Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T09:36:29.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Splendide Mendax: Horace Odes III. 111

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Francis Cairns
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Studies of Horace's imitation of Greek lyric in his Odes have tended to concentrate on particular supposed echoes. Given that the surviving Greek texts are few and fragmentary, this method is bound often to lead to dubious and unsatisfactory results. A broader approach directed at the syntax, structure, and myths of the Odes produces, in my view, a clearer understanding of how Horace hoped to enter the canon of lyric poets (Odes i. 1. 35 f.). This paper expounds Odes iii. 11 exempli gratia as a serious Horatian attempt to write the Latin equivalent of an early Greek lyric. It shows some of the ways in which Horace has concentrated the characteristics he observed in his predecessors and composed an ode which is a close-knit complex of Greek lyric linguistic and conceptual mannerisms.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , October 1975, pp. 129 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1975

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

NOTES

2. Apparently a standard opening of short hymns. Cf. e.g. Hymn. Hom. 8, 21, 24, 29Google Scholar; Alc. 45 (LP); Terpander 698; Ariphron 813; Aristot. 842; Anon. 884, 1019 (PMG).Google Scholar

3. e.g. πρίν/νῦν Pind. Pyth. 11. 38 ff.Google Scholar; Dith. 2. 1 ffGoogle Scholar; Anacr. 388 (PMG); Arch. 88. 3D. Others: e.g. Pind. Ol. 9. 1 ff., 48 f.Google Scholar; Pyth. 1. 16ff.Google Scholar; Isth. 2. 1 ff.Google Scholar; 8. 65 a ff.; Parth. 2. 31 ff.Google Scholar; Sapph. 1. 5 ff.; 96. 1 ff. (LP). Cf. Mimn. 3D.; Simon. 90D.

4. Other examples in the Odes are i. 14. 18 f.; i. 16. 22 f.; i. 34. 1 ff.; iii. 9. 1 ff.; iii. 26. 1 ff.; iv. 4. 5 ff.

5. Cf. e.g. Pind. Ol. 9. 1 ff., 48 f.Google Scholar; Pyth. 11. 38 ff.Google Scholar; Isth. 2. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Parth. 2. 31 ff.Google Scholar

6. Cf. Kiessling-Heinze, ad loc.; Nisbet-Hubbard on Od. i. 32. 13 f.Google Scholar; and for some late material Borthwick, E. K., Music and Letters li (1970), 373 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The observations on the description and history of the lyre I owe to Dr. Borthwick.

7. e.g. Alc. 34. 5 (LP); Bacch. 5. 71, 111; 11. 43; and in Pind. Ol. alone 2. 81; 5. 4; 6. 29; 8. 67; 13. 63.

8. e.g. Alc. 34. 5; 308. 2 (b), 2 (LP); Sapph. 17. 3 (LP); Bacch. 11. 43; and in Pind. Ol. alone 1. 25; 3. 13; 6. 29; 8. 31; 10. 24.

9. e.g. Bacch. 9. 40, 43; Pind. Ol. 1. 12, 25Google Scholar; 2. 8, 23; Nem. 3. 23, 34.Google Scholar

10. Cf. Burton, R. W. B., Pindar's Pythian Odes (Oxford, 1962), 56Google Scholar (for a similar case of explanatory asyndeton which also resumes a list), 141, 188.

11. Cf. e.g. Alcm. 1. 6, 76 (PMG); Bacch. 10. 34; and in Pind. Ol. alone 3. 18; 5. ii; 6. 42; 7. 43, 83. In Horace cf. e.g. Od. ii. 12. 6Google Scholar; ii. 19. 28; iii. 1. 12.

12. Cf. e.g. Arch. 70D.; Anacr. 359 (PMG); Sapph. 1. 15 ff. (LP); West, M. L., Hesiod Theogony (Oxford, 1966), 76Google Scholar; Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), 12 ff.Google Scholar

13. Oksala, T., Religion und Mythologie bei Horax (Helsinki, 1973), 169 n. 1.Google Scholar (But not taking account of Syndikus, H.-P., Die Lyrik des Horaz (Darmstadt, 1972), ii. 127 ff.)Google Scholar

14. Cf. e.g. Alc. 42. 9; 129. 9 (LP); Pind. Ol. 10. 34, 55; Pyth. 5. 23, 85Google Scholar; 9. 17; 12. 17; Isth. 6. 35.Google Scholar

15. Cf. also Pyth. 4. 140Google Scholar (ὁμως); Nem. 3. 80Google Scholar (περ enjambed); Theogn. 1. 1060 (καίπερ).

16. See West, M. L., op. cit.Google Scholar, index s.v. ‘etymologising’; Pfeiffer, R., op. citGoogle Scholar, index s.v. ‘etymology’, and cf. e.g. Alcm. 3 fr. 3. 73 f. (PMG); Pind. Ol. 6. 44 ff.Google Scholar; Bacch. 6. 1 f.Google Scholar

17. Cf. e.g. Alc. 5. 16 (ἕμοι τότα); 58. 5 (οὐδέ τọἰ), 25 (ταῦτά μọι) (LP); Sapph. 1. 15 (κὤττι), 19 (τίς σ΄, ὤ), 27 (σὺ δ' αὔτα); 16. 3 (ἔγω δὲ κῆν' ὄτ/-τψ); 23. 7 (τόδε δ' ῖσ[θι,] ταὶ σαῖ) (LP); and for δέ οἱ/τέ οἱ e.g. Pind. Pyth. 5. 117; Nem. 1. 61; Bacch. 17. 18.

18. e.g. non si male nunc, et olim (ii. 10. 17)Google Scholar; quod satis est neque (iii. 1. 25)Google Scholar; quod ex hac (iv. 11. 18)Google Scholar; et illi (i. 35. 11)Google Scholar; minus iam (ii. 11. 13)Google Scholar; atque (ii. 10. 21)Google Scholar; and several times et, ut, and personal pronouns and adjectives.

19. For quin et cf. e.g. Od. i. 10. 13Google Scholar; ii. 13. 37: for καὶ γάρ cf. e.g. Alc. 38. 5 (LP); Pind. Ol. 7. 27, 47Google Scholar; Pyth. 1. 10Google Scholar; Bacch. 5. 97.Google Scholar

20. Cf. e.g. Pind. Ol. 9. 39, 47Google Scholar; Pyth. 2. 72Google Scholar; 4. 276; 10. 51.

21. Cf. Alc. 138 (Lyr. Gr. Sel.). 16, 30; 38a. 2, 8 (LP); Sapph. 44. 5, 7, 34; Alcm. 1. 40, 42, 80; 1. 53, 57, 77, 79, 90; 3 fr. 3 col. ii. 64, 73 (PMG); Pind. Pyth. 4. 15, 57.Google Scholar

22. For parenthesis cf. e.g. Arch. 79a D. 5 f.; Pind. Ol. 8. 28 f.; and see Burton, , op. cit.Google Scholar, index s.v. ‘parenthesis’. For parenthesis in the form of a rhetorical question cf. e.g. Alc. 346. 1 (LP); Alcm. 1. 56 (PMG); Bacch. 10. 51 f.Google Scholar; Pind. Pyth. 10. 4Google Scholar; for τί γάρ introducing such cf. e.g. Bacch. frr. 12. 1; 20b. 19, 35.

23. Cf. e.g. Alc. 10b. 1; 130. 20 (LP); Alcm. fr. 7D. 1; 26. 2 (PMG); Simon. 543. 22 (PMG); Pratinas 708. 1 ff. (PMG); Sapph. 1. 22 f.; 16. 1 f. (LP); Anacr. 359. 1 ff. (PMG); Bacch. 3. 15 f.; 39 f.; Pind. Ol. 2. 61 f.Google Scholar; Pyth. 4. 70 f.Google Scholar; Pae. 1. 1 f. Cf.Google Scholar also Sapph. 5.3, 5; 115. 1 f. (LP). In the Odes cf. e.g. i. 2. 21, 23; i 3. 25, 27; i 5. 9, 10; iii. 3. 18; iii. 4. 3, 5. Demetrius (On Style 140) deals with repetitions as a source of forcefulness and Rhet. Graec. (ed. Spengel) i. 406. 11 as a source of πάθος.

24. Cf. e.g. Alc. 283 (LP); Sapph. 16 (LP); Pind. Pyth. 4Google Scholar; Bacch. 19.Google Scholar

25. Also 10, 11 f., 13, 14, 19, 25 f., 35 f., 43 f., 49, 50, 51 f. Two minor additional features of lyric imitation are: the expression denoting time in the adonius (36)—cf. Alc. 42. 12 (LP)—and the superlative in the second-last line of the stanza (47)—cf. Alc. 42. 11; 58. 15; 335. 3 (LP).

26. Cf. Page, Denys, Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford, 1955), 252 ff.Google Scholar

27. Introd. to Odes iii. ii, 82 f.Google ScholarOksala, , op. cit. 179 ff.Google Scholar, adds nothing.

28. Cf. Ps.-Apollod. Bibl. ii. i. 5Google Scholar; Σ Il. iv. 171; Σ Pind. Nem. 10. 6.Google Scholar The latest full treatment of the Danaid myth is Garvie, A. F., Aeschylus' Supplices (Cambridge, 1969), 163 ff.Google Scholar

29. Cf. e.g. Σ Eur. Hec. 886Google Scholar; Σ Aesch. PV 853Google Scholar; Σ Pind. Pyth. 9. 112.Google Scholar

30. Cf. Ps.-Apollod. Bibl. ii. 1. 5Google Scholar and Frazer, ad loc.

31. Cf. e.g. Σ Eur. Hec. 886Google Scholar and Frazer on Pausan. x. 31. 9.Google Scholar

32. Psyche 2 (London, 1925)Google Scholar, Append. III, pp. 586 ff. On this question see now Garvie, , op. cit. 234 f.Google Scholar, and Dodds on Plato Gorg. 492 d ff.

33. The application of Harrison, J., Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1922), 621 is incorrect.Google Scholar

34. ‘The sieve symbolises non-consummation’ Dodds (loc. cit.). Costa, C. D. N. and Whittle, F. W., Mnemos. xxvi (1973), 289 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggest that Sen. Med. 748–9Google Scholar is the first undoubted example of the Danaids carrying water in holed jars rather than into a holed container. But, as they point out, the tradition of sinners in the underworld carrying water in holed jars or sieves is much older, as is doubtless the identification of the sinners with the Danaids.

35. Cf. Auct. ad Her. iv. 16. 23 ff. and Caplan, ad loc.Google Scholar

36. Cf. e.g. Sapph. 1. 26 ff. (LP); Pind. Ol. 1. 81 ff.Google Scholar; 4. 25 ff.; Nem. 10. 78 ffGoogle Scholar; Pae. fr. 52D. 50 ff.; Bacch. 3. 47.

37. I shall argue further for the existence of such works in a forthcoming treatment of Odes iii. 12 and related odes.

38. Op. cit., ii. 123 ff.

39. For this phenomenon see my Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh, 1972), 138 ff.Google Scholar

40. e.g. Pind. Ol. 4Google Scholar; Pyth. 4, 11Google Scholar; Nem. 3, 9, 10.Google Scholar

41. The whole question of ‘Speakers Employing Substitutes’ (Generic Composition, 216 f.Google Scholar) is a wider one than I then realized.

42. On inclusion see Generic Composition, 158 ff.Google Scholar

43. Cf. Generic Composition, 34 f.Google Scholar There is some likelihood that the genre diegertikon played a part in earlier versions of the myth also. See Aesch. fr. 124 (Mette) and Garvie, , op. cit 228 ff.Google Scholar

44. Cf. Generic Composition, index s.v. ‘propemptikon’.

45. Cf. Generic Composition, 182 ff.Google Scholar