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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
There have been few works of literature so widely known, so persistently traduced and so little understood as the Odes of Horace. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries his defamation has been little less than wanton outrage. Landor's sweeping criticisms are well known. But consider also Tyrrell (1895) on Horace's style: ‘The runnel is exquisitely smooth, but its shallow waters flow where they will, from their natural channel, and end in a puddle’; or Pound (1930) on the question of emotional strength: ‘Against the granite acridity of Catullus’ passion, against Ovid's magic and Ovid's sense of mystery, Horace has but the clubman's poise and no stronger emotion than might move one toward a particularly luscious oyster’; or Nisbet (1962) on artifice and artificiality: ‘His [Horace's] high standards of technical perfection brought a loss of spontaneity; only those who write fast can express all the shades and subtleties of thought.’
1. See the recent and convenient survey of LaVonne Ruoff, A., ‘Walter Savage Landor’s Criticism of Horace: The Odes and Epodes’, Arion ix (1970) 189–204Google Scholar.
2. Tyrrell, R. Y., Lectures on Latin Poetry (Boston 1895) 199Google Scholar.
3. Pound, Ezra, ‘Horace’, The Criterion ix (1929–30) 217–227Google Scholar (the essay has been reprinted in Arion ix [1970] 178–87).
4. Nisbet, R. G. M., ‘Romanae Fidicen Lyrae: The Odes of Horace’, 217 — in J. P. Sullivan (ed.), Critical Essays on Roman Literature: Elegy and Lyric (London 1962)Google Scholar.
5. Especially valuable has been the work of Commager, Steele, The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study (New Haven & London 1962)Google Scholar, and Quinn, Kenneth, Latin Explorations (London 1963)Google Scholar (= Quinn LE). See also Quinnȁs essay, ‘Horace as a love poet. A reading of Odes 1.5‘, Arion ii 3 (1963) 59–67Google Scholar (= Quinn ‘HLP‘ —reprinted in Rudd, N. [ed.], Essays on Classical Literature [Cambridge & New York 1972] 103–21)Google Scholar. Alongside the imaginative and perceptive work of Commager and Quinn should be set the informed, scholarly criticism of Williams, Gordon, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968)Google Scholar (= Williams TO), and The Third Book of Horace’s Odes (Oxford 1969)Google Scholar (= Williams H3). Of considerable merit also are West’s, David little book, Reading Horace (Edinburgh 1967)Google Scholar, Owen Lee’s, M.Word, Sound and Image in the Odes of Horace (Ann Arbor 1969)Google Scholar, Pöschl’s, V.Horazische Lyrik: Interpretationen (Heidelberg 1970),Google Scholar and Reckford’s, Kenneth J.Horace (New York 1969).Google Scholar The last-mentioned is however marred by occasional forays into biographical speculation. Still fundamental is the generous scholarship of Fraenkel’s, EduardHorace (Oxford 1957).Google Scholar It is unfortunate that the important work of his Oxford succesor, R. G. M. Nisbet, op. cit. (n. 4 above) and (with Hubbard, Margaret) A Commentary on Horace’s Odes Book 1 (Oxford 1970)Google Scholar (= NH), in overemphasizing the traditional elements of Horace’s poetry tends to obscure the vitality and quality (indeed sheer realism) of much of the poet’s thought. Cf. Williams’ well-founded criticisms in Horace (G & R New Surveys in the Classics 6, Oxford 1972) (= Williams H) 1–4, and Quinn’s energetic review article, ‘The New Nisbet-Hubbard Horace’, Arion ix (1970) 264–73.Google Scholar
6. The following odes might reasonably be classified as ‘amatory’: 1.5, 8, 11, 13, 16(?), 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33; II.4, 5, 8, 9, 12(?); III.7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20, 26, 28; IV.l, 10, 11, 13.
7. For a brief but lively account of Horace’s humour in the Odes see Wilkinson, L. P., Horace and His Lyric Poetry 2 (Cambridge 1951) 59–64Google Scholar. See also Williams TO (n. 5 above) 561–65.
8. On 1.23 and III.9 see Lee’s sensitive analyses (n. 5 above, 78–81, 103–07).
9. All the translations in this study are my own. I have tried to reproduce some of the formal qualities of the Horatian ode by employing syllabic metres which have the same number of syllables as the original lines. Clancy, Joseph P. in his translation, The Odes and Epodes of Horace (Chicago 1960),Google Scholar uses for the most part a similar device.
10. ‘Sithonian’ is presumably an allusion to Chloe’s country of origin, Thrace (III.9.9). Williams H3 (n; 5 above) ad loc. also observes this.
11. Cf. 1.23, the only ode directly addressed to Chloe, which similarly plays upon the semantic connotations of her name. In 1.23.9–10 the poet protests that he has no intention of ‘breaking’ (frangere) Chloe (= ‘twig’ or ‘young shoot’). See Lee (n. 5 above) 78ff. For other significant names in the amatory odes see n. 18 below.
12. For this interpretation of 1.30.8 see NH (n. 5 above) 344.
13. Quinn LE (n. 5 above) 137–40 puts forward a relatively serious, pacifist interpretation of this poem. His thesis is intriguing but untenable. For direct criticism of it see West (n. 5 above) 120–24.
14. See NH (n. 5 above) ad loc. for a sound defence of this reading.
15. The ambiguity is noted also by Kiessling, A. and Heinze, R., Q. Horatius Flaccus, Oden und Epoden9 (Berlin 1959)Google Scholarad loc., and Quinn LE (n. 5 above) 139–40, but not by NH (n. 5 above). For cultus as ‘training’ see IV.4.34, and as ‘practices’, i.e. established modes of conduct, see 1.10.2.
16. Cf. Commager’s excellent analysis (n. 5 above) 130–36.
17. The comic morality-play aspect of III.7.5–22 appears to have gone unnoticed. What in fact Horace presents us with in 5–22 is a caricatured description of the efforts of a conventional temptress to seduce the faithful and immutably chaste Gyges. Note how the portrayal of the cold and comfortless Gyges (5–8) is followed immediately by a caricature of a femme fatale on heat, suffering all the conventional agonies of the elegiac lover (9–11 — observe also the neat alliteration of ‘seething’ sibilants reinforcing the hyperbole) and, like some Greek tragic heroine (Phaedra?), sending a messenger to tempt (temptat, 12) her visitor in a thousand ways, but especially with tales about the dangers of chastity (casto, 15, abstinens, 18), of which the moral is ‘Sin!’ (peccare docentes, 19). The tales, however, prove ineffective (which is hardly surprising, since the attempts upon the lives of the ‘chaste’ heroes mentioned were conspicuously unsuccessful), and Horace’s little play reaches a stridently moral climax (frustra: nam scopulis surdior Icari/voces audit adhuc integer, ‘in vain: with ears more deaf than Icarian cliffs he listens, and keeps his purity safe’, 21–22), which recalls in amusing vein (note the oxymoron, surdior … audit, ‘with ears more deaf … he listens’) the description of Aeneas’ resistance to the pleas of Dido’s sister, Anna (Aeneid IV.438ff.), brings to a head the references to chastity in the lines preceding, and confirms the quasi-solemn testimonial of the initial stanza: constantis iuvenem fide, ‘a young man of trust and honour’.
18. Significantly named addressees in the amatory odes include Pyrrha in 1.5 (connotations of fire, flood and archetypal woman), Leuconoe in 1.11 (= ‘Prudence’ — see below), Tyndaris in 1.17 (connotations of Trojan Helen — see below), Fuscus in 1.22 (connotations of darkest Africa), Chloe in 1.23 (= ‘twig’ or ‘young shoot’ — see n. 11 above), Asterie in III.7 (= ‘star-like one’), Lyce in 111.10 and IV.13 (= ‘wolf’), Neobule in III.12 (connotations of ‘new designs’), Ligurinus in IV.l and 10 (= ‘he of the sweet-sounding voice’), Phyllis in IV.ll (connotations of leaves, foliage, and vital growth — see below). Horace also of course in the amatory odes uses significant names for persons other than the addressees: in addition to Chloe (111.26) and Sybaris (1.8), commented upon above, note Glycera, ‘Sweetie’, in 1.19, 30 and 33 (see below), Lalage, ‘Chatterbox’, in 1.22, II.5, Enipeus, ‘Reprover’, in III.7, Nothus, ‘Bastard’, in 111.15, Nearchus, ‘Young Lord’, in 111.20. On significant names in the Odes as a whole see ‘On the Unknown Names in the Odes’, Appendix I in the third edition of Wickham’s, E. C.The Works of Horace (Oxford 1896) Vol I 403–05Google Scholar, and, most recently, Lee (n. 5 above) 72ff. and 115–16.
19. Reckford’s, Kenneth J. approach to this ode in his important essay, ‘Some Studies in Horace’s Odes on Love’, CJ Iv (1959)s 25–33Google Scholar (see esp. 26–27) is far too serious (cf. Williams TO [n. 5 above] 135–37). In it, according to Reckford, ‘in accepting the bucolic ideal of peace and tranquillity and an inner harmony between mind and nature Horace rejects the passion of love as something foreign to his spiritual landscape’ (26). In his later work, Horace (n. 5 above), Reckford at least sees a certain amount of ‘self-critical humor’ in the ode (59). But is the humour at Horace’s expense or at that of his poetic addressee?
20. On this ode see especially Quinn ‘HLP’ (n. 5 above), West (n. 5 above) 99–107, and Pöschl (n. 5 above) 18–28.
21. Quinn, however, ‘HLP’ (n. 5 above) 75–76, refuses to particularize Horace as one of the miseri (Pyrrha’s former lovers), and is rightly criticized for this by West (n. 5 above) 106. Note that the continuity of the sea-imagery and the emotive language used of Pyrrha’s new lover (gracilis puer, ‘skinny boy’, 1, perfusus liquidis odoribus, ‘soaked with dripping scent’, 2, credulus, ‘naively trusting’, 9, nescius, ‘ignorant’, 11 — see L. T. Wellein, ‘Horace, Carm. 1.5’, CB xxxiii [1957] 26–27, and Levin, D. N., ‘Thought-Progression in Horace, Carmina 1.5’, CJ lvi [1961] 358Google Scholar nn. 5 and 10) further attest Horace’s ‘involvement’ in the scene of the first three stanzas. Nisbet (n. 4 above, 183) naturally would not agree: ‘The ode lacks nothing except seriousness and involvement.’
22. For example, by Collinge, N. E., The Structure of Horace’s Odes (London 1961) 68:Google Scholar ‘Horace does no more than say “carpe diem” in a series of aphorisms piled up in an almost Gilbertian manner.’
23. On the semantic possibilities of Leuconoe’s name see Commager (n. 5 above) 274, NH (n. 5 above) ad loc, and esp. Lee (n. 5 above) 71–77.
24. West (n. 5 above) 58–64 has some penetrating observations on the imagery of the final lines.
25. The sexual associations of plucking (carpe) flowers, fruit, etc. are well established. Cf., for example, Pindar, Pythians 9.110, Euripides, Hippolytus 73ff., Catullus 11.22ff.
26. The serious potentialities of humour are in fact drawn attention to by Horace in his Satires. See esp. Satires 1.10.14–15: ridiculum acri/fortius et melius magnas plerumque secat res (‘humour for the most part cuts into important issues more forcefully and effectively than invective’). Cf. also Satires I.1.24–25. On the seriocomic in Horace’s Satires see Giangrande, L., The Use of Spoudaiogeloion in Greek and Roman Literature (The Hague and Paris 1972) 105–21Google Scholar. Cicero’s comment at De Oratore II.250 is also noteworthy: nullum est genus ioci, quo non ex eodem severa et gravia sumantur (’there is no type of jest, from which grave and serious matters are not at the same time to be derived’).
27. See, for example, the comments of Reckford (n. 5 above) 101–02, 124–26.
28. Quinn LE (n. 5 above) 156–57 fails to recognize the mock-heroic tone of this expression and of the clause which follows, and hence talks (as it seems to me) mistakenly about the ‘arresting earnestness’ and ‘sudden seriousness’ of 10–12.
29. Cf. Reckford (n. 19 above) 26, who notes perceptively: ‘curvantis Calabros sinus suggests not so much the conventional “storm of love” as the very easily imagined sexual attractions of Myrtale.’ See also id. (n. 5 above) 100–01. Quinn LE (n. 5 above) 157 strangely ignores the sexual overtones of this final image.
30. E.N. 1139a35.
31. For a defence of the reading, Euro, see NH (n. 5 above) 299–301.
32. Cf. Collinge (n. 22 above) 52: ‘the crudest and nastiest poem in Horace’s lyrics’.
33. Cf. NH (n. 5 above) 291: ‘Horace does not even persuade us, as do Catullus and Propertius, that his conventional formulas reflect real feelings. He is simply exhibiting his usual virtuosity in weaving together diverse poetical strands.’
34. Lydia’s rejection is highlighted also by the use of the mot juste for erotic disdain (especially a courtesan’s disdain), arrogans (‘contemptuous’), in connection with her potential lovers — cf. 111.26.12.
35. But not personally so. The speaker does not dwell, as for example in IV.13.9ff., upon the havoc that time wreaks upon a woman’s physical appearance.
36. See, for example, Nisbet (n. 4 above) 187.
37. The striking epithet, ulcerosus, seems to have been invented by Horace for this context. It is based upon the Greek word, ἑλκώώηζ See Williams TO (n. 5 above) 758.
38. Like ulcerosus an arresting word, occurring here for the first time in extant Latin literature.
39. There is a further point worth mentioning — it is Commager’s (n. 5 above, 248 n. 12): ‘Is it too fanciful to suppose that the transition to matres equorum (14) may have been suggested by the popular belief (cf. Vergil, G.3.266ff.) that mares were aroused and even became pregnant from the wind?’
40. Cf. Nisbet (n. 4 above) 187.
41. See Commager (n. 5 above) 235–306.
42. On II.5 see especially Reckford (n. 19 above) 27–29, (n. 5 above) 103–06, Commager (n. 5 above) 251–54, and Nisbet (n. 4 above) 184–85. Nisbet’s judgment that the poem ‘is a masterpiece of compact and tasteless ingenuity, such as nobody but Horace could have achieved’ deserves as much respect as his similarly unsubstantiated proclamation: ‘None of Horace’s love-poems (if that is the right name for them) reaches the first rank’ (184).
43. See Page’s, T. E. sensible note ad loc. in his edition of the Odes (London 1895)Google Scholar: ‘praegestientis is a very strong word: gestire (from gestus) “to use passionate gestures” is itself a very emphatic word for “desiring”, and prae in the sense of “exceedingly” makes it more so.’ The word is used by Catullus’ Ariadne (64.145) of the unbridled lusts of men.
44. A motif which is conspicuously absent from the poem of Anacreon (417), which, it is claimed (e.g. by Commager 252–53, NH 274 — both n. 5 above), provided the starting point for this ode (and I.23).
45. As perhaps by Williams TO (n. 5 above) 561ff.
46. See, e.g., I.4 and 9. Love is of course a usual ingredient of that communal celebration of life’s joys — the symposium (cf. II.11, III.19 and 28).
47. Cf. Commager (n. 5 above) 303.
48. Cf. Reckford (n. 19 above) 30, who describes the tone of this ode as ‘emotion masquerading as tranquillity’. Unfortunately in his later work (n. 5 above, 126) he abandons this view in favour of Fraenkel’s judgment (n. 5 above, 418), ‘all gentleness and mellow resignation’. Reckford’s volte-face is supported, however, by no substantiating argument.
49. The latest to remark upon the ‘deep strain of melancholy’ in Book IV is Williams H (n. 5 above) 46 n. 1. But notice also the earlier amatory odes, I.25, II.4, 5.
50. See especially Nisbet (n. 4 above) 184ff., and Williams TO 565 and H 28 (both n. 5 above). Contrast Quinn LE (n. 5 above) 137: ‘Horace … was turning poetry into a kind of urbane commentary — succinct, sensitive, humane, gently humorous — on contemporary life’, and West (n. 5 above) 134ff.
51. Ullman, B. L., ‘Horace and the Philologians’, CJ xxxi (1936) 413Google Scholar.
52. Cf. West (n. 5 above) 138–39.
53. Shorey, P., Horace, Odes and Epodes (Boston 1898) xviiiGoogle Scholar.
54. Cf. Quinn ‘HLP’ (n. 5 above) 66: ‘Horace, it seems to me, put a lot of thought into bringing his readers to think afresh about situations of everyday life so familiar people ceased to think about them at all.’
55. Quinn, K., The Catullan Revolution2 (Cambridge 1969) 27ffGoogle Scholar.
56. On the dramatic monologue in Horace see Quinn LE (n. 5 above) 84–109, and Connor, P. J., ‘The Dramatic Monologue. A Study of Horace Odes II.14 and II.3’, Latomus xxix (1970) 756–64Google Scholar, and ‘Soracte Encore’, Ramus i (1972) 102–12.
