Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T04:28:41.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HORACE, ODES 1.30

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

David Kovacs
David Kovacs*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
*
kovacs@virginia.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This brief poem (Hor. Carm. 1.30) is by turns enigmatic (what is the purpose of Horace's prayer to Venus?) and slightly incoherent (why should both Horace and Glycera be praying to Venus? Are they praying for the same thing or for different things? Either has its problems). A further problem is that, if Horace intended uocantis in line 2 for a genitive, the text as it stands misleads the first-time reader, contrary to Horace's normal practice of authorial kindness toward such readers. The way to deal with this is to take uocantis as accusative (‘those calling on you with much incense’) and to insert an ‘and’ in the text to connect sperne and transfer: sperne dilectam Cypron et uocantīs | ture te multo <ac> Glycerae decoram | transfer in aedem (‘reject your beloved Cyprus and your incense-offering devotees and move to Glycera's beautiful shrine’). If this is right, it addresses the incoherencies under which the usual interpretation labours.

Keywords

hidden quantitiesambiguityGlyceraVenusscribal omission

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , May 2022 , pp. 441 - 444
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
O Venus, regina Cnidi Paphique,
sperne dilectam Cypron et uocantis
ture te multo Glycerae decoram
transfer in aedem.
feruidus tecum puer et solutis 5
Gratiae zonis properentque Nymphae
et parum comis sine te Iuuentas
Mercuriusque.

This brief poem raises many questions that have not thus far found satisfactory answers.Footnote 1 What is Horace's relation to Glycera in this poem? Why does the poet ask Venus to visit Glycera? Is it so that she will fall in love with him, as David West thinks?Footnote 2 If so, how is this related to Glycera's calling on Venus with much incense? Is she in love with someone? If that someone is Horace, and the latter is praying that he may win Glycera with Venus’ help, either his prayer or hers would seem to be superfluous. If they are praying for different outcomes (she to win another lover and he to win her), Glycera's prayer is not only irrelevant to Horace's but also antithetical to it. This duplication or contradiction of the two appeals has not been satisfactorily explained.Footnote 3

A somewhat pedantic grammatical question, the length of the final vowel in uocantis, may help to shed light on these. All commentators and translators known to me take it as short, making the word genitive. This is understandable since all these scholars have read the entire poem before proceeding to comment or translate, and they see that Glycerae is genitive and decide that uocantis must modify it, there being no other word for it to modify. In an article published some fifteen years ago I set out the evidence that Horace wrote his Odes bearing in mind the needs of those reading them, whether aloud or for their inner ear, for the first time, and described his policy of kindness to his readers: in the vast majority of cases he takes care to avoid causing readers to mispronounce on first reading a vowel whose quantity is hidden because it is followed by two consonants or stands as the last syllable of its line and then to have to go back and correct it.Footnote 4 The doubtful word, if an adjective, will marry up either with a preceding noun or, if a noun, with a preceding adjective; or its case will be strongly suggested by a verb or other preceding word; or its mate will be no more than two words further on. I noted, against the approximately three hundred and seventy cases where Horace follows this philanthropic practice, eleven instances (including the present passage) where a reader could be in doubt and guess wrong.

But the present passage is the only one of the eleven that positively misleads the reader by the et that apparently connects Cypron and uocantis, suggesting an accusative interpretation. In the other ten cases it is much easier to avoid a wrong guess.Footnote 5 Our passage is a distinct outlier since, as the text stands, Cypron et uocantis strongly suggests to the reader that uocantis is parallel to Cypron when in fact, on the usual view, it must be genitive.

If Horace's policy has so many instantiations and only this one prima facie exception, what can be done to restore his wonted kindness here? We could do the natural thing and take uocantis as an accusative. This would mean that another ‘and’ is needed to connect ‘move over to the shrine of Glycera’ with sperne. We could posit that ac has dropped out before Glycerae and read sperne dilectam Cypron et uocantis | ture te multo <ac> Glycerae decoram | transfer in aedem ‘abandon your beloved Cyprus and those who call onFootnote 6 you with clouds of incense <and>Footnote 7 come over toFootnote 8 the lovely shrine of Glycera’.

This change not only restores Horace's solicitude for his reader but also eliminates the problem mentioned earlier, namely that, if it is Glycera who is making offerings of incense, there is either a duplication of Horace's efforts by Glycera's or a contradiction between them. It is hard to find a way of looking at the stanza that is plausible and coherent if uocantis modifies Glycerae.

By contrast, there are parallel expressions elsewhere in Greek and Latin poetry if we assign the incense offerings to the people of Cyprus. The conjunction of a divinity's favourite cult centre and the mention of incense offerings at that centre is to be found at Hom. Od. 8.362–3 ἣ δ’ ἄρα Κύπρον ἵκανε φιλομμειδὴϲ Ἀφροδίτη | ἐϲ Πάφον. ἔνθα δέ οἱ τέμενοϲ βωμόϲ τε θυήειϲ, imitated by Virgil at Aen. 1.415–17; in Sappho, fr. 2 Voigt, the first line mentions a ναῦοϲ, the second a χάριεν ἄλϲοϲ, and the third and fourth βῶμοι . . . τεθυμιάμενοι λιβανώτωι. In Pindar's third Paean the seventh line begins with ναόν, while lines 8–9 read καὶ θυόε̣[ντα and βωμόν. See also Eur. Tro. 1060–2 οὕτω δὴ τὸν ἐν Ἰλίωι | ναὸν καὶ θυοέντα βω- | μὸν προύδωκαϲ Ἀχαιοῖϲ. So to give sperne these two objects (Cypron, uocantis ture te multo) is consonant with the poetic tradition. In the above examples cult centre and incense-laden altars are joined by ‘and’, as cult centre and those who use the altars are in Horace.

Three considerations thus make against genitive uocantis: unkindness to readers, narrative incoherence, and other passages that suggest coordinated accusatives. In my view we may take it as virtually certain that uocantis is accusative. This makes the inexpensive remedy multo <ac> virtually certain as well.Footnote 9 What kind of poem results?

In the old text Horace asks Venus to give up one thing, her beloved Cyprus, in order to get an incense offering from Glycera and her lovely house or the shrine within it. The first gain, however, is no gain at all: throngs of worshippers will surely burn more incense than a woman in one private house. With the new text Horace is engaging in a much bolder rhetorical strategy. Now he asks Venus to give up two things and in return offers her the shrine and—nothing! Why? The poet, I suggest, is implying that Glycera is herself special enough to compensate for the loss of temple and worshippers on Cyprus. Horace is magnifying Glycera by implication. In the Iliad Helen's beauty is never described but indicated only by the effect it has on the Trojan elders. Here Glycera's remarkable qualities are not described but only hinted at by what he is asking Venus to do on no other grounds than herself.Footnote 10

This remarkable hyperbole, implicit only, is reinforced by two explicit cases of hyperbole: in line 2 Horace says sperne ‘reject with scorn’ rather than simply ‘leave behind’ (for example linque);Footnote 11 and in line 4 transfer suggests ‘move lock, stock, and barrel’, which is explicated by lines 5–8, the request to bring her entire retinue. The poem is thus an extravagant compliment to Glycera, all the more extravagant for the absence of any hint that Horace desires her for himself.Footnote 12

The poem as restored is a breath-taking display by Horace of good will toward a woman he is inviting his audience to admire. The new text, differing from the old only by the addition of a single ac, not only rids us of the sole case in the Odes where Horace misleads a first-time reader but also brings the text closer to Greek descriptions of shrines such as Venus’ and removes unhelpful distractions from the poet's chosen topic.

Footnotes

I am grateful to J.S. Clay for drawing attention to these problems and to Clay, A.J. Woodman and CQ's reader for helpful criticisms and suggestions.

References

1 I cite the following commentators by author name only: D.H. Garrison, Horace: Epodes and Odes: A New Annotated Latin Edition (Norman, OK, 1991); Kiessling, A. and Heinze, R., Q. Horatius Flaccus: Oden und Epoden (Berlin, 1917); R. Mayer, Horace: Odes Book 1 (Cambridge, 2012)Google Scholar; Moore, C.H., Horace: Odes and Epodes (New York, 1902)Google Scholar; R.G.M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace Odes, Book I (Oxford, 1970); R.G.M. Nisbet and N. Rudd, A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book III (Oxford, 2004); Orelli, J.K. and Baiter, J.G., Quintus Horatius Flaccus, vol. 13 (Zürich, 1850)Google Scholar; Page, T.E., Q. Horatii Flacci Carminum libri iv, Epodon liber (cited from the reprint of New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Quinn, K., Horace: The Odes (London, 1980)Google Scholar; West, D., Horace Odes I: Carpe Diem. Text, Translation and Commentary (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar.

2 West 144–5.

3 Cairns, F., Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh, 1972), 192–3Google Scholar says that the poem gives an example of a ‘vicarious or substitute speaker’, someone who speaks ‘on behalf of another human being who is the real protagonist’. But if Person B speaks on behalf of Person A, we would not expect Person A to be making a similar plea, as Glycera, on the usual view, is doing. Neither here nor in id., ‘Five “religious” odes of Horace (I, 10; I, 21 and IV, 6; I, 30; I, 15)’, AJPh 92 (1971), 433–52, at 444–7 does Cairns explain why Glycera should engage in summoning Venus when Horace is doing so on her behalf. Similarly, Quinn has Horace sponsoring Glycera's appeal to the goddess. He seems to suggest that Glycera is in love with someone who refuses her (‘Has she for once encountered stubborn resistance? If so, who is the recalcitrant lover?’). He promises an explanation in his note on lines 5–8, but no real explanation for Glycera's prayer is forthcoming. West, as noted, thinks that Horace is asking Venus to come to Glycera so that she may fall in love with him. He too fails to explain the duplicated prayer.

4 D. Kovacs, ‘Double trouble: duplicis at Horace, Odes 1.6.7 and the limits of ambiguity’, ICS 31–2 (2006–7), 55–74, at 61–9, 71–4.

5 Carm. 1.14.19: though an accusative governed by a prepositional prefix (here inter-) is rare, to take it as such (‘that flows among’) is plausible, and nothing suggests that nitentis is genitive; 2.9.18: the next word suggests that noua is accusative; 2.19.29: editors take recedentis as genitive, but no harm is done if a reader takes it as accusative (‘your retreating feet’ instead of ‘your feet as you retreat’); 2.20.2: nothing suggests that biformis is accusative; 3.2.11: the fact that an accusative quem precedes might well suggest that cruenta is nominative; 3.3.6: the fact that the preceding line has a phrase with a genitive of possession might suggest (and nothing suggests the contrary) that fulminantis is genitive; 3.6.9: Pacori manus, connected by et to Monaeses, is most easily construed as ‘the band (rather than “the hands”) of Pacorus’; 3.11.1: the preceding direct object te makes reading docilis as nominative a strong likelihood, and there is nothing at that point to suggest accusative plural (though lapides could be called ‘easily taught’ or ‘responsive’, they are separated by four words from docilis); 3.20.15: the aut … aut makes it likely that Nireus is parallel to raptus and hence aquosa is not nominative; 3.27.6: nothing suggests that similis should be read as accusative plural.

6 Substantivized present participles are to be found at Carm. 1.1.11, 1.35.15, 2.12.27, 3.1.41, 3.10.14, 3.16.22, 3.16.42, 3.24.46, 4.3.22, and 4.9.42 and 45.

7 One reason for preferring <ac> to <et> here is that its disappearance could have been facilitated by the similarity between its last letter and the first letter of Glycerae. But et is also prone to omission, often without obvious palaeographical cause: at Carm. 3.8.27 and at Sat. 1.10.4 and 2.2.85 et is omitted from the older manuscripts and supplied, perhaps by conjecture, only in the deteriores. Bentley supplied it at Carm. 3.24.60 and Epist. 1.18.15.

8 Some commentators (Quinn, Orelli-Baiter, Garrison) take transfer as a reflexive verb with the te of the previous line. But the pronoun, sandwiched where it is and going so closely with uocantis, does not seem available to be the object of transfer. It seems more reasonable to take transfer as intransitive. Quite a few transitive verbs in Latin are used intransitively (M. Leumann, J.B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik. Zweiter Band: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik [Munich, 1965, repr. 1972], 295–7). In particular the intransitive uses of uerto (OLD s.v. 9b, 12 and 22a) provide a good analogy to transfer here.

9 Some slight further support may be found in the Poseidippus poem (Anth. Pal. 12.131) quoted in Nisbet and Hubbard. There too the poet is praying to the goddess, whose shrines are enumerated, to come to visit a hetaira as an act of graciousness. The reason given is her kind reception of lovers (Horace omits any similar reason). Absent is the mention of any redundant prayer by the woman.

10 Fraenkel, E., Horace (Oxford, 1957), 198Google Scholar says that ‘Glycera remains completely in the background; it does not matter who she is or what the poet may feel for her’. Horace's erōs for her is in the background, but I would argue that the lady herself is very much to the fore.

11 Nisbet and Hubbard say that sperne ‘need not imply contempt’, and they cite Carm. 3.2.24 spernit humum. But when in that passage Virtus leaves the earth behind, it is in a spirit of rejection, as would have been apparent in a fuller quotation: coetusque uulgaris et udam | spernit humum fugiente penna. Nisbet and Rudd ad loc. say, correctly, that the word expresses ‘disdain’.

12 There may be a still more startling compliment in the phrase Glycerae … aedem. Some scholars (Page, Moore, West, Mayer) interpret this to mean that she has a shrine to Venus in her house, while Garrison thinks that a hetaira's house would naturally be considered a shrine of Venus. Kiessling and Heinze say that the house becomes Venus’ shrine on the goddess’ arrival. In a phrase such as ‘the temple of X’, however, X is normally a divinity. Perhaps the compliment is more daring still and Glycera is the goddess to whom the aedes is consecrated. Horace would be asking Venus to visit someone as potent in the field of love as herself.