No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
The criticism of the eighth ode of Horace's fourth book has been bedevilled by three major uncertainties: probable interpolation in its text, confusion about the identity of its addressee, and doubt as to its literary quality.1 These issues will form the central concerns of this discussion. Earlier critics have been consistently scathing in their view of Odes. 4. 8: some editors have even gone so far as to deny Horatian authorship,2 many have made dismissive judgements, following the verdict of Wilamowitz (‘really very bad’), and a recent commentator has classed 4. 8 as ‘the least lyrical of the Odes … much of it, indeed, reads like prose—limpid, logical, but pedestrian’.3 I shall not claim that the poem is a previously unacknowledged masterpiece of inspiration, but that it has been underestimated as a poetic artefact: as a careful analysis will show, it is a well-conceived, well-finished and allusive piece, relevant to its addressee and cohering well both with the following ode to Lollius and with the purposes of Book 4 as a whole.
1 Significant treatments of the poem (outside commentaries) are Lachmann, K., Philologus. 1. (1846), 164–6.Google Scholar (= Kleine Schriften (1876),.1.84–6)Google Scholar; Elter, A., Donarem.Pateras.(1907)Google Scholar [eccentric but highly informative monograph–see the review by Heinze, BPhW 1908, 1332 –41]; Pasquali, G., Orazio Lirico (1920), 755–62Google Scholar; Jachmann, G.Philologus 90 (1935), 331–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Büchner, K., Zur Form und Entwicklung der horazischen Ode und zur Lex Meinekiana, Ver. Sächs. Ak. Wiss., Phil. Hist. Kl., 91.2 (1939),Google Scholar reprinted in his Studien zur romischen Literatur, 3— Horaz (1962), 52–101Google Scholar; Becker, C., Hermes 87 (1958), 212–22;Google ScholarSuerbaum, W., Untersuchungen zum Selbstdarstellung alterer römischer Dichter, Spudasmata 19 (1968), 176–200, 215–28Google Scholar; Bohnenkamp, K. E., Die horazische Strophe Spudasmata 30 (1972), 301–20;Google Scholar and Syndikus, H. P., Die Lyrik des Horaz (1973), 2. 364–74. Other periodical literature for the period 1936–75 may be found in ANRW 11. 31. 2, 1513Google Scholar
2 This was done by at least one nineteenth-century editor (K. Lehrs in 1869).
3 Wilamowitz’ verdict is to be found in his Sappho und Simonides (1913), 321; the recent commentator is Quinn, K., The Odes of Horace (1980), 313Google Scholar. A characteristically crisp adverse judgement may be found in Gow, James, Q. Horati Flacci Carmina, Liber Epodon (1896), 341Google Scholar.
4 The stichic asclepiads of Alcaeus fr. 70 L/P seem to be divided into four-line stanzas—cf. Grenfell, and Hunt, , Oxyrynchus Papyri x (1914), 71Google Scholar.
5 Removers.of.two.(e.g.): Kiessling, A. and Heinze, R., Q. Horatius Flaccus: Oden und Epoden [12th ed.] (1966)Google Scholar; Pasquali, loc. cit. (n. 1); K. Büchner, loc. cit. (n. 1); Klingner, F., Q. Horatii Flacci Opera [3rd ed.] (1959)Google Scholar; Bohnenkamp, loc. cit. (n. 1); Borszák, S., Q. Horatii Flacci Opera (1984)Google Scholar. Removers of six (e.g.): Lachmann, Jachmann, Becker and Syndikus, op. cit. (all n. 1); Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, Q. Horatii Flacci Opera (1985)Google Scholar.
6 First suggested by Lachmann, op. cit. (n. 1).
7 So Kiessling/Heinze and Pasquali, followed by.Büchner, Klingner and Borszák, op. cit. (all n. 5).
8 For the career of L. Censorinus cf. PIR 2 M 223, for that of C. Censorinus, ibid., M 222.
9 Elder:Putnam, M. C. J., Artifices of Eternity: Horace's Fourth Book of Odes (1986)Google Scholar, 155 Younger: Syme, R., The Augustan Aristocracy (1986), 396–7Google Scholar. Either: Quinn, op. cit. (n. 3), 313–15.
10 He had been one of only two senators to offer aid to Julius Caesar at his assassination, and was subsequently promoted by Antony—praetor (43), governor of Macedonia and Achaea (42–40), consul (39). Cf.Nicolaus, Vita Augusti 96, Plutarch, Antony 24. 1 with Pelling's note.
11 CIL6. 32323. 44.
12 The standard date of 13 B.C., upheld most recently by Syme, op. cit. (n. 9), is to be preferred to the later dating of the book offered by.Williams, G. W., Horace, Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics 6 (1972), 44–9Google Scholar.
13 For the frequent relevance of the addressee for the material of the poem cf. e.g. Hubbard, M. in Costa, C. D. N. (Ed.), Horace (1973), 18–21.Google Scholar
14 G. W. Bowersock, HSCPh 68 (1964), 207–10. Atkinson, (Historia 7 (1958), 326) is followed by R. K. Sherk,ANRW11.7. 2. 1036 ff. For the proconsulship of Censorinus in a.d. 2, cf. now Syme, op. cit. (n. 9), 405.Google Scholar
15 To 13 by Atkinson and Bowersock, to 14 by Syme, op. cit. (n. 9), 399 n. 99.
16 Syme, op. cit. (n. 9), 399.
17 Cassius Dio 54. 20. 6. 17 B.C. is preferred to 16 as the date by Syme, R., History in Ovid (1978), 1–2.Google Scholar
18 Syme, op. cit. (n. 17), 153.
19 e.g. the subtle allusions to the marriage between Marcellus and Julia in Odes1. 112—cf. Williams, G. W., Hermathena 118(1974), 147–55.Google Scholar
20 cf. A. T. von S. Bradshaw, CQ n.s. 20 (1970), 142–53
21 As evidenced in the ‘Suetonian’ Vita Horati (best found in Rostagni, A., Suetonio De Poetis (1944), 113–17Google Scholar), though this may not be wholly reliable.
22 cf. White, P., JRS lxviii (1978), 74–92, esp. 78 -82.Google Scholar
23 e.g.Epodes 1.2, Odes 3.8.13, Epistles 1.1.105,1. 7. 12.
24 cf. K. Coleman's note on the Statius passage.
25 If Horace writes on the occasion of an anniversary, birthday or festival, there is usually an explicit statement of this or a broad hint–cf. Odes 1. 20. 1, 1. 31. 1, 3. 8. 1, 4. 11. 17–20.
26 cf. Pindar, Isthm. 1. 18 -22: ἐν τ' ἀέθλοισι θίγον πλεί-στων ἀγώνων, / καὶ τριπόδεσσιν ἐκόσμησαν δόμονκαί λεβήτεσσιν φιάλαισι τε χρυσοῦ, γευόμενοι στεφάνων/ νικαφορων.
27 cf. especially Fraenkel, E., Horace (1957), 426 ff.Google Scholar
28 Works of Parrhasius and Scopas in Rome: Pliny, Nat. 35.67–72 (Parrhasius), 36. 25 –as). Propertius on Apollo citharoedus: 2.31. 5–6.
29 For the ‘foil’ and the priamel structure cf. Race, W. H., The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius, Mnemosyne Suppl. 74 (1982), 1–30. Note too that a well-known poem of Pindar begins like Horace's ode with a first -person verb expressing an impossible condition. Pythian 3. 1 ἤθελον/Odes 4. 8 ‘donarem’.Google Scholar
30 This assertion that poetry is better than stone monuments becomes a motif in late Horace (cf. Brink on.Ep. 2. 1. 248), no doubt stressing his increasing affinity with Pindar (in whom cf. also Nem. 4. 79 ff.). It is also found in the Panegyricus Messallae, probably without reference to or echo in Horace–cf. Suerbaum, op. cit. (n. 1), 190 –3.
31 cf. Nisbet and Hubbard on Horace, Odes 1. 12. 1.
32 Thus ‘vis’ does not mean ‘copia’ as argued by Quinn, ad loc. (n. 3).
33 cf.Bowra, C. M., Pindar (1964), 36–41.Google Scholar
34 It is just possible that a play is intended on his name:Censorinus is a man possessed of senatorial wealth or‘census’.
35 So Elter, op. cit. (n. i), 9, followed by Quinn, op. cit. (n. 3), 314.
36 For such references to the poem in progress in Pindar cf. Ol. 1.8ff., 2. 1 ff., 6.7ff., 11.4 ft etc. Horace's plural ‘carmina’ is simply convenient and poetic (as e.g. at Catullus 65. 16, ‘mitto haec expressa tibi carmina Battiadae’, referring to Poem 66; cf. fur-ther TLL 3. 4. 73–71 ff.).
37 Some editors prefer the genitive ‘muneris', found in an eleventh-century MS, but the dative seems more select and is perhaps confirmed by the similar dative after ‘pretium facere’ ‘fix a price (for)’–cf. Martial 7. 17. 8 ‘haec illis pretium facit litura’. The genitive would be an easy simplification.
38 So Jachmann, op. cit. (n. 1), 333.
39 Though ‘celerem fugam’ at Odes 2. 7. 9 clearly refers to running away, i.e. flight seen from the point of view of the fugitive, ‘celeres fugae’ (if that reading is kept) at Odes 4. 8. 15 could just as easily refer to running away as seen from the point of view of the pursuer, i.e. ‘routs’, and need not go with ‘Hannibalis’ in grammar, but allude to Scipio's many victories against other enemy commanders, especially those in Spain.
40 Jachmann's accusation of historical inaccuracy in ‘celeres fugae’ (loc. cit. (n. 38)) in fact seems ill-founded–'fugae’ need not necessarily go with ‘Hannibalis’, and could easily refer to Scipio's routing of enemies other than Hannibal (see n. 39 above).
41 The occasion when Hannibal made a tactical withdrawal on hearing of the advance of Scipio towards Locri (Livy 29. 7. 9 ff.) should not be counted as a defeat.
42 For Horace's fondness for the oxymoron of juxtaposed words in the artful word-order of the Odes cf. 1. 19. 7 ‘grata protervitas’, 1. 22. 16 ‘arida nutrix', 2. 5. 23 ‘discrimen obscurum’, 2. 12. 26 ‘facili saevitia’, 3. 11. 35 ‘splendide mendax’, 3. 27. 28 ‘palluit audax’.
43 Links between Horace's language and that of the elogia were stressed by Elter, op. cit. (n. 1), but to very different effect.
44 cf. Pliny, Nat. 34. 20, Quintilian 1.7. 12.
45 For rhetorical concessio cf. Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (1960), 425–6Google Scholar.
46 There are no extant inscriptions celebrating Africanus in Rome, but there must have been a number of them–he was surely included in the summi viri of the Forum Augusti, and there may have been laudatory inscriptions of his on his Capitoline arch (Livy 37. 3. 7) and his tomb outside the Porta Capena (Livy 38. 56. 3 –4)
47 The mention of ‘spiritus’ and ‘vita’ recalls the platitudes of ancient art criticism, according to which statues were so realistic that they ‘breathed’ or ‘lived'–cf. Virgil, Aen. 6. 847–8 ‘spirantia aera … vivos… vultus’ with Austin's commentary, and Suerbaum, op. cit. (n. 1), 185 n. 553.
48 cf. Mommsen in CIL 1, 186.
48 Such as the elogia of the Scipiones, mentioned below and collected at CIL 12, 6–16.
50 Suetonius, Aug. 29. 1 relates that the Forum Augustum was opened before its dedication in 2 B.C. owing to the pressure of business (though it does not tell us when), and such a massive project must have taken recognizable shape years before completion. For recent discussions of the Forum Augustum and its contemporary impact, cf. Simon, E., Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitwende (1986), 46–51Google Scholar; Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (1988), 194–215Google Scholar; and Gonzert, J. and Kockel's, V. pieces in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (1988), 149–99Google Scholar.
51 An honourable exception is Suerbaum, op. cit. (n. 1).
52 cf.Skutsch, O.. The Annals of Quintus Ennius (1985) 1–2.Google Scholar
53 Bentley, R. (Ed.), Q. Horatius Flaccus (1711), 169.Google Scholar
54 The only realistic choice is to emend ‘incendia’, but ‘dispendia’ (Hermann), ‘impendia’ (Cuningham) and ‘stipendia’ (Doring) all seem desperate remedies.
55 cf. especially Heinze, R., Die Lyrischen Verse des Horaz, Ver. Sachs. Ak. Wiss., Phil.-Hist.Kl. 70.4 (1918)Google Scholar, reprinted in his Geist der Römertums (3rd ed., 1960), 227–94,Google Scholar and Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M., A Commentary on Horace Odes: Book 1 (1970), xxxviii–xlvi.Google Scholar
56 See the commentary of Nisbet and Hubbard, ad loc.
57 cf.Tarrant, R. J. in Reynolds, L. D. (Ed.), Texts and Transmissions (1983), 184–5.Google Scholar
58 cf.Axelson, B.Unpoetischer Wörter (1945), 71, whogives useful statistics.Google Scholar
59 Büchner, K., Bursians Jahresberichte 267 (1939), 142–4.Google Scholar
60 Not strictly true (as was no doubt also the case with Scipio): Paullus had at least taken the Macedonian royal library for himself (Plutarch, Aetn. 24).
61 Some of these nuances of ‘clarus’ are seen by Putnam, op. cit. (n. 9), 151.
62 Usually characterized by the verb κελαδεῖν—cf. Pin-dar, Ol. 1.9, 2.2, 6.88, 10.79, P. 1. 58, 11. 10,Nem. 9. 54, Isthm. 1. 54.
63 ‘Invida’ might also recall the common Pindaric topic of φθόνος, the envy felt towards the glory of the successful (P. 1. 85, 7. 19, 11. 29).
64 Odes 1. 12. 21–33, 3. 3. 9–16 and Ep. 2. 1.5–14;cf.further Pease on Cicero,Nat, 2. 62, Nisbet and Hubbard on Horace, Odes 1. 12. 25.
65 As Kiessling/Heinze point out ad loc. (n. 5), this notion comes from the similar catalogue and argument in Theocritus 16. 40–70.
66 For this (and other) aspects of the term ‘vates’ cf. Newman, J. K., Augustus and the New Poetry, Collection Latomus 85(1967),99–206. ‘Consecrat’, the standard verb for deification (OLD s.v. 3), makes clear the godmaking role of the ‘vates’ here in Horace's poem.Google Scholar
67 cf. Ennius, Annates fr. 51–5 Skutsch.
68 Isthm 8.24–6, 26–8, and Nem. 5.53.
69 Aeacus is found as a figure of the Underworld in Aristophanes’ Frogs (465 ff.), a notion which clearly goes back to earlier tragedy;cf.further Van Leuwen on Frogs loc.cit.and Dodds on Plato, Gorgias 523 a 1–524 a 7.
70 cf. Dodds, loc. cit. (n.69.)
71 cf.Odes 1. 12.20–33,3.3.9–16,Ep. 2.1.5–12.
72 cf. n. 65 (above); the phrase echoes in particular Theocritus 16. 58 έκ Μοισᾱν κλέος ἔρχεται ἀνθρώποισιν.
73 cf. Nisbet and Hubbard on Odes 1. 12.
74 This point is made by Putnam, op. cit. (n. 9), 153.
75 This is fine in Horace (cf.Odes 1. 12. 22,16. 1, 32. 9,3.8.7, 21.21, Ep. 1. 19. 4), and unsurprising, since ‘Liber’, whatever its true etymology, was thought by some at least in antiquity to be itself an adjective, matching the Greek title ἐλευθέρος, used of Dionysus—cf. Ernout, A. and Meillet, A., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine (1939), 545.Google Scholar
76 For the failed tricolon ascendens cf.Odes 1. 19.1–3,1. 21. 6–7.
77 As it upsets Syndikus, op. cit. (n. 1), 2.367–8.
78 See the additional arguments against line 33 in Büchner, op. cit. (n. 1), 98–9.
79 Hom. Hymn. 26. 11–13.
80 P. 1.47–57.
81 cf.esp.Odes 2. 19 and 3.25(on Bacchus/Dionysus as god of poetry in general, popular in the Augustan period, cf. Nisbet and Hubbard'’s introduction to the former).
82 cf.Schrijvers, P.H., Mnemosyne.26 (1973), 140–59, esp.150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83 Poems placed approximately at the centre of each of the other books of Odes may be seen as prominent: so 1. 20 (out of 38), 2. 12 (out of 20) and 3. 16 (out of 30), all of which are addressed to the patron of Odes 1–3, Maecenas. Just so the sixth poem out of eleven forms an evident centrepiece to Propertius’ fourth book, probably published a few years before Horace's.