A commentary on horace odes book III

HORACE: ODES
BOOK III


This page intentionally left blank


A CO M M EN TA RY ON

HORACE: ODES
BOOK III
BY

R. G. M. NISBET
AND

NIALL RUDD

1


Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal
Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© R. G. M. Nisbet and Niall Rudd 
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
ISBN 0–19–926314–
3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
Typeset by Kolam Information Services Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by
Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk


PR EFAC E

Th i s work follows the same lines as the commentaries by Nisbet and
Hubbard on Books I and II of the Odes (Oxford, 1970 and 1978). It
concentrates on individual poems and problems, and aims to elucidate
the poet’s meaning at the most literal level; it is not another book about
the Odes in general. Yet in view of the lapse of time since the earlier
volumes we have repeated a few facts in the General Introduction, and
at the same time have summarized our approach, particularly on controversial matters.
Recently there has been some discussion about the commentary as
a literary form: see G. W. Most (ed.), Commentaries—Kommentare
(Go¨ttingen, 1999), R. K. Gibson and C. S. Kraus (edd.), The Classical
Commentary (Leiden, 2002). In the case of Horace the size of the
bibliography causes particular difficulty; inevitably our own reading
has been selective. While a commentary should be clear at all costs
and not unreasonably long, these aims would never have been realized if
we had done full justice even to the more important books and articles.
As in the earlier volumes the editors try to support their interpretations by citing parallel passages; these may record an allusion to a
predecessor, exemplify a commonplace, provide the reason for preferring a textual variant, illustrate a syntactical usage, or give evidence for a
historical or antiquarian point. We use the catch-all ‘cf.’ to introduce
these different types of parallel; it is objected that this obscures important distinctions and fails to show how the author is using his models,
but the reason for the citation is usually obvious, and where Horace
significantly modifies his predecessor a note is normally supplied. To
avoid clogging the exegesis with lengthy lists, we have often selected the
earliest or most interesting parallels and then added a cross-reference to
TLL, OLD, or a more expansive commentator like Mayor, Pease, or
Bo¨mer. We do not hesitate to cite classical authors later than Horace, as
they may exemplify a standard locution or be derived from a common
source. We have sometimes quoted imitations of Horace in major
English poets; these should not be allowed to determine the interpretation of our text, though of course the reception of Horace is an
important theme in the study of European literature (see for instances
the introduction to 3. 30).

Needless to say, in recording parallels we are not denying Horace’s
originality, as some critics of the first volume supposed. In fact we
regard him as one of the most original of ancient poets for his ability


vi

P R EFAC E

to integrate political and philosophical themes in his lyrics, his virtuosity in adapting Greek metres to the heavier Latin language, his use of
traditional forms to present his unique personality, and above all the
range of his style and tone which his imitators have found inimitable.
As our collaboration developed we reached a large measure of agreement. In the few places where we differed, rather than attempt an
unsatisfactory compromise we have used our initials to indicate our
separate positions. As before, the editors owe much to previous commentators, especially Bentley, Orelli–Hirschfelder, and Kiessling–
Heinze, and to the interpretation of the Odes by H. P. Syndikus (edn.
3, Darmstadt, 2001); the attractive short commentary on Book 3 by
David West (Oxford, 2002) appeared too late to be consulted. It
remains only to thank the staff of the Oxford University Press for
bringing the book to completion.
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
University of Bristol
August 2003

R. G. M. N.
N. R.


CO N T EN T S
bibliography

general introduction
1. horace’s early life
2. the date of Odes i–iii
3. the ‘roman odes’
4. horace and augustus
5. maecenas and other addressees
6. horace’s ‘love-poems’
7. religion in horace
8. the meaning of the author
9. ambiguity
10. person and persona
11. genre
12. style
13. structure
14. the arrangement of the book
15. the text
16. the ancient commentators
17. metre
commentary
index nominvm
index verborvm
index rervm

ix
xix
xix
xix
xx
xxi
xxii

xxiii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvi
xxvii
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxix
xxx
1
379
383
387


This page intentionally left blank


B I B LI O G R A P H Y
This bibliography lists books cited in abbreviated form in the commentary; references like ‘Kroll 24’ can be elucidated here. It does not include
either articles or commentaries on other works. In the commentary a
select bibliography is prefixed to each ode; the expression ‘op. cit.’
normally refers to those bibliographies, not to this one. For further
details see W. Kissel, ANRW II. 31. 3 (Berlin, 1981), 141 ff.;
E. Doblhofer, Horaz in der Forschung nach 1957 (Darmstadt, 1992);
W. Kissel in S. Koster (ed.), Horaz-Studien (Erlangen, 1994), 116 ff.
(a) texts and commentaries

For fuller lists see Schanz–Hosius 2. 152 and Kissel (1981) cited above.
Lambinus, D. (1561), Lyons.
Bentley, R. (1711), Cambridge; edn. 3 (1728), Amsterdam (repr. 1869).
Mitscherlich, C. G. (1800), vol. 2, Leipzig.
Peerlkamp, P. Hofman (edn. 2, 1862), Amsterdam.
Schu¨tz, H. (edn. 3, 1881), Berlin.
Orelli, J. C., revised by W. Hirschfelder (edn. 4, 1886), Berlin.
Kiessling, A. (edn. 2, 1890), Berlin.
Page, T. E. (1895), London.
Wickham, E. C. (edn. 3, 1896), Oxford.
Gow, J. (1896), Cambridge.
Keller, O., and Holder, A. (edn. 2, 1899), Leipzig (text and parallels).
Mu¨ller, L. (1900), 2 vols., St Petersburg and Leipzig.
Shorey, P., and Laing, G. J. (edn. 2, 1910), Chicago, repr. Pittsburgh, 1960.
Wickham, E. C., revised by H. W. Garrod (edn. 2, 1912), Oxford Classical
Texts.
Darnley Naylor, H. (1922), Cambridge.
Heinze, R. (edn. 7 of Kiessling, 1930; edn. 10, 1960), Berlin.
Campbell, A. Y. (edn. 2, 1953), Liverpool.
Klingner, F. (edn. 3, 1959), Leipzig (text only).
Williams, G. (1969), Oxford (Book 3 only).
Quinn, K. (1980), London.
Borzsa´k, S. (1984), Leipzig (text only).
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1985, revised 2001), Stuttgart (text only).


x

B I B LI O G R A P H Y

Syndikus, H. P. (2001), Die Lyrik von Horaz edn. 3, 2 vols., Darmstadt (a literary
commentary with valuable detail).
West, D. (2002), Dulce Periculum, Oxford (Book 3 only).

(b) other books cited
Abbe, E. (1965), The Plants of Virgil ’s Georgics, Ithaca.
Adams, J. N. (1982), The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London.
—— and Mayer, R. G. (edd.) (1999), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry,
Oxford.
Allen, W. S. (1965 and 1978), Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical
Latin, Cambridge.
Anderson, J. K. (1961) Ancient Greek Horsemanship, Berkeley.
—— (1985), Hunting in the Ancient World, Berkeley.
Andre´, J. (1949), E´tudes sur les termes de couleur dans la langue latine, Paris.
—— (1967), Les Noms d’oiseaux en latin, Paris.
Appel, G. (1909, repr. 1975), De Romanorum precationibus, Giessen.
Axelson, B. (1945), Unpoetische Wo¨rter: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen
Dichtersprache, Lund.
Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S. R. (1998), Religion in Rome, 2 vols., Cambridge.
Bell, A. J. (1923), The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction, London and Toronto.
Binder, G. (1971), Aeneas und Augustus, Interpretationen zum 8. Buch der Aeneis,
Meisenheim am Glan.
Blu¨mner, H. (1875–87, vol. 1, edn. 2, 1912), Technologie und Terminologie der
Gewerbe und Ku¨nste bei Griechen und Ro¨mern, Leipzig.
—— (1911), Die Ro¨mischen Privataltertu¨mer, Munich.
Bo, D. (1960), De Horati poetico eloquio, vol. 3 of Q. Horati Flacci opera (Corpus
Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum), Turin.
Bolton, J. D. P. (1962), Aristeas of Proconnesus, Oxford.
Bompaire, J. (1958), Lucien e´crivain: imitation et cre´ation, Paris.
Boucher, J.-P. (1965), E´tudes sur Properce: Proble`mes d ’interpre´tation et d ’art,

Paris.
Bruchmann, C. F. H. (1893), Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Graecos leguntur,
supplement in Roscher, vol. 7, Leipzig.
Brunt, P. A. (1971) Italian Manpower, Oxford.
—— (1990), Roman Imperial Themes, Oxford.
Burkert, W. (1985), Greek Religion, Archaic and Classical (Oxford), translation of
Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (1977).
Cairns, F. (1972), Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry, Edinburgh.
Campbell, A. Y. (1924), Horace: A New Interpretation, London.
Capponi, A. (1979), Ornithologia Latina, Genoa.


B I B LI O G R A P H Y

xi

Carter, J. B. (1902), Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Latinos leguntur, supplement in Roscher, vol. 7, Leipzig.
Cavarzere, A. (1996), Sul limitare: Il ‘motto’ e la poesia di Orazio, Bologna.
Christ, F. (1938), Die ro¨mische Weltherrschaft in der antiken Dichtung (Tu¨binger
Beitr. 31), Tu¨bingen.
Collinge, N. E. (1961), The Structure of Horace’s Odes, London.
Commager, S. (1962), The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study, New Haven and
London.
Copley, F. O. (1956), Exclusus Amator: A Study in Latin Love Poetry (Amer.
Philol. Assoc. monograph 17).
Costa, C. D. N. (ed.) (1973), Horace, London and Boston.
Crook, J. A. (1967), Law and Life of Rome, London.
Curtius, E. R. (1953), European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, London,
translated from the German edition.
Davis, G. (1991), Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse, Berkeley

and Los Angeles.
Dickey, E. (2002), Latin Forms of Address, Oxford.
Doblhofer, E. (1966), Die Augustuspanegyrik des Horaz in formalhistorischer Sicht,
Heidelberg.
Earl, D. C. (1961), The Political Thought of Sallust, Cambridge.
Ernout, A., and Meillet, A. (edn. 4, 1959), Dictionnaire e´tymologique de la langue
latine, 2 vols., Paris.
Esser, D. (1976), Untersuchungen zu den Odenschlu¨ssen bei Horaz (Beitr. zur klass.
Philol. 77), Meisenheim am Glan.
Flower, H. I. (1996), Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture,
Oxford.
Fraenkel, E. (1957), Horace, Oxford.
—— (1960), Elementi plautini in Plauto, Florence, translation with addenda of
Plautinisches im Plautus (1922), Berlin.
—— (1964), Kleine Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Philologie, 2 vols., Rome.
Fu¨hrer, R. (1967), Formproblem—Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der fru¨hgriechischen Lyrik (Zetemata 44), Munich.
Galinsky, K. (1996), Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton.
Gatz, B. (1967), Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen (Spudasmata 16), Hildesheim.
Grassmann, V. (1966), Die erotischen Epoden des Horaz (Zetemata 39), Munich.
Griffin, J. (1985), Latin Poets and Roman Life, London.
Gutzwiller, K. J. (1998), Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Hand, F. (1829–45), Tursellinus seu de particulis Latinis commentarii, Leipzig,
repr. (1969) Amsterdam.


xii

B I B LI O G R A P H Y

Handford, S. A. (1947), The Latin Subjunctive: Its Usage and Development from

Plautus to Tacitus, London.
Hardie, P. (1986), Virgil ’s Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium, Oxford.
Harrison, S. J. (ed.) (1995), Homage to Horace, Oxford.
—— (ed.) (2001), Texts, Ideas, and the Classics, Oxford.
Hilgers, W. (1969), Lateinische Gefa¨ssnamen, Du¨sseldorf.
Horden, P., and Purcell, N. (2000), The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford.
Housman, A. E. (1972), Classical Papers (ed. J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear), 3
vols., Cambridge.
Hubbard, M. (1974), Propertius, London.
Irwin, E. (1974), Colour Terms in Greek Poetry, Toronto.
Kambylis, A. (1965), Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik, Heidelberg.
Keller, O. (1909–20, repr. 1963), Die antike Tierwelt, 2 vols., Leipzig.
Kroll, W. (1924), Studien zum Versta¨ndnis der ro¨mischen Literatur, Stuttgart, repr.
(1964) Darmstadt.
Lacey, W. K. (1996), Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of the System (Arca
35), Leeds.
La Penna, A. (1963), Orazio e l ’ideologia del principato, Turin.
—— (1993), Saggi e studi su Orazio, Florence.
Latte, K. (1960), Ro¨mische Religionsgeschichte, Munich.
Lattimore, R. (1942), Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Illinois Studies in
Language and Literature 28), Urbana.
Le Boeuffle, A. (1977), Les Noms latins d ’astres et de constellations, Paris.
Leo, F. (1912), Plautinische Forschungen, Berlin, repr. (1966) Darmstadt.
Lieberg, G. (1982), Poeta Creator: Studien zu einer Figur der antiken Dichtung,
Amsterdam.
Lo¨fstedt, E. (vol. 1, edn. 2, 1942; vol. 2, 1933), Syntactica: Studien und Beitra¨ge zur
historischen Syntax des Lateins, Lund.
Lovejoy, A. O., and Boas, G. (1935, repr. 1997), Primitivism and Related Themes
in Antiquity, Baltimore.
Lowrie, M. (1997), Horace’s Narrative Odes, Oxford.

Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1980), The Latin Love Poets from Catullus to Horace, Oxford.
—— (1987), Further Voices in Vergil ’s Aeneid, Oxford.
—— (1989), Words and the Poet: Characteristic Techniques of Style in Vergil ’s
Aeneid, Oxford.
—— (1995), Horace: Behind the Public Poetry, New Haven and London.
Maltby, R. (1991), A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Arca 25), Leeds.
Marquardt, J., and Mau, A. (edn. 2, 1886), Das Privatleben der Ro¨mer, Leipzig.
Meiggs, R. (1982), Trees and Timber in the Ancient Roman World, Oxford.
Millar, F., and Segal, E. (edd.) (1984), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford.


B I B LI O G R A P H Y

xiii

Murray, O., and Tecus˛an, M. (edd.) (1995), In Vino Veritas, London.
Neue, F., and Wagener, C. (edn. 3, 1892–1905), Formenlehre der lateinischen
Sprache, Berlin.
Newman, J. K. (1967), Augustus and the New Poetry (Coll. Latomus 100),
Brussels.
Nicolet, C. (1991), Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire, Ann
Arbor.
Nisbet, R. G. M. (1995), Collected Papers on Latin Literature, Oxford.
Nissen, H. (1883–1902), Italische Landeskunde, 2 vols., Berlin.
Nock, A. D. (1972), Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, 2 vols., Oxford.
Norden, E. (1913), Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religio¨ser
Rede, Leipzig–Berlin, repr. (1956) Darmstadt.
O’Hara, J. J. (1996), True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay, Ann Arbor.
Oliensis, E. (1998), Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge.
Onians, R. B. (edn. 2, 1954), The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the

Mind, and the Soul . . . , Cambridge.
Oppermann, H. (ed.) (1972), Wege zu Horaz (Wege der Forschung 99), Darmstadt.
Otto, A. (1890), Die Sprichwo¨rter und sprichwo¨rtlichen Redensarten der Ro¨mer,
Leipzig, repr. (1962) Hildesheim.
Pape, W., and Benseler, G. F. (edn. 3, 1911), Wo¨rterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, Brunswick, repr. (1959) Graz.
Parker, R. (1983), Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion,
Oxford.
Paschalis, M. (1997), Virgil ’s Aeneid: Semantic Relations and Proper Names,
Oxford.
Pasquali, G. (1920), Orazio lirico, Florence, repr. with addenda by A. La Penna,
1984.
Pichon, R. (1902), De sermone amatorio apud Latinos elegiarum scriptores, Paris ¼
Index verborum amatoriorum, Hildesheim (1966).
Porter, D. H. (1987), Horace’s Poetic Journey: A Reading of Odes 1–3, Princeton.
Po¨schl, V. (edn. 2, 1991), Horazische Lyrik, Heidelberg.
Pulleyn, S. (1997), Prayer in Greek Religion, Oxford.
Raaflaub, K. A., and Toher, M. (edd.) (1990), Between Republic and Empire:
Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford.
Rawson, E. (1985), Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, Oxford.
Reitzenstein, R. (1963), Aufsa¨tze zu Horaz, Darmstadt, a collection of reprinted
articles.
Richardson, L., Jr. (1992), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome,
Baltimore and London.


xiv

B I B LI O G R A P H Y

Rohde, E. (edn. 3, 1914), Der griechische Roman und seine Vorla¨ufer, Leipzig, repr.

(1960) Hildesheim.
Roscher, W. H. (1884–1937), Ausfu¨hrliches Lexicon der griechischen und ro¨mischen
Mythologie, Leipzig.
Ross, D. O., Jr. (1975), Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome,
Cambridge.
Rudd, N. (1966), The Satires of Horace, Cambridge.
—— (ed.) (1993), Horace 2000: A Celebration, London.
Saller, R. P. (1982), Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge.
Salmon, E. T. (1967), Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge.
Santirocco, M. (1986), Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes, Chapel Hill and
London.
Schanz, M., and Hosius, C. (vol. 2, edn. 4, 1927), Geschichte der ro¨mischen
Literatur, Munich.
Schmidt, E. A. (2002), Zeit und Form, Heidelberg.
Scho¨nbeck, G. (1962), Der Locus Amoenus von Homer bis Horaz (Diss.), Heidelberg.
Scullard, H. H. (1981), Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, London.
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1982), Profile of Horace, London.
Simon, E. (1990), Die Go¨tter der Ro¨mer, Munich.
Sittl, C. (1890), Die Geba¨rden der Griechen und Ro¨mer, Leipzig.
Steinby, E. M. (ed.) (1993–2001), Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, Rome.
Stroh, W. (1971), Die ro¨mische Liebeselegie als werbende Dichtung, Amsterdam.
Suerbaum, W. (1968), Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung a¨lterer ro¨mischer Dichter (Spudasmata 19), Hildesheim.
Syme, R. (1939), The Roman Revolution, Oxford.
—— (1978), History in Ovid, Oxford.
—— (1979–91), Roman Papers, 7 vols., Oxford.
—— (1986), The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford.
Taillardat, J. (1962), Les Images d ’Aristophane: E´tudes de langue et de style, Paris.
Tara´n, S. L. (1979), The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden.
Thomas, R. F. (1999), Reading Virgil and his Texts, Ann Arbor.
Thompson, D’A. W. (1936), A Glossary of Greek Birds, Oxford, repr. (1966)

Hildesheim.
Thomson, J. O. (1948), History of Ancient Geography, Cambridge.
Toynbee, J. M. C. (1973), Animals in Roman Life and Art, London.
Treggiari, S. (1991), Roman Marriage, Oxford.
Troxler-Keller, I. (1964), Die Dichterlandschaft des Horaz, Heidelberg.
Wackernagel, J. (edn. 2, 1926–8), Vorlesungen u¨ber Syntax, 2 vols., Basel.
Weinstock, S. (1971), Divus Julius, Oxford.
West, M. L. (1992), Ancient Greek Music, Oxford.


B I B LI O G R A P H Y

xv

White, K. D. (1970), Roman Farming, London.
White, P. (1993), Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, Cambridge, Mass.
Wilkinson, L. P. (edn. 2, 1951), Horace and his Lyric Poetry, Cambridge.
Wille, G. (1967), Musica Romana, Amsterdam.
Williams, G. (1968), Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry, Oxford.
Wills, J. (1996), Repetition in Latin Poetry, Oxford.
Wimmel, W. (1960), Kallimachos in Rom (Hermes Einzelschriften 16), Wiesbaden.
Wissowa, G. (edn. 2, 1912), Religion und Kultus der Ro¨mer, Munich.
Wo¨lfflin, E. (1933), Ausgewa¨hlte Schriften, Leipzig.
Woodcock, E. C. (1959), A New Latin Syntax, London.
Woodman, T., and West, D. (edd.) (1984), Poetry and Politics in the Age of
Augustus, Cambridge.
—— and Feeney, D. (edd.) (2002), Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of
Horace, Cambridge.
Zanker, P. (1988), The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor,
translated from (1987), August und die Macht der Bilder, Munich.

(c) concordances
Cooper, Lane (1916, repr. 1961), A Concordance of the Works of Horace, Washington.
Iso Echegoyen, J.-J. (1990), Concordantia Horatiana, Hildesheim.

(d) abbreviations
For periodicals see L’Anne´e philologique or OCD edn. 3.
ALL
ANRW
CAH
CGL
CIL
CLE
CMA
Coll. Alex.
CRF
DNP
D–S

Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik (1884–1909).
Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini
and W. Haase (1972– ).
Cambridge Ancient History (edn. 2, 1961– ).
Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, ed. G. Goetz (1888–1923).
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1863– ).
Carmina Latina Epigraphica, ed. F. Bu¨cheler and
E. Lommatzsch (1895–1926).
The Oxford Guide to Classical Mythology in the Arts, 1300–1990s,
ed. J. D. Reid, 2 vols. (1993).
Collectanea Alexandrina, ed. J. U. Powell (1925).

Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, ed. O. Ribbeck (1898).
Der Neue Pauly (1996– ).
C. Daremberg and E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquite´s grecques
et romaines (1877–1919).


xvi

Encicl. oraz.
Encicl. virg.
FGrH
FLP
FPL
GL
GLP
GV
HE
H–Sz
IG
IGRR
ILLRP
ILS
K–G
K–S
LGPN
LIMC
LSJ
MRR
Mus. Lap.
N–H

OCD
OGIS
OLD
PCG
PG
PIR
PL

B I B LI O G R A P H Y

Enciclopedia oraziana (1996–8).
Enciclopedia virgiliana (1984–91).
Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby (1923–58).
The Fragmentary Latin Poets, ed. E. Courtney (1993).
Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum, ed. W. Morel (1927); edn. 2 ed.
K. Bu¨chner (1982).
Grammatici Latini, ed. H. Keil (1855–80).
Greek Literary Papyri: Poetry, ed. D. L. Page (1942).
Griechische Vers-Inschriften I: Grab-Epigramme, ed. W. Peek
(1955).
Hellenistic Epigrams, ed. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, 2 vols.
(1965).
J. B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik
(Handb. der Alt. 2. 2. 2), 1965.
Inscriptiones Graecae (1873– ).
Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, ed. R. Cagnat
etc. (1901–27).
Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, ed. A. Degrassi, edn. 2
(1957–63).
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau (1892–1916).

R. Ku¨hner and B. Gerth, Ausfu¨hrliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache: Satzlehre (1898–1904).
R. Ku¨hner and C. Stegmann, Ausfu¨hrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre (1912–14).
A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, ed. P. M. Fraser, etc. (1987– ).
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (1981–99).
Liddell and Scott, Greek–English Lexicon, rev. H. Stuart Jones,
edn. 9 (1925–40).
Magistrates of the Roman Republic, ed. T. R. S. Broughton (1951–
86).
Musa Lapidaria, ed. E. Courtney, American Classical Studies 36
(1995).
R. G. M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, Commentary on Horace, Odes
1 (1970), 11 (1978).
The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edn. 3, ed. S. Hornblower and
A. Spawforth (1996).
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger
(1903–5).
Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare (1968–82).
Poetae Comici Graeci, ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin (1983– ).
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne
(1857–66).
Prosopographia Imperii Romani, edn. 1, (1897–8), edn. 2, (1933– ).
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne
(1844–64).


B I B LI O G R A P H Y

PLM
PMG
RAC

RE
ROL
SIG
Supp. Hell.
TGF
TLL
TRF
TrGF

xvii

Poetae Latini Minores, ed. A. Baehrens (1879–81), Leipzig, rev.
F. Vollmer (1911–35).
Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. Page (1962).
Reallexikon fu¨r Antike und Christentum (1941– ).
Real-Encyclopa¨die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed.
A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll (1893– ).
Remains of Old Latin (Loeb edn.), ed. E. H. Warmington, 4
vols. (1934–53).
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, edn. 3
(1915–24).
Supplementum Hellenisticum, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons
(1983).
Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edn. 2, ed. A. Nauck (1889),
suppl. by B. Snell (1964).
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (1900– ).
Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, ed. O. Ribbeck (1897).
Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. B. Snell, R. Kannicht, S.
Radt (1971– ).

This page intentionally left blank


G EN ER A L I N T RO D U C T I O N
1. Horace’s early life
Horace was born on 8 December 65 bc (3. 21. 1, epist. 1. 20. 27 f., Suet.
vita 71R) at Venusia in Apulia (serm. 2. 1. 34 ff., carm. 3. 4. 9 ff.). His
father had once been a slave, probably as a result of capture in the Social
War (G. Williams ap. Harrison, 1995: 296 ff.); the stigma of servile
origin, however unfair, remained and is made clear at serm. 1. 6. 5 ff.
and 45 f. After his emancipation the father made good as an auctioneer
and provider of credit (serm. 1. 6. 86, Fraenkel 4 f.), and could afford to
educate his son not only at Rome (serm. 1. 6. 76 ff.) but also at Athens
(epist. 2. 2. 43 ff.); Horace exaggerates the humbleness of his origins
(3. 30. 12, epist. 1. 20. 20), but by the standards of his later friends his
background was undoubtedly restricted. In 42 bc he served as a tribunus
militum under Brutus at Philippi (serm. 1. 6. 48, carm. 2. 7. 9 ff., 3. 4. 26),
evidence of energy and organizational ability; but though he lost his
patrimony (epist. 2. 2. 50 f.), within a few years he had made peace with
Octavian’s victorious faction, obtained a high-ranking post in the treasury (serm. 2. 6. 36, Suet. vita 8, Fraenkel 14 f.), and resumed his position
as an eques Romanus (serm. 2. 7. 53, Lyne, 1995: 3 n.). About 37 bc he was
befriended by Maecenas (serm. 2. 6. 40), under whose auspices he wrote
two books of sermones or satires (issued about 35 and 30) and completed
his collection of iambi or epodes (again about 30). In 36 he saw something of Octavian’s war against Sextus Pompeius (3. 4. 28 n.), and in 31 he
seems to have accompanied Maecenas to Actium (epod. 1 and 9, cf.
perhaps carm. 3. 1. 38–9 n.).1 In the meantime Maecenas had presented
him with a property in the Sabine hills (serm. 2. 6. 1 ff., carm. 1. 17, 3. 1.
47–8 n.) that gave him an income from his tenants’ rents, and the leisure
to write. For further biographical detail see Enciclopedia oraziana 1. 217 ff.

2. The date of Odes I–III
The first three books were issued together (epist. 1. 13. 2 speaks of
volumina), but the poems were not in chronological order. The date
was probably 23 bc in the consulship of Sestius (whose position in 1. 4 is
otherwise hard to explain), before the death of Marcellus later in the

1
See E. Wistrand, Horace’s Ninth Epode, 1958 (¼Opera Selecta, 1972: 293 ff.), R. G. M.
Nisbet ap. Woodman and West (1984), 9 ff. (underlining the need to read huc at epod. 9. 17),
I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay ap. Woodman and Feeney (2002), 17 ff.


xx

H O R AC E : O D ES I I I

same year (N–H vol. 1, p. 145 on 1. 12. 45 f.), and before the disgrace of
Murena (the recipient of 2. 10),2 which is put by Dio 54. 3 in 22 bc.
Some of the non-political poems may have been written earlier than
Actium (Encicl. oraz. 1. 220), before the Satires were completed, but
political allusions are the most reliable criterion of date. It is sometimes
said that Horace might have made revisions up to 23; but though an
elegiac or hexameter poet might have done it, this would have been
more difficult with the complex structures of the Odes. G. O. Hutchinson now argues that the three books were issued separately (CQ 52,
2002: 517 ff.); though he does not persuade us, he provides some valuable
details.

3. The ‘Roman Odes’
The first six poems of Book III have been called the Roman Odes at

least since Plu¨ss (1882). They share the Alcaic metre in contrast to
Horace’s usual variatio, a substantial length, an absence of individual
addressees, a subject-matter that concentrates on the political and moral
issues which were thought important by the new regime, and an impressive seriousness of style. 3. 4 seems to belong to 29, when Octavian
returned in triumph from the East and demobilized his army (38 n.), 3. 6
looks forward to his repair of the temples in 28 (res gest. 20. 4), a date
that also suits the apparent abandonment of his first attempt at moral
legislation (see the introduction to that poem). In January 27 he assumed the name ‘Augustus’, by which he is described at 3. 3. 11 and 3. 5. 3;
later that year he departed for Gaul, from where he was expected to
invade Britain (cf. 3. 5. 3–4 n. and possibly 3. 3. 56). 3. 2 cannot be dated;
3. 1 serves as an introduction to the series and perhaps to the book as a
whole.
Many have seen in the Roman Odes not just a common form and
purpose but a carefully planned unity of design. Mommsen thought the
series celebrated the new constitution of 27 bc (cf. Reden und Aufsa¨tze,
1905: 168 ff.), but this seems too late for nos. 4 and 6. Domaszewski
found in poems 2–5 the qualities represented on the shield presented to
Augustus in 27, virtus, iustitia, clementia, pietas (RhM 59, 1904: 302 ff.);
but that, apart from being incomplete, is far too schematic a treatment.
Many have claimed to detect various patterns of arrangement and
cross-reference,3 but these are often arbitrary and unconvincing: for
2
The Murena of 2. 10 (a poem that commends the Golden Mean) must be the alleged
conspirator, one of whose associates was the Peripatetic philosopher Athenaeus (Strabo 14.
5. 4, N-H vol. 2, p. 152).
3
See for instance H. Wagenvoort, De Horatii quae dicuntur Odis Romanis, Diss.
Groningen 1911: 18 ff. G. E. Duckworth, TAPA 87, 1956: 299 ff., M. Santirocco (1986),

G EN ER A L I N T RO D U C T I O N

xxi

example, the simplicity of life commended in 3. 1 is not the same as the
pauperies that the young soldier must learn to endure (3. 2. 1); 3. 1. 7 ‘clari
Giganteo triumpho’ (of Jupiter himself ) has a different function from 3. 4.
49 ff. (the defeat of the Titans), which is a clear political analogy to the
overthrow of the Antonians. Some have even thought of treating the
series as one long poem,4 but the dates of the odes are different, their
subjects quite distinct, and all have convincing openings and closures.

4. Horace and Augustus
In considering this question we reject two contradictory approaches. A
former generation of scholars, well represented by Fraenkel (1957), was
content to accept Augustan ideology on its own terms, without regard
to the violence and deception that characterized Octavian’s seizure and
retention of power, and to assume that Horace felt the same in every
respect. A contrary and more recent approach has been to exaggerate
the similarities between Augustus and the chief dictators of the twentieth century, and then sometimes to seek hints of subversion in Horace;
this is to ignore the poet’s closeness to the regime, as shown later by
Augustus’ wish to make him his secretary (Suet. vita 18), and also to
disregard the feelings of loyalty that counted for more in Rome than the
political independence valued in modern democracies. It can be debated
how far Horace was sincere in his support of Augustus’ policies, indeed
whether the concept of sincerity is relevant to the public utterances of a
court-poet (see the introduction to 3. 6); but whatever view one takes of
his private commitment, it must be agreed that Horace showed great
skill in selecting illustrations which he knew would have a wide appeal.
Thus Antony is damned indirectly by eloquent Pindaric allegories (3. 4);

Augustus’ moral policy is made more acceptable by vignettes of metropolitan decadence and rustic simplicity (3. 6); the abandonment of the
prisoners in Parthia is justified by invoking the legendary self-sacrifice
of Regulus (3. 5); references to the ruler-cult in Rome are confined to
the future (3. 3. 11, 3. 5. 2), where they would cause less offence to
traditional attitudes.
Apart from the Roman Odes a few poems in the book are concerned
with Augustus. 3. 24 (like 3. 1) denounces materialism and (like 3. 6) calls
for moral revival; the implication that earlier attempts have failed
(vv. 25 ff.) suggests that it too should be assigned to about 28 bc. In
111 ff. For the independent composition of the six odes see R. Heinze, Vom Geist des
Ro¨mertums, edn. 3, 1960: 190 ff., L. Amundsen, SO suppl. 11, 1942: 1 ff. (¼ Oppermann,
1972: 111 ff.).
4
Diomedes (GL 1. 251) regards 3. 7 as the second ode in the book (cf. Porph. on 3. 1. 1);
add S. J. Heyworth in Formative Stages of Classical Traditions (ed. O. Pecere and
M. D. Reeve), 1995: 117 ff., A. Griffiths ap. Woodman and Feeney, 2002: 73 ff.


xxii

H O R AC E : O D ES I I I

3. 25, under the inspiration of Bacchus, the poet talks of celebrating the
Princeps; this is often thought to refer to the Roman Odes, but the
celebration may not look beyond the poem itself. In 26 bc Augustus was
absent in Spain fighting the Cantabrians in the north, and in 25 he was
seriously ill at Tarraco on the east coast; see the introduction to 3. 8,
which we assign to the latter year. In 24 bc Horace celebrates the great
man’s return to Rome in an ode that combines his roles as a public and a
private poet (3. 14); here he emphasizes what all reasonable people must

have felt by that date, that the survival of Augustus is at once the
strongest guarantee against the renewal of civil war and the best hope
for the country’s regeneration.

5. Maecenas and other addressees
Three odes in the book are addressed to Maecenas: 3. 8, 3. 16 (beginning
the second half ), and 3. 29 (the last poem before the epilogue); in
addition 3. 1 has some pointers in the same direction (see the introduction to that poem). Maecenas was not Horace’s patronus (a word not
used in the Augustan period of literary patrons), but rather his amicus—
even if an unusually grand one (Saller, 1982: 8 ff., P. White: 1993, 29 ff.,
280 f.). The poems mentioned above allude to various aspects of his life
and personality—his pride in his Etruscan ancestors, the grandeur of his
life-style, his wide learning, his munificence, and the worries caused by
his political responsibilities (especially in the absence of Augustus). At
the same time Horace is ready to tease him about his eminence (Lyne,
1995: 102 ff.), and even to hint, perhaps, that his wealth has not brought
him so much happiness as the Sabine estate has brought to the poet (see
3. 1 and 3. 16). In Book 4, when Maecenas’ political power seems to have
waned (Lyne, 1995: 136 ff., 189 ff.) Horace still speaks of him warmly (11.
17 ff.), and we are told that Maecenas’ final commendation to Augustus
was ‘Horatii Flacci ut mei memor esto’.
In the period of Odes 1–3 Maecenas was still close to Augustus, and in
spite of his equestrian status he had a deserved reputation for diplomatic
skill (serm. 1. 5. 27 ff., carm. 3. 16. 15 n.). One no longer thinks of him as a
propaganda-minister issuing fiats to poets, but the emphasis is now
sometimes too much the other way. It is not enough to point out that
people absorb their opinions from the prevailing atmosphere, for in the
twenties Augustus was still consolidating his position, and positive
guidance was needed. In the Roman Odes Horace seems to have
followed the official line in every particular (see also 3. 24. 54 ff. for

the criticism of young men’s sports), and Maecenas was the obvious
intermediary between the Princeps and the poet; no one, least of all
Horace himself, would have regarded the gift of the Sabine estate as an
act of wholly disinterested benevolence.


G EN ER A L I N T RO D U C T I O N

xxiii

Only three other poems are addressed to identifiable people, namely
Aelius Lamia (17), Murena the augur (19), and the great orator and
statesman Messalla Corvinus (21). As usual Horace includes tactful or
humorous allusions to the personalities and families of the recipients.
Yet, unlike the second book of odes and the first book of epistles, Odes 3
puts rather little emphasis on friendship.

6. Horace’s ‘love-poems’
Horace’s KæøôØŒÜ show little of the emotional involvement found in
Catullus or Propertius. One of his roles is that of the urbane and
experienced consultant. Thus he urges Asterie to ignore her serenading
lover (7), consoles the love-lorn Neobule (12), and warns Pyrrhus not to
compete with a predatory woman for the favours of a good-looking boy
(20). When he professes to speak of his own case, he wittily adapts the
traditional situations of love-poetry, the paraclausithyron in 10, the
renuntiatio amoris in 26, the propempticon in 27; when he reminds
Lyde of the heroically loyal Hypermestra (11) and Galatea of the spectacularly indiscreet Europa (27), his exempla are entertaining rather than
moving. His amusement is often directed wryly at himself: Lydia is
given the last word in her tart exchanges with the poet (26), if Lyce and
Neaera are unresponsive (10 and 14), he will not persist, and though he

pretends (unconvincingly) to have given up his interest in girls, he says
he would like to get his own back on Chloe (26). He admits to many
relationships with both puellae and pueri (epod. 11. 4, serm. 2. 3. 325, carm.
4. 1. 29 ff.), and his references to hetaerae no doubt reflect personal
experience (Griffin, 1985: 20 f.), but that is not to say that the names
and situations are to be taken as historically authentic. He does not lay
claim to lasting affections (4. 1. 30 ff., cf. 1. 13. 17 ff.), whether because of
the ambiguity of his social position or simply his inborn nature. Sometimes he is more brutally sexist than any other Augustan poet (see epod.
8 and 12, serm. 1. 2. 116 ff., carm. 1. 25, 2. 5, 3. 15, 4. 13, epist. 1. 18. 71 ff.); yet
towards the end he seems to have regretted the loneliness which his
bachelor life-style has brought (4. 1. 30 f.). For further discussion see
N–H vol. 1, pp. xvi f., Lyne (1980), 201 ff., B. Arkins ap. Rudd (1993),
106 ff., Encicl. oraz. 1. 527 ff.

7. Religion in Horace
Other people’s religions are often hard to understand. That of ancient
Rome may seem unattractive because of its blood-sacrifices (3. 13. 3 ff.),
its bargaining spirit (3. 18. 5 ff.), its legalistic insistence on verbal accuracy (3. 21. 5 n.), the absurdity of its superstitions (3. 27. 11 n. on augury),
its complacency about Rome’s role in the divine purpose (3. 6. 1 ff.). Yet
Horace, like Virgil, conveys some of the deeper feelings that antiquarian


xxiv

H O R AC E : O D ES I I I

pedantry and anthropological speculation cannot illuminate: the recurring festivals reflect the age-old rhythms of the agricultural year (3. 13,
3. 18), there is awe at the mystery of woods, caves, and springs (cf. 3. 25.
2 n. and the introduction to 3. 13), the solemn rites convey a sense of
peace and order (3. 1. 2 n., 3. 14. 5 ff., 3. 30. 8 f.), as in the tableaux of the

Ara Pacis. Moreover, Roman religion was unusually tolerant and inclusive, as is shown by the incorporation of Greek cults even in the earliest
times (3. 3. 9 n., 3. 14. 1); it found a place for slaves and freedmen (see
3. 23 on the Penates), women had goddesses to suit their special needs
(3. 22. 2 ff.), and as it was not constricted by any formal creed it could
accommodate even a sceptic like Horace. See further Wissowa (1912)
and Latte (1960) for antiquarian detail; for more modern approaches
add Beard–North–Price (1998), D. Feeney, Literature and Religion at
Rome (1998), especially the summary at 2 ff.

8. The meaning of the author
To establish Horace’s meaning on the most literal level may seem
difficult when one is dealing with a dead language; yet in this respect
Horace is easier than Shakespeare and far easier than many a modern.
According to one theory which has been familiar for over half a century,
the writer’s intention is always unknowable. This dogma exaggerates the
difficulties in the concept,5 and underestimates the amount of common
ground shared by poetry and everyday communication: if even a tenth of
our ordinary discourse were as problematic as poetic discourse is supposed to be, social life would soon become chaotic. So in dealing with
basic questions of language we have followed a long and well-tried
tradition, inviting others to refute our views (or to supplement them)
by evidence and argument.
On broader issues, which Horace may not have consciously considered, modern theory has more to offer. When he dreams of swimming down the Tiber in pursuit of Ligurinus (4. 1. 40), a Freudian
psychologist might provide analogous case-histories, a social anthropologist could show how the gift of an estate created binding obligations, types of ancient slavery have been illuminated by Marxists, we
ourselves have no doubt been influenced by feminists in our criticism of
Horace’s treatment of women. On more literary matters the critic can
study ‘interaction in imagery’ (3. 11. 41–2 n.), or the point of view in a
narrative (see the story within a story at 3. 7. 9 ff.), or the poem that
refers to itself (3. 25. 7 n.), or the part of nightfall in closures (3. 28.
16 n.); such things were not discussed in ancient rhetorical theory, which
naturally concentrated on prose, yet they are clearly relevant to the

5
See N. Rudd, Phoenix 18, 1964: 221 ff., M. Heath, Interpreting Classical Texts, 2002:
59 ff.