Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-lmk9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-25T01:17:01.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Textual, Structural, and Interpretive Issues in Horace Carm. 4.2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Jhon T. Kirby
Jhon T. Kirby*
Affiliation:
Classics and Comparative Literature, Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two closely-linked problems—one textual, the other interpretive—have long bedevilled readers of Horace Carm. 4.2.45-52. The first involves the text of line 49, which was conjecturally emended in the OCT of Wickham and Garrod, and has actually been obelised by Shackleton Bailey in his Teubner. The second problem concerns the addressee of o Sol pulcher, o laudande in lines 46-7.

I would like in this essay, first, to discuss the spectrum of emendations proposed for line 49; second, to sketch out a structural analysis of the entire ode, into which lines 45-52 will fit sensibly; and third, to offer a new rhetorical analysis that will make sense of the poem overall and (particularly) of the text I have adopted for the lemma. This analysis is fundamentally linked to the interpretation of Sol in line 46, as we shall see.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 26 , November 1992 , pp. 42 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1992

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bal, M. (1980) Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto 1985 [English translation of De theorie van verteilen en verholen, 2nd edition, Muiderberg 1980.]Google Scholar
Bal, M. (1981) ‘Notes on Narrative Embedding.’ Poetics Today 2 (1981) 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldry, H.C. (1952) ‘Who Invented the Golden Age?’ Classical Quarterly n.s. 2 (1952) 83–92.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G.W. (1990) ‘The Pontificate of Augustus.’ (Pp. 380-94 in Raaflaub, K.A. and Toher, M., edd., Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principale. Berkeley 1990.)Google Scholar
Buchner, E. (1976) ‘Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis.’ Deut. Archaeol. Inst., Rom. Abteil, Mitteil. 83 (1976) 319-65.Google Scholar
Clausen, W. (1964) ‘Callimachus and Latin Poetry.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 5 (1964) 181-96.Google Scholar
Collinge, N.E. (1961) The Structure of Horace's Odes. London 1961.Google Scholar
Commager, S. (1962) The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study. New Haven 1962.Google Scholar
Fears, J.R. (1981) ‘The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology.’ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.17.1 (1981) 3–141.Google Scholar
Fowler, W.W. (1911) The Religious Experience of the Roman People. London 1911.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1927) ‘Die Vorgeschichte des versus quadratus.’ Hermes 62 (1927) 357-70.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E.. (1957) Horace. Oxford 1957.Google Scholar
Gagé, J. (1955) Apollon romain. Paris 1955.Google Scholar
Gagé, J. (1981) ‘Apollon impérial, Garant des “Fata Romana”.’ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.17.2 (1981) 561–630.Google Scholar
Hänlein-Schäfer, H. (1985) Veneratio Augusti. Rome 1985.Google Scholar
Hickson, F.V. (1991) ‘Augustus Triumphator: Manipulation of the Triumphal Theme in the Political Program of Augustus.’ Latomus 50 (1991) 124-38.Google Scholar
Kennedy, N.T. (1975) ‘Pindar and Horace.’ Acta Classica 18 (1975) 9–24.Google Scholar
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (1979) Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford 1979.Google Scholar
Mattingly, H. (1923) Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. 1: Augustus to Vitellius. London 1923.Google Scholar
Norden, E. (1939) Aus altrömischen Priesterbüchern. Acta regiae societarie humaniorum Iitterarum Lundensis 29 (Lund 1939).Google Scholar
Palmer, L.R. (1954) TheLatin Language. London 1954, 3rd edition 1961.Google Scholar
Pighi, G.B. (1941) De Ludis Saecularibus Populi Romani Quiritium. Milan 1941.Google Scholar
Putnam, M.C.J. (1986) Artifices of Eternity: Horace's Fourth Book of Odes. Ithaca NY 1986.Google Scholar
Quinn, K. (1980) Horace: The Odes. London 1980.Google Scholar
Race, W.H. (1978) ‘ Odes 1.20: An Horatian Recusatio.’ California Studies in Classical Antiquity 11 (1978) 179-96.Google Scholar
Reckford, K.J. (1958) ‘Some Appearances of the Golden Age.’ Classical Journal 54 (1958) 79–87.Google Scholar
Scullard, H.H. (1981) Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. Ithaca NY 1981.Google Scholar
Slater, D.A. (1910) ‘Horace, C. iv. 2. 49.’ Classical Review 23 (1910) 252-3.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, P. (1964) ‘Horaz und Pindar: Hor. carm. IV 2.’ Gymnasium 71 (1964) 1–17.Google Scholar
Taylor, L.R. (1931) The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Middletown CT 1931.Google Scholar
Versnel, H.S. (1970) Triumphus: An inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden 1970.Google Scholar
Waszink, J.H. (1966) ‘Horaz und Pindar.’ Antike und Abendland 12 (1966) 111-24.Google Scholar
Weinstock, S. (1971) Divus Julius. Oxford 1971.Google Scholar
Whitaker, C.W. (1956) ‘A Note on Horace and Pindar.’ Classical Quarterly n.s. 6 (1956) 221-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmel, W. (1965) ‘Recusatio-Form und Pindarode.’ Philologus 109 (1965) 83–103.Google Scholar