Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:35:04.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catullus 45 and Horace Odes 3.9: The Glass House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Rosemary M. Nielsen
Rosemary M. Nielsen*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Extract

Late in the fifties Munro's long-standing and influential verdict on the Acme and Septimius poem (‘the most charming picture in any language of a light and happy love’) suddenly came under fire. A flurry of scholarly reaction arose, and strangely enough, almost as quickly subsided, to support, then condemn, and finally to modify beyond recognition S. Baker's proposition that Catullus ‘never wrote about love without some irony’. A rehearsal of the various responses to Baker's assessment is especially illustrative both of the particular difficulties in this poem and, more importantly, of the misconceptions which have for years plagued interpretations of the love poetry of Horace as well as Catullus. Indeed, it is fortunate that the frequently observed relationship between Odes 3.9 and its predecessor enables us to examine comprehensively what is symptomatic of general critical approaches to both poets.

Baker's doubt of the idyllic proportions of the love portrait presented in Carmen 45 is certainly not unfounded. However, his arguments in favor of an overriding ironic tension result, if correctly understood, from his conviction that, since elsewhere Catullus cannot ‘speak of love directly and simply for many lines running’, the lovers' bliss is therefore immediately suspect. The poems used in corroboration of this view are nearly all drawn from the so-called Lesbia cycle (2, 5, 7, 51, together with the two epithalamia, 61-62). While in a very restricted sense Catullus' ofttimes exaggerated declaration of passionate love for Lesbia may seem a unifying feature of these pieces, it is incorrect to assume that any single modulation of the love experience is an automatic cipher for all others.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , 1977 , pp. 132 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1977

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

1. Munro, H. A. J., Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus (London, 1905), 121Google Scholar.

2. Baker, S., ‘The Irony of Catullus’ “Septimus and Acme”’, CP 53 (1958), 111Google Scholar.

3. Most notably Ferguson, J., ‘Catullus and Horace’, AJP 77 (1956), 1–18Google Scholar, whose conclusion is a model: ‘Horace produces the tidier poem, Catullus is more deeply affecting. Horace moves the mind, Catullus the heart. Horace’s verses are the product of wit, Catullus’ of the romantic imagination’ (13). Or, there is the distinction made between Catullus’ self-revelation and Horace as poseur: ‘But is not Horace, under strict self-control, revealing those aspects of himself which he chose to reveal, betraying himself no doubt in metaphors as that of the dying storm, but showing on the whole a personality groomed for the public occasion.’ Blaiklock, E. M., The Romanticism of Catullus (University of Auckland, 1959), 10–11Google Scholar.

4. Baker (n. 2 above).

5. E.g., Reckford, K. J., ‘Some Studies in Horace’s Odes on Love’, CJ 55 (1959), 25–33Google Scholar. His attempt to avoid such considerations falls upon the shoals because he turns poetry into an apparent philosophy; thus Horace shows us in his odes that ‘the love-war is a farce’ (25). Similarly, Konstan, D., ‘Two Kinds of Love in Catullus’, CJ 68 (1972), 102–106Google Scholar.

6. Baker (n. 2 above), 112.

7. Ross, D., ‘Style and Content in Catullus 45’, CP 60 (1965), 258Google Scholar.

8. Khan, H. A., ‘Catullus 45: What Sort of Irony?’, Latomus 27 (1968), 5Google Scholar.

9. So Ross (n. 7 above), 256–257, in a closely argued examination of diction and meaning.

10. Khan (n. 8 above), 4: ‘The Roman gentleman at leisure, as against the Roman man of action who devotes himself to serious pursuits.’

11. Singleton, D., ‘Form and Irony in Catullus XLV’, G & R 18 (1971), 180–187Google Scholar. Ferguson (n. 3 above), 12, suggests that Catullus may also be influenced by the bantering dialogue of the marriage-song.

12. An instructive example of an exegesis which overlooks meaning in favor of literary tradition is that on Horace Odes 3.12 found in Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), 202–206Google Scholar. Williams provides the scaffolding for an appreciation of the Neobule ode.

13. Two studies are particularly helpful in their discussion of the literary background: Bowra, C. M., ‘The Love-Duet’, AJP 79 (1958), 377–391Google Scholar and Pasquali, G., Orazio Lirico (Firenze, 1966), 408–419Google Scholar.

14. Quinn, K., Catullus, The Poems (London, 1970), 224Google Scholar. See also Commager, S., ‘Notes on Some Poems of Catullus’, HSCP 70 (1965), 98–99Google Scholar on the formal use of names.

15. Catullus intensifies Septimius’ pledge through the staccato beat of p’s and t’s and the frequency of sibilant sounds in verses 3–7.

16. Note the artful juxtaposition of Septimius’ ‘love-drunk eyes’ (ebrios ocellos, 11) with Acme’s ‘crimson lips’ (purpureo ore, 12).

17. Khan (n. 8 above), 9–10, has an interesting discussion of the servitium amoris motif in the poem.

18. First recognized by Comfort, H., ‘Analysis of Technique in Catullus XLV’, TAPA 69 (1938), xxxiiiGoogle Scholar.

19. See Quinn’s treatment of the nuances contained in perire (5, ‘To perish for love’), n. 14 above, 225.

20. Tecum vivere amem, tecum obeam libens, 24: ‘I would love to live with you; willingly would I die with you.’

21. The battle that has long raged over Amor’s sneezes is properly ended by Khan (n. 8 above), 10–11.

22. Singleton (n. 11 above), 187: ‘Catullus’ intention is not to cast doubt on the reality of their love for one another, but on the ability of the language they use to express that reality. We conclude, therefore, that Catullus’ forty-fifth poem is “really” a literary or critical poem in the sense that it is primarily concerned with literature rather than experience.’

23. In the use of adjectives such as beatior (25, ‘more happy’) and auspicatior (26, ‘more auspicious’) Catullus harkens back to the Pindaric notion that to mark out a man’s prosperity or felicity was to invite the jealousy of gods and men (e.g. Olympian Ode 1, 41–51). The motif of endangerment adds value to their passion. For a similar usage, see Catullus 51, 13–16.

24. Commager, S., The Odes of Horace (New Haven, 1962), 141Google Scholar: ‘(Horace’s) imagination was excited less often by the extremes of happiness or despair of lovers than by their self-contradictions, illusions, or deceptions.’