¹ The irony is confirmed by Hor. Epist. 1.19.32–3 hunc quoque, non alio dictum prius ore, Latinus | uulgaui fidicen, where uulgaui wryly looks back to Hor. Epist. 1.19.19 o imitatores, seruum pecus and forward to Hor. Epist. 1.19.37 non ego uentosae plebis suffragia uenor. Cf. Carm. 4.9.3–4 non ante uulgatas per artis | uerba loquor socianda chordis.

² On the clear echo of Callim. Epigr. 28.4 σικχαίνω πάντα τὰ δημόσια at Hor. Carm. 3.1.1 odi profanum uulgus et arceo, see e.g. R.G.M. Nisbet and N. Rudd (edd.), A Commentary on Horace Odes, Book III (Oxford, 2004), 7. On Callimachus' chiastic echo in the final couplet (ναίχι καλὸς … ἄλλος ἔχει), which I have attempted to honour in my translation, see J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley, 1981), 23–4. For further intertexts with Carm. 3.1.1, see A. Cavarzere, Sul limitare: il “motto” e la poesia di Orazio (Bologna, 1996), 221–3.

³ Verg. G. 3.4, on which see R.F. Thomas (ed.), Virgil Georgics (Cambridge, 1988), 2.38: ‘the Virgilian novelty is that it is Callimachean themes that have become commonplace’. On the reception of Callimachus at Rome generally, see most recently R.L. Hunter, The Shadow of Callimachus: Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome (Cambridge, 2006), with bibliography. It is perhaps notable that Horace like Virgil before him positions his rejection of the commonplace at the beginning of his third book: see Faber, R., ‘Poetics of closure in Horace, Odes 3.1’, AJPh 126 (2005), 93–106 Google Scholar, at 98–9.

⁴ That the etymology from ἀ privative + πολλῶν was known in Horace's time is confirmed by Macrobius, who attributes it to Chrysippus (Macrob. Sat. 1.17.7): Apollinis nomen multiplici interpretatione ad solem refertur, cuius rei ordinem pergam. Plato solem Ἀπόλλωνα cognominatum scribit ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀποπάλλειν τὰς ἀκτῖνας, id est a iactu radiorum; Chrysippus {Apollinem}, ὡς οὐχὶ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ φαύλων οὐσιῶν τοῦ πυρὸς ὄντα, primam enim nominis litteram retinere significationem negandi, ἢ ὅτι μόνος ἐστὶ καὶ οὐχὶ πολλοί, nam et Latinitas eum, quia tantam claritudinem solus obtinuit, solem uocauit. Note that Chrysippus' formulation uses the masculine πολλοί and not the neuter πολλά, which in Plutarch I take to indicate both ‘many’ in terms of number and ‘the many’ in terms of his assembly simile; the genitive plural thought to constitute part of the god's name is in any case ambiguous in terms of gender.

⁵ Callim. Epigr. 28.1–2 Pfeiffer οὐδὲ … πολλούς. See n. 2 above and cf. Callim. Hymn 2.9 ὡπόλλων οὐ παντὶ φαείνεται, ἀλλ’ ὅτις ἐσθλός, where the same wordplay is surely active. On Apolline exclusivity in Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo generally, see Bassi, K., ‘The poetics of exclusion in Callimachus' Hymn to Apollo ’, TAPhA 119 (1989), 219–31Google Scholar.

⁶ Callim. Aet. fr. 1.26–7 Pfeiffer ἑτέρων δ᾿ ἴχνια μὴ καθ᾿ ὁμά | δίφρον ἐλ]ᾶ̣ν. Note also the connotations of purity in the collocation κελεύθους | ἀτρίπτο]υ̣ς at Aet. fr. 1.27–8 Pfeiffer.

⁷ Hes. Theog. 94–6 ἐκ γάρ τοι Μουσέων καὶ ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος | ἄνδρες ἀοιδοὶ ἔασιν ἐπὶ χθόνα καὶ κιθαρισταί, | ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες. Cf. Hor. Carm. 3.1.5–6 regum timendorum in proprios greges, | reges in ipsos imperium est Iouis. On Callimachus' engagement with Hesiod generally, see most recently R.L. Hunter, Hesiodic Voices: Studies in the Ancient Reception of Hesiod's Works and Days (Cambridge, 2014), 292–301, with bibliography. On Horace's juxtaposition of poetic and political power in the figures of Apollo and Jupiter respectively (and likewise with important Callimachean intertexts), see J.F. Miller, Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets (Cambridge, 2009), 300–7.

⁸ Indeed, the gesture may well have been calculated to raise the eyebrow of Virgil, who had himself adapted Callim. Aet. fr. 1.21–4 Pfeiffer at Ecl. 6.1–5, and was by the time of this ode's composition engaged in a project distinctly more Jovian than Apolline.

⁹ Nisbet and Rudd (n. 2), 7.

¹⁰ For a similar formulation signposting wordplay, cf. Ov. Met. 3.388 et uerbis fauet [Echo] ipsa suis, where Callim. Epigr. 28 Pfeiffer is likewise an important intertext.

¹¹ I borrow the epithet from Ar. Vesp. 474 ὦ μισόδημε καὶ μοναρχίας ἐραστά. Cf. Hor. Carm. 1.1.30–2 me gelidum nemus | Nympharumque leues cum Satyris chori | secernunt populo; Carm. 1.21.13–16 hic bellum lacrimosum, hic miseram famem | pestemque a populo et principe Caesare in | Persas atque Britannos | uestra motus aget prece; Carm. 2.16.37–40 mihi parua rura et | spiritum Graiae tenuem Camenae | Parca non mendax dedit et malignum | spernere uulgus; Ov. Am. 1.15.35–6 uilia miretur uulgus; mihi flauus Apollo | pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua.

¹² Cf. Hor. Carm. 3.4.61–2 qui rore puro Castaliae lauit | crinis solutos.

¹³ For Apollo Alexicacus, see Paus. 1.3.4, 8.41.8; for Apollo Arquitenens, see Verg. Aen. 3.75. Cf. Hor. Carm. 3.4.60 numquam umeris positurus arcum.

¹⁴ For Apollo Musegetes, see e.g. Hom. Il. 1.601–4; Pind. Nem. 5.23–5. On the interchangeability of Apollo's bow and lyre in Augustan poetry reflected in these last two aspects, see Miller (n. 7), 8, 31–2, 78, 87, 92, 155–6, 231, 266, 293, 316, 352. Cf. Hor. Carm. 2.10.18–20 quondam cithara tacentem | suscitat Musam neque semper arcum | tendit Apollo; Carm. saec. 61–2 augur et fulgente decorus arcu | Phoebus acceptusque nouem Camenis.

¹⁵ Verg. Aen. 6.42–155. It is probably no coincidence that Hor. Carm. 3.1 follows directly upon Hor. Carm. 2.20, in which the poet famously describes his metamorphosis into an Apolline swan. Cf. Pl. Phd. 84e–85b; Callim. Hymn 2.5 ὁ δὲ κύκνος ἐν ἠέρι καλὸν ἀείδει; Callim. Hymn 4.249–52 ἡ μὲν ἔφη· κύκνοι δὲ †θεοῦ μέλποντες ἀοιδοί† | Μῃόνιον Πακτωλὸν ἐκυκλώσαντο λιπόντες | ἑβδομάκις περὶ Δῆλον, ἐπήεισαν δὲ λοχείῃ | Μουσάων ὄρνιθες, ἀοιδότατοι πετεηνῶν; Manil. 5.381–2 ipse deum Cycnus condit uocemque sub illo | non totus uolucer, secumque inmurmurat intus.

¹⁶ See n. 7 above.