BOOKTEXT2

Ode IV,3.

Note A. This is an invocation to Melpomene, generally regarded as the muse of Tragedy and the same muse mentioned, in passing, in Odes I, 24 and III, 30. However, in this ode, she would appear to be cast as an instigator and overseer of the whole of Book IV. There has been much discussion as to whether Melpomene was regarded as the muse of tragedy at the time of Horace or merely the muse of poetry in general. Fraenkel was clearly of the latter opinion, insisting that Verrall was incorrect in his assertion. Yet in I, 24 [... praecipe lugubris cantus, Melpomene, cui liquidem pater vocem cum cithara dedit.] – 'teach mournful songs, Melpomene, to whom the father (of the Muses) dedicated a pure voice with the art of playing the cithara.', Horace clearly indicates his perception of her influence to be of a tragic nature as regards content, while acknowledging her influence upon the means of musical accompaniment. In III, 30, [Sume superbiam quaesitam meritis et mihi Delphica lauro cinge volens, Melpomene, comam.] – 'Melpomene, wishing for more distinguished rewards to me and having been asked the question, gird the hair with the Delphian laurel crown.', Is Horace making fun of himself by suggesting that his Book III is so dire it should be regarded as tragic? Does Horace accept this muse as such and is this invocation a clear signal that what he is about to write in Book Iv should be taken as tragic in nature?

Note B. This must refer to the composition of the Carmen Saeculare, meant literally as 'a song of a generation or age.' Decreed by the Sybylline Books and ostensibly fixed at intervals of one hundred years, there is no doubt that the use of the ludi saeculares was as often motivated by political considerations as by celebratory needs. The fourth ludi saeculum, (in 17 BC.), thirty–two years too late, was unusual in that, after the statutory three days of celebration, it concluded with a hymn sung by the children of Rome. This is the work that Horace was commissioned to write by Augustus and which, according to Suetonius, restored him to writing verse again after the cool reception of his first three books of Odes. One must suspect the motives of Augustus in first restoring the festival after a default of thirty–two years and secondly for insisting that it contain a vocal hymn to be performed on the Palatine and the Capitol. The opportunity for asserting the domination of the Princeps is self evident and indeed, in the fifth triad of the hymn, we find three quatrains of barely concealed personal propaganda. Horace was obviously delighted, more, it would seem, by the receiving of the commission itself than by the allusions he was forced to include and there is no doubt that the pressure applied is evident in the composition itself. When a command for a fourth book of odes followed close upon its heels, Horace may well have decided enough was enough!

Note C. Here Horace, using sonum cycni metonymically to mean the poet's voice, uses, in the same manner, mutis piscibus to mean the 'silent majority' or, in this particular case, the long–suffering public of Rome. Although the voice of the dying swan was sacred to Apollo and the term 'Dircaean' swan was used to describe Pindar, it is not thought that Horace is evoking any such comparisons here. Rather, it is as though, having been chosen to represent the spirit of Rome in the ludi saeculares, Horace nows sees himself as spokesman of the people of Rome and is determined to voice their concern against what appears to be a new dynastic age of tyrants that is taking Rome away from its republican ideals. The phrase, Romanae fidicen lyrae, echoing the skills given to Melpomene. merely confirm that Horace has now changed from lyric to tragic verse.

Note D. Much has been made of the phrase, ne parva Tyrrhenum per aequor vela darem, by many commentators who have used it to insist that here, despite the use of the subjunctive, Horace intends to emphasise the peaceful endeavours of Augustus instead of his warlike activities. One is moved to enquire, exactly what warlike activities would these have been? The phrase, proelia me loqui victas et urbes, which the previous phrase serves to negate, introduces a personal note and must imply the individual's physical participation in such warlike activities. There is no evidence to support such a role for Augustus. He may well have been the moving spirit and the titular leader but he was always content to allow military men such as Marcus Agrippa to serve as the leader in any actual conflict. Within the republican ethos, which Augustus was always at pains to claim support, there was a long and honourable tradition of military activity by leading citizens of Rome, one that a self proclaimed princeps could hardly expect to relegate with impunity. By the same token, had he indeed have had an heroic profile on the battlefield, that same republican ethos would have demanded that he be praised for it; it would not have wished to emphasize any complementary efforts towards peaceful endeavours. It is felt that, whether Horace intended contempt or not, the negative phrase, ne parva ..., is clearly underlining that there were no military exploits for which Augustus could be praised and to do so would have only emphasized that shortcoming.

Note E. As far as is known, no past commentator has remarked upon the rather odd coupling of subject matter such as the return of Parthian eagles with the plentiful produce from the farms. One's natural thought processes do not see a plausible connection, that is unless Horace is wishing to make the connection for us. The eagles, lost by Crassus at the battle of Carrhae 53 BC. and by Antony at the battle of Phraaspa 36 BC. were held by the Parthians. It has always been understood that Augustus negotiated their return in 20 BC. by diplomatic means and their return was coupled to the replacing the Armenian king Artaxes with his younger brother Tigranes who had been 'Romanized'. As to why this move should have pleased Parthia has never been entirely clear even if the installation of a client king meant the withdrawal of Roman forces from a neighbouring kingdom yet, shortly afterwards, four sons of the Parthian king were sent to Rome to be educated. Did Rome receive imports of agricultural produce, including corn, from this region as well as from Egypt? Is this the substance of the clain by Augustus, in Res Gestae, 5, in respect of the corn supply and coupled with a date of 22 BC.?

Note G. This is a reference to he activities of Augustus in the expansion of the Roman empire, as related in Res Gestae, 26–28 and in particular to such campaigns as those against the conquered territories of the Vindelici and Rhaeti, (profundum Danuvium bibunt), which, although promoted by Augustus as a military necessity, could also be regarded as unprovoked aggression on Rome's part. These, together with other peoples with whom the Romans were in constant contact, the Thracians, Parthians and Scythians, (Tanain prope flumen orti), did not succumb to the loose standards the Romans allowed themselves. Horace also mentions, in this context, the sic Chinese who, by the time of Augustus were well known for their silken products. To the Romans, China began north of India, in which is now, or was until recently, Tibet but even so their contacts would have been through third parties. Horace is obviously labouring the point here; even unknown barbarians would not behave in such a fashion!

Note H. Upon the death of Lepidus in 13 BC. Augustus became Pontifex Maximus and remained so from 12 BC. until his death. As such he led the people on the solemn occasions on which they celebrated important events of the Calendar. These formal occasions differed markedly from the usual lifestyle of Augustus and his companions when only the gods of loose living, such as Bacchus and Aphrodite were celebrated. The Lydian flute was symptomatic with orgiastic rites and in most respects doubled with the Berecynthian flute used in the worship of Cybele.

Note I. This passage is a pointed reference to the honours heaped upon Augustus, particularly triumps, for the actions of others. It enquires, with concealed malice, whether he could have brought the tribes of the Vindelici under Roman rule without violence, presumambly in the same manner as he recovered the Parthian eagles. If so, why were Drusus and Tiberius sent there with the might of the legions?

J. They had a much simpler alternative and brought both the Vindelici and the Rhaeti under the heel by excessive and bloody force. But then, they were really the sons of a great soldier, Tiberius Claudius Nero, not the adopted sons of a military poseur.

K. This is a commentary on an unnecessary passage of arms. The tribes of the upper Danube lived amongst the high Alps and could only loosely be said to control the passes through them into the plains of northern Italy. It was hardly the sort of territory through which the Germanic tribes would choose to invade. Scullard, From the GRACCHI to NERO, p.255, advances the theory that it formed part of a concerted campaign – 'He thus planned a large–scale advance to the whole of the Danube from Lake Constance to the Black Sea, with the establishment of new provinces in the conquered land of Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia and Moesia.' However, the subsequent role of these territories does not substantiate that theory. But they were certainly an easy target, the victory over whom would prove a well needed piece of propaganda. Similarly the occasion was also a reasonably risk–free venue for the young men of the Princeps' family to gain their spurs. In Res Gestae, 30, Augustus claims the defeat of these tribes as his own victory, only mentioning Tiberius as the legate in command and not mentioning Drusus at all! He makes no excuse for acquiring the territory, offering neither security nor strategy as a reason, merely remarking, , 'the peoples of Pannonia, where no army of the Roman people had ever been before my principate, I completely defeated ...'.

Note L. While the campaign involving the Vindelici and Rhaeti was being fought, in 15 BC., Augustus was absent from Rome, from 16 BC. to 13 BC., first in Gaul and then in Spain. Although his ostensible reason was to retrieve the military disaster suffered by Lollius at the hands of the German tribe, the Sygambri, his subsequent absence has only ever been explained as vaguely 'administrative.' Certainly his activities did not involve military activity at all since the Sygambri had returned across the Rhine before he arrived and he declined to follow them and inflict suitable punishment. The embarrassing incident was subsequently referred to as a 'reconciliation'. It was, however, almost exactly fifteen years since the victory at Actium, which in retrospect, despite its subsequent impact upon the future of the Roman Empire was, from a military standpoint, almost a non–event. This passage is unkind enough to draw the parallel.

M. This passage is about two unearned honours given to Augustus. Firstly in relation to the Danube campaign when the Trophy of Augustus was erected at La Turbie, above Monaco, listing forty–six Alpine and Rhaetian tribes he had 'conquered'. Secondly, and far more spectacularly, the triumph he was accorded with the erection of the Ara Pacis. This is associated with the closure of the gates to the temple of Janus Quirinus and this only occured when 'peace with victory' was secured throughout the Roman empire. Res Gestae, 13, refers to the fact that this happened three times in his principate but had only happened twice before in all of Rome's recorded history. What conclusion does Horace invite us to draw? That the recorded history was almost entirely that of a Republican ethos and that its achievements were the result of a constant readiness for war and conflict in defence of that way of life? That an overriding readiness to adopt a state of peace was a betrayal of that ethos that exposed the pusillamimous nature of the Princeps?

N. The final passage of this ode augments the above since it postulates what the rest of the world might think about this non–aggressive stance of Rome under Augustus. It asks what all the war–like peoples within and without the empire might feel about Rome being ruled by such as Augustus. It invites us to consider that all the respect and fear that Roman arms have instilled in the past might now be rendered null and void. It suggests that if a small, primitive tribe such as the Sygambri can inflict a defeat on a fully armed Roman legion, take their eagle and remain unpunished then it is they who should be honoured, not Rome.

Note O. This relates an allegory that H. wishes to apply to the narrative that immediately follows. Zeus desired the beautiful young boy Ganymedes, the son of a Trojan prince and sent an eagle, the carrier of his mighty thunderbolt, to snatch him away. The boy then became cup–bearer, the usual euphemism for what today might well be called a 'rent boy' ostensibly to all of the Gods but in reality for personal service to Zeus himself. The eagle, having carried out the mission is rewarded and made king of the birds, becoming their chief predator. H. adroitly transfers the role of Zeus to Augustus and the role of the eagle to his stepson Drusus. The role transferred from Ganymedes is uncertain unless we consider the Vindelici, whom Augustus desired to conquer, in that role. H. then uses metaphor to consolidate this; a lion cub being refused milk by its mother and turning its attention to a young, helpless deer being used to compare Drusus at the head of several Roman legions attacking a small primitive Alpine tribe.

P. In this passage the Vindelici and their weapons are compared to the Amazons as being an unworthy foe, being lightly armed and female. This, far from being chauvinistic, is thought to be sympathetic. According to legend, the Amazons fought in light tunics armed only with bows, a skimpy, crescent–shaped shield and a lightweight axe. They were considered by Herodotus and other historians to be fierce in battle but too lightly armed to be a serious threat to a well disciplined army. Horace is presumably emphasising underlining how uneven were the forces involved in the Danube campaign while inferring how very unwise it was to mention the fact!

Q. In this cynical aside, in its way looking forward to the masterly observations of Tacitus, H. gives his view on the ruthlessness of power and how it is inbred in the dynastic young . His opinion is that the roots are always there awaiting suitable nurturing and, in utcumque defecere mores indecorant bene nata culpae, he tranmits an immortal truth.

R. This is intended as a panegyric on Rome and its people as it was, not to Augustus or to what Rome has become under his leadership. For this reason H. places it in the mouth of Hannibal, Rome's greatest foe who almost brought it to its knees. In this there is an implicit admiration for Hannibal and, by reflection, on Rome itself for enduring all the misery and danger that he brought against her and surviving. It underlies all the qualities that are inherent in the Roman people that allow them to always persevere against adversity. In a sustained build–up of emotive narration H. prepares the reader for a final denouement.

Note S. Once more H. uses allegory to make a point concerning the indestructability of the Roman republican ethic. Hannibal compares it to the Hydra, the many headed monster born to Typhon and Echidna, the destruction of which was to become the second labour of Hercules. He duly encountered it but found that when one head was cut away, others grew in its place but by various means he managed to cut off all the heads except one. This was the immortal head which could not die and which Hercules could only bury under a rock. So the Hydra was not really killed at all. Whether H. intends us to compare Hercules with Hannibal or with Augustus is not clear but it most probably is the latter since it must be remembered that Hercules himself was under penance for killing his own family and was hardly an heroic figure in the circumstances.

T. H. here makes the distinction between the Claudian and Julian families. The former had a long and honourable service history with the Roman republic; the latter was only noteworthy for having introduced a cult of dictatorship into the system of government and thereby formed a dynasty of emperors. This passage emphasises the proper manner in which things should be done, quas et numine Iuppitet defendit, as that of which the Gods approve and which time and wise counsel upholds. Not the devious manner in which Augustus and his followers achieve their own ends!

Note U. The use of analogy, between Augustus and an unknown young man is puzzling unless we assume that the young man is in fact Tibullus, the contemporary poet of Horace. Embarked upon an overseas voyage with M. Valerius Messalla, his patron, Tibullus was taken ill at Corcyra from where he was eventually returned to Rome and died in 19 BC.. The manner and the exact time of his death or, indeed, the period of time he lay ill in Corcyra is not known for certain but would certainly coincide with the absence of Augustus in the East from 22 BC. to 19 BC.. However the reason for the choice of analogy now becomes quite clear. In the eyes of Horace, Tibullus was a beloved poet while Augustus was an upstart. Much of what follows in the ode, adulation or ironical observation, would then be expected to be assigned accordingly by the reader. For instance, the phrase optime Romulae custos gentis is quite ambiguous in intent. A cursory reading would assume it to be meant as 'guardian' and assign it and the fulsome praise that follows to Augustus. However, if custos is in fact read as, say, 'representative' and carrying a connotation of the Roman ethos, then it would better describe Tibullus in the hearts and minds of Rome.

V. It is felt that stanzas 5 and 6 should be regarded as a series of Substantival clauses, forming indirect questions dependent on the verb sequence, quaerit patria Caesarem, that occurs in the closing line of stanza 4. Horace mentions the safety of farms and crops, the safety of sea travel, the fact that friendship may become a liability, the apparent ineffectiveness of law and order, rampant adultery and its consequences to a family and whether the guilty are punished. This has the effect of reversing the apparent tranquility that emanates from this whole passage and leads us to consider whether it refers to the situation before the enactment of the relevant leges Juliae, credited to Augustus in 18 BC., or whether it refers to any subsequent ineffectiveness on their part. The further dimension reflects on the ravages of piracy, at sea and on coastal areas. Augustus created a widespread naval fleet after 30 BC. and it must be accepted that the seas were made safe from pirates as soon as these became effective. Whether this took as long as ten years is not known but considering the scale of the problem throughout the whole area of Roman control, the task would have been quite considerable.

W. In view of the above note it is considered that incolumi Caesare is not intended to be at all complimentary in the context of stanza 7. The sensibility of the passage would seem to be 'with Caesar in command of our lives, it is pointless to worry about other barbarians!' rather than to indicate his ability to protect Rome. In the ten years, from 22 BC. to 13 BC., Augustus was absent from Rome for seven of them, ostensibly to extend Rome's frontiers, yet leaving the centre of power to be governed by deputies. Horace is plainly indicating general dissatisfaction with these prolonged absences and indicating that, in default of proper leadership, it is better to get on with one's life and drink wine to bring forgetfullness rather than worry about foreign parts. As long as the proper Gods are appeaed and one remembers to include the 'divine Augustus.' H. mentions the middle East, Parthia and Scythia, referring to 20 BC., Germany, presumably the Sygambriam debacle under Marcus Lollius in 17 BC. and the war in Hiberia, which can only refer to the presence of Augustus there in 15–14 BC. This places the timing of this ode to cover the situation during the latter part of these long absences, say about 14 BC..

X. This last stanza is clearly intended to counterbalance the first stanza both in context and the sentiment expressed. It should be seen as summarising the dichotomy of feeling about Augustus in Rome at this time. The proper, perceived attitude would be to wish Caesar a happy time following the sun. The actual feeling, under the influence of that same wine, would be to suggest that Rome would be better served if he were to follow it to its logical conclusion, going down with the sun under the ocean for ever.

Note Y. Allegory is used here to dissuade a poet from emulating Pindar. Icarus, the son of Daedalus, was so enchanted by the wings his father had devised, in order to escape from Crete, that he forgot their original purpose and flew too near the heat of the sun for the mere pleasure of emulating the birds. It must be noted here that Horace does not deny that Julius could write poetry in the manner of Pindar, only that he would be unable to control his verse as tightly. To accept that H. is saying that, while Pindar's verse rushes along with the force of a mountain stream is correct; to accept that it does so in an uncontrolled manner spilling over its banks is clearly not correct. To do so would be to invalidate the praise that is lavished on Pindar in the following five stanzas. It is therefore important to note the key role that aluere plays in the context of the first two lines of stanza 2. It serves to indicate that it is Julius who is liable to pour forth verse. uncontrolled, like a mountain stream in flood, not Pindar. Pindar reveals the immeasurable depths, immensusque ... profundo, to which a rushing stream, by its very nature, cannot reach.

Z. In stanza 4, H. also seeks to illustrate how Julius would differ from Pindar in the treatment of the Gods. Here, reges must surely be taken as the the future second person of rego rather than the plural nominative of the substantive rex if any real sense is to be made of the whole passage. As such, in this passage, it plays a key role meaning 'to show correctly' which, together with iusta, allows H. to contrast the earthy connotations that Pindar allows the Gods to the reverent attitude that Julius might well attach to them. Stanzas 5 and 6 serves to underline this former attitude.

AA. These pivotal stanzas, 7–9, adroitly change the direction of the ode, setting H.'s own estimation of his poetical worth against the greatness of Pindar, while damning the work of Julius with faint praise. The contrast of the swan with the bee, the one soaring into the heavens and the other hovering around river groves but neither stooping to the shallow bombast of political adulation must be taken as significant. The opening of stanza 9 serves to place the poetical style of Julius very firmly in perspective. Maiore poeta should not be taken to be entirely complimentary any more than the presence of the ferocis Sygambros be taken for granted in any victory celebration.

AB. In stanzas 10–12, H. now allows satire full reign. We must surely take stanza 10 to be a parody of Julius's style, on the part of Horace, and regard the passage as intended to be in quotation marks. To attribute such shallow and bombastic sentiments to H. himself would be quite inexcusable. Stanza 11 suggests a continuing vein of specious praise on the part of Julius but stanza 12 clearly indicates H.'s utter distase for the whole farcical interlude. While he is prepared to make the appropriate noises out loud, H. reserves his true feelings within himself. In recepto Ceasare felix, H. clearly intends recepto to indicate the withdrawal of the Sygambri across the Rhine before Augustus had arrived on the scene and the absence of any victoty at all. 'A fortunate withdrawal for Caesar', clearly underscores the contempt of Horace, and presumably Rome itself, for the emptiness of the victory.

AC. In the final stanzas the satire becomes a bitter indictment on the false values of the principate. Portraying the Senate fawning on the would–be Emperor and hailing a non–existent triumph with the citizens of Rome following suit. The extravagance of the praise and the lavish sacrifices into which H. introduces a leavening of humour. Offering a rogue bull calf that is eating him out of house and home, H. likens its face to the bright crescent of a new moon imposed on the half illuminated orb of the full moon. It appears bright and shining but is really the same colour as the rest. Thus with the ignominy of defeat; it can never be effaced with spurious victory celebrations. Lollius was defeated, an eagle was lost and Augustus did not avenge the name of Rome.

Note AD. Although ostensibly addressed to a certain Lyce, this ode is about Cinara and offers some background to her disappearance so early in H.'s life. The sentiments within the ode are clearly intended for the memory of Cinara as she once was rather than to Lyce. Lyce has remained and time has wrought ravages; Cinara died in full posssession of her beauty. The same time that took Cinara away so suddenly has gradually degraded Lyce's beauty into a parody of its earlier fullness. There is a moral here but H. does not labour it but one is left with the feeling that Lyce might well have had something to do with Cinara's demise. The phrase, surpuerat mihi, and particularly the use of this particular verb, a syncope of surripio, is quite revealing. Whether H. used this particular version for reasons of metrical balance or whether it had a certain refinement of meaning is not certain but the overall sentiment of taking away by cunning, stealth or outright criminal intent is quite implicit. In connection with post Cinaram and bearing in mind the lack of moral scruples of those times, it must pose a question for us. It would certainly explain the savage opening of the ode in its treatment of Lyce and the satanic glee with which H. observes what time has done to her. It would also allow us to resolve, for our own mind's content, how H. could suddenly switch from such outright castigation to such fond memories for the same woman. Also, in the final words of the ode, it would explain the bitter pain of iuvenes visere fervidi ... dilapsam in cineres facem. Not only to lose the love of a beautiful young woman but forced to see what death and the funeral pyre leaves behind.

Note AG. This is a dire warning on the power of the written word, its ability to maintain the truth, as perceived by the poet, and the indestructibility of its evidence. The fact that the poet is of low birth, not well known and lacking important friends is of no consequence; as long as his words last then so will his version of the truth. Since this ode is directed at Marcus Lollius, one of the acknowledged 'new men' of the Principate and against whose integrity there has always been a question mark, then such an opening must surely be taken as a serious threat of exposure. Although the style of the ode is quite circumlocutory, our perception of Horace throughout his poetry should enable us to rule out blackmail can be ruled out. It must also be remembered that Lollius had a lot of power and that a direct, accusatory style would be dangerous to any author. Horace, author of the Carmen Saeculare, was very well known and, although his importance was thought to be waning at that time, his patron Maecenas was not without influence himself. Conversely, it would be a mistake to assume that it was intended as a compliment to Lollius, however jocularly written.

AH. The examples given of famous people and places that would not have survived in memory, Helen, Teucer, Troy itself, Idomeneus and Sthenelus, Hector and Deiphobus or Agamemnon, had it not been for the written word, are quite revealing in themselves. All are tainted by some misdeed and none are entirely famous for the good side of their natures or for their place in history. Taken together they must be assumed to be intended as a warning that misdeeds are as indelible as good deeds. The dire warning, paulum sepultae distat inertiae celata virtus, sums up the situation quite admirably.

AI. Marcus Lollius is not listed in the Fasti as Consul during this period so that H.'s charge, consulque non unius anni, must be taken as a facetious reference to the money–making possibilities of that office under the Principate. Lollius does, however, serve in a magisterial capacity and he is managing quite well on his own! H. imbues him with the innate intelligence not to extract bribes in 'open–and–shut' cases but to do so in marginal ones. While serving overseas he has used military resources to enforce his judgements and H. suggests that while the confiscation of wealth as a punishment is just, it is not so when that wealth finds its way into the possession of the judge himself.

AJ. H. gives us a clear picture of what motivates such men as Lollius. Born poor, they acquire an abhorrence of poverty that inures them to suffering in others, loyalty and sense of public duty and encourages the accumulation of wealth, far beyond need itself, by whatever means there are available.

Note AK. It must be seriously considered that Torquatus is another of the 'new men' of Augustus and there is a reference in Suetonius that may identify him. Suetonius relates that a youth, a certain Gaius Nonius Asprenas, fell from his horse while taking part in the 'Troy Games' and broke his leg. Augustus comforted him and, because of his bravery over the incident, made him a present of a golden torq. Fastening it to his arm he bequeathed the cognomen 'Torquatus' upon the young man. Suetonius does not give us a date for the incident.

AL. The name of Nonius Asprenas occurs again later in Suetonius's narrative, during a hearing at the law courts. Apparently a Nonius Asprenas had been accused of poisoning by a certain Cassius Severus and although Augustus was present and Nonius claimed him as a close friend, he declined to speak in his favour. Suetonius quotes Augustus as saying, 'I find myself in a quandary, because to speak in Nonius's defence might be construed as an attempt to shield a criminal, whereas my silence would suggest that I was treacherously prejudicing a friend's chance of acquittal.' It is hard not to be cynical in the face of such a thinly veiled suggestion that Augustus wanted a not guilty verdict but expected the courts to arrive at it by its own recommendation but, in the political climate of the times, it would be a brave judiciary who decided otherwise. This being so, the allegory used by H., of Theseus with Pirithous and Hipploytus with Diana, is partly explained. Theseus finds himself unwilling or unable to challenge the powers of the underworld to free his close friend Pirithous. Diana tells Theseus that his son, Hippolytus, did not ravish his wife, Phaedra, who had falsely accused him in a suicide letter but is too late; Theseus had already allowed Poseidon to kill his son. While it is easy to cross–identify Augustus with Theseus and Nonius with Pirithous; assuming a parallel allegory where Livia is Phaedra and Nonius is Hippolytus might be considered very theoretical. However, since poisoning was involved, the name of Livia hovers unspoken over the whole affair. One would like to know the name of the victim!

Note AM. Here, at the age of fifty, H. is clearly renouncing a misspent and dissolute youth rather vehemently or, rather, he is declining to recommence such a lifestyle long since abandoned. By way of illustrating the sort of life he has left behind, he re–directs Venus to a place where it is still carried on; the house of Paullus Maximus. Paullus Maximus was a close friend of Augustus, one who was later to accompany him on a visit to the exiled Agrippa Postumus and presumably must also be regarded as one of the 'new men'. Despite the leges Juliae he seems to have continued a dissolute way of life and by the presence of purpureis ales oloribus it may be assumed that young noblemen having recently obtained the toga virilis and, more particularly, members of Augustus's own family were also present. It might well be argued that this is surely too early for the purple to have been assigned to Caesar as a permanent mark of rank but we cannot be sure.

AN. A passage that must surely emphasise the excessive behaviour of the group that assembled at the house of Paullus Maximus. It looks forward to the Satyricon of Petronius in its treatment of the behaviour of the nouveau riche of that time and leaves us in little doubt that Paullus was indeed one of the new men. The implication of building a shrine to Venus is quite indicative of the pursuits that would be carried on at that place. Coupled with the music of Berecynthian flute and its connotation of the worship of Cybele there can be no doubt that orgiastic rituals were quite common and part of the attractions offered. Its siting on the sacred Alban territory and the construction of citrus wood would seem to underline the blasphemous nature of the whole proceedings.

AO. The Salii were priests of the god Mars, not necessarily in his role of the avenger or the god of war, but in his older role as the farmer's god of fertility of crops and domestic animals. The Salian festival in the spring of each year would therefore be based on age–old fertility rites which had long since lost most of their original meaning. However the ritual remained and was punctuated each night by feasting and revelry. Therefore H.'s reference to in morem Salium should not really be taken to have any sacred connection and ter quatient humum to have any connotation of a formal dance. The whole of the relevant narrative, being the worship of Venus, the indications toward Cybele and the Salian rites, must be considered in one piece and direct our attention to the dubious activities for which Paullus Maximus might well have been renowned.

AP. The renunciation is not complete and H. is hoisted by his own petard. In this intense passage he admits to old longings. A reference to gramina Martii Campii invokes the Salian rite once more and in dreams he relives his former desires.

Note AQ. It is vital to understand the use that H. makes of allegory in this passage. Essentially it is about revenge of a particularly harrowing kind and one which requires the sacrifice of something precious and unique in order to achieve its purpose. It this case the sacrifice of a son by a mother to spite the father. The allegory is of Tereus, king of Thrace and married to Procne, who raped his sister–in–law Philomela. In revenge his wife killed his son Ityn and served his flesh in a meal to her husband. As punishment, all three were turned into birds, the hoopoe, the swallow and the nightingale respectively. In order to take H.'s meaning to its logical conclusion, we should expect this ode to be concerned with a similar happening in Augustan Rome.

AR. Followed immediately, as this is, by a reference to farmers, custodes ovium, and then to poets, carmina fistula delectantque deum, the subsequent introduction of the name of Virgil should not take us by surprise. What does cause us consternation is the intervening passage, cui pecus et nigri colles Arcadiae placent. Nigri colles Arcadiae, 'the black hills of Arcadia' cannot really have any ambiguous intent. It must refer to Hades and the black rock over which the river Styx falls into oblivion. Coupled with the opening allegory we are left with the horrifying conclusion that H. believes that Virgil was deliberately killed. By whom and whether it was to spite someone is not made clear but subsequent passages reveal how it might have been accomplished.

AS. Horace advises Virgil to drink wine well mixed with spikenard and it is a curious reference. Spikenard, as well as being used for perfume, was also used as a medicine for stomach complaints. As to whether it was also considered to be an antidote to poison is not made clear by mediaeval herbalists but it could well have been considered to have such properties in Roman times. H.'s passing reference to its need when drinking with noble young clients carries a rather sinister connotation. If so, the courtesy of issuing a guest with his own onyx casket of spikenard resin is a remarkable indictment of dining out in Rome!

AT. This passage leaves us in no doubt of the situation. H. has invited the shade of Virgil to a party and exhorts him not to seek revenge but to enjoy a few sweet moments with his friend again before returning to the desolation of the underworld.

Note AU. The Ides in themselves were not a festival day, religious or otherwise and there is nothing in the Roman Calendar to suggest that the Ides of April, the 13th., was a special day either. The town of Cumae is recorded as celebrating Augustus's first victory on the 14th. and his first acclamation as Imperator on the 16th., but these were days of thanksgiving only and presumably were paralleled in other towns throughout Italy. There is also no knowledge of Maecenas's birthday and H.'s rather odd way of referring to the actual day must leave us to question whether this was his intention at all. It is known that the sudden death of Marcus Agrippa occurred at about this time in 12 BC. and this brought to an end what may well have been a de facto triumvirate of Augustus, Agrippa and Maecenas, leaving the entire army under the direction of Augustus himself. It must have always been a worry to Augustus as to whether, if the question ever arose, the loyalty of the army would be to him or to Agrippa. Maecenas was never a military man and it would have indeed been a day when he might well have had to review his future. However this might also refer to the lex maiestas which was passed in the spring of 8 BC. It was now treason to mock the head of state or allow him to be mocked, and Horace was a protected client of Maecenas. Maecenas meus adfluentis ordinat annos might well be read as 'replying to a charge of treason'; his own or Horace's!

AV. By way of emphasising this shift in power politics, H. makes use of allegory once more. Phaethon, son of Helios the Sun God, attempts to drive his father's chariot across the skies and sets the world on fire, perishing himself. Bellerophon, having used Pegasus the flying horse to perform great deeds, is dropped to earth when he tried to take him up to join the Gods themselves. Although H. pretends to present these allegories to Phyllis as a warning to her against aiming too high on the social ladder the analogy is far too strong for such a small ambition. However the legend of Phaeton would clearly serve as an example of Agrippa's rise and fall and Bellerophon would certainly serve as a warning to the vulnerable position of Maecenas. H., as a client of Maecenas would also be in the same position.

AW. H. acknowledges the situation in his closing words to Phyllis. Unless we believe that H. is behaving completely out of character and being overly theatrical, Meorum finis amorum cannot be taken other than a realisation that an end is in sight to life itself, not just love. For despite the conditional non enim posthac alia calebo femina, the awful finality of minuentor atrae carmine curae, must leave us in no doubt whatsoever.

Note AE. A certain C. Marcius Censorinus was consul in the year of H.'s death but it is not certain whether he is the same person to whom this ode is directed. The general theme, that H. has no material wealth to offer only his verse, suggests that some sort of payment is required from Horace by Censorinus. H. says that while he is in a position to offer small trinkets to his friends, he has no large costly objects to give to Censorinus, who does not seem to be numbered among the former. The only type of payment that might fit this situation is a legal enforcement or sequestration of property as a penalty for the infringement of some law. The one that springs to mind is the extension to the lex Maiestas under which it became treason to defame or mock Augustus. The problem with this solution is that this law was not passed until early in 8 BC., the year in which both Maecenas and Horace died! The penalty for those convicted was full sequestration of goods and property followed by either exile or suicide. Further comment is not needed but this ode could well be the last that Horace wrote and Censorinus, as consul, would be the logical official to oversee the penalty.

AF. Some connection between Censorinus and Scipio Africanus Maior seems to be implied in this passage and it is fairly certain that Africa must provide it. It is known that the proconsulship of that province was also used as a reward by Augustus and that Scipio Africanus, by his successful campaign against Hannibal and the Carthaginians, had enhanced the family name and fortune. Is H. emphasising that any verse written on the subject would quickly expose the truth, that Censorinus had done the same? The fact that Scipio was eventually attacked politically for the means he applied in achieving this may serve as an added jibe. H. asks what sort of press would Remus have received if Romulus had not survived to write the history. Would Aecus have ruled the dead if the poets had not written history, would Hercules have been welcomed at the table of the Gods or would Castor and Pollux now guide sailors across Oceanus? Truth is as relative to history as the wine of Bacchus is to good intentions.

Just as Ode IV,3 served as an invocation, this ode serves as a valediction. H. feels that, having offended the powers that be with brash words, he must now pay the price. His appeal to Apollo is that he may be remembered as a great poet. He uses as allegory firstly the legend of Niobe who boasted about her many children only to have them all killed as a punishment and secondly that of Tityus who boasted that he lusted after Leto, the mother of Apollo, and had a mountain built over his private parts as a punishment. Lastly Horace uses the story of Achilles before Troy. Achilles was foredoomed to die there, before he could wreak his vengeance on the population and before he could take part in the ruse of the Trojan Horse. In any case he would have disdained to hide in the Trojan Horse, preferrin to take fire and sword and slaughter all the populace including babies. He was prevented from achieving this by Apollo, who killed him, and thus allowed Aeneas, the progenitor of Rome, to survive. In such a way H. hopes that although he must die, his words will survive.

Note AY. Referring to himself in a prophesying manner, he asks Apollo, as a teacher and in his role as Agyieus, the protector of the streets, to guarantee this, acknowledging that it is only by his bounty that he has achieved so much.

AZ. In an echo of the opening invocation, he now turns to a chorus of the children of Rome as being its only real future, to perform the Saecular Hymn. It is this that embodies the spirit of Rome, not the temporary posturings of a passing dictator.

PART II

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY

FOREWORD

To regard Book IV as continuing the same lyrical vein as did Books I – III. is perhaps a subjectivization that is not in keeping with the actual content of these odes. As though Horace, after laying his stylus aside for a period of ten years or so, had picked it up again and resumed writing, his poetic talent and artistic vision still fixed in the same mould as in his youth and middle age. It would be quite unusual if this were the case. Life does not tend to allow this to happen, for age brings disillusionment to even the most sanguine of men. In the case of Horace, it might well have seemed that Republican morals and ethics had been rapidly overtaken by Imperial greed and opportunism, and the idealism of his youth might have long since withered away. It was not a unique condition among poets and other visionaries, Juvenal and Tacitus were to experience it as well and perhaps only Virgil retained such youthful ideals to the end, dying on the upbeat with his blessed vision still intact.

There is therefore, quite understandably, an underlying and innate feeling that the Book IV odes cannot be compressed into a lyric mould without doing irreparable damage to their intent and their content. If this is insisted upon, what emerges is sometimes, sickenly sychophantic, quite bombastic or quaintly nonsensical. Such an undertaking is fraught with danger since it invokes the serious heresy of deeming them quite unworthy of Horace. It is therefore incumbent on any serious commentator on Horace to attempt to rectify matters, even at the risk of challenging the academic status quo laid down by the many distinguished Horatian scholars of the past.

It is also appropriate to introduce a parallel point of view that relates the creation of Book IV to the times, events and people involved in, and by, its conception. Suetonius leaves us in no doubt that it was written at the instigation, if not command, of Augustus himself. 'Iniunexerit sed et Vindelicam victoriam Tiberii Drusique, privignorum suorum, cumque coegerit propter hoc tribus Carminum libris ex longo intervallo quarto addere.' – Suetonius Vita Horati. This request was made a de facto command by an angry reaction to the first book of Satires and Epistles – "Irascui me tibi scito, quod non in plerisque eius modi scriptis mecum potissimum loquaris;" And, continuing far more trenchantly, – "an vereris ne apud posteros infame tibi sit, quod videaris familiaris nobis esse?" – Augustus, quoted by Suetonius, Vita Horati

If we are to believe in Suetonius's veracity in this quote from Augustus then it must give us occasion to ponder over the latter's state of mind at this point of time. Popular historical convention would have it that at this juncture, say 15 BC., Augustus was in supreme command and master of Rome. And yet here he appears almost as a suppliant and hungry for credit. The phrase "An vereris ... nobis esse?" is particularly revealing. Why should anyone fear 'ill repute' because they 'might be seen to be a friend' to Augustus.' This might, of course, be a form of paranoia but it seems far more likely that, even at that late date, Augustus was uncertain of his position and anxious for any propaganda that might buttress his claim. It would seem to be a strange attitude for the Princeps to adopt twenty–eight years after Philippi and sixteen years after Actium. Our approach to the history of this time is very much governed by the fact that Augustus survived all of his contemporaries by many years and must have exercised a considerable influence on the preserved accounts of the important events. Thus, while military events might have remained unclouded, other events might have been shaped to show Augustus in a more enlightened role and it is, perhaps, only in the poetry of that time that the truth might be glimpsed.

All of the odes, save the two clearly dedicated to the muses, Melpomene and Apollo, deal with specific people and may, at first glance, seem to be dedicated to them as lyric poetry in an adulatory vein. This, indeed, is the view of Fraenkel. Horace – OUP 1957, p.413 – 'he proposes (in Book IV) to treat, along with the familiar subjects of lyric poetry, something novel, the praise of select contemporaries, not in occasional remarks, but as the predominant theme of entire poems'.

In contrast to this, that the lyric poetry within Book IV is clearly not up to the poetical standard of Books I–III, is the view of Quinn. Horace – The Odes – Bristol Classical Press 1980, p. XII, where he is quite condemning. – 'The very competence of Odes 4 (with one or two exceptions) underlines the poverty of invention.' and 'one or two poems (4,8, 4.9) can only be regarded as make–weights.'

However, on closer inspection, one might be forgiven for challenging both of these viewpoints. Certainly thirteen of the odes are apparently addressed to specific people but the content is more about the activities of such people rather than their innate qualities Very few of the activities mentioned could be thought of as admirable or even as suitable subjects for lyric verse. If indeed it was ever intended as lyric verse! If it were not intended as such then Quinn's acidic remarks fall completely by the wayside. One of the muses addressed, by way of an invocation, is Melpomene who is associated more with tragic verse than otherwise. If our attention is re–focused, as it were, on the thirteen main odes as works of tragedy, then these odes begin to emerge with a startling clarity as works of almost sardonic cynicism, observing the contemporary condition of Rome under the rule of the Princeps.

The people who are mentioned in the odes would seem to fall into three distinct categories. There are those within the family of the Princeps – Augustus himself, Tiberius, Drusus, Julius Antonius and, speculatively, Livia, under the pseudonym of 'Lyce'. Then there are the 'new men' – Lollius, Censorinus, Torquatus and Paullus Maximus, all seemihgly within the patronage of Augustus. Finally there are those who might be loosely considered to be within the patronage of Maecenas – Maecenas himself (indirectly in the ode to Phyllis), Virgil, Ligurinus and, of course, Horace himself.

One might well be justified in observing that, in any writing arising from these times, there ought to be signs of a conflict of interest between such groupings, at best in terms of artistic lifestyle, at worst in political juxtapositioning. Furthermore, one might also expect political parallels to be drawn and a struggle for conscious power to be implied. However, since Augustus survived most of them, one should also admit the real probability that such writings would have been censored by him. It is perhaps only within the poetry of the time might one expect to find well hidden references to the truth.

This might seem to be a weighty matter to place upon a group of odes ostensibly produced at the urging of Augustus and always assumed to have been adulatory in intent. It would mean that the odes would have to have been constructed with the intent to deceive. That any apparent lyricism would have been contrived to hide the real purpose of portraying Roman society under Augustus in a true, unflattering light. There is no doubt that the ability was there, when we consider the master craftsman that we know Horace to have been at this time, a poet at the very height of his powers, the author of keen satire and a man of great insight. With such a clear, untroubled vision and the ability to portray people and situations with clarity and coruscating wit, we must admit the possibility. When we consider motive we are on less firm ground and yet, considering the growing power and confidence of Augustus and the waning power of those, such as Agrippa and Maecenas, who had assisted him in his rise to power, it is not hard to envisage the circumstances that might have provided Horace with one.

To take an empirical view. There is no doubt that the young Octavian, from the age of twelve, would have closely observed the rise of Julius Caesar to be Dictator of Rome. He would have had a first hand view of the mechanics of power and possessed a shrewd enough nature to profit by the experience. His initial bid for power, using Cicero as a prop gives firm evidence of this. His rejection of Cicero when he had no further use for him and his callous decision to hand him over to Mark Antony for execution leaves us in no doubt of his ruthlessness. In his formation of what can only be regarded as a de facto triumvirate with Agrippa and Maecenas, whose purpose was to get rid of Mark Antony, he demonstrated a keen pragmatism. By the time the Book IV was being composed he had formed his own coterie of 'new men' and outgrown the need for support from Agrippa and Maecenas. It should therefore come as no surprise that Agrippa died so very suddenly, and conveniently, in 12 BC. leaving the direct and absolute power over the army under the sole command of Augustus.

Maecenas died four years later and, once again, it should surprise us very little that in the very year of his death the Senate had passed a law, extending the powers of the lex Juliae de Maiestate which made it treason to slight or defame the head of state in any way. Also, that one of the 'new men', Marcus Censorinus was consul in that year. The penalty, for those found guilty of transgressing this new law, was confiscation of wealth together with exile or suicide. Damnatio Memoriae formed part of the penalty under this law but whether this was exercised before the reign of Claudius (Dio Cassius 60. 4. 5) must be considered speculative. It may be a complete coincidence that, outside the poetry of Horace, there is a dearth of information on Maecenas.

Part II examines the odes within Book IV in an attempt to discover if Horace has left us with any hidden reference to what may have been the truth.