No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Horace probably published the first three books of his Odes as a unit and in the form in which we have them in 23 B.c. Single books may have been published earlier, and certainly single poems will have been known to a limited public earlier, but i. 1 and iii. 30 seem to have been composed specially for the three-book collection. Although late odes are to be found in Book i and early odes in Book iii, the collection seems to be generally chronological; this suggests that, though Horace may in some sense have ‘published’ three books of Odes separately as each was finished, there was minimal rearrangement and redistribution for the unitary three-book edition. Dates for individual poems are not usually ascertainable, except for political odes—and, since it is only for them that date is significant, the general uncertainty does not matter.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1972
Footnotes
1
Editions: R. Bentley (Cambridge, 1711; reprinted Berlin, 1870); Orelli–Baiter–Hirschfelder4 I (Berlin, 1886); J. Gow (Cambridge, 1896: brief and sensible); E. C. Wickham3 (Oxford, 1896); L. Müller (St. Petersburg and Leipzig, 1900: independent and original, sometimes wrong-headed, but far better than commentary on Satires and Epistles); O. Tescari3 (Turin, 1948); Kiessling-Heinze10 (Berlin, 1960: indispensable still, with excellent bibliographies by E. Burck); G. Williams, The Third Book of Horace’s ‘Odes’ (Oxford, 1969); Nisbet-Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace ‘Odes’ i (Oxford, 1970). In English the books of D’Alton, Campbell, Wilkinson, West, and, of course, Fraenkel (for details see Introduction) should be consulted. The articles of R. Reitzenstein, important for the Hellenistic poetic background, have been conveniently collected as Aufsätze zu Horaz (Darmstadt, 1963). Collections of inter pretations are in F. Klingner, Römische Geisteswelt (Munich, 1956) and J. Pöschl, Horazische Lyrik (Heidelberg, 1970). The work of La Penna (p. 4 n. 5 above) is of special interest for Odes i—iv. References to the main commentaries (especially that of Nisbet-Hubbard) are taken for granted in what follows.
References
page no 21 note 2 Nisbet-Hubbard, xxviii.
page no 21 note 3 On this concept see p. 20 and n. 2 above.
page no 21 note 4 For details see Wickham, 19-24, and Nisbet-Hubbard, xxviii ff. The attempt by the latter to date some odes (e.g. i. 35-pp. xxviii f.) to about 35 B.c. is unconvincing; in Epodes and Satires the commitment to Caesar clearly belongs to the context of Actium and this fits the historical situation (see pp. 11 and 20 above). The words and tone of e.g. i. 35 are very similar. See also Wilkinson, L. P., Hermes lxxxiv (1957), 495 Google Scholar ff.
page no 21 note 5 See Williams, TORP, 253 f.
page no 22 note 1 See p. 6 above.
page no 22 note 2 See Williams, TORP, Chapter 5.
page no 22 note 3 The great basic demonstration of this is still Fraenkel, , Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin, 1922)Google Scholar, translated into Italian, with important appendices, as Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Florence, 1960).
page no 22 note 4 For a good account see Lesley, A., History of Greek Literature (London, 1966), 128-48Google Scholar; see also Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry2 (Oxford, 1961), 130–240 Google Scholar. Texts (with translation and commentary) are in Page, D., Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford, 1955)Google Scholar.
page no 22 note 5 Lesky, op. cit. 174-7; Bowra, op. cit. 268-307.
page no 23 note 1 Lesky, op. cit. 151-3; Bowra, op. cit. 74-129.
page no 23 note 2 Lesky, op. cit. 202-6.
page no 23 note 3 Lesky, op. cit. 190-202; Bowra, C. M., Pindar (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar.
page no 23 note 4 See Highbarger, E. L., TAPA lxvi (1935), 227 Google Scholarff.; Waszink, J. H., Antike und Abendlandx xii(1966), 111 Google Scholarff.; and Segal, C., TAPA xcviii (1967), 431 Google Scholar ff. See the excellent demonstration by Cairns, F., Eranos lxix (1971), 68 Google Scholar ff., that Odes i. 2 is modelled on a paean in Pindaric style (but see also p. 30 n. 6 below).
page no 23 note 5 See p. 9 above.
page no 23 note 6 See p. 10 above.
page no 24 note 1 See Fraenkel, Horace, 403-4.
page no 24 note 2 On this feature in Archilochus see Dover, K. J. in Archiloque (Entretien Tome X: Fondation Hardt, 1964), 183 Google Scholar ff.
page no 25 note 1 See especially the work of R. Reitzenstein (p. 21 n. 1 above).
page no 25 note 2 See Williams, TORP, 285 ff.
page no 25 note 3 Another aspect of the poetic ‘framework’; see p. 15 n. 6 above.
page no 25 note 4 See in general Williams, TORP, 132-57. The fundamental work on the features of form and style that marked the ancient hymn is still Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (Berlin, 1913)Google Scholar.
page no 26 note 1 Williams, TORP, 146 f.
page no 26 note 2 See Fraenkel, Horace, 168 ff.
page no 26 note 3 Williams, TORP, 67 ff.
page no 26 note 4 Williams, TORP, 154 ff.
page no 26 note 5 See Pöschl, , Horazische Lyrik (Heidelberg, 1970), 52 Google Scholar ff.
page no 26 note 6 Williams, TORP, 135-7.
page no 26 note 7 The only part of the poem which depends on Alcaeus. Horace uses what is a ‘motto’ from Alcaeus (Fraenkel, Horace, 159) to open the poem.
page no 26 note 8 See e.g. Williams, TORP, 148, 155, 218 f., 223 f., 499.
page no 27 note 1 See Fraenkel, Horace, 288 ff.
page no 27 note 2 See p. 13 above.
page no 27 note 3 See Fraenkel, Horace, 179 ff.
page no 27 note 4 See Williams, TORP, 115 ff.
page no 27 note 5 It looks as if i. 11 should also be regarded as having a symposiastic setting (briefly indicated by 6 vina ligues): the poet’s message to the girl Leuconoe, spoken over wine, has erotic overtones which are left as mere implications. This was made possible by the symposiastic setting.
page no 27 note 6 e.g. Hubbard-Nisbet, 117, ‘The contradiction may be derived from Horace’s sources. . . . He has included two themes of Greek poetic moralizing which on close inspection seem inconsistent. . . .’
page no 27 note 7 The first stage is to attach a reverential phrase to the mention of the gods which depicts their power to calm storms (cf. i. 12. 27 ff.), and does not inanely repeat the first stanza. This stanza (9-12) is a sort of libation, and the ideas move easily from ‘trust everything else to the gods’, through ‘and do not worry about the future’, to picturing a scene that is set in the most contrasted weather; the connecting idea is ‘leave everything—except your own conduct [i.e. basically your own attitude of mind, cf. Epist. i. 18. 111-12]—to the gods’.
page no 27 note 8 See Hubbard-Nisbet, 244-6, and Commager, S., TAPA lxxxviii (1957), 68 Google Scholar ff.
page no 28 note 1 See Williams, TORP, 124-9.
page no 28 note 2 In general see S. Commager, The Odes of Horace, 141-59.
page no 28 note 3 Contrast the view in Satires i. 2 (p. 18 above), which is certainly not to be pre ferred as representing more accurately the true feelings of Horace.
page no 28 note 4 See p. 4 and n. 1 above. Most books on Horace deal with the topic; there are many articles worth consulting, e.g. V. Pöschl, SHAW 1956, Abh. 4 (with references).
page no 29 note 1 See Williams, TORP, 124 for the connection of these themes.
page no 29 note 2 Horace often uses a speech in the construction of an ode (e.g. Epodes 5, 12, 13; Odes i. 15, iii. 3, 5, 11, 27). See Helm, R., Philologus xc (1935), 352 Google Scholar ff.
page no 29 note 3 See Williams, TORP, 83-5, and (somewhat different) West, Reading Horace, 110 ff. For a denial of significance in the ending see Nisbet-Hubbard, 90 ff.
page no 29 note 4 See p. 10 and n 3. above.
page no 29 note 5 See Williams, TORP, 81 ff.
page no 29 note 6 For a characterization see R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, 5-7.
page no 30 note 1 Wimmel, W., Kallimachos in Rom (Hermes, Einzelschr. 16: Wiesbaden, 1960)Google Scholar.
page no 30 note 2 An exception is i. 14, based on a poem of Alcaeus, but very vague in its political reference; see S. Commager, The Odes of Horace, 163-9. This does not mean that the poet did not have a precise situation in mind when he wrote it.
page no 30 note 3 Of i. 37 Syme, op. cit. 299, says: ‘ “Nunc est bibendum” sang the poet Horace, safe and subsidized in Rome.’ The gibe is witty, but the poem survives—and belies—it. Many ‘realistic’ and ‘hard-headed’ modern interpretations derive from Syme. At the opposite (equally false but less superficially attractive) extreme stands Fraenkel.
page no 30 note 4 Williams, TORP, 619-33.
page no 30 note 5 The influence of these wretched writers on Horace is greatly exaggerated. For an exhaustive collection of material see Doblhofer, E., Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz in formalhistorischer Sicht (Heidelberg, 1966)Google Scholar. For a different view see Williams, TORP, 160 ff.
page no 30 note 6 See West, Reading Horace, 84-98, and Williams, TORP, 88-97. The article of F. Cairns (see p. 33 n. 4 above) makes clear the Pindaric background of this ode, but unfortunately much of it simply illustrates the danger of exaggerating Horace’s reliance on Greek forms. Pindar’s naïve religiosity is read into Horace, who is supposed to be foretelling the imminent end of the world by flood; here the sense of iam satis, the significance of the past tenses, and the tonal changes are missed. Horace was a poet not a priest, and the theology of the questions in 25-30 is not in point; the third question (recognized to be unique) is designed to allow the appearance of Mercury-Augustus as Caesaris ultor. The expiation needed is clear in the prayer which concludes the poem, e.g. nostris vitiis iniquum and neu sinas Medos equitare inultos. Equally in 6 àSvvara that have actually happened are naturally described as monstra.
page no 31 note 1 On these see especially Heinze, R., Vom Geist des Römertums (Stuttgart, 1938), 190 Google Scholarff.
page no 31 note 2 See Williams, TORP, 161, 164.
page no 31 note 3 See Williams, TORP, 270 ff.
page no 31 note 4 See Haffter, H., Philologus xciii (1938), 132-56Google Scholar.
page no 31 note 5 See Fraenkel, Horace, 273 ff.
page no 31 note 6 See Williams, TORP, 167 ff., and Odes iii 20, 37, 42, 51-4, 59, 65, 126-7.
page no 32 note 1 See Troxler-Keller, I., Die Dichterlandschaft des Horaz (Heidelberg, 1964)Google Scholar, and on the philosophical aspect Vischer, R., Das einfache Leben (Göttingen, 1965)Google Scholar. Interesting and relevant ideas are added by M. J. McGann, op. cit. (p. 4 above), 9-32.
page no 32 note 2 See Williams, Odes iii, 44-5, 52, 54, 84-5, 141.
page no 32 note 3 See Williams, TORP, 68-9. Fraenkel takes a different view, Horace, 199-201; see p. 1 n. 8 above.
page no 32 note 4 Nisbet-Hubbard (329) say: ‘Yet semel surprisingly contradicts 10 f. . . . Horace there accepted that Pythagoras received special privileges . . .’, and they even consider emending semel to simul.
page no 33 note 1 The phrase is used by Nisbet-Hubbard, 325.
page no 33 note 2 i.e. the speaker has introduced something of his own attitude into the phrase.
page no 33 note 3 Another example seems to me to be i. 16. 17: irae Thy esten exitio gravi | stravere. Nisbet-Hubbard (211) say: ‘There is some difficulty about Horace’s version of the story. The anger referred to must be that of Thyestes; there would be no point in saying that Atreus’s anger destroyed Thyestes. ... It is not clear how the difficulty should be resolved. . . .’ They consider the possibilities that Horace made a mistake, or else that it is a case of one member of a pair being put for both or for the other member. But there should be no question of ‘Horace’s version’. He is warning the girl against being angry with him (as Nisbet-Hubbard demonstrate) and casts her as Thyestes (who certainly showed anger to Atreus), while implicitly—and threateningly -—reserving the role of Atreus for himself. The threat lurks in the opening (1-2), in the idea that anger is basic to all men (13-16), and in the deliberate contrast (no ‘disarming rhetorical trick’) between his past actions (22-5) and his present wish to restrain his wrath—under certain conditions.
page no 33 note 4 Another feature of Horace’s poetry that is often ignored, though it recurs in all he wrote, is a distinct element of melancholy: see p. 46 n. 1 below.
page no 33 note 5 On tone in Horace’s Odes, see in general Williams, TORP, 755 ff.
page no 33 note 6 See Williams, TORP, 145-7.
page no 34 note 1 The basic work is Axelson, B., Unpoetische Wörter (Lund, 1945)Google Scholar. For a critique of this whole approach, see Williams, TORP, 743-50.
page no 34 note 2 Much that is illuminating for the style of Horace’s Odes is set out by Wilkin son, L. P., Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, 1963)Google Scholar.
page no 34 note 3 Rhyme in Horace is carefully analysed by Skutsch, O., BICS xi (1964), 73-8Google Scholar. This has consequences for the text: for instance, in Odes iii I should have printed at 4. 38 cohortes and at 10. 3 fores.
page no 34 note 4 Horace’s Odes are sometimes said to use ‘the techniques of rhetoric’, by which is meant the use of questions, exclamations, etc. This is misleading, for these are the common forms of human intercourse. What is missing from Horace is the panoply of contrived artificialities, the supellex which was the stock-in-trade of the professional rhetorician.
page no 34 note 5 Williams, TORP, 763.
page no 34 note 6 Fraenkel, Horace, 285.
page no 34 note 7 Williams, TORP, 755 f.
page no 35 note 1 Nisbet-Hubbard, xxii.
page no 35 note 2 See Coliinge, N. E., The Structure of Horace’s Odes (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar. There are good individual observations in this book, but as a whole it is too schematic.
page no 35 note 3 For some examples, see Williams, Odes iii, 23, and TORP, Index s.v. ‘epigram elevated into major poetic form’.
page no 35 note 4 For this feature of iii. 16, see Williams, Odes iii, 101.
page no 35 note 5 Williams, TORP, 122-3.
page no 35 note 6 On the metres, see now above all Nisbet-Hubbard, xxxviii-xlvi.
page no 36 note 7 See, for instance, Port, W., Philologus lxxxi (1926), 430 Google Scholar ff.; Ludwig, W., ‘Zu Horaz, C. II. 1-12’, Hermes xcv (1957) 336 Google Scholarff.