Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T18:27:55.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Horace' Debt to Greek Literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

W. K. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh.

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1935

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.)

References

page 109 note 1 Especially: Jensen, C., Philodemus über die Gedichte, fünftes Buch (1923)Google Scholar; Rostagni, A., Arte Poetica di Orazio (1930)Google Scholar; Immisch, O., Horazens Epistel über die Dichtkunst (1932)– to which I am indebted throughout.Google Scholar

page 109 note 2 Journal of Philology, Vol. xii, No. 23.

page 110 note 1 Some of his arguments were, however, demolished by Mommsen.

page 110 note 2 Sat. I, 2, 121.

page 110 note 3 Though not all the letters of the name are legible, the restoration seems certain.

page 110 note 4 Col. XIII, 8.

page 110 note 5 A.P. 343.

page 110 note 6 1, 2, 3.

page 110 note 7 A.P. 100.

page 110 note 8 E.g. ‘praenotio’ for πρόληΨις.N.D., I, 17, 44.

page 110 note 9 Col. I, 32.

page 111 note 1 E.g. in A.P. 408.

page 111 note 2 A.P. 338; see also 317.

page 111 note 3 A.P. 310.

page 111 note 4 A.P. 319–322.

page 111 note 5 I.e. accepting the distinction usually drawn by Greek grammarians that ποίημα is the whole of a long poem and ποίημα a part of it; see Marx on Lucilius IX, 338.

page 112 note 1 Rostagni and Immisch do indeed differ as to the point of division between ποίησις and ποίημα. Rostagni assigns I-41 to ποίησις, Immisch 1–152. The division between ποίημα and ποιμτής is quite clear, and both start this section with 295.

page 112 note 2 A.P. 25.

page 112 note 3 A.P. 335.

page 112 note 4 E.g. the portrayal of the differences between various kinds of Greeks and barbarians: A.P. 118:

page 112 note 5 Cicero, De Oratore, II, 177.

page 112 note 6 A.P. 135.

page 113 note 1 Horace: a New Interpretation, p. 246.

page 113 note 2 A.P. 224.

page 113 note 3 A.P. 268.

page 113 note 4 A.P. 286.

page 114 note 1 Supported by Michaelis and Nettleship.

page 114 note 2 These seem to be overlooked by Professor Jefferson Elmore, who assigns it to 28 or 27 B.C. in Classical Philology XXX, p. I.

page 114 note 3 Ep. I, 1, 18.

page 114 note 4 A.P. 73 seq.

page 114 note 5 Ep. I, 19, 23.

page 114 note 6 Od. Ill, 30, 13, and Ep. I, 19, 32.

page 114 note 7 A.P. 38.

page 114 note 8 v. 60.

page 114 note 9 Sat. I, 10, 19.

page 115 note 1 Cat. li.

page 115 note 2 A.P. 133–135.

page 115 note 3 Od. II, 16, 5.

page 115 note 4 Od. III, 9, 7.

page 115 note 5 A.P. 53.

page 115 note 6 Sat. I, 10, 31.

page 116 note 1 Sat. I, 4, 1 seq.

page 116 note 2 A.P. 281.

page 116 note 3 A.P. 47.

page 116 note 4 A.P. 52.

page 116 note 5 A.P. 86 and 119 seq.

page 116 note 6 A.P. 129 seq.

page 116 note 7 A.P. 132.