Horace's Roman Odes: A Critical Examination 9004070060, 9789004070066

Citation preview

HORACE’S ROMAN ODES A C ritical E xam ination

MNEMOSYNE BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BATAVA COLLEGERUNT A. D. LEEMAN ■ H. W. PLEKET · C. J. RUIJGH BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT C. J. RUIJGH, KLASSIER SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT 129, AMSTERDAM

SUPPLEMENTUM SEPTUAGESIMUM SEPTIMUM CHARLES WITKE

H O R A C E ’S R O M A N O D E S A Critical Examination

A ® *

2 JÈ m V*

LUGDUNI BATAVORUM

>

jF

E . J . B R IL L

M C M L X X X III

HORACE’S ROMAN ODES A C ritical E xam ination

BY

CHARLES WITKE

LEIDEN

E .J· BRILL

1983

ISBN

90 04 07006 0

Copyright 1983 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher P R I NT E D IN T H E N E T HE R L ANDS BY E. J . BRILL

CONTENTS P r e f a c e .....................................................................................................................

v ii

I. H o ra c e a n d the R o m a n O d e s ...........................................................

1

II. T h e Ordo Legendi....................................................................................

6

III. T h e F irst R o m a n O d e ...........................................................................

19

IV . T h e S econd R o m a n O d e ....................................................................

28

V . T h e T h ird R o m a n O d e ......................................................................

37

V I. T h e F o u rth R o m a n O d e .....................................................................

47

V II. T h e Fifth R o m a n O d e ........................................................................

58

V III . T h e Sixth R o m a n O d e ........................................................................

66

E p ilo g u e a n d O d e s I I I . 7 ...................................................................................

78

I n d e x ........................................................................................................................

83

PREFA CE I sh o u ld like to th a n k the H o ra c e H . R a c k h a m school o f G ra d u a te S tu d ies of the U n iv e rsity o f M ich ig an for m a k in g it possible for m e to c o n d u c t re sea rc h in Italy for this w ork, a n d for m u ch help in the p re p a ra ­ tion a n d p u b lic a tio n o f it . M y th a n k s are also e x te n d e d to th e staff o f the A postolic L ib ra ry of the V a tic a n . I also express m y g ra titu d e to P rofessor J o h n H . D ’A rm s for his w a rm h o sp itality in 1979 as D ire c to r o f the A m e ric a n A c ad e m y in R o m e , w here m u c h o f th e p re sen t w ork was c a rrie d o u t, a n d likew ise for his im a g in a tiv e su p p o rt as c h a irm a n o f m y D e p a rtm e n t. F in ally , m y th a n k s to B ao y u , C a n y o n , Yogi a n d A ileen G a tte n for m a k in g m y tasks easier.

A n n A rb o r, M ich ig an 7 .I I . 83

CHAPTER ONE

H O R A C E AND T H E R O M A N ODES T o e m b a rk u p o n a stu d y of H o r a c e ’s R o m a n O d e s, th e first six odes o f his th ird book o f lyrics, a n d so-called from th e ir p a trio tic th em es a n d a d ­ d ress to R o m a n citizens, is to e n te r a w ell-w orked te rra in . F o r cen tu ries stu d e n ts o f L a tin lyric h a v e a d d re sse d them selves to th e m y ria d facets of th ese six texts, a n d h av e also, som etim es b rillian tly , a tte m p te d a stu d y of th e ir e n tir e ty .1 T o offer yet a n o th e r w o rk c o n ce rn e d w ith th ese poem s im plies th a t so m eth in g new can be said a b o u t th e m , som e novel m e a n in g o r in te rp re ta tio n b e im p u te d to th e m o r o sten sib ly d ie te d from th em . Yet it m ig h t also be useful to assem ble a stu d y o f the R o m a n O d es w hich, w hile offering no s ta rtlin g re-assessm en t o f th e ir im p o rt as a w hole, m ig h t n e v erth ele ss raise c e rta in q u estio n s a b o u t th e R o m a n O d es in light o f n ew p ersp ectiv es o p e n ed u p by m o d e rn lite ra ry criticism o n th e one h a n d , a n d new a w are n e ss o f th e d im en sio n s a n d strateg em s o f R o m a n p o litical a rt on th e o th e r. S uch a stu d y m ig h t e n ab le one to ex p erien ce th ese p o em s m o re fully as a tw e n tie th c e n tu ry re a d e r, as well as suggest w ays w h e re b y th e text o rg an izes itself in acco rd w ith p rin cip les m o re 1 1 For the coining of the term “ Roman Odes” to mean Horace, Odes III.1-6, reference is usually made to Theodore Mommsen’s “ Festrede” in Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, (Berlin, 1889), pp. 25ff. But the term occurs earlier in F. Curschmann, “ Die Römeroden,” Horatianis, (Berlin, 1887), pp. 43-56. Among numerous studies one may note F. Klingner, Die Römeroden: Studien zur griechischen und römischen Literatur (Zürich, 1964), pp. 333-352; R. Heinze, “ Der Zyklus der Römeroden, ” in Vom Geist des Römertums (Stuttgart, 1960), pp. 190ff., a reprint from Neue Jahrbücher für Paedagogik 5 (1929), pp. 675ff. ; Eduard Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 260ff.; G. Pasquali, Orazio lirico2 (Florence, 1964), 649ff.; Carl Koch, “ Der Zyklus der Römeroden,” Neue Jahrbücher für Antike und Deutscher Bildung 2-3 (1941), pp. 62ff.; Hans Opperman, “ Zum Aufbau der Römeroden,” Gymnasium 66 (1959), pp. 204ff.; Victor Pöschl, “ Pqetry and Philosophy in Horace,” The Poetic Tradition ed. D. C. Allen and H. T. Rowell, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968), pp. 47ff., especially pp. 58ff.; L. A. Moritz, “ Some ‘Central’ Thoughts on Horace’s O des,” Classical Quarterly, n.s. 18, (1968), pp. 116ff., especially pp. 125ff. Studies of the individual poems have also been undertaken by Fraenkel and by Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace ( New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962). References to these two scholars will be noted in connection with the several Roman Odes. D. O. Ross, Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 139-152, also addresses some comments to the Roman Odes. These have been termed “ the Finest use to which these methods [of Ross: viz., to move from small philological points to wider literary implications, with sensitivity to nuances of tone and style] have ever been put” ; J. E. G. Zetzel, “ Gallus, Elegy and R oss,” Classical Philology 72 (1977), p. 250. R. Heinze, Vom Geist des Römertums, p. 213, thought the Roman Odes the most discussed work of Roman literature.

HORACE AND THE ROMAN ODES

fa m ilia r to a n A u g u sta n a u d ien c e th a n to o u r ow n tim es. W ith o u t a rro g a tin g to itself the claim o f defin itiv en ess o r ev en to tal n o v elty save in th e ap p lic atio n o f m eth o d s n o t h ith e rto in v o k ed for the e x a m in a tio n o f H o ra c e ’s p o e try , such a stu d y as the p re se n t o n e m ig h t also v a lid a te c e rta in m o d e rn critical a p p ro a ch e s to a n a n c ie n t text. T h e idea o f civic p o e try in lyric form is fo reign if n o t re p u g n a n t to a m o d e rn W este rn a u d ien c e . F o r us, the lyric is essen tially p riv a te , even a n o v e rh e a rd s ta te m e n t m a d e by th e p o et in re la tio n o r re a c tio n to som e vision o r ex p erien ce o f his w orld to w hich his w o rd s give us access. F o r the a n cie n t w o rld , such a c o n cep tio n o f lyric p o e try w o u ld h a v e b e en e m ­ b a rra ss in g o r even in c o m p re h en sib le , as w ere c e rta in asp ects o f C a tu llu s ’ h ig h ly p erso n al a n d u n iro n ic verse for H o ra c e . C lassical G re e k u sag e h a d re stric ted melé to poem s su n g to m u sical a c c o m p a n im e n t, in d istin c tio n to iam b ic a n d elegiac verse, a n d in c o n tra st to n o n -n a rra tiv e a n d n o n d ra m a tic p o e try . H o ra c e ’s p o e m s, w hich o p en u p L a tin lyric to the w ealth o f G reek m e te r a n d su b ject, w ere in d e ed lyrics b u t n o t d esig n ed for sin g in g ,2 ra th e r they a re lyrical b y v irtu e o f th e ir m e te rs, su b jects a n d form s. T h e te rm lyric as m o d e rn ly u sed is n o n -g e n e ric a n d d escrip tiv e, d e n o tin g p o e try p re se n tin g the a r tis t’s im ag e in re la tio n sh ip to h im self, fusing concept a n d im age in so u n d . F o r th e G reek s as for th e R o m a n s , th e lyric p o e t, in v a ry in g w ays a n d w ith in cre asin g ly co m p lex d e v elo p m en ts, spoke n o t only for a n d to h im self, b u t for all w h o could h e a r h im a n d h e ed h im . T h e re w as a clear p lace fo r th e lyricist in G re e k lite ra tu re ; one n e ed o nly th in k o f th e political sta te m e n ts o f th e A eo lian poets reflecting ten sio n betw een th e receiv ed olig arch ic tra d itio n s a n d n e w e r ideas. T h e R o m a n a u d ien c e for H o ra c e ’s th re e books o f Odes, p u b lish e d as a u n it in 23 B .C ., w o u ld h a v e b e en p re p a re d th ro u g h aw aren ess o f G reek a n te c e d e n ts to u n d e rs ta n d th a t lyric p o e try a d d re sse d to p u b lic co n cern s existed as a reco g n izab le fo rm . F u rth e r, th e ir ow n lite ra tu re h a d p ro v id e d , th ro u g h E n n iu s ’ Annales a n d L u c iliu s ’ books o f satires, to n a m e b u t tw o o f m a n y , th e ex am p les o f p o ets w ho a d d re sse d civic co n cern s, if n o t in lyric, at a n y ra te in verse. A n A u g u sta n a u d ie n c e w o u ld ex p erien ce in c re asin g m a n ip u la tio n o f its a tte n tio n also b y m e a n s o f p olitical sta te m e n ts m a d e on coins, a n d in civic a rt. F in ally , a n a tte n 2 Pace A. Bonavia Hunt, Horace the Minstrel (Kineton, Warwick England, 1969), an idiosyncratic work devoted to this thesis. It is the contention of E. Poehlmann, “ Marius Victorinus zum Odengesang bei Horaz,” Philologus 109, (1965), pp. 133ff., that the Odes were to be recited, not sung. On Horace’s Alcaic meter see J. P. M. Blackett, “ A Note on the Alcaic Stanza,” Greece and Rome, second series 3, (1956), pp. 83L;J. Hellegouarc’h, “ Observations stylistiques et métriques sur les vers lyriques d ’Horace,” L ’Information litteraire 18, (1966), pp. 66ff., especially p. 74. For rhyme in Horace, see O. Skutsch’s remarks in the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 11 (1964), pp. 73-78.

HORACE AND THE ROMAN ODES

3

tive re a d e r o f th e first tw o books o f odes p re c e d in g Book III w ould hav e n o ticed re c u rrin g expressions o f civic c o n ce rn as early as th e second po em o f th e first book. H e re a t th e outset o f his lyric co rp u s H o ra ce p resen ts the city , in d e ed th e state, lash ed by civil strife, atta ck e d by th e gods, an d im p lo rin g h e a v e n for th e fulfillm ent o f the role A u g u stu s is to play in reso lv in g conflict. T h is second p o em o f th e collection follows one w herein th e p o et p re sen ts h im se lf a n d his life in c o n tra st to o th ers en g ag ed in d iv erse p u rsu its: in o th e r w ords a forecast o f III. 1 a n d 2, th e p o e t’s self­ re p re se n ta tio n (b u t w ith o u t referen ce to a p a tro n ) a n d the e x u ltatio n of civic virtus. O th e r th em es o c cu r in co m m o n betw een th e p re c ed in g odes a n d III. 1-6, th e R o m a n O d e s .3 T h e re a d e r o f H o ra c e ’s Odes has received th ro u g h re a d in g o th e r lyric in G re e k , a n d m o re specifically the poem s p re c e d in g th e R o m a n O d es them selves a q u a n tity o f d a ta e n a b lin g him to d eal effectively w ith b o th civic lyric a n d w ith th e com plex th em es a n d m a n ifo ld levels o f in te rp re ta tio n fo u n d in the cycle. In ste a d o f a p p ro a c h in g th e R o m a n O d es th ro u g h this p re c ed in g ag g reg atio n , h o w e v e r,.it is p u rp o se d to stu d y th e m d irectly after a b rie f look at the p o litical scene o f a ro u n d 23 B .G . It is n o t th e in te n tio n o f this stu d y to a tte m p t a re c o n stru c tio n o f th e p e rc ep tio n s a n d ex p ectatio n s o f an “ o rig in al a u d ie n c e ,” since such a n effort is d o o m ed to fall sh o rt o f its h o p e d -fo r goal in a sm u c h as each act o f re a d in g a lite ra ry text is a fresh c re ativ e a ct. N e v erth ele ss, som e aw aren ess o f th e m ilieu o f this poem cycle, b o th in th e process o f re a d in g th ro u g h th e Odes to re a ch it a n d in th e h isto rical w orld o f p o et a n d a u d ien c e , is d esirab le. H o r a c e ’s political a n d in tellectu al stances h av e been lo n g a n d well c h a rte d th ro u g h m e an s o f his Epodes, Satires a n d Odes, as well as th ro u g h th e Epistles a n d fo u rth book o f Odes su b se q u e n t to Odes I-III. H is re la tio n ­ sh ip a n d a ttitu d e s in re g a rd to A u g u stu s, w ho figures so larg ely in the R o m a n O d e s, m ay be ta k en as in d icativ e o f his com plex ev o lu tio n o f id eas a b o u t th e new R o m a n state co m in g into b ein g after a c e n tu ry of civil w a r .4 3 E .g ., Odes 1.12, 14, 35, 37, and II. 1. See also H. C. Toll, “ Unity in the Odes of H orace,” Phoenix 9, (1955), pp,153ff., especially pp. 156ff. F. Fontaine, Enchainement et groupements des poemes dans t ’ceuvre lynque d ’Horace, Liège, 1941-42; Mémoire de licence); H. Haffter, “ Zur Komposition horazischer O den,” Wiener Studien, N. F. 10 (1976), pp. 199ff. 4 For what follows on Horace and Augustus, see Chester G. Starr, “ Horace and Augustus,” AmericanJournal of Philology 90(1969), pp. 58-64. See also his “ Virgil’s Accep­ tance of Octavian,” American Journal of Philology 76 (1955), pp. 34-46; see also M. Bourgeois, “ Horace, Serious Reformer,” Classical Bulletin 31, (1955), pp. 62ff.; A. La Penna, “ La lirica civile di Orazio e l’ideologia del principato,” Maia 13, (1961), pp. 83-123, 209-245, 257-283; A. La Penna, Orazio e l ’Ideologia del Principato, (Torino, 1963); G. Williams, “ Poetry in the Moral Climate of Augustan R om e,” Journal of Roman Studies 52, (1962), pp. 28-46 on the Odes; and P. Grimal, “ Les Odes remains d ’Horace et les causes de la guerre civile,” Revue des Etudes Latines 53, (1975), pp. 135-156.

HORACE AND THE ROMAN ODES

It seem s clear th a t H o ra c e gave A u g u stu s his full su p p o rt o n ly for a relativ ely sh o rt tim e, a n d th a t the tim e o f p u b lic a tio n o f Odes I- III, 23 B .C ., m a rk e d a tim e w h en the tide of c o m m itm e n t b e g a n to eb b aw ay . H o ra c e ’s y o u th fu l feelings o f social a n d political c o n ce rn can be seen in his fig h tin g in th e a rm y o f B ru tu s a n d C assiu s as a trib u n e : a c o m m it­ m e n t re fe rre d to w ith p rid e several tim es in his p o e try a n d once in the R o m a n O d es th e m se lv e s.5 F u rth e r, H o ra c e ’s a risto cratic r a th e r th a n d e m o cratic bias a p p ea rs often: e .g ., Odes II I. 1. Iff. alo n e show his d istru st o f the m asses. A fter the w reck o f his w o rld a t th e e n d o f th e civil w a r, H o ra c e b uys the post o f scriba quaestoris a n d w orks in R o m e , m e e tin g O c ta v ia n ’s m in iste r o f in te rn a l affairs, M a e c e n a s, in th e early 3 0 ’s, w h en O c ta v ia n w as stru g g lin g to e n d th e R o m a n re v o lu tio n a n d re e sta b lish a stru c tu re d society for R o m e . F ro m p ro b a b ly late 38 B .C . o n , H o ra c e h a d M a e c e n a s ’ su p p o rt a n d e n c o u ra g e m e n t as well as a lim ited access to O c ta v ia n . As his success th ro u g h the 3 0 ’s a n d e arly 2 0 ’s grew a n d o rd e r w as re sto re d to the R o m a n state, H o ra c e ’s g ra titu d e a n d su p p o rt for O c ta v ia n ’s p ro g ra m (the success o f w hich re su lte d in O c ta v ia n ta k in g in 27 B .C . the n a m e A u g u stu s) can be seen in the first th re e books o f Odes, in c lu d in g specifically the R o m a n O d e s .6 L a te r th e e v e r-p re se n t shadow s o f d o u b t a n d pessim ism grow d e ep e r; H o ra c e tu rn s in c re asin g ly to p h ilosophy, especially Stoicism , a n d e n u n c ia te s, p rin c ip a lly in his Epistles, gro w in g co n cern for the tone o f c o n te m p o ra ry society. T h e pessim ism a b o u t the R o m a n o rd e r a t th e e n d o f the R o m a n O d e s, I I I .6.46-48, a n d the p ro m in e n t a tta c k on m a te ria lism th e re a n d th e use o f the te rm libero in I I I . 5 .2 2 ,7 show th a t H o r a c e ’s a risto c ra tic c o n tacts a n d b iases, a n d his co m p licated c h a ra c te r, in c re asin g ly c o n te n t to assig n to A u g u stu s m ere c o n v en tio n al flattery u n lik e his d eep a n d a u th e n tic ex p ressions o f sincerity in Odes I-III, d id n o t allow h im to c o n tin u e for lo n g to p re se n t A u g u stu s a n d the s ta te ’s w ell-b ein g as c o te rm in o u s. T h e co n tex t o f the R o m a n O d es is no lo n g e r solely th a t o f 23 B .C ., h ow ever. T h e re is an in te ra c tio n o f text a n d re a d e r, b o th c o n te m p o ra ry to the p o et a n d c o n te m p o ra ry to o u rselv es, th a t m u st be e x a m in e d . T h e m o d e rn re a d e r is n o t in te rc h a n g e a b le w ith an a n c ie n t, n o r c a n he im a g in a tiv e ly o r scientifically re c rea te a n d a n im a te his a n c ie n t c o u n te r5 Odes II.7; Satires 1.6 and 7; Epistles 1.20, 23 and II.2, 46ff.; Odes III.4.26. 6 E.g., see Fraenkel {op. cit. supra n. 1), pp. 260ff.; Laura O. Sangiacomo, Le “Odi Romane” (Rome, 1942). For the religious dimension of Horace’s friendship with Maecenas, see K. Eckert, “ O et praesidium et dulce decus m eum ,” Wiener Studien 74 (1961), pp. 61-95. 7 The adjective libero in III.5.22 is not used in connection with materialism, to be sure; but words like liber, libertas and their derivatives appear only once again in Odes I-III: see III.24.12, this time on materialism; their frequency mounts from the first book of Epistles on; see Starr, “ Horace and Augustus” {supra n. 4) p. 63.

HORACE AND THE ROMAN ODES

5

p a r t ’s tex t. R a th e r, th e m o d e rn re a d e r is h a n d ic a p p e d , in respect to the a n c ie n t a u d ie n c e , by not b e in g able to re a d m a n y G reek lyrics a n d m a n y w orks o f R o m a n lite ra tu re now lost th a t no d o u b t h a d a b e a rin g on H o r a c e ’s R o m a n O d e s, a n d h e lp ed c re a te a co n tex t for re a d in g th em . T o c o u n te rb a la n c e this deficiency th e m o d e rn re a d e r has (p o ten tially at an y ra te ) th e ex p erien c e o f m o re lyrics in o th e r non-classical la n g u ag e s, a ra d ic ally d ifferen t id ea o f civic p o e try (often b a d political o ra to ry m ad e w o rse by p re te n sio n s o f m e te r) a n d a lot o f critical b ag g ag e th a t p ro b a b ly h a d no c o u n te rp a rt in th e a n c ie n t re a d e r ’s m in d . L ikew ise, it w ould be idle to p re te n d th a t w e h a v e H o r a c e ’s text o f th e R o m a n O d e s. W e do n o t; ra th e r, w e h a v e w h a t is v ery likely a b e tte r a p p ro x im a tio n o f this text th a n w e h a v e for m a n y an cie n t w riters. Y et even th e 336 lines o f the R o m a n O d e s ex h ib it several critical cruces, a n d th e very division o f th e text in to six odes is o p en to q u e stio n . F o r th e p u rp o se s o f this stu d y , th e text follow ed is th a t of F ried rich K lin g n e r’s T e u b n e r e d itio n .8 B ut one m u st b e a r in m in d c o n sta n tly th a t, a lth o u g h th e co rre la tio n b etw een T e u b n e r text a n d H o ra tia n h o lo g ra p h is, in th ese p o em s, o f a v ery high m a g n itu d e , th e fit is n o t totally p erfect. T h e “ te x t” b rin g s its ow n p ro b le m s, m in o r b u t real a n d su b sta n tiv e e n o u g h , ju s t as does the “ a u d ie n c e ,” b o th a n cie n t a n d m o d e rn . T h e sole su p p o sitio n m a d e w ith an y d eg ree o f confidence in th e follow ing pages is th a t th e text w e stu d y is in L a tin , a n d th a t w e know a good d eal, b u t n o t e v ery th in g , a b o u t how to re a d th a t la n g u a g e ; a n d th a t th e re a d e r h as w o rk ed his w ay to th e R o m a n O d e s at th e o u tset of B ook III by re a d in g th e text seriatim . 8 Horatius: Opera ed. F. Klingner5 (Leipzig, 1970; unchanged from the third edition of 1959).

CHAPTER TWO

T H E O RD O L E G E N D I T h e first fo u r lines o f the first R o m a n O d e h a v e o ften b e en re g a rd e d as a p ro lo g u e .1 B ut to w hat? T h e p lu ra l carmina h as b e e n a d d u c e d to m e a n th e w hole cycle, v iz., III. 1- 6 . Y et th e first p o em h a s no a d d re ssee , a n d this has b e e n ta k en to im ply th a t those R o m a n O d e s w ith a n a d d ressee, such as poem 4 , lines 1- 4 , p o em 6 , lines 1- 4 , a n d ev en p o em 3 , lines 69 - 72 , m ay c o n stitu te o th e r elem en ts in th e cycle w ith th e re su lt th a t III. 1 . 1-4 serves to in tro d u c e only poem s 1- 3 , o r th e th ird book o f Odes as a w hole. A vexing e lem en t in these q u e stio n s is th a t a fte r re a d in g th e w hole collection o f Books T i l l in o rd e r w e n o te th a t th e th ird b o o k o f Odes c o n ­ ta in s a p o em , I I I . 24 , w hich h as no a d d ressee, a n d w h ich is o b v io u sly a n a d u m b ra tio n o f the R o m a n O d e s, a tra n sitio n a l stag e in th e ev o lu tio n o f th e p oet H o ra c e ’s political th o u g h t from th e p essim ism a n d even d e sp a ir o f the early days (such as seen in th e six te en th Epode) to th e relativ ely positive stan ce in III. 1- 6 . T h is tw e n ty -fo u rth p o em o f th e th ird b ook, “ In ta c tis o p u le n tio r,” in the second A sclep iad ean m e te r, dev elo p s in lin k ed form the them es o f g reed a n d lu x u ry p re se n te d in I I I . 1, a n d th e th e m e o f sexual d e m o ra liz atio n in III. 6 . 2 So in a sense it too co u ld b e one o f the carmina non prius audita o f III. 1. 1- 4 , especially if non prius audita be ta k en to m e a n “ n o t p reviously h e e d e d ,” im p ly in g “ songs h ere re n e w e d ,” as has b een su g g e ste d .123 A n o th e r a ttra c tiv e id ea is to link Books II a n d III by p o em tw en ty o f B ook II, m a k in g it serve as a p ro lo g u e to III. 1-6 as well as ep ilogue to th e seco n d b o o k .4 A g re a t deal o f stu d y needs to be d ire c ted to th e p ro b le m , p ro b a b ly u ltim a te ly in tr a c t­ ab le, o f how divisions betw een books o f p o e try w o u ld h a v e b e en p erceiv ed by a n a n c ie n t a u d ien c e , a n d o f how we m ig h t e x p a n d o u r

1 See e.g., Friedrich Solmsen, “ Horace’s First Roman O de,” American Journal of Philology 68 (1943), pp. 337-352, especially p. 337. For a denial of a connection between strophes one and two of III. 1 and what follows in the next ten strophes, see L. Amundsen, “ The ‘Roman Odes’ of Horace,” Seria Eitremiana (Oslo, 1942), p. 7; E. T. Silk, “ Cicero and the Odes of Horace,” Yale Classical Studies 13, (1952), p. 150 n. 6 regards the opening of III. 1 as a proemium. 2 F. Solmsen, op. cit. supra n. 1, pp. 343-347. 3 Edmund T. Silk, “ Towards a Fresh Interpretation of Horace, Carm. I l l . 1,” Yale Classical Studies 23 (1973), p. 132. 4 E. T. Silk, “ A Fresh Approach to Horace, 11.20,” American Journal of Philology 77 (1956), pp. 255-263.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

7

a w a re n e ss o f these jo in in g s as links as well as b o u n d a rie s .5 H o w m u ch are we to keep in m in d th a t the en d o f B ook II, v iz., 11.20, looks a h e a d to II I. 1-6 as soon as we h av e got to the e n d o f th e sixth p o em o f th e th ird book? H o w m u c h w eig h t should we a tta c h to the u n c o n testa b le fact th a t w e m ay ob serv e at the e n d o f a n o th e r book, 1.35.18, th e Necessitas o f the b e g in n in g o f the th ird book, III. 1.14? P oem s III. 1-6, 11.20 a n d 1.35 are in th e A lcaic m e te r; does the p oet so a rra n g e his co rp u s in Books I-III th a t e n d s a n d b e g in n in g s look to w a rd each o th e r, o r is this b u t fo rtu ito u s ? 6 T h e re w ould seem to be e n o u g h to observ e in c o n n ectio n w ith III. 1-6 w ith o u t m o v in g to o th e r texts in th e first th re e books of Odes to raise p ro b le m s o f o rd e rin g . Y et these q u estio n s are sy m p to m a tic o f o u r lack o f u n d e rs ta n d in g (a n d a n cie n t c o p y ists’ a n d sch o liasts’ lack o f u n d e r­ s ta n d in g ) o f the significance o f p o em b o u n d a rie s a n d in d eed o f book b o u n d a r ie s .7 A set o f d e tailed o b serv atio n s a b o u t seq u en ces o f poem s in the sam e m e te r need s to be m a d e in o rd e r to see how H o ra ce has assig n ed to the R o m a n O d es a p ro m in e n t place in the co rp u s o f the first th re e books o f his Odes. (W e sh ould also b e a r in m in d th a t w h en he issued these as a u n it in th e form o f th re e p a p y ru s rolls in 23 B .C . he very likely h a d no plans for a d d in g a fo u rth book, w hich a p p e a re d only in 13 B .C .) T h e d a ta are c u m b e rso m e to p re se n t a n d are h en ce re ite ra te d from d ifferen t p e rsp e c ­ tives, b u t it seem s essential to h av e a full-scale discussion in o rd e r to form a b asis f o r ju d g in g H o ra c e ’s artistic p ro g ra m for the R o m a n O d es as a w hole before e m b a rk in g on d e tailed in te rp re ta tio n o f each ode. In five places besides I I I . T 6 8 does H o ra c e p u t p oem s o f id en tical m e te r n e x t to each o th e r in the first th ree books o f his Odes. T h e se places 5 On the level of the individual poem and in connection with modern literature, see Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Poetic Closure (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); for Horace, see P. H. Schrijvens, “ Comment termine une ode? Etude sur les fagons différentes dont Horace termine ses courts poèmes,” Mnemosyne 26, (1973), pp. 140-159. 6 Gordon Williams, The Third Book of Horace’s Odes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 23, avers that such seeking for the poet’s organizing principles is “ a waste of tim e.” His commentary is a most useful discussion of the individual poems themselves, and I am much indebted to its observations. On the other side see R. A. Sarno, “ Autotelic Argument for Unity in the Roman O des,” Classical Bulletin 42, (1966), pp. 49-53. The basic problems of the Roman O des’ organization are set forth in G. Duckworth, “ Animae Dimidium Meae: Two Poets of R om e,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 87 (1956), pp. 299ff. 7 Some important MSS of Horace (e.g., A, E, R, Blandinus, also Porphyry) tend to link ΙΠ .2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6. Preliminary work on certain MSS of Horace in the Vatican Library and the Biblioteca Laurenziana in 1979 indicates that the whole prob­ lem of the transmission of the Roman Odes as continuous text deserves close scrutiny, which I hope to undertake elsewhere. 8 One should note that if one ignores a book boundary one has in ΙΙ.19-ΠΙ.6 a sequence of eight poems in Alcaics.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

a re 1.16 a n d 17 (A lcaic m e te r); 1.34 a n d 35 (A lcaic); 11.13, 14 a n d 15 (A lcaic); 11.19 a n d 20 (A lcaic); a n d I I I . 24 a n d 25 (second A sc le p ia d ea n ). L ike th e R o m a n O d e s, m ost o f these co n stellatio n s a re in th e A lcaic m e te r. P oem III. 24 has lo n g b een re g a rd e d as e a rlie r in d a te o f c o m p o si­ tio n th a n th e R o m a n O d e s, w ith a political co n tex t o f 28/27 B .C ., th e p erio d also suggested plau sib ly for I I I . 6, in re la tio n to A u g u s tu s ’ re b u ild in g o f the tem ples in his sixth co n su lsh ip . P o em 1.35 has b e en assig n ed to 26 B .C .9 T h e m e s co m m o n to I I I . 24 a n d I I I . l a n d I I I . 6 h a v e b e en p e rsu asiv e ly d e m o n stra te d : g reed a n d lu x u ry , I I I . l ; sexual lax n ess, I I I . 6 . 101 E ven on th e lexical level sim ilarities too close for co in cid en ces exist, e .g ., I I I . 24.3 caementis a n d III. 1.35, caementa; I I I . 24.5 Necessitas a n d II I. 1.14 Necessitas. H e n ce it is re a so n a b le to co n clu d e th a t c e rta in echoes o f th e R o m a n O d es a re desig n ed to a w ait th e a tte n tiv e re a d e r p u r ­ su in g th e poem s o f the th ird book in o rd e r, o r, to p u t th e m a tte r in a n o th e r w ay, c e rta in elem en ts o f I I I . l a n d I I I . 6 re c u r to w a rd th e en d o f Book II I , th e w hole collection o f th e Odes. E v id en tly H o ra c e p u t th e e a rlie r com positions on e ith e r side o f th e cycle, elem en ts o f w h ich , e .g ., I I I . 6 m a y h av e existed before the very id ea o f p o em seq u e n c e. It sh o u ld also be o bserved th a t Book III is d iv id ed a t its c e n te r w ith P o em 16, a d ­ d ressed to M ae c en a s; p o em 24 stan d s th u s at th e b e g in n in g o f th e second h a lf o f III. 16-30, to be perceived as a u n it b e ca u se o f th e a d d re ss to th e p a tro n at its outset. B efore tu rn in g to I I I . 25, th e m etrical m a te to I I I . 24, let us e x a m in e th e w ays in w hich 11.20 has b een re g a rd e d as a p ro lo g u e to th e R o m a n O d e s. Its fo rw ard -lo o k in g claim s o f g re a tn e ss, its p ro p h e tic to n e , its p o in tin g to a new field o f poetic e n d e a v o r, i.e ., epic th em es in lyric fo rm , th e R o m a n O d es them selves, th e m ystical a u to b io g ra p h y , all h a v e b e e n a d d u c e d as elem ents in a “ B acchic o v e rtu re ” to th e R o m a n O d e s .11 M o re o b s e rv a ­ tio n s, follow ing this g en eral lin e o f th o u g h t b u t try in g to go b e y o n d it, can be m a d e . If 11.20, a p u b lic poem c o n ce rn e d w ith illu m in a tin g the statu s o f th e p o et w ho is (in re a d in g seq u en ce) a b o u t to b eg in his R o m a n O d es (w ho h a s, in a ctu al tim e, o f co u rse “ a lre a d y ” w ritte n th e m w h en th e a u d ie n c e has the e d itio n o f th e th re e books a t h a n d ) ,12 11.19 is a 9 See G. Williams, op. cit. supra, n. 6, p. 128 and p. 62, and Bernard Fenik, “ Horace’s First and Sixth Roman Odes and the Second Geòrgie,” Hermes 90 (1962), pp. 74ff. See also Q. Horatius Flaccus Oden und Epoden ed. Adolf Kiessling and Richard Fleinze9 (Berlin, 1958), ad toc. 10 F. Solmsen, op. cit. supra n. 1, p. 346. On repeated words see W. C. Helmbold, “ Word Repetition in Horace’s O des,” Classical Philology 55 (1960), pp. 173f. 11 E. T. Silk, op. cit. supra n. 4, p. 263. On the poet’s metaphor of self as bird, s e e j. Tatum, “ Non usitata nec tenui ferar,” American Journal of Philology 94 (1973), pp. 4-25. 12 These would consist of three papyrus rotuli in a box or bucket; see F. G. Kenyon, Books and Readers in Ancient Greece and Rome2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 65.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

9

p riv a te , p e rso n a l e x p erien ce w ith the god B acchus, w hich p o em o r e x p erien c e finds p u b lic ex p ressio n in 11.20. I I I . 25, o n th e o th e r h a n d , is th e p e rso n a l p o e m glossing, as it w ere, th e lo n g e r a n d m o re p u b lic I I I . 24. A re th e re p o in ts in c o m m o n b etw een these “ p e rs o n a l” a n d “ v is io n a ry ” texts a rra n g e d in in v e rte d o r chiastic o rd er? A g a in , sim ilarities too close to be a cc o u n te d for by coincidence, especially in view o f the difference in m eters em p lo y ed , can easily be d isc e rn e d . B oth p o em g ro u p s h av e to do w ith B acchus, to be su re, b u t ev en o n th e lexical level th e re seem to be d e lib e rate co rresp o n d en ces: I I I . 25. If. says th a t th e p oet is “ B a c c h e ,... tu i p le n u m ;” I I . 19.6 has pleno Bacche pectore. I I I . 25.6 uses recens of the p o e t’s p ro p o sed subject m a tte r in sp ire d by B acchus, a n d II. 19.5 uses recens o f th e fe a r e n g e n d e re d in the m in d o f th e p oet w ho o b serv ed the sam e god. A link, at least o n e, exists also b e tw ee n 11.19, th e “ preface to th e p ro lo g u e to th e R o m a n O d e s ,” if o n e m a y so call it, a n d one o f these odes; I I I .4 .49ff. m en tio n s th e th re a t o f th e G ia n ts to d iv in e o rd e r, a n d III. 1 9 .2 Iff. also m en tio n s this cohors Gigantum (a n d B a c c h u s’ role in its d e stru c tio n ; we m ay recall he was c h a n g e d in to a lion for this c o m b a t).13 P e rh a p s e n o u g h h as b e en in d ic a te d , even in this co m p ressed f o r m ,14 to show th a t v e rb a l p a ra llels exist b etw een I I I . 24 a n d 25 a n d th e R o m a n O d e s on the one h a n d , a n d betw een 11.19 a n d 20 a n d the R o m a n O d es on th e o th e r, w ith c e rta in sim ilarities also to be o b serv ed b etw een 11.19 a n d 11.20 on th e o n e h a n d , a n d I I I . 24 a n d I I I . 25 o n th e o th e r. T h e sig n ificance o f these co n ju n ctio n s will be suggested a fte r e x a m in in g the re la tio n sh ip b etw een th e o th e r A lcaic seq u en ce, 1.34 a n d 35, th e R o m a n O d e s th em selv es, a n d I I I . 24 a n d 25. T h e h y m n to F o rtu n e , th e th irty -fifth ode o f the first book, has b een b ro u g h t in to d iscussion o f th e R o m a n O d e s h ith e rto chiefly becau se it p re se n ts Necessitas a n d h e r spikes as p a rt o f th e p ro cessio n o f Fortuna, an d can th u s be lin k ed to th e Necessitas a p p e a rin g in III. 1 .1 4 .15 W e note yet o th e r p a ra lle ls, p e rh a p s m o re in te re stin g in trin sically th a n the d o u b le a p p e a ra n c e o f a goddess o r p e rso n ific atio n such as Necessitas, highly u tilita ria n as she is to such sp ecu latio n s as 1.35 a n d I I I . 1. T h e se in clu d e th e volgus infidum o f 1.35.25 a n d the o ccu rren c e o f volgaris, fid eli an d volgarit in I I I . 2.23 a n d 25 a n d 27 respectiv ely , a n d the volgus o f III. 1.1; Fides in 1.35.21 a n d a n aspect o f h e r in I I I . 2.25 {fideli ag ain ); C a e s a r in 13 Should one note the asperum leonem of III.2.11? Probably not. 14 Parallel placements of these similarities could also be adduced, e.g., recenti in the first half of the second strophe of 11.19 (line 5) and recens in the second half of the second strophe of III.25 (line 7). 15 That Necessitas here does not equal death was the persuasive contention of E. T. Silk, op. cit. supra, n. 3, pp. 139-145.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

1.35.29, a n d in I I I . 3.11 (A u g u stu s); th e E a ste rn e n e m y o f th e R o m a n state, I.3 5 .2 9 ff. a n d I I I . 2.3, II I.5 .3 ff., a n d I I I . 6 .9 . T h e th em es o f civil w a r a n d o f m o ra l d ecay are o b serv ed in I.3 5 .3 3 ff., a n d o f co u rse find re s o n a n t echoes in the R o m a n O d e s, e.g . I I I . 6. A few p arallels can be d e m o n stra te d b etw een 1.35 a n d those p o em s n e a r the e n d o f Book II I th a t we h av e seen d ire c tly b e a rin g on th e R o m a n O d es them selves: the th em e of m o ral lax ity finds e x p ressio n likew ise in I I I . 24, a n d the adjective recens is em p lo y ed in I I I . 2 5 .6 (the fresh su b ject m a tte r) a n d 1.35.30 (the fresh m ilita ry levy) as well as II. 19.5 as a lre a d y n o te d (the fear o f the god B acchus). In the O d e s, recens is u sed elsew here in I I I .30.8, I I I . 27.43 a n d 1 .10.2; it m a y be fo rtu ito u s in I I I . 25, II. 19 a n d 1.35 th o u g h the B acchic co n tex t o f III. 25 a n d 11.19, as w ell as th e B acchus o f I I I . 3.13, te n d to suggest o th erw ise. U n m is ta k a b le h o w e v er is 1 .3 5 .17f., Necessitasi clavos, a n d III. 2 4 .6 f., Necessitas/clavos. Carmen 1.35 is, like 11.20 a n d I I I . 24, a p u b lic s ta te m e n t; its im m e d ia te p red ecesso r I .3 4 16 is, like 11.19 a n d I I I . 25, a p e rso n al s ta te m e n t b y the p o et from w hich flow the su b se q u e n t p o em s, 1.35 a n d 11.20, a n d to w hich th e p re c ed in g poem is re fe rre d in the case o f I I I . 24 a n d I I I . 25. In th e case of 1.35, it stan d s tw e n ty -th re e poem s aw ay from the o n set o f th e R o m a n O d es. In the case o f I I I . 24 it also ob viously stan d s tw e n ty -th re e poem s aw ay from th a t cycle’s in cep tio n . In th e case o f th ese p o em s th e follow ing d ia g ra m show ing a c e rta in chiastic o rd e r m a y p ro v e useful: ROM AN ODES 23 poems* I. 35 (public; hymn to the god) 1.34 (personal; power of the god)

23 poems III.24 (public; power of evil) III.25 (personal; power of the god)

* including 11.19 (personal; power of the god) and II. 20 (public; results of divine ecstasy)

T h e foregoing collocation o f lexical sim ilarities a n d th e m a tic passag es from poem s in Books I- III o f H o r a c e ’s Odes suggests th a t III. 1.1-4 is n o t p recisely the in tro d u c tio n o f the R o m a n O d e s. T h e a tte n tiv e re a d e r, re a d in g seq u e n tia lly (an a ssu m p tio n e x a m in e d below ) w ill h av e seen the p oet d e alin g w ith civic th e m e s, a n d , m o re im p o rta n t, w ill h a v e e x p e ­ rie n c ed , th ro u g h the texts o f 11.19 a n d 11.20 (th e B acchic g ra n d e u r o f 16 1.34 is linked to 1.35 by E. T. Silk, op. cit. supra, n. 4, p. 260, note 3.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

11

th e p o e t’s sta tio n ) th e m e , fu n ctio n a n d o u tlo o k on th e w orld highly sim ilar to th o se o f th e R o m a n O d e s. T h e first fo u r lines o f th e first of th ese, th e n , fu n c tio n to in tro d u c e a sacerdos w hose c re d en tials a re alread y e sta b lish e d ; a n a u d ie n c e , n o t th e g en eral m asses w ho can u n d e rs ta n d L a tin p o e try , b u t th e new a u d ien c e w hich this poet w ill, in larg e p a rt th ro u g h carmina III. 1-6, c re ate , a n d w hich has o th erw ise carefully fol­ low ed th e p o et h ereto fo re. T h e se poem s will b e en tire ly o rig in al (non prius audita in th a t sense looking a h e a d to III. 1-6), v iz., epic th em es in a lyric m e te r, a n d all too fa m ilia r b u t h ith e rto u n h e e d e d , w ith non prius audita lo o k in g b a c k w a rd in th e re a d in g seq u en ce to such texts as 1.2, II. 1, e tc., w hich ad d re ss civic c o n ce rn s, a n d , p ro lep tically , looking to such poem s as I I I . 23, co m p o sed e a rlie r a n d h en ce k n o w n th ro u g h re c itatio n to at least som e o f th e re a d e rs o f th e e d itio n o f Books I-III in 23 B. C . b u t not yet e n c o u n te re d in th e ordo legendi.17 A new p o e try for a new g e n eratio n , by a new k in d o f p o e t-p rie st, n o t O rp h ic o r E le u sin ia n , n o r even the B acchic p riest im p lied by 11.19 a n d 20, b u t M usarum sacerdos, th e fu rth e r p a rtic u la riz a tio n o f th e biformis vates o f I I . 2 0 .2 f .171819 B efore p u rs u in g in q u iry into the R o m a n O d es th em selv es, so m eth in g sh o u ld be said a b o u t th e processes o f re a d in g a collection o f lyrics such as H o r a c e ’s. It is one th in g for the critic, u sin g a text in codex form a n d a rm e d w ith such aids as th e Lexicon Horatianum19 to tu rn quickly fro m the first to th e th ird book o f Odes in his search for co rresp o n d en ces th a t form a fram e for the c e n tra l R o m a n O d e s. It is a n o th e r for a re a d e r, u sin g ro tu li, to u n ro ll th e p a n o ra m ic sw eep o f th e O d es on p a p y ru s in serial o rd e r. T h e fo rm er c an c o n sid er th e text as a sim u lta n eo u sly p re sen t w hole; th e la tte r is b o u n d by th e ordo legendi, a n d so discovers th e text at ev ery m o m e n t. B ut only at th e first re a d in g , as it w ere; su b se q u e n tly , esp ecially in a c u ltu re a ttu n e d to re a d in g a n d h e a rin g as p a rt o f th e sam e e x p e rie n c e , a n d p e rh a p s for skilful a n d highly co m p eten t re a d ers at the 17 By this is meant the order of the poems as published in 23 B. C. and as encountered in the rotuli of this edition. For aesthetic implications of the ordering, see N. E. Collinge, “ The Publication Order of H o r a c e \ O des,” Publications of the Classical Association 52 (1955), p. 119 (a resume). 18 Bacchic elements predominate in Odes 1.19.20, III.3.13 and 69 (cf. II. 19.25f.) whilst Apollonian elements can be seen in III.4.4 and 21 and 691Ϊ., (cf. 11.19.29ff., both con­ cluding strophes). On Musarum sacerdos, we should bear in mind that the M uses’ cult at the Mouseion at Alexandria and at other Mouseia involved both worship and literary pur­ suits. These centers were presided over by a priest of the Muses, and existed from before the Hellenistic period. The Mouseion at Alexandria combines cult, religious feeling and literary activity with a presiding priest much as Horace shapes the opening of the Roman Odes; see P. M. Fraser,Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), I. pp. 312-319, and L. Boesing, “ Musarum Sacerdos: Anmerkungen zu Horaz, Carm. III. 1.1-4,” Vergangenheit Gegenwart Zukunft (Würzburg, 1972), pp. 42-53. 19 Domenicus Bo, Lexicon Horatianum (Hildesheim, 1965). Another basic research tool is Lane Cooper, A Concordance to the Works of Horace (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1916).

THE ORDO LEGENDI

first e n c o u n te r, the poem s th o u g h e n c o u n te re d serially in locked o rd e r form a n in cip ien t to ta lity as th ey are re a d a lo u d . P e rh a p s m o re easily th a n w e, w ho are a cc u sto m ed to re a d y referen ce to texts c o n ta in e d in the pages o f a book ra th e r th a n in the colum s o f a p a p y ru s ro ll, th e a n cie n t re a d e r a fte r even one ex p erien ce o f Odes I-III co u ld s u m m o n u p th ro u g h m e m o ry th e sim ilarities we have ju s t p o n d e ro u sly reco v ered from th a t text. It m u st be stressed th a t c o rre sp o n d e n c es, these o r o th e rs, do n o t c o n ­ stitu te in te rp re ta tio n . T h e p arallels a d d u c e d b etw een th e R o m a n O d e s, 11.19 a n d 11.20, 1.34 a n d 1.35, a n d I I I . 24 a n d I I I . 25 a re d ra w n to the re a d e r ’s a tte n tio n in su p p o rt o f c e rta in a rtistic effects to w h ich a tte n tio n will su b se q u e n tly be d ire c ted . H o w ev e r, it is essen tial b o th to b e a r in m in d th a t in te rp re ta tio n is a critical activ ity d ifferen t fro m o b se rv a tio n , a n d th a t the process b y w hich these p arallels are a ssim ila te d b y th e re a d e r o f H o ra c e is a q u e stio n p rio r to an y in v e stig atio n o f th e ir fu n c tio n . T o a re a d e r, as we m u st assu m e th e a n c ie n t a u d ien c e to h av e b e e n , w ho experiences lyric p oem s as a collection, a w h o le, even “ a b o o k at a tim e ,” the o rd e r of these p oem s in th e ir books is a re g ister u p o n w hich the a rtistic ab ility o f the p oet m a y p lay . A fam o u s e x am p le is th e o p e n in g o f H o ra c e ’s first book o f Odes, w here n in e d ifferen t m e te rs, in successio n , a v e rita b le v irtu o so d isp lay , co n fro n t the re a d e r w ith th e la n g u a g e ’s first extensive p ro d u c tio n in G reek lyric m e te rs. H e re d ifference o f m e te r m akes the im p act th a t eight poem s in th e sam e m e te r, v iz ., th e A lcaic, m akes at II.1 9 -III.6 . B ut can one go b e y o n d sam en ess a n d difference as categories o p e ra tin g to a rra n g e the collection? T h e first o b se rv a tio n to be m a d e in a n sw e rin g this q u e ry is th a t sam en ess a n d d ifference are no t alw ays c o n sta n t. F o r in sta n ce , the d ifference o f m eters in th e first n in e odes o f Book I are c o n g ru e n t w ith differences in su b ject m a tte r: th e p o e t’s lyric s ta tu re , the stricken state in n eed o f d iv in e a id , the p ro p e m p tic o n to V erg il, the rig h t use o f tim e, the p oet cap sized b y love, to n a m e (oversim ply) the p rin c ip a l them es o f the first five odes. T h e six R o m a n O d e s, it m u st now be n o te d , p e rh a p s ex h ib it sam en ess in a w ay u n e x p e c te d b y th e ir m o d e rn re a d er: for the p ro b a b ly th ird c e n tu ry c o m m e n ta to r P o rp h y ry a n d c e rta in m a n u sc rip ts a n d sch o liasts20 the first six p o em s o f B ook III c o n stitu te d a u n it, a n u n b ro k e n ru n o f A lc a ic s.21 H e re sam en ess o f m e te r shades into c o n tin u ity a n d id e n tity o f text in a w ay u n a v a ila b le 20 Supra, n. 7. 21 11.19 and 20, never apparently linked together, were separated from the Roman Odes since they occur before the MS explicit/incipit statements about Books II and III. For a similar linking of two poems in Catullus, see his carni. 65 and 66 in MSS O, G and R(V) and Wendell V. Clausen, “ Catullus and Callimachus,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 74 (1970), pp. 85 and 93f.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

13

to m o d e rn lite ra tu re s , d e p riv e d as they are o f th e b o u n d a rie s ex erted by m e te r a n d g e n re , a n d e n sla v e d to th e p rin te d p a g e ’s lay o u t a n d fo rm at. E v en th o u g h th e m o d e rn re a d e r a n d critic m a y h av e difficulty in follow ­ in g th e swift changes in subject in th e R o m a n O d es w h en th ey are p e rc eiv e d as six divisible en titie s, his a n cie n t c o u n te rp a rt p ro b a b ly in v o k ed th e id e n tity o f m e te r (a n d e v id en tly in som e m a n u sc rip t tra d i­ tio n s th e c o n tin u ity o f text as w ell) to c o n trib u te u n ity in w hich to g ro u n d his e x p erien c e o f th e text o r texts. I h a v e above su g g ested th a t II I. 1-6 a re in tro d u c e d by th e seq u en ce 11.19-20 a n d fra m e d b y texts tw e n ty -th re e poem s aw ay from the R o m a n O d e s on e ith e r side, v iz ., 1.35 a n d I I I . 24, each w ith an a n te c e d e n t or s u b se q u e n t a c c o m p a n y in g tex t. All b u t I I I . 24 a n d 25 a re in th e A lcaic m e te r. T h e sp atial te rm s u sed h e re , “ f r a m e ,” “ s id e ,” “ a n te c e d e n t,” “ s u b s e q u e n t,” n e ed testin g . It is m y c o n te n tio n th a t referen ce to a n o th e r a rtistic m e d iu m , th a t o f th e R o m a n h isto rical relief, offers a helpful a n a lo g y in show in g how these texts m a y be e n c o u te re d in b o th serial a n d re c a p itu la to ry , c u m u la tiv e fash io n s, so th a t th e re a d e r is e n a b le d to m ak e in te rp re ta tio n s a n d re c u p e ra te m e an in g s carefu lly stru c tu re d b y the p o e t’s texts in to a relativ ely n a rro w ra n g e o f p o ssib ility .22 T h e plastic a r tis t’s m e d iu m o f space, th e seq u en ce of, say, th e u n ro llin g scenes on the c o lu m n o f T r a ja n o r o f M a rc u s A u re liu s, is th e lite ra ry a r tis t’s m e d iu m o f tim e: o f tim e ’s seq u en ce in re a d in g the poem s in th e o rd e r o rd a in e d by o p e n in g a ro tu lu s at th e b e g in n in g a n d m o v in g from p o em o n e to po em tw o, etc. Y et w e c a n n o t fairly shackle a n a n c ie n t p o et in to m a k in g re c ita ­ tio n s from his p o em s in so u n v a rie d a fash io n . It is to be su re sp ecu latio n , b u t I tru s t a safe o n e, th a t poets often selected c e rta in poem s from th e ir w o rk s, p o em s especially su ita b le to th e a u d ien c e , th e occasion, the seaso n , a n d o th e r v a ria b les. P e rh a p s such re c itatio n s b re a k in g from the o rd e r o f th e receiv ed (or to b e received) text w ere re a d from in d iv id u a l sheets w h en n o t p ro d u c e d from m e m o ry , ju s t as m o d e rn poets giving re c ita tio n s often do n o t re a d th e ir p oem s in a n o rd e r d e te rm in e d by a p rin te d e d itio n . N ow if w e allow th e p o et to do th is, w e m ay also co n fid e n tly , if p ro v isio n a lly , allow the sam e p riv ileg e o f skipping, 22 See Mario Torelli, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1982), pp. 119-120, 123 on the continuous narrative of cyclic columns; pp. 120-125 on the relations between continuous narrative and triumphal paintings, animated geographical maps, the recording of acta publica as commentarii, and the pseudo-narration of triumphal arches: all as distinguished from reliefs of the status or function type, such as the altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus. See also Inez Scott Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 22, 1955), especially pp. 38-75. For a somewhat analogous approach to monuments and literature see H. T. Rowell, “ Vergil and the Forum of Augustus,” American Journal of Philology 62 (1941), pp. 261-276.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

ju x ta p o s in g a n d o m ittin g to a skilful a n d c o m p e te n t re a d e r o f th e p o e t as w ell, ju s t as the a rt h isto ria n m ay e x am in e scenes o f c a m p a ig n , b a ttle , sacrifice, e tc ., from a cyclic co lu m n n o t in th e o rd e r o f p re s e n ta tio n b u t acc o rd in g to th e m a tic o r technical g ro u p in g s. O n c e th e ty ra n n y o f o rd e r e stab lish ed by th e succession o f poem s is b ro k e n , w e are free (if w e w o rk w ith in san e a n d resp o n sib le lim its) to c re a te g ro u p in g s o f tex t th a t suggest new possibilities for in te rp re ta tio n , ju s t as w e h a v e b e e n ab le, all along, to e x am in e in d iv id u a l poem s w ith o u t referen ce to th e ir co n tex t in a sequence, a book o r a collection. T h a t this process o f re g ro u p in g is a n tic ip a te d a n d fa cilitated b y th e a rtist can be seen in the g re a t difference th a t lies b etw ee n a c o rp u s o f p o e try o rd e re d b y th e p oet him self, su ch as H o r a c e ’s, a n d th a t a rra n g e d b y a su b se q u e n t e d ito r, w o rk in g p e rh a p s alo n g m e ch a n ic al p rin c ip le s w ith a collection frozen into p re m a tu re a rra n g e m e n t th ro u g h th e d e a th o f th e poet: for in sta n ce , th e C a tu lla n c o rp u s does n o t a n d c a n n o t b e m a d e to ex h ib it the featu res elicited h ere fro m H o r a c e ’s lyrics in th e first th re e books o f O d e s .23 H e re the o rd e rin g m in d o f th e p o et can b e d is c e rn e d .24 H o w ev er, one m a jo r d isa d v a n ta g e accru es to su ch a n u n y o k in g o f th e p oetic texts from th e o rd e r im posed b y th e p o et: o n e c reates c o n tex t for o n eself ra th e r th a n e x p erien c in g the co n tex t in c o n tro v e rta b ly e stab lish ed b y th e p o et, w hen one skips a b o u t fro m place to place in a collection as large as the Odes. T o invoke once m o re th e m odel o f plastic a rt, it is as if one m oved w ilfully o r even capricio u sly from scene to -scene o f th e Ara Pacis Augustae,25 “ re a d in g ” th e m for th e ir in fo rm a tio n a l c o n te n t, now g azin g at the scene o f A eneas a n d th e w h ite sow , n o w at th e h isto rical p erso n ag es o f th e im p e ria l h o u se, now at th e sm all reliefs o n th e in n e r a n d o u te r left a n d rig h t w ings, the lex arae in v isu al fo r m :26 all a re in d e ed 23 W. V. Clausen, “ Catulli Veronensis Liber,” Classical Philology 71 (1976), pp. 37-43; J. F. G. Zetzel, “ Horace’s Liber Sermonum: the Structure of Ambiguity,” Arethusa 13 (1980), pp. 59-127 shows great sensitivity to Horace’s arrangement of the first book of Satires. 24 Pace G. Williams, loc. cit. supra n. 6. 25 Obviously closer in date to Horace than the columns of Trajan and of Marcus Aurelius, the Ara Pacis Augustae was voted in 13 B.C. and dedicated in 9 B.C. For photographs and bibliography, see Ernest Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome (New York, 1961), pp. 63ff. The writer is indebted to Professor Inez Scott Ryberg for a detailed inspection of this monument in Rome some years ago, and to Mario Torelli, op. cit. supra n. 22, pp. 27-61. 26 On the lex arae, an inscription prescribing for an altar the kind of animal sacrifice, use or omission of fire, days of sacrifice, etc., see Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie IB (1894) 1686-1687 ( “ Bestimmung der Altäre” ). Torelli, op. cit. supra, η. 22, ρ. 36, inter­ prets the frieze on the Ara Pacis Augustae crowning the parapet of the altar as a figured translation of the lex arae; I believe that a similarly functioning lex or prescription for use can be found in Horace’s corpus of Odes I-III. With special reference to the Roman Odes, the poems 1.34, 1.35, 11.19 and 11.20 and III.24 and III.25 function perhaps as a

THE ORDO LEGENDI

15

p a rt oi a n artistic p ro g ra m , all in d eed ex h ib it levels o f significance in th em selv es. B u t unless p laced in the co n tex t o f o rie n ta tio n a n d o rd e r of ex p erien c e c o n tro lle d by the a rc h ite c tu re , a n d its ow n to p o g rap h ical lo ca­ tio n ,27 these scenes re m a in ra n d o m signs: b e au tifu l, p e rh a p s, b u t devoid o f essen tial c o n tex t, the g ro u n d for all c o m p eten t in te rp re ta tio n , an d th e re fo re re m a in in g solely self-referring. J u s t so w ith a m o n u m e n t as co m p lex a n d fa r-re a c h in g as H o ra c e ’s first th ree books o f Odes, o r even th e sm all w o rld c o n ta in e d in the R o m a n O d es them selves. E ach poem e x h ib its c e rta in significances; from each po em in te rp re ta tio n s can be c o m p e te n tly reco v ered . B ut each poem has as p a rt o f its existence its p la c e m e n t in the w hole poetic c o rp u s, o r at least very m a n y poem s of H o ra c e (a n d o th e r a n cie n t poets) do. J u s t as o n e ’s access to a fig u rativ e m o n u m e n t like the Ara Pacis Augustae w ith its h isto rical reliefs w as co n tro lled by the a rc h ite c tu ra l settin g o f the a lta r a n d its en clo su re , to g e th e r w ith the u rb a n to p o g ra p h y o f the site, so too access to a b o o k o f p o e try (a fortiori in ro tu lu s form ) w as co n tro lled by th e o rd e r in w hich the poem s w ere placed . H o w ev e r, ju s t as w h en one h a s e x a m in e d all o f the Ara Pacis Augustae, for in sta n ce , its in d iv id u al scenes cohere in a c o m p re h en siv e m ass, a n d can by im a g in a tio n o r by p h y sically re tra c in g o n e ’s steps, be b ro u g h t once a g ain to o n e ’s a tte n tio n , so too a collection o f p oem s once re a d , in the o rd e r p re sen te d by th e poet, c a n take on a d y n a m ic new p ro p e rty o f b ein g im a g in ativ ely re -o rd e re d , a n d p e rh a p s re a d o r recalled n o t seriatim b u t selectively. W h a t is im p o r­ ta n t to re m e m b e r first, h o w ev er, is th a t for b o th m o n u m e n t an d lite ra tu re ex p erien ce o f the w o rk is first re g u la te d a n d o n ly th e n freed fro m axial in sp ec tio n in the case o f a b u ild in g 28 o r in the case o f poetic tex ts from the lin e a r ordo legendi. O n ly b ad ly d esig n ed b u ild in g s or m o n u m e n ts (or those, like H a d r ia n ’s P a n th e o n th a t seek to baffle a n d d efeat th e v ie w e r’s d esire for o rie n ta tio n a n d ax iality ) o r m ech an ically o rg a n iz e d books (p e rh a p s like C a tu llu s ’ e leg ies?)29 do n o t exploit the c o m p e te n t a u d ie n c e ’s initial e x p ectatio n s for a c e rta in o rd e r, a c ertain kind of commentary or canalizing of reception for the cycle of six poems the way a lex arae prescribes in pictorial or written form access to the implementation of an altar. For epigraphical evidence, cf. e.g., CIL VI, 826, III. 1933, X II.4333. Horace’s carefully com­ posed ordo legendi constitutes a kind of canalizing as well, but the specific responsions just mentioned in Books I, II and III function as a further particularization of the ordo into lex, to use Roman terms. 27 The Ara Pacis Augustae, oriented East-West in antiquity, has been reconstructed on a North-South axis. The local topography, including the cremation area for Augustus and the imperial family, the Via and Porta Flaminia with its military implications, and other local features, combine into a rich context with unmistakable programmatic overtones for the altar itself. Torelli, op. cit. supra, n. 22, pp. 33-35, is instructive. 28 See e.g., Frank E. Brown, Roman Architecture (New York, 1967), pp..30f. 29 See W. V. Clausen, op cit. supra n. 23, pp. 40f.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

m a rsh a llin g o f a tte n tio n . A fter som e d eg ree o f fa m ilia rity is g e n e ra te d , freed o m to w a n d e r a b o u t on o n e ’s o w n , as it w ere, is a n a tu ra l co u rse. T h e p re se n t in v estig atio n o f stra teg e m s o f p la c e m e n t c re a tin g co n tex t for th e R o m a n O d es o f H o ra c e will now assu m e a state o f a w are n e ss o n the a u d ie n c e ’s p a rt so m ew h at b etw een the n o v elty o f the tex t for a re a d e r w ho has n o t “ read th ro u g h ” the th re e books o f Odes, a n d th e c o m fo rtab le fa m iliarity the text exhibits for a re a d e r w ho has e x p e rie n c e d this c o rp u s m a n y tim es a n d controls a lm o st total recall o f it. W e a ssu m e th a t th e re a d e r has re a d the co rp u s e n o u g h tim es to hav e a n id ea o f w h a t is w h e re, b u t is by no m e an s sure o f the artistic re a so n s a n d effects o f such a n a rra n g e m e n t. T h is state o f m in d is p ro b a b ly a fair a p p ro x im a tio n for m a n y p o st-a n tiq u e re a d ers o f H o ra ce a n d o th e r a n c ie n t w riters o f p o e try . It now re m a in s to assess these a rtistic elem en ts o f the “ f r a m e ” p ro v id e d by the ordo legendi h ith e rto suggested. T h e “ fra m e ” to be assu m ed for the six R o m a n O d e s is m a d e o u t o f the h y m n to F o rtu n e a n d its a n te c e d e n t p e rso n al ex p erien ce o f the d iv in e , 1.35 a n d 34 respectively, a n d I I I . 24, a p o em w ith n o a d d re ssee a n d p reo c cu p ie d w ith the c o rro d in g o f R o m a n valu es chiefly th ro u g h the m isuse o f w e alth , a n d its p e n d a n t I I I . 25, o n B acchic in s p ira tio n to com pose so m eth in g u tte rly new ( “ a d h u c / in d ic tu m o re a lio ,” lines 7f.) c o n ce rn in g A u g u s tu s ’ g re a t w ork on e a rth a n d g re a t re w a rd in h e a v e n . It sh ould be re p e a te d th a t each p o em o f this fram e closest to th e R o m a n O d es is tw e n ty -th re e poem s from th a t cy cle’s o n set. T h e poet p re se n te d in this g ro u p in g o r fram e u n d e rg o e s a m e ta m o r­ phosis o r d e v elo p m en t as sta rtlin g as th a t p re se n te d in 11.20, w h ere he becom es a sw an. In the b e g in n in g th e p e rso n a o f the p o et c h a ra c te riz e s h im self as a skeptic c o n c e rn in g the d iv in e , in d e e d , a n a d e p t in a sy stem now seen as m a d . In a d d itio n to the g en eral in te rp re ta tio n o f this system as E p ic u re a n is m ,30 the co n tex t c re ate d for 1.34 b y lin k in g it to th e p oem s u n d e r review h ere suggests also th a t H o ra c e m ay be re fe rrin g to his p essim ism a b o u t the R o m a n state: a p essim ism w hich th e g o d ’s in te rv e n ­ tio n on e a rth com pels h im te m p o ra rily a t least to a b a n d o n . T h e deus h ere w ho controls the lig h tn in g a n d th u n d e r th a t ro a rs th ro u g h o u t th e w o rld a n d its d e p th s is n o t m u c h differen t from the deus o f O d e s II I. 1 .5 ff., th o u g h in the fra m in g p o em 1.34 this god sh ad es off in to Fortuna, the s u b ­ je c t o f the g re a t h y m n 1.35. T h is h y m n a d v an ces view s c o n c e rn in g th e in ­ v o lv em en t o f Fortuna w ith the stab ility o f th e state (1 .3 5 .1 3 ff.), the safety o f A u g u stu s (29ff.) a n d the e n te rp rise s o f the E a s te rn a rm ie s (29ff.) (th u s d a tin g the ode p lau sib ly to 26 B .C .), a n d th e m o ra lity o f R o m e ’s citizens 30 ChesterG. Starr, “ Horace and Augustus, ” American Journal of Philology 90 (1969), p. 62, notes a movement away from Epicureanism to Stoicism in the later Horace.

THE ORDO LEGENDI

17

(25ff.) w ho h a v e in d u lg e d in civil w a r (33ff.), th em es a g ain to be fo u n d in th e R o m a n O d e s, a n d w hich the p oet h ere p re sen ts in a pessim istic m a n n e r: “ q u id nos d u ra refu g im u s / aeta s, q u id in ta c tu m n efasti / liq u im u s ? ” (33ff.). T o this m u st be c o m p a re d II I.6 .4 5 ff., w here a very sim ila r feeling o f helplessness, o f defeat p erv ad es th e close o f the R o m a n O d e s ’ cycle. B ut in betw een this first seg m en t o f th e fram e , w here the p o et tu rn s his co u rse aw ay from his e rro r o f b e lie f a n d to w a rd co n cern a b o u t th e state, a n d the R o m a n O d es th em selv es, he u n d erg o es yet a n o th e r c h an g e . H e sees B acchus, 11.19, p ro p h esies a new poetic u tte ra n c e , 11.20, p ro n o u n c e s it, III. 1-6, a n d re -ite ra te s its im p act on the e v e ry d a y life o f his a u d ien c e (th o u g h it seem s p ro b a b ly tru e th a t I I I . 24 w as co m p o sed e a rlie r it is n ev erth eless re a d “ la te r ” ) a n d a rro g a te s to h im se lf th a t statu s o f b e in g d iv inely in sp ired b y B acchus once m o re in I I I . 25, re -a u th e n tic a tin g the e x alted source o f the poem s d e alin g w ith civic v irtu e , p riv a te m o ra lity , C a e s a r ’s exploits, a n d the stab ility o f his ru le . T h e p o et H o r a c e ’s ow n in v o lv em en t w ith A u g u s tu s ’ goals can be c h a rte d from these six p o em s, 1.34, 35, 11.19, 20, I I I . 24, 25, ju s t as the citizen H o r a c e ’s s u b se q u e n t d is e n c h a n tm e n t can be assessed from o th e r p o etical w o rk s .31 W h a t is im p o rta n t to b e a r in m in d is th a t H o ra ce m o d u la te s his p e rs o n a so th a t if w e estab lish this p a rtic u la r c o n ca te n atio n o f p o em s we can see h im pass from b e in g a n e rro r-rid d e n ig n o re r o f the d iv in e to one w ho n o t o n ly acknow ledges F o r tu n e ’s sw ay o v er all the affairs o f m e n a n d n a tio n s b u t even fu rth e r is g ra n te d a p e rso n al vision of B acch us te a c h in g carmina, po em s; he asserts fo rth co m in g g reatn ess for h im s e lf th ro u g h a rt, u tte rs the R o m a n O d e s, a n d re ite ra te s his deep co n ­ c e rn for R o m e as well as his B acchic cre d en tia ls. T h is a m b itio u s p ro g ra m o f in c re a sin g aw aren ess a n d c o n co m itan t in c re a sin g p o etic p o w er is of co u rse n o t so starkly visible if one read s all the in te rv e n in g poem s se ria tim . B ut the id e n tity o f A lcaic m e te r for those singled o u t from Books I, II a n d II I, a n d those m eters re c u rrin g side b y side, as well as the re p e ti­ tio n o f the second A scle p ia d ea n in the sequ en ce from the e n d o f Book III, stro n g ly suggest the v a lid ity o f lin k in g th e m to the R o m a n O d es as we h a v e d o n e. F in ally , the e q u id is ta n t fram e , tw e n ty -th re e poem s o n e ith e r side o f I I I . 1, suggests th a t no a ccid en tal o r ra n d o m p la cin g should a c c o u n t for this collo catio n . T h e p oet th ro u g h o rd e rin g is m a n ip u la tin g o u r a tte n tio n , a n d sec u rin g for the R o m a n O d es h e ig h te n ed q u alities: th e y are objectified o u tsid e th e ir ow n fab ric a n d asserted to be carmina in s p irite d by B acch u s, e n tire ly novel, sign ifican t in a new w ay, secu rin g th e ir p o e t’s im m o rta lity a n d lin k in g the p riv a te a n d p u b lic w orlds b o th o f p o e t a n d o f his a u d ie n c e th ro u g h the m e d iu m o f the R o m a n state. 31 C. G. Starr, op. cit. supra, n. 30, pp. 62-64.

18

THE ORDO LEGENDI

W ith o u t the state no R o m a n O d e s, no im m o rta lity for H o r a c e ;32 w ith o u t th e sta te , no escape from the v o rtex o f d e liq u escen ce, p e rso n al m o ral d ecay, a n d re su ltin g civic m o ral collapse for the in d iv id u a l citizen . T h e R o m a n sta te , in the p erso n o f C a e s a r A u g u stu s, is the b u lw a rk b etw een e rro r a n d oblivion ra th e r th a n death less u n iv e rsa lity for the p o e t, b e ­ tw een d e ep e n in g a n o m ie , civic e n tro p y a n d p e rso n al m o ral ru in ra th e r th a n p u rp o sefu l existence for the citizen . T h e b ro a d co n tex t for th e R o m a n O d es is b o th the p o et a n d his a u d ie n c e , in a w ay m o re specially cre ate d for these six poem s th a n is u su ally th e case. P oetic re fe rra ls to the fo rth co m in g cycle c re ate a clim ate o f co n sid e ra b le a n tic ip a tio n for th e m ; the su b se q u e n t v a lid a tio n o f th e ir m essage a n d th e ir p o et re m in d the a u d ien c e a b o u t to leave the lyric w orld o f the Odes a t th e e n d o f B ook III o f the c en trality o f the R o m a n O d e s, b o th for the co rp u s o f tex ts, a n d for th e p o e t’s a rtistic sta tu re . P e rh a p s som e o f the a u d ien c e w en t even fu rth e r, a n d h e ed e d th e m o ral su asio n o f this com plex ag g re g atio n o f c en tral m o n u m e n t, its p ro lo g u e , a n d its fra m in g w ings. A lth o u g h the ch ief c o n ce rn o f th e p re se n t stu d y is to p re sen t w ays o f c o m p eten tly re a d in g the R o m a n O d e s, n ev erth eless this e x a m in a tio n o f th e ir fram e, ra th e r like a stu d y o f the sc u lp tu re o f the V estals a n d sacrificial a n im als on the w ings o f th e Ara Pacis Augustae, its lex arae, seeks to establish a g eneral co n tex t for th e le a d in g fe a tu re s a n d functions o f the c en tral m o n u m e n t itse lf.33 32 Note the urban terms in which Horace at the end of the collection, III.30, characterizes his monumentum (the Capitolium, vestal virgin, pontifex maximus.) See also J. M. Andre, “ Les Odes Romaines: Mission divine, otium et apotheose du chef,” Hommages a Marcel Renard, ed. J. Bibauw, I (Paris, 1969), pp. 31-46. 33 It might also be noted that Vergil, e.g. Geòrgie III. 16ff., utilizes a mode of writing that can be thought similar to the Roman historical relief, but without that development of architectonic elements which can be seen in Horace. Further contrasts between the two poets on this matter would perhaps be useful, and would probably suggest further basic differences between Vergil’s and Horace’s conception of epic, as well as the problems of Horace’s combining epic and lyric and Vergil’s combining in certain places epic and pastoral; see M. C. J. Putnam, Virgil’s Poem of the Earth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 168, “ an architecture of mighty deeds.”

CHAPTER THREE

T H E F IR S T R O M A N O D E T h e c o m p e te n t re a d e r o f H o ra c e ’s first R o m a n O d e m ay be relied u p o n to m ak e c e rta in o b serv atio n s a n d to estab lish c e rta in co n n ectio n s as he re -re a d s this p o em . L et us e x am in e som e o f these as they o ccu r in the o n g o in g process o f re a d in g this text. T h e first fo u r lines o f the th ird book o f Odes econom ically establish th re e o p e ra tio n a l categories: th e sp ea k e r, th e spoken a n d those spoken to (o r n o t spoken to). B u ild in g on the e x u lta tio n o f 11.20 a n d its a u th en tic a to n , 11.19, the p o e t’s self is rev ealed as o ccu p y in g a p riv ileg ed state: d istin c t from th e n o n -in itia te s, a n d a b o u t to convey in th e silence p re sc rib e d by ritu a l a n d d e m a n d e d by his u tte ra n c e o f the fo rm u la “ favete lin g u is ,” carmina, texts of g re a t v irtu e a n d im p o rtan c e . It is the y o u n g to w hom the p o et speaks, those c ap a b le o f im p le m e n tin g th e vision w hich h e 'm e d ia te s. A k in d o f ritu al space is c re ate d b y these fo u r lin e s .1 Its axis ru n s from the p e rso n o f the sacerdos to those o f th e chosen a u d ie n c e , a n d the space excludes those n o t free e n o u g h from the yoke of tim e (th e ir age, o r th e age itself) to h eed th e d iv in ely q u alified poet. N o lo n g e r c o n te n t as one o f m a n y to h y m n the goddess F o rtu n e of A n zio , the p o et rises a b o v e th e u n d iffe re n tia te d m asses a n d ap p eals to a select a u d ie n c e : those w ho have ack n o w led g ed the su p re m ac y o f Fortuna go on to see in h e r a sign o f G o d ’s g re a test d im e n sio n : the o rd e rin g p o w er o f the d iv in e . S poken e a rlie r b u t n o t h e ed e d ( non audita), these texts o f high c u ltu ra l, civic a n d religious im p o rt will create a new a u d ien c e cap ab le of h e e d in g . Silence can b e to k en e ith e r n eg ativ e q u a litie s, silence re su ltin g fro m its p o te n tia l v io lato rs, the d e n ie rs, w ho are at a d istan ce (arceo); o r positive effects: silence m a in ta in e d o u t o f pious co n sen t. (O rig in ally R o m a n ritu a l called for silence in o rd e r to forestall a n y ill-o m en ed w ords, a c o m b in a tio n o f these tw o fu n c tio n s.) It is u p to the a u d ien c e to choose o n e o f these tw o roles: to d ra w n e a r in silence, o r to w ith d ra w in silence of a n o th e r so rt a lto g e th e r. T h e th re e v erb s of this first stro p h e are in the first p e rso n sin g u la r; the p o et w ho despises a n d repels also sings; it is the sam e p e rso n , this h ie ro p h a n t a n d p o et; are th e activities the sam e? T h a t is, is the god-sent 1 The use of “ ritual space” in this connection is an extension of the idea of Frank E. Brown, Roman Architecture (New York, 1967), pp. 9-11. For Horace and religion, see R. Hanslik, “ Die Religiosität des H oraz,” Altertum I (1955), pp. 230-240, and T. Oksala, Religion und Mythologie bei Horaz (Helsinki, 1973).

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

vision an d th e g o d -in sp ire d sacred tex t c o term in o u s w ith e stra n g e m e n t from th e u n d iffe re n tia te d volgus a n d its u n p ro fo u n d co n cern s? P o ssib ly so. S acred space m u st be c leared o r d efin ed for sacred acts; th e settin g u p o f th e space, ex clu d in g as well as e n c a p su la tin g , is in d e ed th e first sacred action o f a religious ritu a l. W ith in this templum th e profanum volgus is h a r d ­ ly fo rg o tten ; ra th e r, m a n y references to it o ccu r, as III. 1 itself a m p ly d e m o n stra te s. B ut it is the y o u n g , th e p liab le, those u p o n w h o m the p e rfo rm a n c e o f sacred text m ay m ak e its d eep est a n d lo n g e st-la stin g effect, th a t a re a d d re ssed in the en clo su re o f th e R o m a n O d e s. T o forget this is to forget th a t one e lem en t o f th e cycle th a t gives it w h a t u n ity it h as. T h e poem s w ith them es p revio u sly e n u n c ia te d a n d n o t precisely h e ed e d are h ere ren ew ed ; th e p o et, c h a rg e d w ith th e d iv in e , tu rn s his m essage in to a rt (musarum sacerdos) a n d selects a special a d d re ssee for his m essages. H e begins in a m ost u n R o m a n w ay, b y p re s e n tin g , in line five, u n d if­ fe re n tia te d u n R o m a n m asses, greges, w ho a re th e p ro p e rty o f v ery u n R o m a n kings, reges: a d e p a rtu re fro m th e statu s q u o , a v io latio n o f a u d ien c e ex p ec ta tio n , in a sm u ch as it is a p re s e n ta tio n o f th e w o rld n o t from th e view p o in t o f the greges o r o f th e reges b u t fro m J u p i t e r ’s: for h im , kings a n d peoples are u n sp ecified , u n in d iv id u a te d , th e n e u te r p lu ra l cuncta o f line eight. W h a t lies b e h in d this sw eep in g o p e n in g is th e h y m n to Z eus of C le a n th e s, th eologian o f th e early S to a ;2 ab love principium is a v ery R o m a n w ay o f e x p ressin g this id ea o f th e d e p e n d e n c y o f all u p o n G o d , b u t it is u su ally p re se n te d from th e p e rsp ec tiv e o f th e lo w er lo o k in g u p w a rd ra th e r th a n th e w ay H o ra c e m a n ag e s it h e re , fro m ab o v e, a t a g re a t d istan ce (the after-effects o f arceo) lo o k in g do w n on th e g re a t collec­ tives o f reges a n d th e ir greges. T h e p rin c ip le o f u n d iffe re n tia tio n m a y even e x te n d to th e m e n tio n o f th e G ia n ts in lin e seven; for it is usu ally th e T ita n s , n o t th e G ia n ts, w ho a re n a m e d in c o n n ectio n w ith J u p i t e r ’s g re a t p o w er, a n d to co n fu se th e m w ith the G ia n ts m a y signal b lu rrin g o r lack o f id e n tific a tio n b e ca u se o f d isin te re st a n d h en ce d ista n ce , like th a t asso ciated w ith odi a n d arceo, line one. T h e specificity o f lines o n e th ro u g h fo u r, a t least in re g a rd to p o e t, a u ­ d ien ce a n d m essage, b ro k en off by th e sw eep in g g e n e ra liz a tio n s o f lines five th ro u g h e ig h t, m ay also suggest th e p ro lo g u e q u a lity o f v erses one th ro u g h four. H o w ev e r, lines n in e follow ing in tro d u c e a d istilla tio n o f the p a rtic u la r, w hich o b ta in s u n til turba, line th irte e n , th a t u n d iffe re n tia te d grex o f c lients, w hich in tu rn leads b ack to the s u p e rn a tu ra l level a n d th e 2 Cf. also Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus, line 79. See as well V. Poschl, “ H oraz,” L ’Influence grecque sur la poesie latine de Catulle à Ovide, Entretiens sur l ’antiquité II, pp. 93-130, Fondation Hardt, (Genève, 1956).

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

21

force o f Necessitas. I f the reges h a v e th e ir greges, a n d J u p ite r has b o th in sw ay, so too th e in d iv id u a l has p ro p e rty , sta tio n , c h a ra c te r, re p u te , a n d a follow ing o f clien ts, to g re a te r or lesser d egree in c o m p ariso n w ith his fellow s. As J o v e rules ru lers a n d peoples, so Necessitas, in th a t aspect o f h e r ak in to th e Fortuna o f 1.35, a n d n o t as d e a th ,3 is in co n tro l o f h ig h an d low alike. L in es n in e th ro u g h sixteen re p e a t on th e level o f h u m a n affairs a n d fro m a m o re h u m a n p ersp ectiv e the p o in ts m a d e in lines five th ro u g h e ig h t. H o w e v e r, J u p ite r h as becom e Necessitas, a n d the div in e figure, far fro m p e rc eiv in g u n d iffe re n tia te d m asses o f p eo p le, now know s y o u r n a m e : cuncta, th e n e u te r p lu ra l, o f line eig h t becom es omne nomen in line six teen. T h is deg ree o f p a rtic u la r aw aren ess on the p a rt o f Necessitas is o m in o u s, a n d m a y b o d e ill. D iffere n tia tio n in d eg ree o f statu s o n e a rth is levelled by the aequa lex o f collectivizatio n ; the p erso n al in d iv id u alities re p re se n te d b y est ut vir are fla tte n e d b y the g n o m ic q u a lity o f the u tte ra n c e a b o u t the e q u al law . P ro p e rty , an ce stry , c h a ra c te r, re p u te , political follow ing, all the factors by w hich we d istin g u ish social roles an d in d iv id u a ls, for Necessitas all are nomen. If it be g ra n te d th a t Necessitas h ere is n o t d e a th b u t a d a m a n tin e fate sealin g o n e ’s lo t, th e n the im p e n d in g te rro r o f lines sev en teen th ro u g h tw e n ty -fo u r is te rro r o f loss, o f discovery: sleeplessness, w o rry , fears th a t d o g the cervix impia do so n o t becau se o f w ealth only, b u t b ecau se they are tie d to a p a rtic u la r statio n in life, for th e ensis o f line sev en teen is q u ite clearly asso ciated w ith n o t ju s t a n y rich m a n , b u t w ith th e ty ra n t o f Sici­ ly, D io n y siu s, w hose d in n e r-g u e s t, D am o cles, sees th e sw ord su sp en d ed o v er his h o s t’s h e a d a n d d raw s conclusions a b o u t his v u ln e ra b ility .4 T h e rich ty ra n t is soon c o n tra ste d w ith m en o f low statio n , ek in g o u t a living in th e c o u n try . A t the c e n te r o f the p o em a second gnom ic u tte ra n c e occurs: desiderantem quod satis est, line tw enty-five; this p e rso n , in c o n tra st to cut o f lin e sev e n te e n , is n o t e v id en tly a m e rc h a n t d e p e n d e n t o n the w e ath e r signs for la te sailings, a b o u t to be m e n tio n e d , n o r a fa rm e r, w ho is 3 It is often assumed that Necessitas in III. 1.14 is Death, e.g., Gordon Williams, The Third Book of Horace’s Odes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), ad. toc. and p. 125. However, the work of E. T. Silk has convincingly shown that this need not be the case: “ Towards a Fresh Interpretation of Horace Carm. III. 1 Yale Classical Studies 23 (1973), pp. 139-145. On III . 1, see also Eduard Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 261 ff., and Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 16, and V. Pöschl, “ Die Einheit der ersten Römerode,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 63 (1958), pp. 333-346, and especially his Horazische Lyrik: Interpretationen (Heidelberg, 1970), pp. 144-164, the only Roman Ode treated in this valuable book. See also E. T. Silk, “ The God and the Searchers for Happiness: Notes on Horace’s Repetition and Variation of a favorite Topos, ” Yale Classical Studies 19 (1966), pp. 241-244 on III.l (and 1.35 and III.3 in contrast). 4 G. Williams, op. cit. supra, n. 3, ad toc. gives the argument.

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

likew ise d e p e n d e n t. In fact it is im possible, in the term s p ro v id e d b y the te x t, to assign the m a n w ho desires w h at is e n o u g h a n y specific role o r statio n . By im p lic a tio n h e, like the viri agrestes o f lines tw en ty -tw o follow ing, th ro u g h c o n tra st w ith the impia cervix o f line sev e n te en , is pius, a n d obviously desiderat quod satis est. B ut if he w ere a sm all fa rm e r, one w ith a humilis domus, line tw en ty -tw o , he w o u ld be ru in e d b y such w e a th e r as is d escrib ed in lines tw e n ty -n in e follow ing. C le a rly H o ra c e h as shifted to the p ro b lem o f a ttitu d e , aw ay fro m the p ro b le m o f social categories. O th e rw ise, if one w ere to re g a rd the viri agrestes as still in the n etw o rk o f c o m m u n ic a tio n , as it w ere, a fte r the g n o m ic desiderantem quod satis est, one w ould be com pelled to ju d g e H o ra c e in c o n siste n t, u n re a listic, a n d ev en u n fa ir to fa rm e rs. C o m m e n ta to rs, b y c h a r a c te r­ izing the recip ien t o f the b a d w e a th e r as a g re a t p ro p e rty o w n e r, do b u t re a d into the text a so lu tio n to a p ro b le m th ey do n o t re a d o u t o f the te x t.5 A sm all farm suffers total loss, th e ir re a so n in g m a y be su p p o se d to ru n , so the poet m u st be c o n ce rn in g h im se lf w ith a larg e fa rm e r g re e d y for m ore th a n his d u e . B ut o bviously the p o in t is m a d e in re g a rd to quod satis est as the object o f desire. A ttitu d e is su p e ro rd in a te h e re ju s t as in p re c ed in g strophes; one h as to be aw are o f the h a n g in g sw o rd , o r o f the tro u b les it sym bolizes, before b e in g so w o rried as to be in so m n ia c. F a rm e rs know no sw ord, a n d w ork h a rd too, a n d th e re fo re sleep: so w o uld ru n the logic o f the “ r e a l” w orld if im p o rte d to the p o e m . B u t the poet is n o t d ealin g w ith psychological co m m o n p laces o r tru ism s, b u t w ith a special vision o f the w o rld a n d h im se lf in it. T h o se w ho w o rk for s u b ­ sistence, for m a in te n a n c e , for quod satis est, sleep; those w ho w a n t m o re do n o t rest easily; a n d o v e r all is the imperium o f h e a v e n , c o n ta in in g all is the vessel of fate. A w areness o f the sw o rd , o r so u n d sleep o r its a b se n c e, are m ean in g less d istin ctio n s in a w orld w here n a tu ra l process is so a lte re d as to a d m it trees th a t p u t b la m e for low yield o n flood, d ro u g h t, a n d cold, a n d fish th a t feel c o n stra in e d b y m a rin e a rc h ite c tu ra l v e n tu re s (lines th ir ­ ty fo llo w in g ).6 R a th e r, it is the striv in g for e la b o ra tio n (line n in e te e n , elaborabunt; cf. moliar, line forty-six), the cro ssin g o f n a tu ra l b a rrie rs s y m ­ bolized by b u ild in g ov er a n d in w a te r 7*th a t is h eld u p for q u e stio n . T h e fa rm e r is no m o re aw are o f Necessitas o r th e god th a n is th e rich m a n ; 5 This is the approach of standard commentators, e.g., Q. Horatius Flaccus Oden und Epoden9 ed. Adolf Kiessling and Richard Heinze (Berlin, 1958), ad toe., hereafter referred to as Kiessling-Heinze. 6 This is not the hyperbole that Kiessling-Heinze, ad toe., assert. 7 Building programs over the water at Anzio were carried out; the most renowned were those of Nero, revealed in Allied bombardment of Anzio during World War II. Cf. also J. E. G. Whitehorne, “The Ambitious Builder,” Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association 31 (1969), pp. 28-39, and L. Alfonsi, “ Notes de lecture,” Latomus 20 (1961), pp. 845-846 on III.l. 33f.

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

23

p e rh a p s ev en less so. H e is m erely free o f w o rry because he has less to lose: o nly quod satis est. H e does n o t w ork h a rd e r th a n is n e ed e d to achieve qoud satis est: b u t by w hose criterio n ? S urely in the e n d , in the capax urna, it does n o t m a tte r. T h o se w ho, like G o rd o n W illia m s ,8 try to m ak e this poem into a co n ­ n e c te d discu rsiv e sta te m e n t are obliged to tre a t it ro u g h ly . T h e poem r a th e r exhib its v a rio u s layers susceptible to v ario u s in te rp re ta tio n s an d a n en d less ra n g e o f significance, as has ju s t b een d e m o n stra te d . T o c o n ­ fine o b se rv a tio n solely to in te rp re ta tio n s: W illiam s avers th a t “ the th o u g h t in the p o e t’s m in d , w as basically: ‘W h a t is the p o in t o f personal a m b itio n ? ’” 9 a n d relates this to w ealth on th e one h a n d , a n d q u ie t c o u n ­ try liv in g o n the o th e r. It a p p a re n tly occasions no su rp rise th a t a text p re p a re d for so lavishly a n d sacrally as III. 1 can be re d u c e d to “ Live an u n a m b itio u s life .” Y et if one re m a in s shackled to th e lite ra l, to the d iscu rsiv e , to the text isolated from its co n tex t o f o th e r poem s in the cycle, this is the k in d o f in te rp re ta tio n th a t m u st resu lt. T h e fau lt lies not in th e logic o f such a su p e rb critic as W illiam s b u t in n o t h a v in g a critical m e th o d th a t does m o re th a n ex am in e “ th e re la tio n sh ip o f the great g e n e ra liz a tio n ” (5-8) to th e r e s t,” w hich is this c ritic ’s d iag n o sis o f “ the p ro b le m in this p o e m .” 101P oem s n eed no t be o r ex h ib it p ro b lem s. T h e re a d e r is alw ays th e p ro b le m , usu ally b ecau se he is re a d in g th e text in the w ro n g c o n tex t, o r som etim es the w ro n g tex t. H e re e n o u g h has b een said a b o u t the so lem n p re p a ra tio n for I I I . l to show th a t it is very likely not sim ply a n e n u n c ia tio n o f a basic m o ral w h ich “ function[s] sim ply as a n u n d e rly in g p rin c ip le .” 11 W illiam s is rig h t w h en he d raw s a tte n tio n to the u n p re d ic ta b le c o n tra stin g p ictu res p re se n te d in the sw eep o f I I I . l , an d he does well to stress th e ir d o m in a n t q u a lity . B ut it is these “ p ic tu re s ” alone th a t c o n stitu te the te x t, n o t an y u n d e rly in g m o ra l w hich m ay well be a c u ltu ra l p re -te x t, o r a p o st-te x tu a l e x tra p o la tio n , a n d as such sh o u ld be carefu lly d e m a rc a te d from the tex t by a n y resp o n sib le critical o p e ra tio n . L et us tu rn to a so m ew h a t d e tailed e x a m in a tio n o f the text itself in hopes o f re c o v e rin g g ro u n d s for a n in te rp re ta tio n on the te x t’s o w n term s. I h av e above su g g ested th a t the poem form s halves. T h e first h a lf has th e viri agrestes (p lu ra l) for a foil to the impia cervix (sin g u lar) o f the very s in g u la r ty ra n t o f Sicily; a gentle breeze refresh es these h u m b le c o u n try d w ellers. In the second h a lf a sim ilar a rm a tu re can easily be d iscern ed : 8 G. Williams, op. cit. supra, n. 3, ad toc. See also Hendrik Wagenvoort, De Horatii quae dicuntur Odis Romanis (Groningen, 1911), pp. 18-47 (on III.l and 2). This work is also useful on all the Roman Odes. 9 G. Williams, ibid. , and p. 32. 10 G. Williams, ibid. 11 G. Williams, ibid.

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

the pisces (p lu ral) form a foil for the excesses o f th e redemptor / dominus (sin g u la r) w hom a violent desire to a lte r the n a tu ra l la n d sc a p e assails. O th e r elem en ts th a t suggest a m irro rin g effect in th e tw o reach es o f th e p o em include a so u n d p a tte rn desiderantem quod satis est (25) a n d guodsi dolentem (41) in the first a n d second halv es resp ectiv ely . F u rth e r, n o te how desiderantem quod satis est is follow ed by the co n n ectiv es neque, nec, aut (25ff.); its p h o n ic k in , quodsi dolentem, is follow ed b y nec, nec, nec (41ff.), the d en sest a rra y o f connectives in th e p o em . T h e tw o p assag es rein fo rce each o th er; the m a n w ho desires w h a t is e n o u g h a n d the sick m a n are closely parallel (if n o t id en tical). T h e tex t seeks to level sy n tac tic a lly a n d p h o n ically the very d istin ctio n s it lexically a n d sem a n tic a lly a d v an c e s. F u rth e r evidence o f sim ilarities b etw een the b e g in n in g a n d e n d o f this m essage c an easily be fo u n d . T h e first p e rso n sin g u la r o ccu rs o n ly in the first a n d last stro p h es. F u tu re passive p a rtic ip le s o c cu r only in line five (timendorum regum) a n d line forty-five {invidendis postibus). In c o n tra st, p e r ­ sonifications are co nfined to a c en tral a re a , fundus mendax (30), Timor, M inae (37), Cura (40). P erfect passive p a rtic ip le s a b o u n d e v ery w h e re , e .g ., 3, 17, 24, 29, 33, 34, 39. P rese n t active p a rtic ip le s in th e g en itiv e are (Iovis) moventis, 8, (Arcturi) cadentis, 27, a n d {Haedi) orientis, 28, all celestial, a suggestive a rra y . L exically, {non) fastidit, 23, a n d th e p ro m ­ in en tly p laced fastidiosus, 37, are the m a in sp rin g s o f the p o e m . Sleep does n o t scorn h u m b le lodgings (b u t does ev ad e th e w o rrie d ty ra n t); th e rich m a n d isd ain s the la n d (b u t n o t the w ro n g e le m e n t, th e w a te r) yet w o rry catches u p w ith him a t sea o r o n la n d . T h e m a n w ho is fastidiosus is n o t impius (n o r does he explicity u n d e rg o th e ex p erien ce o f th e impius in this p oem ) b u t n e ith e r does he desire quod satis est. T h e re is la n d e n o u g h for m a n , b u t he goes to b u ild on the alien sea. Y et in th e w o rld o f this p o e m , if th e re be a n y co nsistency the la n d is also mendax12 w h e n it com es to p ro v id in g m a n w ith su ste n a n ce . A p a tte rn o f e q u iv alen cy , la te n t in these e x am p les, m a y n o w be set fo rth . P o em III. 1, the first R o m a n O d e , is a d e cla ra tiv e p o e m ; th e re is no su b ju n ctiv e in it except for the est ut c o n stru c tio n , 9ff. (C o n tra s t sh o u ld be m ad e by the re a d e r la te r w ith I I I . 2 a n d its in itial ju ssiv e su b ju n c tiv e s, III.2 .3 ff.) T h is p o em estab lish es a c o n tex t, a w o rld , m ak es d istin c tio n s, a n d o rd e rs its reality . It uses the in te rro g a tiv e fo rm o n ly tw ice, b o th in the la st stro p h e: the tw o q u e stio n s c o n ta in in th e ir fo rm u la tio n tw o w o rd s th a t p ro v id e th e ir answ ers: sublime a n d operosiores. A sp ira tio n s are su re to elicit hostile re a ctio n s from o th ers; th e city b rin g s w o rries a lo n g w ith riches; w hy ch an g e? B ut w h a t one sh o u ld b e a r in m in d is th a t th e p o et is left n o t in resp ectab le ru ra l sh ab b in ess b u t clo th ed w ith th e im p o rta n c e o f 12 12 Note the context of mendax here, and cf. Petronius, Satyricon 117.

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

25

th e first stro p h e . H is S ab in e valley is the re tre a t o f the M u se s, a settin g for his a rt, n o t m erely for his h u m b le h isto rical social self. T h e p o et is no t e n g a g e d in d iffe re n tia tin g tw o selves in the first a n d last stro p h es o f this p o em a n y m o re th a n he is d istin g u ish in g b etw een kings th a t m u st be feared a n d despots sure to be envied: b o th are o p eratio n s re su ltin g from th e p e rsp ec tiv e o f th e w o rld fro m w hich th e p o et is seeking to free o th ers, as he h im se lf h a s been freed by the a u th e n tic a tin g vision h e pro claim s. T h e aequa lex Necessitatis b rin g s all to one e n d ; th in g s c a n n o t h elp the h u m a n c o n d itio n , be it desiderans o r dolens; th ey are m u c h the sam e, for ev en if one is desiderans quod satis est, the sam e aw aits. G o d ru les, kings re ig n , a n d m a n is e ith e r ill at ease o r at h o m e in the w orld; b u t the w o rld ’s th in g s, b e y o n d m ere su b sisten ce, are useless in m a k in g a d ifference to m a n . M u c h d ep en d s on ru lers a n d on h eav en ; b u t even w ith b e n e v o le n t ru le a n d good w e a th e r, the sam e e n d aw aits. T h o se w ho see the R o m a n O d es e n d in g , w ith I I I . 6, in a n u n fo reseen p essim ism sh o u ld b e a r in m in d th a t III. 1 is n o t exactly o p tim istic in tone, b u t r a th e r is solem nly d a rk a n d resig n ed ly passive in the face o f Necessitas, J u p ite r a n d , in th e b a c k g ro u n d Fortuna herself. F a r from issu in g didactic calls to take a ttitu d e s o r a ctio n s, the p oet h ere a d v an ces b rillia n t p ictu res o f th e futility o f p e rso n a l d riv e , p e rso n al p o w er, p e rso n al possessions. T h e n e x t ode will in tro d u c e a new te rm in this lexicon o f possibilities: the state. S ev eral elem en ts c o m m o n to the R o m a n O d es as a w hole are in tro ­ d u c e d in I I I . 1. A m o n g these are th e in te rp la y o f ab stra c t p erso n ificatio n s su ch as Necessitas, Timor, Minae, Cura, a n d vivid co n crete d etails, such as Siculae dapes, Phrygius lapis, etc. F u rth e r, th e in c ip ie n t ten sio n b etw een the p e rso n a l role o r aspect o f the p oet as c o n tra ste d w ith his p u b lic side m ig h t also be ra ise d as a q u e stio n . In the term s o f I I I . 1, is th e vallis Sabina no t o n ly the stro n g h o ld o f a rt, as h ere su g g ested , b u t also th a t co m fo rtab le fastn ess o f p riv a te c u ltiv a tio n , a n d are divitiae operosiores p u b lic a n d civic p ro n o u n c e m e n ts a n d resp o n sib ilities? In the d y n am ics o f III. 1, the q u e s­ tio n can be asked b u t n o t a n sw e re d . F u rth e r in te rp re ta tio n o f th e R o m a n O d e s m a y , h o w ev er, suggest a h av en u e for a p p ro a c h in g this q u estio n . If the p o e t’s o u tb u rs t a b o u t quod si dolentem (411) is m a d e u p o f sounds sim ila r to desiderantum quod satis est (25) a n d if an assim ilatio n o f even the n o n -a m b itio u s to the sick at h e a r t— sick w ith th e illness o f h u m a n e x iste n c e — c an be m a d e , so too p ara llelism o r assim ilatio n can be seen elsew h ere k n ittin g the text in to a c o m p reh en siv e assertio n o f this vision of th e w o rld . F irst, b o th R o m a n ex am p les (stro p h es 3 a n d 4, a n d 7ff) a n d n o n -R o m a n ex am p les (stro p h es 2 a n d 5) show th e u n iv e rsa lity o f this p o e t’s v isio n a ry scope. N e x t, one m a y ob serv e how the tex t passes from v a st c o n ce rn s (e a ste rn kings a n d th e ir peoples) to the R o m a n m e rc h a n t

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

a n d fa rm e r, th u s p re p a rin g the w ay for th e p o et to re -a p p e a r in civic guise at the e n d . H e is the sam e p o e t as in stro p h e 1, b u t fu n c tio n s as cives a n d n o t as vates. F inally, the su p e ro rd in a te ru le o f J u p ite r a n d the u n d e rly in g control o f Necessitas are tra n sfo rm e d in to a sw ord su sp e n d e d o v er a neck, a n d the w e a th e r (a b o u t w hich in d e ed n o th in g c an be d o n e ) becom es a local m a n ife sta tio n o f Necessitas. T h e g ra n d a n d u n iv e rsa l c o n ­ tin u a lly shade in to the p a rtic u la r a n d the e v ery d ay , b u t o f co u rse n o t p re se n te d in e v ery d ay la n g u a g e o r to n e . T h e p erso n ificatio n s o f 37ff. do m u ch to elevate the to n e, a n d to show th a t it is to the p o w erfu l a n d p ro m in e n t m a n th a t the p oet w ishes to d raw final a tte n tio n before b re a k in g off his p ictu res o f cosm ic ru le r a n d leveller c o n tra ste d w ith th e ir m u n d a n e m e an s o f o p e ra tio n .13 F a r from b e in g a text e n jo in in g c o n te n tm e n t w ith o n e ’s lot a n d d isco u rag in g p erso n al a m b itio n , the first R o m a n O d e is a psychological m odel o f a social state: G o d ’s co n tro l, cap a b le o f b e in g a rtic u la te d o n a g ra n d scale, shades off in to the ev ery d ay w h ere it is no lo n g e r p e rceiv ed except in social term s: quod satis est, dominus terrae fastidiosus, etc. Y et the o u trid e rs o f divine p e rm e a tio n o f the w o rld ’s fab ric, Timor, Minae, Cura, objectify the in te rio r state o f the m a n w ho is dolens, in spite o f his success, w ealth a n d p ow er, econom ic a n d h en ce social. A rtistic re tre a t b reak s th e ir p o w er a n d suffuses it w ith the rig h t p ersp ectiv e: all is in th e sw ay o f G o d , Necessitas know s all o u r n a m es. P e rh a p s F ried rich Solm sen w as rig h t for a re a so n he d id n o t ad v an c e w h en he o b s e rv e d 14 th a t Odes II I. 1 m a y u rg e y o u n g R o m a n s to seek in d iv id u a l h a p p in ess, ra th e r th a n to help b u ild u p th e new R o m e o f A u g u stu s. W h e n all levels, social, econom ic a n d p o litical, are illusions before the g re a t p o w er o f G o d a n d the lev ellin g law o f Necessitas, one m u st realize the futility of a sp iratio n s th a t w ell u p fro m in d iv id u a l or collective m a n . A h ig h e r p o w er m u st s u p p o rt, s tre n g th e n a n d v a lid a te a n y such efforts; h a v in g d ism a n tle d , in III. 1, th e w o rld b e re ft o f this d ire c t in te r ­ v e n tio n o f h e av e n a n d its c o n c o m ita n t social o rg a n , th e sta te , a n d h a v in g show n its v a n ity , the p o et goes on in I I I . 2 to show a ru d im e n ta ry e v o lu ­ tio n o f civic aw aren ess b u ilt u p o n the ab so lu te zero , the ch illin g d en ials a n d h a rd realities o f I I I . 1. T h is th e o ry o f re a d in g ap p lied to III. 1 obliges us to p o stu la te as well a th e o ry o f ta ste, a n in te rp re ta tio n o r set o f in te rp re ta tio n s (one o f m a n y 13 A word about Timor, Minae and the armor-plated trireme may be useful. Almost all commentators, ancient, medieval, Renaissance and modern, suggest the context of civilian life. However, the presence of Timor and Minae, twin companions of Mars (like Phobos and Deimos of Ares) suggest that a warlike setting is not to be ruled out. If so, there is a slight anticipation here of the subsequent ode’s preoccupation at its outset with war. 14 Friedrich Solmsen, “ Horace’s First Roman O de,’’ American Journal of Philoloey 68 (1943), p. 338.

THE FIRST ROMAN ODE

27

p o ssib ilities) for th e text ju s t d iscussed. W e h av e m oved from the p h e n o m e n o lo g y o f th e w rite r’s consciousness to o u r fram ew o rk o f u n d e rs ta n d in g , b u t not w ith o u t a suspicion th a t H o ra c e ’s p o em (h ere as well as elsew h ere in his co rp u s) resists th e, o r even a, final m e an in g , a n d goes o n p ro life ra tin g in te rp re ta tio n s endlessly: no u n u su a l resu lt for a tex t as sh iftin g , d y n a m ic a n d vivid as I I I . l can easily be d iscern ed to be.

CHAPTER FOUR

T H E SECO N D R O M A N OD E If Odes II I. 1 sets at n a u g h t th e vivid rich es o f th e E ast a n d of Ita ly h e rse lf in face o f th e ir in a b ility to a lte r th e in n e r state o f homo dolens, a n d c o n se q u e n tly calls in to q u e stio n the re a so n a b le n ess o f all striv in g in th e a re as o f a g ric u ltu re , co m m erce, civic life, a n d ev en personell c h a ra c te r, in light o f Necessitas a n d h e r aequa lex, th e second m o v e m e n t o f th e R o m a n O d es takes its in c ep tio n from w h a t is left o f social life in th e w o rld : v ery little in d e ed , angusta pauperies o f the p o e m ’s first lin e. B ut b efo re e x a m in ­ in g I I I . 2 in light o f its p re d e c e sso r— a n d this lig h t is c ru cial fo r a d e e p e r aw aren ess o f th e fu n c tio n o f I I I . 2— let us e x am in e this text first as a relativ ely in d e p e n d e n t e n tity .1 F o rm al o b serv atio n s m a y be a qu ick w ay o f settin g u p categ o ries w h ich suggest w ays o f a p p ro a c h in g this tex t. W e n o te th a t th e first th re e strophes a re n o t e n d -sto p p e d , a n d th a t th e n ex t th re e stro p h es a re en d sto p p ed ; finally, th e last b u t one is n o t e n d -sto p p e d . T h u s th e tex t c an b e b ro k e n in to th re e p a rts on these g ro u n d s, v iz ., S tro p h es 1-3, 4-6 a n d 7-8. T h e su b ju n ctiv es o r op tativ es condiscat, vexet, agat, suspiret, a n d lacessat all o ccu r in the first th re e stro p h es; th e only o th e r su b ju n c tiv e in th e p o em is sit, line tw en ty -eig h t, ta k in g volgarit as fu tu re p e rfe ct, a n d th e o n ­ ly in d icativ e in the first th re e stro p h es is rapit, lin e tw elve. H e n c e o n e m ay observe th a t III. 2.1-2 is th e o p posite in choice o f v e rb a l m o o d fro m II I . 1, w h ere the indicativ e p re v a iled . T h e first th re e stro p h es at least o f I I I . 2 a re n o d e sc rip tio n o f a n ev ery d ay w o rld , b u t a set o f in ju n c tio n s to th e R o m a n boy o f A u g u s tu s ’ day: gro w n h a rd th ro u g h m ilita ry service, let h im le a rn to b e a r c o n stra in in g p o v e rty as a frien d ; let h im go o n fo reig n cam p a ig n s a n d ex p erien ce exotic e n c o u n te rs; a n d so fo rth . It m a y be n o te d th a t each o f these in ju n c tio n s to th e R o m a n y o u th is for th e b en efit o f a g ro u p ra th e r th a n for th e self; does th e a v e n u e o f escap e fro m b e in g homo dolens lie p e rh a p s in service to o th ers? R eferen ces to th e lusus Troiae, a n d to A u g u s tu s ’ p re o c cu p a tio n s w ith th e rev iv al o f th e collegia iuvenum m a y be ap p o site h e r e .12 B ut the in n e r d y n a m ic r a th e r th a n th e o u tw a rd o rg a n iz a tio n a l form s is th a t to w hich th e p o et seeks to d ra w a tte n tio n . 1 For a different but fruitful approach see P. J. Connor, “ The Balance Sheet: Con­ siderations of the Second Roman O de,” Hermes 100 (1972), 241-248; also Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 13ff., 21 f., 105, 308. See as well E. Cameron, “ An Analysis of Horace, Odes III.2 ,” Akroterion 18 (1973) pp. 17-22. 2 So Kiessling-Heinze ad toe.

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

29

It has n o t h ith e rto b e en n o ticed , I believ e, th a t the first th ree strophes e x h ib it, in lexical choice, the cro ssin g o f tw o th em es p ro m in e n t in R o m a n p o e try o f A u g u s tu s ’ d ay: the erotic (n o t fo u n d in civic p o etry ) a n d the m ilita r y .3 S h o u ld a critic o f R o m a n lite ra tu re be told o f a tw elve-line A lcaic A u g u s ta n te x t, n ow lost o r in fra g m e n ts, c o n ta in in g the w ords amice, pati, militia, puer, sub divo, vitam trepidis, matrona, adulta virgo, suspiret, eheu, sponsus, lacessat, tactu a n d ira, he could w ith a c e rta in d egree o f c o n ­ fidence say he w as d e alin g w ith a n erotic m essage. I f he w ere told th a t his te x t e x h ib ite d th e w ords angustam pauperiem, robustus acri militia, Parthos ferocis, vexet eques, metuendus hasta, moenibus hosticis, bellantis tyranni, asperum leonem, cruenta a n d caedes, he w o u ld op in e th a t the text w as o f a n en tirely d ifferen t o rd e r: h isto rical o r civic p o e try (o r a recusatio o f such a them e). W h a t is in te re stin g is th a t the re a d e r o f I I I . 2 is n o t u su ally aw are o f the la rg e e le m e n t o f w ords d e alin g w ith ero tic su b ject m a tte r in th e first tw elve lines b e ca u se o f th e ir co ntext: especially b ecau se o f th e m em o rab le s e n te n tia o f line th irte e n . T h is is precisely H o ra c e ’s stra teg e m : the “ love in te r s t” o f life is s u b o rd in a te to, a n d h en ce fo rg o tten (b u t o n ly te m ­ p o ra rily ; see III. 7!) in th e co n tex t o f non-selfish e x p e n d itu re o f en erg y , specifically m ilita ry service to the state. T h e p o e m is a m odel o f w h a t it in cu lcates. N o t in som e w ays u n lik e a m o d e rn m ilita ry re c ru itm e n t p o ster, w ith its a llu re m e n ts o f ex o tica if n o t e ro tic a , th e o p e n in g stage o f I I I . 2 p u ts in to the b a c k g ro u n d , a n d hence in to c irc u la tio n in the te x t, the th e m e o f p e rso n al love, only to s u b o r­ d in a te it to th e o v e rrid in g co n cern s o f p e rso n al h a rd ih o o d a n d stre n g th in th e c o n te x t o f p o v erty ; amice c a n th u s be seen as th e w o rd p iv o tin g b e tw e e n th e ero tic w o rld a n d the w orld o f re n u n c ia tio n o f p erso n al e n ta n g le m e n t a n d a m b itio n .4 T h e te n sio n b etw ee n the tw o w orlds o f p eace a n d w a r, p erso n al p u r ­ su its a n d collectivized a ctio n , is w o rk ed o u t n o t in a R o m a n c o n tex t, b u t in th e sc e n e 5 o f th e second a n d th ird stro p h es w h e rein the m o th e r a n d h er d a u g h te r are c a u g h t u p in g a zin g at the R o m a n y o u th (one o f a h o rd e, one m u st fancy, b u t p a rtic u la riz e d b ecau se o f th e a m a to ry c o n tex t) a n d in c o n c e rn a b o u t his b rin g in g w oe to th e ir o w n m a n . T h e ir fem ale, fo reig n p e rsp ec tiv e is tu rn e d to w a rd th e p e rso n a l, o n in d iv id u a ls, like 3 Ovid was not the first to link military and erotic metaphor, e.g., his “ militat omnis am ans,” Amores 1.9.1. The image goes back much farther, e.g., Sappho, fragments 1,16, 31. See now the dissertation of Leah Rissman, “ Homeric Allusion in the Poetry of Sappho,” The University of Michigan, 1980, pp. 54-102, for a complete discussion. 4 Late antique commentators and mediaeval scribes take amice as the vocative of amicus, and thus title III.2 “ Ad amicos,” etc. Was Horace’s strategem too clever to be picked up even by an antique audience? 5 The scene is reminiscent of Iliad III. 146-60, where the roles are reversed: Helen is watched by old men from the walls of Troy.

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

scenes from a civic m o n u m e n t. T h e ir v iew p o in t is w h irled aw ay th ro u g h the reflection by the p o et (13ff.) o n th e sla u g h te r th ey a re w itn essin g : th e fam o u s line “ dulce et d e c o ru m est p ro p a tria m o r i.” 6 T h e se th re e o p e n in g ru n -o n stro p h es p re se n t tw o w orlds in collision: the p oor R o m a n y o u th , th e rich foreign ty ra n t; R o m e facin g h e r e n em y . It is th ro u g h self-denial, th e pauperies o f lin e o n e, th a t th e puer takes ascen d an cy over the tyrannus: th e sam e cast o f c h a ra c te rs as D io n y siu s a n d th e farm ers in III. 1, b u t in th e settin g o f R o m e a t w a r. T h is e le m e n t in th e m o ral calculus o f v alu es e n c o u n te re d h ith e rto in th e R o m a n O d es is a new o n e, a n ad v an c e ov er th e v alu es p u rv e y e d in III. 1, w h e re in th e viri agrestes re m a in e d in th e ir settin g , as it w ere, a n d w ere n o t tra n s p la n te d for th e c o m m o n good; th e ir pauperies w as eco n o m ic. In th e very first line o f I I I . 2 it is en erg ize d , lin k ed to a h ig h e r cau se, a n d assigned a fun ctio n . Likew ise the rich p e rso n s in III. 1 a re re v e ale d w ith a new aspect in I I I . 2: they b eco m e the regius sponsus, th e fo reig n e n e m y all too close to P a ris in th e Iliad, th a t ty p e for A n to n y , for R o m e ’s ow n com fort. O u t o f this collision of rich a n d p o o r, p riv a te a n d p u b lic , a m a to ry a n d m ilitary , com e th re e e n d -sto p p ed stro p h es. L in es 13-16 sp eak o f w a r a n d d e a th in such a w ay th a t the e n h a c e m e n t sec u re d b y a d e a th for th e patria is so m ew h at u n d e rc u t by th e p o e t’s s u b se q u e n t re m a rk th a t d e a th com es after even the fleeing m a n . As G o rd o n W illiam s tells u s, in som e s itu a ­ tions a m a n ’s life is in ev itab ly to be lo st, a n d h e m ig h t as well ex p lo it this situ a tio n ra th e r th a n die a c o w a rd .7 T h is is o f co u rse tru e (th o u g h one could d e b ate w h e th e r m e n in such situ a tio n s re a so n so), b u t w e m u st tak e stock o f the fact th a t this is a n im p o rta tio n o f “ real w o rld ” logic in to a lite ra ry artifice. In te rm s o f th e w orld o f th e R o m a n O d e s, o n e m ig h t assert th a t the Necessitas o f I I I .1 .1 4 8 h a s b eco m e Mors h e re , a n d th a t th e aequa lex still p revails; th o u g h th e co n tex t is o sten sib ly th e b a ttle fie ld {pro patria mori h as this stro n g im p lic a tio n ), still th e et o f lin e fo u rte e n , a n d th e v irtu a l o x y m o ro n o f virfugax (ib id .), th e in d e te rm in a te age o f th e y o u th o f u n w a rlik e d isp o sitio n , a n d the b a ck th a t seeks to s h u n p u rs u in g d e a th , all co n sp ire to suggest a tra n s itio n a l co n tex t as w ell. D e a th gets e v ery o n e, omne nomen III. 1.16). T h e re is no n e e d to see in this fo u rth stro p h e o n ly a b attlefield scene, th o u g h w a r is I believe u p p e rm o s t in th e lay ers o f possible in te rp re ta tio n s . T h e Necessitas o f II I. 1 prev ails also in th e w o rld o f I I I . 2, w h e rein pauperies, a p riv a te c o n d itio n , gives w ay to m ilita ry e n d e a v o r a b ro a d 6 See H. Hommel, “ Dulce et decorum,” Rheinisches Museum 111 (1968), pp. 219-252. 7 G. Williams, The Third Book of Horace ’s Odes (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1969) p. 35. 8 See n. 3, p. 21 supra.

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

31

(p u b lic w o rk ), a ro m a n tic iz e d e n c o u n te r a n d finally d e a th m a d e signifi­ c a n t (dulce from th e ero tic o r p riv a te w orld-view ; decorum from the selfa b n e g a tin g v ie w p o in t o f th e state), b ecau se it is pro patria. T h e vir fugax of line fo u rtee n m a y be th o u g h t o f as fleeing m o re th a n d eath ; p o v erty can also b e fled, b u t o n e w in d s u p d e a d an y w ay ; th e p o et th u s recap tu res II I . 1.37f. in this c ro ssin g o f them es to m ak e a n in c re m e n ta l s tru c tu re we call th e R o m a n O d e s. P o v e rty , b o th th e econom ic c o n d itio n a n d the n a rro w n e ss o f sp irit, is w h a t is left b e h in d b y th e R o m a n y o u th in service to his c o u n try ; it is w h a t th e selfish m a n , ev en if rich , c a n n o t escape. B oth in d e e d obey a n aequa lex; b u t th e o n e, th o u g h pauper, a tta in s decus a n d dulcitia; th e o th e r, th o u g h ric h , h as o nly d e a th as a n e n d to his sp iritu al a n d civic p o v e rty o f life . W a r has m a d e th e puer o f I I I .2 .2 th e eq u al b a ttle a n ta g o n ist o f a ro y al p rin c e ; this is b u t a n o th e r asp ect o f th e levelling law , lex aequa, o f Necessitas. W a r ideally if not in a ctu a lity m ak es p rin ce an d p e a s a n t e q u al w h en th e y a re also in service to th e state on th e sam e fig h tin g side, o n e m a y p re su m e : o r at least th e ir d eath s in th e cau se o f the state sh o u ld be e q u ally d ese rv in g o f reco g n itio n a n d th e ep ith ets dulce a n d decorum. T h u s the e q u ality o f all in d e a th c an be a sse rte d in I I I . 2 in a m o re positiv e w ay th a n in I I I . 1. S tro p h es five th ro u g h eight, the rest o f I I I . 2, tu rn from th e p riv a te or in d iv id u a liz e d sp h ere, w ith th e ir co lo rin g o f ro m a n tic ism , to th e p ublic sp h e re , specifically to th e p u b lic m a n ’s c o m m itm e n t to p u b lic good. T h u s stro p h e fo u r c an be seen to be piv o tal in a n o th e r w ay: its retro sp ectiv e e lem en ts in c lu d e dulce, iuventa, e tc ., th e ro m a n tic side o f stro p h es 1-3, a n d its p ro sp e ctiv e elem en ts (for th e re a d e r w ho h as re a d all th e tex t, a fortiori all th e R o m a n O d e s) in clu d e patria a n d th e vir\ th e n eg ativ e virum fugacem b eco m es tra n s fo rm e d in to th e positive virtus, lines sev en teen a n d tw entyo n e. I f III. 1 d e alt w ith quod satis est, th e even keel o f b a lan c e , o f m o d e ra tio n , I I I . 2 b eg in s w ith pauperies, a p o in t a good deal lo w er th a n quod satis est, a n d soars to th e level o f virtus once th e pauperies is p u t into a social co n tex t free o f p e rso n a l c o n ce rn . T h u s lib e ra te d , as it w ere, th ro u g h c o n sid e ra ­ tio n o f w a r, th e p o et can co n cern h im se lf w ith virtus in peace, w hich c h a ra c te ristic em erg es th ro u g h th e d ra m a tic rise o f th e R o m a n y o u th th ro u g h civic service. T h e p riv a te puer, socialized b y m ilita ry service, m a y , in a n o th e r asp ect, g e n e ra te benefit for th e c o m m u n ity th ro u g h civil resp o n sib ilitie s; his q u alities o f b e in g a m a n , vir, resu lt also in this k in d o f virtus. In line sev e n te en , repulsae (u sed on ly h e re in all o f H o ra c e ’s lyrics) looks as m u c h b a ck to th e m ilita ry sp h ere a n d to th e in a b ility o f d e a th to shock virtus, as it does fo rw a rd to th e civic sp h ere, w h erein virtus does no t re g is te r setbacks o r re a c t to p o p u la r w him . It is th e g enius o f H o ra c e to use su ch p iv o t w ords w ith th e effects h e re b riefly n o te d b y th e a tte n tiv e

32

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

re a d e r re a d in g c u m u la tiv ely . T h e p rin c ip a l co n tex t for repulsa, w h e re b y its significance o f d efeat is c o n ferred , is the soliciting o f p u b lic office. Y et it is n o t u n til honoribus (line e ig h te en ) a n d securis (line n in e te e n ) are re a ch e d th a t this co n tex t is securely e stab lish ed . U n til th e n , repulsa c an a n d does h av e m ilita ry o v erto n es. Virtus (now in its n ew civ ilian co n tex t) is n eg ativ ely c h a ra c te riz e d as n o t a ck n o w led g in g d isg race in d efeat: a b rie f glan ce, p e rh a p s, to w a rd th e “ r e a l” w o rld w h e re in A u g u stu s in 28 B .C . e m b a rk e d o n social refo rm s, th e law s for w hich w ere re je cte d b y th e S e n a te .9 T h e failure d id n o t cau se his re g im e to confess d e fe at, h o w ev er. So too h e re , virtus is n o t d im in ish e d in its h o n o rs, a n d does n o t p u t m u c h store in p u b lic w him . T h is stan ce is a fa m ilia r o n e for th e p o e t to ta k e, as a t Odes III. 1. Iff. ; we shall re tu rn to this p o in t la te r. If in stro p h e five virtus is c h a ra c te riz e d b y c o n tra st w ith d efeat a n d h o n o rs th a t a re c o rro d e d o r d u lle d (just as th e puer o f th e first stro p h e is c h a ra c te riz e d by c o n tra st w ith th e regal sponsus) so in th e six th stro p h e virtus, a g ain p ro m in e n tly n a m e d (or is it n a m e d a g a in to sig n al a shift in its m e an in g ?) is c h a ra c te riz e d by d istin c tio n once a g a in from th e volgus (cf. III. 1.1; coetus volgaris) a n d th e d a m p e a rth , a n d b y its p ro p e rty o f o p e n in g h e av e n to those d e se rv in g o f im m o r ta lity .101 O n e sh ould n o te how th e positive in ju n c tio n s o f th e first th re e stro p h es relying on the su b ju n ctiv e a n d in ru n -o n form a re su cceed ed b y e n d sto p p ed stro p h es th a t use th e in d icativ e to set fo rth c e rta in c h arac te ristic s by n eg ativ e c o n tra sts. T h e process b eg in s tech n ically w ith lin e fifteen, nec, a n d co n tin u e s w ith nescia, line sev e n te en , intaminatis, lin e e ig h te e n , nec-aut, line n in e te e n , inmeritis, line tw e n ty -o n e , negata, lin e tw e n ty -tw o , a n d , if n o t lexically at least sem an tically , fugiente, lin e tw e n ty -fo u r. W e a re now in a p o sitio n to recognize virtus b y w h a t it does n o t do : a n a c c u ra te m e a su re for th e policy o f A u g u stu s a ro u n d 28 B .C ., a n d o n e ra re ly m e t w ith in g o v e rn m e n t before o r since. T h e co n crete p a rtic u la r­ izatio n o f stro p h es 1-3, ev en w ith th e ir ro m a n tic to n e , give w ay to th re e stro p h es o f a b stra c tio n ; the a lte ra tio n , th o u g h n o t so tid ily sy m m e tric a l, w as n o te d above for III. I . 11 B ut th e poet goes o n to c o n crete e x am p les a g a in , w h ic h , like o th e r elem en ts in th e p o em , a re p e rh a p s u n e x p e c te d b y th e re a d e r in v o lv ed w ith u n d e rs ta n d in g o r ev en a n tic ip a tin g this p o e m ’s s u b tle tie s 12 b u t

9 E.g., Suetonius, Augustus 34. 10 On virtue opening the gate of heaven, see Simonides fr. 99 Bgk, 121D and G. J. Sullivan, ‘‘Horace, Odes III.2.21,” Classical Journal 58 (1963), pp. 267f. 11 See pp. 20f. supra. 12 G. Williams, op. cit. supra, n. 7, p. 34: a “ surprising idea” ; p. 35: a “ surprising view... acurious scene... curiously unpoetical realism” ; p. 36: “ an unexpected turn, ... a puzzling poem .”

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

33

w h ich c a n easily be d e m o n stra te d to be a t h o m e in a c e rta in co n tex t, g e n e ra tin g a n d c a n a liz in g c e rta in in te rp re ta tio n s . T h e se last tw o stro p h es a re , like th e o p e n in g o n es, n o t e n d -sto p p e d , b u t u n lik e th e m , they c o n ­ ta in fo u r, n o t tw o, sen ten ces. F o u r classes o r en tities are c o n trasted : faith fu l silence a n d its re w a rd ; the faithfu l p erso n a n d th e b e tra y e r, the fo rm e r b e in g easily assim ila ta b le into the p o e t’s p e rso n a; th e guiltless a n d th e g u ilty: Poena (a k in d o f re w a rd ) a n d th e c rim in a l. A g ain b in a ry o p p o sites c o m b in e to p ro d u c e the g en eral p ic tu re . T h e settin g is n o t w ar, b u t o sten sib ly p riv a te life, w h e re in in itia tio n s, visits a n d trav el go fo r­ w a rd in a settin g o f h o u se-b ea m s a n d yachts: no pauperies h ere. Y et all th ese activities are m o n ito re d by h e av e n : a facto r n o t m et w ith in this od e, except in th e r a th e r g en eral caelum, line tw en ty -tw o , h e re th e goal o f th o se u n d e se rv in g o f d e a th a n d n o t an en tity w a tch in g m a n a n d his d o in g s. Y et w e h a v e seen the R o m a n y o u th sub divo, line five, a n d this sp ecification for his basic tra in in g is to be lin k ed to th e old form Diespiter, S k y -fa th er, line tw e n ty -n in e ; the puer (a fte r th e p o em is finished) m ay be th o u g h t to h av e en jo y ed som e divine a tte n tio n after all, a n d even be a m o n g those e n jo y in g the ap o theosis o f the sixth stro p h e . Pauperies h a d its re w a rd ; does its o p posite n o t have its d a n g ers? It is th e m o n e y ed w ho m ig h t m o re o ften be in a position to b e tra y a co n fid en ce, a religious (or p o litical) m y s te ry ’s a rc a n a , to b o a rd a y ach t a fte r no t p a y in g p ro p e r te n d a n c e to D ie sp ite r, a n d to get a fa ir h e a d -sta rt on V e n g ean ce. R o m e a n d h e r e x te rn a l en em ies w ere in collision in stro p h es 1-4; h e r in te rn a l en em ies form the foils for the positive v alu es p u rv e y e d in the rest o f the p o em . B oth sets o f o b serv atio n s are fra m e d by th e poet w hose p a sto ra l self at the e n d o f III. 1 does n o t (o r sh o u ld n o t) eclipse th e poet o f p o w e r, e n jo in in g silence at the o u tset o f III. 1. T h is m a y be the m o m en t to raise the q u e stio n o f w h a t the merces m a y be for the faith fu l silence o f III.2 .2 4 f. N o te th a t the co n tex t is one w ith stro n g affinities to the first R o m a n O d e . Est et ( I I I .2.25) is p arallel to est ut ( I I I . 1.9): th e poet in d e c la ra tiv e m o o d ; fu rth e r, the silence o f III. 1. Iff. is o f relig io u s d im e n ­ sions, a n d in I I I . 2.26 th e religious co n tex t retro sp ectiv ely colors the silentium fidele o f the p re c e d in g line. W e h av e h a d occasion elsew here to e x a m in e H o r a c e ’s c o n n ec tio n o f d iv in e in sp ira tio n , th e p o e t’s ex alted sta tu s a n d his p o etic p ro d u c tio n s; it m a y n o t be am iss to assess the w hole o f I I I . 2 in this lig h t.13 13 See D. O. Ross, J r ., Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi­ ty Press, 1975), pp. 141-152, for Horace’s artistic views as related to Calllimachus, Vergil and putatively Gallus. Such assertions are obviously programmatic; see also W. Wimmel, Kallimachos in Rom, Hermes Einzelschrift 16 (Wiesbaden, 1960), and L. Lindo, “ Tyrtaeus and Horace Odes III.2 ,” Classical Philology 66 (1971), pp. 258ff.; also N. B. Crowther, “ Horace, Catullus and Alexandrianism,” Mnemosyne 31 (1978), pp. 33-44.

34

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

T h e merces o f I I I . 2.26 m u st p ro c e ed fro m e ith e r th e gods o r th e ir re p re se n ta tiv e . E lsew here H o ra c e has u n a m b ig u o u s ly called a tte n tio n to this fu n ctio n o f p oetry: Odes I V .9, a d d re ssed to L ollius a n d o b v io u sly com posed a fte r th e first th re e books o f Odes, can b e seen as a k in d o f gloss o n c e rta in aspects o f III. 2, a n d suggests th a t th e merces m a y b e in th e form o f poetic sig n aliza tio n o f the d eserv in g p a rty . T h e ode in q u e stio n e x ­ h ib its c e rta in sim ilarities to I I I . 2. W e m a y b e g in b y o b serv in g its m e te r, th e A lcaic, a n d collocation o f pauperiem pati, I V .9 .4 9 a n d I I I . 2 .1 , b o th at th e sam e place in th e line, b o th at th e b e g in n in g o f a stro p h e , th e last one o f I V .9, the first one o f I I I . 2. Pati lo cated at th e e n d o f a line is also to be seen in I I I . 24.42 in co n n ec tio n w ith pauperies, o n e o f th e “ fra m e s ” o f th e R o m a n O d e s, a n d in 1 .1.18. T h e co n tex t o f each b e ars scru tin y . T h e co l­ lo catio n seem s a fav o rite o f H o ra c e , b u t this does n o t d e p riv e it o f p r o ­ g ra m m a tic significance. N e x t, th e o c cu rren c e o f silebo (IV . 9 .3 0 ) a n d fid u s I V .9.40) m a y also be a w eak p arallel to fid eli silentio ( I I I .2.25). B u t m o re to the p o in t, th e poet w ho in I V .9 sp en d s a good deal o f tim e in v o lv ed w ith the subject o f his a rt also in II I. 1 a n d I I I . 2 m a y easily b e d isce rn e d a t th e sam e activity. In III. 1, th e cerem o n ia l b e g in n in g a n d m o re m o d e st conclusion n eed no fu rth e r c o m m e n t in this co n n ec tio n . In I I I . 2, th e p o et em erges to w a rd the e n d in the w o rd vetabo, line tw en ty -six , th e o n ly firstp erso n verb in the w hole text. B ut is he a b se n t fro m th e re st o f th e poem ? H a rd ly ; it is his p ersp ectiv e th a t en co m p asses th e in ju n c tio n s a n d a ss e r­ tions in all p re c ed in g stro p h es, a n d th e s u b se q u e n t c o n c lu d in g o n e as w ell. In th a t case, can o n e say th a t th e virtus tw ice m e n tio n e d (17, 21) m a y ex h ib it a facet in a d d itio n to th e ones h ith e rto su g g ested ? If it be re la te d to a rt, specifically to the p o e t’s craft in its civic c o n tex t, in te re stin g m o v em en ts o c cu r in I I I . 2 a n d in re la tio n to II I. 1 (a n d I V .9) as well. L et us c o n jec tu re th a t th e first th re e stro p h es o f I I I . 2, sig n alized as a u n it by th e ir ru n -o n c h a ra c te r (tw o sen ten ces in th re e stro p h e s), th e puer a n d his a u d ien c e , a v e ry “ p o e tic a l” as well as p o litical su b jec t, m a y be seen as fu rn ish in g a subject for p o e try , in d e e d , for th e p o etic process e n g ag in g the re a d e r o f I I I . 2. Iff. If th e e n d o f III. 1 p re sen ts th e p o et in p a sto ra l re tre a t, I I I . 2 show s h im as a civic poet. It is p o e try th a t can a n d does objectify th e m e m o ra b le a sse rtio n “ d u lce et d e c o ru m est p ro p a tria m o r i,” (13) a n d th u s confers w h a t th e adjectives b e to k e n . It is p o e try , a special k in d o f virtus, th a t soars, is in d e p e n d e n t, sh u n s th e d a m p e a rth a n d co m m o n h e rd , a n d (th e p o in t o f I V .9) confers im m o rta lity o n c e rta in m e n . P o e try also does n o t say all it know s to say: “ est et fideli tu ta sile n ­ tio / m e r c e s ...” (25f.). A n d th a t merces is lin k e d to th e civic role a ssu m e d b y th e poet o r assigned h im b y B acchus o r th e state itself. W h e n G o d is neglectus, w h en th e re is no p ro p e r te n d a n c e , no p ro p e r c u lt, o n e can a ssu m e (along w ith I I I . 6. Iff.) th a t th e merces is w ith h eld . O n e th in k s o f

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

35

I I I . 2 .2 6 merces a n d I I I .3 .2 2 f f ., w here the gods are d e fra u d e d mercede pacta] su rely a case o f loss o f faith a n d gross neglect o f th e gods. T h o u g h the p o et (a n d o th e rs too) be integer [cf. 1.22.1) a n d lead a life o f q u ie t reclusion (th e e n d o f III. 1) he can still be sw ept alo n g w ith th e g u ilty into d eath : the lex aequa o f III. 1.14 seen from a new a n d d is tu rb in g view point. D e a th o v ertak es all, to be sure: b u t p o e try c an a n d does call a tte n tio n to th o se d y in g b ra v e ly (like R e g u lu s, I I I . 5) a n d m akes th e ir actio n dulce et decorum. P o e try is w h a t e n n o b les, for it m ak es av ailab le the n o b ility o f th o se w ho d istin g u ish them selves by d y in g o r living in special w ays. H o ra c e in v en ts the w o rd intaminatis, I I I . 2 .1 8 , o c cu rrin g only h ere in e a rlie r L a tin ; his poetic act forges b o th the w o rd a n d th e th in g it d e sc rib e s, a n d he d raw s u n m ista k a b le a tte n tio n th ro u g h the fab ric o f his la n g u a g e a n d o f this lin g u istic coinage to the in n o v a tin g p o w er o f this virtus o f a rt. A t the o u tse t o f his m o n u m e n ta l cycle, the poet has a n n o u n c e d carmina non prius audita, poem s n o t p rev io u sly h e e d e d o r h e a rd , o r, in o th er w o rd s, those c o n ta in in g advice o r w a rn in g n o t p rev io u sly h eed ed ; he th e re b y im plies o r even invites e x a m in a tio n o f the process o f tra n s m ittin g th e advice o r w a rn in g ; th a t is, he m akes th e m o n u m e n t assert its ob jec­ tive ex istence as a m o n u m e n t (just as plastic w orks o f a rt do), an d so involves the tex t a n d its re a d e r in a p re s e n ta tio n o f the p oetic self an d in q u e stio n s c o n c e rn in g the fu n ctio n a n d statu s o r m o d e o f existence o f his k in d o f civic p o e try . P o e try is c e n tra l to the p assag e est ut, I I I . 1, strophe th re e , a n d est et, I I I . 2, stro p h e seven. T h e p o et in III. 1 also desires quod satis est; h en ce his c re d en tia ls. T h e poet is in acco rd w ith n a tu re , a n d m ay b e im p le m e n tin g a stoic view o f w illing o n e ’s fate. W ith this estab lish ed , th e p o et speaks I I I . 2, p re s e n tin g a p ic tu re , stro p h es 1-3, a n d a re a ctio n to it, stro p h e s 4-6, w hich becom es his re a c tio n , stro p h es 7-8, w ith the only first-p e rso n s in g u la r v e rb o f the p o em , line tw en ty -six . As integer an d intaminatus, the vates is like the self-b y -co n trast he ex h ib ited in III. 1, in w h ich lu x u ry c h arac te riz es a n eg ativ e w ay o f life, w h ereas in III. 2 p o v e r­ ty c h a ra c te riz e s the positive w ay o f the p o em , o f a su b ject for lite ra tu re . If a n a tu ra l w o rld o rd e r is set fo rth in III. 1 w ith its p ria m e l o f est ut, the m e a n s for tra n s c e n d in g such a n o rd e r is show n b y I I I . 2 w hich c h a ra c te riz e s virtus as g e ttin g b e y o n d the “ g iv e n s” o f the n a tu ra l w o rld [negata via, line tw en ty -tw o ). A via m e d ia , desiderans quod satis est, in the m a te ria l w o rld is p u rv e y e d by III. 1 ; th e re is n o m id d le o r p ru d e n t w ay in I I I . 2, w h e re in d e a th com es to the b ra v e a n d the co w ard alike. T h e style o f o n e ’s life is w h a t m a tte rs h ere: a n d it is a style o f life n o t c h a ra c te riz e d b y quod satis est b u t by going b e y o n d this, su b su m in g virtus a n d sto rm in g h e a v e n itself. It is as if H o ra c e h as in the first tw o R o m a n O d es set up e q u a tio n s o f w hich he leaves one p a rt u n s ta te d . In III. 1 life is the setting;

THE SECOND ROMAN ODE

lu x u ry im plies a n e g ativ e v a lu a tio n ; quod satis est im plies th e p o e t’s positive self, his social role. B u t in I I I . 2, a rt a n d th e state a re th e settin g ; p o v e rty im plies a positive v a lu a tio n ; a n d , w h a t H o ra c e does n o t sta te , v iz ., going b e y o n d quod satis est in a special co n tex t, civic a n d sp iritu a l service, im plies w h a t th e ode dw ells on in its second a n d fin al p h a se , virtus, a subject for a rt as for th e state. T h e self o f the p oet is p ro m in e n t in b o th closures o f b o th p o em s. In III. 1 he h as e stab lish ed his social id e n tity ; in I I I . 2 h e p re se n ts w h a t his a rt can do in th e n a tu re o f c e le b ra tin g virtus, a n d in th e n a tu re o f silence; a p ow erful m e d iu m , his a rt c a n n o t say all it sees o r k n o w s, o r th e state o r th e a rt m ig h t be h a rm e d in som e u n sp ecified w ay. T h e silence o f u n c o m p la in in g po v erty is akin to th e silence o f a rich m in d : merces exists for b o th . A t th e e n d o f I I I .3, a n d th ro u g h o u t m u c h o f I I I . 4, th e p o et is likew ise in the fo re g ro u n d o f his tex t, m e d ia tin g his v ision o f R o m e ’s d estin y a n d its d ivine q u a lificatio n s, a n d o f th e sh a p in g force o f its a rt. H e has carefully p re p a re d his a u d ie n c e ’s fram e o f referen ce for this m o re a m b itio u s p ic tu re o f h im se lf th ro u g h I I I . l a n d I I I . 2.

CHAPTER FIVE

T H E T H IR D R O M A N O D E A lth o u g h m a n u sc rip t evidence suggests th a t it w as by no m ean s a n o m a lo u s to re p ro d u c e the w hole cycle o f R o m a n O d es as one long p o e m ,1 it is obvious on in trin sic evidence th a t the texts are d isco n tin u o u s. T o sp eak in the b ro a d e st term s u sed h e re to fo re , th e first R o m a n O d e a d ­ dresses the tim eless o rd e rin g o f social life u n d e r h e a v e n , a n d the second p re se n ts aspects o f social life en erg ize d by virtus a n d m e d ia te d in a rt. T h e th ird R o m a n O d e sets fo rth collectivized society, the R o m a n state, in tim e , th a t is, in h isto ry : b u t in a histo rical process th a t the p o e t’s vision m ak es o p e n to a rtistic re p re se n ta tio n . Y et the vates w ho speaks the o p e n ­ in g o f II I. 1 re m a in s the sam e; we h av e th ro u g h the re a d in g process com e to a fu ller g ra sp o f h im a n d o f his c o n ce rn s. A n d fu rth e r, th e au d ien ce specified for th e cycle, the virgines puerique o f III. 1.4, still likew ise o b tain s: if n o t y o u th s th em selv es, at least a special o f k in d o f a u d ie n c e , tra in e d in to co m p eten ce b y th e process o f the R o m a n O d es h ith e rto , a n d q u a li­ fied b y th a t o p en n ess a n d re cep tiv ity to w h a t is new th a t ch aracterizes c h ild re n . T h o se childlike h e a re rs o f H o ra c e will receive in I I I . 3 n o t only e x em p lific atio n o f the virtus o f I I I . 2, b u t also a h isto rical in sig h t the fresh c o n te x t o f w hich on ly the u n tra m m e le d m in d can receive. O u t o f the silence e n jo in e d at the th re sh o ld o f this m o n u m e n ta l cycle speaks J u n o ’s d iv in e voice, a d d re ssin g th e R o m e th a t the p o et e a rlie r a d d re ssed , a n d w h ich he ad d resses th ro u g h o u t the seq u en ce o f the R o m a n O d e s. F a r fro m b e in g a h isto rical set-piece, o r even re tro sp e ctiv e in n a tu re , J u n o ’s lo n g speech in I I I . 3 b reak s n ew g ro u n d precisely b y v irtu e o f its b e in g set in this p a rtic u la r c o n tex t: a fte r society, life, virtus a n d a rt are set in m o tio n , a n d befo re th e g re a t pow ers o f p o e try to fix, o rd e r a n d tra n s m u te are c e le b ra te d in I I I . 4. T h e c o n d itio n s in w h ich h e r's p e e c h finds itself, th a t is, p ro x im ately , th e occasion o f R o m u lu s ’ b e in g allow ed b y J u n o to e n te r h e av e n , as well as th e su b sid ia ry c o n d itio n s, such as the p o em s on each side o f this d ra m a tic scene in I I I . 3, as ju s t m e n tio n e d , c o n stitu te a re p e rto ry o f fo r­ m u la ic th o u g h ts , larg ely u n s ta te d , b u t n ev erth ele ss, th ro u g h th e ir o rd er1 Supra, n. 7, p. 7. On Odes III.3, see Eduard Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 267ff., and Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 11 Of., 209ff., 224f., and D. Pietrusinski, “ L ’Apothéose d ’Auguste par rapport à Romulus—Quirinus,” Eos 63 (1975), pp. 273-296.

38

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

in g, d ire c tin g the r e a d e r ’s responses in c e rta in w ay s, ju s t as th e seq u en ce o f a re lie f likew ise o rd ers his re a ctio n s. L et us b eg in by c o n sid e rin g these co n d itio n s first as if the speech o f J u n o , a n d the rest o f I I I . 3, w ere b e in g d iscovered for the first tim e by the re a d e r w ho h as re a c h e d o n ly this p o in t in his ex p erien ce o f the Odes (a stra teg e m h ith e rto av o id ed in these p ag es) a n d su b se q u e n tly as if the e n tire text o f th e R o m a n O d es w ere p re s e n t at every m o m e n t in the r e a d e r ’s consciousness. M o st u n eq u iv o cally , the vir tenax propositi o f the p o e m ’s o p e n in g ( I I I .3.1) is re la ted to I I I . 2.17-24, w h e rein virtus is d efin ed a n d c h a ra c ­ te rized first in civic term s (it know s n o t political d e fe at, a n d does n o t take u p o r p u t dow n the axes o f a u th o rity at p o p u la r d e m a n d ) ju s t as in III. 3.2 (the civium ardor prava iubentium). L ikew ise, th e virtus o f the seco n d R o m a n O d e is fu rth e r c h a ra c te riz e d in a m o re cosm ic w ay (o p e n in g h e a v e n to the m e rito rio u s) a n d in a real sense the th ird R o m a n O d e fully ex p lo res th is, b o th in the form o f the h a n d o f flash in g J u p ite r (III. 3 .6 ) a n d m o st e x te n ­ sively in the speech o f J u n o on the e n ro llin g o f Q u irin u s , the d iv in ized R o m u lu s, in h e av e n , su p p o sed ly as an im p le m e n te r o f the virtus o f I I I . 2 a n d o f the propositum o f I I I . 3. F u rth e r locales o u t o f w h ich grow im p o rta n t elem en ts in I I I .3 include th e im p lied collapse o f a b u ild in g in 111.2 .2 7 ff., a n d the collapse o f the w orld in 111.3.7 ff. ; this la tte r e v e n t, w hilst o stensibly re fe rrin g to the n a tu ra l w o rld , m a y also, in view o f I I I .3 .2f. a n d I I I . 2.17-24, have a political c o n n o ta tio n : the propositum th a t sees one th ro u g h is evidently a w hole p la n o f life, n o t for th e self m e re ly , b u t as well for the p u b lic good. Political p re ssu re , n a tu ra l forces a n d the u ltim a te c alam ity o f the w o rld ’s e n d are all aspects o f th e te stin g o f th e propositum. T h e w ind a n d th u n d e r o f J u p ite r in I I I .3 .4ff. give w ay to J u n o ’s speech in such a m a n n e r as in ev itab ly to suggest th e d e m o n ic sto rm o f the first book o f the Aeneid, w ith its c o n c o m ita n t political o v e rto n e , a n d the su b se q u e n t speech o f J u p ite r on fu tu re R o m a n g re a tn ess: a p o in t to b e a r in m in d w h en th in k in g o f how the p u b lic a tio n o f th e Aeneid five y ears a fte r the a p p e a ra n c e o f O d es I-III w o uld affect a n a u d ie n c e ’s re a d in g o f H o ra c e h e r e .2 F o r m o rtals, advice is given at the o u tse t o f I I I . 3 on how ru le rs ( tyran­ nus ag ain : specifically foreign, b u t p ro b a b ly g en eric in scope as w ell) a n d h e a v e n itself sh ould n o t shake o n e ’s resolve; this re p rise o f o rd e rin g set fo rth by I I I . 1. 5ff. now includes elem en ts p a ssin g b e y o n d quod satis est, v iz ., lustitia a n d propositum. T h e y are c h a ra c te riz e d , a g ain on the m o rtal level, by rig id ity a n d inflexibility, te n a c ity at its b e st, in d e e d a n ars, o r 2 Aeneid 1.148ff. Note that the simile employs vir gravis pietate et meritis, and ignobile volgus. See M. C. J. Putnam, The Poetry of the Aeneid (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. lOf.

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

39

techné, line n in e . B ut th e in tra n sig e n c y co u n selled in the first tw o strophes gives w ay w ith the m e n tio n o f ars to a view o f hac arte as a m ean s to an e n d , flexible, a n d responsive as w ell, k n o w in g w hen to co n ced e, as does J u n o in h e r g re a t speech th a t is the m ag n ificen t d ivine ex em p lu m , a u th e n tic a tin g a n d q u a lify in g the h u m a n advice. Ars h ere has its m oral im p lic a tio n s, a n d is n o t m erely the p ro d u c t o f iustitia a n d a vir tenax propositi. T h e e x am p les o f im p le m e n te rs o f this ars are P ollux, H ercu les, A u g u stu s, B acchus a n d finally Q u irin u s ( I I I .3 .9-16). E ach w o u ld have h a d a specific im p licatio n for the p o e m ’s a u d ie n c e , on several levels. P o llu x , w ith his u n n a m e d tw in , is a guide a n d a m essen g er o f R o m e ’s m ilita ry fo rtu n es, a n d w ould be asso ciated w ith a specific spot in the R o m a n F o ru m , the T e m p le o f C a s to r a n d P ollux. H e is closely a sso c iate d w ith R o m a n h isto ry a n d w ith div in e in te re st in R o m e ’s w ell­ b e in g .3 H e rc u le s, the stoic sain t p a r excellence, has a divine fa th e r as does P o llu x ; fu rth e r, like P o llu x he has close association w ith early R o m e ,4 a n d as well a to p o g ra p h ic al associatio n w ith the A v en tin e a n d w ith th e A ra M a x im a a t the n o rth -w est e n d o f th e C ircu s M a x im u s at the F o ru m B o a riu m . A u g u stu s, w hose fu tu re in h eav en is a ssu m e d (bibet can b e th e o nly likely re a d in g )5 is likew ise in tim a te ly involved in m a k in g the s ta te ’s h isto ry , has a n u m b e r o f specific to p o g ra p h ic al sites associated w ith h im self, th o u g h n o t so m a n y as a fte r th e p u b lic a tio n o f the O d es IT I I, a n d by a sso ciatio n , a div in e p a re n ta g e . T h e igneas arcis th a t he a n d his d iv in e fo reb ears achieve are very m u c h the h eav en ly c o n tra st o f the uda humus o f I I I .2 .23f. a n d its political co lo ratio n o r d isco lo ratio n . E ach o f the figures m e n tio n e d in th e th ird stro p h e o f I I I .3, by a d h e rin g to iustitia, to his propositum, m a d e R o m e m o re secure a n d tra n sc e n d e d the h u m a n sp h ere to w hich at least p a rt o f th e ir b irth -o rig in s co nsigned th e m . E ach likew ise w as tied to to p o g ra p h ic al m o n u m e n ts. W h e n we re a ch B acch u s, the re a d e r faces a d ifferen t k in d o f e x em ­ p lu m . E ven if it is left d ip lo m a tic a lly a m b ig u o u s in the th re e p reced in g stro p h es w h e th e r one struggles o n e ’s w ay to h eav en (the im p licatio n o f

3 News of the Roman victory against the Latins at Lake Regillus in 496 B.C. was said to have been conveyed to Rome by Castor and Pollux, whose temple at the south-east end of the Forum Romanum was vowed that year, and consecrated in 484 B. C., at the spot they were seen watering their horses. 4 E.g., Hercules slays Cacus, the monster of the Aventine, Aeneid VIII.194ff. He had two temples in Rome: Hercules Victor/Triumphalis, associated with the triumphal pro­ cession, at the Ara Maxima in the Forum Boarium, and, perhaps significantly for this passage of Horace, he was worshipped in a purely Roman form as Hercules Musarum in a temple by the Portico of Octavia in the Campus Martius. 5 Kiessling-Heinze ad toe. term bibit, the other reading, “ sachlich unmöglich” : it is not much defended these days.

40

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

enisus, line ten ) o r w h e th e r h e av e n gracio u sly bestow s su ch a p lace {patiar, line th irty -six ), n ev erth eless, n e ith e r categ o ry fits Bacchus pater. H e w as n o t alw ays re m e m b e re d as a god, b u t n o la te ly -c o n triv e d ap o th eo sis is b e in g im posed on h im h e r e .6 R a th e r, B acchus serves to im p le m e n t a n asp ect o f ars so m ew h at d ifferen t from its use h ith e rto in I I I . 3: B a c c h u s’ ars h ere consists in th e ta m in g o f th e tigers to d ra w his c ar. H is d iv in e p o w e r is m a d e m an ifest o v er the w ildest o f b e asts, re m o te a n d m y ste rio u s th e m se lv e s.7 T h is ars, ra th e r th a n an y ap o th eo sis, is w h a t d ra w s h im in to this p o e m , a n tic ip a tin g , by th a t type o f H o ra tia n in te rla c in g w ith w hich the re a d e r o f the w hole cycle o f R o m a n O d e s is fa m ilia r, th e p o w e r o f a rt c ele b ra te d in the succeeding p o em , I I I . 4. T h e o d d sy n tax o f I I I . 3.13 signals th is ch an g e in p ersp ectiv e a n d o f su b ject from enisus a n d w h a t follows (lines ten follow ing) to tigres, line fo u rteen : from stru g g le to effortless m a n ife sta tio n o f p o w er co n tro lle d by d iv in e will. T h e hac th rice re p e a te d (lines n in e , th irte e n a n d fifteen) stresses th e id e n tity o f th e m o ra l q u a lity o r p ro p e rty , a n d its u ltim a te c o n ­ n ectio n s w ith d ivine w ill, in all fo u r o f its m a n ife sta tio n s, as well as in its e p ip h a n y in u n m e d ia te d im age of p o w er, B acchus d ra w n b y tig ers, a n d th u s ta k en u p in to h eav en . Q u irin u s , like the o th e rs o f stro p h es th re e a n d fo u r, w as o f d iv in e p a re n ta g e ; the son o f G ra d iv u s o r M a rs, h e w as ta k en u p to h e a v e n on his fa th e r’s horses. In th e co n tex t called in to existence by H o r a c e ’s fo u r o p e n in g stro p h es, Q u irin u s fu n ctio n s as th e p ro x im a te occasion o f th e g o d d e ss’ speech, a n d as th e c u lm in a tio n o f a series o f a sse rtio n s th a t b egins w ith a n u n n a m e d m a n , the vir o f stro p h es o n e a n d tw o, p ro g resses to the d ivine P ollux a n d H e rc u le s, th ro u g h th e to -b e -d iv in e A u g u stu s, a n d on to th e lo n g -d iv in e B acchus. R o m u lu s /Q u irin u s re d ire c ts this g ro u p back to th e o rd e r o f the sem i-d iv in e, th a t is, to a p e rso n a g e w ith o n e d ivine p a re n t; th u s stro p h es th re e a n d fo u r c o n stitu te a k in d o f p ed i-

6 Cf. Ovid, Tristia V.3.19: ‘ipse quoque aetherias meritis invectus es arces, / quo non exiguo facta labore via est,’ a traditional view of Bacchus. Convenient references to views of Bacchus as a mortal made god for his great achievements, i.e., inventing wine, in Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 228, 356, and especially 357, on ascensions of mortals in his cult in Rome. No major sanctuary to Bacchus / Dionysus was dedicated in Rome. There was a Sacellum Bacchus on the Sacra Via near the south-west corner of the Basilica of Constantine, mentioned in Martial, IX .72 and represented on a coin of Antoninus Pius; it is not an early building. 7 One should perhaps bear in mind that tigers had not yet been seen in Rome, making their appearance only in 11 B.C.: Pliny, Natural History V III.68. The chariot of Dionysus, with a baldachin of columns and a roof, was associated with the cult of the dead Alex­ ander, and was used at Julius Caesar’s funeral; Weinstock, op. cit. supra, n. 6, p. 362; H. J. Mette, “ Roma (Augustus) und Alexander,” Hermes 88 (I960), pp. 458-462; A. R. Bellinger, ‘‘The Immortality of Alexander and Augustus, ’’ Yale Classical Studies 15(1957), pp. 91-100.

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

41

m e n t, w ith A u g u stu s at its ap ex , tied closely to a n ad d ress o f state (consihantibus divis, lines sev e n te en a n d follow in g )8 b y a m a jo r d iv in ity , one o f th e C a p ito lin e T ria d . J u n o ’s sp eech is by no m e an s ta n g e n tia lly re la te d to its fo u r-stro p h e in tro d u c tio n , th o u g h so sensitive a critic as G o rd o n W illiam s avers th a t “ th e w hole c irc u m stan c e o f R o m u lu s ’ e n try in to h eav en com es to [the p o e t’s] m in d , as it w ere by a c c id e n t.” 9 L et us n o te th a t J u n o ’s ad d ress b eg in s w ith a n eg ativ e ex am p le o f w h a t has b een said u p to now: L a o m e d o n w as not iustus n o r w as he tenax propositi; P aris gave his d isa stro u s ju d g m e n t a b o u t th e goddesses w h en sw ayed b y ardor prava iubentium, a n d his w hole w orld, a n d th a t o f T ro y co llap sed as a resu lt (stro p h es five a n d six a n d seven p a ra lle lin g stro p h es one a n d tw o). T h e close c o n n ec tio n b e tw ee n J u n o ’s re m a rk s a n d th e ir settin g can also be seen o n the lexical level. O u r first clue is line tw e n ty -e ig h t, refringit, p ro ­ c ee d in g from line s e v e n , fractus) h ere the ru in o f T ro y th ro u g h p e rju ry is v e rb a lly c o n tra ste d w ith th e stead fastn ess o f the ju s t m a n in the face o f his w o rld ’s ru in . I f fractus g e n erates o r develops refringit, so too does a n o th e r p h o n ic e le m e n t d o m in a te J u n o ’s speech to the gods assem b led , h e r m a jo r policy ad d ress: the s o u n d re as initial syllable. N o few er th a n seven tim es does it in tro d u c e a v erb (refringit, line tw en ty -eig h t; resedit, th irty ; redonabo, th irty -th re e ; reparare, sixty; renascens, sixty-one; resurgit, sixtyfive, a n d , in the p o e m ’s c o n clu d in g stro p h e , referre, sev en ty -o n e. T e n m o re tim es does the syllable itself occur: in J u n o ’s speech, Hectoreis, line tw e n ty -e ig h t; inire, discerei ducere, th irty -fo u r; visere, fifty-four; rebus, fiftyn in e ; sorore, six ty-four; a n d in the c o n clu d in g stro p h e , referre, sev en ty -o n e a n d tenuare, seventy-tw o. T h e so u n d is likew ise p re se n t in the stro p h es le a d in g u p to J u n o ’s a d d re ss, a n d a t a m ost strateg ic place: the w ords a sso c iate d w ith A u g u stu s, recumbens, line ten , a n d purpureo ore, tw elve, a n d w ith B acch u s, vexere, line f o u r te e n .10 T h e reverse o f re,-er, seem s also p ro m in e n t in iterabitur, line sixty-tw o, a n d ter ter ter in sixty-five, sixty-six a n d sixty-seven. T h e o ccu rren c e o f re p lu s v erb o r -re- o r -re- o r -er seem s u n d u ly fre­ q u e n t to be a c c o u n te d for by cfiance, especially in, say, the seven-line s p re a d o f lines tw e n ty -e ig h t to th irty -fo u r, w ith its six o ccu rren ces. All o f J u n o ’s speech co n cern s w h a t will h a p p e n o r n o t h a p p e n if R o m e re p e ats,

8 See also Ennius, Annales I passim for evidence of such a council, and parallel expres­ sions; note that in Aeneid I, Juno, who does not address the council there, is like Jupiter, who does, a member (along with Minerva) of the Capitoline Triad. 9 Gordon Williams, The Third Book of Horace’s Odes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 43. 10 I of course exclude the syllable re- plus consonant, e.g., merentem, line thirteen, or ploret, line sixty-eight.

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

re c a p itu la te s o r reb u ild s T ro y , a n d the so u n d re has stro n g sig n ifican ce in such a co n tex t; in d eed ; it creates it. T h e so u n d re in J u n o ’s speech is associated largely w ith the n eg ativ e p a st, the p re se n t re lin q u is h in g o f a n im o sity , a n d the p ro m ise o f its re s u m p tio n if c e rta in e v en ts re c u r. L ikew ise, A u g u s tu s ’ fu tu re , ex p ressed th ro u g h recumbens / purpureo bibet ore nectar, lines w hich m o re th a n one c o m m e n ta to r h as fo u n d “ a n e rro r o f taste a n d ju d g e m e n t,” 11 is d ra w n in to the re n e tw o rk o f J u n o ’s speech a n d th u s his fu tu re is likew ise subject to th e c o n tin g en cies th e re set fo rth . It h as alw ays b een c lea r th a t J u n o ’s speech in I I I . 3 is th e m a tica lly re la ted to the progress o f R o m e ’s histo rical d estin y . T h e p re s e n t re m a rk s serve m erely to show the a rtistic basis for this lin k , a n d to d e m o n stra te how the speech fits in to the in tro d u c to ry assertio n s m a d e by this ode. A u g u stu s ’ fu tu re divine state is e a rn e d by b e in g a c o -fo u n d e r o f the new R o m e along w ith the o rig in al fo u n d e r o f old R o m e , R o m u lu s , b u t it is also tru e th a t A u g u s tu s ’ fu tu re d iv in ity is a p p ro v e d of, even if n o t explicitly g ra n te d o r co n ced ed , by J u n o . T h e w o rd redonabo, line th irty th re e , in its religious sense o f p a rd o n , re m it, c o n d o n e, w ith im p lic a tio n s o f e x p iatio n a n d a to n e m e n t, is o f course to be c o n stru e d w ith A u g u stu s as m u c h as w ith Q u irin u s , a lth o u g h the p o et does n o t, fo r social o r p o litical expediency, stress this p o in t at stro p h e th re e w h en A u g u stu s is n a m e d . T h e bases for J u n o ’s concession in p a st a n d fu tu re fo rm th e b u lk o f h e r speech. It should be carefully n o te d th a t th e im p lacab le c irc u la rity o f h e r a n n o u n c e m e n t, as in lines sixty-five follow ing, “ te r si re s u rg a t m u ru s a en e u s, / ... te r p e r e a t,” has a s tru c tu ra l p a ra lle l in th e last seg m e n t o f h e r a d d re ss, line sixty-eight, w ith the first line o f the p o em . B oth e x h ib it virum. B ut in light o f J u n o ’s n eg ativ e a sse rtio n s, w h a t h a s h a p p e n e d to the h u m a n o p tim ism a n d self-faith ex h ib ite d in stro p h e s one a n d tw o? O b v io u sly the re a d e r w ho reaches the last b u t o ne o f the p o e m ’s stro p h e s will cause the in itial assertio n s to u n d e rg o serio u s q u a lific a tio n in his m in d . T h e line o f th o u g h t m ay be said to go so m eth in g like this: A m a n , vir, m ay be tenax propositi, as in re b u ild in g T ro y ; h e m a y be g u iltless, even mstus, b u t if he is linked to a flaw ed e n te rp ris e , he is d o o m e d . C o m p a re this to I I I .2 .2 9 f.: “ saepe D ie sp ite r / n eg lectu s in cesto a d d id it in te g r u m .” If the foe o f c e rta in histo rical fo rc e s ,1112 he is likew ise to p e rish . T h o se w ho keep the faith a n d w ho w in a n d are eligible to be g ra n te d h e a v e n a re on “ the rig h t s id e ” ; one c a n n o t be tenax propositi in the face o f d iv in e o p p o si­ tio n , for th e n o n e ’s propositum is su rely flaw ed.

11 E.g., Williams, op. cit. supra, n. 9, p. 42; on the suddenness of the parenthetical structure, p. 16. 12 It is interesting to observe that Juno in the Aeneid is an anti-historical force, striving to obviate “ what happened,” but plays no such role in Horace Odes III.3.

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

43

T r o y ’s dux fraudulentus (line tw e n ty -fo u r) led his people to ru in ; the guiltless su ffered , a n d will suffer alo n g w ith the guilty. R o m e ’s original dux w as R o m u lu s , no w , by the sp eech -actio n o f J u n o , o r in o th e r w ords b y th e sp eech -act o f Odes I I I . 3, e n ro lled in h e a v e n as Q u irin u s . R o m e ’s p re s e n t dux is far from his h o u r o f tra n s la tio n to h e av e n , b u t, follow ing th e co n d itio n s o f I I I . 3, he too c a n be eligible for re w a rd if he is no t fo u n d to b e o n the w ro n g side, if he is n o t tenax o f a propositum th a t is divinely o p p o sed . J u n o h e rself is conceivably th e ty ra n t o f I I I . 3 .3 , ask in g w hat som e in th e p o e m ’s a u d ie n c e surely w ould co n sid er prava, n a m ely to be n o t nimium p ii, line fifty-eight, to give u p too easily old positions a n d co n ­ v ic tio n s, e ith e r o f h o stility to th e R e p u b lic a n s w ho killed J u liu s C a e sa r (now D ivus J u liu s him self), o r of hostility to the w in n ers by th e losers. T h e q u a lity o f pietas is n o t in q u e stio n , h o w ev er; its object is. T h e vir w h o m his fam ily is m o v ed to m o u rn at th e e n d o f th e speech, lines sixtysev en a n d follow ing, is th e vir o f th e o d e ’s o p e n in g , b u t now a n A n to n y like fig u re, th e m a n “ o n th e w ro n g s id e .” T h e fo u n d e rs, R o m u lu s /Q u irin u s a n d A u g u stu s a re , in this text, lin k e d a lo n g th e level o f fu n c tio n , i.e ., obviously fo u n d e r, a n d k eep er of faith w ith th e people a n d w ith th e gods; they are also lin k ed b y J u n o , w ho tim es th e ev en t in re g a rd to Q u irin u s w ith th e ra re w o rd elocuta, line se v e n te e n , a n d so, u n d e rsc o rin g this v erb al actio n w hich th u s draw s a tte n tio n to itself, gives a tim e context for th e ev en t in th e p o em , a n d for th e p re s e n t R o m a n w orld h e e d in g th a t p o em . W h a t w as a series o f past e x e m p la o f th e p o e t’s a p h o rism , attigit, line te n , vexere, f o u r t e e n , / ^ ’/, six­ te e n , p e n e tra te d by a fu tu re a sse rtio n m a d e in the light o f th e past a c tio n s, bibet, lin e tw elve, becom es w ith elocuta Iunone, lines sev en teen a n d follow ing, tim e p re s e n t, th e tim e o f h e r speech, w hich ends hostilities a n d a d m its Q u irin u s to th e d iv in e c o m p a n y , a n d does n o t m erely recall o r p ro je c t d o in g so. O n e m a y , b u t n e e d n o t, see d e ta ile d political references in J u n o ’s a llu ­ sion to th e gu ilty o f fallen T ro y , the enem ies o f A u g u stu s, say, in the o p e ra tio n s o f P a ris, th e ghost o f C le o p a tra V II in th e foreign w o m a n , in stro p h e seven; w h a t is c e n tra l is the re m o te o rig in (ex quo, line tw entyo n e ) o f J u n o ’s a f f r o n t,13 a n d h e r in ju n c tio n to reco g n ize th a t th e p a st is th e p a st {jam nec, lin e tw enty-five). In d e e d , it n eed s to b e e m p h asiz ed th a t J u n o ’s a d d re ss explicitly cau tio n s a g a in st looking back: she co n d o n es a n d forgives on th a t c o n d itio n , a n d it is one o f g rav e im p o rta n c e for th e co n ­ so lid a tio n o f th e R o m a n state a n d its fu tu re b y its p re sen t ru le r A u g u stu s.

13 Cf. Vergil, Georgies 1.502: ‘satis iam pridem sanguine nostro / Laomedonteae luimus periuria Troiae’; cf. M. C. J. Putnam, Virgil’s Poem of the Earth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp. 73-76.

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

T h e civic q u a lity o f these m e ta p h o rs u sed b y the p o et to d escrib e Q u ir in u s ’ a ch iev in g h e a v e n co term in o u sly w ith J u n o ’s p ro n o u n c in g redonabo (line th irty -th re e ) u n d e rsco re s th e p o e m ’s d ire c tio n o f civil life: relig io n allow s the w o rk in g o u t o f the processes o f th e state; discere a n d adscribi b o th com e from such processes o f civil life as th e fo rm al e n ro ll­ m e n t in a trib e o r o th e r g r o u p .14 W h a t w as d o n e hac arte (line n in e ) b efo re J u n o ’s speech act, a n d h en ce o n a n in d iv id u a liz e d b asis, w ith o u t h e r sa n c tio n , even if for the civic g ro u p , b eco m es ach iev ed hac lege (line fiftyeight); one notes the id en tical p o sitio n in the line o f b o th p h ra se s. T h e collectivized lex (assen ted to b y m a n y if p ro m u lg a te d b y o n e) rep laces o r m akes fulfilled the in d iv id u a liz e d ars. R o m e m a y give law s a n d fill th e w o rld w ith h e r p resen ce, a n d s p u rn th e w e alth th a t b elo n g s to th e gods, on c o n d itio n th a t the p a st n o t be rev isited o r set in o p e ra tio n once a g ain . It w ould be too p a rtic u la riz in g o f this allusive tex t to say th a t th e p o et here discourages a re tu rn to p o w e r o f th e optimates, o r too g re a t foreign influence; the p o in t is in the p o e m ’s te rm s, h o w ev er, n o t too b ro a d to have som e specific m e a n in g . It has a lre ad y b e en re m a rk e d th a t th e p o e m ’s sy n tax grow s c o m ­ p licated at the m e n tio n o f B acchus, w ho h im se lf fits im p erfectly in to th e c h ain o f exam ples the p o et sets forth in th a t he alo n e does n o t h av e a cult c e n te r in R o m e . It sh o u ld also be p o in te d o u t th a t a sim ila r d islo catio n o f sy n tax occurs in J u n o ’s speech, lines fo rty -n in e follow ing. T h e id ea a b o u t gold u n d e te c te d “ et sic m elius s itu m ,” a n d w h a t follow s, does n o t p erfectly fit in to the civic a n d m ilita ry vision p u rv e y e d b y th e g o d d e ss’ p ro p h e c y o f R o m e ’s d estin y . She links the h u m a n a n d th e d iv in e w orlds to g e th e r on a n in d iv id u a l basis, v iz., th e in fin itiv e spernere is u n u s u a lly m a d e to m odify the adjective fortior, w h ich , w h ilst o sten sib ly sig n ify in g R o m e , m u st in the co n tex t o f the R o m a n O d es h e re to fo re re a d signify as well a n in d iv id u a l R o m a n , one w ho is stro n g e r to look ask an ce at w e alth th a n to secularize the sacred for his ow n g ain . T h e state b eco m es the citizen , a p o in t also m a d e b y V erg il in his Aeneid. T h e n o te w o rth y sy n tax sets forth this n o te w o rth y id e a, ju s t as it sig n alled a b re a k in th e p ara llelism in the heroic exam ples w h en it re a c h e d B acch u s, line th irte e n . T h e e ig h te e n th stro p h e o f I I I .3 b reak s a w ay fro m J u n o ’s speech a b r u p tly ,15 on the g ro u n d s o f lite ra ry c o n v en tio n : th e speech o f gods does 14 Adscnbere is the technical word for such enrollment. 15 Pindar as stylistic example for Horace could be cited in many connections; suffice it to note here Pythian 11.41 and 10.5 for abrupt breaks such as here. Cf. J. H. Waszink, “ Horace und Pindar,’’ Antike und Abendland 12 (1966), pp. 111-124; C. W. Whitaker, “ A Note on Horace and Pindar,” Classical Quarterly 50 (1956), pp. 221-224, and E. L. Highbarger, “ The Pindaric Style of Horace,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 66 (1955), pp. 222-255, especially pp. 235-241 on the Roman Odes; he believes that III.3 and III.4 are the most Pindaric.

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

45

n o t accord w ith a lyric m e te r (iocosa lyra, line six ty -n in e). By this tactic, H o ra c e re d ire c ts th e r e a d e r ’s a tte n tio n to th e fact th a t a speech-act has b e e n in p ro g re ss, a n d th a t a p o em o r poetic cycle is still u n d e rw a y , one w h ich is a b o u t to seek a new d ire c tio n aw ay from h e av e n (.Descende caelo o f I I I . 4.1 in this sense). H e also re in serts his ow n p e rso n a , w hich will d o m in a te I I I . 4, a n d w hich has b e en lost to sight since the en d o f I I I .2 .2 6 f f ., vetabo a n d w h a t follows. In this fash io n H o ra c e m o d u la te s the r e a d e r ’s a tte n tio n aw ay from epic ex p ectatio n s a n d co n co m itan t p ro p h ­ ecies a n d visions o f R o m e ’s g re a tn ess, a n d b ack to th e fabric o f the a rtistic e v en t itself: th e text. T h is is fu rth e r sig n alled by the occu ren ce o f pervicax, lin e sev en ty , a n a n cie n t w ord n o t u su al in th e c o n te m p o ra ry la n g u a g e , a n d re m in isc e n t in its u n u su a ln e ss o f elocuta, line seventeen; b o th b ra c k e t J u n o ’s speech w ith a n em p h asis o n its a n cie n t historicity a n d o n its te x tu a lity , its poetic a n d h en ce v e rb a l-a ctio n aspects. B u t by u sin g th e fu tu re ten se, conveniet, line six ty -n in e, th e poet leaves h a n g in g in th e a ir u n s ta te d w h a t J u n o w ou ld h av e said , o r “ w as a b o u t to s a y ” w h e n H o ra c e ceases to tra n s m it h e r w o rd s. W o u ld w h a t she have said b e e n b a d for R o m e ? By le av in g th e goddess g e stu rin g to w ard s w h at lies o u tsid e o u r field o f vision, th e p oet takes leave o f h e r, a n d has us do th e sam e , w ith all h e r p o w er a n d m y stery in ta c t. W e c a n n o t kn o w w h at else J u n o m ay h a v e said , b u t w e h av e th e su cceeed in g R o m a n O d e s, an d ru d im e n ts o f a n a w are n e ss o f th e a p o co p a te d sp e e c h ’s n eg ativ e d im e n ­ sions. R o m e will fall a g a in , in d e ed is falling, if in re a d in g J u n o ’s speech th e re a d e r also h as re a d I I I . 6. It is o f th e u tm o st significance th a t I I I . 3 e n d s in a b re a k d o w n o f referen ce: J u n o ’s fu tu re w ords are to be a b o u t o b ­ je c ts th a t do n o t (yet?) exist, a n d m a y , th ro u g h rig h t actio n , be a b o rte d . In th e s h a p in g o f m o ra l values from quod satis est ( I I I . 1) to in d iv id u al g lo ry , in d iv id u a l d e a th a n d in d iv id u a l faith -k e e p in g ( I I I .2) to the a u th e n ­ tic a tio n a n d v a lid a tio n o f in d iv id u a l actions (those o f th e vir tenax, H e r ­ cu les, A u g u stu s, Q u irin u s ) by a d iv in e p o w er th a t lifts th e m to th e level o f th e n a tio n a l (R o m e , T ro y ) a n d su p ra -h isto ric a l {ex quo, iam nec, ter, ter, ter) th e p o et h as m oved from self (a k ind o f p a sto ra l self at th e en d o f III. 1 esp ecially) to civic re sp o n sib ility . H e b e g a n th e cycle as a h ie ro p h a n tic p o e t, a n d it re m a in s for h im in III. 4 to re e x am in e th e virtus o f a rt from his ow n h isto ric a l s ta n d p o in t, a n d to re in te g ra te h im se lf in to th e fabric o f gods, m e n a n d tim e th a t h as b e e n set up in Odes III. 1-3. F o r now , the a u d ie n c e w hich has n o t re a d I I I . 4-6, th e rest o f th e cycle, J u n o ’s in ju n c ­ tio n s seem c a p a b le o f b e in g k ep t, a n d th e o u tlo o k for R o m e ’s fu tu re is b rig h t. F o r those w ho h a v e gone on to finish th e cycle, h o w ev er, h er w o rd s b e to k e n th e in te rn a liz e d re tu rn to p a st w ays o f selfish h ed o n ism , a n d th e b re a k d o w n o f th e fam ily , w hose u n p e rv e rte d valu es sh in e fo rth in I I I .3 .67f. H e re civic c ala m ity is th e se ttin g for p riv a te o r in d iv id u al

46

THE THIRD ROMAN ODE

in te g rity ; la te r in the cycle, civic h e a lth is th e c o n tex t for d o m estic d e p ra v ity th a t will soon co rro d e the civitas. T h e choice o f a c tu a liz in g in o u r life a n y o f the fo u r p o te n tia litie s is u p to us, th e re a d e r. T h e a rt w ork m erely m ed iates th e m , a n d h ence it is fittin g th a t it is a rt itself th a t is n ex t celeb rated .

CHAPTER SIX

TH E FO U RTH ROM AN ODE T h e fo u rth R o m a n O d e raises a host o f q u estio n s. N ot the least o f th e se is its re la tio n sh ip to th e co nclusion o f th e th ird R o m a n O d e. T h e p o et th e re asked, “ q u o , M u sa , te n d is ? ” ( I I I .3.70) a n d th e o p en in g w o rd s o f I I I . 4, “ D escen d e c a e lo ,” can be ta k en to signify a re q u e st th a t th e M u s e com e b ack “ dow n to e a r th ” after d riftin g into elevated epical d isco u rse w ith th e speech o f J u n o in I I I . 3. W ith o u t som e b e a rin g on 111.3, even if n o t th e o n e sug g ested , th e o p e n in g stro p h e o f I I I .4 seem s too v a g u e to be p u rp o se fu l. If tak en to m e a n , en g ag e in choral ode (im p lied b y tibia) o r in lyric m o n o d y (im p lied b y fidibus citharave) ra th e r th a n in epic, th e o p e n in g serves as a b rid g e from I I I . 3 to I I I . 4, from the e n d o f th e first th re e odes to th e b e g in n in g o f the final tria d . T h u s it is a p p ro p ria te for so u n d to d o m in a te this new b e g in n in g (th e voice an d m u sical in s tru m e n ts o f stro p h e one, a n d th e h a u n tin g “ a u d itis ? ... a u d ire et v id e o r” o f the second) ju s t as silence w as invoked in III. 1. Iff. F u rth e r, ju s t as III. 1 d e alt w ith th e p o e t’s self (larg ely by rev erse im p licatio n ) so too I I I . 4 dw ells for seven stro p h es on the p erso n o f th e p o et. B ut I I I .4 stan d s a lo n e a m o n g th e R o m a n O d es in re g a rd to severe p ro b lem s o f tra n s itio n , seq u en ce o f im ages a n d indeed in c o n stitu tin g a perm issib le ra n g e o f in te rp re ta tio n . T h e se p ro b lem s (a n d th e re a re o th ers) are fo resh ad o w ed by th e fluid b le n d in g o f th e en d o f III. 3 in to the o p e n in g o f 111.4, a n d in ten sified b y th e hig h ly a m b ig u o u s audire et videor pios / errare per lucos. S uch difficulties also a re m et in try in g to re la te th e local settings o f A p u lia to b o th th e role o f a rt as it tra n sp ire s in stro p h es ten a n d eleven, a n d to th e g ig a n to m a c h y (strophes tw elve th ro u g h sev en teen ) a n d its m o u rn fu l a fte rm a th (stro p h es eig h teen th ro u g h tw en ty ). T h e g n o m e “ vis consili expers m ole ru it s u a ” is also h a rd -p u t to assu m e a g o v e rn in g fu n c ­ tio n for th e w hole ode (line sixty-five). In s te a d o f re c a p itu la tin g the often successful suggestions for d ealin g w ith th e d is p a ra te elem en ts o f I I I . 4 , 1 a rad ical a p p ro a c h to re a d in g this 1 On III.4 see Eduard Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 273ff., and Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 194ff. The only textual difficulty of moment is in line ten: Apuliae or Pulliae\ for a persuasive stand in favor of the province instead of the personal name (the latter favored by Klingner) see David O. Ross, Jr., Backgrounds ίο Augustan Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 145, η. 1. For a discussion of the question favoring Pulliae, see A. Treloar, “ Horace, Odes III.4 .1 0 ,” Antichthon 2 (1968), pp. 58-62. A detailed examination (in German) of III.4 is I. Borzsäk, “ Descende caelo...,” Acta Anti­ qua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8 (1960), pp. 369-386. For the political ramifications,

48

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

tex t is p u t fo rw ard h ere in the hope th a t it will e n ab le re a d e rs to see th a t o th e r categories for te stin g a n d e x p erien c in g a h ig h ly co m p lex H o ra tia n ode a re av ailab le besides th e w ell-tried u n ity o f su b ject, to n e , a p p ro a c h , th e m e , an d so on. T h is novel re a d in g , o r b e tte r, m e th o d for re a d in g th e tex t does n o t seek to d isestab lish the o ld e r m eth o d s o f in te rp re tin g this o de, b u t ra th e r o nly to s u p p le m e n t th e m w ith a m e th o d o f re a d in g this ode th a t does n o t seem as yet a d v an c e d for re a d in g R o m a n p o e try . In re a d in g an y poetic tex t o f m o re th a n m in im a l le n g th , th e re a d e r is often obliged by c u ltu ra l a n d in stitu tio n a l e x p ectatio n s to co n sid e r th e tex t as c o n tin u o u s, p ro c e ed in g from b e g in n in g to close w ith o u t ceasin g to be a text. C lassicists a re e d u c a te d to believe th a t a n a m o u n t o f re a d in g c o term in o u s w ith a book o f a n epic p o em , ro u g h ly 1,000 lines at th e m a x im u m , is the a m o u n t ideally “ ta k en i n ” d u rin g one “ r e a d in g ” by th e an cie n t re a d in g a u d ien c e . T h o se w ho te ac h G re e k a n d L a tin a re all too fa m ilia r w ith the p ro b le m o f d isc o n tin u ity o f th e re a d in g e x p erien ce o f a classical text in the class room : a book o f th e Aeneid o r a n act o f a com edy o f P la u tu s is slow ly decoded a t a ra te w hich in su re s th e to tal d isa p p e a ra n c e o f a n y th in g a p p ro x im a tin g its o rig in al im p a c t on a n a tiv e sp ea k e r o f L a tin . T h ro u g h this slow ing d o w n o f th e ra te o f c o n su m p tio n , c e rta in p ro b lem s a p p e a r o r a re m a d e to a p p e a r ,*2 a n d o th e r p ro b le m s, o r b e tte r, p h e n o m e n a , v a n ish from o u r gaze as w e claw o u r w ay from sentence to sen ten ce. O n ly sh o rte r poem s such as H o r a c e ’s Odes or C a tu llu s ’ polym etrics o r elegies a re sufficiently g ra sp a b le in a tim e -fra m e for re a d in g a n y th in g like th a t g e n e ra te d b y th e text in its a n c ie n t settin g . T h e fo u rth R o m a n O d e , th e long est o f th e cycle, p re se n ts tw e n ty stro p h es, a n e x te n t o f tex t th a t is n o t too lo n g for sy n th esiz in g in m o d e rn tim es a n a n cie n t tim e -fram e for re a d in g , say a p p ro x im a te ly seven m in u te s for re a d in g th e w hole ode a lo u d , w ith p a u se s, a n d w ith c o m ­ p re h e n sio n o f it in m ost cases assu m ed b y p rio r stu d y o f it. It is p recisely this a b ility to g rasp the w hole p o em th a t o ccasions th e m o d e rn p e rc e p tio n th a t the poem is u n in te g ra te d . A bo o k o f V e rg il’s Aeneid o r o f L u c re tiu s does not invite this o b serv atio n b e ca u se o f its len g th : th e e x p e rie n c in g m in d o f the re a d e r, especially a m o d e rn re a d e r n o t a t h o m e w ith o ra l p re s e n ta tio n o f p o e try , a n d d e p e n d e n t o n easy access to tex t th ro u g h th e codex fo rm at, c a n n o t keep before itself su ch a w e alth o f p e rc e p tio n s as th a t p ro v id e d in a th o u s a n d h e x a m e te r lin es. B ut it c an a n d sh o u ld re ta in see J. Aymard, “ La Politique d ’Auguste et l ’ode III.4 d ’Horace,’’ Latomus 15 (1956), pp. 26-36; D. A. Malcolm, “ Horace Odes III.4 ,” Classical Review N. S. 5 (1955), pp. 242-244; A .J . Dunston, “ Horace Odes II 1.4 and the Virtues of Augustus, ” AUMLA 31 (1969), pp. 9-19, and R. A. Hornsby, “ Horace on Art and Politics (Ode 3 .4),” Classical Journal 58 (1962), pp. 97-104, especially p. 102 on Horace’s use of time. 2 Cf. George Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. viii and pp. 198ff.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

49

sim u lta n e o u s p e rc ep tio n s o f tw e n ty A lcaic stro p h es, a m a tte r o f eighty sh o rt lines. It sh o u ld be obvious th a t la rg e poem s (like larg e b u ild in g s, o r len g th y c in e m a tic film s) a re d iscovered (or, on re -e x p erien c in g , red isco v ered ) at every m o m e n t, w hilst sh o rt poem s (like sm all a rt stru c tu re s) a re en tirely p re s e n t a n d a v ailab le at every m o m e n t w h en b e in g a d d re ssed . T h is is not to say th a t red isco v ery o f interpretation does n o t o c cu r in re re a d in g a short p o e m , b u t th a t u n c o v e rin g o r discovery o r red isco v ery o f text occurs in a lo n g e r p o e m , w h ereas th e m in d o f th e a u d ien c e e x p erien c in g a sh o rter tex t has th a t text (even im p erfectly ) befo re it at ev ery m o m e n t o f e x p e rie n c in g a seg m en t o f th a t tex t. H e n c e it follows th a t w h en we “ re m e m b e r’ ’ Oedipus Rex (even if, afortiori, w e h a v e co m m itte d the text of it to m e m o ry ) w e are re m e m b e rin g a d ifferen t o rd e r o f artistic p h e n o m e n o n th a n w h en w e “ re m e m b e r” C a tu llu s ’ co u p let “ O d i et a m o ,” even if w e c a n n o t p erfectly recollect th e o rd e r o f th e d istic h ’s w o rd s. M u c h w o rk needs to b e d o n e to set lim its to w h at m a y be called a sh o rt p o em a n d w h a t m a y be called a lo n g p o em , b o th fo r us a n d for a n c ie n t society. B ut even before such exact in q u iry takes p lace, c ertain assertio n s o f so m e use to th e stu d e n t o f lite ra tu re m ig h t be m a d e a b o u t a p o em like H o ra c e Odes I I I . 4. O n c e o n e has a tte n tiv ely “ re a d th ro u g h ” this text, s u b se q u e n t a tte n tiv e o r c o m p e te n t re re a d in g s o f it will oblige th e re a d e r to m a k e a n effort to disco v er th e text an ew at each stro p h e , in o th e r w o rd s, to d isca rd stro p h es one a n d tw o at th e o u tset o f th e th ird , to j e t ­ tiso n th e first five at “ v ester, C a m e n a e ,” lin e tw e n ty -o n e , etc. F ro m w h at w e kn ow a b o u t how poets o f m u c h lo n g e r w orks p ro c e ed e d , a n d w h at th e y ex p ected th e ir a u d ien c e s to b rin g to th e text ex p erien ce, w e know this effort o f d isc a rd in g o r fo rg ettin g w as n o t e n c o u ra g e d . E v en a tte n tiv e re a d e rs o f lo n g epics w ere p re su m a b ly ex p ected a n d ab le to re sp o n d to th e n u d g in g p a ra llels trig g e rin g recollectio n , cata lo g u e d b y m o d e rn s c h o la rs .3 T h e lyric p o et on th e o th e r h a n d cap italizes a n d im proves u p o n th e c ap a c ity o f his a u d ie n c e to h av e the e n tire text av ailab le a t every m o m e n t w hilst as it w ere in h a b itin g th e tex t. H e n c e d isc o n tin u ity o f th e m e , for in sta n c e , is a fru stra tio n o f a le g itim a te e x p ec ta tio n on the p a rt o f a c o m p e te n t a u d ie n c e . T h e d isco n tin u itie s o f H o ra c e Odes I I I . 4 a re o f m o re m o m e n t, a esth etically , th a n a re th e m u ltip le ran g es o f subject in a b o o k o f L u c re tiu s, b e ca u se o f size o f te x t, o r in an epistle o r satire o f

3 E.g., M. C. J. Putnam, The Poetry of the Aeneid (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 95f. on the relationship of Aeneid V . 836f. to III.511 and II.250ff. : cor­ respondences presumed to occur to a reader using a papyrus roll. Cf. J. Balogh, “ Voces Paginarum,” Philologus 82 (1926-27), pp. 84-109.

50

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

H o ra c e , b ecau se o f generic incitings o f e x p e c ta tio n .4 T h e p re se n t age e q u ate s size w ith m o n u m e n ta lity , w ith all o f the com plex o rg a n iz a tio n , s u b o rd in a tio n , sy m m e try , p ara llelism a n d to ta lity o f in te rp re ta tio n th a t th e te rm “ m o n u m e n ta l” im plies; it m ig h t be u seful (in a n o th e r co n tex t) to test to see if o u r m o d e rn p re d e lictio n for lin k in g size w ith serio u sn ess, w ith m o n u m e n ta lity , has an y valid ity in a n c ie n t w orks. C a llim a c h u s assu m ed th a t le n g th a n d seriousness w ere lin k ed ; b u t su rely A p u le iu s ’ Metamorphosis a n d P e tro n iu s ’ Satyricon (to n a m e prose w orks) need n o t be com plexly o rd e re d becau se o f the fact o f th e ir b e in g lo n g ; n e ed th e Aeneidd As for the fo u rth R o m a n O d e , its relativ ely sm all scope sh o u ld n o t b lin d us to its a rch itecto n ic v irtu o sity ; if the C a sa R o m u li can be seen as the a d u m b ra tio n o f the B asilica U lp ia ,5 th e re is no cau se for su rp rise if a n ode o f H o ra ce display “ m o n u m e n ta l” featu res. Before tu rn in g finally to the w orld o f texts in la n g u a g e , a n o th e r o b s e r­ v a tio n c o n ce rn in g the a rc h ite c tu re th a t uses tan g ib le m a te ria ls m a y be p e rm itte d . R o m a n a rc h ite c tu re te n d e d to m ak e c o n tin u o u sly a v ailab le to its b e h o ld e r o r in h a b ita n t the w hole fab ric o f space. H is w h e re a b o u ts is co nsistently m ad e k n o w n in re la tio n to the w hole th ro u g h th e a x iality o f th e given stru c tu re . A n o m alies like th e P a n th e o n o r th e p ro b a b ly im p erial villa at P ia z za A rm e rin a achieve no sm all m e a su re o f th e ir stro n g effects by foiling the ex p ectatio n s o f th e ir b eh o ld ers. B uildings w hich have no place for the o b s e rv e r,6 like the P a n th e o n o f H a d ria n , o r w hich are d iscovered m o m e n t by m o m e n t like D o m itia n ’s p a lac e o n th e P a la tin e o r the fo u rth -c e n tu ry villa at P ia z z a A rm e rin a , o r b u ild in g s, like S u lla ’s F o rtu n a P rim ig e n ita at P ra e n e ste , w hich tak e o v e r a n d c o n tro l th e reactions a n d m o v em en ts o f those e x p e rie n c in g th e s tru c tu re : these b u ild in g s are relatively ra re , late, o r N e a r E a ste rn in to n e . R o m a n poem s like R o m a n a rc h ite c tu re — even lo n g poem s o r b ig b u ild in g s — try to p re se n t a place for th e ir au d ien ces a n d , w h en sm all in scope, to m ak e th em selves w holly av ailab le to th e ir au d ien ces at ev ery m o m e n t o f ex p erien c in g th e ir fabric. T h e fo u rth R o m a n O d e goes o u t o f its w ay no t to do this. A n aspect of R o m a n a rc h ite c tu re a n d a rt m o st closely lin k ed to th e R o m a n O d es in term s o f civic fu n c tio n , m o n u m e n ta lity , a n d total availab ility to the a u d ien c e is the R o m a n h isto rical relief. Like a p o e m , a re lie f is “ r e a d ,” has c o n v en tio n s o f v o c a b u la ry a n d e x p ressio n a n d h en ce v a ry in g com petencies o f a u d ie n c e , a n d p re sen ts v a ry in g in te rp re ta tio n s 4 On unity in Horatian satire, see the present writer’s Latin Satire (Leiden, 1970) pp 6 If. 5 Cf. Frank E. Brown, Roman Architecture (New York, 1967), pp. 11 and 34. The buildings are of course related through the concept of axiality that is central to Roman architecture. 6 This to be sure is not the case of Augustan classicism in buildings.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

51

a n d significances la y ered u p o n one o th e r. Like p o e try , reliefs are highly d e p e n d e n t u p o n c o n tex t; the collocations o f H o ra c e Odes 1.35, I I I . 24 a n d th e R o m a n O d e s 7 are differen t in no w ay (save th a t o f the difference b e tw ee n to p o g ra p h y on la n d a n d to p o g ra p h y in a v erb al tex t) from the p o sitio n in g o f the Ara Pietatis Augustae a n d the Ara Pacis Augustae in th eir u rb a n to p o g ra p h ic a l c o n te x ts .8 Like p o e try , reliefs are “ re a d ” in a seq u e n c e o f im ages w hich is e m p h atica lly n o t the seq u en ce o f in te rp re ta ­ tio n o r significance. P e rh a p s the ch ief difference betw een classical p o e try a n d th a t c o m p o se d from the R e n a issa n c e u n til very re c en tly is th a t the o rd e r o f w o rd s in a classical p o em is n o t the sam e th in g as the o rd e r o f m e an in g , b e ca u se o f the n a tu re o f the a n c ie n t inflected lan g u ag es a n d th e ir syntax. R efe re n c e to a n c ie n t a rt, especially to h isto rical relief, w hich com es closest to a m o d e rn se q u e n tia l “ n a r r a tiv e ” style, sh o u ld show th a t in te r­ p re ta tio n is a ffo rd ed by the a c c u m u la tio n o f d e tail, b y co n tex t, a n d b y c o n sid e rin g the w o rk as e x istin g w holly in the p re sen t m o m e n t o f ex p erien c e ; w h a t is “ on the b a c k ” o f a n a lta r is sim u lta n eo u sly p resen t w h e n w e view its f r o n t.9 It w o u ld be e rro n e o u s to assign the sam e m o d e o f existence to a plastic w o rk o f a rt like the Ara Pacis Augustae a n d to a p o em o f H o ra ce . Yet in m a n y cases the sam e a u d ien c e re a d b o th h isto rical re lie f a n d text. T h e m o d es o f c o n su m p tio n o f b o th the h isto rical re lie f a n d the p ro g ressio n o f th e te x t’s w ords m a y be m o re closely re la te d th a n is now su rm ised , a n d ev en a c u rso ry e x a m in a tio n o f how we re a d a relief m a y th ro w light on how we a re in v ite d to re a d a H o ra tia n ode. F irst o f all, the im p o rt o f a re lie f is n o t to be tied to th e c o n te n t o f its scenes o r to the o rd e r in w hich th e scenes u n fo ld . In a la te e x am p le, b u t stylistically close to the Ara Pacis Augustae, th e E m p e ro r D o m itia n in the C a n c e lle ria reliefs is acco m p an ied b y d iv in iz e d p e rso n ific atio n s o f th e C ity a n d its p eople a n d sim u lta n e o u s­ ly b y M a rs a n d M in e r v a .10 It is a ssu m e d th a t th e scenes, w hile seq u en -

7 Supra, pp. 8ff. 8 The situation of the two altars on opposite sides of the city, at gates with important symbolic implications, must be part of a coherent Augustan program, even though the Ara Pietatis Augustae was vowed only in 22 A.D . and built in 43 A.D. Mario Torelli, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1982), pp. 66-82. 9 See e.g., the altar of Manlius, in the Lateran collection now housed in the Vatican Museum, in Inez Scott Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 22 (1955), pp. 84-87 and plates 25 and 26. Also Torelli, op. cit. supra, n. 8, pp. 16-19, and Plates 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8. It is obvious that the viewer of this altar is to keep in mind the reliefs of all four sides in order to make the altar “ represent” its interpretation. 10 I. S. Ryberg, op. cit. supra, n. 9, pp. 75-80 on the Cancelleria reliefs, also in the Vatican Museum.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

tial, are m ore th a n a n a rra tio n o f lin e a rly p ro g ressiv e d iscrete e v en ts. A ssertions a re m a d e a b o u t the e m p e ro r, his policies, his p ro b le m s, his relatio n s w ith h e a v e n , a n d a g re a t m a n y o th e r th in g s. T h e a u d ie n c e is d irectly invo lved, supplies resp o n ses, fills, th ro u g h its a w are n e ss o f experiences b e y o n d the re lie f (a n d th ro u g h aw aren ess o f o th e r reliefs) the v a rio u s la c u n a e th a t occur, a n d otherw ise d isch arg es its fu n c tio n o f in te r ­ p re tin g th e c o n v en tio n s o f histo rical reliefs, th e least o f w h ich co n v en tio n s is the yoking o f in te rp re ta tio n to the seq u en ce o f o b serv atio n s. R a th e r, m u ltip licity o f in te rp re ta tio n is secu red by sim u lta n e o u s ex p erien c e o f the w hole ra th e r th a n o f the p a rts: a fact w h ich en ab les th e re lativ ely a c c u ra te re s to ra tio n o f reliefs th a t have lost som e o f th e ir seq u e n c es, a task g en erally bey o n d p re se n t lite ra ry sch o larsh ip to d isch a rg e for a n e x te n ­ sively d a m a g e d text w ith c o m p a ra b le likelihood o f co rre ctn ess. A g rasp o f the in te rp re tiv e force o f the Ara Pacis Augustae com es fro m g e ttin g b ey o n d a re a d in g th a t c o n ten ts itself w ith “ n ex t to A g rip p a com es X a n d th e n Y a n d Z . ” O n e only m isses d e a lin g w ith a cau se b y such d escrip tio n s o f effects. L ikew ise, one does n o t assess th e fo u rth R o m a n O d e by o b serv in g th a t re m a rk s o n the p o e t’s p e rso n al life are su cceed ed by a g ig an to m ach y . Since w ords are in e v ita b ly re fe re n tia l, a n d since to be intelligible even on the re fe re n tia l level th ey m u st be assig n ed to te m ­ p o ra l sequence d ic ta te d by g ra m m a r a n d sy n tax , we n a tu ra lly te n d to perceive the text as a series o f o b serv atio n s ra th e r th a n as a summa g o v ern ed by a lex, like the Ara Pacis Augustae, a to tal m o n u m e n t w ith its lex arae. T h e in d iv id u a l processions o n th e a lta r, re p re se n tin g th e v o w in g o f its c o n stru ctio n , are like the w ings o f a g iv en te x t, o r th e R o m a n O d e seq u en ce as a w hole, reco g n izab le as a series o f in d iv id u a ls, p o rtra its ev en , h igh in re fe re n tia l q u a litie s, b u t w h en “ in th e m o n u m e n t” o r “ in the te x t” su b o rd in a te d to a g re a te r in te rp re ta tio n , a n d full o f self­ reference: peace, w atch fu ln ess, b a la n c e , o ik o u m e n e , o r w h a te v e r o th e r in te rp re ta tio n the m o n u m e n t affords. T h e reco g n izab le in d iv id u a l elem en ts o f a p o em o r a p o em cycle (w o rd s, sen te n c es, im ages o r m e ta p h o rs, ev en ts, m oods, o rd e rin g s) m u st be seen as likew ise s u b ­ o rd in a te to the m o n u m e n t to w hich they refer a n d w hich th ey a n d they alone c o n stitu te , a n d w hich th ey , in seq u en ce a n d in c o n tex t, serve to in te rp re t. T h e w hole is n e ith e r c o te rm in o u s w ith its p a rts n o r is it d e tac h a b le from th e m . W e have less tro u b le freein g m o n u m e n ts such as the Ara Palis Augustae from the ty ra n n y o f se q u e n tia l re a d in g , b u t it m ig h t be w o rth the tro u b le to a tta c k a p o em such as I I I . 4 fro m this k in d o f p ersp ectiv e. S uch a n a p p ro a c h w ould avoid p ro c e d u re s w hich aim a t re v e a lin g w h a t the p o em “ is a b o u t” a n d w ou ld in ste a d stress fu n c tio n a n d effect o n the re a d e r’s consciousness b o th as the p o em p ro g resses a n d as a static w hole.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

53

In its aspects as a summa, the p o em in cu lcates aw aren ess o f th e pow er o f o rd e r o v er ch ao s, a n d the p o w er o f a rt o v er ra n d o m ev en t. T h e c en tral e x e m p lu m o f this is the g ig a n to m a c h y , into w hich H o ra c e has in tro d u ce d c e rta in id io sy n c ratic e lem en ts, for reaso n s to be discussed p resen tly . T h e p in n a c le o f th e p o w er s tru c tu re in the w orld m e d ia te d b y I I I . 4 is J u p ite r in lines forty-tw o a n d follow ing. H e re his p a st v icto ry over the T ita n s a n d th e h a te fu l b a n d o f the forces o f d iso rd e r is set fo rth , as well as his p re sen t c o m p lete sw ay over e a rth , sea a n d u n d e rw o rld , w ith th e ir h u m a n a n d d iv in e in h a b ita n ts . T h e tenses o f sustulerit, o n th e one h a n d , a n d o f temperat a n d regit on the o th e r (lines fo rty -fo u r, forty-five a n d forty-eight) show the su b o rd in a tio n o f the p a st d e m o n stra tio n o f p o w er to p re sen t d o m in a tio n ; the tenses o f intulerat, possent, stetit, p re se n tin g p a st ex am p la (lines fo rty -n in e a n d fifty-eight), a n d lavit a n d tenet p re se n tin g p resen t (b u t possibly n o t e te rn a l) actio n a n d co n tro l (lines sixty-one a n d sixtytw o), m irro r this seq u en ce. W h a t is p a ra m o u n t is w h a t is p re sen t: J u p ite r a n d A pollo sh are the p re se n t tense. O n e ru les th ro u g h p o w er, the o th er th ro u g h a rt, a n d th e g n o m e o f line sixty-five re -u n ite s th e tw o elem ents: p o w e r b ereft o f ju d g m e n t (consilium) falls to d e stru ctio n . W e h av e seen as m u c h ju s t before the g re a t p ic tu re o f J u p ite r w ith the u n iv e rse in his sw ay: the M u se s a t line forty-one give ju d g m e n t (consilium a g a in ) ju s t as th e y refresh C a e s a r A u g u stu s, w ield er o f civic pow ers as extensive as J u p i t e r ’s d ivine p o w e r, a n d sim ilarly th re a te n e d by en em ies. T h e M uses too in h a b it the p re se n t tense (recreatis, datis, lines forty a n d forty-one); th e y too, like A pollo, th e ir closest celestial co n n ec tio n , form p re se n t-d a y e x em p la for the a sse rtio n th a t the god governs a n d rules. If one w ere fancifully to c o n ju re u p a relief re p re se n tin g the lead in g id eas o f this by no m e an s accid en tally c e n te re d section o f the fo u rth R o m a n O d e , one m ig h t expect to see a J u p ite r d o m in a tin g the th ree a re as o f the u n iv e rse: first e a rth , w ith the goddess T e r r a (so m etim es id e n ­ tified as Ita lia ) la m e n tin g th e loss o f h e r sons w ho sto rm e d h e av e n (lines se v e n ty -th ree a n d follow ing, w ith a n alo g y to the civil w ars). O n e m ig h t also p ic tu re h e re th e p oet p ro te c te d by his M u ses as a child, from th e fall­ in g tre e , a t P h ilip p i (the civil w a r a g ain ), a n d sav ed at C a p e P a lin u ru s; fu rth e r w e w o u ld see his jo u rn e y s to v a rio u s rem o te spots (lines nine follow ing). T h e se sam e M u ses m ig h t be seen su sta in in g C a e sa r A u g u stu s, lines th irty -sev e n follow ing. N e x t, J u p ite r w o u ld be p re sen te d as c o n tro llin g as well the sea, w hich w ou ld h av e a lre a d y fig u red in the scenes o f B aiae, P h ilip p i, C a p e P a lin u ru s , th e B o sp h o ru s, B rita in , etc.: the o ik o u m e n e o f th e d iv in ity ’s p o w er w o u ld be a n alo g o u s to the socalled “ I ta lia ” o f th e Ara Pacis Augustae.11 A s for J u p i t e r ’s co n tro l o v er the 1 11 This figure, variously called Terra Mater and Italia, probably a figure of Oikoumene, is on the west end of the Ara Pacis Augustae. Torelli, op. dt. supra, n. 8, pp. 40-42.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

gloom y k in g d o m s, at this p o in t cou ld com e a g re a t b a la n c in g o f the scenes re p re se n tin g the poet in the u n d e rw o rld , th e p o w erfu l o p e n in g o f th e o d e, a n d the c o n clu d in g scenes p re s e n tin g th e fate o f th o se c h a lle n g ­ in g J u p i t e r ’s p ow er a n d o rd e r, lines six ty -n in e follow ing. T h e fight o f the gods v ersu s th e gian ts a n d th e triu m p h o f consilium w o u ld m ak e a lively scene as w ell, a n d could be allied in p lacin g o r co n tex t as well as th ro u g h g estu re to the M u ses a n d th e su p e ro rd in a n c e o f th e ir consilium. T h o se fam iliar w ith A u g u sta n a rt cou ld easily w o rk o u t su ch a re p re s e n ­ ta tio n o f th em es. Im a g in e d in this fash io n , ev en h y p o th e tic ally , th e ode m a y be seen to be u n ified a n d in d e ed as u n ified as a n y la rg e A u g u sta n civic historical relief. T o re tu rn to the re a lm o f lite ra ry text: H o ra c e , in th e R o m a n O d e s, p re sen ts a d azzlin g p a ra d e o f w ays to w rite a p o em . T h e first in th e cycle, we have seen, exhibits a u n ify in g p rin c ip le in th e c e n tra lity o f d iv in e p o w er, b u t p resen ts as well a c en trifu g al m odel o f a w o rld fleeing th a t pow er. T h e first ode o f th e second h a lf o f th e cycle, I I I . 4, p re se n ts th a t p o w er as ch allen g ed , b u t o nly in th e tim e -fra m e o f th e p ast: A n to n y a n d th e gian ts, w ho are them selves gone, b u t w ho call to m in d o th e r forces still cap ab le o f m e n ac e , o p p o n e n ts o f A u g u s tu s ’ aim s, a n d E tn a itself. T h is last im age is p re se n te d in a form th a t a d m its little selfc o n g ra tu la tio n on d a n g e r avoided: th e sw ift fire h as n o t {peredit) e a te n th ro u g h su p erim p o se d E tn a ; th e sim ilarity w ith Furor Im pius {Aeneid I.2 9 4 ff.) w ho is c h ain e d b u t striv in g to b re a k loose, is to b e n o te d .12 B oth sin ister figures m ay b re a k th e ir re s tra in ts at som e fu tu re tim e. C o h eren ce a n d u n ity (to assu m e for the a rg u m e n t th a t th ey are d esirab le en d s) can be achieved in a w ide v a rie ty o f w ays b y a skilled poet. In his fo u rth R o m a n O d e , H o ra c e relies u p o n a d o m in a tin g id ea, consilium im p o rte d from a su p e rio r p o w er to a n in fe rio r o rd e r, a n d a tte n ­ d in g ideas a b o u t th e p o w er o f a rt to im pose o rd e r. T h is id ea is w o rk ed o u t in im ages o r scenes th a t are d isp a ra te : th e p o e t’s ch ild h o o d in a ru ra l locale h ith e rto u n g ra c e d by m e n tio n in p o etry ; T ita n s a ssu ltin g h e a v e n ; C a e s a r A u g u stu s, p ro b a b ly a d d u c e d in c o n n ec tio n w ith his trip le triu m p h o f 29 B .C ., receiv in g advice from th e voices o f lite ra tu re ; th e u n d e rw o rld p u n is h m e n t o f those w ho b rin g violence a g a in st o rd e r. T h e se alm o st e m b le m atic scenes co u ld o ccu r serially w ith o u t ra isin g serio u s o b ­ je c tio n in R o m a n plastic a rt, w h ereas in p o e try w e ex p ect u n ity o f th e m e , o rd e rly tra n s itio n , a n d logical, dialectically lin e a r p ro g ressio n o f th o u g h t. H o w m u c h H o ra c e m u st we re a d to cease to be su rp rise d at th e v erv e w ith w hich he v iolates, p u rp o sefu lly a n d c o m p re h e n sib ly , th e se e x p e c ta ­ tions? Y et th e re a re clues to o rd e rly d e v e lo p m e n t; for in sta n c e , th e 12 Cf. M. C. J. Putnam, op. cit. supra, n. 3, pp. 17f.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

55

o p e ra tiv e w o rd consilium a p p e a rs at line fo rty -o n e, ju s t before the p ic tu re th a t th e poet p re sen ts o f th e T ita n s th re a te n in g J u p i t e r ’s ru le . It a p p ea rs a g a in , as b efo re in the first h a lf o f a line o p e n in g a stro p h e, n am ely line sixty-five, in th e g n o m ic p assage m e n tio n e d earlier. F ra m e d b y this re p e titio n is the only p ic tu re w hich the poet p resen ts as sh ared by h im a n d his a u d ien c e : scimus, lin e forty-tw o. H e re th e first p e rso n p lu ral re p re se n ts those w h o m he a d d resses as well as th e M u se s, w hom he has b e e n u n a m b ig u o u sly a d d re ssin g , lines tw en ty -o n e a n d follow ing. M u ses, a u d ie n c e a n d poet a re b o u n d to g e th e r in th e g reat e n u n c ia tio n of th e p o w e r o f h e a v e n ’s rule. T h e o th e r n o n -th ird p e rso n p lu ra l v erb in th e p o em is auditis, in the fo rm o f a q u e stio n at line five. T h e tra d itio n a l ex p lan a tio n s a re th a t the p o et a d d resses h e re e ith e r the boys a n d girls o f III. 1.4, o r the M uses th em selv es, w ho la te r a p p e a r in the p lu ra l, as ju s t seen. Yet a th ird p o ssib ility exists: auditis is a d d re ssed to us, th e a u d ien c e , m u c h as scimus, lin e fo rty -o n e , su b su m es th e a u d ien c e as well as th e M u se s. If th e o p e n ­ in g o f th e text be p e rceiv ed as a process, one c an see how th e p ra y e r, stre ssin g a u d ito ry elem en ts such as die, tibia, melos, voce acuta, fidibus, cithara, is im m e d ia te ly fu lfilled 13 w ith a tte n d a n t so u n d : auditis? audire videor. H e asks th e n o rm a l q u e stio n w h en o n e h e ars so m eo n e o r so m e­ th in g to w hich o n e c a n n o t q u ite give creden ce: “ D o y ou h e a r this? I seem to h e a r . . . ” S u b se q u e n tly th e poet p e n e tra te s th e M u s e s ’ te rrito ry , th c p ii luci, a n d goes o n to p re se n t his a n te c e d e n t cre d en tia ls in stro p h es th ree a n d follow ing. T h e u n sp ecified so u n d th a t he h ears at th e p o e m ’s outset (u n sp ecified save th a t it is a n a p p ro p ria te M u se -a sso c iated resp o n se, b u t w e c a n n o t say w h ich , if a n y , o f th e m usical choices p re se n te d in the first stro p h e th e M u se o r M u ses im p le m e n te d ) grow s m o re d efin ed at the c e n te r p a n el o f th e te x t, the fight ag ain st the g ian ts. In co n n ec tio n w ith th is, a re w e to a ssu m e th a t the poet recalls b o th th e stru g g le w ith the T ita n s (lines forty-tw o follow ing) a n d w ith th e gian ts (fo rty -n in e follow ­ in g ) o r th a t he co n fu sed th e m ? 14 A t an y ra te , so u n d h e re a g ain a p p ea rs for th e second a n d final tim e in th e p oem : th e sonantem Palladis aegida, line fifty-seven. T h e m u sical associations o f A pollo a re tra n sfe rre d to the so u n d s m ad e b y th e aegis o f P allas, the rin g in g b ro n z e o f w hich reacts to th e o n slau g h t o f m in d less d e stru c tiv e force w ith a not u n m u sic al clan g o r th a t accom 13 So Kiessling-Heinze ad toe. 14 Kronos, parent of Zeus, was the leader of the Titans, of whom Horace’s Iapetus (ιOdes 1.3.27) is one; the conventional list of them is in Hesiod, Theog. 132ff. For the giants per se, F. Vian, “ La guerre des géants devant les penseurs de l ’antiquité,” Revue des Etudes Grecques 65 (1952), pp. Iff. On the battle of the giants signifying in Augustan poetry in general the struggle of Augustus against enemies, see V. Buchheit, “ Mythos und Geschichte in Ovids Metamorphosen,” Hermes 94 (1966), pp. 80-108.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

p a n ies the a la rm e n g e n d e re d by the aegis itself. O rd e r is re sto re d th ro u g h consilium, the co n ten t o f ju d g m e n t p re v a ilin g o v er the e m p tin e ss o f b ru te force, b u t a c c o m p a n ied n ev erth eless b y a rt, m u sic, o r p o e try such as this o d e .15 A pollo is assigned a triple set o f d escrip tiv e clauses (lines sixty a n d follow ing) ju s t as w as J u p ite r (lines forty-five a n d follow ing). T w o o f the clauses d e sc rib in g b o th gods are ^«z-clauses, a n d each god h as th e last line o f one stro p h e a n d the w hole o f th e n e x t d ev o ted to h im . F a r from b e in g a poem o f p erso n al lyric g rafted o n to P in d a r ’s First Pythian, 16 this p o em is a h y m n o f p raise to G o d ’s ru le , a m o re o p en s tru c tu re a d u m ­ b ra te d by the relatively closed O d e I I I . 1. T h e p o w e r o f h e a v e n is c o te r­ m in o u s w ith the p ow er o f a rt; J u p ite r a n d A pollo sh are e q u al sta tu s in this m o n u m e n t. T h e ir en em ies w ere such as to in sp ire fear: J u p ite r q u ak es before the onset o f the w a rrin g g ia n ts, line fo rty -n in e , a n d A pollo, to g e th e r w ith P allas, V u lc a n a n d J u n o (a g ro u p in g also re m in isc e n t o f the Aeneid) fights for o rd e r a n d im poses it th ro u g h a rt, skill, a n d ju d g ­ m e n t. Vis temperata, the yoking o f en erg y w ith m in d , is w h a t these p a ra d ig m s in cu lcate, b o th on the level o f p o etic c o m p o sitio n a n d the p oetic p e rso n a , stro p h es th re e th ro u g h n in e , the sp h ere o f p o litical life w h erein reflection a n d clem en t fo reb e aran c e p u rv e y e d b y a id o f lite ra tu re h ave roles (strophe te n ), as well as in the cosm ic stru g g les o f T ita n s a n d g ian ts (stro p h es eleven th ro u g h sixteen ), a n d in its c a lm e r illu stra tio n s o f the p o e t’s thesis (stro p h es sev en teen th ro u g h tw en ty ). T h e h u m b le a n d o b scu re origins o f the poet at th e o u tse t o f I I I . 4, alo n g w ith his u n s ta te d resp o n sib ilities, m ay find a p a ra llel in th e g ia n t G yges o f line sixty-nine, w hose crim e is u n s p e c ifie d ,17 a n d in P irith o u s , n o t even a g ian t b u t sim ply a L a p ith w ho a c c o m p a n ie d T h e s e u s on his m is ­ sion to seize a n d rem ove P ro se rp in a from the u n d e rw o rld , a n d w h o , u n lik e the poet in his p ro je c ted safe w a n d e rin g s, w as c a u g h t a n d k ep t ag ain st his will: like the h u m b le o rig in s o f H o ra c e , a b eliev ab le p ic tu re m o re susceptible o f b ein g u n d e rsto o d in h u m a n te rm s th a n the g ig an to m ach y . B alan ce, p ro g ressio n a n d o rd e r are easily d isce rn e d in th e tex t o f the fo u rth R o m a n O d e . B u t the b a lan c e is sy m m e tric a n d one o f o p p o sites, e .g ., the m usic o f a rt, the rin g in g b ro n z e o f the aegis, a n d n o t th e static b a lan c e o f sim ilarities. F u rth e r, the p ro g ressio n is n o t lin e a r b u t th ro u g h a k in d o f m u ltip le p e ro d ic ity , w h erein th e tim e o f the T ita n s b eco m es th e 15 On the concept of consilium broadly considered, see H. Lott, Consilium·. Vnsuch einer semasiologischer Darstellung des Begriffes für die Zeit der römischer Republik unter Berücksichtigung von Vergil und Horaz, Diss. Freiburg, 1959. 16 Gordon Williams, The Third Book of Horace’s Odes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 53. This has also been persuasively linked to Hesiod’s Theogony; see A. H. F. Thornton, “ Horace’s Ode to Calliope,” AUMLA 23 (1965), pp. 96-102. 17 See Kiessling-Heinze on Horace Odes 11.17.13; cf. Callimachus, Del. 141.

THE FOURTH ROMAN ODE

57

tim e o f the g ia n ts ’ a tte m p te d tak e-o v er; the triu m p h s o f A u g u stu s C a e s a r in 29 B .C ., the p o e t’s child h o o d in the decad es o f th e 6 0 ’s an d 5 0 ’s, the tim e o f h y p o th e tic a l trip s to the fro n tiers o f e m p ire a n d the tim e served in u n d e rw o rld se rv itu d e are all sim u lta n eo u sly p re sen t. O rd e r in I I I .4 is th a t o f c o m p le m e n ta ry b i-p o larities, force b ereft o f ju d g m e n t a n d force in fo rm e d by ju d g m e n t; th e god o f p o e try m usically fig h tin g for u n iv ersal o rd e r, a n d the p o et o f the gods p u g n a cio u sly m u sical o n b e h a lf o f political stab ility . P in d a r ’s First Pythian m ay well hav e p ro v id ed the g ra n d outlines (m u sic, p e rso n a l v icto ry , m ilita ry v ictory, a new c ity ’s fo u n d a tio n , h a r ­ m o n io u s g o v e rn a n ce ) b u t it w as H o ra c e ’s genius to seize the im p e tu s o f R o m a n a rt a n d to yoke opposites in to a su p e rb co m p o sitio n co m p arab le in te c h n iq u e a n d re su lt to ach iev em en ts in civic h isto rical artistic p ro ­ g ra m s in sc u lp tu re a n d re lie f.18 T h e re is n o key to this ode, n o one fru itfu l a p p ro a c h to re a d in g it, save to b e o p en to the im p acts it m akes serially u p o n the m in d as one p ro ­ gressively co n su m es it, to w a tch o n e ’s e x p ectatio n s b e in g th w a rte d o r o u tw itte d o r fo restalled , a n d , b e a rin g in m in d its w holeness like a fa m ilia r m o n u m e n t o r space sh ap ed by a rc h ite c tu re , give o n eself u p to the local effects in th e ir to tal context. J u p i t e r ’s stru g g le a n d success th e re b y in fo rm s A u g u s tu s ’ a n d the p o e t’s as w ell; a rt is a d riv in g force for q u e llin g chaos a n d k eep in g d iso rd e r b e y o n d th e fro n tiers o f civilization a n d o f consciousness itself. T h e amabilis insania, the co in in g o f the w ord temptator (line sev en ty -o n e, after the G re ek πειραστής, “ a s s a ila n t” ), the c o n fin in g o f R o m a n n a m es to the stro p h es le ad in g u p to C a e s a r, a n d the c o n fin in g (except for stro p h e one) o f G reek n a m es to the stro p h es s u b ­ s e q u e n t, the form al p arallels in triad ic u n its o f c o n tra stin g p a irs in the d e sc rip tio n o f J u p ite r , a n d the c u m u la tiv e tria d c h a ra c te riz in g A pollo, all this d ra w in g o f a tte n tio n to the surface te x tu re o f th e p o em , to g e th e r w ith its b e in g the longest o f the R o m a n O d e s, resu lts in its p ro c la im in g of itself as v e rb a l artifice: one o f those e n u n c ia tio n s o r m u sical so u n d s th a t k eep the d a n g e rs o f b lin d n ess a n d u n c h a n n e le d force at bay . 18 See also the sculpture program for the temple of Mars Ultor, an important Augustan project.

CHAPTER SEVEN

T H E F IF T H R O M A N O D E It w ill p e rh a p s h av e b een o b serv ed th a t th e m o n u m e n ta lity o f th e first fo u r R o m a n O d es fu n ctio n s in v a ry in g w ays, w ith n o single ode p re s e n t­ in g a single type o f serious c o n ce rn . T h u s th e first R o m a n O d e asp ires to m o n u m e n ta lity th ro u g h disp lay o f th e p o w er o f J u p ite r , b u t concludes w ith v ario u s p ictu res o f social resp o n se to th e choices o f v alu es affo rd ed in life. T h e second R o m a n O d e c o n ce n tra te s a t its o u tset larg ely on these social p ic tu re s, b u t concludes w ith a re -a sse rtio n o f th e re w a rd s o f virtus a n d o f G o d ’s po w er over th e w o rld reg ard less o f its g u ilt o r in n o c en c e . T h e th ird R o m a n O d e , by m e an s o f a le n g th y h isto ric a l e x e m p lu m in th e form o f a speech o f J u n o , links th e th em es o f p u rp o se fu l p u rs u it o f virtus, R o m e ’s greatn ess a n d th e co n d itio n s on w hich th e p o w e r o f th e state rests. T h e fo u rth R o m a n O d e p re sen ts a g a in G o d ’s c e n tra l p o w e r q u e ll­ ing d iso rd e r b u t m e d ia tes this vision th ro u g h a n a sse rtio n o f th e p o w e r o f p o e try , b o th in g en eral a n d in specific referen ce to H o ra c e him self. T h e social life briefly lost to sight in I I I . 4 resu rfaces in I I I . 5, w h ich , like I I I . 6, ex am in es the values a n d im p ellin g m otives in civic a n d p riv a te life: I I I . 5 in term s o f th e histo rical p a st foreseein g th e p re s e n t, a n d II I. 6 in te rm s o f the p oet a d d re ssin g th e p re se n t a n d fo recastin g th e fu tu re w hile c o n ­ tra s tin g it w ith the p a s t .1 T h u s as the R o m a n O d es m ove to w a rd th e ir final tw o seg m en ts, th e ir a u d ie n c e ’s a tte n tio n is in creasin g ly a d d re ssed to a n a w are n e ss o f th e p re se n t d ay . B ut this a w aren ess has b e en sh ap e d b y th e o rd e r o f e x ­ p erien ce ju s t briefly sketched; o r, seen u n d e r a d ifferen t asp ect: th e o rd e r o f h e av e n a n d society (III. 1), th e categ o ries o f civic life in w a r a n d p eace (III. 2), R o m e ’s cre d en tia ls for success (III. 3), a n d th e p o w e r o f a rt to fu r­ th e r reflectio n a n d to c an alize force ( I I I .4). T h e final tw o p o em s o f th e cycle go on to p re sen t th e ir vision o f R o m a n p o te n tia lity a n d a c tu a lity in context: m o ra l choice is fra u g h t w ith civic c o n se q u e n ce , a n d th e in ­ d iv id u al citizen (R e g u lu s in I I I . 5, you R o m a n in I I I . 6) is th e se ttin g for struggles a n d decisions th a t h av e g rav e im p licatio n s for th e state as well as for him self; th e fabric o f society, th e o rd e r u n d e r h e a v e n , c an b e fatally co m p ro m ise d a n d flaw ed by in d iv id u a l w ro n g -d o in g . In th ese tw o odes 1 1 See also Eduard Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 272ff., Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 111 f., and J. Krdkowski, “ Die Regulus-Ode des H oraz,” Eos 56 (1966; actually 1969), pp. 151-160, on Cicero’s influence in the poem.

THE FIFTH ROMAN ODE

59

th e p o et m oves from p re s e n tin g m o n u m e n ta l statem e n ts w ith lo cu tio n ary force to sta te m e n ts th a t a re basically co n stativ e in th e ir fo rc e .2 B ut th a t force is, I re p e a t, c a rrie d o u t in th e co n tex t c re ate d by th e fo u r p reced in g odes. T h o u g h th e fig u re o f R e g u lu s a d d re ssin g th e S en ate is a m o n u m e n ta l su b jec t, th e fifth R o m a n O d e n ev erth eless c o n tra sts w h at has com e b efo re it in th e m o n u m e n ta l seq u en ce o f texts th a t w e call the R o m a n O d e s. P e rh a p s for th a t re a so n it is useful to b eg in d etailed e x am in atio n of th e R e g u lu s ode w ith its m ost a p p a re n t v erb al sim ilarity to th e p reced in g ode: III. 5 .4 5 f., consilio dato, a n d I I I .4 .4 1 f ., consilium et datis et dato gaudetis. B o th th e fo u rth a n d fifth odes offer consilium, the one ro o ted in th e historic p re s e n t w ith A u g u stu s, th e o th e r in R o m e ’s d ista n t p a st, w ith R eg u lu s. T h e fo u rth a n d fifth ode a re fu rth e r re la ted in th a t b o th h av e caelo in th eir o p e n in g lines. In I I I . 4, th e M u se is in v ited to com e do w n from h eav en to aid th e po et. In I I I . 5 h e av e n is th e place w h ere J u p ite r rules at p resen t a n d w h e re A u g u stu s, a fte r c e rta in events h a v e tak en p lace, will also be lo c ated . T h e consilium o f the M u ses in I I I . 4 h as its political side; the consilium o f R e g u lu s sh a rp e n s th a t political focus. H e a v e n , th e final goal o f A u g u s tu s ’ la b o rs on e a rth , b o th m akes th e consilium av ailab le to the p o e t, a n d h e n c e to u s, in I I I . 4, a n d provid es th e o v e ra rc h in g fram ew o rk th a t will v a lid a te a n d a u th e n tic a te A u g u s tu s ’ political w o rk , th e m o d ern d a y w o rk in g -o u t o f R e g u lu s ’ consilium to lo n g -ag o R o m e . T h u s the th e m e s o f I I I . 4 a n d I I I . 5, b ro a d ly conceived, a re in terlaced on the level o f re p e titio n o f w ords e m b o d y in g those th em es. M o re th a n elsew here in the R o m a n O d e s, R o m a n h isto ry is the co n ­ tex t for this u tte ra n c e ’s fuller c o m p re h en sio n . As G re e k poets h a d d o n e, so H o ra c e likens A u g u s tu s ’ ru le on e a rth to G o d ’s ru le in h e a v e n .3 T h e first s tro p h e ’s second p a ir o f lines, “ adiectis B rita n n is / im p e rio g rav ib u sq u e P e rs is ,” a d d a q u a lific a tio n th a t m u st be in te rp re te d in light o f the h isto rical c o n tex t. J u liu s C e a s a r h a d la n d e d in B rita in in 55/4 B .C ., b u t this te n ta tiv e b e g in n in g , e n d in g in failu re, w as no t follow ed u p , even 2 For a discussion of these terms see J. L. Austin, How to do Things with Words2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), pp. 99-109, andpp. 133-150, and passim. Cf. Stanley Fish, “ How to do Things With Austin and Searle: Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism,” Modern Language Notes 91 (1976), pp. 983-1025. 3 See Gordon Williams, The Third Book of Horace’s Odes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 59, and also ad loc. for the historical background; cf. Florace Odes 1.12.49-60. For Horace’s praise of Augustus, see E. Doblhofer, Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz informalhistorischer Sicht (Heidelberg, 1966). For Augustus as vice-regent of God, see H. Haffner, “ Die fünfte Römerode des Horaz,” Philologus 93 (1938), pp. 132-156. It is the contention of V. Pöschl, Enlretiens Fondation Hardt II (Genève, 1953), pp. 11 Of., 126, that the Roman Odes contain implied warnings for Augustus, as well as praise. Sec also his Horaz und die Politik (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg, 1956).

THE FIFTH ROMAN ODE

th o u g h th e re is re a so n to believe A u g u stu s early in his re ig n c o n ­ te m p la te d actio n a g a in st B rita in . As for th e P a rth ia n s (Persis, I I I . 5 .4 ) th e d efeat o f C ra ssu s a t C a rrh a e in 53 B .C . is p a ra m o u n t in R o m a n -P e rs ia n re la tio n s .4 P lan s w ere afoot no d o u b t for a long tim e b efo re th e p eace o f 20 B .C . w as c o n tra cte d . T h is p eace, re p re se n te d as a v icto ry for R o m e , finally b ro u g h t the re tu rn o f C ra s s u s ’ s ta n d a rd s . O n e m ay co n fid en tly su rm ise th a t H o ra c e ad d resses th e c a p tu re o f M . A tilius R e g u lu s a n d five h u n d re d R o m a n s by the C a rth a g in ia n s in 255 B .C . in lig h t o f th ese c o n ­ te m p o ra ry m o v em en ts in w o rk in g th in g s o u t w ith P a rth ia . T h e R o m a n s m u st n o t forget w h at C ra ssu s lost, a n d th e e x e m p lu m o f R e g u lu s p rovides the necessary w a rn in g . A u g u s tu s ’ d iv in e c re d en tia ls will be co m p leted by the successful reso lv in g o f R o m e ’s E a st-W e st foreign policies. T h e reference to B rita in m a y be p o etic ra th e r th a n p o litical in its p rescrip tiv e force. B u t the references to C ra ssu s, ex em p lified by R e g u lu s ’ speech, speak directly to c o n te m p o ra ry fo reign e n ta n g le m e n ts, the details o f w hich the critic should possess. T h is g ro u n d in g o f the n e x t-to -last R o m a n O d e in c o n te m p o ra ry outlook serves to ro o t the w hole series in a p ra g m a tic fu n c tio n : to d irect the aw aren ess o f the citizens, th a t is, th e s ta te ’s c o m p o n e n ts, a lo n g c e r­ ta in m o ral lines. H a v in g R eg u lu s in m in d p ro v id es th e b e st fram e w o rk in w hich to view relatio n s w ith P a rth ia . T h u s b o th p o e try a n d h isto ry m ak e im p a c t on a ctu al life. B ut the fifth R o m a n O d e is m u c h m o re th a n a political tra c t, a d v o ca tin g one side o f th e a rg u m e n t th a t e n su e d w h en A u g u stu s closed the tem p le o f J a n u s in 29 B .C . a n d p re c ip ita te d o u tcries from som e for ra n so m in g R o m e ’s p riso n e rs in P a rth ia . R a th e r the ode is clearly lin k ed as well to the m o ral calculus set u p b y the w hole series. T h e R o m a n soldiers c a p tu re d by the P a rth ia n s (o r C a rth a g in ia n s , in the v o cab u la ry o f the R eg u lu s speech) are in cold fact R o m a n s n o lo n g e r .5 T h e R o m a n citizens e n th ra lle d by vice, a m b itio n , a n d th e o th e r p riv a te defects th a t becom e p u b lic diseases in th e R o m a n O d es are likew ise tru e R o m a n s n o lo n g er. T h e s ta te ’s reso u rces, R eg u lu s says, w o u ld be b a d ly u sed to ra n so m m e n e n e rv a te d by liv in g as cap tiv es, a n d the w o rd s he uses, auro repensus, recall the w ro n g use o f p riv a te reso u rces a llu d e d to in IIT 1, e .g ., 21 ff., I I I . 2, e .g ., Iff., I I I . 3, 21 f . (th o u g h this last m ig h t also be c o n stru e d as civic fu n d s w ith eld for p e rso n al g ain ), I I I .3 .4 9 f f ., a n d by im p licatio n the v irtu e o f slen d er m e a n s, III.4 .9 ff. E v id en tly th e th e m e o f g reed is w idely d istrib u te d th ro u g h the cycle. F u rth e r, like I I I . 2, I I I . 3 a n d I I I .4 in p a rt, I I I . 5 re p re se n ts the c ro ssin g o f d o m estic b o u n d a rie s 4 See H. Fugier, “ Horace et les Parthes,” Bulletin de la Facuiti des Lettres de Strasbourg 46 (1967), pp. 283-291. 5 See G. Williams, op. cit. supra, n. 3, ad loc. for a discussion of minor capitis as deminutio capitis, implying loss of civil rights.

THE FIFTH ROMAN ODE

61

in to fo reig n te rrito rie s in m ilitary activities w hich are ideally successful in th e case o f th e R o m a n w a rrio r in I I I . 2, m ad e co n d itio n al by J u n o in I I I .3 .57ff., a n d b o th tin g ed w ith rem in iscen ces o f the civil w a r in I I I . 4 37ff. a n d re d o le n t w ith d e stru ctiv en e ss, e .g ., I I I.4 .6 5 ff.: “ vis consili ex p ers m ole ru it s u a .” T h is use o f consilium is significant in light b o th of R e g u lu s ’ consilium in I I I . 5.44, a n d th a t o f the M u ses in I I I . 4.41 as an aly sis e a rlie r n o te d . T h e th e m e o f m ilita ry th ru s t in to foreign lan d s is closely id en tified w ith the th e m e o f consilium, o r the ju stific a tio n for each such actio n . L et us in d e tail e x am in e the R eg u lu s ode in light o f these ten ta tiv e lin k ag es w ith o th e r p oem s in the cycle as ex p erien ced by a re a d e r w ho has re a d the R o m a n O d es u p to the fifth. T h e first stro p h e crosses two categ o ries im p le m e n te d over a n d ov er in the cycle: the p ast a n d the fu tu re , w hich b ra c k et a p re se n t tim e o u t o f w hich the poet speaks to a p re se n t a u d ie n c e . T h e th u n d e rin g o f J u p ite r is a sign o f w a r o r peace, b o th p o rte n t a n d ju d g m e n t, c h a ra c te riz in g the age-old b elief in the w e a th e r god, the sk y -fath er J u p i t e r .6 B elief in A u g u stu s as a god am o n g us o n e a rth (the fu n c tio n o f praesens) will sim ilarly be c h a ra c te riz e d by an o u tw a rd sign, the su b ju g a tio n o f B rita in an d P a rth ia to his ru le. In g ra p h ic te rm s, god a n d ru le r are sy m m etrical o n the sam e p lan e: a fe a tu re also n o te d in c o n te m p o ra ry R o m a n h istorical re lie fs .7 T h u s this p o e m b e g in s 8 w ith a n a sse rtio n facing b ack to the ru le o f law a n d o rd e r in h e a v e n o f O d e I I I . 4 a n d fo rw a rd to its h u m a n co ro llary o n e a rth , R o m e ’s im p e riu m e x erted over h e r e n em ies, ju s t as m e n a c in g as the gian ts w ere to J u p ite r . A u g u stu s h as to be sure d eclared p eace, a n d th e B ritain s an d P a rth ia n s c a n n o t be a d d e d to the e m p ire w ith o u t fu rth e r w ar. B ut c h a ra c te ristic a lly H o ra c e tu rn s from the level o f logic to th e level o f poetic im ag e: C ra s s u s ’ so ld ie rs’ d e g ra d a tio n is p re se n te d in th e second stro p h e in te rm s o f fam ily alliance w ith the e n em y , a n d in the th ird stro p h e in te rm s o f o b lite ra tio n o f R o m e ’s sacred civic sym bols such as the S alian shields th a t cam e d o w n from h e a v e n to N u m a , a n d th e nomen Romanum, th e to g a a n d V e s ta ’s fire. T h e G od th u n d e rin g in h e a v e n at th e o p en in g o f stro p h e one is precisely th e god e n th ro n e d in his C a p ito lin e tem p le, 6 This seems to be the implication of the pluperfect credidimus. Portents of thunder occurring through the year and often predicting concord or civil war were interpreted in the divinatory calendar Tonitruale of Nigidius Figulus, a contemporary of Cicero; see Kroll, R-E. 17, 208 f., and S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 263f. The association in Odes III.5 of thunder and war is thus not accidental or fanciful; cf. Odes 1.34.5-7. 7 Though not contemporary with Horace, the Cancelleria Reliefs follow very closely the style of the Ara Pacis Augustae, and show the Emperor (Domitian) on the same plane as divine and divinized figures. 8 We understand always the proviso that the cycle could be read as some MSS suggest, as a whole. See above, note 7, p. 7.

62

THE FIFTH ROMAN ODE

recollected th ro u g h line tw elve, “ in co lu m i lo v e et u rb e R o m a ,” a n a d a p ­ ta tio n o f the a n cie n t sacral fo rm u la salva urbe atque arce. 9 R e g u lu s, in c a rn a tin g values o f a n c ie n t R o m e , is in tro d u c e d as a n a n c ie n t e x em p lu m in sta rk c o n tra st to the m o d e rn M a rs ia n a n d A p u lia n , w hose g eo g rap h ic rem o ten ess o f o rig in one w o u ld w illingly hav e th o u g h t g u a ra n te e d th e ir p ristin e m o rals. R e g u lu s, a figure fro m th e p a s t , 101 foresees for us now the pernicies, the ro t, th a t com es “ si n o n p e rire t cap tiv a p u b es. ” T h e state m u st cu t off those th a t hav e n o t lived u p to th e s ta te ’s ex p ectatio n s o f th e m . T h o se w ho jo in th e e n e m y , b e th ey C a rth a g in ia n s o f m id th ird c e n tu ry B .C . o r P a rth ia n s o f m o d e rn d a y (o r ev en , p e rh a p s, those opp o sin g A u g u stu s? ) becom e the e n e m y a n d lose th e ir R o m a n id en tity . T h e good o f th e in s titu tio n o f th e state takes p reced en ce o v er the w ell-being o f those o f its m e m b e rs w ho hav e trafficked w ith the en em y . R e g u lu s ’ speech, in a sm u c h as it is th e act o f a n in d iv id u al e q u ip p e d (unlike J u n o in I I I . 3) w ith such h u m a n ch aracteristics as a w ife, ch ild re n , a n d a d o m estic c a re e r (as lines forty one th ro u g h fifty-six em p h asiz e) softens the p o te n tia l h a rsh n e ss o f su ch a m essage by allow ing us to see how d isastro u sly this o u tlo o k affects one m a n , the speaker. H e is d estro y ed , in d e ed p re c ip ita tes his ow n d e s tru c ­ tio n , by fully im p le m e n tin g the civic valu es w hich he esp o u ses, b u t his e x em p lu m is fully in te g ra te d into the h isto ry o f th e in stitu tio n : b o th the state a n d this poetic e x altatio n o f the state c ele b ra te h im . A ccordingly, the speech o f R eg u lu s as re p o rte d b y H o ra c e does n o t re p re se n t a rh eto rical act d ire c ted at the sen a to rs w ho w ere w a v e rin g in th e ir d elib eratio n s o f how to h a n d le th e ir h o stag e p r o b le m .11 H is speech is not rh eto rical b u t ra th e r a series o f a p h o rism s th a t en su e a fte r his a b ru p t m id -stro p h e in itia tin g o f his speech w ith vivid ey e-w itn ess re p o rt­ age: “ vidi, v id i,” line tw en ty -o n e. F u rth e r, R e g u lu s ’ speech to the R o m a n S enate is the only o th e r d irectly re p o rte d speech act in the cycle besides J u n o ’s speech to the h e av e n ly assem b ly in I I I . 3. As J u n o sets dow n divine san ctio n s on R o m e ’s h isto rical p ro g ress, b a se d o n o u tw a rd actions a n d m o ral p re su m p tio n s, so too R e g u lu s ’ d isco u rse p u ts lim its on R o m a n g reatn ess should c ertain m o ral p recep ts n o t be follow ed. Like J u n o , ( I I I .3 .4 9 , aurum inrepertum) R e g u lu s m e n tio n s gold, auro repensus, I I I . 5 .2 5 ,12 as the sym bol o f m o ral defect, a n d he also invokes vera virtus in

9 G. Williams, op. cit. supra, n. 3, p. 58, n. 1. 10 Comparison has been made to Odysseus: L. Hinckley, “ Regulus and Odysseus,” Classical Bulletin 55 (1979), pp. 56-58. 11 So George Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 399. 12 Note that both locales exhibit the prefix re- immediately after the metal is mentioned, and involve verbs in pe-\ reperto and rependo.

THE FIFTH ROMAN ODE

63

line tw e n ty -n in e in a co n tex t o f civic resp o n sib ility exercised in foreign w a rs, m u c h like virtus’ co n tex t in 111.2.17 ff. a n d 2 Iff. R eg u lu s fu rth er asserts th a t fear o f d e a th a n d loss o f civic id e n tity an d d isre g ard o f the s ta te ’s valu es cam e a b o u t th ro u g h d e p en d e n c e on o n e ’s e n em y th ro u g h lo n g c ap tiv ity : a set o f actio n s forestalled in the second R o m a n O d e by th e a sse rtio n “ dulce et d e c o ru m est pro p a tria m o r i,’’ I I I . 2.13. R e g u lu s concludes his fictive speech (the fictiveness o f w hich H o race e m p h asiz es in these w ays) by a sse rtin g th a t the cap tiv e, u p ro o te d an d d e ra n g e d , confuses p eace w ith w a r, a n d no lo n g er know s the w ay to w in his life: a th e m e voiced at the very o u tset o f the cycle in the confusion o f m o ra l values set fo rth in I I I . 1. T h u s m a jo r elem en ts in his w ords can be lin k ed b o th th e m a tica lly a n d v erb ally to o th e r le ad in g ideas in o th er p o em s in this cycle. T h e poem s re so n ate in d ifferen t registers a n d co n ­ tex ts a relativ ely n a rro w ra n g e o f th e m e s, ju s t as a larg e a n d com plex h isto rical re lie f often keeps to relativ ely few statem e n ts. F o u r a n d a h a lf stro p h es p reced e R e g u lu s ’ d isco u rse, w h erein H o race m e d ia tes b etw ee n p re se n t a n d p a st. F o u r stro p h es succeed th e speech, w h e re in H o ra c e lingers on the p riv a te , h u m a n d im e n sio n of R e g u lu s ’ s itu a tio n , a n d does n o t re tu rn us in tim e to the p re se n t, b u t ra th e r fo resh adow s only R e g u lu s ’ im m e d ia te u n p le a s a n t p ro sp ects. T h e four Final stro p h es a re d iv id ed in h a lf by the stro n g p article atqui, line fortyn in e , w hich acco m p an ies a ch an g e o f ten se, th e im p erfect indicative sciebat. B efore atqui, H o ra c e has allow ed the v erb fertur, line forty-one, to d o m in a te the tw o p re c ed in g strophes: “ T h e y say he p u t from h im se lf the kiss o f his chaste wife a n d his little c h ild r e n ...” T h is fertur achieves d ista n ce from the im m e d ia te ly p re c e d in g p re se n ta tio n o f R eg u lu s, an d g ain s a h isto rical d im e n sio n as well. R e g u lu s h a s, in vidi, vidi, line th irty o n e , fu n c tio n e d as a n eyew itness. N ow he too h as his w itness. T h e n a r ­ ra tiv e re a sserts itself as the c o m p ellin g p ic tu re o f R eg u lu s a n d his civic a n d d o m estic s itu a tio n is review ed. H is consilium to the R o m a n S enate c a n now be c h a ra c te riz e d as numquam alias datum, line forty-six. B ut in w h a t co n tex t? Solely th a t o f advice h ith e rto given to the patres conscripti in the h isto ry o f R o m e . T h e im p licatio n s o f R e g u lu s ’ consilium, its in n er v alu es a n d m o ral p re m ises, a n d o f course this p re sen t m e d ia tio n o f his fam o u s d ic tu m are all m a d e av ailab le th ro u g h the R o m a n O d e s. T h e con­ silium o f the M u ses a n d o f J u n o have b een in terw o v en w ith the m o ral an d h e n ce h isto ric a l fab ric o f R o m e from h er in cep tio n in T ro y . By d ra w in g a tte n tio n in III.5 .4 5 ff. to the te m p o ra l d im e n sio n H o ra c e directs the a u d ie n c e to th e h u m a n , im m e d ia te q u a lity o f the ev en t he has ju s t recalled for th e m . B ut by u sin g the w ord consilium he in su res th a t the a tte n tiv e re a d e r will in te g ra te this h isto rical e x e m p lu m in to the c o n tin u i­ ty o f a rtistic e v en t th a t the cycle has h ith e rto m a d e av ailab le to h im .

64

THE FIFTH ROMAN ODE

T h e second h a lf o f the o d e ’s c o n clu d in g m o v e m e n t c o n c e n tra te s o n th e re v e rb e ra tio n s o f the scene of d ra m a tic farew ell ju s t p re s e n te d . If the p o et m akes his in te rv e n in g a rt n o ticeab le in th e p h ra se consilium numquam alias datum, he likew ise m akes h im self a p p a re n t in the atqui sen te n c e, w hich ch an g es the tone from one o f re p o rta g e {fertur) to c o m m e n ta ry : th e p o et tells us w h a t w as going on in R e g u lu s ’ m in d , a n d c o n tra sts it w ith his o u te r actions. “ A nd yet he knew w h a t th e b a rb a ria n to rtu re r w as re a d y ­ in g for h i m . . . ” R eg u lu s goes to his fate as if he w ere go in g to a c o u n try h o lid ay a fte r a long R o m a n d a y o f litig a tio n h a d finally e n d e d a n d a ju d g ­ m e n t for a client h a d b e e n p ro n o u n c e d . T h e p o et em p h asizes th e e v e ry ­ day settin g o f R e g u lu s ’ e x tra o rd in a ry actio n a n d c h a ra c te riz e s in these ev ery -d ay term s R e g u lu s ’ d e p o rtm e n t in o rd e r to p ro v id e access to the consilium on a n e v ery -d ay level, g ra sp ab le b y an y re a d e r. O n e m a y n o t be fa m ilia r w ith the god, M u ses o r princeps, b u t one h a d a sense o f w h a t a R o m a n business d a y w a s .13 F u rth e r, by re tu rn in g th e ode to this level of d om estic reality , H o ra c e creates the o p p o rtu n ity for seein g th a t th e e n em y we m ig h t be accused o f c o n so rtin g w ith , th e e n e m y th a t re n d e rs us oblivious o f o u r R o m a n w o rth , m ig h t exist in a d o m estic se ttin g as well as b ey o n d the e m p ire ’s fro n tiers, o r in lyric p oem s: a th e m e to be carefu lly explored in the sixth a n d final R o m a n O d e , b u t fo resh ad o w ed b y this choice o f e n d in g for the fifth. T h e p ra c tica lly m y th ic s ta tu re o f R e g u lu s, u n d e rsc o re d by the use o ffertur, line fo rty -o n e, m ak es his sto ry av ailab le o n m o re th a n the h isto rical level; the m o ra l d im e n sio n s are u n m is ­ ta k ab le, an d m ore on the surface th a n w ith m u c h a n c ie n t h isto rio g ra p h y . T h e explicit e x em p lu m o f line fifteen w o u ld be the w ro n g h e a d e d d ecisio n to ra n s o m R eg u lu s a n d his five h u n d re d c o m p a n io n s; the pernicies o f line sixteen covers b o th a sh am efu l tre a tin g w ith P a rth ia for th e s ta n d a rd s a n d re m n a n ts o f C ra s s u s ’ a rm y , a n d the m o ra l d e g ra d a tio n w hich th a t w ould im p ly .14 B ut it likew ise ex ten d s to th e re a lm o f p e rso n a l m o ra lity in ev ery -d ay life (a th em e H o ra c e explores in Satires a n d Epistles as w ell), th ro u g h the a p p lic atio n o f the p rin c ip le o f re a d in g th e w hole cycle as a re c u rrin g a n d stable p ro je c tio n of v o c a b u la ry m a k in g s ta te m e n ts o n dif-

13 This also has a bearing on the domestic emphasis in III.6, as we will see. The vocabulary of the Odes in general, as of the Aeneid, tends somewhat toward everyday language; see L. P. Wilkinson, “ The Language of Vergil and Horace,” Classical Quarterly 9 (1959), pp. 181-192. 14 The image of the dyed wool not regaining its former color or purity seems to be associated with moral discussions: Persius 3.37 and the scholium: “ metaphora a lana, quae corrupta ad pristinum colorem reverti non potest.” Ennius’ comment along the same lines, probably in protest against the ransoming of Roman prisoners taken at Cannae, is also pertinent in connection with Horace’s passage: “ cum illud quo tarn semel est imbuta veneno,” Ann. 5.35. The image, like so many others in the Roman Odes, is an old one, and operates often in a moral context.

THE FIFTH ROMAN ODE

65

fe re n t levels o f m e a n in g a n d h en ce cap a b le o f a w ide, b u t n o t a b o u n d le ss, ra n g e o f in te rp re ta tio n . A n e x a m in a tio n o f how H o ra c e m a n ip u la te s th e e n d o f I I I . 5 along th ese lines m a y be useful. T h e egregius exul, line fo rty -eig h t, electing n o t to re tu rn to R o m e a g ain o u t o f free choice, a n d h en ce n o b le, d e p a rts from a se ttin g o f his civic la b o rs th a t is as d e tailed a n d as p ro g ra m m a tic as an y h isto ric a l relief. T h e S e n a te h as m e t in the C u ria , a n d R e g u lu s, m oving th ro u g h the crow d o u tsid e it, m akes his w ay p a st the scu lp tu re o f M a rs y a s , b etw een the C o m itiu m a n d the L acu s C u rtiu s , w h ere th e lites (line fifty-four), the law cases, w ere h eld . T h e röle he ex h ib its is th a t o f a patronus w ho h as looked a fte r his c lie n t’s tim e -c o n su m in g case a n d is le av in g tow n a fte r the v e rd ic t; n ote th a t we are n o t told w hich w ay it w ent. R e g u lu s has d o n e his civic d u ty reg ard less o f o u tco m e, w h e th e r he a n d his clien t h av e w on o r lost: a d u ty e x tra o rd in a ry on the level o f the actu al choice he m a d e , to re tu rn to c e rta in a n d p a in fu l d e a th in C a rth a g e , b u t m u n d a n e a n d ev ery -d ay on the level o f the p ic tu re w hich th e p o e t’s w ords tra n s m it. T h e v ery stro n g c o n tra st b etw een o u te r asp ect a n d in n e r sig n ificance is re in fo rce d by h a v in g R e g u lu s ’ calm d e p a rtu re have as its h y p o th e tic al d e stin a tio n , in acco rd w ith his d e lib e rate w ith d ra w in g , the te rrito ry o f V e n a fru m , w ell-know n for its fine olive oil, o r T a re n tu m , fa m o u s for b o th oil a n d h o n e y , a n d b o th e leg an t places for re la x atio n in a c o u n try villa, a n d b o th very unlike C a rth a g e . T h e se place n a m es u n ­ m ista k a b ly im ply a n e n c o m iu m o f la n d sc a p e asso ciated w ith th e w o rld o f th e p a sto ra l. T h e referen ce to “ L a c e d o m o n ia n T a r e n tu m ” is in te re stin g ; co u ld H o ra c e be re fe rrin g to P in d a r Olympian 18 w h erein P h a la n th u s the L a c o n ia n le a d e r is p ra ise d as th a t c ity ’s fo u n d e r? 15 If so, H o ra ce as c e le b ra n t o f its la tte r-d a y n o n -a rriv in g v isito r links h im se lf to P in d a r once a g ain . F o r R e g u lu s, th e case is o v er, diiudicata lite, a n d the v erd ict in. So too w as it for H o ra c e , a n d for everyone w ho w o u ld re a d his p o em s. T h e lines o f d u ty ra n c lea r, from R e g u lu s th ro u g h the c e n tu rie s to the p re se n t day. It re m a in s for the sixth R o m a n O d e to show how aw aren ess o f re sp o n ­ sibility does n o t in su re rig h t action. 15 Tarentum and Venafrum figure also in Odes 11.6.11 ff ; see also E. Paratore, “ Taranto nella poesia augustea,” Rassegna Pugliese 1.2 (1966), pp. 1-24.

CHAPTER EIGHT

T H E S IX T H R O M A N O D E I f carmen I I I . 5, in its p ictu res o f R eg u lu s a d d re ssin g th e R o m a n sen a te a n d ta k in g leave o f his fam ily a n d friends in th e F o ru m com es closest o f th e R o m a n O d es to a R o m a n h istorical relief, a n d h en ce to p lastic a rt in g e n eral, in its assignable locale, th e Final ode m ak es o n ly slight referen ce to real a rc h ite c tu ra l m o n u m e n ta lity , a n d in te re stin g ly e n o u g h does this a t its o u tset: the tem ples a n d shrines o f th e gods, th e ir n eg lect, a n d th e ir p o te n tia l re n o v a tio n . T h e b a lan c e o f th e o d e, w hilst a b o u n d in g in vivid p ic tu re s, as will be n o te d , m ed iates a m o ral calcu lu s th a t c a n n o t b e e m ­ b odied in p ictorial a rt. By stressin g th e p rim a c y o f p o e try in this w ay at th e en d of the cycle, H o ra c e a g ain em p h asizes th e p o w er o f his a rt, an d b y im p licatio n his sta tu re as a p oet a n d as seer. T h e tex t in tw elve stro p h es can be d iv id ed for p u rp o se s o f e lu c id a tin g its p ro g ressio n a n d its relatio n s w ith th e p re c e d in g p oem s in to g ro u p s o f fo u r s tro p h e s .1 T h e o p e n in g has very often b e e n lin k ed to A u g u s tu s ’ b e g in n in g , in 28 B .C ., a p ro g ra m o f re sto rin g R o m a n tem p les a n d p riesth o o d s th a t h a d fallen into neglect a n d d e s u e tu d e ,12 a n d th e o rig in al a u d ien c e w ould h av e fo u n d itself in th e m id st o f th ese p ro je c ts, w hich Finally e n co m p assed the re sto ra tio n o f eig h ty -tw o tem p les in th e C ity . B ut fu rth e r, the templa in stro p h e one p ro ceed n a tu ra lly e n o u g h from th e civic settin g o f R e g u lu s ’ farew ell in th e F o ru m R o m a n u m , p ro b a b ly to be im ag in ed n o t far from the site o f th e new te m p le o f D iv u s Iu liu s, n e a r the T e m p le o f C a s to r a n d P o llu x , a n d d ed ica te d in 29 B .C . In a n y e v e n t, the m e n tio n o f th e tem ples accords w ith th e sacerd o tal c h a ra c te r o f th e s tro p h e ’s o p e n in g w ords, p ro n o u n c in g ju d g m e n t (inmeritus, donee) on Romanus, y o u R o m a n citizen , c a u g h t u p th ro u g h a ccid en t o f b e in g b o rn a d e sc e n d en t o f sinful an cesto rs in th e ir g u ilt. By th e v ery R o m a n ren ew al o f civic b u ild in g s th e so m ew h at u n ro m a n g u ilt th ro u g h in h e rita n c e o r b lood-line is to be a to n e d for, o r so th e vates asserts. T h e unqualiF ied c o n ­ fidence o f H o ra c e ’s p ro n o u n c e m e n t on g u ilt, th e gods a n d th e sta te , m e t a g a in in the final stro p h e o f the tex t, recalls th e sacral c h a ra c te r o f th e very first stro p h e o f th e cycle, III. 1.1-4, as well as th e to n e o f p ro n o u n c e ­ m e n t in the o p e n in g o f th e p re c e d in g o d e, I I I . 5 .1 -4 , a n d th e co n fid en ce o f c o m m a n d issued in I I I . 4.1-4: poem s o n e, fo u r, five a n d six b e g in w ith a 1 See also the discussion of III .6 in Eduard Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford: Oxford Universi­ ty Press, 1957), pp. 261, 285ff. 2 Res Gestae 20.4.

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

67

o n e -stro p h e sen ten ce w h erein the p o e t’s sacral a n d m o ral a u th o rity is m a n ife ste d a n d re n e w e d , a re c u rrin g featu re o f the cycle g ain in g c u m u la tiv e effect th a t crests in the final stro p h e o f the sixth poem . T h e p o e t’s division o f the final poem in th e R o m a n O d es in to th ree sy m m e tric al p a rts likew ise parallels a division o f the only poem o f the cycle in tw elve stro p h e s, th e o p e n in g p o em . T h e re a division in to th ree g ro u p s o f fo u r stro p h es each , in c lu d in g the o p e n in g fo u r lines, is possible a lo n g th e m a tic lines (stro p h es one th ro u g h four: o rd e r an d class; five th ro u g h eight: d issatisfaction a n d c o n te n tm e n t; n in e th ro u g h tw elve; a m ­ b itio n ’s lim ita tio n s) b u t th e re the b re a k in g p o in ts, th o u g h q u ite a p p a re n t th ro u g h the c o n tra stin g p ictu res b e g in n in g in stro p h es five a n d nin e, do n o t serve a p ro g ressio n o f ideas as do those in I I I . 6: stro p h es one th ro u g h fo u r: the state a n d its d a n g ers; five th ro u g h eight: d o m estic co rru p tio n ; n in e th ro u g h tw elve: d o m estic v irtu es o f the p a st as benefits o f the state; g n o m e o f p re se n t d ecay , b o th social a n d civic. N ev erth eless, th e identical n u m b e r o f stro p h e s, in c lu d in g the first tw o b e in g e n d -sto p p ed , an d the trip a rtite division, stro n g ly suggest th a t O d es III. 1 a n d I I I . 6 w ere m ad e to look so m ew h a t alike in th e ir fu n c tio n in g as in tro d u c to ry an d co n ­ c lu d in g texts for the s e q u e n c e .3 T o re tu rn to I I I . 6 itself: th e second stro p h e , in its a d u m b ra tio n o f the c h ain o f c o m m a n d , “ dis te m in o re m , q u o d geris, im p e r a s ,” likew ise looks b a ck to the second stro p h e o f III. 1, w ith its h ie ra rc h y o f G o d , kings a n d ru le d p eoples. F u rth e r, the second stro p h e o f I I I . 6 en cap su lates o th e r e lem en ts from elsew here in the R o m a n O d es; for in stan ce, di neglecti, I I I . 6 .7 , recalls Diespiter neglectus o f III.2 .2 9 f. (its co n clu d in g stro p h e ), a n d th e a tte n tiv e re a d e r will soon discover fu rth e r p arallels, b o th lexical a n d o th e r, such as co rre sp o n d e n c e betw een th em e an d stro p h e le n g th , w o rd p la c e m e n t, e tc ., betw een the first p h ases o f the final p o em in the series a n d its a n te c e d e n ts. F o r in stan ce, th e sixth line o f the p o e m , “ h in c [viz., th e gods] o m n e p rin c ip iu m , h u c refer e x itu m ,” has, 3 Nothing is implied about the simultaneity of composition of III. 1 and III.6, although obviously the question can be raised. Both poems also touch on religious matters, e.g., ‘sacerdos M usarum,’ III.1.3, and ‘di neglecti,’ III.6.7. For the religious context, we should bear in mind that the connection between the di neglecti and the state’s potential faltering was well-established. Cicero had made many suggestions about religious reforms in De re publica and later in his De legibus. Around 47 B.C. Varro published his Antiquitates rerum divinarum, dedicated to Julius Caesar as Pontifex Maximus. Its purpose was to save the gods from perishing through negligence of the Romans; Varro asserted that the Romans conquered the world because of their piety toward the gods, and implied that the Empire would survive if the gods received their due; (Frag. 36 Ag., Tertullian Apol. 25; cf. Minucius Felix 25.1 and S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 181; M. P. Charlesworth, “ Pietas and Victoria, ” Journal of Roman Studies 33 (1943), pp. 1-10. On Horace’s probable ideology as vates, see F. Solmsen, “ Die Dichteridee des Horaz und ihre Probleme,” Zeitschrift für Aesthetik 26 (1932), pp. 160ff.

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

in the co n tex t o f line five, imperas, a m ilita ry c o n n o ta tio n . J u n o ’s speech in the th ird R o m a n O d e , I I I.3 .4 9 ff., speaks o f how th e R o m a n s com e to w o rld d o m in a tio n , a n d im p u tes m ilita ry success to h e a lth y fear o f a n d respect for the gods. H e r co n tex t is a ttitu d e to w a rd gold as th e in d ex to m o ral su p erio rity : a p o in t not w ith o u t b e a rin g for th e c y cle ’s c o n c lu d in g p o em as w ell. F u rth e r, the sixth p o e m ’s th ird stro p h e , w ith its referen ce to the R o m a n e x p ed itio n o f O p p iu s S ta tia n u s a g a in st P a r th ia ’s g en eral M o n aeses reso n ates the p ic tu re o f a R o m a n c a m p a ig n to fo reign p a rts in II I .2 .6 f f ., a n d c o n tra sts to its p re su m e d success O p p iu s ’ loss o f tw o legions o f A n to n y ’s a rm y at the h a n d s o f th e P a rth ia n s in 36 B .C . a n d the d efeat in 40 B .C . o f the a rm y o f the S y rian leg ate L . D e cid iu s S a x a b y P a c o ru s, w ho in te re stin g ly e n o u g h is the son o f the k in g o f P a rth ia , a shadow y rem in iscen ce p e rh a p s o f the regius sponsus o f I I I . 2.10. T h e d e fe a ts ,4 the poet av ers, w ere inflicted on c a m p a ig n s th a t w ere in­ auspicatos impetus, I I I .6 .1 0 .5 T h e tech n ical te rm d eserv es c o m m e n t. Since not once b u t tw ice R o m a n forces m o v in g a g a in st P a rth ia w ere d e fe ate d , a n d since the assistance o f the d iv in ity is a ssu re d b y v alid au sp ices, each m ilita ry o p e ra tio n m u st have b e en c o m m en ced non auspicato, th e di neglecti w ith h o ld in g th e ir aid. T h e tw ofold failure o f co u rse m ak es th e div in e d isp leasu re even m o re u n m ista k a b le . H o ra c e , as sacerdos a n d as vates, p ositions ta k en p rin c ip a lly in III. 1.1-4 a n d I I I .4 .5 ff., n a m e ly th e b e g in ­ n in g a n d m id dle o f the R o m a n O d e s, h ere a p p e a rs as ju d g e o f w h a t sin the p re se n t age incurs b ecau se o f its fo reb e ars, a n d , m o re p a rtic u la rly p ro n o u n c e s w h at w as not (a n d by im p licatio n w h a t is) fav o red b y the gods th ro u g h auspices. T h e u rb a n p ro ject o f re b u ild in g tem p les w o u ld h av e b e en acc o m p a n ied by ta k in g the au sp ices, a n d this fav o red e n te r ­ prise will offset the guilt c h a ra c te riz e d b y th e u n fa v o re d e x te rn a l m ilita ry p rojects o f w a r a g a in st P a rth ia , a n d , in the fo u rth stro p h e , th e n e a rly unsuccessful defense o f the R u m a n ia n b o rd e r from th e D a c ia n s a n d th e C ity R o m e itself from “ A e th io p s ,” the E g y p tian s, h ere p re s e n te d n o t as p a rtic ip a n ts in A n to n y ’s civil w a r a g ain st R o m e , b u t as a foreign a n ta g o n ist. R o m e , d istra c te d by civil d iso rd e r, n e arly falls p re y to fo reign atta ck . T h e se n e a r successes o f R o m e ’s en em ies rev eal the e n m ity o f h e a v e n , a n d im m e d ia te ly th e re com e to m in d th e provisos o f J u n o ’s

4 Note that bis, “ twice,” stands early in the sentence and is thus emphasized. 5 On-the-spot auguries for engaging the enemy in battle, auspicia ex tripudiis, may be what Horace has in mind in III.6.10, inauspicatos impetus, but he likely as well meant auspicia publica undertaken in connection with the armies in question setting out from Rome. Unlike dependence on the tripudium sollistimum, the auspicia publica would involve caelestia auspicia and signa ex avibus, as would temple re-dedications; the former is thus probably a significant aspect of the preceding poem’s opening, Caelo tonantem Iovem, 111.5.1 ff., a sign likewise linked to Rome’s conquering of her enemies.

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

69

a d d re ss in III. 3 .3 7 ff., w h e re in q u ick succession b o th P a rth ia (line fortyfo u r) a n d E g y p t (line fo rty -eig h t) a re fo u n d , c h a ra c te riz in g R o m a n rule. T h u s th e first fo u r stro p h es o f I I I .6 show , on th e n eg ativ e side, the crim es o f th e p re s e n t g e n e ra tio n ’s an cesto rs {Delicta maiorum, line one), th e d is re p a ir a n d neglect o f the C ity ’s tem p les a n d cult statu es {aedes labentes deorum et foeda nigro simulacra fum o) a n d h en ce o f R o m e ’s gods, the p re c e d e n t o f d iv in e a tta c k on H e sp e ria b e ca u se o f h u m a n neglect o f cult {di multa neglecti dederunt Hesperiae mala luctuosae), th e tw o E a stern defeats, a n d th e D a c ia n a n d E g y p tia n th re a ts. O n th e positive side is fo u n d only th e v e rb imperas (line five) a n d its e x p la n a tio n , dis te minorem quod geris (ib id .) T h e im p e ra tiv e c o m m a n d , to refer a n d ascrib e every b e g in n in g a n d e n d in g to th e gods, (line six), a n d th e clause donec refeceris, a n d w h at follow s (line tw o) a re also positive in to n e , b u t ev idently do no t c h a ra c te riz e th e p re s e n t state o f R o m e o r its citizens. T h is n eg ativ e if not gloom y p ic tu re of R o m e a t h o m e a n d a b ro a d is a cc o u n te d for by th e second seg m e n t o f th e p o e m , stro p h es five th ro u g h eight. If th e first seg m en t links the gods to the state th ro u g h th e tra n sg re s­ sions o f th e p re se n t c itiz e n ’s fo reb ears a n d his c o n te m p o ra ry m easu res for a to n e m e n t, th e second seg m en t cen ters on th e c itiz e n ’s p riv a te life a n d its ta in ts. T h e disciplina domestica is ta in te d by c o rru p tio n , a n d has b e e n for som e tim e. T h e p o et contrives a ra th e r p o n d e ro u s sen ten ce to ex p ress this: “ G e n e ra tio n s \saecula\ te e m in g w ith sin first ta in te d m a r­ riag es a n d th e ra cial stock a n d h o m e .’’ W h y saecula? T h e w o rd im plies a p e rsp ec tiv e on tim e th a t goes back in to th e p a st, a n d basically m e an s first a lifesp an a n d th e n “ g e n e r a tio n .’’ T h e flaw ed fam ily is re g a rd e d as a p o iso n ed source o r sp rin g b rin g in g c o n se q u e n t c o rru p tio n to th e la rg e r in s titu tio n s o f the patria, the state as a la rg e fam ily (w ith its parens, A u g u stu s) a n d th e populus, w h a t one is te m p te d to call th e gene pool. T h e p o et d eclines to b e specific as to th e tim e o f this d e te rio ra tio n ’s b e g in n in g , th o u g h h e m ak es p la in , b y his use o f th e p erfect ten se, fluxit, lin e tw en ty , th a t d e leterio u s effects h av e sp re a d far a n d w ide alre ad y . W e m a y n o te th a t H o ra c e h as spoken in th e first stro p h e o f this second sectio n o f th e ode (lines sev en teen th ro u g h tw en ty ) in ra th e r g en eral te rm s. T h e second, th ird a n d fo u rth stro p h es th a t m ak e u p this cen tral p a n e l a re vivid w ith detail. W e pass from th e w o rld o f civic cult an d m ilita ry th re a t o f th e o d e ’s first section, epic in th e m e a n d to n e, to the p riv a te w o rld o f elegy th a t d o m in a te s th e second section after its first stro p h e , th e g en eralities o f w hich m a tc h th e elev ated to n e o f the first sec­ tio n . T h e w o rld in h a b ite d b y th e matrona virgo, a girl u n m a rrie d b u t o f m a rria g e a b le age, is o n e she ch arac te riz es b y h e r d elig h t in le a rn in g risq u e d a n ce s a n d th e a rts o f p ro v id in g p le asu re . H e r p e rso n a lity is fu r­ th e r su g g ested b y th e econom ic iam nunc o f lin e tw e n ty -th re e : even now ,

70

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

in h e r u n m a rrie d state, she dw ells w h o le h ea rte d ly o n e x tra -m a rita l lovers. B etw een stro p h es, as it w ere, she gets m a rrie d a n d w e n e x t see h e r in section tw o ’s th ird stro p h e “ so o n ” (mox, line tw en ty -fiv e) seeking o u t y o u n g e r lovers at d in n e r p a rtie s given w ith h e r h u s b a n d : a su ccin ct to u ch c h a ra c te riz in g his n a tu re as well as h e rs, c a rrie d fu rth e r in th e s e c tio n ’s fo u rth stro p h e: he connives at h e r e x tra -m a rita l a d v e n tu re s , tra d e -o ff possibly for som e u n sp ea k a b le activity o f his ow n. T h is w o m a n , stra ig h t from the w orld o f a n O v id , a T ib u llu s o r a P ro p e rtiu s, is given a psychological d im e n sio n fully as dev elo p ed as the figures in elegy. She does not view h e r p a rtn e rs as m en in d iv id u a liz e d in som e w ay; she invokes no p erso n al likes b u t ra th e r is co m p letely in d isc rim in a te as well as com pletely loose: a m o ral defect o f c o n sid e ra b le p ro p o rtio n s ev en by e leg y ’s s ta n d a rd s .6 H o ra c e takes only th re e strophes to p re se n t this w o m a n m o v in g from u n m a rrie d y o u n g a d u lth o o d w h en she is o bsessed b y ero tic p re o c c u p a ­ tions to m a rria g e w h en she lures lovers y o u n g e r th a n h e rse lf in leisu rely a n d o p en fashion at h e r h u s b a n d ’s p a rtie s, a n d also leaves th e h o u se w h en in vited to give h e rself to now a b u sin ess m a n , now a S p a n ish ship c a p ta in w ho pays lavishly for h e r fa v o rs .7 H e r w o rld is th a t o f elegy, b u t its seam y side, its d e g ra d a tio n of m a tro n a l re sp o n sib ility ; th e w o m a n is n o t a n elegiac figure in th a t h e r h u s b a n d is n o t th e je a lo u s m a te to b e o u t­ w itted by the stra teg e m s o f elegy a n d in th a t she h e rself has n o e m o tio n a l in v o lv em en t w ith h e r swiftly c h a n g in g p a rtn e rs . T h e p ic tu re , th o u g h sm all in scale, is one of incisive p o rtra y a l o f a situ a tio n d eep ly c o rru p t, a n d totally o u tsid e th e s tru c tu re a n d co n v en tio n s o f ero tic elegy as a lite ra ry form . As a p ic tu re , ho w ev er, o f th e social side effects of try in g to m ak e a lite ra ry g en re in to a style of life, it re so n ate s th e re c u rrin g form s o f elegy, such as d a n c in g , the o th e r artes, amores, y o u n g lo v ers, th e h u s ­ b a n d , p a rtie s, the lights tu rn e d low , a n d a ssig n atio n s. B ut it yokes th ese co n v en tio n s to a n eth ical, n o t a lite ra ry fram e w o rk , ju s t as th e epic elem ents o f th e o d e ’s first section, stro p h es o n e th ro u g h fo u r, a re p u t in service of the ethos of th e state a n d its su rv iv al. J u s t as th e m a ste r im age o f n a tio n a l o r racial line flaw ed b y sin d o m in a te s the o p e n in g of the p o em , a n d serves as b rid g e to its second section, a t the b e g in n in g o f w hich (lines sev e n te en follow ing) th e saecula im plied by the maiores a n d th e Romanus o f th e p re se n t d a y (lines o n e a n d 6 Cf. Catullus 68.140, where Jupiter is characterized as omnivolus. On the curious expression in line 24, de tenero ungui, see A. Cameron, “ Tener ungui,” Classical Quarterly 15 (1965), pp. 80-83. It has been suggested that Propertius’ elegies imitated the Roman Odes; see W. R. Nethercut, “ The Ironic Priest: Propertius’ Roman Elegies, III. 1-5: Imitations of Horace and Vergil,” American Journal of Philology 91 (1970), pp. 385-407. 7 Senatorial bias against trade, and general Roman bias against foreigners can be seen here.

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

71

tw o) are said to be c a rrie rs o f guilt, culpa (line sev en teen ), so too this im ag e of g e n e ra tio n a n d o f d escen t o f stock form s th e tra n sitio n from the second to the th ird a n d final section o f fo u r stro p h es, lines th irty -th re e a n d follow ing: “ y o u th s p ru n g from p a re n ts such as these did not tinge th e billow s w ith P u n ic b lo o d ...’’ H o ra c e leaves in the d a rk ju s t w ho the parentes are: the d e g e n e ra te w o m a n a n d h e r h u s b a n d , o r the w o m an an d o n e o f h e r lovers. A t an y ra te the term parens, w ith co n n o tatio n s o f re v e ren c e for an cesto rs in the festival o f th e P a re n ta lia , h a rd ly has m ore th a n biological significance h e re . A child from such a h o u seh o ld is d o o m e d no m a tte r w ho the fa th e r b e. T h e vivid c o n tra st b etw een this e p ig o n e a n d the soldiers w ho v a n q u ish e d C a rth a g e in the first P u n ic W a r, a n n ih ila te d P y rrh u s a n d felled A n tio ch u s a n d H a n n ib a l the te rri­ b le, is achieved econom ically by p re se n tin g in this final se c tio n ’s second stro p h e the social co n tex t o f these b ra v e m en : virile p ro g e n y o f c o u n try fig h ters, acc u sto m ed to h a rd a g ric u ltu ra l w ork. T h e ir m o th e r is a mater severa w ho b ids th e m b rin g h o m e firew ood. T h e p ic tu re o f ru ra l life, w h e rein repose th e valu es o f the p a st, a n d w hose very rusticitas, pilloried by elegy, is the secret source o f R o m e ’s possible stre n g th , is som ew hat so ften ed in the th ird stro p h e , lines forty-o n e th ro u g h fo rty -fo u r. H e re in th e th ird section p a sto ra l im ag ery succeeds the epic a n d elegiac tones of th e first a n d second m o v e m e n ts o f this ode: “ w h en S u n w as v a ry in g the sh ad o w s on the m o u n ta in s , a n d w as re m o v in g the yokes from the tired o x e n , b rin g in g b ack the frien d ly e v en in g -tid e in his d e p a rtin g c a r . ” T h e R e g u lu s O d e , I I I . 5, ends on a p a sto ral n o te too, w ith th e associations of oil a n d p le a s a n t la n d sc a p e o f V e n a fru m a n d T a re n tu m , b u t in I I I .6 we a re closer to R o m e , in fact in S ab in e te rrito ry (Sabellis ligonibus, line th irty -e ig h t) a n d th e p ic tu re is q u ite close to those at the en d o f V e rg il’s first, sixth a n d te n th e c lo g u e s.8 T h e first th re e stro p h es o f this p o e m ’s conclusions consist o f one long se n te n c e , m o v in g from the c o n tra st betw een effete society a n d a n tiq u e R o m a n v a lo r to th a t v a lo r’s c o u n try roots a n d a n c ie n t v alu es, to a p a sto ra l p ic tu re o f the en d o f a c o u n try d a y ’s lab o r: a p ic tu re seem ingly g ra tu ito u s as far as d ev elo p in g the line of th o u g h t is c o n ce rn e d . T h e epic c o lo rin g o f stro p h es one th ro u g h fo u r, a n d th e elegiac p re c ip ita te in stro p h e s five th ro u g h e ig h t, have a te a c h in g a n d e n h a n c in g fu n c tio n . T h e p a sto ra l c o lo rin g in stro p h es ten a n d eleven serves to re m in d us th a t a n o th e r w orld exists, the source o f R o m e ’s e a rlie r g reatn ess. B ut like 8 E.g., Vergil, Eel. X.83: “ maioresque cadunt altis de montibus umbrae.” Juvenal also used these Vergilian pictures for contrast: see the present writer’s “Juvenal III: an eclogue for the Urban Poor,” Hermes 90 (1962), pp.244-248. See also B. Fenik, “ Horace’s First and Sixth Roman Ode and the Second Geòrgie,” Hermes 90 (1962), pp. 72-96, especially pp. 90ff.

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

R eg u lu s in I I I . 5 we c a n n o t go th e re . W e m u st in ste a d d ire c t o u r a tte n ­ tio n to w h a t follows the long, so a rin g lyric sen ten ce o f stro p h es n in e , ten a n d eleven: the terse, tw o -sen ten ce co n clu sio n to the sixth R o m a n O d e a n d to the w hole cycle: the gnom e of tim e the d e stro y er, tim e co n ceiv ed o f alo n g the lines o f the o d e ’s m a ste r im age: g e n e ra tio n su cceed ed by g e n e ra tio n , the la te r w eak er a n d less m o ral th a n th e e arlier. T i m e ’s p assag e b rin g s ru in to the te m p le s ’ o u tw a rd fab ric. T i m e ’s p assag e b rin g s d ecay to R o m e ’s social fabric as well by v itia tin g th e in n e r m o ra l fibre o f h e r citizens. T h is too, like th e tem p les, can be re b u ilt a n d re sto re d to good c o n d itio n . H o ra ce m akes this su g g estio n only o b liq u ely , b y m ean s o f the o rg a n iz a tio n o f the p o em , n o t by m e an s o f a n o p en s ta te ­ m e n t. L ite r a tu r e ’s c o n v en tio n s, its v o c a b u la ry , its d riv e for u n ity in this p o e m ’s sy m m e try o f sections, is invoked to m ak e th e final p o in t o f th e cycle: use tim e w ell, re b u ild in tim e. O n th e level o f m essag e, th e p o em concludes in pessim ism ; how differen t w o u ld it be if th e last stro p h e co u ld be suppressed ! O n the level o f lite ra ry a rt, the c o m p e te n t re a d e r m ay re c u p e ra te the o p tim ism o f the p o e m ’s o p e n in g , the v alu e o f ta k in g th e action o f re b u ild in g the tem ples o f the gods, a n d im p u te it to the p o e m ’s conclusion: v e n e ra tio n o f th e gods m u st be a cc o m p a n ie d b y in n e r m o ra l re v ita liz atio n , the necessity for w hich m u st be h a m m e re d h o m e . W e m u st n o t th in k th ings c a n n o t get w o rse. W e a re locked in to a g e n e ra ­ tio n al p a tte rn o f decay; ju s t as n eg lected a rc h ite c tu re u n d e rg o e s d e te rio ra tio n th ro u g h tim e, so did we a n d so do w e now . In te rv e n tio n is essen tial to reverse the process, a n d the fu n c tio n o f th e fin al stro p h e , so vividly p re se n tin g its gnom e o f d ecay, is to shake us in to this a w are n e ss. W h a t we do w ith this in sight is e x tra -lite ra ry , w h e th e r we w ra p ourselves in the in ev itab ility o f th e m a x im the p o et d eliv ers as th e te x t’s co n clu sio n o r w h e th e r we involve ourselves in the w hole p o em a n d its less th a n pessim istic o p en in g . T h e lite ra ry w o rld m oves o n to I I I . 7, “ Q u id fles, A s te rie ,” to the w orld o f y o u n g lovers w ith G re ek n a m es d elicately e x a m in in g the psychological processes o f m e m o ry , ab sen ce a n d p o te n tia l infidelity: a subject h a rd ly c o n so n a n t w ith the g rim p ic tu re a t the e n d o f I I I . 6, o r follow ing o u t its m o ra l im p licatio n s. H o ra c e b y follow ing the cycle w ith a poem like I I I . 7 u n d e rsco re s w h a t lite ra tu re is: n o t life, n o t d o c trin e , n o t ethics after all, th o u g h so m etim es civically m o n u m e n ta l, like the R o m a n O d e s, som etim es sligh t, like “ Q u id fles, A s te r ie ,” w hose p a ir o f lovers do n o t live in R o m e , b u t in lite ra tu re . H o ra c e has u sed the categ o ry o f the first p e rso n p lu ra l o n ly once in th e R o m a n O d es before the nos o f I I I . 6 .4 7 , a n d th a t is th e credidimus o f III .5 .1 , w here b o th p e rso n a n d ten se e m p h asiz e th e a n tiq u ity a n d u b iq u ity o f b elief in the th u n d e rin g sk y -fa th e r, soon to b e jo in e d as a god b y A u g u stu s. T h e p o et at the e n d o f th e cycle involves his a u d ie n c e a n d

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

73

also h im se lf in one cate g o ry , the p re sen t u n d iffe re n tia te d g e n eratio n . T h a t self th a t is lin k e d to all w ho in h e rit guilt is as well th e close associate o f th e M u se s in I I I . 4, a n d is th e re c h a ra c te riz e d as safe from h a rm . F u r­ th e r, the self at th e e n d o f the cycle is the self th a t rejects a m b itio n at the e n d o f I I I .1 .4 5 f f ., a n d sh u n s the o a th -b re a k e r at the e n d o f III.2 .2 6 ff., a n d d irects his M u se to leave off epic recital a n d to co n fo rm to generic c o n v e n tio n at the e n d o f III.3 .6 9 ff., a n d w ho jo in s the believers in G o d ’s p o w e r in h e a v e n at the b e g in n in g o f I I I . 5. T h u s H o ra ce in each o f the p o em s h as esta b lish e d a place for h im se lf to a p p e a r in one w ay o r a n o th e r. O n ly one o f these a p p e a ra n c e s is a u th o ria l, th a t is, as poet p e r se, a n d th a t is a t the e n d o f I I I . 3. In the o th e r places the p e rso n a o f the p o et en gages the th e m e , n o t the act o f poetic lo cu tio n . In the tw o places w h ere the First p e rso n p lu ra l su b su m es the p o et in to a large g ro u p , it is in to a m ass in c ap a b le o f b e in g in d iv id u a liz e d o r o f w illing them selves out o f th e g ro u p : the In d o -E u ro p e a n s w ho hav e from tim e im m em o rial b eliev ed in the sk y -fath er, ( I I I .5.1) a n d nos nequiores, all w ho h a p p e n to c o n stitu te the p re se n t g e n e ra tio n ( I I I .6.47). T h e p oet w ho h as the c re d en tials to p ro n o u n c e ju d g m e n t (o r sentence) o n “ you R o m a n ” in I I I . 6 . Iff., has b e en a u th e n tic a te d d u rin g th e cycle, especially in III. 1.1-4, as en jo y in g this rig h t o r fu n ctio n by a privilege g ra n te d by the M u se s. A r t’s privilege is to teach the state by ad d re ssin g its c o m p o n e n ts, tu Romane I I I . 6. I f f ., A u g u stu s in I I I.4 .3 7 ff., a n d so fo rth . A rt th u s speaks th ro u g h th e m o u th o f one o f us: nos nequiores c an be im p e d e d from b rin g in g forth p ro g e n y m o re vicious th a n ourselves if the re d e e m in g m essage o f a rt is h eed ed . T h e cycle o f R o m a n O d es does not e n d in p essim ism . R a th e r, the u rg e n c y o f the cy cle’s m o n u m e n ta l re p re se n ta tio n o f p a st g re a tn ess, p re se n t vice a n d folly, a n d p o te n tia l d e c re p itu d e o r p o te n tia l g reatn ess is u n d e rlin e d by the d e sp e ra te last stro p h e o f I I I . 6. T o sp eak b ro a d ly , the one set of possibilities is a d u m b ra te d in I I I . 5 a n d I I I . 6, th e o th e r in III. 1, 2, a n d 3. O d e I I I . 4 pivots on vis a n d its d a n g ers if u n c o n tro lle d by consilium. T h e v ig o r o f law , n a tio jia l p u rp o se a n d in d iv id u a l civic re s p o n ­ sibility c an be sap p e d by self-indulgence a n d softness on th e level o f the life o f the in d iv id u a l citizen. C a rth a g e as it w ere rises o n the ru in s o f the in d iv id u a l c o rru p te d R o m a n (cf. III.5 .3 8 ff.). By c h a rg in g his o b se rv a ­ tio n s w ith th e u rg e n c y o f the e n d o f I I I . 6 H o ra c e elevates his cycle o f odes fro m a rtistic e v en t to civic e x h o rta tio n on a m o n u m e n ta l scale. By in c o r­ p o ra tin g his p riestly self in to the m ass o f R o m a n citizen ry slip p in g into d e liq u e sc en c e , he avoids the stan ce o f the p re a c h e r w ho is p re serv e d from th e ills he castig ates by his ow n special v irtu e . B ut m o re sig n ifican tly , he m ak es his a rt, his fu n c tio n as M usarum sacerdos, in sep a ra b le from the p ro b le m s his g e n e ra tio n o f R o m a n s b o th face a n d c o n stitu te . H e n ce the

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

p re scrib ed a u d ien c e o f III. 1.4: virginibus puerisque canto. By ta k in g th e six odes as a m o n u m e n ta l u n ity w e find th e progenies o f I I I . 6 .4 8 id e n tifia b le w ith the “ new g e n e ra tio n ” w h o m th e p o et a d d re sse d as p e rso n s c a p a b le o f h e ed in g his w a rn in g , seeing his vision, h e a rin g his song, a n d im p le m e n tin g a new fo u n d a tio n for th e s ta te .9 T h is new d ire c tio n seeks its e x em p lars from th e R o m a n p a st, a n d its e n erg y fro m th e h e a v e n ly m a n d a te th a t includes th e d iv in ity o f A u g u s tu s .101T h e g re a te st d a n g e rs to it are a p a th y , avarice, a m b itio n for self a n d n o t for th e c o m m o n w elfare, in n e r d ish a rm o n y a n d lack o f virtus, b lin d force, a n d b asely co m in g to term s w ith forces seeking R o m e ’s ru in . T h e c h ild re n o f th is, “ o u r ” g e n e ra tio n , a re b e n t to fu rth e r this d eclin e, b u t th e ir a w are n e ss o f its d a n g e r, th ro u g h th e artistic act o f th e R o m a n O d e s, c a n sen sitize th e m to resist it, c h an g e its d ire c tio n b y the consilium o f th e M u se s, a n d fu rth e r it w ith div in e h elp into im p ro v e m e n t n o t d e c a d e n c e .11 T h e first th re e odes, as sugg ested a lre a d y , p re se n t th e d a n g e rs in m u te d term s, th e ir histo rical solution s in p o sitiv e a n d tra d itio n a l te rm s, e .g ., III. 1.2 5 ff., I I I . 2 .1 3 ff., I I I . 3 . Iff., 37ff., etc. T h e fo u rth ode is th e tu rn in g p o in t a n d a p p ro p ria te ly c en ters on th e p o e t’s p e rso n , his sacro san ctity , his vision, a n d th e h e av e n ly p a ra d ig m o f th e forces o f o rd e r c o n ta in in g (b u t ju s t b a re ly c o n tain in g ) th e forces o f ch ao s. W h e n w e com e in O d es Five a n d Six to w ork o u t th e h e a v e n ly p a tte rn in th e affairs o f R o m e , w hose b a ttle a g a in st chaos is n o t so d efin itiv ely w o n , it m a y be th o u g h t, as is th a t o f th e gods a g ain st th e g ia n ts ,12 w e see in I I I . 5 th e m o m e n t w hen a single m a n , R e g u lu s, u sin g his in sig h t in to w h a t w o u ld h a p p e n if th e S en ate ra n s o m e d his fellow soldiers fro m th e C a r th a g i­ n ia n s, sways th e state to a c e rta in co u rse o f actio n . R e g u lu s is o b v io u sly a type for H o ra c e th e p oet likew ise th ro u g h his m o n u m e n ta l c o m p o sitio n co unselling a given course o f actio n . T h e Ita lia n la n d sc a p e is in ta c t a n d its an cie n t p eace professed as I I I .5 d raw s to its co n clu sio n . B u t in I I I . 6 it is n o t th e th ird c e n tu ry B .C . a n y m o re , b u t c o n te m p o ra ry A u g u sta n 9 Vergil’s Aeneid can be seen as a foundation epic for the new state. See also Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 175ff. for a good discussion of the idea’s development. One may consider the Roman Odes as an artistic representation, analogous to a civic relief emphasizing foundation and new beginning in terms of old legends, like Aeneas and the White Sow on the Ara Pacis Augustae. 10 For a wealth of contemporary detail on Augustus as a god, see S. Weinstock, op. cit. supra, n. 9, s.v. Augustus. In view of Horace’s vocabulary in the Roman Odes, it is useful to recall that in 27 B.C. Augustus was awarded by the Senate and Roman people a golden shield, awarded for his virtus, dementia, iustitia and pietas “ erga deos patriamque.” It is probably over-ingenious to link this Clupeus Virtutis to Pallas’ shield in III.4.57 11 Cf. III.4.65ff. 12 Yet nec peredit (III.4.75) and what follows recalls Furor Impius at the end of Jupiter’s speech in the first book of the Aeneid (I.294ff) which demon is not annihilated but similarly imprisoned, raising the possibility of future outbreak of his destructive forces like those of the giants.

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

75

R o m e , w ith Romane receiv in g the full force o f the p o e t’s a tte n tio n : the p re s e n t g e n e ra tio n w ho heeds n o t the carmina o f III. 1.2 ff., a n d no t the virgines puerique o f III. 1.4 w h o m the poet has hopes o f re h a b ilita tin g before th e y u n d e rg o the genetic decline h eld u p as a d re a d fu l possibility, in d eed c e rta in ty , at th e e n d o f III.6 .4 5 ff., “ d a m n o sa q u id n o n in m in u it d ie s ? ,” if tim e ’s c o rru p tin g force is n o t m itig a te d . T h e p re se n t g e n e ra tio n is assigned a co n crete task , the re n o v atio n of th e g o d s ’ te m p le s, a n d a re a so n for success: “ dis te m in o re m q u o d geris, im p e r a s ,” I I I . 6.5. T h e re c e n t p a st, n o t th e ro m a n tic R e p u b lic a n p a st o f I I I . 2, a n d I I I . 5, o r the m y th ic p a st o f I I I . 3 a n d I I I . 4, is set forth in I I I .6, c u lm in a tin g in a referen ce to the civil w a r ( I I I .6.9-16). T h e im m ed iate fu tu re is c o n se q u e n tly p a in te d in the d a rk e st o f term s in the O d e ’s second a n d th ird sections, as n o te d above. T h is p essim istic, even sociologically m o rd a n t p ic tu re of the c o rru p tio n o f a R o m a n h o u seh o ld , a n d the g reat fallin g -o ff from th e ex am p le o f the p a st, a n d th e b itte r assertio n o f the final stro p h e , do n o t, becau se they com e a t the e n d , n ecessarily co n stitu te H o r a c e ’s final view o f R o m e ’s chances for re g e n e ra tio n a n d co n seq u en t success. W e sh o u ld notice th a t the final tw o stro p h es o f th e p o em th a t en d s the R o m a n O d es a lte rn a te b etw ee n now, the d e p ra v e d society o f the matura virgo, a n d then, the stro n g m o ra lity o f the p a st a n d its p asto ral settin g . T h e a ttra c tiv e p ic tu re from the g en re o f p a sto ra l is sh a tte re d by th e g n o m e from lite ra tu re o f m o ra lity , a n d w e are re tu rn e d to th e p re sen t tim e , th e d im e n sio n o f tim e in w hich we view H o ra c e ’s m o n u m e n t as its o rig in a l a u d ien c e . B ut the last p a n el b u t o n e, th e tra n q u il en d o f a day of la b o r in the c o u n try , is n o t to be set aside as fo rg o tten o r o b lite ra te d th ro u g h the force o f the final a sse rtio n . T h e V erg ilia n im ag e is w h at we m u s t fight to re g a in , in fo rm ed as we now are by H o ra c e ’s vision o f w h at w e m ay do to sh ap e n o th in g less th a n R o m e ’s fu tu re. J u s t as resolve to resto re the ru in e d dw ellings o f the gods in the C ity rev erses the effects o f tim e, so too c an the relentless d e te rio ra tio n o f R o m a n v irtu e be a rre ste d if H o ra c e ’s call to m o ra l re -a rm a m e n t is h e e d e d . T h e last stro p h e o f the Sixth R o m a n O d e is th u s linked to the first stro p h e o f the F irst R o m a n O d e . T h e profanum volgus o f III. 1. 1 is the e le m e n t th a t does n o t h eed the p o e t’s carmina, I I I . 1.2 ff., w hich carmina we w ho h a v e re a d th ro u g h the cycle now possess: the R o m a n O d es th em selv es. V iew ed in this w ay, w ith I I I . 6 . 45-48 a n d III. 1. 1-4 b o u n d to g e th e r as a self-im p licatin g u n it, the c h ild ren o f III. 1. Iff. g ain in m e a n ­ in g , a n d th e profanum volgus in p a rtic u la riz a tio n . T h e p o et as p riest o f the M u se s is no less a b se n t from the e n d o f I I I . 6 th a n elsew here in the cycle. H e asserts his gnom ic sta te m e n t, b u t th ro u g h the process o f re a d in g the p re c e d in g six p o em s, w ith th e ir p re c ep ts fu rth e re d by the M u se s, a w ay o u t o f the sp iral o f decline is afforded: it consists in re -e x a m in in g the

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

w hole m o n u m e n ta l seq u en ce o f R o m a n O d e s in lig h t o f I I I . 6 .4 5 -4 8 , b e a rin g in m in d th a t o n e ’s actions a n d a ttitu d e s m ak e o n e a p a r t o f th e profanum volgus o r not. F u rth e r, b y an alo g y w ith civic m o n u m e n ts su ch as th e Ara Pacis Augustae o n e c a n infer th a t one “ re a d in g ” o f th e te x t, o r w alk th ro u g h the a rc h ite c tu ra l stru c tu re , w as n o t sufficient to sort o u t all th e levels of im p lic a tio n raised by, in th e case o f a plastic m o n u m e n t, choice o f site, o rie n ta tio n , o rd e r o f reliefs as d e te rm in e d b y e n tra n c e , etc. So too one m u st re a d a n d even m o re im p o rta n t re -re a d all o f B ook III o f th e Odes b efore the w hole p ic tu re b egins to be a d u m b ra te d : o r b e tte r, b efo re th e n o tio n o f a “ w hole p ic tu re ” c an be fo rm ed . W ith specific reference to th e R o m a n O d e s, th e te rm cycle is im p o r­ ta n t. T h e v isito r to a site a d o rn e d w ith h isto rical reliefs te n d s to e n d his in sp ectio n n e a r th e place w here it b e g a n , a n d th u s o n e is in v ite d to re -e x am in e the w hole a n ew , o r a ctu a lly , to e x am in e th e m o n u m e n t w ith a new ly a cq u ired sense o f its p o te n tia l w holeness. J u s t so w ith th e R o m a n O d e s if the en d o f I I I . 6 sends us b ack to th e b e g in n in g o f I I I . l w ith g re a te r insight in to the n a tu re o f th e carmina ju s t e x p erien c e d a n d th e u rg en cy o f th e ir them es. F o r we, the a u d ie n c e , find o u rselv es m irro re d at the e n d o f I I I . 6. J u s t as “ w e ” are en g ag e d in re -o rd e rin g th e tem p les (a n d o th e r civic b u ild in g s as w e ll)13 so too “ w e ” a re in e x tric a b ly involved in the processes o f g u ilt a n d a to n e m e n t su ch re -b u ild in g is lin k ed to by H o ra c e in I I I .6. Iff. So too “ w e ” m u s t select o u rselv es as p a rt o f H o ra c e ’s a u d ien c e a n d b eco m e p a rt o f th e g ro u p w ho h eed s h im , o r p a rt o f the g ro u p w hich, h e a rin g , ignores th e im p o rt o f his m essag e. F o r th e gods, A u g u stu s a n d th e M u se s use his a rt to te a c h us. A ssigning a pro lep tic role to I I I . 6.45-48 by su g g estin g it lead s b a ck to III. 1.1-4 also results in m a k in g I I I .6 “ e n d ” o n th e n o te o f p eace in th e ru ra l fastness o f Italy: a g a in a th e m e to b e m e t w ith in , say th e Ara Pacis Augustae. B ut in H o ra c e ’s total vision, n o t o n th e scale o f I I I . 6 b u t o n th e scale o f th e w hole o f th e R o m a n O d e s, R o m a n p eace a n d tra n q u ility is a p a rt of, a n ecessary c o n d itio n for, th e oikoumene o f w o rld p eace a n d p ro sp e rity . By su g g estin g th ro u g h the d eep ly m o v in g a n d very V e rg ilia n p ic tu re in the n e x t-to -last stro p h e o f I I I . 6 th a t th e cycle co u ld h a v e e n d e d th u s, th e p oet im pels us fu rth e r to actu a liz e th a t p o ssib ility . By m a k in g III. 1.1-4 a kin d o f d e ta c h a b le preface to the w hole cycle, as som e critics h a v e d o n e ,14 one does no violence to th e seq u en ce as a w h o le, b u t r a th e r o n e is e n a b le d to see it in a la rg e r p ersp ectiv e. L ikew ise, b y m a k in g I I I . 6.45-48 a k ind o f d e ta c h a b le ep ilo g u e a ttra c te d p o w erfu lly to 11 The Regia in the lorum Romanum is a good example of Augustus’ restorations. As seat of the rex sacrorum, it was associated with Divus Julius, and with state cult. 14 Supra, pp. 6f.

THE SIXTH ROMAN ODE

77

II I . 1.1-4, one does n o form al violence to I I I . 6 (th o u g h o f course the o rd e rin g o f the text in to th re e sections o f fo u r stro p h es each is c o m ­ p ro m ise d ; yet th e re is a very a b ru p t b re a k b etw een I I I . 6.44 a n d 45, m ore so in fact th a n b e tw ee n I I I .6 .1 6 a n d 17). T h e cycle is allow ed to repose at its n e a r-e n d in g on a n o te o f deep dom estic p a sto ral peace: a peace w hich w e c a n have if we w ork to m ake H o ra c e ’s p rom ises com e tru e .

E P IL O G U E A N D O D E S I I I . 7 T h e foregoing o b serv atio n s a n d in te rp re ta tio n s c o n c e rn in g H o r a c e ’s R o m a n O d es c o n stitu te a k in d of fluid re a d in g o f this stab le tex t in its fixed form m e d ia tin g v a rie d sta te m e n ts. B alan ce a n d p e rsp ec tiv e it is h o p e d have been m a in ta in e d by k e ep in g in m in d th a t th e p o e t teach es his a u d ien c e to re a d his text a n d th u s p ro v id es th ro u g h th e te x t lim its a n d b o u n d a rie s for valid in te rp re ta tio n . A few c o n clu d in g re m a rk s m ay be useful in assessing w h at lines o f th o u g h t this p a rtic u la r act o f classical criticism has follow ed. W e have obviously n o t exploited N ew C ritic ism a n d a d d re sse d III. 1-6 as in d iv id u al free -stan d in g texts. R a th e r we hav e d e m o n stra te d th a t the poem s called the R o m a n O d es form a cycle, a n d m u st be a p p ro a c h e d w ith th a t in m in d . F irst, evidence e x te rn a l to the six p o e m s, n a m ely th e ir position in the th ree books o f O d e s, w as a d d u c e d to suggest th e ir statu s as seq u en ce, a n d second, in te rn a l referen ces, b alan ces a n d echoes in the sequence itself also w ere seen to suggest a cycle o f p o e m s, as does id e n tity o f m e te r a n d fluidity o f p o em b o u n d a rie s. T h e o b ject o f stu d y w as all th is, n o t m erely the w ords on the page. T h e object o f stu d y w as also, im p licitly , th e lyric fo rm itself as p ra c tice d by this po et. T h u s we a ssu m e d w ith p e rio d ic ex cep tio n s th a t the re a d e r h a d “ r e a d ” the co rp u s o f O d es T i l l , th a t is, w as a c o m p eten t re a d e r o f L a tin lyric in these m e te rs, w ith th e ir G re e k a n te c e d e n ts a n d L a tin relatives in the lyric form , larg ely u n n o te d h e re . T h is o b ject o f stu d y w as n o t illu m in a te d in the scale p ra c tic e d for th e H o ra tia n texts b ecau se it w ould have b een c u m b e rso m e to b eg in ab ovo a n d b ecau se in reality people do n o t re a d (or re a d a b o u t) lyric p o em s on this level o f com plexity unless they a lre ad y have som e id ea o f th e fo rm , w hich the critic can take for g ra n te d ju s t as the p o et does. A lth o u g h n o t explicitly stated as su ch w hile th e critical process w as u n d e rw a y , this act o f criticism on the ex trin sic level im p licitly assig n ed a teleological fu n ctio n a n d p u rp o se to the R o m a n O d es: to fo rm a new p erspective on the w orld o f a ro u n d 23 B .C ., th e o p p o rtu n itie s a n d d a n g ers for ru le r, in stitu tio n o f the sta te , fam ily a n d in d iv id u a l citizen . D id actic in the h ighest sense o f the w o rd , the p o em seq u en ce fu n c tio n s to p ro v id e u n d e rs ta n d in g o f this new ju n c tu re o f R o m a n d e v e lo p m e n t, b u t also to influence ch an g e. T h e R o m a n gods, th e R o m a n state a n d the R o m a n fam ily are p re se n te d as in terlo ck ed in a new w ay , w ith g re a t positive p o te n tia l if c e rta in a ttitu d e s are m a in ta in e d : a ttitu d e s the poet identifies a n d inculcates in his a rt. O n the arch aeo lo g ical level, it can now

EPILOGUE AND ODES III.7

79

be a sse rte d th a t the fo reg o in g re a d in g o f th e R o m a n O d es assigns lyric a new fu n c tio n ; the source a n d orig in o f this d ev elo p m en t o f lyric into m o n u m e n ta l seq u en ce o f civic p o e try c a n n o t be discovered in an tec e d en t p o e try s h a p in g o r d e te rm in in g H o ra c e ’s a ch iev em en t. T h is is no t to say th a t a v ery fruitful line o f in q u iry c a n n o t be o p en ed u p seeking to link the R o m a n O d e s to H o ra c e ’s o th e r p o e try , o r to o th e r p o etry in L a tin , such as the co m m o n co n cern s o f the R o m a n O d es a n d the Aeneid, o r the ironic e x p lo ita tio n o f th e m by P ro p e rtiu s ’ elegies, III. 1-5. F u rth e r, w eighty stu d ies h av e b een u n d e rta k e n lin k in g H o ra c e to H o m e r, A lcaeus, P in d a r, C a llim a c h u s, T h e o c ritu s a n d o th e rs, a n d re la tin g his p o etry to C a tu llu s , V erg il, S ta tiu s, P ru d e n tiu s, a n d o th ers. B ut it is n o t the fu n c ­ tio n o f the p re se n t w ork o f criticism to u n d e rta k e such ex p lo ratio n s in d etail for the R o m a n O d e s; in seeking to re a d th e m , it is sim ply not n e ce ssa ry to be conscious o f each p o te n tia l co n n ectio n . H o ra c e ’s g ra m ­ m a r o f co n v en tio n s can be a d e q u a te ly le arn ed th ro u g h re a d in g H o race: a n e x tre m e sta te m e n t, b u t one n ecessary to m a in ta in in g the critical p e rsp ec tiv e h e re e m b ra c e d . O n the h isto rical level, co m p en sa tio n has p e rh a p s been m a d e for not d w e llin g on arch aeo lo g ical “ source a n d o rig in ’’ stu d ies. F o r the critical stu d y ju s t c o m p le ted obviously m akes a special effort to relate the poem cycle as ev en t to o th e r n o n -lite ra ry events: political, social, religious an d v isu al. M o st o f the foregoing pages dev o ted to in trin sic o r descriptive critic ism are yoked to this ex trin sic m ode o f h isto rical an aly sis. H o ra c e ’s m a k in g six lyric poem s (w ith th e ir a n te c e d e n t a n d su b se q u e n t relatives in his c o rp u s) in to a cycle resu lts in m o n u m e n ta liz in g the lyric form a n d in a ssig n in g it a new fu n c tio n , th u s p ro v id in g a new object o f stu d y a n d thus ra is in g new teleological a n d arch aeo lo g ical q u estio n s th a t have been illu m in a te d h e re largely in te rm s o f a n o n -lite ra ry h istorical e n tity , the R o m a n h isto rical relief. T h e a ssu m p tio n s b e h in d this choice can now c o n v en ien tly be set forth. A n u rb a n com plex society like th a t o f 23 B .C . is cap ab le o f b e in g tra in e d to re a d an u rb a n com plex p o e try , as m o d e rn criticism o f H o ra c e ’s an d V e rg il’s p o etic co rp u s so a m p ly reveals. T h e se re a d in g acts w ere p e r­ fo rm ed by an a u d ie n c e th a t likew ise re a d in scrip tio n s on coins a n d on m o n u m e n ts , a n d fu rth e r e x p erien ced in co n tro lled seq u e n tia l style highly c o n v e n tio n a l signs called h istorical reliefs. It is n o e x ag g e ra tio n to say th a t th ey “ r e a d ” these the w ay they w ere ex p ected to re a d p oetry: by e sta b lish in g c o n tex t, g ra sp in g the n e tw o rk o f c o n v en tio n s, a n d by re a d in g b ack a n d forth to achieve valid in te rp re ta tio n . H o ra c e ’s p o e try o f process is a n alo g o u s to the process o f re a d in g a m o n u m e n t. H o ra c e has th u s e x p a n d e d ra d ic ally the use o f the in stitu tio n o f th e lyric into the re a lm o f civic m o n u m e n t.

80

EPILOGUE AND ODES III.7

B oth ex trin sic a n d in trin sic critical o p e ra tio n s c o m b in e d to w o rk o u t these foregoing in te rp re ta tio n s o f the R o m a n O d e s. L ite ra ry c o m p eten ce w as in c re m en tally g ain ed as the re a d e r m o v ed from th e e x p ec te d a n d the k now n th ro u g h the cycle p erceiv ed as so m e th in g u n e x p e c te d a n d u n k n o w n . T h e poet pulls no su rp rise s, h o w ev er, on the a tte n tiv e re a d e r. R a th e r, H o ra ce co n tin u o u sly creates for us a poetics by w hich we are e n a b le d to u n d e rs ta n d the R o m a n O d e s, his w illed in te n t, a n d th e c o n ­ v e n tio n s o f this e x ten sio n o f the in stitu tio n o f lyric p o e try . By m a k in g c e n tra l him self, by c an a liz in g the r e a d e r ’s e x p ec ta tio n s a n d re a c tio n s a n d by facilitatin g c e rta in re a d in g s b ack a n d fo rth in the seq u en ce (a n d in th e w hole co rp u s o f O d es I T I I ) the p oet teach es the re a d e r how to m ak e sense o f the text by w a tch in g w h at the text does (a n d does n o t d o) to the re a d e r. T h u s the stable conclusiveness o f the g n o m e o f d ecay , at the v e ry e n d o f the cycle, is n o t n ecessarily to be p erceiv ed as the sto p p in g p o in t o f the cy cle’s a rtistic im p act; closure is ach iev ed a t th e e n d o f th e cycle, b u t closure is n o t the p o e t’s final view o f the R o m a n w o rld ; it is r a th e r a w ay o f finishing the a rtistic s tru c tu re th a t b o d ies fo rth “ a w ay o u t” o f the sp iral o f decay a n d decline. H o ra c e h as reliab ly a n d c o n siste n tly p re se n te d to the c o m p eten t re a d e r m e e tin g h im h alf-w ay o n th e c o n ­ tin u u m o f lite ra ry in stitu tio n a n d c o n v en tio n a sense o f th e s tru c tu re o f th e R o m a n O d es: a s tru c tu re we hav e tried to illu m in a te in te rm s o f a n an alo g o u s s tru c tu re such as the Ara Pacis Augustae w ith o u t su g g estin g th a t this w as ever in the m in d o f H o ra ce o r o f an y A u g u sta n . T h e R o m a n O d e s seen from this p o in t o f view are v e ry m u c h a p a rt o f the new A u g u sta n rh e to ric a n d aesth etic th a t p u rv e y e d a m o ra l im ita tio n o f the values a n d practices o f heroes o f the R o m a n p a st ra th e r th a n relied o n G reek m odels. T h e fo rm at o f the T e m p le a n d F o ru m o f M a rs U lto r alone show s A u g u sta n p re o c c u p a tio n w ith m a rs h a llin g h ero es fro m R o m e ’s early days in to a p ro g ra m m a tic sta te m e n t o f p re s e n t v alu es a n d ideas. A u g u s tu s ’ ow n su p re m e p o sitio n w as b a se d (in th e o ry ) o n his fu n c ­ tio n in g as p a tro n w ith his clients th ro u g h o u t th e w o rld , b u t h e h a d in J u liu s C a e s a r am p le p re c e d e n t for fu n c tio n in g as a d iv in e ru le r as w ell. M o re rad ical still th a n D iv u s J u liu s , th a n A n to n y o r an y o f th e o th e r a d v ersa rie s th a t one by one fell by the w ayside as h e p ro g ressiv ely assigned new m e a n in g to the old in stitu tio n s o f th e p ro c o n s u la r im p e riu m a n d the trib u n ic ia n p o w er, A u g u stu s w ra p p e d his new d e p a rtu re s in the old tra d itio n s o f the R o m a n gods, state a n d fam ily . H o r a c e ’s R o m a n O d e s are b u t one ob jectificatio n o f this ex co g itated policy. T h a t the p oet p erceiv ed his age as one w h e re in n ew d e p a rtu re s w ere b e st disg u ised w ith in old form s n eed su rp rise no one fa m ilia r w ith the R o m a n b e n t for c o n serv ativ e v alu es. B u t u n lik e A u g u s tu s ’ m ilita ry a u to crac y carefully concealed w ith in R e p u b lic a n in s titu tio n s , H o r a c e ’s

EPILOGUE AND ODES III.7

81

new p o etic v e n tu re b o rro w e d on ly th e o u tw a rd form s o f lyric m e te r to set fo rth a n ew , im a g in a tiv e a n d p e rso n al a rt form : th e m o n u m e n ta l civic lyric seq u en ce. Its ra d ic a l a n d ro m a n tic a p p ea l can still be felt even if its p ro g ra m m a tic e lem en ts a re as in e rt as th e silent faces g azin g p a st us from som e frieze. H o ra c e in his R o m a n O d e s like A u g u stu s in th e new state b in d s h im se lf to th e R o m a n tra d itio n , assigns new m e a n in g to th e old fo rm s, a n d c o n stitu tes a la stin g m o n u m e n t o f a h ig h o rd e r. H e m ed iates th e eth o s o f th e e m p e ro r c o n so rtin g w ith th e gods, a n d the p a th o s o f the R o m a n so ld ier re p e llin g en em ies th re a te n in g R o m e herself. B ut unlike A u g u stu s, th a t g re a test o f p e rs u a d e rs in the an cie n t w o rld , H o ra ce en d ed u p n o t p e rs u a d in g h im se lf all th e tim e , as th e re a d e r o f th e m a n y lyrics th a t do n o t d eal w ith R o m a n q u e stio n s, a n d o f th e Epistles in p a rtic u la r, k now s. P e rh a p s in o rd e rin g his books for p u b lic a tio n H o ra c e w ished to sen d som e such signal a b o u t th e re b e in g a n o th e r w orld w h ere too h e h ad ta le n t to live, a n d h e n ce ju x ta p o s e d to th e solem n civic m o n u m e n t o f the R o m a n O d e s the p e rso n a l, ro m a n tic text o f O d es I I I . 7, “ Q u id fles, A ste rie ? ” Q u id fles, A sterie, q u e m tibi can d id i p rim o re s titu e n t vere F avonii T h y n a m erce b e a tu m , c o n sta n tis iu v e n em fide G y g en ? ille N o tis a ctu s a d O ric u m post in s a n a C a p ra e sid era frigidas noctis n o n sine m ultis in so m n is lacrim is agit. a tq u i sollicitae n u n tiu s h o sp itae, su sp ira re C h lo e n et m ise ra m tu is dicen s ig n ib u s u ri, T e m p ta t m ille „vafer m odis. u t P ro e tu m m u lie r p e rfid a c re d u lu m falsis in p u le rit c rim in ib u s nim is casto B ellerophontae m aturare necem refert, n a r r a t p a e n e d a tu m P elea T a rta ro , M agnessam H ippolyten dum fugit abstinens, et peccare docentis fallax historias m ovet—

5

10

15

20

82

EPILOGUE AND ODES III.7

fru stra : n a m scopulis s u rd io r Ic a ri voces a u d it a d h u c in te g e r, a t tibi ne vicinus E n ip eu s plus iusto p la ce a t cave, q u am v is n o n alius flectere e q u u m sciens a eq u e c o n sp ic itu r g ra m in e M a rtio nec q u is q u a m citus aeq u e T u sc o d e n a ta t alveo. prim a nocte dom um claude neque in vias sub cantu querulae despice tibiae, et te saepe vocanti duram difficilis m ane.

25

30

W h y w eep, A sterie, for a m a n w h o m clo u d free w e ste rn b reezes will resto re to you at s p rin g ’s arriv a l: (2) G yges, rich w ith B ith y n ia n m e r­ ch an d ise, a y o u n g m a n o f u n w a v e rin g faith. D riv e n b y s o u th e rn gales to take refuge a t O ric u s a fte r the risin g o f C a p r a ’s m a d stars, he passes c h il­ ly n ights sleepless, w ith m a n y a te a r. (3) A n d y e t— w o rd com es from his restless hostess, saying th a t C hloe sighs a n d is d e sp e ra te ly aflam e for h im , y o u r lover; a n d slyly she woos h im in a th o u s a n d fash io n s. (4) H e r m e sse n g er re c o u n ts how a faithless w o m a n in cited P ro e tu s, tru s tin g h e r false accu satio n s, to send to a n early d e a th B ellero p h o n w ho w as too ch aste. (5) H e tells the story o f P eleus a lm o st sen t to h ell, w h e n , fleeing, he resisted H ip p o ly te o f M a g n e sia ; a n d he d ecep tiv ely d ra w s a tte n tio n to stories th a t counsel s in — (6) in v ain : for m o re u n h e e d in g th a n I c a r u s ’ crags he h ears the b la n d ish m e n ts, u p to n o w u n c o rru p te d . B u t for yourself, w a tch o u t th a t n e ig h b o r E n ip eu s n o t find w ith y o u fav o r g re a te r th a n is rig h t, (7) th o u g h no one else is d isce rn e d o n M a r s ’ field so skilful in sittin g his h o rse, n o r does a n y o n e so sw ift sw im d o w n the T u s c a n c h a n n e l. (8) A t n ig h t’s a rriv a l close u p y o u r h o u se, a n d do n o t look d o w n in to the street at the onset o f th a t w a v erin g flute; even if he re p e a te d ly calls you cru el, re m a in o b d u ra te .

IN D E X Aeneas, on Ara Pacis Augustae, 14 Aeolian poetry, 2 Agrippa, M. Vipsanius, 52 Alcaeus, 79 Alexander the Great, 40 Alexandria, cult of Muses at, 11 Alexandrianism, 33 Antiochus III, 71 Antonius, Marcus, 30, 43, 54, 68, 80 Anzio, marine architecture at, 22 Apollo, 53, 55, 56, 57 Apuleius, 50 Apulia, 47 Ara Maxima, 39 Ara Pacis Augustae, 14, 15, 18, 51, 52, 53, 61, 76, 80 Ara Pietatis Augustae, 51 architecture, parallels to literature, 15, 19, 49, 50, 57, 76; see also historical reliefs: parallels with literature and the reading process Asterie, 72, 80, 81, 82 Augustus, C. Octavius, relations with Horace, 3-4; association with Roman topographical sites, 39; civic action and policy of, 4, 8, 26, 28, 32, 43-44, 48, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66, 68, 74, 80; divinity of, 16, 37, 39, 40, 42, 53, 59, 60, 61, 74 Aventine hill, 39 Bacchus, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 39, 40, 41, 44 Baiae, 53 Basilica of Constantine, 40 Basilica Ulpia, 50 Bosphorus, 53 Britain, 53, 59, 60, 61 Brutus, Marcus Iunius, 4 Caesar, Gaius Iulius, 40, 43, 59, 67, 76, 80 Callimachus, 12, 20, 50, 56, 79 Campus Martius, 39 Cancelleria reliefs, 51, 61 Cape Palinurus, 53 Carthage, 60, 62, 65, 71, 73, 74 Casa Romuli, 50 Cassius Longinus, Gaius, 4 Castor, 39 Castor and Pollux, temple of, 66

Catullus, 2, 12, 14, 15, 33, 48, 49, 70, 79 Cicero, 58, 61, 67 Circus Maximus, 39 Cleanthes, 20 Cleopatra VII, 43 collegia iuvenum, 28 comitium, 65 Crassus, Marcus Licinius, 60, 61, 64 Cura, 24, 25, 26 Curia, 65 Dacia, 68, 69 Damocles, sword of, 21 Dionysius of Syracuse, 21, 23 Dionysus, see Bacchus Divus Iulius, temple of, 66 Domitius Ahenobarbus, altar of, 13 Egypt, 68, 69 elegy, 2; see also Ovid; Propertius; Tibullus; Roman Odes and erotic elegy Ennius, 2, 41, 64 Etna, 54 Fides, 9 Fortuna, 9, 16, 19, 21, 25 Fortuna Primigenita, temple of at Prae­ neste, 50 Forum Augusti, 13 Forum Boarium, 39 Forum Romanum, 39, 65, 66, 76 Furor impius, 74 Gallus, 33 Giants, 9, 20, 47, 53, 54, 55, 56, 74 Gradivus, see Mars Gyges (giant), 56 Gyges (lover of Asterie, Odes III. 7), 81,82 Hannibal, 70 Hercules, 39, 40, 45 Hercules Musarum, 39 Hesiod, 55, 56 Historical reliefs, self-stated objective existence of as art, 35; lex arae establish­ ing context and function of, 18; recovery of information vs. imposition of order in, 14-16; space in relief as related to time in literary art, 13; parallels with literature and the reading process, 14, 15, 49, 50-52, 54, 61, 65, 66, 76, 79 Homer, and poetry of, 29, 30, 62, 79

INDEX

Horace, civil war activities of, 4, 53 — , relations with Maecenas, 4, 8 —, relations with Augustus, 3-4, 17, 18 —, political orientation, 3-4 —, and philosophy, 4, 16, 20, 35 —, and religion, 11, 19, 20, 21, 68 —, and Rome, 18 — , and Sabine territory, 25 —, poetic logic of, 22, 23, 30 —, persona of, 17, 19, 33, 36, 45, 53, 56, 57, 67, 72-73, 81 — , Epodes of, 3, 6 —, Satires of, 3, 14, 50, 64 — , Epistles of, 3, 4, 64, 81 —, see also Roman Odes iambics, 2 Iapetus, a Titan, 55 Italia, 53 Janus, temple of, 60 Juno, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63, 68 Jupiter, 20, 21, 33, 38, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 67, 73, 74 Juvenal, 71 Lacus Curtius, 65 Laomedon, 41 lex arae, 14, 18, 52; see also historical reliefs Lollius, Marcus, 34 Lucilius, 2 Lucretius, 48 lusus Troiae, 28 lyric poetry, ancient and modern distinc­ tions, 2-3 — , civic concerns of, 2-3 — , identity of meter as basis for unity, 13-17 — , sequences of in identical meter, 7-10 — , as object of study, 78, 79 — , new function of in Horace, 79, 80 Maecenas, 4, 8 Manlius, altar of, 51 Marcus Aurelius, column of, 13, 14 Mars, 26, 40, 51 Mars Ultor, temple of, 57, 80 Martial, 40 Minae, 24, 25, 26 Minerva, 41, 51, 55, 56, 74 Muses, 11, 25, 39, 47, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, 63, 64, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76

Necessitas, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21,. 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 Nigidius Figulus, 61 Numa, 61 Octavian, see Augustus, C. Octavius Ovid, 29, 40, 55, 70 Palatine, palace of Domitian on, 50 Pallas, see Minerva Pantheon, 15, 50 Paris, 41, 43 Parthia, 59, 60, 61, 64, 68, 69 Persius, 64 Petronius, 24, 50 Philippi, 4, 53 Piazza Armerina, villa at, 50 Pindar, 44, 56, 57, 65, 79 Pirithous, a Lapith, 56 Plautus, 48 Pliny the Elder, 40 Pollux, 39, 40 Porphyry, 12 Portico of Octavia, 39 Praeneste, 50 Propertius, 70, 79 Proserpina, 56 Prudentius, 79 Pyrrhus, 70 Quirinus, see Romulus/Quirinus reading process, ancient and modern distinctions in, 4-5 — , codex vs. papyrus roll, 11-13, 15, 48, 49 — , closure, 6-7 — , controlled order vs. fluidity, 13-16 — , continuity of and totality of access to text, 48-50 — , poet as teacher of, 80 — , see also historical reliefs: parallels with literature — , and the reading process Regia, 76 Regulus, Marcus Atilius, 35, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 74 Roman Odes, origin of name, 1 — , dating, 8, 67 — , manuscripts, 7, 37, 61 — , textual problems, 5, 39, 47 — , and erotic elegy, 29, 70, 71 — , and epic, 18, 79-81 — , and pastoral, 65, 71

INDEX

— , optimism and pessimism in, 25, 45, 72, 73 — , personification in, 25 — , new words in, 35, 37 — , syntactic distortions in, 40, 44 — , relations to other odes, 6-11, 16, 34 — , and Roman monuments, 39, 50-54 — , and Augustan aesthetic, 80 — , teleological function of, 78 Romulus/Quirinus, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 Sacra Via, 40 Sappho, 29 Simonides, 32 Statius, 79 Suetonius, 32

85

Tarentum, 65, 71 Terra, 53 Theocritus, 79 Theseus, 56 Tibullus, 70 Timor, 24, 25, 26 Titans, 20, 53, 54, 55, 56 Trajan, column of, 13, 14 Troy, 41, 42, 43, 45, 63 Varro, M. Terentius, 67 Venafrum, 65, 71 Vergil, and poetry of, 12, 13, 18, 33, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 56, 64, 71, 74, 75, 79 Vesta, 61 Vestal Virgins, 18 Vulcan, 56