^{page no 42 note 2} See Brunt and Moore, Res Gestae, 46-7.

^{page no 42 note 3} The best introduction is Fraenkel, Horace, 364-82.

^{page no 42 note 4} On this concept see p. 15 n. 6 above.

^{page no 42 note 5} This is a distinction which is very hard to make in Augustan poetry. On the religious circumstances and ideas see Altheim, F., A History of Roman Religion (London, 1938), 394 Google Scholar ff.

^{page no 43 note 1} For examples of such ‘ambiguity’ see Williams, TORP, 574 ff., and Odes Hi, 106, 118.

^{page no 43 note 2} Virgil’s Aeneid lies behind this section. Virgil had died only two years earlier.

^{page no 43 note 3} On the stylistic force and importance of this technique see Williams, TORP, 59-60.

^{page no 43 note 4} Such a judgement should be distinguished from e.g. Fowler’s, Warde (Roman Essays and Interpretations [Oxford, 1920], 115)Google Scholar: ‘. . . the impression it always gives me is that Augustus wrote out in prose what he wanted put into it, and that his laureate did this with consummate skill and concinnitas; but the result, for me at least, is that it is as flat as such compositions usually have been.’

^{page no 44 note 1} The reason for thinking this is that Odes iv. 3 and 6 are both based on the success of Carmen Saeculare; but both odes may well have been written some time, perhaps several years, later: see p. 47 n. 1 below.

^{page no 44 note 2} See Williams, TORP, 87-8.

^{page no 44 note 3} It needs to be emphasized that not only can Augustus’ requests not be dated but he was heavily occupied both at home and abroad between 20 and 13 B.c. Perhaps the first request was for Carmen Saeculare, then, perhaps, for Epist. ‘u. 1 (see p. 39 above), then Odes iv. 4 and 14.

^{page no 44 note 4} Though this does not necessarily mean that it was written last (see p. 46 below), especially since its programmatic function is restricted (see next note).

^{page no 44 note 5} See Fraenkel, Horace, 413; modified by Ludwig, W., Museum Helveticum xviii (1961), 1 Google Scholarff.

^{page no 45 note 6} See Nisbet-Hubbard, xxxvi.

^{page no 45 note 7} The prominence of the poem no less than that of the part assigned to Fabius suggests particular distinction. In iv. 2 Iullus Antonius plays a far less significant part, and his consulship lay some three years in the future (10 B.c.—the year of Fabius’ brother too).

^{page no 45 note 8} But see further pp. 46 ff. below.

^{page no 45 note 1} von, A. T. Bradshaw, S., CQ N.s. XX (1970), 142-53Google Scholar. He refers (p.150) to Kiessling’s brief anticipation of the idea.

^{page no 45 note 2} On consular elections under Augustus and the operation of commendatio, both CAHx. 162 ff. and Syme, Rom. Rev. 370 ff. exaggerate the direct influence of Augustus —see particularly Jones, A. H. M., Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford, 1960), 29 Google Scholar ff.

^{page no 45 note 3} On homosexuality in Roman poetry, see Williams, TORP, 549-57.

^{page no 45 note 4} This ambiguity is taken by Bradshaw to suggest a lack of confidence by Horace in his lyric powers also. But the poet’s capacity for self-depreciation needs reckoning with, and the whole tone of Odes iv makes the idea implausible.

^{page no 45 note 5} This is denied by Moritz, L. A. (CQ N.s. xviii [1968], 119)Google Scholar on the ground that only very special names come in the centre of an ode. So he once again takes this to be the poet Virgil. But it is quite implausible that the central positioning of a name is a function only of importance or intimacy and not of poetic structure. Structural considerations in fact account for the examples he adduces. His later article in Greece & Rome N.s. xvi (1969), 174-93, depends on accepting the case put forward in the earlier article as proved. The poem could well have been written ten years after Virgil’s death—the embarrassment of explaining that is clear from Moritz’s article.

^{page no 46 note 1} A deep strain of melancholy runs through all Horace’s lyric poetry, and becomes more marked in Odes iv; see S. Commager, The Odes of Horace, 264 ff.

^{page no 46 note 2} See p. 29 n. 1 above.

^{page no 46 note 3} On this theme see Commager, op. cit. 317 ff. This had been the prerogative of epic poetry (see Fraenkel, Horace, 424 n. 1).

^{page no 46 note 4} Appropriately, if Horace realized that it was the last lyric he would write (see below). On the special nature of its composition, designed to be a centre-piece to Odes iv, see W. Ludwig, op. cit. 9-10.

^{page no 46 note 5} The usual assumption seems to be that Odes iv was published about 13 B.C. That leaves the last five years of the poor man’s life vacant. So Ars Poetica is pushed in there; but that is implausible (pp. 38-9 above). What then was he doing from the age of 52 to 57 ? Horace’s literary life shows a consistency if we use it all up: there are three periods of about eleven years each (41-30, 30-19, 19-8); in the first he wrote about 34 per cent of his total output, in the second 45.5 per cent, and in the third 20.5 percent.

^{page no 46 note 6} For the career of Lollius, see Williams, TORP, 88.

^{page no 46 note 7} Syme, op. cit. 391.

^{page no 46 note 8} Such a rehabilitation would have required not only the remoteness of Tiberius but also distance from the time of the disgrace.

^{page no 47 note 1} Fraenkel (Horace, 364, 410) explains that Carmen Saeculare was the basic inspira tion for Odes iv. But the two odes iv. 3 and 6 might well have been written in the after glow of a lyric outburst in 13 B.c., with the poet looking back to Carmen Saeculare in gratitude for fame and inspiration. Both poems use the writing of Carmen Saeculare as a ‘framework’ to reflect (a constant theme of Odes iv) on Horace’s own lyric com position.

^{page no 47 note 2} See note 5 below.

^{page no 47 note 3} See Fraenkel, Horace, 432-40.

^{page no 47 note 4} See Williams, TORP, 430 ff.

^{page no 47 note 5} For the date 16 B.c. see Fraenkel, Horace, 433, n. 1. But too much factual accuracy is required of the poet if it is maintained that the Sygambri gave in and retreated (i.e. were not defeated in battle). As Augustus said himself (Res Gestae 13: parta victoriis pax), peace was gained by victories, and in Res Gestae 20. z he treats the Parthians (who also came peacefully to terms) as a conquered nation. The poet visualizes a triumph; a triumph needs enemies in chains—who better than the Sygambri who inflicted the humiliating defeat in 16 B.c.? Such mentions of conquered peoples in Horace are always more exemplary than exhaustive.

^{page no 48 note 1} Surely his thoughts were more seriously occupied ?

^{page no 48 note 2} See Williams, TORP, 750-5.

^{page no 48 note 3} For a detailed chronological account see Holmes, T. Rice, The Architect of the Roman Empire ii (Oxford, 1931), 63 Google Scholar ff.

^{page no 48 note 4} What I am suggesting here is that Augustus’ return with Tiberius from a successful campaign in Germany sparked off a great burst of lyric activity in Horace, and that in quite a short time he wrote Odes iv. 2, 4, 5, and 14. I see this as the real genesis of Odes iv.

^{page no 48 note 5} The way the book ends, just as it began, with Venus seems deliberate.

^{page no 48 note 6} See Williams, TORP, 162 ff.