No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘Purpureo bibet ore nectar’: a reconsideration
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
‘To attempt to say anything new about Horace may seem absurd.’ To attempt to say anything new about the Roman Odes may seem still more absurd; my purpose, nevertheless, is to reconsider the lines of Carm. 3.3 set out above, and to reinterpret an argument begun by the editor of the Delphin Horace (1691) in which the authority of Bentley is against me. My question is: what does Horace mean the reader to understand by describing Augustus as drinking nectar ‘purpureo ore’?
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2000
References
1 AMDG. I am grateful to all those who have commented on and improved earlier drafts of this paper, among them my Merton colleagues Nicholas Richardson and Simon Pulleyn, Roland Mayer, friends from the Flaccids, and the anonymous referee for CQ.
2 Nettleship, H., Lectures and Essays on Subjects Connected with Latin Literature and Scholar-ship (Oxford, 1885), 143.Google Scholar
3 Desprez, L., Q. Horati Flacci opera jussu Christianissimi Regis in usum serenissimi Delphini (London, 1815)Google Scholar, ad Carm. 3.3.12.
4 Bentley, R., Q. Horatius Flaccus (Amsterdam, 1728)Google Scholar, ad loc.
5 Leipzig, 1800; for which he was criticized by Doering in his edition (Glasgow, 1826): ‘argute magis quam vere explicat’.
6 Williams, G., The Third Book of Horace's Odes (Oxford, 1969), 42 Google Scholar: ‘The specific detail of his “crimson lips” (whether this refers to the quality of eternal youth or—more likely since it would have a relevance mentioned with the act of drinking—the staining of his lips by nectar) seems an error of taste and judgment’ and at footnote [:‘…since nectar was thought to have the power confer immortality… Horace may be combining the concepts of youth and immortality in the concrete detail of crimsoned lips’.
7 Pulleyn, S. J., Mnemosyne 50 (1997), 482–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Berlin, 1955s, ad loc.
9 Oxford, 1877, ad loc; Page, T. E., Q.Horati Flacci Carminum Libri IV (London, 1895)Google Scholar, ad loc. also accepts Wickham's interpretation, saying ‘… the more prosaic rendering “ruddy” i.e. with wine, seems decidedly more natural, but should be perhaps rejected for that reason in a passage of this character’.
10 André, J., Etude sur les Termes de Couleur dans la Langue Latine (Paris, 1949), 91–102.Google Scholar
11 Thomas, S. Pantzerhielm, SO 12 (1933), 75–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 78.
12 Ibid., at 76.
13 Weinreich, O., Menekrates Zeus und Salmoneus: Religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Psychopathologie des Gottmenschentums in Antike und Neuzeit (Stuttgart, 1933), 17 Google Scholar, n. 74: ‘When in Horace… the deified Augustus drinks nectar in heaven purpureo ore, the reference is not so much to his once again “youthful” appearance, but rather, in my view, to the ichor of the gods, which bestows a bright red complexion’ (my translation). See also O. Weinreich, SO 13 (1934), 104.
14 Syndikus, H., Die Lyrik des Horaz (Darmstadt, 1973), 40 Google Scholar, n. 12: ‘The purple face of Augustus in line 12 is a sign of divinely uplifted life and eternal youth; the gods have a brighter skin-colour than mortals…. Naturally Horace would not have imagined so coarse an effect of colour as that which manifests itself in the red lead colouring of a statue of Jove … There is the same underlying idea’ (my translation).
15 Given the connection between the red-faced triumphator and the red-faced statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, however, the possibility is to be acknowledged.
16 See Versnel, H. S., Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden, 1970), 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 67–8.Google Scholar For the words of the slave, Tert. Apol. 33.4.
17 See Versnel (n. 16), 59–60, citing Plin. N.H. 33.111, Servius ad Virg. Ecl. 6.22; Isidore, Orig. 18.2.6; Tzetzes, Epist. 97, Chil. 13.43. Also Servius ad Virg. Ed. 10.27. The context of the extract from Pliny perhaps warrants closer examination: ‘In argentariis metallis invenitur minium quoque, et nunc inter pigmenta magnae auctoritatis et quondam apud Romanos non solum maximae, sed etiam sacrae. Enumerat auctores Verrius… sic Camillum triumphasse; hac religione etiamnum addi in unguentum cenae triumphalis et a censoribus in primis Iovem miniandum locari. Cuius rei causam equidem miror, quamquam et hodie id expeti constat Aethiopum populis totosque eo tingui proceres, hunc ibi deorum simulacris colorem esse.’ It might be thought that Pliny refers to phenomena no longer extant at Rome. On this see Versnel (n. 16), 82, n. 3. He quotes the description ‘pompali vultu, ruber magis quam candidus’ in H.A. Gordian 6.1 as an indication of the long-standing use of the red colour in the procession, and suggests that what Pliny derived from the authorities was the red-leading of Jove's statue and perhaps the legend that Camillus painted not merely his face red for his triumph but his whole body. Despite the apparent absence of controversy among moderns, it has been suggested to me by CQ's anonymous referee that the evidence that the triumphator actually painted his face red in the Augustan period might seem to some a little thin. If Augustus did not actually paint his face red, the testimonia show at least that the phenomenon of face-painting was well remembered; which perhaps would do to support my interpretation.
18 See Weinstock (n. 16), 67–8, and Versnel (n. 16), 58–87, for summaries of the debate.
19 The face of the statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus was, of course, also painted red: Plin. N.H. 33.111; Plut. Q.R. 98.287d; DServ. ad Virg. Ecl.6.22.
20 Weinstock (n. 16), 68; Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S., Religions of Rome, I (Cambridge, 1998), 142–3.Google Scholar
21 See Versnel (n. 16), 82 and 87; Beard et al. (n. 20), 142.
22 Beard et al. (n. 20), 44. Cf. Taylor, L. Ross, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, CT, 1931), 57 Google Scholar: ‘With the longing of the people for a saviour went at the same time the growth of the power of individuals, chiefly the great generals, to whom was accorded the triumph that was the closest thing in Roman state ceremony to deification.’
23 Rufus Fears, J., ‘The theology of victory at Rome: approaches and problems’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der röm. Welt, 2.17.2 (Berlin, 1981), 737–826 Google Scholar, at 781–2.
24 Doblhofer, E., Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz in formalhistorischer Sicht (Heidelberg, 1966), 148–9.Google Scholar
25 See Norberg, D. ‘La divinité d'Auguste dans la poésie d'Horace’, Eranos 44 (1946), 389–03Google Scholar, at 391: ‘Ainsi I'empire, par les forces nouvelles qu'Auguste lui avait données, devrait dorénavant s'étendre et devenir de plus en plus grand et puissant; au v. 44 le poète fait prèdire à Junon le triomphe que les Romains devraient remporter sur les Parthes …. Enfin, comme Romulus, après sa mort, grce à ses mérites fut élevé au séjour des dieux, ainsi Horace voit venir I'apothéose future d'Auguste.’
26 Cic. Leg. 2.19; cf. Cic. Fin. 3.66; Tusc. 1.28; N.D. 2.62, 3.39; Cons. fr. 11; Hor. Ep. 2.1.5–12; Doblhofer (n. 24), 134. The precise words of Tusc. 1.28 in reference to Hercules should perhaps be noted:’… Hercules tantus et tam praesens habetur deus…‘
27 Apparently already in Ennius: Cic. Tusc. 1.28.
28 Bellinger, A. R., ‘The immortality of Alexander and Augustus’, YCS 15 (1957), 91–100 Google Scholar; cf. Castriota, D., The Ara Pads Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton, 1995), 97–100 Google Scholar; Doblhofer (n. 24), 122–41.
29 Bellinger (n. 28), 99–100.
30 Ibid., at 96.
31 Cerfaux, L. and Tondriau, J., Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation gréco-romaine (Paris/Tournai, 1957), 431.Google Scholar
32 Versnel (n. 16), 235; Plin. N.H. 7.191: ‘Liber pater… diadema, regium insigne, et triumphum invenit’; Macr. 1.19.4; Diod. 3.65.8; Arrian, Anab. 6.28.2; Curt. 9.10.24.
33 Varro, Ling 6.68.
34 Strabo 3.5.5; Plin. N.H. 16.144; Arrian, Indica 5.8–9; Curt. 3.12.18; Diod. 3.65.8. I am avoiding the question (irrelevant for the purposes of this paper and which I do not think I am qualified to judge) whether Alexander did in fact imitate him or whether this is a retrojection of Ptolemaic ideas: Nock, A. D., JHS 48 (1928), 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Versnel (n. 16), 251.
35 Val. Max. 3.6.6 (Marius); Plin. N.H. 7.95 (Pompey); Plut. Ant. 36 (Mark Antony); and see Bruhl, A., Liber Pater Origine et Expansion du Culte Dionysiaque à Rome et dans le Monde Romain (Paris, 1953), 131–2.Google Scholar When Ovid later celebrates C. Caesar's expedition to the East, he also makes the comparison with Bacchus(Ars 1.189–90): ‘Nunc quoque qui puer es, quantus tum, Bacche, fuisti cum timuit thyrsos India victa tuos?’
36 As Norden, E. demonstrates: ‘Ein Panegyricus auf Augustus in Vergils Aeneis’, RhM 54 (1899), 466–82.Google Scholar See too now Bosworth, B., ‘Augustus, the Res Gestae and Hellenistic theories of apotheosis’, JRS 89 (1999), 1–19 Google Scholar, at 2–10, which appeared while this paper was in the hands of the editors.
37 Strabo 3.5.5, Virg. Aen. 6.801, Plin. N.H. 7.95; Plut. De Alex. Fort. 1.10.322b, Arrian, Indica 5.8–13; Men. Rhet. 388.6; see Norden (n. 36), 470.
38 Weinstock, S., ‘Victor and invictus’, HThR 50 (1957), 223.Google Scholar On Mummius’ temple and other temples of Hercules Victor, see also Richardson, L. Jr, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1992), 188–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Virg. Aen. 8.184–275.
40 The version of the tradition, at any rate, chosen for perpetuation by Virgil, attributed the foundation of the Ara Maxima to Evander; alü alia (see Richardson [n. 38], 186; Platner, S. B. and Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome [Oxford, 1929], 253).Google Scholar
41 Plin. N.H. 34.33; see also Richardson (n. 38), 188; and Platner and Ashby (n. 40), 253–1.
42 Octavian characteristically exploited Hercules for his own triumphs, by choosing to begin the triple triumph on 13 August, the date of the annual sacrifice to Hercules Invictus: see Bosworth (n. 36), 8.
43 Bellinger (n. 28), 95–7, explains how flattery of Alexander at a sacrifice to the Dioscuri (Arrian, Anab. 4.8.1–3) may have been responsible for their obtaining a place in conventional comparison which they never lost.
44 Fears (n. 23), 776; cf. Witke, C., Horace's Roman Odes: A Critical Examination (Leiden, 1983), 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cic. N.D. 2.6, 3.11–2 refers to the intervention of the Dioscuri.
45 Cic. Tusc. 1.28
46 Fears (n. 23), 776; for the denarius showing the Dioscuri crowned by Victory, see his Plate 1, 4 and Crawford, M., Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar, No. 61. More generally, see LIMC III. 1 (Zurich/Munich, 1986), 608–35, especially 629–30.
47 As well, no doubt, as the fact that only three men in the history of the republic had triumphed more than three times, and all of them dictators: see Hickson, F. V., ‘Augustus Triumphator: manipulation of the triumphal theme in the political program of Augustus’, Latomus 50 (1991), 124–38Google Scholar, at 137–8.
48 This may suggest the need to reconsider readings based upon ‘the absence from the starry band of such more obvious antecedents and potential models as Alexander…’ as, for example, Jameson, V. B., ‘Virtus re-formed: an “aesthetic response” reading of Horace Odes III.2’, TAPA 114 (1984), 219–240 Google Scholar, at 236–7, discussing Carm. 3.3.
49 Pace Dio 52.41.3, who gives the date as 29, which does not appear to be supported by the epigraphical sources: see Hickson (n. 47), 132; Syme, R., ‘Imperator Caesar: a study in nomenclature’, Historia 7 (1958), 172–88Google Scholar, at 182 = Roman Papers I (Oxford, 1979), 372.
50 Syme (n. 49).
51 Ibid., at 182, 372. To talk of monopolizing the glory of the triumphator in adopting the praenomen imperatoris may be pushing the fundamental point too far.
52 Ibid., at 183, 373.
53 See Fears (n. 23), 807–8, Weinstock (n. 38), 237–41, Hickson (n. 47), passim.
54 Dio 53.16.4.
55 Dio 49.15.1.
56 That Augustus manipulated political ceremonies and exploited the visual media in such a way as to monopolize for himself the image of triumphator is the thesis of Hickson's paper: Hickson (n. 47), 124.
57 Ibid., 130–2.
58 Res Gestae 4.1–2.
59 See also Doblhofer (n. 24), 92–108: ‘Krieg und Frieden’.
60 Hor. Carm. 1.2.49–52.
61 Hor. Carm. 1.12.49–60; 21.13–16; 35.29–32; 37; 2.9.18–24; 12.9–12; 3.4.37–40; [4.1–4, 13–16. In 1.6.10–12, Horace refers merely to ‘laudes egregii Caesaris’, but the context makes it clear that these are military praises which Horace forbears to sing. In 3.25.3–6, he asks where he will be heard ‘egregii Caesaris…eternum meditans decus stellis inserere et consilio Iovis’.
62 This is in fact what happened: Dio 56.34; in addition the statue of Victory from the Curia led the procession, which at one point passed through the Porta Triumphalis, a novel honour decreed by the Senate: Suet. Aug. 100; Tac. Ann.1.8.3. See also Flower, H. L., Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford, 1996), 244—6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63 Nettleship (n. 2), 143.
- 1
- Cited by