Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
In terms of telling us what the poem is about, the first stanza of Odes i. 37 is rather nebulous. Nunc est bibendum, as a translation of νῦν Χρὴ μεθύσθην, could have been pregnant with meaning for an educated Roman but it could also have been a straightforward way of saying ‘it's time for a drink’, and the full significance comes out only in retrospect. The substance of the whole stanza can be briefly summarized: now, at last, has come the time for celebrations which will include drinking, dancing, and feasting, and the occasion is not without its religious significance. The transitions are carefully contrived: libero, besides suggesting the vigour of the dancing, has associations with Liber, the old Italian equivalent of Bacchus, while the Priests of Mars were notable as much for the excellence of their College Feasts as for their choreographic dexterity; nor is it surprising that a banquet fit for priests should be laid at the table of the gods.
1 The paper of which this article is a summary was inspired by R. G. M. Nisbet's discussion of the Cleopatra Ode at Reading University in January 1968, and first read to the Classical Sixth at Harrow in February. Omitted from this summary is any detailed discussion of the grounds on which suggestions are made; and as it is intended to do no more than provide a starting-point for literary evaluation, I have felt it best to pose but not examine some of the related historical questions. My thanks are due to Mr. E. L. Moor, Head of Classics at Reading School, whose criticisms of the original paper led to reconsideration of some of the points made and opened up other lines of inquiry. I would acknowledge too my debt to the authors of the following books, whose views, where they are incorporated in the discussion, are recorded without further acknowledgement: E. Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford, 1957); Steele Commager, The Odes of Horace (Yale, 1962); R. G. M. Nisbet, Critical Essays on Roman Literature (Elegy and Lyric) (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962); R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939); P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore, Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Oxford, 1967); M. G. Balme and M. S. Warman, Aestimanda (Oxford, 1965).
