Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:14:10.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horace and the Oath by the Stone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

H. J. Rose
H. J. Rose
Affiliation:
St. Andrews University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Lapidem silicem tenebant iuraturi per Iouem, haec uerba dicentes: Si sciens fallo, tum me Dispiter salua urbe arceque bonis eiciat ut ego hunc lapidem.’ I do not propose to add to the mass of commentary and controversy which loads this passage of Paulus Diaconus (p. 102, 11 Lindsay), except to remind readers that it is a comparatively modern version (for the words are not archaic in form) of a very old formula. Under Dispiter lurks some early shape of the name of Iuppiter, certainly not of the Greek importation Dis, first worshipped in Rome, apparently, in 505/249. I believe it to be older than the end of the regal period, probably much older, for it names the Arx as the important spot in Rome, not the Etruscanizing Capitol. However, this detail and my opinions concerning the oath and its takers matter little for my present purpose. It is enough if it be granted, as I think everyone will grant, that it is ‘eine alte Fetialformel’ as Fraenkel has it, at all events eine alte Formel, more ancient than the surviving literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 3-4 , July 1947 , pp. 79 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 79 note 1 See Wissowa, , RKR, p. 309Google Scholar.

Page 79 note 2 Ed. Fraenkel, , Plautinisches im Plautus, p. 231Google Scholar, from which passage, obligingly pointed out to me by its author, part of my material is taken.

Page 79 note 3 Ennius, , Trage. 77 RibbeckGoogle Scholar.

Page 79 note 4 Caecilius 146 Ribbeck.

Page 79 note 5 Cicero, , de diuin. 2. 69Google Scholar.

Page 79 note 6 Horace, , c. 3. 5. 12Google Scholar.

Page 79 note 7 So Cruquius' commentator. ‘Porphyrio’ and the schol. of codd. λ Φ Ψ have ac si diceret: stante mundo, incolumi rerum natura. ‘Acro’ as we have him jumbles the two glosses together. The absurdity arose from someone not understanding the simple and familiar metonymy.

Page 80 note 1 That Horace, although he did not greatly admire the older Republican poets, knew them well enough is plain from such passages as Epp.

Page 80 note 2 1. 50–75, Serm.1. 4. 1–12,10. 1 ff.; 2. 1. 62 ff., cf. my note in C.Q. xx (1926), pp. 204 ffGoogle Scholar.