Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:23:54.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horace, Odes 4.1: a Contradiction Removed*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2017

David Kovacs
David Kovacs*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Odes 4.1 is difficult to understand on a literal level. At its beginning Horace is complaining that Venus, after leaving him alone for many years, is attacking him, that is, he is feeling a reawakening of sexual desire. But after suggesting that the goddess go off to visit Paullus Fabius Maximus and describing the rewards the young man will give her, he returns to himself. Now, he says, he is delighted by neither woman nor boy nor by the prospect of mutuality in love, that is, he is not in the grip of eros. Additionally, the use of iuuare, ‘delight’, with a person as subject seems to be without any parallel. These problems disappear if in l. 29 we read mi for me: ‘I no longer have either woman or boy (as lover) nor do I have the hope of mutual affection.’ Horace's having no lover and no hope of one is compatible with his feeling a generalized desire for sex or a desire for someone unattainable. The tone of the last two quatrains is affected as well as the contribution of the poem to the fourth book of odes.

Keywords

HoraceOdesVenuserosPaullus Fabius Maximus
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 107 , November 2017 , pp. 140 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017. Published by The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Stephen Harrison, Stephen Kelly, and A. J. Woodman kindly read earlier versions of this article. I am grateful for their comments and suggestions.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Commager, S. 1962: The Odes of Horace: a Critical Study, New Haven [cited from the reprint of 1967, Bloomington and London]Google Scholar
Fedeli, P., and Ciccarelli, I. 2008: Q. Horatii Flacci Carmina: Liber IV, Florence Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. 1957: Horace, Oxford Google Scholar
Hills, P. D. 1999: A Commentary on Selected Poems in Horace's Fourth Book of Odes, unpub. PhD dissertation, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, A., and Heinze, R. 1917: Q. Horatius Flaccus: Oden (6th edn), Berlin Google Scholar
Kovacs, D. 2006–7: ‘Double trouble: duplicis at Horace, Odes 1.6.7 and the limits of ambiguity’, Illinois Classical Studies 31–2, 55–74 Google Scholar
O'Hara, J. J. 2007: Inconsistency in Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, T. E. 1883: Q. Horatii Flacci Carminum Libri IV, Epodon Liber, New York [cited from the reprint of 1967]Google Scholar
Putnam, M. C. J. 1986: Artifices of Eternity: Horace's Fourth Book of Odes, Ithaca and London Google Scholar
Shorey, P., and Laing, G. J. 1919: Horace: Odes and Epodes, Chicago Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. 1995: ‘ Da capo structure in some odes of Horace’, in Harrison, S. J. (ed.), Homage to Horace: a Bimillenary Celebration, Oxford, 32–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 2011: Horace: Odes, Book IV and Carmen Saeculare, Cambridge Google Scholar