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: 11 February 2009
Interpretation of this ode has not been very happy in spite of the care lavished upon it by editors obviously determined to extract some sort of consistent sense. That Horace started from Pindar's Olymp. II. is evident enough; when and why, under what stimulus, or for what occasion he wrote is not so clear. The older commentators do not give much help. I believe, however, that in attending to the list of gods, demi-gods, and Roman heroes given in the ode we have a chance of coming somewhere near to an adequate understanding of the poem.
page 159 notes 1 But perhaps sufficiently forward to house the standards recovered from Parthia in 20 B.C. (Mon. Anc. 5. 40).
page 159 notes 2 Gardthausen, , Augustus u. s. Z. I. 974Google Scholar , II. 589, referring to Pausanias 8, 46, I. 4 and Overbeck, G. d. gr. Plastik, fourth edition, 92 and 420.
page 159 notes 3 Pliny, , N.H. 7. 183Google Scholar : ‘eques Romanus ante Apollinem eboreum, qui est in foro Augusti.’
page 159 notes 4 Pliny, , N.H. 35Google Scholar . 4. 27; 35. 10. 93–94: ‘Romae Castorem et Pollucem cum Victoria et Alexandro in curru triumphante, quas utrasque tabulas diuus Augustus in fori sui celeberrimis partibus dicauerat.’
page 160 notes 1 So Gardthausen, following Wunderer, , Mani-biae Alexandrinae, Schulpr. v. Wü;rzbg., 1893–1894, pp. 27–28Google Scholar . Here, as elsewhere, I have relied upon Gardthausen for such details—a method which has its own advantages, since the theorist is not tempted to reconstruct the old buildings in the interest of his new theories.
page 160 notes 2 I have accepted Gardthausen's facts here without investigation of the sources quoted, which are not accessible to me. The names may be conjectured, anyhow, with much probability, and are not important enough here for a discussion.
page 160 notes 3 Gardthausen, , Augustus u. s. Zeit. I. 974–975Google Scholar , II, 589—referring to Babelon, I. 431, No. 81.
page 161 notes 1 Aeneid I. 294–296: ‘claudentur Belli portae: Furor impius intus saeua sedens super arma et centum uinctus aenis post tergum nodis fremet horridus ore cruento.’
page 162 notes 2 A contemporary reader would have little difficulty in placing the ode–less, if, as I suspect, Horace wrote after Vergil's sixth Aeneid had been read to Octauia.
page 163 notes 1 The same refusal may well be seen in Odes I. 2. 11. 43–44: patiens uocari Caesaris ultor. In that ode Horace speaks of another Avenger, who went too far in his vengeance, as ‘flaunting office’– Tiberim … dum se nimium querenti iactat ultonm–and as acting ‘without the approval of Juppiter’–loue non probante.
page 163 notes 2 Conway, R. S. on Horace as Poet Laureate (in New Studies of a Great Inheritance. London: John Murray, 1921)Google Scholar points out the almost silent protest of this ode against imperial splendour forits own sake.