2), p. 351.

⁵ H. Fuchs, ‘“Nun, o Unsterblichkeit, bist du ganz mein…” Zu zwei Gedichten des Horaz’, in E. von Beckerath, H. Popitz, H. G. Siebeck and H. W. Zimmermann (edd.), ANTIΔωPON: E. Salin zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1962), pp. 149–66, discusses a coincidence between Horace′s poem and an Egyptian hieroglyphic text of c. 1200 B.C., which contains the remarkable sentiment that ‘Die Bücher der Lehren sind ihre Pyramiden…’ (pp. 150–1). See further Borzsák, I., ‘Exegi Monumentum Aere Perennius’, AAntHung 12 (1964), 137–47;Google Scholar Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, I., ‘…Regalique Situ Pyramidum Altius’, AAntHung 12 (1964), 149–67;Google Scholar Syndikus, H.P., Die Lyrik des Horaz (Darmstadt, 1972–1973, repr. 1989–1990), vol. 2, p. 276.Google Scholar

⁶ The death of Gallus cannot be dated with certainty: whereas Dio includes it under events for 26 B.C., Jerome, Chron. ad Ol. 188.2 assigns it to 27 B.C. For discussion of the chronology and events of Gallus′ fall, see Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), pp. 309–10 (henceforth ‘Syme’)Google Scholar, Boucher, J.-P., Caius Cornelius Gallus (Paris, 1966) (henceforth ‘Boucher’), pp. 5–6, 49–57Google Scholar, Daly, L. J. (henceforth ‘Daly’), ‘The Gallus affair and Augustus’ lex Mia maiestatis: a study in historical chronology and causality’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (Collection Latomus, Brussels, 1979), pp. 289–311 Google Scholar, Raaflaub, K. A. and Samons, L. J. II, ‘Opposition to Augustus’, in Raaflaub, K. A. and M. Toher (edd.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley, 1990), pp. 423–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kaster, R. A., C. Suetonius Tranquillus De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (Oxford, 1995), pp. 184–6, conveniently collects other ancient testimonia.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Ovid, Tristia 2.445–6: ‘non fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo′ sed linguam nimionon tenuisse mero’.

⁸ The traditional interpretation of the Philae inscription as a testimony to Gallus′ overweening ambition (thus Syme p. 309 ‘Lapidary evidence, though not from a pyramid, shows the Roman knight proclaiming that he had advanced southwards in conquest farther than any army of the Roman people or monarch of Egypt’) has given way to the more subtle view of Boucher, pp. 38–45, who has argued convincingly that the Philae inscription does not represent an overreaching on the part of Gallus vis-à-vis his master, although more traditionally minded senators might well have felt discomfort at the administration of Egypt as the private property of the princeps. He concludes (p. 45): ‘La st′Octavien, et non pas celle de Gallus. Ainsi bien loin d′être une bravade qui devait irriter le prince, la stèle est une utilisation du rituel égyptien pour faire connaître la gloire et la politique du prince: elle rappelle la gloire d′Octavien (‘post reges a Caesare deiui filio deuictos’), elle publie la volonté du nouveau roi de gouverner par un préfet, elle fait savoir aux peuples voisins que le nouveau monarque entend faire régner la paix romaine par la force et par la politique traditionnelle de protection accordée à des rois vassaux. Ainsi Gallus, dans le style glorieux des imperatores, manifestait la puissance romaine et se montrait l′ami fidèle du prince. Mais cette primauté d′Octavien, cette royauté qu′il avait en Egypte, cette délégation de l′imperium faite à un chevalier ne pouvait qu′irriter les tenants du mos maiorum, de la tradition sénatoriale. Ce sont les seules personnes qui pouvaient s′en formaliser.’ Daly, p. 296, argues (developing Boucher′s analysis that the Philae inscription cannot have offended Octavian) that the emperor′s displeasure towards Gallus was entirely connected with the prefect′s conduct not in Egypt, but in Rome. There is, however, perhaps a need for caution, since this argument is based on one inscription alone.

⁹ Is it possible that aere perennius has a contemporary reference? The Regia, which appears to have been the place where the Annales Maximi were kept, had burned down before being rebuilt by Domitius Calvinus in 36 B.C. (Dio Cassius 48.42.4–5). Bucher (op. tit, n. 3), p. 38, suggests that this was the moment when the bronze Annales were lost. Horace′s aere perennius might thus evoke the loss of this important document.

¹⁰ On the meaning of this phrase see the subtle discussion of Woodman, A. J., ‘EXEGI MONVMENTVM: Horace Odes 3.30’, in Woodman, A. J. and West, D. A. (edd.), Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 117–118.Google Scholar

¹¹ Galinsky (op. tit, n.2), p. 352, sees additional references both to the mausoleum of Cleopatra (on which see Plutarch, Antonius 74.2, 76.4, Dio Cassius 51.8.6, 51.10.8, and Suetonius, Div. Aug. 17.4, who notes that Augustus gave orders for the unfinished monument to be completed) and to that of Augustus (Suetonius, Div. Aug. 100.4, 101.4), which was completed by 23 B.C. Galinsky rightly draws attention to Propertius 3.2.19–22, where Propertius, emphasizing the lasting immortality of poetry, mentions the transience not only of pyramids but also of the mausoleum of Mausolus. However, whereas a reference to Cleopatra suits Horace′s poem, a reference to the mausoleum of Augustus in the context of physical mutability seems to sound a strange note in a poem which otherwise affirms the immortality not only of Horace but also that of Rome (see 11. 8–9). The anonymous referee for CQ has suggested to me that allusion to Cleopatra′s tomb as an exotic pyramid (though it was not one) neatly avoids any awkward reference to the similar mausoleum of Augustus in Rome. In this context, it is a curious irony that Augustus′ Res Gestae would later be set up in bronze at the entrance of his Mausoleum (Suetonius, Div. Aug. 101.4).

¹² Note the contrast between the transient private monuments of the Egyptian monarchs and the immortal public monuments of Rome′s Capitol.