Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:15:19.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horace's Programmatic Priamel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2021

Michael B. Sullivan
Michael B. Sullivan*
Affiliation:
Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Horace's MAECENAS ATAVIS (Hor., Carm. 1.1) is shown to enumerate nine allusive icons whose attributes evoke signature elements in the works and biographical traditions of the nine canonical Greek lyric poets. In his first ode the Roman poet thus announces the commencement of a lyric programme synthesising the distinctive styles and subjects of his illustrious predecessors. In so doing, Horace figuratively and literally inserts himself among these nine ‘lyric bards’ in ironic fulfilment of his own request for canonisation, with which the poem concludes. His programmatic priamel therefore harmonises archaic subject-matter and Hellenistic method in a manner which sets the tone for the entire project to follow.

Keywords

catalogueepigramGreek lyricHoraceMeleagerpriamel
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 111 , November 2021 , pp. 49 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

References

Bergk = Bergk, T. (ed.), Poetae lyrici Graeci, Leipzig, 1843.Google Scholar
Campbell = Campbell, D. A. (ed.), Greek Lyric, Cambridge, MA, 1982–93. 5 vols.Google Scholar
Crusius = Crusius, O. (ed.), Babrii fabulae Aesopeae, Leipzig, 1897.Google Scholar
Dilts = Dilts, M. R. (ed.), Heraclidis Lembi excerpta politiarum, Durham, NC, 1971.Google Scholar
Drachmann = Drachmann, A. B. (ed.), Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, Amsterdam, 1964. 3 vols.Google Scholar
Hercher = Hercher, R. (ed.), Epistolographi Graeci, Paris, 1873.Google Scholar
Keil = Keil, H. (ed.), Grammatici Latini, Leipzig, 1855–1870. 8 vols.Google Scholar
Lobel-Page = Lobel, E. and Page, D. (eds), Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta, Oxford, 1955.Google Scholar
Patillon = Patillon, M. (ed.), with Bolognesi, G., Aelius Théon: Progymnasmata, Paris, 1997.Google Scholar
Perry = Perry, B. E. (ed.), Aesopica, Urbana, IL, 1952.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer = Pfeiffer, R. (ed.), Callimachus, Oxford, 1949–53. 2 vols.Google Scholar
Rabe = Rabe, H. (ed.), Hermogenis opera, Leipzig, 1913.Google Scholar
Snell-Maehler = Snell, B. and Maehler, H. (eds), Bacchylidis carmina cum fragmentis, Leipzig, 1970.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. K. 1985: Hunting in the Ancient World, Berkeley, CA.10.1525/9780520349735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbantani, S. 1993: ‘I poeti lirici del canone alessandrino nell’ epigrammatistica’, Aevum Antiquum 6, 5–97.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. 2009: ‘Lyric in Rome’, in Budelmann, F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric, Cambridge, 319–35.10.1017/CCOL9780521849449.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bean, G. E. 1979: Aegean Turkey 2nd edn, London.Google Scholar
Bell, J. M. 1978: ‘Κίμβιξ καὶ σοφός: Simonides in the anecdotal tradition’, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 28, 29–86.10.2307/20537863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowra, C. M. 1961: Greek Lyric Poetry from Alcman to Simonides 2nd edn, Oxford.Google Scholar
Champlin, E. 2005: ‘Phaedrus the fabulous’, Journal of Roman Studies 95, 97–123.10.3815/000000005784016252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commager, S. 1962: The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 1982: ‘The paroemiographers on ΤΑ ΤΡΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΣΤΗΣΙΧΟΡΟΥ’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102, 206–10.10.2307/631140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. and Finglass, P. J. (eds) 2014: Stesichorus: The Poems, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Davis, G. 1991: Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse, Berkeley, CA.10.1525/9780520910300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. (ed.) 2010: A Companion to Horace, Chichester.10.1002/9781444319187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dover, K. 1989: Greek Homosexuality 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Ducat, J. 1990: Les Hilotes, Athens.Google Scholar
Eidinow, J. S. C. 2009: ‘Horace: critics, canons, and canonicity’, in Houghton, L. B. T. and Wyke, M. (eds), Perceptions of Horace, Cambridge, 80–95.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2007: ‘Horace's body, Horace's books’, in Heyworth, S. J. (ed.), Classical Constructions: Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Oxford, 174–93.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218035.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, D. 1993: ‘Horace and the Greek Lyric Poets’, in Rudd, N. (ed.), Horace 2000, A Celebration: Essays for the Bimillennium, London, 41–63.Google Scholar
Forrer, L. 1901: ‘Les portraits de Sappho sur les monnaies’, Revue belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie 57, 413–25.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. 1957: Horace, Oxford.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K. (ed.) 2021: Horace: Satires, Book II, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gosetti-Murrayjohn, A. 2006: ‘Sappho as the tenth Muse in Hellenistic epigram’, Arethusa 39, 21–45.10.1353/are.2006.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. (eds) 1965: The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, Cambridge. 2 vols.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (trans., comm.) 2002: Cicero on the Emotions: Tusculan Disputations 3 and 4, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. 1997: ‘The poetics of editing in Meleager's Garland’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 127, 169–200.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. 1998: Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley, CA.10.1525/9780520918979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, A. 2003: ‘The Pindaric sources of Horace, Odes 1.12’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 101, 371–404.10.2307/3658535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. J. 1995: ‘Horace, Pindar, Iullus Antonius, and Augustus: Odes 4.2’, in Harrison, S. J. (ed.), Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration, Oxford, 108–27.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. 1993: ‘Empty shelves on the Palatine’, Greece & Rome 40, 58–67.10.1017/S0017383500022609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2007: ‘Horace and archaic Greek poetry’, in Harrison, S. J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Horace, Cambridge, 36–49.10.1017/CCOL0521830028.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. T. 2007: ‘Dux reget examen (Epistle 1.19.23): Horace's Archilochean signature’, Materiali e Discussioni 59, 207–13.Google Scholar
Katz, J. T. 2008: ‘Vergil translates Aratus: Phaenomena 1–2 and Georgics 1.1–2’, Materiali e Discussioni 60, 105–23.Google Scholar
Katz, J. T. and Volk, K. 2006: ‘Erotic hardening and softening in Vergil's eighth Eclogue’, Classical Quarterly 56, 169–74.10.1017/S0009838806000139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennell, N. M. 2003: ‘Agreste genus: helots in Hellenistic Laconia’, in Luraghi, N. and Alcock, S. E. (eds), Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and Messenia: Histories, Ideologies, Structures, Washington, DC, 81–105.Google Scholar
Kivilo, M. 2010: Early Greek Poets’ Lives: The Shaping of the Tradition, Leiden.10.1163/ej.9789004186156.i-272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousoulini, V. 2017: ‘Alcman in Pergamon’, Acta Classica 60, 178–87.10.15731/AClass.060.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 2012: The Lives of the Greek Poets 2nd edn, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Leigh, M. 2010: ‘The Garland of Maecenas (Horace, Odes 1.1.35)’, Classical Quarterly 60, 268–71.10.1017/S0009838809990644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1995: Horace: Behind the Public Poetry, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Maehler, H. (ed.) 2004: Bacchylides: A Selection, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. (ed.) 2012: Horace: Odes, Book I, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mynors, R. A. B. (ed.) 1990: Virgil: Georgics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. 1970: A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book I, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. 1978: A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book II, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Rudd, N. 2004: A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book III, Oxford.Google Scholar
Oates, W. J. 1932: The Influence of Simonides of Ceos Upon Horace, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Oliensis, E. 1998: Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511582875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D. L. (ed.) 1981: Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Park, J. 2017: Interfiguralität bei Phaedrus: Ein fabelhafter Fall von Selbstinszenierung, Berlin/Boston.10.1515/9783110528992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquali, G. 1920: Orazio lirico, Florence.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. 1968: History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pitotto, E. 2015: ‘Notes on Stesichorus’ proverbial τρία’, Mnemosyne 68, 1–10.10.1163/1568525X-12301487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Race, W. H. 1982: The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius, Leiden.10.1163/9789004327948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Race, W. H. 2010: ‘Horace's debt to Pindar’, in Davis 2010, 147–73.Google Scholar
Rawles, R. 2018: Simonides the Poet: Intertextuality and Reception, Cambridge.10.1017/9781316493816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, G. M. A. 1965: The Portraits of the Greeks, London. 3 vols. Supplement 1972.Google Scholar
Ridgway, B. S. 1998: ‘An issue of methodology: Anakreon, Perikles, Xanthippos’, American Journal of Archaeology 102, 717–38.10.2307/506097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenmeyer, P. A. 1992: The Poetics of Imitation: Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1988: ‘The ass in the lion's skin: thoughts on the Letters of Phalaris’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 108, 94–106.10.2307/632633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santirocco, M. 1986: Unity and Design in Horace's Odes, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. 2012: Re-fashioning Anakreon in Classical Athens, Munich.10.30965/9783846754498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, W. J. 1969: Lexicon to Pindar, Berlin.10.1515/9783110839289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, J. M. 1972: ‘The Barbitos in the Classical Period’, Classical Journal 67, 331–40.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. M. 1997: ‘Sappho in Attic vase painting’, in Koloski-Ostrow, A. O. and Lyons, C. L. (eds), Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology, London, 108–19.Google Scholar
Strauss Clay, J. 2010: ‘Horace and Lesbian lyric’, in Davis 2010, 128–46.Google Scholar
Syndikus, H. P. 2001: Die Lyrik des Horaz: eine Interpretation der Oden 3rd edn, Darmstadt. 2 vols.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. J. A. (ed.) 2000: Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1986: ‘Virgil's Georgics and the art of reference’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90, 171–98.10.2307/311468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R. F. (ed.) 1988: Virgil: Georgics, Cambridge. 2 vols.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. (ed.) 2011: Horace: Odes, Book IV and Carmen Saeculare, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Watson, L. C. 2003: A Commentary on Horace's Epodes, Oxford.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1971: ‘Stesichorus’, Classical Quarterly 21, 302–14.10.1017/S0009838800033450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, C. L. (ed.) 2013: The Lyric of Ibycus: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Berlin.Google Scholar
Yatromanolakis, D. 2001: ‘Visualizing poetry: an early representation of Sappho’, Classical Philology 96.2, 159–68.10.1086/449537CrossRefGoogle Scholar