No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Romulum post hos prius an quietum
Pompili regnum memorem an superbos
Tarquini fascis, dubito, an Catonis
nobile letum.
Ancient readers of this stanza perhaps usually took Tarquinius as being the last of Rome’s seven kings and Cato as the praetorian governor of Utica who died by his own hand after Julius Caesar’s defeat of the Senate’s forces at Thapsus in 49. Some found L. Tarquinius ‘Superbus’ unsuitable company for the other Roman worthies listed by Horace and suggested that L. Tarquinius ‘Priscus’, the fifth king, was meant. Richard Bentley created worry in modern readers by pointing out the oddity of Cato’s position in Horace’s list—after three reges and before eight Republican principes—and by arguing that Cato’s presence in a poem designed to compliment Julius Caesar’s adopted son was even odder. In a recent volume of this journal, A. Treloar defended Cato’s presence against the efforts of Bentley and others to extrude him by emendation and made a new suggestion about the identity of Tarquinius, namely that he was L. Tarquinius ‘Collatinus’, one of Brutus’ succession of colleagues in the first consulship. The issues which Treloar raised are interesting and will repay further discussion.
1 Porphyrio writes ineptum est, si, quia superbos dixit, Tarquinii Superbi intellegamus. Tarquinius enim Superbus dignus non est, cui laudes inter deos et hos quos nominat principes dicantur. superbos ergo magnificos intellegamus, ut Tarquinii Prisci fasces dicat, non Tarquinii Superbi; Ps.-Acro Tarquinius quoque rex uirtute magnus; sed hic Priscum posuit, non Superbum, nam ‘superbos fasces’ nobiles dixit. The existence of the other view is easily inferred from the polemical character of the extant statements.
2 Antichthon iii (1969), 48–51.
3 See ‘Ueber die Verskunst des Horaz im Lichte der alten Ueberlieferung’, SB bayer. Ak. 1868, 4off., Metrik der Griechen und Römer 2 (Leipzig, 1879), pp. 654ff. (the first ed. was published in 1874).
4 The most thoughtful and independent is Fraenkel, E.; see Horace (Oxford, 1957), pp. 291ff.Google Scholar More recently the theory has been affirmed by Brink, C.O.Horace on Poetry. The Ars Poetica (Cambridge, 1971), p. 452Google Scholar expressing, however, some honest doubt as to whether the ninth stanza deals with heroes or uiri.
5 Nisbet, R.G.M. and Hubbard, MargaretA Commentary on Horace Odes Book I (Oxford, 1970) pp. 142ff.,Google Scholar seem to accept the theory but make some damning observations about details (see especially p. 155). Williams, G.Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), pp. 270 ff.,Google Scholar attacks it root and branch but leaves a lot of cleaning up to be done.
6 The source of the scholia conveniently labelled Ps.-Acro arose well after Porphyrio’s time, probably in the early fifth century. See Keller, O.Symbola philologorum Bonnensium in honorem F. Ritschelii collecta, 2 (Leipzig, 1867), pp. 499ff.Google Scholar
7 The deified emperors were normally referred to as diui, not di.
8 See Porphyrio and Ps.-Acro on v. 47. Modern attempts to deny any reference by Horace to Julius Caesar are unconvincing.
9 Dio (lvi 34. 2, lvi 41. 9) refers to Julius Caesar and Augustus as having become 
after their deification.
10 Cf. Williams,, G.Tradition and Originality, p. 273.Google Scholar
11 According to some accounts (e.g. Ovid, Fast, v 229ff.) “Hpα/Iuno produced ” 
without aid from 
Iuppiter. This may be why he does not appear in the list.
12 But cf. v. 50.
13 Ars 114, 227.
14 Ars 83.
15 Carm. iv 2.13–14.
16 Cf. Pindar, Nem. iii 22, x 82.
17 Cf. Pindar, Nem. iii 22, Herodotus ii 44, Pausanias ii 10. 1. On the difference between the worship of a 
and that of a 
see Eitrem, S.RE 8 1(1912), ingff., s.v. Heros.Google Scholar
18 See SIG ii3, 747, Cicero, Nat. deor. iii 49.
19 Cf. Aetius, Plac. i 6–8 (Doxogr. Gr. pp. 292–307). Noteworthy also is the triple distinction made by Plato (Leg. x 910 a ) ; also that in the oath said to have been sworn by the Italians to Livius Drusus (Diodorus xxxvii 11 D [17 b]; for the Greekness of this oath see Rose, H.J.HThR 30 [1937], 165ff.).Google Scholar
20 Cf. Cicero, Tusc. i 28–9, Nat. deor. ii 62, iii 39, Leg. ii 19, Labeo ap. Augustin. Ciu. ii 14.
21 Cf. Varro ap. Arnob. iii 41, Dionysius Hal. Ant. iv 14. 3. At Lavinium in the fourth century Aeneas seems to have been worshipped as a Lar (see the inscription published by Guarducci, M.Bull. Comun. 76 [1956–58], 3ff.).Google Scholar Another Greek triple distinction involving 
also caused difficulty for Roman adaptors; this distinction underlay Porphyry, Antr. nymph. 6 (p. 60. 14 N) 
Paulus Fest. p. 29 M altaria ab altitudine sunt dicta, quod antiqui diis superis in aedificiis a terra exaltatis sacra faciebant; diis terrestribus in terra, diis infernalibus in effossa terra and Servius on Virgil, Aen. iii 134 quidam aras superorum deorum uolunt esse, medioximorum, id est marinorum, focos, inferorum uero mundos.
22 See above, n. 9.
23 See Bickerman, E. ‘Die römische Kaiserapotheose’, ARW 27 (1929), 1–34,Google Scholar in particular 23
24 Likewise, where at v 4–54 Lucretius suggests that the philosopher Epicurus should be ranked among the di who have benefited humanity, the di are exemplified by the fully divine Ceres as well as by Liber and Hercules.
25 Carm. iii 3. 15, Epod. 16. 13.
26 Carm. iii 3. gff., iv 8. 22ff., Epist. ii 1. 5ff. Cf. Ovid, Am. iii 8. 51–2, Silius xv 78ff. At Aen. vi 777–807 Virgil compares Octavian directly with Hercules and Liber and by implication with Romulus.
27 For a convincing argument that Ennius did not make this identification see Skutsch, O.Studio Enniana (London, 1968), pp. 130ff.Google Scholar
28 Cf. Classen, C.J. ‘Romulus in der römischen Republik’, Philologus cvi (1962), 174ff.Google Scholar
29 See Livy vii 6. 3–5. Curtius appears in the catalogue of Roman heroes at Anon. Culex 359–71 (none younger than the second Africanus).
30 Cf. Varro, Men. 45, Cicero, Nat. deor. ii 166.
31 Cf. Horace, Ars 114, 227.
32 Cf. Anon. Culex 359, where a number of Roman inhabitants of the underworld, including Camillus and Curius, are referred to; w. 296–357 had described a number of Greek heroes (v. 296) likewise inhabiting the underworld. In letters to Atticus Cicero applies the word with conscious hyperbole to a number of contemporary men of state: see i 17. 9, iv 3. 5, xiv 6. 1, xiv 11. 1, xv 12. 2.
33 Cf. Ennius, Trag. 75–6 quid petam praesidi aut exequar? quoue nunc/auxilio exili aut fugae freta sim?, Terence, Haut 1025–7 obsecro/eius ut memineris atque inopis nunc te miserescat mei,/ quod peto aut uolo, parentes meos ut conmonstres mihi, Virgil, Aen. i 413–14 cernere ne quis eos neu quis contingere posset/moliriue moram aut ueniendi poscere causam. There is no logical disjunction in any of these cases; the word or phrase following aut explains or amplifies the one preceding. For aut conjoining interrogatives cf. Plautus, Amph. 409, Poen. 994, 1024, Ennius, Trag. 57–9, Horace, Carm. ii 1. 33, Virgil, Aen. ii 69–70, ii 519–20.
34 See Tacitus, Ann. iv 34 on the monarch and Livy’s ‘Pompeianism’.
35 Vv. 51–2 tu secundo/Caesare regnes (addressed to Jupiter). There is less significance than R. Heinze imagines in his observation (on Carm. i 12. 57) that Horace never uses regnare or regnum of Augustus’ own position.
36 Vv. 50–1 tibi cura magni/Caesaris fatis data. I should interpret cura in terms of private rather than public law. The fata have made Iuppiter Augustus’ tutor.
37 For similar excesses see Carm. i 2. 41ff., iii 3. 11ff., iii 5. 1ff., Epist. ii 1. 15ff.
38 Ecl. 1. 7–8, Aen. vi 789ff. (over interpreted, in my view, by R. J. Getty, CPh xlv[1950], 1ff.).
39 Met. i 170ff., xv 858ff., Fast, ii 131ff., Trist. iii 1. 33ff.
40 See Elter, A.Donarem pateras … Horat. Carm. 4. 8 (Bonn, 1907), pp. 40,Google Scholar 5ff., Walbank, F.W.PCPhS cxciii (1967), 56ff.Google Scholar
41 It was Cato Uticensis without a doubt whom Virgil pictured on Aeneas’ divine shield performing the duties of a praetor among the pii in the underworld: Aen. viii 670 secretosque pios, his dantem iura Catonem. One wonders, in frivolous moments, what need the pii had of iura.
42 This degree should not be exaggerated; the first consulships of the men listed after Cato occurred in 267, 115, 219, 282, 290, 401 (military tribuneship with consular power), 222, 59.
43 Cf. Cicero, Rep. v 3.
44 For this trio of exemplary pauperes cf. Cicero, Cael. 39.
45 For Horace’s crescit … fama Marcetti cf. Ennius, Ann. 372 ergo postque magisque uiri nunc gloria claret (on Q. Fabius Maximus).
46 See abave, p. 69, n. 8. Marcellus and Caesar are paired at Propertius iii 18. 33–4.
47 Carm. i 37. 21–32. The adjective superbus also occurs in the success-misfortune antithesis at Epod. 17. 9, Carm. i 35. 2–4, Ars 201.
48 See below, p. 74.
49 On history in the ancient school see Strasburger, H.Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung (Wiesbaden, 1966 [ = Sitz.-Ber. Wiss. Ges. Frankfurt V, 3] ), pp. 9ff.Google Scholar
50 Cf. Cicero, Brut. 322.
51 For lists of great men like Horace’s in Carm. i 12 cf. Cicero, Verr. ii 3. 209, Prou.cons. 18–19, Cael. 39, Sest. 143 and, in the rhetorically styled philosophical writings, Tusc. i 110, Off. i 61, Parad. 1. 11–13.
52 Cf. Timpanaro, S.SIFC 23 (1948), 18.Google Scholar
53 Cf. Cicero, Lael. 28, Tusc. 3 27, Horace, Sat. i 6. 12, Propertius iii n . 47–8. For the origin and meaning of the sobriquet see Livy i 50 .3 and further below, p. 75 and n. 60.
54 Cf. Cicero, Rab. perduell. 13, Parad. 1. 11.
55 Cf. Hal, DionysiusAnt. 3Google Scholar 61. 2, Florus i 5. 6. This was not the only view; see Cicero, Rep. ii 31, Livy i 8. 2–3, Macrobius, Sat. i 6. 7.
56 For forcible expulsion see Cicero, Brut. 53, Off. iii 40, Rep. ii 53. For voluntary retirement see Livy ii 2. 2–11 , Hal, DionysiusAnt. 5 12. 1.Google Scholar
57 Cf. Ogilvie, R.M.A Commentary on Livy I–V (Oxford, 1965), p. 238.Google ScholarAstin, A.E.Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), pp. 318, 348.Google Scholar
58 For the attempts of various of the first consuls (not including Collatinus) to moderate the offensiveness of the symbolism see Cicero, Rep. ii 55, Livy ii 1. 8, Hal, DionysiusAnt. 5 2. 1.Google Scholar
59 Treloar ought to have quoted the whole text of his example: non enim gazae neque consularis/ summouet lictor miseros tumultus/mentis et curas laqueata circum/tecta uolantis (Carm. ii 16. 9–12). The opening words of the stanza prepare the reader for what surprise there is in mentis.
60 Cf. Trag. inc. ap. Cic. Tusc. iv 35 (on the superbiloquentia of Tantalus), Cato ap. Gell. vi 3 (on the superbia of the Rhodians), Plautus, Amph. 213 (on barbarians behaving superbe), Cicero, Verr. ii 4. 89 (grouping superbia with insolentia and contumacia), Lucretius v 1224, Virgil, Aen. vi 851–3. This second use is not properly elucidated either by the dictionaries or by Haffter’s, H. otherwise instructive article. ‘Politisches Denken im alten Rom’, SIFC 17 (1940), 97ff.Google Scholar (IIoff.) (=Römische Politik und römische Politiker [Heidelberg, 1967], pp. 39ff.Google Scholar [pp. 5iff.] ). The content of the accusation contained in the adjective altered with the social status and material power of the person or group who used it.
61 At Statius, Silu. v 2. 166–7 (quoted by Treloar) it is a question of the prestige of the consular office to which the poet’s addressee looks forward.
62 Antichthon iii (1969), 50.
63 The Aquilii were the nephews, not the sons of Collatinus. The latter’s behaviour might have been styled positively clementia or lenitas, negatively mollitia. Brutus’ execution of his sons, on the other hand, was for the approving seueritas, for the disapproving superbia or crudelitas or saeuitia; cf. Livy iv 29. 5 on A. Postumius Tubertus and his son, vii 4. 4, viii 7. I4ff. on L. Manlius Imperiosus and his son, Virgil, Aen. vi 817–21 on Brutus and his sons (better interpreted, in my view, by the ancient critics whom Servius A. [Donatus] attacks).
64 Even Cicero could be accused of being a rex peregrinus (see Sull. 22).
65 Cf. Haffter, H. ‘Superbia innenpolitisch’, SIFC 27–28 (1956), 135ff.Google Scholar (=Römische Politik, pp. 62ff.), Hellegouarc’h, J.Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la république (Paris, 1963), pp. 439ff.Google Scholar
66 Cf. Caesar ap. Suet. Iul. 6. 1, Cicero, Rep. i 69, ii 47. Serious thought was given to bestowing the name Romulus on the victorious Octavian (Suetonius, Aug. 7. 2, Dio liii 16. 7).
67 Rab. perduell. 13.
68 The collocation superbus et crudelis is a common one; cf. Cicero, Verr. ii 1. 122, Mur. 8, Phil, iii 34, Caesar, B.G. i 31. 12, Livy ii 56. 7, iii 9. 9, iii 56. 7, iv 49. 14, vii 5. 7, viii 33. 12–14, xxi 44. 5, xxi 57. 14, xxix 8. 6, xxx 12. 15, xlii 23. 5. Crudelis was perhaps needed to give the speaker’s discourse sufficient polemical sting.
69 Phil, iii 9.
70 See above, p. 72 and n. 41.
71 Aen. vi 817–18. With conscious irony Virgil attributes superbia to the man who expelled the second Tarquin and was heroized by the murderers of Julius Caesar.