Two Unnarrated Stories in Horace's Roman Odes (Carm. 3.2.1–12 and 3.6.21–32): Echoes of Vergil's Unfinished Aeneid and a Lowlife Epigram (original) (raw)
Related papers
Antichthon
Within the rhetorical frameworks of exhortation and illustrative exemplum, Horace's second and sixth Roman Odes offer compressed, contrasting images of a young person's education and transformation, presenting these as stories about a puer and a virgo, respectively, in a lyric mode that does not narrate. In the first of these stories (Carm. 3.2.1–12), Horace slyly usurps characters from Vergil's unfinished Aeneid, alluding to some of its distinctive narrative techniques, but also draws on the similes and plot structure of its Iliadic model. The second of Horace's stories (Carm. 3.6.21–32) plays off his first, as he converts the adulta virgo who figures in Carm. 3.2 into her antitype. This story has as its intertext an obscene Hellenistic epigram by Automedon. Horace makes both intertextual and metatextual use of his models, while his indirect references, through Homer, to Vergil's intended design for his emerging Aeneid may be considered under the new heading of ...
Horace's Mythological Lexicon: Repeated Myths and Meaning in Odes 1-3
This dissertation examines repeated mythological references in the first three books of Horace's Odes. Several mythological figures occur more than once in the Odes; those studied in this dissertation are Daedalus and Icarus, Prometheus, Tantalus, Hercules, and Castor and Pollux. I argue that in Odes 1-3 recurrent myths constitute part of a personal lexicon, a mythological vocabulary Horace uses to speak about themes such as hubris, poetry, and immortality; for example, Daedalus and Icarus, Prometheus, and Tantalus are consistently linked with immoderation, and Hercules and the Dioscuri are consistently emblematic of complementary aspects of Augustus' rule and of his future deification. This mythological lexicon can be read across poems so that the interpretation of a mythological figure in one poem can aid in understanding the use of the same mythological figure in another poem, and the collective effect of all of the uses of that figure is itself something that can be analyzed and interpreted. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first word of thanks goes to my advisor, Jenny Strauss Clay, whose Odes seminar in the spring of 2010 first taught me how to love this seemingly impenetrable poet. She has consistently supported and guided me, since I first embarked on this project, even during one year when neither of us was in residence in Charlottesville. Her ability to ask the right questions and to put her finger on key problems has left a lasting impression on my thinking for which I am deeply grateful. Thanks are also due to John F. Miller, whose kind and sensible advice at every stage of the process, from the prospectus through the final chapter, has been invaluable. I am also grateful to Tony Woodman, who has been a warm, inspiring figure in my development as a classicist both by encouraging me to sharpen my ideas and by inviting open-ended conversations about Horace. Thanks also to Paul Cantor, whose European literature course helped me become a better teacher and enriched my appreciation for the whole compass of the literary tradition in which Horace is situated. I would also like to thank the dear friends and mentors each of whom has in their own way played a crucial role throughout not only this project but also everything that led up to it: Rachel Bruzzone,
Horace Odes 1.7 and the Aeneid
American Journal of Philology, 2016
Starting from the well-known correspondence between Odes 1.7.30–31 and Aeneid 1.198–99, this article finds a deep intertextual relationship between 1.7 and the Aeneid (Book 1, especially, but also Books 4, 6, 7, and 8), anchored by correspondences of occasion and theme (speeches of arrival, dining, and wine). The article argues for Vergilian priority, explaining Horace’s (largely corrective) emulation of the Aeneid in terms of his literary self-positioning as lyric poet. Further confirmation of Horatian dialogue with the Aeneid is found elsewhere in the “Parade Odes” (1.1–9) as well as in 1.11 and 1.18.
Horace c. 3.27 and Virgil, Aeneid 9
New England Classical Journal
This essay examines the imaginative connection between c. 3.27 of Horace, one of the poet’s longest and most intense odes, and a salient episode in book 9 of Virgil’s Aeneid. In particular it searches out the multivalent appearances of the concept of pietas in the descriptions of Europe’s behavior toward her father and of Nisus and Euryalus. In their case we attend both to the association between the two innamorati themselves and to that between Euryalus and his mother. I take it for granted that the two Latin masters knew and valued the work of each other.