Copyright by Steven Lawrence Jones 2008

The Dissertation Committee for Steven Lawrence Jones certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

UT ARCHITECTURA POESIS:

HORACE, ODES 4, AND THE MAUSOLEUM OF AUGUSTUS

Committee:

______Karl Galinsky, Supervisor

______Timothy J. Moore

______L. Michael White

______Penelope J. E. Davies

______Eleanor Winsor Leach

UT ARCHITECTURA POESIS:

HORACE, ODES 4, AND THE MAUSOLEUM OF AUGUSTUS

by

Steven Lawrence Jones, B.A.; M.A.

Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin December 2008

uJpernikw'men

to Willard Eugene Speed (October 23, 1915 – October 31, 1999)

Acknowledgements

This dissertation can trace its lineage to a paper I wrote as an undergraduate at

Baylor University. My fascination with Horace and with Odes 4 began there under

Timothy Johnson, now at the University of Florida. It was he and Alden Smith who began me on the path along which this dissertation is a milestone. I also had opportunity to develop ideas contained in this dissertation with R.T. Scott while at Bryn Mawr

College. The ideas reached maturity at the University of Texas at Austin. In Karl

Galinsky's seminar on Roman Religion, I began thinking about Horace's meditations on death and immortality. It was in Penelope Davies' seminar on Roman Imperial Funeral

Monuments that the connection between Odes 4 and the Mausoleum of Augustus first occurred to me.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to Karl Galinsky. His approach to Classics and to the intellectual life is something I try to emulate. His insight, encouragement, and direction have guided me through the process of completing this dissertation. I am also grateful to my committee: Timothy Moore, Michael White, Penelope Davies, and Eleanor

Winsor Leach. They read and re-read countless drafts. If anything is well-argued or clearly articulated, I owe it to their tireless dedication to my work.

I would not have been able to come as far as I have without my family and friends. My father and mother, Larry and Ann Jones, pestered and supported me through the entire process. My sisters, Christie and Lori, encouraged me with kind words and numerous care packages. My friends Rob Shelton, Andrew Richardson, Daniel Benton,

v Michael Werle, Peter Sassone, Daniel Knueppel and Steve Lundy helped me solve countless academic, existential, and technical problems. Most of all, though, I am grateful to my wife, Tamber, who has suffered with me all the slings and arrows of graduate school, while at the same time caring for our daughter Bethany and our twin girls on the way. Her endurance, perseverance, humility, and love have been an example to me. I could not have done this without her by my side. I owe her far more than I will ever be able to pay back.

This dissertation is dedicated to my grandfather, Rev. W.E. Speed, Th.M. I am unable to appropriately measure the profound effect his character, wisdom, and example have had on my life. His is the shadow I stand in. His are the footsteps I follow. He is now one of those great saints, who from their labors rest.

vi UT ARCHITECTURA POESIS:

HORACE, ODES 4, AND THE MAUSOLEUM OF AUGUSTUS

Publication No. ______

Steven Lawrence Jones, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2008

Supervisor: Karl Galinsky

Since Suetonius, Odes 4 has been the focus of much criticism and apology. Some explanation seems required for Odes 4’s apparent disunity and eclectic mixture of encomium with occasional pieces. My dissertation offers an interpretation of Book 4 by considering it in the light of the Mausoleum of Augustus. By considering the ways in which Horace builds evocations of the Mausoleum into book 4, I argue that there is sustained connection between the two works, which points towards a unified purpose for

Odes 4: Horace is building a literary Mausoleum of Augustus.

The first chapter establishes the justification for viewing Odes 4 through the lens of the material world by considering the functions of architecture and topography in

Horace's models and contemporaries. After studying the ways the city of Rome is used

vii by the Augustan poets and by Horace, the chapter concludes by making a case for understanding Odes 4 as a poetic monument.

The second chapter studies the interrelationship between C.3.30 and the

Mausoleum. First, I parse out a preliminary list of the Mausoleum's evocations. I then show how Horace evokes the Mausoleum in C.3.30 and recreates it in the poetic sphere.

In chapter 3, I revisit Horace's autobiography and Suetonius's statements regarding the origin of Odes 4. I argue that the impetus of Odes 4 is not imperial compulsion but rather Horace's understanding of his own role as poet in the years following his selection by Augustus to compose the Carmen Saeculare.

In chapter 4, I make the case for Odes 4 being a literary Mausoleum of Augustus.

I first discuss the ways Horace builds his new poetic work upon the foundation of his earlier lyric successes. I then show how Horace uses the themes of time, death and the power of poetry as the brick and mortar of his literary mausoleum. I conclude by showing how Horace praises Augustus in ways that engage specifically with the

Mausoleum by incorporating many of its evocations into this book.

viii

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 1 Chapter 1: The Poetics of Place...... 14 Section 1: Architecture and Topography in Horace’s Models...... 14 Section 2: Augustan Poets and Augustan Rome...... 27 Section 3: Horace and the City ...... 40 Section 4: The Preliminary Case for Odes 4...... 53 Chapter 2: The Tomb of a Poet / The Tomb of a God...... 64 Section 1: The Mausoleum of Augustus...... 64 Section 2: C.3.30 and the Mausoleum Augusti ...... 87 Chapter 3: The Impetus Behind Odes 4...... 104 Section 1: Answering Suetonius ...... 104 Section 2: The Carmen Saeculare and Its Importance for Odes 4 ...... 122 Section 2.1: Reception and Retirement – Ep.1.1 and 19 ...... 122 Section 2.2: The Carmen Saeculare ...... 130 Section 2.3: C.4.6 and the Carmen Saeculare ...... 133 Chapter 4: Horace’s Poetic Mausoleum ...... 137 Section 1: The Foundation: The Monumentality of Horace’s Earlier Lyric...... 137 Section 2: Brick and Mortar: Death and Poetry...... 148 Section 3: The Aedifice: Various Evocations of the Mausoleum...... 173 Section 3.1: Allegiance to Rome and Italy ...... 173 Section 3.2: Republican Family Tomb ...... 183 Section 3.3: Immortality ...... 190 Section 3.4: Victory Monument...... 191 Section 3.5: Rome as World City ...... 196 Conclusion: From Civil Wars to the Augustan Vision ...... 201 Bibliography ...... 210 Vita...... 240

ix Introduction

Since Suetonius, Odes 4 has been the focus of much criticism and apology. Some explanation seems required for Odes 4’s apparent disunity and eclectic mixture of encomium with occasional pieces. My dissertation offers an interpretation of Book 4 by viewing it in the light of the Mausoleum of Augustus. By considering the ways in which

Horace builds evocations of the Mausoleum into book 4, I argue that there is sustained connection between the two works, which points towards a unified purpose for Odes 4:

Horace is building a literary Mausoleum of Augustus.

My dissertation more broadly addresses the relationship between the literary and material worlds, a relationship about which Horace himself helped frame the discussion with his famous phrase “ut pictura poesis.”1 Much argued about and misunderstood, this phrase, nonetheless, has endured as a useful category for considering the “interplay between the artifact and song.”2 Though in modern times there have been some who have considered the boundary between the visual and the verbal as fixed and impermeable,3 the ancients made no such demarcation. Rather, the boundary between persuasive communication in different media was fluid, allowing for a “reciprocity of inspiration.”4 Simply put, nothing occurs in a vacuum. Authors live in communities.

1 Horace, Ars Poetica. 361. See also Brink (1971), Trimpi (1973), Hagstrum (1958).

2 Steiner (2001) 251.

3 Lessing (1766). Reprinted and translated as Lessing (1930).

4 Galinsky (1996) 261.

1 Artists read books. It is hard for either group not to affect and be effected by the broader worlds they inhabit.

Discussions along these lines in the context of Augustan culture are complicated by the complex and sensitive political environment of Augustan Rome. The position of

Augustus and the role of the poets in relationship to him create questions regarding the function of a literary work within the context of a political programme. Odes 4 has received much attention in this regard due to Suetonius’ statement that Horace was compelled by Augustus to write the book. For some, only two possible interpretive conclusions follow: either the work is bad; or it is subversive.

Some scholars consider Odes 4 to be subpar but use the evidence of Suetonius to exonerate Horace from poetic culpability by claiming that Horace could not refuse

Augustus’ demand because of his precarious political and financial position.5 Seen in this light, Odes 4 is labeled as Horace’s half-hearted, insincere contribution to Augustan propaganda.6 This, I believe, is a distortion of the process that developed what was later seen as a coherent Augustan message. The notion of “propaganda,” is at best an imprecise and unhelpful instrument with which to dissect the “complex interrelationships” between princeps and poet and at worst is a remnant of the projections

5 Commager (1967) 230 states: "The failure of state subjects to quicken Horace's imagination becomes marked in the fourth book. Suetonius (Vit. Hor.) asserts that Augustus forced Horace to compose the odes upon Drusus and Tiberius, the emperor's stepsons. The poems do not discredit Suetonius' statement." About Odes 4, Seager (1993) 36 suggests "that Horace may indeed have been put under pressure to celebrate overtly, albeit in forms in which he felt at home, the values and achievements of the principate in terms which Augustus could readily accept."

6 Benario (1960) 347. Duff (1932) 519 states that Odes IV is “not worse than laureates usually achieve when on official duty.” Dettmer (1983) 516 refers to Odes IV as “a pale imitation of Odes I-III.”

2 of pre-World War II Europe onto the age of Augustus. With the work of Zanker and others, it has become clear that the concept of a “propaganda machine” resembling those of the Nazis or Fascists needs to be replaced with the ideas of dialogue, participation, and reciprocity.7 The authors of the day had a hand in the shaping of the evolving Augustan message.

Another group seeks to exculpate Horace from the charge of poetic sycophancy by searching for subversiveness. In order to reconcile the poetic persona in this work with the urbane epicurean Horace of his earlier poetry, they posit a hidden layer that reveals Horace’s real intent: the encomium is a ploy. What Horace offers with one hand he takes away with the other.8 Convinced he must be lurking somewhere beneath the text, they go looking for the free-thinking, subversive, pacifist Horace they have created in their own images and find what they are looking for. Such an approach, which has appropriately been called “the exploding cigar theory of Augustan poetry,”9 baffles me.

It assumes both that the reader is witty enough to discern the ploy and that the butt of the ploy is ignorant enough not to know he is being mocked or criticized. This is not to say that Horace or the other Augustan poets did not use poetry to comment and critique the

7 For more, see Zanker (1988), Wallace-Hadrill (1989), Galinsky (1996) 3-9, 20, 39-41, Evans (1992).

8 Lyne (1995) 207-14 calls the technique "sapping.” Seager (1993) 36-8 states that Horace "contrives to make his encomium viciously two-edged" and that it contains "discordant undertones,” that "a measure of disaffection can sometimes be discerned between the lines." Commager (1967) 231 also espouses this idea to some extent when he remarks that "Horace allows his similes to undercut his praise."

9 I owe this turn of phrase to David Armstrong.

3 contemporary world, only that such comment reveals not a game of subtle subversion but rather an active participation in the creation of an emerging paradigm.

Such active participation generated the richly complex literary and material artifacts of the Augustan Age, as the poets and artisans strove to give expression in a variety of media to the ideals of a generation. Such works often do not compel a single, monolithic interpretation. As such, it is easy for one to mistake the presence of multiple messages as necessarily indicative of tension. One would do well to steer clear of terms like "ambiguity." Though the term is capable of being neutrally defined as any nuance

"which gives room for alternative reactions,"10 it has often been employed to carry the water in the search for subversive content. While it would be just as irresponsible to exclude the possibility that such content may exist,11 it is important not to beg the question from the beginning. We must not approach these artifacts with conveniently elastic terms and specific types of scrutiny which are able to manufacture the desired oppositions.12

It is better to consider the artifacts of this age as polysemous,13 having a variety of evocations, functioning on multiple layers, addressing themselves to multiple audiences without necessarily positing an a priori primacy for any one message or an antagonistic

10 Empson (1930) 1. See also Bahti (1986).

11 Empson (1930) 192 does consider this the seventh of his types of ambiguity referring to it as a double meaning which shows "a fundamental division in the writer's mind."

12 Graff (1987) 206.

13 For more on the function of polysemy in Augustan poetry, see Galinsky (2003a) 143-169, Galinsky (1996) 258-261, Galinsky (1992a) 457-475. For reaction against polysemy, see Thomas (2000) 381-407.

4 relationship between any two of them. This does not mean that meanings and interpretations can be multiplied ad infinitum or that all possible interpretations are valid.

There is always a ditch on both sides of the road. The concept of polysemy does not dismiss notions of ambiguity; rather, it allows for "a more precise appreciation of the phenomenon" by refusing to see it simply as an undifferentiated phenomenon identical with subversiveness and by encouraging the investigation into the interrelationship of an artifact's messages outside the straightjacket of binary opposition.14

It is also important to remember that meaning is not necessarily fixed through time. This is particularly true of physical monuments like the Mausoleum whose meanings evolved over time as the social and political situation of its creator evolved. It is easy to look at the Mausoleum through the lens of empire and attribute to it the full force of associations which had accreted to it by the time of the Flavians. It can be an important exercise for gauging the accuracy of an interpretation by analyzing its reception and interpretation by proximate generations. However, the starting point for the interpretation of any artifact, literary or material, should be to locate it in the time of its creation and to begin with its originally intended meaning.

Before I directly consider Odes 4 and the Mausoleum of Augustus in their conjunction, it may be helpful to lay a foundation of useful categories, which hopefully can illuminate the ways poetry is capable of relating to and incorporating architecture and topography. If we are to understand successfully the purposes for which a poet might

14 Galinsky (2003a) 148-9.

5 employ the material world in his poetry, we must have some notion of the ways it can be done. There are at least three ways that architecture and topography appear in poetry: as metaphor, reception, or appropriation.

First, “architectural metaphor” is used to designate an author’s employment of imagery from the architectural world for the purpose of elucidating a conceptualization of his own poetry. The statements in Pindar and Horace that their poetry constitutes temples, monuments, or other buildings would be examples of this type of use. The building is incorporated into the poetry and is directly compared with the author’s work.

The goal is for the reader to appreciate the poetry more deeply.

Second, “architectural reception” is here defined as the engagement of a poem or collection of poetry with a physical monument, either idealized or actual, for the purpose of offering comment on the monument. It differs from the architectural metaphor chiefly in the direction the reference flows. An architectural metaphor uses architecture to elucidate poetry, while architectural reception uses poetry to interpret, describe, or otherwise comment on a monument. All the many architectural ecphrases found in

Ovid’s Fasti, or in Propertius’ Elegies 4 fall into this category. The goal of the poetry is to add the author’s interpretation to the monument. Either the absent reader is able to have a second-hand experience of the monument through poetry, or the reader who is physically present with the monument is equipped to reread the monument with added significance.

Third, “architectural appropriation” is understood as the incorporation of a physical monument, whether ideal or actual, within a poem or poetry collection for the 6 purpose of using its array of evocations and associations to add order, texture, and/or emphasis to a poem. It differs from reception in that with reception the flow of the reference is from the monument through the poetry back to the monument, the goal being to add the poet’s voice to the shape, meaning, and interpretation of the monument.

Conversely, appropriation flows from the monument to the poetry for the purpose of using the monument as a means for the author to add shape, meaning, and structure to his poetry. Additionally, architectural appropriation differs from metaphor in the content that is employed. Metaphor focuses on the physical imagery of the monument for the purpose of creating comparison between the appearance of the structure and the poetics of the author. Appropriation focuses rather on messages and evocations. The poet juxtaposes his work with a monument in order to translate its associations into the fabric of his poetry.

Separation in time and culture makes examples of architectural appropriation extremely difficult to spot. Metaphor and reception are the primary and more obvious modes used by poets. Because of the paucity of these types in Horace’s poetry, it is easy to assume that architecture and topography play a small part in his poetry. In fact, this final category has its genesis in the need for a suitable matrix capable of quantifying the subtle and unique ways Horace does engage with the physical world.

Though I am hopeful that these distinctions will prove useful for the analysis of the poetic procedure involved in incorporating architecture into poetry, I do not put them forward as a procrustean bed on which each author or occurrence should be made to fit.

7 Rather, I offer them as general and fluid categories helpful in describing poetic phenomena and directing our own analysis down profitable lines of inquiry.

By applying the above categories, I am hopeful of reading Odes 4 in a way which will demonstrate its unity around appropriation of architecture, as well as shed light on

Horace’s poetics and add to the growing trend of positive evaluation of the Odes 4.

Starting with Fraenkel, a group of scholars has sought to establish the unity of the book by reading it thematically and analyzing the “elaborate pattern of recurrent motifs which binds the book’s potentially divergent themes and poems into a coherent whole.”15

Putnam, in particular, singles out the book’s portrayal of the power of poetry and the poet as its primary overarching unifier.16 Most recently, Johnson has attempted to explain what he calls the “uncomfortable friction” in Odes 4 between perceived opposites like public/private, praise/blame, and panegyric/sympotic by suggesting that the book’s combination of themes, voices, and perspectives is Horace performing the praise of

Augustus in a sympotic setting. The praise Horace offers Augustus, Johnson has argued, is not the “confrontational relationship of a poet facing an audience and attempting to persuade them to adopt a particular position,” but rather “a collective interpretive process that transforms panegyric into a vibrant communal activity.”17 The apparent disunity of

15 Porter (1975) 194. Others who have analyzed the book primarily by theme include Porter (1987a), Fraenkel (1957), Becker (1963) 116-193, Ludwig (1961), La Penna (1963) 136-147.

16 Putnam (1986) 29-30.

17 Johnson (2004) xix.

8 the book, Johnson argues, is actually sympotic unity comprised of a multiplicity of voices and subjects.

Building on the approaches of Johnson and Putnam, and inspired by those who have found fruit in discussing the interrelationship of physical and literary media,18 I will focus my interpretation of Odes 4 on its relationship to the Mausoleum of Augustus.

Since, in C.3.30, Horace describes his poetic creation as a memorial edifice, I believe that it is most useful to approach Odes 4 as a poetic creation of a similar sort, not as the product of imperial compulsion, nor as the subtle poetic trick of a cunning neoteric poet on an unsuspecting patron, but rather as a well-crafted poetry book in which the author creates for his patron a funerary monument similar to the one the poet created for himself in Odes 1-3. Horace does not renounce the triumphant voice of the potens vates, but rather employs it in the construction of a literary Mausoleum of Augustus.

In chapter one, I make the case for reading Odes 4 sensitive to possible relationships with architecture and topography. I begin by exploring the ways place is present in the poetry of Pindar, Ennius and Vergil, the writers that exerted the greatest influence on Odes 4. In addition, I consider the ways the Augustan poets incorporate place into their poetry. Central to my argument is that the transformed Augustan city exerted a profound influence on the poets. I then focus on the ways Horace employs place, in general, and the city of Rome, specifically. I look briefly at C.3.30 before

18 See, for example, Leach (1988), Grüner (2004).

9 reading the Epodes as a case-study of Horace’s appropriation of Roman topography. I conclude by making a preliminary case for viewing Odes 4 as a poetic monument.

A central premise of my thesis that Odes 4 functions as a literary mirror to

Augustus’s funeral monument is Horace's claim in C.3.30 to have built out of Odes 1-3 a literary funeral monument for himself. The purpose of chapter 2 is to argue the position that Horace's monumentum in C.3.30 is not an idealized, non-specific monument, but, at times, specifically references and evokes the Mausoleum of Augustus. I begin by focusing specifically on the Mausoleum in order to parse out a preliminary list of evocations. I argue that in opposition to Antony's Alexandrian ambitions, the

Mausoleum function as Octavian’s declaration of his commitments to the republic, to

Rome, and to Italy. I also consider its functions as a Republican family tomb writ large, as part of Octavian’s plan to make Rome a world city, as celebrating the triumphs of its builder and suggesting his eventual immortality. I then study the ways Horace picks up on these evocations in C.3.30 and recreates the Mausoleum in the poetic sphere by mirroring its messages.

In chapter 3, I argue that the portrait of Horace as an innovative poet everywhere except in Odes 4, where he plays the part of encomiast for Augustus, is distorted. I first revisit Horace's autobiography and Suetonius's statements regarding the origin of Odes 4.

I show how Horace's statements about his past, as well as the nature of the relationship between Horace and Augustus, lessen the force of Suetonius' statements regarding compulsion. In order to discern what may be learned about the poet's motives and purposes in returning to lyric in Odes 4, one must look not to Suetonius but to Horace's 10 own work. When one does so, it becomes clear that the turning point was the Carmen

Saeculare, but not in the way that is generally understood. The common assumption is that Horace was disillusioned by the reception of his earlier tribiblos and therefore withdrew from public life and from writing lyric into the world of philosophical epistolography. Recalled by Augustus and commissioned to write the Carmen Saeculare,

Horace was invigorated by the faith the princeps had shown in him and began to write lyric afresh. This new lyric, then, reflects Horace's recognition of his role as a sort of poet laureate of Rome. In opposition to this, I will argue that Horace was not disillusioned at the reception of Odes 1-3, but that he remained a confident and innovative poet who found ways of pushing the experimental boundaries of his poetry.

After the immense success of the Odes, Horace was being pressured by an adoring audience to compose more of the same. Horace, however, uses Epistles 1 as a means of recusing himself from that task in order to try something new, an innovation on the satiric genre. After the death of Vergil in 19 BC, Horace was the most prominent Roman poet and was thus an obvious choice to compose the Saecular Hymn. This commission further expanded Horace's understanding of the power and place of his poetry in Rome. He therefore decided to embark upon a further innovation, this time of his lyric poetry, resulting in Odes 4.

After making a case in the previous chapter for what Odes 4 is not, I will argue in chapter 4 for what I believe it to be: a literary Mausoleum of Augustus. When seen through the lens of the Mausoleum, Odes 4 appears, as it should, as a unified whole. The many themes that have been cataloged in Odes 4 have been organized under the broad 11 headings of the passing of time/irrevocability of death, the power of poetry and the poet, and panegyric of Augustus. Though this has at times led scholars to suppose that the book is heading in multiple directions, the themes are, in truth, strands of the same cord.

The first two themes establish the structure and feel of the book. By contextualizing the praise of Augustus within his own ongoing meditation upon death and poetry, Horace is able to frame the panegyric and give it the form of a funeral monument.

The first section focuses on the ways Horace builds his new poetic work upon the foundation of his earlier lyric successes. It will look at what he claims to have been doing in Odes 1-3 and how he resumes that endeavor in Odes 4, albeit with some modification and innovation. The central premise of this section is that Odes 4 was not written in a poetic vacuum. The best way to understand what Horace is attempting is to see how he develops both continuity and discontinuity with his previous work.

The second section discusses the brick and mortar of Horace’s literary

Mausoleum. He organizes the book around ideas associated with funeral monuments by building on three themes: the passage of time, the irrevocability of death, and the power of poetry in the face of death. These themes are the main components of Horace’s meditation in Odes 4 about the nature of his poetry, its power and superiority in comparison to physical monuments. They serve to organize the book around ideas associated with funeral monuments.

In the final section, I show how Horace praises Augustus in ways that engage specifically with the Mausoleum by incorporating many of its evocations into this book.

The focus of this section will be on the panegyric poems, but attention will also be paid to 12 the ways the Mausoleum’s themes appear throughout the book as a whole. When one is sensitive to the subtle and indirect ways Horace recalls the Mausoleum and its associations, an interrelationship emerges between the panegyric and the themes of the rest of the book. The two are not unrelated. Rather, much like the Mausoleum, the book serves as a place of meditation on life, death, the accomplishments of Augustus, the efficacy of the medium, and the nature of immortality.

13 Chapter 1: The Poetics of Place

Section 1: Architecture and Topography in Horace’s Models

Any discussion of architecture and topography in Odes 4 must begin with Pindar.

Horace’s earlier lyric is modeled closed on the poetry of Sappho and Alcaeus. However, when Horace returns to lyric in Odes 4, he adopts a more specifically Pindaric mode. 1 A key component of Pindaric poetry is the incorporation of place. It has long been noted that to speak of poetry in architectural terms is chiefly an attribute of the Pindaric style.2

Architecture and topography find their way into poetry throughout the literature of antiquity.3 However, the ubiquity of the metaphor in Pindar’s corpus is astonishing. A few examples will suffice to show the relevant ways in which Pindar employs the physical world in his poetry.

The first category of Pindaric comparison is simply the general comparison of poetry to some aspect of the physical world. Pindar juxtaposes his poetry with physical monuments in Nemean 5 where he rejects the vocation of sculptor in favor of the poet’s calling.4

1 Feeney (1993) 44, Highbargher (1935).

2 Wilkinson (1970) 286, Highbargher (1935) 253.

3 For a general introduction to questions of ecphrasis and the relationship between the material world and literary texts, see Fowler (1991), Goldhill and Osborne (1994), Elsner (1996), Leach (1988), Grüner (2004). For Greek drama and its approach to the city of Athens, see Dobrov (1997). For the city of Rome in literature, see Larmour and Spencer (2007), Edwards (1996). For Aristophanes, see Taillardat (1965). For Plautus, see Moore (1998) 50-66. For Livy, see Jaeger (1997). For Propertius, see Welch (2005).

4 Bury (1965) 81-97, Farnell (1932) 274-280, Fennell (1899) 55-65.

14 Oujk ajndriantopoiov~ eijm j, w{st j ejlinuvsonta ejrgav- zesqai ajgavlmat j ejp j aujta`~ baqmivdo~ eJstaovt j: ajll j ejpi; pavsa~ oJlkavdo~ e[n t j ajkavtw/, glukei` j ajoidav, stei`c j ajp j Aijgivna~ diaggevlloisi j, o{ti Lavmpwno~ uiJo;~ Puqeva~ eujrusqenhv~ nivkh Nemeivoi~ pagkrativou stevfanon (1-5)

I am not a sculptor, so as to fashion stationary statues that stand on their same base Rather, on board every ship and in every boat, sweet song, go forth from Aigina and spread the news that Lampon’s mighty son Pytheas has won the crown for the pancration in Nemea’s games.5

Poetry is superior to physical monuments not only because it transcends time but also because it transcends space. Poetry, as opposed to static monuments, is neither subject to the elements nor confined to one location, but rather is able to transcend both. “The chorus members performing his ode are not immobile statues but moving breathing ones.”6 Poetry makes “monumental architecture which is inert, mute, and located in a specific place come alive and travel.”7 In addition, it has been suggested that in his statuary comparison Pindar may be referencing a recent temple remodel in Aegina.8 If that is the case, then Pindar is juxtaposing his poetry with the monument-building going on in the world of the audience.

5 Race (1997a) 47.

6 Kurke (1991) 251.

7 Burnett (2005) 63.

8 Burnett (2005) 63.

15 Pindar explicitly conceptualizes his poetry in architectural terms in Pythian 7.9

Kavlliston aiJ megalopovlie~ jAqa`nai prooivmion jAlkmanida`n eujrusqenei` genea/` krhpi`d jajoida`n i{ppoisi balevsqai. (1-3)

The great city of Athens is the fairest prelude to lay down as a foundation for songs to honor the mighty race of the Alkmaionidai for their horses.10

Again, the reference is not just to architecture in general but perhaps to a specific structure. Herodotus recounts that it was the Alkmaionidai who rebuilt the temple at

Delphi (5.62). Pindar, therefore, with his reference to krhpi`d jajoida`n may be using the architectural image to recall “the service that the Alkmaionidai had rendered the Delphian temple.”11 Pindar would thus be comparing his poetry specifically with the Temple at

Delphi built by his patrons. In doing so, he has incorporated architectural imagery into his ode not just for the purpose of elucidating aspects of his poetics, he has also appropriated it in order to enrich his own poetry.

In his sixth Olympian ode, Pindar again compares his poetry to an architectural structure.12 This time, however, Pindar has likened his poetry to a palace.

Cruseva~ uJpostavsante~ euj- teicei` proquvrw/ qalavmou kivona~ wJ~ o{te qahto;n mevgaron

9 Gildersleeve (1965) 321-323, Bowra (1964) 107, Burton (1962) 32-35, Farnell (1932) 190-1.

10 Race (1997a) 323.

11 Gildersleeve (1965) 322. See also Kurke (1991) 191, Burton (1962) 34. For more on Pindar and Delphi, see Rutherford (2001) 178-182.

12 Gildersleeve (1965) 171-181, Farnell (1932) 40-9.

16 pavxomen: ajrcomevnou d j e[rgou provswpon crh; qevmen thlaugev~. (1-4)

Let us set up golden columns to support the strong-walled porch of our abode and construct, as it were, a splendid palace; for when a work is begun, it is necessary to make its front shine from afar.13

In this passage, Pindar makes use of the architectural metaphor in several important ways. First, Pindar compares the creation of his poetry to the creation of a specific kind of building – a megaron. Second, he is not referencing a specific edifice but rather a fictional or idealized structure: “This is no building to be seen on earth, and its celestial grandeur is revealed in its pillars of gold, which invite entry into the high regions of which Pindar is about to speak.”14 Third, the focus of the poetry is on the one being praised, the laudandus. This idealized edifice of poetry is intended primarily as an adornment to extol the achievements of the victory being celebrated. Finally, the metaphor is introduced briefly at the beginning of the poem and is not connected in any significant way to the rest of the poem.15

In Pythian 6, Pindar develops these architectural comparisons into a picture of his poetry as a treasury of praise.16

jAkouvsat j: h\ ga;r eJlikwvpido~ jAfrodivta" a[rouran h] Carivtwn

13 Race (1997a) 103.

14 Bowra (1964) 21.

15 Thomas (1999) 75.

16 Kurke (1991) 156-9, Gildersleeve (1965) 315-320, Burton (1962) 15-24, Farnell (1932) 183-9.

17 ajnapolivzomen, ojmfalo;n ejribrovmou cqono;" ej" navion prosoicovmenoi: Puqiovniko" e[nq j ojlbivoisin jEmmenivdai" potamiva/ t j jAkravganti kai; ma;n Xenokravtei eJtoimo'" u{mnwn qhsauro;" ejn polucruvsw/ jApollwniva/ teteivcistai navpa/: to;n ou[te ceimevrio" o[mbro", ejpakto;" ejlqwvn ejribrovmou nefevla" strato;" ajmeivlico", ou[t j a[nemo" ej" mucouv" aJlo;" a[xoisi pamfovrw/ ceravdei tuptovmenon. favei de; provswpon enj kaqarw/' patri; tew/', qrasuvboule, koinavn te genea/' lovgoisi qnatw'n eu[doxon a{rmati nivkan Krisaiva" ejni; ptucai'" ajpaggelei'. (1-18)

Listen! For indeed we are plowing once again the field of bright-eyed Aphrodite of the Graces, as we proceed to the enshrined navel of the loudly rumbling earth, where at hand for the fortunate Emmendiai and for Akragas on its river, yes, and for Xenokrates, a Pythian victor’s treasure house of hymns has been built in Apollo’s valley rich in gold, one which neither winter rain, coming from abroad as a relentless army from a loudly rumbling cloud, nor wind shall buffet and with their deluge of silt carry into the depths of the sea. But in clear light its front will proclaim a chariot victory, famous in men’s speech, shared by your father, Thrasyboulos, and your clan won in the dells of Krisa.17

17 Race (1997a) 315-17.

18 The way Pindar has nuanced his use of the architectural metaphor is significant. His poetic monument has been upgraded from a megaron to a thesauros. As one commentator has noticed, “a thesauros is not just any building: it is one of the most lavish and conspicuous anathemata that could be dedicated at the great Panhellenic cult centers.”18 Not only has Pindar specified the type of building, he also has in mind actual buildings from the topography of Delphi. “Pindar compares a song with a treasure-house, and has in mind the treasure-houses on the steep and lofty ledge of Delphi past which the choir passes as it sings.”19

Having juxtaposed his poetry with actual architectural monuments, Pindar awards primacy to his poetry thanks to its ability to avoid elemental decay. As will be seen, just as Horace has borrowed the ideas of poetic monuments and poetry’s ability to escape elemental decay, so too Horace juxtaposes his poem with actual structures within his own cityscape.

A final significant development of Pindar’s architectural imagery is the focusing of the comparison of poetry specifically with funeral monuments. In Nemean 4, Pindar compares his poetry to a funeral stele:20

eij dev toi mavtrw/ m j e[ti Kalliklei' keleuvei" stavlan qevmen Parviou livqou leukotevran: oJ cruso;" eJyovmeno" aujga;" e[deixen aJpavsa", u{mno" de; tw'n ajgaqw'n

18 Kurke (1991) 189.

19 Bowra (1964) 21.

20 Bury (1965) 62-80, Fennell (1899) 39-54, Farnell (1932) 263-273.

19 ejrgmavtwn basileu'sin ijsodaivmona teuvcei fw'ta: (79-85)

But if indeed you bid me yet erect for your maternal uncle Kallikles a stele whiter than Parian marble – refined gold displays all its radiance, and a hymn of noble deed makes a man equal in fortune to kings.21

The idea, imitated by Horace in C.1.19 Pario marmore purius, adds a dimension to the interplay between art and artifact. Now the poetry Pindar offers is to be compared specifically to a sepulchral stele.22 Poetry is able to function as a funeral monument, singing the praises of the departed and perpetuating his memory. Though this idea is perhaps implicit in other conceptualizations of poetry as building, it is here made explicit in the direct comparison of poetry with funerary artifact.

Nemean 8, as well, underscores the memorializing aspect of Pindar’s poetry and

Pindar’s exploration of the nature of the gift he confers.23

w\ Mevga, to; d j au\ti" tea;n yuca;n komivxai ou[ moi dunatovn: kenea'n d j ejlpivdwn cau'non tevlo": seu' de; pavtra/ Cariavdai" te lavbron uJperei'sai livqon Moisai'on e{kati podw'n eujwnuvmwn di;" dh; duoi'n. (44-8)

O Megas, to bring back your life

21 Race (1997b) 43.

22 Bury (1965) 78.

23 Bury (1965) 145-158, Farnell (1932) 303-9, Fennell (1899) 98-107.

20 is impossible for me: that is the vain goal of empty hopes. But for your homeland and the Chariadai, I can erect a loud-sounding stone of the Muses in honor of those twice famous pairs of feet. 24

If poetry is capable of bestowing immortality, it is an immortality in which the laudandus is unable to participate. Pindar’s poetry cannot resurrect Megas. It can, however, build a monument that will be a more certain means of eternally celebrating his accomplishments. As Kurke notes: “The son’s victory provides the poet the opportunity to erect a monument for Megas. As a livqon Moisai`on, the song itself becomes the father’s sēma.”25

In summary, Pindar’s use of architecture remains primarily within the realm of metaphor. Though Pindar sometimes appropriates architecture from the physical world into his poetry, he does so not for the purpose of shaping or ordering his poetry but rather for the purpose of further enriching the conceptualization of how his poetry functions.

In addition to Pindar, Ennius served as an important influence on Horace’s poetry.26 The Annales provide an additional reference point for understanding Horace’s incorporation of monuments into his poetry. Though the text is fragmentary, knowledge

24 Race (1997a) 93.

25 Kurke (1991) 46. It should be noted that Bury (1965) 157 argues against the stone being a funeral marker, understanding it rather in terms of voting stones. Earlier in the poem (specifically 26-27), the Greeks award Achilles’ armor to Odysseus over Ajax by means of a secret ballot. Bury argues that in comparison to this, Pindar’s praise will not be secret but public and vocal in support of his hero. Though Bury’s point is interesting, it seems more likely that Kurke is correct given the phrase’s immediate context of death and remembrance.

26 For Ennius’ influence on Horace in general, see Suerbaum (1968), Skutsch (1985) 14-15; in the Satires, see Muecke (2005); in Odes 1-3, see Davis (1987); in Odes 4, see Hills (2001).

21 of the fuller historical context enables us to discuss the possible developments it has made in its use of architecture. Ennius had been taken on campaign by M. Fulvius

Nobilior not to fight but to witness first-hand the general’s successes in the Aetolian War and later to serve as eyewitness poet-chronicler.27 Fulvius returned victorious, carrying with him statues of the Muses, for which he built the Temple of Hercules Musarum in the

Campus Martius in the year 187 BC.28 Remembrance of these events found their way into the Annales:

Quintus Fulvius Nobilior consul Vettonas Oretanosque superavit, unde ovans urbem introiit. Consul Aetolos, qui bello Macedonico Romanis affuerant, post ad Antiochum defecerant, proeliis frequentibus victos et in Ambraciam oppidum coactos in deditionem accepit, tamen signis tabulisque pictis spoliavit; de quibus triumphavit. Quam victoriam per se magnificam Ennius amicus eius insigni laude celebravit. (de vir.illust.52)

Quintus Fulvius Nobilior, having, as consul, defeated the Vettones and the Oretanians, entered the city celebrating a triumph. Still in his consulship, he frequently defeated in battle the Aetolians, who had taken part in the Macedonian Wars and later had deserted to Antiochus. He drove them to the town of Ambracia where he accepted their surrender (but he still plundered their statues and paintings), for which he celebrated a triumph. His friend Ennius celebrated with remarkable praise this victory, so magnificent in itself.29

Ennius recounted the events of the Aetolian War in the fifteenth, and at that point final, book of the Annales. The passage above indicates that book fifteen culminated in a

27 For more on the relationship between Ennius and Fulvius, see Goldberg (2006), Rüpke (2006), Sciarrino (2006).

28 For more on the aedes Herculis Musarum, see Pietilä-Castrén (1987) 95-103, Badian (1972) 187-195, Cancik (1969), Tamm (1961). According to Servius Aen.I.8, Fulvius also later transferred to this temple a bronze aedicula Camenarum suggesting a correlation between the Muses and the Camenae. For more on the relationship between the Muses and the Camenae, see Skutsch (1968) 20ff.

29 Sherwin (1973) 119.

22 description of the foundation of Fulvius’ temple.30 Because the description itself is no longer extant, we are unable to say to what, if any, poetic ends Ennius employed his description of Fulvius’ temple. What can be said is that Ennius concluded his epic poem with the description of the foundation of a temple dedicated to the Muses. The prominence given to the temple in the Annales serves to legitimize it as a model for later poetry. 31

Vergil is one subsequent author who seems to have adopted and developed this prominence given to architecture. Given the significance of his relationship with Horace, understanding the role architecture plays in his poetry is essential. In the proem to Book

3 of the Georgics, he describes his future poetic work in terms of a temple dedicated to

Caesar.32

Te quoque, magna Pales, et te memorande canemus pastor ab Amphryso, uos, siluae amnesque Lycaei. cetera, quae uacuas tenuissent carmine mentes, omnia iam uulgata: quis aut Eurysthea durum aut inlaudati nescit Busiridis aras? 5 cui non dictus Hylas puer et Latonia Delos Hippodameque umeroque Pelops insignis eburno, acer equis? temptanda uia est, qua me quoque possim tollere humo uictorque uirum uolitare per ora. primus ego in patriam mecum, modo uita supersit, 10 Aonio rediens deducam uertice Musas; primus Idumaeas referam tibi, Mantua, palmas, et uiridi in campo templum de marmore ponam

30 Skutsch (1968) 19, Goldberg (2005) 11.

31 Hardie (2002) 196.

32 For a synopsis of past approaches to the proem, see Appendix 3 in Horsfall (1995). On the influence of Pindar, Callimachus, Ennius, and others in the proem to Georgics 3, see Meban (2008), Balot (1998) 83-94, Thomas (1999) 69-85, 270-275, Williams (1979), Lundström (1976), Brink (1971), Wilkinson (1969) 166ff, Wimmel (1960), Fleischer (1960), Page (1960) 289-292, Richter (1957).

23 propter aquam, tardis ingens ubi flexibus errat Mincius et tenera praetexit harundine ripas. 15 in medio mihi Caesar erit templumque tenebit: illi uictor ego et Tyrio conspectus in ostro centum quadriiugos agitabo ad flumina currus. (1-18)

Thee, too, great Pales, we will sing, and thee, famed shepherd of Amphrysus, and you, ye woods and streams of Lycaeus. Other themes, which else had charmed with song some idle fancy, are now all trite. Who knows not pitiless Eurystheus, or the altars of detested Busiris? Who has not told of the boy Hylas, of Latona’s Delos, of Hippodame, and Pelops, famed for ivory shoulder, and fearless with his steeds? I must essay a path whereby I, too, may rise from earth and fly victorious on the lips of men. I first, if life but remain, will return to my country, bringing the Muses with me in triumph from the Aonian peak; first I will bring back to thee, Mantua, the palms of Idumenaea, and on the green plain will set up a temple in marble beside the water, where great Mincius wanders in slow windings and fringes his banks with slender reeds. In the midst I will have Caesar, and he shall possess the shrine. In his honour I, a victor resplendent in Tyrian purple, will drive a hundred four-horse chariots beside the stream.33

After the two-line invocation to agricultural gods, “he then suddenly turns aside to proclaim that mythological subjects are outworn: he will rather seek glory in the Ennian tradition by composing an epic in honor of Caesar.”34 Vergil conceives his future work as a monument which, though dedicated to Caesar, is a symbol also of the poet’s triumph.

It is only because the poet is “returning to Rome with the spoils of poetic warfare” that he is able to commemorate appropriately the victories of Caesar.35 Caesar and Vergil are

33 Fairclough (1916) 155.

34 Wilkinson (1969) 93.

35 Balot (1998) 88. See also: Thomas (1988), Page (1960), Drew (1924).

24 similarly victorious, each in his own sphere. Vergil claims to have achieved through his works the poetic equivalent of what Caesar has accomplished in the political world.

Like Pindar in Pythian 7 and Ennius in the Annales, Vergil constructs this passage on a framework borrowed from contemporary events, in this case, Octavian’s Triple

Triumph of 29BC.36 Just as Octavian, shortly after celebrating his triumph, dedicated a shrine to his adoptive father, Divus Iulius, so too, Vergil, after celebrating his poetic triumph, will dedicate his temple to the divinized conqueror of the world.37 Just as the conventional triumph was celebrated in honor both of the victor and of Jupiter Feretrius, so too, Vergil’s triumph will be a victory for himself and for the Caesar he celebrates.38

Though it is to Caesar, who like a god will possess (tenebit) the new temple, that the triumphant poet will dedicate his victory, and though the subject of the art that will adorn the temple will be the statesman’s achievements, not the poet’s, this poetic temple is not just the terminus of the triumph but also a symbol of the victory built by the poet. “Virgil both founds a ‘musical’ temple…and boasts of being the first to lead the Muses in triumph from Mount Helicon to his fatherland.”39 Such language is reminiscent of

Fulvius, who returns from his victory and leads the Muses as spoils to be deposited in a

36 Wilkinson (1969) 169.

37 Miles (1980) 172.

38 Miles (1980) 169.

39 Hardie (1993) 128. 25 new shrine in Rome. In acknowledgment of this Ennian connection, one scholar has suggested that Vergil’s temple be referred to as an Aedes Caesaris Musarum.40

The Georgics passage demonstrates a further Vergilian innovation on the

Pindaric/Callimachean/Ennian architectural metaphor by employing the motif in an additional socio-political way. Barchiesi points out that “in those years, it was up to individual ‘big men’ of the provinces to help spread the cult of the new regime outside

Rome. Small and conspicuous centers of the Italic territory are sprouting monuments dedicated by local dignitaries, and in visual programs the divine honors for Octavian, then Augustus, are particularly explicit. Those people are taking care of the building activity but also of the rituals, they organize games, sacrifices, shows, every kind of public and religious happening.”41 Vergil mimics a provincial elite by engaging in poetic monument building in order to manifest Augustanism in his own sphere of power.

The proem to Georgics 3, therefore, clearly functions as an example of the continued development of the architectural metaphor and as a precursor to more developed architectural appropriation. Architecture illuminates aspects of Vergil’s poetics, but also gives shape, structure, and deeper understanding to the poetry itself.

Though calling this an example of architectural appropriation may overstep the evidence, it is at least certain that the building activity of Augustan Rome has found its way into how Vergil conceptualizes his poetry.

40 Hardie (2002) 197

41 Barchiesi (2005a) 299.

26 It bears noting in passing that the Georgics proem has evoked similar responses to

Odes 4. Some scholars, uncomfortable with a Vergil who is not uncomfortable with celebrating Augustus, have attempted to find in this passage an undercurrent of doubt suggesting that the proem “demands not a simple but an ambivalent response from the poem’s audience…Virgil’s triumph conveys a degree of emotional intensity and of expectation that cannot be long sustained but which threatens, like the floridity and extravagance of the style here, to encourage skepticism by its very excess.”42

Additionally, instead of agreeing that the future promises of the proem represent “a prefiguration, however approximate, of the heroic poem that Vergil would eventually write,”43 more skepticism is found: “The prospect of fulfilling the utopian vision presented in the introduction to Georgics 3 recedes into an uncertain future, just as the utopian vision of rustic life that concluded Georgics 2 receded into an irretrievable past.”44

Section 2: Augustan Poets and Augustan Rome

In addition to the poetic use of idealized or fictional architecture, Augustan literature finds a suitable interlocutor in the actual monuments of Rome. The catalyst for

42 Miles (1980) 174.

43 Farrell (1991) 293.

44 Miles (1980) 181.

27 this approach is probably best located in Augustus himself and the building program he undertook that systematically changed the appearance of the city.45

Returning to Rome after his victories, Octavian found a city “demoralized by years of civil conflict, and shabby from neglect.”46 In opposition to the eastern and

Hellenistic dynastic aspirations of Antony, Octavian dedicated himself to Rome and her republican and Italian legacy.47 He ambitiously sought to restore and remake Rome to appear in keeping with its role as world power and to rival Alexandria and other

Hellenistic imperial capitals.48 The importance given to the Augustan building program, though, is not meant to imply the absence of previous large-scale building in Rome.

Monumental building was underway in the Late Republic, specifically under the triumvirs, as evidenced by the construction of such structures as the Theater of Pompey and the Forum of Julius Caesar.49 However, what had been done piecemeal by his predecessors, Augustus systematized and, by doing so, was able to transform the city from “a republican hodgepodge of ‘civic’ and domestic edifices into an architecturally unified urban nucleus.”50 It should be noted, though, that "program" does not necessarily mean a fully formed message adopted from the start and perpetuated unchanged

45 Favro (1996) 228-30, White (1993) 182-90, Zanker (1988) 101-166.

46 Favro (2005) 235.

47 Favro (2005) 238.

48 Fantham (1997) 122.

49See Rehak (2006) 3-8, Patterson (1992), Zanker (1972).

50 Gessert (2001) 121. Key evidence for this position can be seen in the Roman colonies, which undergo a transformation during and after the principate as they seek to mimic the monumental architecture rising in the Augustan city. For more on this, see Gessert (2001), Fentress (2000), Zanker (2000). 28 throughout his reign. Augustus took an interactive approach to his environment modifying his messages and their modes of expression as new social and political dynamics emerged.

The residents of Rome during this period watching the new city rise around them would have “passed years living in an extended construction site with the old disfigured and the new still incomplete or raw.”51 As it slowly took shape, the Romans themselves began to “envision Rome not as the seat of a city-state, but more formidably as the wellspring of Roman culture and power.”52 The city, alive with Augustus’ recreation of

Rome’s glory and restoration after years of civil war, became a text rich in a variety of meanings and associations – what one scholar has dubbed “metaphysical topography,” meaning the host of association that any given place would have for a Roman of that time.53 It is therefore not surprising to find the poets of this age reflecting this transformation in their poetry and using it as a means of interpreting, participating in, alluding to, and expressing the ideas of the age. 54

Examples of the interface between Augustan poetry and Augustan monuments fill

Vergil’s Aeneid. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Book 8, where Vergil repeatedly evokes the topography of Augustan Rome in a variety of ways. As with other aspects of

Vergil’s technique, the use of architecture in his poetry is both fascinating and frustrating.

51 Fantham (1997) 122.

52 Favro (2005) 235.

53 Vasaly (1993) 41.

54 Jaeger (1990) 1.

29 Vergil innovates. In the Aeneid, he appropriates the architecture of Augustan Rome but not through direct description. Rather, through allusions and suggestions he compels the reader to summon the buildings from his or her own preexisting mental conceptualizations of the city. Categorizing such uses can be difficult. Vergil’s technique does not fit into any neat categories. His incorporation of architecture for the purpose of developing the themes of his own poetry suggests appropriation. However,

Vergil’s technique contains elements of reception as well. The most obvious instance is

Evander and Aeneas’ tour of prehistoric Rome (Aeneid 8.306-361). During the tour,

Vergil draws aspects of the city out of the mental landscape of his readers. He then infuses a richer, deeper meaning through the consideration of their continuity with

Rome’s archaic past.

As Aeneas and Evander walk over the future sight of Rome, Vergil presents a

“palimpsestic view”55 of Rome flashing between the sights Aeneas sees and the sights as known to Augustan readers. In this way, Vergil expects his reader to be familiar with the architecture of Augustan Rome, to understand the significance of the various places visited, to recall the monuments of the Augustan present and to populate the landscape with Augustan buildings.56 By doing so, Vergil not only appropriates Augustan monuments for the purpose of giving shape to his poetry, but he also sends his readers away with an extended understanding of the monuments.

55 Edwards (1996) 31.

56 For more on Aeneas’ walk around Rome, see Papaioannou (2003), Jaeger (2002), Scott (1997), Rees (1996), Renaud (1990), Henry (1986), Wiseman (1984) 123ff, Fordyce (1977), Gransden (1976), Eden (1975), Williams (1973), McKay (1970), Grimal (1948), Bacon (1939) 97-104, Fowler (1917). 30 Though some scholars perceive no order in the tour and thus consider it a series of

“unrevised topographical notes,”57 there is an internal logic to the order in the tour that encourages a heightened awareness of the ways Vergil employs the physical world in his poetry. Evander and Aeneas take a circuitous route from the Forum Boarium to the

Palatine primarily because the purpose of the itinerary was not to get home as quickly as possible but to visit certain etiologically significant sites along the way.58 Aeneas is shown the site of “monuments not yet monumental” while learning about their past from

Evander.59 Knowing this, the reader is better able to understand and be sensitive to how

Vergil uses the emotive associations of Rome’s sites and monuments to recall themes integral to the work.60

The famous passage, which has appropriately been called “the material counterpart to the prosopographical retinue of Aeneid 6,”61 falls into two nearly equal parts. In 306-36, as they walk from the altar to the Porta Carmentalis, Evander describes the settlements in Latium from earliest times down to his own arrival. In 337-69, he points out notable landmarks inside the city, which by deliberate use of anachronism emphasize the antiquity and continuity of the city of Rome.62

57 Gransden (1976) 32 n.3.

58 Gransden (1976) 32.

59 Smith (2005) 91.

60 Renaud (1990) 3.

61 Smith (2005) 91.

62 Gransden (1976) 123.

31 The first clue Vergil gives his reader regarding the double-vision of the tour on which he is about to embark comes from line 313 in which Evander is named: Romanae conditor arcis. Mentioning Evander as the founder of the Roman citadel is the first glance from Evander’s time into the future and the naming of the city by Romulus.63

Vergil is asking his reader to summon three frames of reference to mind and to look from the Augustan present, through Romulus, back to the distant past.

After surveying the settlements in Latium up to his own time, Evander leads

Aeneas to the Porta Carmentalis:

Vix ea dicta, dehinc progressus monstrat et aram et Carmentalem Romani nomine portam quam memorant, nymphae priscum Carmentis honorem, uatis fatidicae, cecinit quae prima futuros Aeneadas magnos et nobile Pallanteum. (8.337-341)

Scarce had he finished, when, advancing, he points out the altar and the Carmental Gate, as the Romans call it, tribute of old to the Nymph Carmentis, soothtelling prophetess, who first foretold the greatness of Aeneas’ sons, and the glory of Pallanteum.64

Again Vergil is calling to mind regal Rome; for “while the altar of Carmentis at the foot of the Capitoline might plausibly be assigned to Evander’s time, the adjoining gate which was called after it belonged to the wall of Servius.”65

After the Porta Carmentalis, Evander continues his tour through the regal parts of

Rome by pointing out what will one day be the asylum of Romulus:

63 Fordyce (1977) 238.

64 Fairclough (1916) 83.

65 Fordyce (1977) 241. See also Fowler (1917) 73.

32 hinc lucum ingentem, quem Romulus acer asylum rettulit, et gelida monstrat sub rupe Lupercal Parrhasio dictum Panos de more Lycaei. (342-344)

Next he shows him a vast grove, where valiant Romulus restored an Asylum, and, beneath a chill rock, the Lupercal, bearing after Arcadian wont the name of Lycaean Pan.66

This is perhaps the place where the poetic device is the most transparent. Evander has no reason to point out the ingens lucus (342) for its own sake. The place is meaningful to

Vergil’s readers as the site of the Romulean asylum, but it does not yet have significance for his characters. Just as later in the book Aeneas will stare amazed at future deeds he himself is ignorant of (l.729-731), so here Evander and Aeneas pause long enough over an empty lot that Vergil’s readers might have time to contemplate this historically significant place.67

Moving on, Evander offers an aetiology for the naming of the Argiletum, before pointing out the Capitoline:

hinc ad Tarpeiam sedem et Capitolia ducit aurea nunc, olim siluestribus horrida dumis. iam tum religio pauidos terrebat agrestis dira loci, iam tum siluam saxumque tremebant. (347-350)

Hence he leads him to the Tarpeian house, and the Capitol – golden now, once bristling with woodland thickets. Even then the dread sanctity of the region awed the trembling rustics; even then they shuddered at the forest and the rock.68

66 Fairclough (1916) 83.

67 Fordyce (1977) 241.

68 Fairclough (1916) 85.

33 By describing the Capitol as aurea nunc, Vergil is prodding the reader to remember the newly restored Augustan brilliance and to contrast it with its original primitive wildness.

Additionally, by mentioning the dira religio loci, as well as by the repetition of iam tum in lines 349-50, Vergil is enriching the meaning of the Capitoline in the minds of his

Augustan readers by adding the veneration of this sight as a holy place in Evander’s time.

Upon arrival at Evander’s house, they stop and survey the scene:

talibus inter se dictis ad tecta subibant pauperis Euandri, passimque armenta uidebant Romanoque foro et lautis mugire Carinis. ut uentum ad sedes, 'haec' inquit 'limina uictor Alcides subiit, haec illum regia cepit. aude, hospes, contemnere opes et te quoque dignum finge deo, rebusque ueni non asper egenis. (359-365)

So talking, each with each, they drew nigh the house of the poor Evander, and saw the cattle all about, lowing in the Roman Forum and the brilliant Carinae. When they reached his dwelling: “These portals,” he cries, “victorious Alcides stooped to enter; this mansion welcomed him. Dare, my guest, to scorn riches; fashion thyself also to be worthy of deity, and come not disdainful of our property.69

The view of cows grazing in what will one day be Rome’s political center and chic residential area provides a suitable close to the tour of the once and future city. Vergil again repeats the procedure he has used throughout this passage. He has expected his reader to come to the text with a certain set of assumptions regarding the architecture of

Augustan Rome. His reader, having encountered such passages, leaves with those assumptions not necessarily changed but at least modified, or extended by the addition of

69 Fairclough (1916) 85.

34 another layer of meaning to the monument. In other words, Vergil has appropriated architecture into his poetry. He has also used his poetry to invest the monument with an extended significance.

Tibullus also engages in this architectural double vision. In elegy 2.5, he offers the reader his own flashback to Rome’s early foundation.70 The poem itself is addressed to Apollo and written to commemorate the installation of Messala’s son Messalinus as one of the quindecemviri sacris faciundis, the priests who possessed the Sibylline books.

The Rome retrospective occurs not during a walk around the sight of Rome, as in the

Aeneid, but rather during an oracle given by the Sibyl to an Aeneas that is still focused on his former city in flames.

haec dedit Aeneae sortes, postquam ille parentem dicitur et raptos sustinuisse Lares nec fore credebat Romam, cum maestus ab alto Ilion ardentes respiceretque deos. Romulus aeternae nondum formauerat urbis moenia, consorti non habitanda Remo; sed tunc pascebant herbosa Palatia uaccae et stabant humiles in Iouis arce casae. lacte madens illic suberat Pan ilicis umbrae et facta agresti lignea falce Pales, pendebatque uagi pastoris in arbore uotum, garrula siluestri fistula sacra deo, fistula cui semper decrescit harundinis ordo:

70 The precise relationship between Tibullus 2.5 and Aeneid 8 is difficult to determine. Elegies 2 must be dated between the publication of Elegies 1 (27/27 BC) and Tibullus’s death sometime in 19/18 BC. Murgatroyd (1994) 163-166 places 2.5 closer to the poet’s death based upon an inscription dating from 17 BC which lists Messalinus as one of the quindecemviri sacris faciundis. Buchheit (1965) thinks the similarities between the poems are too overwhelming and thus Tibullus must have seen a near complete version of the Aeneid. Cairns (1979) and Papaioannou (2003) are cautious about the possibility of answering the question. For more on the dating of the Tibullus’ death, see McGann (1970). For more on Tibullus 2.5 and Early Rome, see Rea (2007) 95-102, Papaioannou (2003), Maltby (2002a), Rothwell (1996) 830ff, Murgatroyd (1994) 163-235, Cairns (1979) 64-86, Bright (1978) 66-98, Putnam (1973b) 182- 195, Buchheit (1965), Wimmel (1961).

35 nam calamus cera iungitur usque minor. at qua Velabri regio patet, ire solebat exiguus pulsa per uada linter aqua. illa saepe gregis diti placitura magistro ad iuuenem festa est uecta puella die, cum qua fecundi redierunt munera ruris, caseus et niueae candidus agnus ouis.(2.5.19-38)

Twas she that gave responses to Aeneas after the hour when, as story tells, he bore away in his arms his sire and household gods, never dreaming that a Rome would be, when from the deep he turned his eyes in sorrow on Ilion and its gods ablaze. Not yet had Romulus traced the walls of the Eternal City wherein was no abiding for his brother Remus. But still on a grassy Palatine browsed the kine, and lowly cabins stood upon the heights of Jove. There, drenched with milk, was Pan beneath the holmoak’s shade, and Pales shaped from wood by rustic knife; and on the tree, in quittance of the roving shepherd’s vow, the prattling pipe hung sacred to the woodland god – the pipe with its ever-dwindling rows of reeds, whose wax joins stalks each lesser than the last. But where now spreads the quarter of the Velabrum, a small skiff stirred the waters as it plied across the shallows. There oft a lass who would please some rich keeper of a herd was ferried on holidays to her swain, and with her came back the gifts of a thriving farm, cheese and the white lamb of a snowy ewe.71

The setting of the poem is a religious celebration in Apollo’s Temple on the Palatine.

From the vantage point atop the Palatine hill, the reader is encouraged to imagine it covered with cows grazing (sed tunc pascebant herbosa Palatia uaccae, l.25). The field of vision then moves to the Capitoline, which has been transformed from the shining citadel and home of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus to a loose array of humble huts (et stabant humiles in Iouis arce casae, l.26). In between the hills, the Velabrum has returned to being a submerged shallows that requires a boat to traverse (at qua Velabri regio patet, ire solebat / exiguus pulsa per uada linter aqua, l.33-34). The pastoral and

71 Cornish, Postgate and Mackail (1913) 273.

36 amorous scene which plays out in this environment is contrasted with the urban, commercial and political world that will later occupy the same space. Tibullus, like

Vergil, expects the reader to import the buildings of Augustan Rome into his poetry and overlay them on the scene he describes. He has appropriated architecture and topography in order to add depth to his poetry.

A slightly different approach is taken by Propertius, who in Elegies 4 develops his own method of discourse with the Augustan program.72 In his earlier monobiblos, the poet had engaged in architectural appropriation, as evidenced by the declaration in 3.2 that his songs will constitute a monument to Cynthia’s beauty: 73

carmina erunt formae tot monumenta tuae nam neque pyramidum sumptus ad sidera ducti, nec Iovis Elei caelum imitata domus, nec Mausolei dives fortuna sepulcri mortis ab extrema condicione vacant. (18-22)

Each poem will be a memorial of your beauty. For neither the costly pyramids soaring to the skies, not the Temple of Jove at Elis that mimics heaven, nor the sumptuous magnificence of the tomb of Mausolus are exempt from the ultimate decree of death.74

In book 4, however, appropriation gives way to reception as the poet breaks from his previous commitments to Cynthia and Callimachus in order to sing of Rome’s history and institutions. In an allusion to Aeneid 8, Propertius begins 4.1 with a dramatic

72 Most recently by Welch (2005) and (2004). See also Rothstein (1966), Camps (1965), Fedeli (1965).

73 Mader (1993), Miller (1983).

74 Goold (1990) 257-9.

37 invitation to show a hospes the Roman monuments and in doing so inverts the Vergilian technique and remarks from the Augustan present on how things used to look.75 On the heels of this comparison, Propertius declares his poetic intentions:

moenia namque pio coner disponere uersu: ei mihi, quod nostro est paruus in ore sonus! sed tamen exiguo quodcumque e pectore riui fluxerit, hoc patriae seruiet omne meae. Ennius hirsuta cingat sua dicta corona: mi folia ex hedera porrige, Bacche, tua, ut nostris tumefacta superbiat Vmbria libris, Vmbria Romani patria Callimachi! scandentis quisquis cernit de uallibus arces, ingenio muros aestimet ille meo! Roma, faue, tibi surgit opus, date candida ciues omina, et inceptis dextera cantet auis! sacra diesque canam et cognomina prisca locorum: has meus ad metas sudet oportet equus. (57-70)

For I would fain lay out those walls in duteous verse: ah me, that a voice so feeble sits upon my lips! But still, whatever the stream that gushes forth from my puny breast, the whole of it shall be given to the service of my country. Let Ennius crown his verse with a ragged garland: Bacchus, give me leaves of your ivy, that Umbria may swell with pride at my books, Umbria the home of Rome’s Callimachus! Let whosever descries the citadels that climb up from the vale esteem those walls by my genius. Rome, smile on me; my work rises for you; citizens, give me a fair omen, and let a bird on the right augur success for my undertaking. I shall sing of rites and deities and ancient names of places: this is the goal to which my foaming steed must press.76

Propertius, intending to recreate the city in poetry, asks the reader in l.66 (ingenio muros aestimet ille meo) not to judge his poetry by the accuracy with which it models the

75 Van Sickle (1974) 124. Also Rothstein (1966) 187-218, Hutchinson (2006) 62, Fedeli (1965) ad loc, Camps (1965) 5.

76 Goold (1990) 361.

38 physical world it recreates, but to use his poetry as the standard against which the monuments are to be measured. For Propertius, poetry now supercedes the physical city as a locus of meaning. 77

Though some have attempted to glean from Propertius’ approach to the monuments his opinion of the Augustan program and by extension of Augustus himself,78 it is enough here to note that Propertius is adopting the mode of architectural reception.

Propertius is not using the monuments to elucidate aspects of his poetics, nor is he ordering and shaping his poetry around the evocations and associations suggested by the monument. Rather, Propertius intends his poetry as comment upon the monuments. The reader is not supposed to remember the monument as he or she reads his poetry, but to remember his poetry as he or she re-reads the monument. The goal is for his poetry to invest the monument with new meaning, for the reader to form new judgments of Rome by seeing it through the Propertian lens.

Most notably absent from this study is the poetry of Ovid. I have intentionally chosen to exclude him from consideration in this context. The copious use of topography and architecture in Ovid’s poetry does constitute further evidence for Augustan

77 Cairns (2006) 5-6, Hutchinson (2006) 73, Debrohun (2003) 106-110, Newman (1997) 268-9.

78 Esp. Fantham (1997) 124: “The poetic city Propertius creates is a nostalgic counterpart of Augustus' physical creations of the new monuments…he invites us to deduce his response to the new city from imaginative devotion to the old.” Also Welch (2005) 8: “I see Propertius’ portrait of early Rome as neither naturalist nor nostalgic; on the contrary, I argue that the elegist’s ancient landscape is already darkened by the shadow of what it will become – an emblem of a state that demands too many sacrifices from its citizens. Propertius’ elegiac discourse on Rome resists the presence of an intrusive state by reading its past pessimistically, thus resisting the invited perspective on Roman identity and behavior.” See also Cairns (2006).

39 engagement with architecture and the city of Rome.79 However, he is more appropriately viewed as an heir rather than a contemporary of the poets discussed above.80 The above discussion should suffice to demonstrate that the city of Rome had a profound effect on the poets of the Augustan Age.

Section 3: Horace and the City

When one turns from the vivid and obvious ways the City of Rome is present in other Augustan poets and attempts to determine the ways in which Horace uses architecture and engages the city, the difference between Horace and his Augustan counterparts is remarkable. This contrast has caused some scholars to doubt whether

Horace incorporated monuments into his poetry at all. Dyson and Prior, in comparing how Horace and Martial read the city, comment that in Horace “one is struck by the limited number of references to the physical setting and by their lack of colour and specificity.”81 What references they do find they declare to be “limited in number” and

79 For more on Ovid’s use of architecture and topography, see Keith (2007), Green (2004), Boyle (2003), Wickkiser (1999).

80 Galinsky (1996) 228 describes Ovid as “the truest production of the Augustan Age,” someone who “had no recollection of the travail that produced the Augustan principate or of its precarious genesis,” and “knew only the pax Augusta and its otium.” Millar (1993) suggests using the term “triumviral” to differentiate Horace, Vergil, Propertius, and Livy from Ovid and others who grew up within the Augustan milieu. For more on the use of the term “triumviral” to designate the period from 43-28 BC, see Syme (1978) 169.

81 Dyson and Prior (1995) 255. For a more thorough response to this approach, see Leach (1997). On Horace’s use of non-specific architecture in his poetry, see Pearcy (1977). On the connection between place and poetry in Horace, see Leach (1998).

40 “generic in nature.” What one finds in Horace is either “standard evocations” or

“silence.”82 They conclude, on the basis of the paucity of direct references to specific monuments, that it is hard to locate Horace as a resident of Rome and therefore Horace must have marginalized the monuments in his poetry.83 The analysis, having interpreted the absence of direct reference to the monuments as intentional marginalization of the monuments, now speculates as to the reasons behind this marginalization. Their final observation is that “Rome may have been for Horace a city with more ghosts than just those of the Esquiline…maybe it was better to bury those dead of the city like the dead of the Esquiline and construct over their obliterated remains an artificial and removed epicurean garden.”84

The approach of Dyson and Prior is an example of the difficulty of using Horace to search for topographical guidance. While Propertius engages in direct architectural reception, and Vergil employs a wide-ranging variety of architectural usages, Horace engages in a subtler poetic technique. The result is poetry in which the primary focus is not directed towards, or distracted by, architectural reference. Some scholars seeking to understand this diminution of the monuments in Horace have speculated whether

“Horace’s reluctance to evoke actual monuments in his verse is the desire to establish his own words as an alternative, a superior, kind of monument.”85

82 Dyson and Prior (1995) 257-8.

83 Dyson and Prior (1995) 262.

84 Dyson and Prior (1995) 263.

85 Hardie (1993) 126. 41 Though it is true that Horace argues in numerous places for the superiority of poetry over monuments, the physical world is not absent from his poetry. Rather, the difficulty in discerning the architectural references suggests that while they are present,

Horace has chosen not to foreground them. The architectural references, whether they be metaphor or appropriation (Horace rarely, if ever, engages in reception), are always secondary and exist in the background. They neither distract nor draw attention to themselves but always help to order Horace’s poetry around his primary theme. As

Jaeger has summarized, “In some ways, Horace is the victim of his own excellence: he has been so successful in evoking a vision of Augustan Rome that modern readers take this portrait of the city for granted.”86

When one scans the Horatian corpus for ways he uses Roman architecture and topography, numerous instances emerge where Horace grounds some aspect of the poem in the physical world that he inhabits. Satires 1.9 has been the source of much attention as scholars study the relationship between the places Horace visits and the person Horace is trying to avoid.87 The Sabine farm, in Odes 1-3, as well as in Satires 2 and Epistles 1, is used by Horace as a key component in his self-representation.88 Odes 1-3 has also been studied for the ways in which various place references help to “establish the city of Rome as the spatial framework of the poetry’s experiences.”89 In several places,90 Horace

86 Jaeger (1990) 75.

87 Welch (2001), Schmitzer (1994), Braund (1989), Salmon (1952).

88 Leach (1993). See also Bradshaw (1989).

89 Leach (1998) 43. 42 contrasts newly-constructed grandiose villas with traditional Roman simplicity in order to discuss both decadence and mortality. In addition, the description in C.1.8 of young men exercising on the Campus Martius has been studied for the ways that Horace uses the evocations of the area to articulate gender roles.91 The Epodes also elucidate Horace’s evocation of place. Throughout this work, Horace appropriates the Esquiline Hill and the

Sacra Via as a means of shaping his poetry of invective towards the larger goal of venting his anger at the death and internal decay of the Roman state due to generations of civil war.92 The Epodes, therefore, can serve as a useful case study for the ways Horace appropriates place for the purpose of lending color, shape, and order to an entire poetry book.

In Epode 3 Horace lashes out against Maecenas for his use of garlic at a banquet.

One accusation he wields is “an malas / Canidia tractavit dapes (7-8).” Horace jokingly warns Maecenas that his house and banquet must have been invaded by the witch

Canidia, who is attempting to poison the guests.93 With this joke, Horace begins to establish the connection between Maecenas, the Augustan renewer of the Esquiline, and

Canidia, the decrepit evil witch haunting its graves and tombs. Horace will use these

90 C. 2.15, 2.18, 3.1, 3.24. See Pearcy (1977), Whitehouse (1969).

91 Leach (1994).

92 Jaeger (1990) 103.

93 For more on the character of Canidia in the Horatian corpus, see Watson (2003) 135, Mankin (1995) 299-301, Porter (1995) 108, Manning (1970), Carrubba (1969) 40ff.

43 individuals as rival possessors of the Esquiline for the purpose of exploring a basic struggle he perceives at the heart of Rome.94

In Epode 4 Horace vents his bile on an arrogant upstart parading around the Sacra

Via:

videsne, Sacram metiente te Viam cum bistrium ulnarum toga, ut ora vertat huc et huc euntium liberrima indignatio? (7-10)

Do you see, while you traverse the Sacred Way with a toga three yards wide, how the most unrestrained indignation turns the faces here and there of those passing by?

The parvenu promenading down the busy main street of ancient Rome “with his oversized toga and measured gait apes…the self-conscious promenading of the successful magistrate.”95 The center of Rome is filled not with the gravitas of the consuls and magistrates but with the pretentious meanderings of those who think too highly of themselves. Horace introduces the notion of Rome being corrupted at its center by mentioning the Sacra Via alongside the reference to the inappropriate behavior, in the heart of Rome, of one who does not belong.

Canidia appears again in Epode 5, in which she is in the process of concocting a love potion by burying a boy up to his neck and allowing him to starve within sight of

94 For more on the connection between Maecenas and Canidia, see Oliensis (1991) 110. Oliensis remarks: “Most astonishing is Canidia’s assumption of the place of honor at the end of Horace’s early collections. Her name breaks into the last line of Horace’s last satire (S.2.8.95) as suddenly as the banquet described in that poem breaks up, and Canidia actually speaks the closing lines of the book of Epodes. Canidia is thus a structural counterpart to Maecenas, who is invoked at the beginning of both collections.”

95 Watson (2003) 157.

44 food. This time more is learned about Canidia. Mankin has argued that various aspects of Canidia’s characterization suggest that she might be a Roman matron.96 Though the references may be more suggestive than definitive, her association with the Esquiline is clear. In addition to references to Lucina (l.6), whose temple was located on the

Esquiline,97 and to the dogs that haunt the Subura (l.58),98 the poem ends with the boy cursing the witches:

vos turba vicatim hinc et hinc saxis petens contudet obscenas anus; post insepulta membra different lupi et Esquilinae alites, neque hoc parentes, heu mihi superstites, effugerit spectaculum. (97-102)

The crowd, attacking you with stones here and there along the streets, will crush you, filthy hags. Afterwards the wolves and Esquiline birds will scatter your unburied limbs, and this sight will not escape my parents– surviving me, alas!

The poem concludes with a vision of the Esquiline as a wild and death-filled place inhabited by wolves and birds feeding on the corpses either exposed or dug out of communal paupers’ graves. The repetition of hinc et hinc calls to mind the previous epode and the upstart, the recipient not of rocks as referenced here but of indignant glances, thus linking the twin images, one on the Esquiline, the other in the heart of

96 Mankin (1995) 109.

97 Mankin (1995) 109ff. See also Scullard (1981) 85-87.

98 For more on the Subura, see Watson (2003) 229-30.

45 Rome. The suggestion that Canidia might be a Roman matron prepares the reader for

Epode 8.

Epode 7, lamenting the civil wars, uses the Sacra Via as a symbol for what Rome ought to be and what it has become:

Quo, quo scelesti ruitis? aut cur dexteris aptantur enses conditi? parumne campis atque Neptuno super fusum est Latini sanguinis, non ut superbas invidae Karthaginis Romanus arces ureret, intactus aut Britannus ut descenderet sacra catenatus via, sed ut Secundum vota Parthorum sua Vrbs haec periret dextera? (1-10)

Whither, whither are ye rushing to ruin in your wickedness? Or why are the swords that have been sheathed fitted for the right hand? Has too little Roman blood been shed on field and flood – not that the Roman might burn the proud towers of envious Carthage, or that the untouched Briton might descend the Sacred Way in chains, but that, according to the prayers of the Parthians, this city might perish by its own right hand?

The horrors of civil war express “the fear which had overtaken many Romans during the civil wars of the first century BC that the state might perish or, worse, destroy itself.”99

Horace expresses his vision of Roman self-destruction through the transformation of the

Sacra Via from the triumphal route for leading conquered foes in procession to the promenade of the pompous upstart from Epode 4.

99 Watson (2003) 277.

46 Epode 8 hurls invective at the degeneracy of an old woman in terms “ironically appropriate to a Roman matron.”100 Though many comment on this poem as part of the tradition of ritual abuse of ugly, old women,101 given the connection with surrounding poems, it has been suggested that she could be the previously mentioned Canidia or “a personification of Rome itself, horribly repulsive, yet strangely fascinating.”102 If the old woman is in some way symbolic of Rome, then Horace’s abuse extends beyond this one woman and represents his attitude towards Rome generally.

One specific line of the epode underscores this and unites it in theme with the previous poem:

esto beata, funus atque imagines ducant triumphales tuum (11-12)

Be blessed, and may triumphal imagines lead your funeral.

Like the previous poem, this epode underscores the differences between a past full of triumphs and the present full of decay. By mentioning the woman’s ancestors as triumphales, the poet has linked this poem with the one before. The hatred and derision expressed towards this woman is blended with the hatred of the civil wars. Her ancestors were successful leaders of the Roman state, while she, though rich, is decrepit. The use of the present tense ducant illustrates how decrepit she is. Her funeral procession has

100 Jaeger (1990) 126.

101 Richlin (1992) 105-143. See also Harrison (2001) 165-186, Watson (1995) 188-202.

102 Mankin (1995) 153.

47 already begun. She is as good as dead.103 The vision of triumphal images in the funeral procession further unites the Esquiline and the Sacra Via. Even though neither place is explicitly mentioned, Horace uses the associations and evocations of each place to prod the reader into recalling them.

It is precisely this technique which is central for understanding the ways in which

Horace incorporates architecture into his poetry. Rather than explicitly referencing monuments, Horace appropriates evocations of monuments and builds them into the background of his poetry.

Horace underscores the relationship he is developing between the Esquiline and the Sacra Via in Epode 9. The poem begins with the poet looking forward to celebrating at Maecenas’ house on the Esquiline the triumph of Augustus at Actium and ends with a vision of a triumph. Horace does not directly name the hill but instead refers to it obliquely in the mention of Maecenas’ house, expecting the reader to remember its location.

Quando repositum Caecubum ad festas dapes victore laetus Caesare tecum sub alta – sic Iovi gratum – domo, beate Maecenas, bibam sonante mixtum tibiis carmen lyra, hac Dorium, illis barbarum? (1-6)

When, happy Maecenas, will I, happy at Caesar's victory, drink with you the Caecuban wine reserved for festal banquets in your high house – thus it is pleasing to Jove – with the lyre playing a song mixed with the tibia, that one a Doric, these a barbarian song?

103 Watson (2003) 303, Mankin (1995) 155.

48 By placing the poem’s events in the context of Maecenas’ villa on the Esquiline, Horace applies the associations of the Esquiline, which he has developed in the previous epodes, to the material of this poem. Though the poem rejoices in Octavian’s victory, the bulk of the poem is dedicated to the degeneracy of the Romans who take up arms against Rome.

In the same way that Maecenas’ house, though a place for celebration, is built on top of dead men’s bones, so Octavian’s victory, though a joyful occasion, reveals the decay which lies beneath – Romans conquered by Romans.

The theme which Horace has been building throughout the entire book by means of various references to the Esquiline Hill and the Sacra Via reaches its climax in the concluding pair of Epodes, which present “two versions, in different registers, of the same … story.”104

Following the profound national pessimism of Epode 16, which expresses a desire for a remnant to abandon Rome cursed by civil war and to seek the Isle of the Blessed,

Horace chooses to end his collection with a witchcraft poem in which he unites the various strands of the Epodes into a single symbolic vision of the Roman state.

Epode 17 begins with Horace, like the boy in Epode 5, imploring Canidia to relent from her curses. As the poem progresses, Horace begins to sound more like Varus the

‘aged adulterer’ as he describes the suffering he has endured at the hands of her evil magic. This suggests that Epode 17 is another symbolic representation of the curse afflicting both individual and city.105 In response to his pleas, she mockingly calls him

104 Oliensis (1991) 130.

105 Mankin (1995) 272. 49 esquiline pontifex venefici (l.58). Once again, the Esquiline is invoked as a place of magic, darkness, torture, and death. The poem and the collection both end with Canidia unmerciful, unrelenting, and triumphant.

The twin poems that close the collection present a vision Horace has developed throughout the entire book through references to the Esquiline hill and the Sacra Via.

Rome is decayed at its core. The corruption that plagues the state has found expression through the images of the upstart on the Sacra Via, the witch amongst the Esquiline tombs, the Sacra Via empty of triumph or the decrepit old woman, descendant of triumphant generals, now progressing towards her Esquiline graveyard. The victory of

Octavian and the restoration of Maecenas have bought some time for those who truly care for Rome to abandon the cursed ground before continued death ensues. Canidia remains unrelenting in her thirst for blood.

Though some may argue that the Epodes present Horace’s suspicion or criticism of Octavian, it is perhaps better to understand the bile of the Epodes, published probably around 30 BC, as directed towards the abomination of the civil wars and expressing

Horace’s attitude towards Octavian as cautiously optimistic but unable, so closely on the heels of Actium, to lay aside his suspicion of Rome’s internal decay.106 However one chooses to read the references to Maecenas and Octavian, there can be no doubt that

Horace appropriates the Esquiline hill and the Sacra Via in order to unify his collection and to develop it around a central theme.

106 cf. Fitzgerald (1988) 179.

50 If the Epodes constitute an important example of Horatian architectural appropriation, the most obvious example of architectural metaphor is the famous concluding ode of his tribiblos:

Exegi monumentum aere perennius regalique situ pyramidum altius, quod non imber edax, non Aquilo inpotens possit diruere aut innumerabilis annorum series et fuga temporum. 5 Non omnis moriar multaque pars mei uitabit Libitinam; usque ego postera crescam laude recens, dum Capitolium scandet cum tacita uirgine pontifex. Dicar, qua uiolens obstrepit Aufidus 10 et qua pauper aquae Daunus agrestium regnauit populorum, ex humili potens princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos deduxisse modos. Sume superbiam quaesitam meritis et mihi Delphica lauro cinge uolens, Melpomene, comam. (3.30.1-16)

I have raised up a monument more lasting than bronze and higher than the regal structure of the Pyramids, which neither corroding rain nor the unrestrained north wind are able to destroy, or the countless succession of years and the flight of time. I will not wholly die. A large part of me will avoid the death goddess. I, ever young, will increase in the praise of posterity, as long as the pontifex ascends the Capitol with the silent virgin. Where wild Aufidus thunders and where Daunus, poor in water, has ruled a rustic people, I, powerful from humble origin, will be called the first to have led Aeolian songs to Italian measures. Melpomene, assume the pride earned by your merits, and propitiously wreath my hair with Delphic laurel.

This poem’s connections with the Mausoleum will be treated more fully in a later chapter. It is enough at this point to mention the ways Horace is conceptualizing his poetry in monumental terms and how he modifies previous models in several important ways. 51 First, Horace directs the focus not onto a laudandus but onto himself. In the proem to Georgics 3, Vergil shares the shrine of his own poetry with Octavian. In contrast, Horace’s poetic monument belongs only to Horace.

Second, Horace locates his monument in a specific topography. This is not an atemporal, idealized monument; rather, Horace has placed his monument in the context of Rome, its hills and its religious traditions.

Third, inspired by Vergil’s equation (Georgics 3) of his own poetic accomplishment with the political accomplishments of Octavian through references to both triumphal and athletic imagery, Horace takes it one step further and declares that his poetic accomplishments have earned him the title “princeps.”

This last point helps to sharpen the precise comparison that I will explore later. If

Horace is the princeps in poetry, and this poetic monument is his monumentum which will ensure his escape from death, then it seems logical that Horace expects a connection to be made between this funeral monument and the one Augustus was building for himself. Thus, in typically Horatian fashion, C.3.30 indirectly but clearly calls to mind the Mausoleum of Augustus in order to highlight the role the poet has adopted. What

Augustus has achieved in the political world, Horace has achieved in the poetic world.

They have each constructed memorials for themselves in their respective spheres.

Given the inclination of poets to conceptualize their poetry in architectural terms, and based upon the evidence of Augustan poets incorporating the physical landscape of

Augustan Rome into their poetry in various ways and for various reasons, and specifically of Horace’s demonstrated incorporation of the city of Rome into the Epodes 52 and C.3.30, it is reasonable to approach Odes 4 in a manner sensitive to the ways in which the poet continues his practice of using the physical world which surrounds him to give shape to his poetry.

Section 4: The Preliminary Case for Odes 4

Scholars studying the interplay between Horace’s poetry and the external world have made several attempts to find an aspect of the city of Rome or some specific monument capable of serving as a suitable interpretive grid to help illuminate, explain, rehabilitate, appreciate, or contextualize Odes 4. Two important suggestions have focused on the Ara Pacis107 and the Forum of Augustus.108 Benario, looking for a connection between Odes 4 and a monument from Augustan Rome, suggests that Odes 4 and the Ara Pacis share a common ideological message.109 The core of Odes 4, argues

Benario, lies in “attracting general opinion to the side of the principate.”110 She analyzes what she believes to be the essential message of the Ara Pacis and then finds similar thematic affinities in Odes 4.

107 Benario (1960).

108 Putnam (1986) 327-339.

109 Benario (1960) 339-352.

110 Benario (1960) 351.

53 It has been noted that the Ara Pacis is “the artistic counterpart of what Horace and

Vergil did in poetry.”111 That is to say, “As in Horace’s Odes or the Aeneid, the unity of the frieze is achieved primarily not by the action that is represented or described, but by a complex interweaving of motifs.”112 Benario states very clearly the scope of her analysis:

“In order to present and illustrate this wide range of ideas in a more systematic fashion, I shall consider the main tenets of Augustan propaganda as expressed artistically in another form, the Ara Pacis Augustae, and show how Horace has both obviously and subtly used them in his poems.”113 Benario’s approach is important for drawing attention to the ways various emphases of the Augustan Age find expression in both art and poetry. The text and the monument share a common vocabulary; that is all she is trying to show. She does not suggest a direct influence of one upon the other.

Such a suggestion, though, is made by Putnam in an appendix to his treatment of

Odes 4 as a whole, in which he attempts to read C.4.15 in the light of the Forum of

Augustus.114 Putnam justifies his reading on two grounds. First, he suggests that “if the allusion to the Forum of Augustus in the concluding lines of ode 15 is direct, then Horace may wish us to associate his final lyric gesture with the last architectural masterpiece of the Augustan regime.”115 Second, he argues that “the contemporaneity…of Horace’s

111 Galinsky (1969a) 192.

112 Galinsky (1969a) 192.

113 Benario (1960) 341.

114 Putnam (1986) 327-339.

115 Putnam (1986) 327.

54 carefully orchestrated poetry book and the most dazzling remnant of sculpture from the

Augustan Age lends cogency to the search for intellectual bonds between them.”116 He claims that in C.4.15 Horace glorifies “in poetry what a visitor to Augustus’ forum would see monumentalized in sculpture.”117

Though the concluding lines of C.4.15, in which Horace says he will sing, in order, of heroes, Troy, Anchises, and the progeny of Venus (duces/ Troiamque et

Anchisem et almae / progeniem Veneris canemus), may initially call to mind the sculptural program of the Forum of Augustus, further exploration strains the connection to the point of breaking. For example, Putnam connects the caryatids in the Forum with the reference in C.4.15 to the people who drink the Danube, Getae, Seres, and Persae through the shared notion of subjugated pacificity. As Putnam says, “Both the reader and viewer would ponder the effect of Roman martial triumphs over foreign peoples, whether it be through the metaphor that sees Julian edicts enforcing bondage or through the artistry in stone emblematic of eternal, fixed enslavement.”118

Putnam’s explanation of the absence of Mars from his poetic recreation of the

Forum is also problematic. The absence of the deity to whom the centerpiece of the forum is dedicated, in Putnam’s view, does not weaken, but rather confirms the connection. The reader, he argues, would perceive the omission of “a major ingredient of

116 Putnam (1986) 328.

117 Putnam (1986) 332.

118 Putnam (1986) 333. For recent work on the caryatids in the context of Augustan Rome, see Lesk (2007).

55 Augustan propaganda” and recognize that this Horatian exclusion is meant as commentary upon the reign of Augustus: “Mars Ultor, whatever his importance to the aesthetic and moral ideology of Augustus, cannot be accepted into the imaginative edifice

Horace raises to the emperor.”119 Though it is true that omission of an expected component is able to heighten a reader’s awareness, it is also extremely difficult to demonstrate. One would expect an obvious string of parallelisms with a key component missing at the climax. Putnam’s appendix is important for suggesting lines of inquiry and offering examples of how to ground and pursue connections between literary and physical artifacts. He inaugurated the search for specific connections between Horace’s poetry and the physical world the poet inhabited. One is left thinking, though, that his connection of C.4.15 with the Forum of Augustus is forced. It is perhaps best to adopt his vision but focus the search elsewhere.

One cannot discount the fact that “there are considerable thematic affinities between Odes 4, in particular Odes 4.15, and Augustan monuments such as the Ara Pacis and the Augustan Forum.”120 However, these affinities are best accounted for by a participation in the shared vocabulary of the Augustan milieu. Scholars like Benario and

Putnam, as well as Armstrong, who also finds profit in the comparison between Odes 4 and the Augustan building program (he calls Odes 4 “a kind of Augusteum or temple to the imperial order.”121) are pursuing an appropriate course of action for understanding

119 Putnam (1986) 338.

120 Galinsky (1996) 261.

121 Armstrong (1989) 139. 56 Odes 4. The “reciprocity of inspiration”122 in all aspects of Augustan culture reinforces the need to pursue connections between various media. In this pursuit, scholars must focus their attention on the connections, if any, suggested by the author’s work itself as well as by the author’s corpus as a whole.

In considering Odes 4, we must begin by reminding ourselves not to expect obvious, primary, overpowering references to monuments. As has been shown, when

Horace evokes monuments he does so subtly and indirectly, so as to contribute to the picture he is attempting to create. One might also argue that Horace’s subtle use of architecture arises out of a desire to avoid the appearance of reception. He is not attempting to reread the monuments or invest them with new meaning; rather, he is attempting to use the monuments to lend order and texture to his poetry.

After all has been said, how is the connection between the Mausoleum and Odes 4 justified?

First, as was suggested above and will be argued more fully in the next chapter,

Horace may be appropriating the Mausoleum in C.3.30 as a useful way of understanding his own poetic accomplishment. When he returns to lyric in Odes 4, Horace intends some connection between the two works when he suggestively begins his work with

(Intermissa, Venus, diu / rursus bella moves?). Intermissa, the opening word of his second collection, is resumptive: “Horace, far from ignoring Odes I-III, begins book IV by immediately acknowledging his absence from lyric and attempting some explanation

122 Galinsky (1996) 261.

57 for his return.”123 If the connection with the Mausoleum is present in C.3.30 and Horace intends some sort of continuity with his previous work, the reader is encouraged to remember the Mausoleum and remain sensitive to the role architecture might play in this work as well.

Secondly, in C.4.1, Horace encourages Venus to seek elsewhere for a builder of her temple.

Tempestiuius in domum Pauli purpureis ales oloribus comissabere Maximi, si torrere iecur quaeris idoneum;

namque et nobilis et decens et pro sollicitis non tacitus reis et centum puer artium late signa feret militiae tuae,

et, quandoque potentior largi muneribus riserit aemuli, Albanos prope te lacus ponet marmoream sub trabe citrea.

Illic plurima naribus duces tura, lyraque et Berecyntia delectabere tibia mixtis carminibus non sine fistula;

illic bis pueri die numen cum teneris uirginibus tuum laudantes pede candido in morem Salium ter quatient humum. (9-27)

Flying with purple swans, you will more seasonably revel in the house of Paulus Maximus, if you see to excite a suitable liver. For he is both noble and graceful, and not silent on behalf of anxious defendants, and a boy of

123 Johnson (2004) 5.

58 a hundred arts. He will bear the standard of your warfare far and wide, and whenever more powerful than the gifts of a generous rival, he will laugh; and near the Alban lakes he will set you up as a marble statue beneath a roof of citron wood. There you will inhale much incense, and you will delight in the mixed songs of the tibia not without the pipes. There twice each day boys, with tender maidens tender, praising your divinity, will beat the ground three times with white feet, in the manner of the Salii.

Though the center of the poem is focused on Paulus Maximus as a more suitable temple- builder who will properly enshrine and worship Venus, the point is that because Horace has demonstrated his skill in poetic monument building in his previous works, he has now been asked to build a poetic temple for Venus. Horace’s recusatio is his acknowledgment of the role of poetic architect.

The poem ends with Horace chasing a fleeing lover over the Campus Martius:

Sed cur heu, Ligurine, cur manat rara meas lacrima per genas? Cur facunda parum decoro inter uerba cadit lingua silentio?

Nocturnis ego somniis iam captum teneo, iam uolucrem sequor te per gramina Martii campi, te per aquas, dure, uolubilis. (33-40)

But why, O Ligurinus, why does a rare tear still trickle down my cheeks? Why does my eloquent tongue fall among words with unbecoming silence? In nocturnal dreams, I now hold you captured, now follow you a bird through the grass of the Campus Martius, now through the rolling waves, O hard-hearted one.

The subtle reference to the Campus Martius combined with the evocation of Horace’s earlier work provides the first clue to the Mausoleum as a primary motif.

59 Thirdly, in the central and programmatic C.4.8, which exalts the superior ability of poetry over static monument, Horace references Scipio and Ennius and in doing so alludes to the Tomb of the Scipios.

Non incisa notis marmora publicis, per quae spiritus et uita redit bonis post mortem ducibus, non celeres fugae reiectaeque retrorsum Hannibalis minae, non incendia Carthaginis impiae eius, qui domita nomen ab Africa lucratus rediit, clarius indicant laudes quam Calabrae Pierides, neque, si chartae sileant quod bene feceris, mercedem tuleris. (13-22)

Not marble ingraved with public inscriptions, through which breath and life return to good generals after death, nor the swift flight of Hannibal and his threats thrown back on himself, nor the burning of wicked Carthage, declare more gloriously the praises of him who returned, having won a name from conquered Africa, than do the Calabrian Muses; nor would you carry away a reward, if the pages are silent about what you have done well.

As Cicero reminds us in Pro Archia, “Carus fuit Africano superiori noster Ennius, itaque etiam in sepulcro Scipionum putatur is esse constitutus ex marmore” (22). Ennius’s poetry was so successful in immortalizing the Scipios that Ennius was, in return, immortalitized in marble on their family tomb. The two are inextricably linked, and thus, when one thinks of Ennius’s poetry, Scipio comes to mind. Equally, when Scipio is mentioned, linked with him is Ennius’s poetry. Cicero goes on to connect this fact with a sentiment similar to the one expressed in C.4.8:

An statuas et imagines, non animorum simulacra sed corporum, studiose multi summi homines reliquerunt; consiliorum relinquere ac virtutum nostrarum effigiem nonne multo malle debemus, summis ingeniis expressam et politam? (Pro Archia. 30) 60

Many great men have been studious to leave behind them statues and portraits, likenesses not of the soul but of the body; and how much more anxious should we be to bequeath an effigy of our minds and character, wrought and elaborated by supreme talent?124

By referencing Scipio and Ennius in a poem which considers poetry’s ability to immortalize, Horace summons to mind not just the two individuals but also the Tomb of the Scipios. By invoking the poet connected with the Scipio Family Sepulcher, Horace hints at a connection between his own poetry and the family tomb of Augustus rising on the Campus Martius.

Lastly, an allusion to C.4.1 found in the Silvae of Statius provides a witness from antiquity which places Odes 4 within the tradition of poetic monument building.

Intermissa tibi renovat, Tirynthie, sacra Pollius et causas designat desidis anni, quod coleris maiore tholo nec litora pauper nuda tenes tectumque vagis habitabile nautis, sed nitidos postes Graisque effulta metallis, culmina, ceu taedis iterum lustratus honesti ignis ab Oetaea conscenderis aethera flamma. (3.1.1-7)

Lord of Tiryns, Pollius renews your interrupted cult and gives his reasons for a neglectful year. For you are worshipped under a large dome, no pauper on a bare beach with a shelter for stray sailors to lodge in, no, you have shining doorposts and a roof supported by Grecian marbles, as though purified once again by brands of honouring fire you have ascended to heaven from Oeta's flame.125

124 Watts (1923) 39.

125 Shackleton-Bailey (2003) 79.

61 The poem, which commemorates the reconstruction of a shrine to Heracles, takes as its primary model the proem of Georgics 3.126 Additionally, Statius, who has a demonstrated propensity for “rewriting Horace,”127 alludes in the first line to the intermissa bella of C.4.1. Statius is forging a connection between this poem, the proem to Georgics 3, and Odes 4. Silvae 3.1 thus provides an example of Odes 4 being understood in antiquity as a poetic monument similar to the one prophesied in Georgics 3 and lends support to the proposition of investigating Odes 4 more deeply along these lines.

In conclusion, it seems profitable in the light of this discussion to explore Odes 4 as a poetic Mausoleum which Horace constructed for Augustus. Understanding the physical Mausoleum will, therefore, be central to this line of inquiry. While previous studies have worked from poems which specifically reference physical monuments or have compared the ways poetry and wall paintings tell similar stories, the approach I will take will be more metaphorical. Whereas, for instance, Propertius specifically mentions and engages various Roman monuments, and Vergil, in his walk around Rome, tours the ancient site expecting the knowledgeable reader to superimpose Augustan buildings on the archaic landscape, I will assess the ways in which Horace picks up associations evoked by the Mausoleum and incorporates them into his own poetic creation. He does not use his poetry to reread and reinterpret the Mausoleum of Augustus. Rather, as the

126 Newlands (1991) 438-452, Thomas (1999) 85-88.

127 Newlands (2002) 160, Hardie (1983) 125ff.

62 princeps in poetry, Horace constructs for the Roman princeps a monument in the poetic sphere that possesses the multiplicity of associations and evocations found in the brick and mortar Mausoleum.

63 Chapter 2: The Tomb of a Poet / The Tomb of a God The Relationship between Horace C.3.30 and the Mausoleum of Augustus

Section 1: The Mausoleum of Augustus

The Mausoleum of Augustus presents its students with a series of problems that, perhaps paradoxically, stem from the fact that is was never lost but survived in various configurations. Because it has never known the protection of being buried and forgotten, it has survived by being fit to serve a variety of purposes including a fortress of the

Colonna family, an amphitheater, a bullring, a garden, and most recently, a concert hall.1

Because the structure has always been known, put to repeated use, plundered for building material and reduced to a shell, reconstruction of what it must have looked like is as difficult as it is necessary.

Earlier reconstructions saw the Mausoleum as an updated Etruscan tumulus and therefore posited only a large but austere earthen tomb planted with cypress. Communis opinio, though, seems to favor the recent work of Henner von Hesberg, who, working from the surviving archeological remains and the literary references, has produced an acceptable foundation for further study of the Mausoleum.2 The result is a more sophisticated and complex structure made up of five concentric walls. This exterior wall formed a masonry drum covered in marble, atop which an earthen mound rose broken at intervals by the protrusion of two interior walls. Above the mound rose a tholos with

1 Richardson (1992) 247.

2 von Hesberg and Panciera (1994). Reviewed by Keppie (1995).

64 Doric entablature built using the second most interior wall for support and capped by another earthen mound where steps led to a monumental stature of Augustus at the apex.

Much of our information about the appearance of the Mausoleum has its beginning in Strabo's survey of Rome and the Campus Martius, which provides the following description:

ajxiologwvtaton de; to; Mauswvleion kalouvmenon, ejpi; krhpi'do" uJyhlh'" leukolivqou pro;" tw/' potamw/' cw'ma mevga, a[cri korufh'" toi'" ajeiqalevsi tw'n devndrwn sunhrefev": ejp j a[krw/ me;n ou[n eijkwvn ejsti calkh' tou' Sebastou' Kaivsaro", uJpo; de; tw/' cwvmati qh'kaiv eijsin aujtou' kai; tw'n suggenw'n kai; oijkeivwn, o[pisqen de; mevga a[lso" peripavtou" qaumastou" e[con: ejn mevsw/ de; tw/' pedivw/ oJ th'" kauvstra" aujtou' perivbolo", kaiv ou|to" livqou leukou', kuvklw/ me;n perikeivmenon e[cwn sidhrou'n perivfragma, ejnto;" d j aijgeivroi" katavfuto". (Geography 5.3.8)

The most remarkable of these [buildings in the Campus Martius] is that designated as the Mausoleum, which consists of a mound of earth raised upon a high foundation of white marble, situated near the river, and covered to the top with evergreen shrubs. Upon the summit is a bronze statue of Augustus Caesar, and beneath the mound are the ashes of himself, his relatives, and friends. Behind is a large grove containing charming promenades. In the centre of the plain is the spot where this prince was reduced to ashes; it is surrounded with a double enclosure, one of marble, the other of iron, and planted with poplars.

The starting point for dating the Mausoleum comes from Suetonius’ Life of Augustus.

Reliquias legerunt primores equestris ordinis, tunicati et discincti pedibusque nudis, ac Mausoleo condiderunt. Id opus inter Flaminiam viam ripamque Tiberis sexto suo consulatu exstruxerat circumiectasque silvas et ambulationes in usum populi iam tum publicarat. (100.4)

His remains were gathered up by the leading men of the equestrian order, bare-footed and in ungirt tunics, and placed in the Mausoleum. This structure he had built in his sixth consulship between the Via Flaminia and

65 the banks of the Tiber, and at the same time opened to the public the groves and walks by which it was surrounded.3

The dating of construction suggested here is 28 BC, the year of Augustus’s sixth consulship. Questions, though, immediately emerge. Is 28 BC the year Augustus generated the idea for constructing a mausoleum; or is it the year it was begun; or even the year it was complete?

Though it is at first blush attractive to situate the idea for the Mausoleum in the post-Actium world of the Augustan settlements and the rise of “dynastic possibility,”

Kraft argues that the idea for the tomb originated three or four years before any of the steps toward monarchy had been taken and therefore in Octavian's pre-Actium rivalry with Antony.4 In 32 BC, the year before Actium, Suetonius recounts the following action taken by Octavian:

M. Antonii societatem semper dubiam et incertam reconciliationibusque variis male focilatam abrupit tandem, et quo magis degenerasse eum a civili more approbaret, testamentum, quod is Romae, etiam de Cleopatra liberis inter heredes nuncupatis, reliquerat, aperiundum recitandumque pro contione curavit. (Aug.17)

At last he broke off his alliance with Marcus Antonius, which was always doubtful and uncertain, and with difficulty kept alive by various reconciliations; and the better to show that his rival had fallen away from conduct becoming a citizen, he had his will which Antony had left in Rome, naming his children by Cleopatra among his heirs, opened and read before the people.5

3 Rolfe (1913) 305-7.

4 Nicolet (1991) 25 n.7, Kraft (1967).

5 Rolfe (1913) 173.

66 An important detail is added in Plutarch's account of the same event:

ejpefuveto de; tw'n gegrammevnwn mavlista tw/' peri; th'" tafh'". ejkevleue ga;r aJutou' to; so'ma, ka]n ejn JRwvmh/ teleuthvsh/, di j ajgora'" pompeuqe;n eij" jAlexavndreian wJ" Kleopavtran ajpostalh'nai. (Life of Antony.58.4)

Caesar specially pressed what Antony said in his will about his burial; for he had ordered that even if he died in the city of Rome, his body, after being carried in state through the forum, should be sent to Cleopatra at Alexandria.

Of importance for our discussion is that the will expressed Antony’s desire to be buried in Alexandria even if he should die in Rome, a wish seen by Romans as Antony’s subjugation to a foreign woman and his desire to shift the center of empire from Italy to

Egypt.6 “Octavian wanted to create a counterexample to Antony’s wish to be buried with Cleopatra in Egypt.”7 Seen in this light, the Mausoleum's origins are Octavian's own declaration of loyalty to Italy and to Rome in antithesis to Antony’s Egyptian aspirations.8 The Mausoleum "could have been interpreted as a symbol of his double commitment to be buried in Rome as a Roman citizen and to wrest Egypt from Cleopatra and Antony."9

A building of the Mausoleum's size would obviously take a while to construct.

Thus, though possibly conceived as early as 32 BC, it seems reasonable to interpret the

6 Kraft (1967) 196-7. See also Kleiner (2005).

7 Galinsky (1996) 352.

8 Kraft (1967) 200.

9 Rehak (2006) 37.

67 words of Suetonius as referring not to the Mausoleum's conception but rather to the point in time when building began in earnest. We know, though, that construction continued for some time. Cassius Dio recounts the following events:

oJ de; dh; Mavrkello" noshvsa" ouj pollw/' u{steron kai; to;n aujto;n ejkei'non uJp j aujtou' tou' Mouvsa trovpon qerapeuovmeno" ajpevqane. kai; aujto;n oJ Au[gousto" dhmosiva/ te e[qayen, ejpainevsa" w{sper ei[qisto, kai; ej" to; mnhmei'on o{ w/jkodomei'to katevqeto. (53.30.5)

For while Augustus's life was saved in this way, Marcellus, when he fell ill not long afterward, received the same treatment from Musa, but died. Augustus delivered a eulogy in the traditional manner, gave him a public burial and placed his body in the tomb which he was building.10

Upon his death in 23 BC, Marcellus was the first person placed in Augustus's tomb, which Cassius Dio refers to as still being in the process of construction.

We are thus left with three important dates in the history of the Mausoleum: the year it was conceived (32), the year it was begun (28), and the year it was first used (23).

The first date is important because it forces discussion of meaning to begin before the emergence of "monarchy." The last date, 23, is important because it coincides with the year of publication for Odes 1-3.

The spectrum of names by which the Mausoleum has been called illustrates the building's complexity. The earliest literary reference comes in the Aeneid, where

Anchises prophesies the death of Marcellus and his burial in a tumulus recens.11 Tacitus

10 Cary (1917) 273.

11 Vergil, Aeneid.6.873-4.

68 refers to it as the tumulus Iuliorum.12 Strabo and Suetonius call it a mauswlei'on or mausoleum. Cassius Dio refers to it as a mnhmei'on and a h{rwon.13 Martial refers to the Mausoleum twice. Once he names it the mausoleum.14 A second mention calls it by a different name: tholus Caesareum.15

These passages illustrate that later history saw in the Mausoleum a multiplicity of associations ranging from Etruscan mound to Greek tholos to dynastic monument.

Though in subsequent history the designation of the monument as "the mausoleum of

Augustus" gains preeminence, it must be remembered that the tomb's conception perhaps predates the future Augustus's supposed dynastic ambitions.16 The variety of names by which it was called are suggestive of the multiplicity of evocations present in the building.

The array of influences which present themselves in any investigation of the

Mausoleum have perplexed scholars seeking to untangle the monument. No doubt the

12 Tacitus, Annales 3.9, 16.6. See also Boschung (1980) 38 who argues for this being the mausoleum’s original designation.

13 Cassius Dio, Roman History. 56.33.1.

14 Martial, 5.64.5.

15 Martial, 2.59.

16 See Gruen (2005). Gruen demonstrates the ways Augustus labored to avoid the appearance of installing a dynasty while at the same time trying to assure the continuity and stability of his system. Though Augustus did wield considerable power, he acquired it through a series of ad hoc agreements. He believed that the stability of Rome was best ensured by “a solitary hand at the helm,” and no doubt expected his work to be continued after his death. Yet he resisted the institutionalization of his role, afraid that any hints to that end would risk offending the senatorial class and provoking them to resentment and conspiracy.

69 variety of influences stems from the fact that Octavian was still searching for an architectural vocabulary suitable for conveying his message.

The extreme difficulty and complexity of the time compelled Octavian to proceed with caution. After Actium, he found himself navigating a difficult passage between assuming monarchy and establishing democracy, as reflected by Cassius Dio's idealized debate between Agrippa and Maecenas precisely upon this point.17 Agrippa argues for democracy and for laying down the power Octavian had won; Maecenas for autocracy and for the maintenance of the status quo by keeping the power Octavian found in his possession.

In order to approximate what he was trying to express, Octavian combined in his

Mausoleum a wide array of symbols both Republican and Eastern, which on their own were either insufficient for his task or misleading to his audience.18 By blending a wide variety of elements, he was able to adapt "the established vocabularies of political, social, artistic, and architectural rhetoric to convey new messages."19

Octavian incorporates, among others, the influences of Etruria, the Republic,

Alexander, and the East to produce a monument that declares his commitment to the

17 Cassius Dio, Roman History.52. No doubt this passage says as much about the political climate in the early 3rd century AD, as it does about the state of affairs in the world immediately after Actium. The specifics of the speech relate better to the time of the Severans than of Augustus. However, Suetonius recounts that Augustus wavered multiple times between the benefits of restoring the republic and the dangers of putting it back in a multiplicity of hands (Aug.28.1). It seems beneficial, therefore, to accept Dio’s dramatization of this debate as illustrative of the general situation post-Actium, even if we choose to discount the anachronistic details. For more on the Agrippa-Maecenas Debate, see Millar (1964) 102-118, Manuwald (1979), Espinosa Ruiz (1982), Reinhold (1987) 164-214, Fishwick (1990), Kienast (1999).

18 Zanker (1988) 76.

19 Rehak (2006) 7.

70 Republic, to Italy, and to Rome, celebrates his Actium victory, elevates Rome to the status of world city, and suggests his apotheosis.

Though some of the symbols Octavian incorporated into his mausoleum held dynastic or monarchical associations, it is overly simplistic to consider his modulation or dilution of these elements as merely an attempt to mask his desires for autocracy and to express them in terms palatable to his Roman contemporaries. Octavian's modification of these architectural expressions can be more appropriately understood as attempts to negotiate a difficult path between showing himself committed to republican ideals and at the same time strong enough to protect Rome even from its own weaknesses which had produced a century of civil war.

In approaching the Mausoleum, therefore, we must abandon attempts to isolate singular models for the Mausoleum and be prepared to discover that this extraordinarily complex building draws its inspiration from numerous sources.20 Romans were already familiar with many of the individual components (mausolea, ustrina, sundials, and altars). Octavian's innovation was in the scale, elaboration, and programmatic relationship among the monuments. Octavian was able to adapt older models to his own agenda in both evolutionary and revolutionary ways.21 To argue for a single source for the Mausoleum, therefore, would be as myopic as insisting that there was a solitary model for the Aeneid or that Vergil followed that model slavishly. The Mausoleum "was

20Davies (2000) 53.

21 Rehak (2006) 8.

71 an eclectic creation or a creation of several older elements with new content, as was typical of Augustan invention in art and architecture in general.”22

The building does not compel, nay does not allow, the student to consider it only from one angle.23 It is perhaps better to think in terms of “corridors of transmission” and “influential points of dissemination” which converge and intermingle in the

Mausoleum's architectural style and building type.24

Perhaps the most obvious influence on the mausoleum is the Etruscan tumulus.25

It seems beyond question that the Mausoleum is a form of tumulus. One general introduction remarked that "a tumulus of this sort built by Augustus would have reminded the Romans of the round, earth-covered tumuli in Etruscan cemeteries. By this conscious imitation, Augustus was able to proclaim his public reverence for the Italic

Heritage, and reinforce his own role as a reviver of the consecrated religious and moral values that went back to Etruscan times.”26

The connection is so clear to many that they are unable to see beyond it. This has caused a few scholars to attack vigorously the Etruscan connection to make room for their own interpretations.27 Though such attacks are perhaps a reaction against the

22 Reeder (1992) 271.

23 Boschung (1980) 41.

24 Rehak (2006) 47.

25 Boëthius (1978) 213-5.

26 Ramage and Ramage (2000) 101-2.

27 See, for instance, Holloway (1966) 173.

72 oversimplification of the Mausoleum to only an Etruscan tumulus, they remind us that the

Mausoleum is a complex structure and that there are more evocations to be discovered than simply those hearkening back to Etruscan tumuli.

Augustus was, no doubt, inspired by the archaic simplicity and monumentality of the Etruria's earthen tumuli.28 But the Mausoleum is not simply their updated equivalent.

There are also stark differences between it and other tumulus graves.29 Compared to the austere, primitive tumuli, the mausoleum is lavishly decorated and ornamented. The simple grass-covered mounds have been replaced with a cypress grove. The presence of only a few intermediaries suggests that the differences between Etruscan tombs and the

Mausoleum cannot be accounted for simply by a gradual development of the tumulus type.30 Augustus has modified the Etruscan tumulus form and incorporated its associations into the mausoleum's broader message.

Perhaps the second most common association of the Mausoleum, as its name might suggest, is with the original Mausoleum of Halicarnassos.31 For those willing to see the Mausoleum as more than a tumulus, conceiving of it as a dynastic monument inspired by the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos seems a logical next step. On further inspection, though, the association between the two is more likely to have been a

28 Davies (2000) 51-2.

29 Eisner (1978) 323-4.

30 Rehak (2006) 43.

31 cf. Richard (1970) 51ff, Nicolet (1991) 25 n.7, Anderson (1997) 324, Davies (2000).

73 perceived similarity of proximate generations who understood Augustus through the lens of subsequent Caesars.

Caesar built a large tomb, so the argument goes, into which he intended to put his family. Members of his family followed him in exercising authority over the Roman state. Therefore, the tomb must have been built, at least in part, as a dynastic monument for the purpose of ensuring succession. This argument is weak at two points.

First, the appearance of Augustus' Tomb does not recall the Mausoleum of

Halicarnassos in any appreciable aspect save its monumental size.32 The monument is large and occupied with the members of a family later understood as a ruling dynasty.

There is a connection; but it is "a perceived similarity"33 of later generations who had begun to connect the Caesars with the Hellenistic kings of the Greek East.

Second, in the time in which Augustus conceived of his tomb, he was intentionally avoiding every appearance of dynastic ambition.34 "He simply wanted to claim that his power was greatest and that he was the only one capable of returning order to the state.”35 It seems contradictory, then, to think that Augustus would have made such an overt and unequivocal statement that he was intent upon establishing himself and his family in perpetual rule amidst his protestations to the opposite.

32 Rehak (2006) 49, Johnson (1996) 230.

33 Davies (2000) 52.

34 For more on the ways Augustus strove to avoid the appearance of monarchy, see Gruen (2005).

35 Zanker (1988) 76.

74 A more comfortable starting point along this line of analysis is the consideration of Augustus's tomb as participating in a geographically widespread Mediterranean koine of elite monumental tombs.36 Among these are the tumulus at Medracen, Algeria and the so-called “Tomb of the Christian” in Kbour-er-Roumia, Algeria. Though both of these tombs were once dated either to the middle empire or late antiquity,37 they both have been shown to be of Hellenistic date.38 Placing Augustus's tomb within this tradition would allow a more round-about association with the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos as the progenitor or at least exemplar of the type, without requiring one to be directly referencing the other.

These two north African tombs are also important for the way they may reflect the appearance of the Mausoleum of Alexander the Great (the "Sema" or "Soma").39 Of the

"Sema," built by Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-204), nothing at all survives. Not even its site is certain. Based upon a few passing references in literature40 and the stylized miniature representations of Alexandria on coins, it has been conjectured that Alexander's tomb may have been "circular in plan…and consisted of a drum surmounted by a domical superstructure, probably with the profile of a tumulus rather than a cupola.”41 Though we

36 Davies (2000) 54.

37 Toynbee (1971) 158-9.

38 Coarelli and Thébert (1988) 786-800.

39 Davies (2000) 52-60. See also Rehak (2006) 47, Coarelli and Thébert (1988) 798, Green (1993) 13-14, 404, Shipley (2000) 201, Fraser (1972) I.14-17.

40 Strabo 17.1.8-10.

41 Colvin (1991) 42. 75 can only speculate about the appearance of Alexander's tomb, there are a handful of reasons why it is reasonable to include it in the list of sources of Octavian's Mausoleum.

First, Octavian was deeply influenced by a desire to emulate Alexander.42

Suetonius records the post-Actium visit of Octavian to the tomb of Alexander in

Alexandria.

Per idem tempus conditorium et corpus Magni Alexandri, cum prolatum et penetrali subiecisset oculis, corona aurea imposita ac floribus aspersis veneratus est, consultusque, num et Ptolemaeum inspicere vellet, regem se voluisse ait videre, non mortuos. (Aug.18)

About this time he had the sarcophagus and body of Alexander the Great brought forth from its shrine, and after gazing on it, showed his respect by placing upon it a golden crown and strewing it with flowers; and being then asked whether he wished to see the tomb of the Ptolemies as well, he replied, “My wish was to see a king, not corpses.”43

Rehak put it succinctly when he remarked: "Octavian seems deliberately to have used Alexander as a model in other respects. Why not his tomb as well?"44 Given

Octavian's propensity for comparing himself to and borrowing from Alexander, it is not a stretch to expect a connection in his funeral architecture as well. This idea is encouraged by the story Pliny tells that Augustus constructed a burial mound for a horse in emulation of the tomb Alexander made honoring his mount Bucephalus.45

42 See Bohm (1989), Cresci Marrone (1980), Kienast (1969), Michel (1967), Treves (1953).

43 Rolfe (1913) 175.

44 Rehak (2006) 50.

45 Pliny, NH.8.155. See also Favro (1996) 306 n.93.

76 Second, the sheer size and ornamentation of Octavian's Mausoleum move the monument beyond the boundaries of local or regional traditions and place it on the level of the kingly tombs of the Greek east. 46 Among these, the tomb of Alexander the Great must be given preeminence.47

References to Alexander's Egyptian burial place and, by extension, the pyramids, aid Augustus in appropriating Egypt into an Italian context48 and developing an

"architectural and symbolic continuity between Rome and Alexandria."49 Through his

Mausoleum, Augustus declares, in opposition to Antony's intentions, that one need not leave Italy to imitate Alexander. He announces Rome as a world city and the successor of Alexandria.50

Despite the objections of some that Alexandrian and Hellenistic evocations position the Mausoleum's message in stark contrast to Roman tradition,51 upon closer inspection the Mausoleum reflects the appropriation of Alexander's legacy into a Roman milieu. It should not be surprising, then, to discover in addition to the Alexandrian

46 Boschung (1980) 38, Rehak (2006) 54.

47 Favro (1996) 117.

48 Nicolet (1991) 16.

49 Arya (2002) 234.

50 cf. Favro (2005) The Mausoleum's Alexandrianism was not an isolated phenomenon. The entire Campus Martius had, starting in the Late Republic, begun to fill with buildings modeled on Alexandrian precedent. See Castagnoli (1947), Arya (2002) esp. 234-241.

51 Bernhard (1956) 153-4, Rehak (2006) 54.

77 evocations of the Mausoleum an equally important emphasis on the Roman republican past.

When one remembers the argument of Boschung that the Mausoleum was intended as a family grave for the Julian clan,52 and the argument of Kraft and others that the Mausoleum was conceived as a counter to the pre-Actium machinations of Antony, one must see Augustus's tomb not primarily as a symbol of dynastic succession (though it clearly develops this aspect) but as a symbol of Octavian's commitment to old Roman republican customs expressed through the building of family tombs similar to the Tombs of the Scipios and the Sempronii.53

There was a time when it was fashionable to consider that the mausoleum of

Augustus had set the precedent for building massive, round, funerary monuments.54 In support of this, possible analogs were post-dated so that the Mausoleum might be the

"earliest known Roman round tomb."55

The so-called Torrione di Micara at Tusculum, which has been dated based upon coin evidence to c.15 BC,56 may be one such example of tumulus-type tombs modeled on the Mausoleum. Similarly, the dating of the tomb of Caecilia Metella on the Via Appia

52 Boschung (1980) 38.

53 Boschung (1980) 38, LTUR (1999), Zevi, "Sepulchrum (Corneliorum) Scipionum," IV.281-285, Davies (2000) 52.

54 Toynbee (1971) 156-7.

55 Holloway (1966) 172. In response to Holloway see Boëthius (1978) 239 n.96. For more detailed discussion on the dating of these tombs, see Eisner (1978) 94-113, Eisner (1986), Rehak (2006) 43-46, Johnson (1996) 221-229, von Hesberg (1992), Amand (1987) 162-182.

56 Eisner (1986) 97-100, Rehak (2006) 44, Johnson (1996) 224.

78 has led many in recent years to favor considering it of an equivalent age with the

Mausoleum. Another imitator of the Mausoleum is the tomb of M. Lucilius Paetus, a round tomb consisting of an earthen mound set atop a travertine base, built in the end of the first century BC.57

Other examples exist, though, that may predate the Mausoleum in construction.

Near the fifth milestone of the Via Appia are the two so-called Tombs of the Horatii. One has been securely dated to 80-44 BC. The other, an earthen-mound tomb atop a low retaining wall, may date from as early as the fifth century BC.58 To this may also be added the tomb of Lucius Munatius Plancus near Gaeta,59 and the so-called Castel

Rotondo on the Via Appia. The so-called Tomb of the Curatii, also on the Via Appia, has been dated as early as before the fourth century BC based on the fact that the Via Appia swerves around it.60 In addition, Lucan refers to the tomb of Sulla on the Campus

Martius as a tumulus.61 Once one allows for the republican precedent the Mausoleum is seen as evoking not simply the tumuli of Etruria but also the great family tombs of

Rome's republican past.

57 Richardson (1992) 357.

58 Eisner (1986) 56-59, Rehak (2006) 45, Johnson (1996) 222.

59 Fellman (1957), McKay (1967) 3-11.

60 Eisner (1986) 54-55.

61 Pharsalia, 2.222.

79 One subcategory of the Mausoleum's republican antecedents are the tombs in the

Campus Martius commemorating distinguished citizens of the Republic.62 Sulla was granted a public burial in 78 by order of the senate.63 His tomb is referred to by Lucan as being located medio campo.64 The consuls Hirtius and Pansa in 43 were also granted public burial in the Campus Martius following their deaths at the Battle of Mutina.65

According to Silius Italicus,66 Publius Cornelius Scipio, the father of Africanus, was buried with his brother in a tomb on the Campus Martius following their deaths in Spain in 211.67 It has also been suggested that the Mausoleum may have resembled the

Tumulus Iuliae, the tumulus in the Campus Martius in which Julia the daughter of Caesar and wife of Pompey was buried after her death in 54 BC during childbirth.68 The connections become more inviting when one considers that Julia's tomb may also have been the final resting place of Julius Caesar himself.69

A further reference to Rome's republican past can been seen in the Mausoleum's inclusion of Rome's mythic past. It has been suggested that the mausoleum evokes Troy

62 Davies (2000) 52, Favro (1996) 118.

63 LTUR (1999), La Rocca, "Sepulcrum: L. Cornelius Sulla," IV.286, Richardson (1992) 360.

64 Phar. 2.222. See also Eisner (1978) 324, Richardson (1992) 360-1.

65 Boschung (1980) 39, LTUR (1999), Zevi, "Sepulchrum (Corneliorum) Scipionum," IV.290.

66 Pun. 13.659-660: tumulus vobis, censente senatu / Mavortis geminus surgit per gramina campo.

67 LTUR (1999), Zevi, "Sepulchrum (Corneliorum) Scipionum," IV.285.

68 Richardson (1992) 402.

69 Rehak (2006) 36 See also Suet. Iul.84.1.

80 by imitating the huge mounds scattered about the Troad which scholars know now to be prehistoric cities but which "appeared to Roman eyes to be royal graves of magnificent proportions.”70 This establishes a strong connection with the claim of the Julii to Trojan ancestry that was at the center of their public communication. Troy was such a common association during this time that a rumor circulated claiming Julius Caesar was considering relocating the capital to a rebuilt Troy.71

The words of Anchises in Aeneid 6.867-885, spoken to Aeneas regarding the death of Marcellus, reinforce the connection between the Mausoleum and Troy.

Anchises had previously introduced the parade of future Roman heroes as the glory of the house of Dardanus.

Nunc age, Dardaniam prolem quae deinde sequatur gloria, qui maneant Itala de gente nepotes, inlustris animas nostrumque in nomen ituras, expediam dictis, et te tua fata docebo. (Aeneid 6.756-9)

Come now, what glory shall then follow the Dardan descendants, what children from Italian stock await, illustrious souls and heirs of our name – this I will set forth, and I will teach you your fate.

By placing the encomium of Marcellus, which includes the reference to the Mausoleum, in this Trojan setting, Vergil uses the words of Anchises to incorporate a Roman into the epic and Trojan past. The Mausoleum takes on the role of epic funeral mound for

Marcellus. 72

70 Davies (2000) 52, Holloway (1966) 171-173.

71 Suetonius, Julius Caesar.79.3. See also Jaeger (2002) 132, Watson (2003) 481.

72 Jaeger (2002) 133. 81 Though some refute the Trojan connection as far-fetched,73 others propose looking closer to home for similar Trojan evocations but on Italian soil, such as the possibility of connecting the Mausoleum with the tomb of Aeneas in Lavinium.74

Excavations in Lavinium have revealed the existence of a complex consisting of thirteen altars and a nearby tumulus about twenty meters in diameter identified, based upon the accounts of Dionysus of Halicarnassos and others, as the tomb/heroon of Aeneas.75

When one remembers that the cult of Aeneas was revived under Augustus,76 it is inviting to consider the possibility that he imitated aspects of its design, including the tumulus shape and the location near a river.77

This connection both emphasizes the Trojan elements in Augustus's message and incorporates into the meaning of the Mausoleum the functions of a heroon, a term used by Cassius Dio to refer to the Mausoleum.78 Similarly, Seneca expresses this function when he refers to the Mausoleum as tumulus in quo Caesari deo nostro fiebat cotidianum sacrum.79 In addition to being a burial place, the Mausoleum was intended as a site to commemorate Augustus and to celebrate his accomplishments.

73 Boëthius (1978) 239-40 n.96, Toynbee (1971) 173, Eisner (1978) 319-324.

74 Somella (1974). See also Galinsky (1974) 2-11, Galinsky (1992b), Johnson (1996) 231-234.

75 Galinsky (1974) 6. For the ancient sources, see Dionysus of Halicarnasos, 1.64.4-5; Livy 1.2.6; Ps. Aurelius Victor, Origo Gentis Romanae 14.3-4.

76 Palmer (1974) 120-125.

77 Johnson (1996) 233.

78 Cassius Dio. Roman History. 56.33.1.

79 Seneca, De Tranquilitate Animi 14.9. 82 The chief accomplishment the Mausoleum celebrates is the Actian victory. It therefore stands not just as a heroon but also as trophy of his triumph over Cleopatra and

Egypt. Evidence in favor of this function is provided on several fronts.

First, the Mausoleum is decorated in Egyptianizing motifs. Numerous examples of borrowed Egyptian iconography exist including the aforementioned obelisks as well as the Egyptian corona atef pattern preserved between two coffers on the underside of a marble cornice; and a relief on one of the coffers of a type of lotus flower, the Nelumbo nucifera.80 These borrowings fit with a contemporary explosion of Egyptianizing art in

Augustan Rome. Examples like the Pyramid Tomb of Cestius show that Egypt was a primary evocation in early Augustan art. This aesthetic phenomenon, dubbed

"Egyptomania,"81 resulted from Octavian's conquest of that country in 30 BC82 and symbolizes, among other things, Rome's triumph over and appropriation of the Egyptian culture.83

Second, the form for the mausoleum was used by later generations as a prototype for military trophies and triumphal monuments. One only need consider the victory monuments at La Turbie near Monte Carlo and Adamklissi in Rumania to realize that, except for the Mausoleum of Hadrian, the imitators of the Augustus's tomb are found

80 Rehak (2006) 39.

81 de Vos (1980).

82 Galinsky (1996) 189ff, Kleiner (2005).

83 Boschung (1980) 39.

83 primarily in triumphal, not funereal architecture.84 Even some tombs which imitate the

Mausoleum preserve this triumphal aspect. The slightly younger round tomb of

Munatius Plancus proclaims the builder's victories through inscriptions and decorations similar in conception to the Mausoleum.85 The tomb, then, was more than a demonstration of power and wealth. It was a monumental trophy characterizing the battle that had brought its builder fame. As a symbol of his success, it functioned as "an image of things achieved"86 and represented in architectural form the achievements declared by the res gestae later to be mounted on its exterior.

Lastly, when one takes into consideration the mausoleum's relationship with the pantheon and the significance of the mausoleum's colossal bronze statue, the idea emerges that the mausoleum suggests the eventual immortality of its patron. Though the

Agrippan Pantheon gave way to Hadrian's rebuilding,87 excavations have shown that

Hadrian maintained the orientation of the original structure facing northward towards the

Mausoleum.88 The shape of Agrippa's original temple has also been debated. There are, however, compelling arguments for believing it to be a temple with a rectangular porch and cella open to the sky.89 Additionally, it has been suggested that the Pantheon, which

84 Davies (2000) 64, Zanker (1988) 78, Kornemann (1938) 40.

85 Boschung (1980) 39-40.

86 Davies (2000) 63-4.

87 Though it is possible that Hadrian is not responsible for the Pantheon's renovation. For more on the possibility that the Pantheon was rebuilt under Trajan, see Hetland (2007).

88 LTUR (1999), La Rocca, "Pantheon (Fase Pre-Adriana)," V.280-283, Boatwright (1987) 37.

89 Davies (2000) 140. 84 stood on the lowest point on the campus, occupied the very spot of the Marsh of Capra, the supposed site of Romulus's apotheosis.90 What is more, the entrances to two buildings faced each other and were in almost perfect alighment. This visual axis connecting the Mausoleum and the Pantheon, both circular buildings, declares to the

Roman viewer the progression of Augustus from mortal to immortality. 91

The bronze statue atop the Mausoleum further develops the notion of apotheosis.92 Pliny records the purpose of placing statues atop columns when he writes:

"Columnarum ratio erat attolli super ceteros mortales."93 The shimmering image of the princeps raised the viewer's eyes towards heaven. Its placement, "suspended midway between earth and sky, clearly anticipated his deification."94

Though the statue is no longer extant, its size can be approximated from the existing substructure intended to support it. The massive size of the central concrete and travertine pier within the structure suggests that the statue must have been truly colossal.

When one adds the fact that the enormous tumulus would have dwarfed a smaller statue, it does not seem far-fetched to suggest that the statue was as much as 8-10 meters in height.95 A statue of that size would have been unique in Rome at that time. Divinities,

90 Coarelli (1997) 17-60, 590-602.

91 Davies (2000) 141-2.

92 Boschung (1980) 40.

93 Pliny, N.H. 34.27.

94 Rehak (2006) 61.

95 Rehak (2006) 41.

85 not living men, were accustomed to be represented on such a scale, the only exception being in the eastern Mediterranean where in Alexandria evidence exists for ruler portraits of a colossal nature.96

It has been suggested that the statue may have shown a triumphal cuirassed

Octavian, similar to the marble statue of Augustus in the Pantheon or the Primaporta

Augustus.97 Such a statue would have added to the triumphal nature of the Mausoleum as well as fostered further association with the similar statue housed within eyesight in the entryway of the Pantheon.98 Taken together, then, the Mausoleum's statue and its relationship to the Pantheon declare Augustus's reception among the immortals.

In conclusion, amid the myriad possible influences and evocations, a handful emerge as particularly illustrative of Octavian's intent for his tomb. Conceived as a monument in opposition to Antony's Egyptian leanings, the Mausoleum is Octavian's declaration of his own commitments to the Republic, to Rome, and to Italy. It is a

Republican family tomb writ large declaring Rome to be a world city. It is an Italian

Pyramid and a triumphal monument.

96 Kreikenbom (1992), Rehak (2006) 41-2.

97 Richard (1970), Rehak (2006) 42-43, Zanker (1988) 188-192.

98 Arya (2002) 230-234.

86 Section 2: C.3.30 and the Mausoleum Augusti

In the same way that one must not force the Mausoleum into an interpretative straightjacket, so too the poetry of Horace is both complex and polysemous, exhibiting

"the eclectic universalism that is the hallmark of Augustan classicism."99 One should expect, therefore, to approach his poetry from a variety of vantage points.

One such vantage point, which I believe is illustrative for understanding the Odes, is to see the mention of funeral monuments in C.3.30 not as general references to idealized structures but rather as a consistent pattern of engagement specifically with

Augustus and his Mausoleum. As was mentioned in chapter 1, the rebuilding of Rome in the 30's and 20's BC would have presented any perceptive poet with many "artful juxtapositions"100 for his poetry. As was shown, Horace was consciously affected by the building going on and intentionally employed the environment around him as a primary source for imagery and metaphoric material.

Given Horace's sensitivity to his surroundings, some think it inconceivable that

Octavian's massive and novel construction in the northern Campus Martius did not resonate with the poet in some way.101 To this assumption may be added more tangible evidence which details Horace's interaction through poetry with the Mausoleum of

Augustus.

99 Galinsky (1996) 351.

100 Simpson (2002a) 61.

101 Simpson (2002a) 62.

87 In opposition to those who consider the poem untethered to the physical world,102

I will argue that in C.3.30 Horace appropriates the Mausoleum as a useful metaphor for what he has accomplished in Odes 1-3. He subtly calls to mind aspects of the

Mausoleum's program, by locating funerary imagery firmly in Italian and Roman contexts, by alluding to contemporary events, and by adopting for himself and for his poetry the titles and accoutrements of Augustus.

First, the year Horace published Odes 1-3 is significant. The year 23 BC is memorable not just for the appearance of the Horatian tribiblos but also for the untimely death of Augustus's son-in-law Marcellus and the deposition of his remains in the tumulus recens of Aeneid 6.874. Given the overlap of these two events, it is not difficult to conclude that Horace is alluding not just generally to the world of funeral architecture but specifically to locations suggested by contemporary events. A direct connection is thus suggested between this poetry and the tomb of the princeps. 103

The opening words of C.3.30, exegi monumentum, not only move the reader into the world of funerary monuments and dedications, but also continue to anchor the reader in the Rome of 23 BC.104 Horace declares the entire poetry book his monumentum aere perennius, and this ode his epitaph.105 The term monumentum is most commonly used to

102 See especially Lowrie (2002) 143-147.

103 Simpson (2002a) 62.

104 Simpson (2002b) 91.

105 Santirocco (1986) 168. For the epitaph quality of this ode, see Syndikus (1972) II.275. See also Korzeniewski (1972) 380-88, Korzeniewski (1968) 29-34, Pasquali (1920) 320-4.

88 designate tombstones or funeral monuments.106 As was shown earlier, Roman nobles were building grand tomb monumenta contemporary with Horace's time. The most conspicuous and familiar example, however, was the mausoleum Octavian constructed for himself and his family between c.32 and 23 BC. Horace's mention of monumentum draws further attention towards this massive tomb.107

Horace's description of his poetic tomb as aere perennius stirs up further references which, as with the rest of his poetry, have a legacy extending back to his

Greek predecessors but are also loaded with significance rooted in the poetic tradition and physical world of Rome. Bronze in the ancient world symbolized durability and strength. Pliny recounts: usus aeris ad perpetuitatem monimentorum.108 In the physical world, bronze was used for plaques on tombs, tablets upon which laws were engraved, and the honorific statues which were so ubiquitous that Augustus cleared the Capitoline of them and relocated them in the Campus Martius.109 The most obvious example of an honorific statue in the Campus Martius would have no doubt been the colossal bronze statue with which Augustus had crowned his mausoleum.110

106 Woodman (1974) 116. See also Lowrie (1997) 294 who states that Horaces "brings together the conventional meaning of literary work with the literal meaning of tomb."

107 Simpson (2002b) 90. See also Leach (1997) 106.

108 Pliny, N.H. 34.99.

109 Galinsky (1996) 352. See also Hardie (1993) 127, Lahusen (1983).

110 Nisbet and Rudd (2004) 368, Simpson (2002a) 65, Galinsky (1996) 352, Hardie (1993) 127.

89 In addition, the connection with bronze statues harkens back to one of Horace's

Roman poetic predecessors, Ennius, who includes the following verses in his proem to

Annales 16:

omnes mortales sese laudarier optant reges per regnum statuasque sepulcraque quaerunt, aedificant nomen: summa nituntur opum vi postremo longinqua dies confecerit aetas (fr.560, 411-2, 413)

All mortals desire themselves to be praised. Kings throughout their kingship seek after statues and sepulchers; they build up a name: they exert the highest force. At last, prolonged age wears out the day.

In imitating Ennius' emphasis on statuae and sepulcra, Horace incorporates him as a poetic model, a fact which will be important in book 4.111 Equally, the most prominent monument in Rome that contained both a statue and sepulcher was the Mausoleum.

Thus, in the opening line alone, Horace alludes both to his poetic predecessor and to the monument in Rome with which he is to compare his poetry.

Many have read in these lines a fulfillment of the poetic prophecy in C.1.1

(quodsi me lyricis vatibus inseris / sublime feriam sidera vertice).112 If, however, the bronze mentioned in the opening lines of C.3.30 refers to bronze statuary and to the colossal statue of Augustus, then the imagery becomes much more concrete. Just as the colossal statue atop the Mausoleum symbolized Augustus being exalted to the firmament, so too Horace's inclusion in the pantheon of lyric poetic poets will be the crowning feature of his poetic monument.

111 Suerbaum (1968) 167.

112 Hardie (1993) 126, Porter (1987b) 11-12, 209, Korzeniewski (1972) 382, Commager (1967) 313, Fraenkel (1957) 306, Santirocco (1986) 151. 90 As the poem progresses, Horace compares his poetic tomb to the pyramids

(regalique situ pyramidum altius), and in doing so he calls to mind more than the

Egyptian tombs. He is using these icons as symbols of contemporary events and through them alluding indirectly to Rome and to the massive Italian pyramid constructed there.

First, the comparison to the pyramids has no known parallel in earlier Greek poetry.113 Though Horace is indebted to Alexandrian poetry in many places throughout his poetry, this is not one of them. Despite their Egyptian heritage, the pyramids as a trope are not inherited from the Alexandrian poets.114

Rather, the pyramids more clearly recall contemporary Roman events and constitute an oblique mention of the mausoleum. Egypt served as a model and source of inspiration for the Romans of the Late Republic. Julius Caesar began a building campaign in the Campus Martius inspired by Alexandria and rooted in a desire to bring

Alexandria to Rome.115 Octavian was himself inspired by Alexandria and continued the projects in the Campus Martius which sought both to imitate and to surpass the Egyptian capital.116 In this context, when one remembers that the mausoleum was intended as

Octavian's counter to Antony's desire to be buried in Egypt, then it is possible to interpret the mention of the pyramid as both to the pyramids of Egypt and to Augustus’

113 Nisbet and Rudd (2004) 366.

114 On attempts to connect this trope to an Egyptian papyrus of c. 1200 BC through an epigram of Posidippus, see Borzsák (1964) 138ff, Trencsényi-Waldapfel (1964) 149ff. For a critique of the arguments, see Maróti (1969) 452ff.

115 Coarelli (1997) 539-590, Coarelli (1988), Arya (2002) 234ff.

116 Castagnoli (1981).

91 Mausoleum, which had been intended partly as an Italian version of the royal tombs of the Egyptian kings.117

Additionally, in the years after Actium, the pyramids emerged as convenient symbols of the war Octavian fought against Antony and Cleopatra.118 By declaring war against Cleopatra and not Antony, Octavian was able to portray his struggle as against a foreign opponent. The pyramids became a focal point of the luxury and decadence of

Cleopatra, Egypt, and the east.119 A link between the pyramids and Cleopatra can be seen in how C.3.30, which mentions the pyramids, answers C.1.37, the ode celebrating the victory over Cleopatra.

In C.1.37, Horace characterizes Octavian's victory at Actium as a conquest over a foreign queen intent on the destruction of Rome:

antehac nefas depromere Caecubum cellis avitis, dum Capiolio regina dementes ruinas funus et imperio parabat

contaminato cum grege turpium morbo virorum, quidlibet impotens sperare fortunaque dulci ebria. (C.1.37.5-12)

Before this it had been wrong to bring out Caecuban from ancient cellars, while a queen was preparing mad ruin for the Capitol and destruction for the empire, with her polluted herd of men foul with disease – a woman mad enough to hope for anything, and drunk with sweet fortune.

117 Hardie (1993) 127-8.

118 West (2002) 267.

119 Nisbet and Rudd (2004) 366, Gibson (1997) 312, Putnam (1973a) 6, Pöschl (1967) 267, Borzsák (1964) 143-4.

92

C.1.37 is linked with C.3.30 by the repetition of almost identical phrases (dum

Capitolio/dum Capitolium). Horace's poetic monument will endure as long as the

Capitol is safe. Augustus, by defeating the mad Egyptian queen who was plotting its ruin, has ensured the safety of the Capitol and, by extension, the endurance of Horace's poetry.

Horace's mention of Egypt may also be a subtle reminder about the fate of

Cornelius Gallus, the poet and disgraced governor of Egypt who had commit suicide due to his "weakness for monumental self advertisement."120 His actions as governor of

Egypt suggest Gallus sought to rival Augustus. In contrast, Horace describes his own immortality as relying upon the immortality he envisages for Augustan Rome. In doing this, Horace delineates spheres of influence for himself and Augustus. It is for Augustus to seek glory and immortality in the forum and in the field. Horace will not compete as the princeps' rival. Rather, he will mirror Augustus's accomplishments in his own sphere.

Propertius' elegy 3.2 provides further support for connecting Horace's monumentum with the Augustan Mausoleum via the pyramids. In this poem, Propertius expresses his desire to create a monument to Cynthia in terms which show a conscious literary aemulatio and a reworking of Horace C. 3.30.121

120 Hardie (1993) 128 See also Boucher (1966), Maróti (1969), Gibson (1997) 312. For an ancient source, see Cassius Dio, 53.23.

121 Galinsky (1996) 352, Mader (1993) 330. See also Gibson (1997) 312-314, Miller (1983) 289- 299, Korzeniewski (1972) 382, Nethercut (1961) 389-407, Solmsen (1948) 105-109.

93 carmina erunt formae tot monumenta tuae nam neque pyramidum sumptus ad sidera ducti, nec Iovis Elei caelum imitata domus, nec Mausolei dives fortuna sepulcri mortis ab extrema condicione vacant. (3.2.18-22)

Each poem will be a memorial of your beauty. For neither the costly pyramids soaring to the skies, nor the Temple of Jove at Elis that mimics heaven, nor the sumptuous magnificence of the tomb of Mausolus are exempt from the ultimate decree of death.122

Germane to this discussion are two of the actual monuments Propertius includes in his list of comparanda to his poetic construction dedicated to Cynthia's beauty: the pyramids and the Mausoleum. The pyramids are imported from Horace's poem. The inclusion of the

Mausoleum in this list further supports the connection between the pyramids in C.3.30 and the Mausoleum. Even more interesting, though perhaps less sure, is the idea that the

Mausoleum mentioned by Propertius may be the one in Rome and not its Carian precursor. No doubt, the original Mausoleum is an obvious choice given the fact that this identification would make all three structures mentioned by Propertius wonders of the ancient world.123 But given Propertius' deep ties to the city of Rome, his subsequent book, which is focused on the physical realities of the city, and his conscious imitation of

Horace, it is worth suggesting that the author may have had in mind not just the monument in the East that the Romans had heard about, but also the one they could see before them in the city itself.

122 Goold (1990) 257-9.

123 Camps (1966) 61-62, Fedeli (1985) 104-105.

94 Horace further entrenches his poem on Italian soil in two more ways. First, he chooses to use the name of the Italian goddess of death Libitina in line 6.124 Second, in a poem where the poet is juxtaposed with the princeps, Horace's meditation on death may have suggested to some readers the series of life-threatening sicknesses Augustus endured but recovered from in 25, 24, and most seriously in 23 BC.125 Again, the year of publication is significant. These phrases would have reminded the reader of the princeps' mortality and, by extension, the place he was to be buried.126

Horace continues to focus the poem on Rome and the Mausoleum of Augustus with the phrase Dum capitolium pontifex. The mention of the Capitoline elevates his hopes out of a general "notion of everlasting fame in a non-specific future"127 and firmly roots his expectations of immortality within the city of Rome. The phrase should not be taken as an underhanded comment about Horace's expectation of Rome's eventual downfall. Rather, Horace is taking for granted the continuity and endurance of Rome's religious ceremonies, "if not to the end of all time, yet for so immense a period that no one needs to cast his thoughts beyond it."128

124 Fraenkel (1957) 302, West (2002) 262.

125 Armstrong (1989) 94-96.

126 Simpson (2002b) 91.

127 Simpson (2002a) 89.

128 Fraenkel (1957) 303. Also Porter (1987b) 269, Lowrie (1997) 212, West (2002) 263.

95 The mention of the pontifex may also be alluding to Augustus' role in connection with that office.129 Though Augustus was not the pontifex maximus at the time Odes 1-3 was published, it would have been natural to associate the office with him rather than with its occupant. Augustus recounts the story in the Res Gestae:

Pontifex maximus ne fierem in vivi conlegae mei locum, populo id sacerdotium deferente mihi quod pater meus habuerat, recusavi. Quod sacerdotium aliquod post annos, eo mortuo qui civilis motus occasione occupaverat, cuncta ex Italia ad comitia mea confluente multitudine, quanta Romae nunquam fertur ante id tempus fuisse, recepi, P. Sulpicio C. Valgio consulibus. (10.2)

I declined to be made pontifex maximus in the place of my colleague who was still alive, when the people offered me this priesthood which my father had held. Some years later, after the death of the man who had taken the opportunity of civil disturbance to seize it for himself, I received this priesthood, in the consulship of Publius Sulpicius and Gaius Valgius.130

Lepidus the triumvir had been elected as pontifex maximus in 44 BC, allegedly taking advantage of the civil chaos in the wake of Caesar's assassination. Though Lepidus had been forced into retirement by 36BC and though Augustus had been urged to depose

Lepidus from the office and take it for himself, nonetheless, Augustus upheld propriety by choosing instead to wait until Lepidus had died before assuming the role. Augustus did, however, take steps to exclude Lepidus from public life and to neutralize his office.131 People of Rome, then, would have more readily associated the office of

129 Simpson (2002b) 90.

130 Brunt and Moore (1967) 23.

131 Scheid (2005) 188-192.

96 pontifex with the person all wished to hold the office rather than its current occupant living in exile on the Bay of Naples. Thus, by using the pontifex in C.3.30 as a subtle allusion to Augustus, Horace is linking his fate not just with Rome’s longevity but more specifically with Augustus.132

In addition, in mentioning the Capitoline alongside funereal monuments, Horace may be alluding to the fact that the Mausoleum, which is easily viewed from the Capitol, functioned as an additional hill in Rome. In building so massive a structure, Augustus had transformed the topography of Rome by erecting “a large artificial mountain.”133

The Capitoline linked the worlds of humans and gods, a place where Jupiter would send his meteorological messages and where the chief religious figures of the city, Vestal

Virgins and the Pontifex Maximus, would ascend toward the divine.134 The Mausoleum, as suggested by its axial relationship with the Pantheon,135 also emphasized the translation of a man into the divine sphere. By connecting his poetry with the Capitoline,

Horace positions his poetic edifice as a new but enduring and central feature of the

Augustan landscape: like the Mausoleum, a place for crossing the boundaries that separate gods and men.

Horace most clearly connects himself with Augustus by applying, in line 13, the term princeps to himself. No one doubts that Horace's use of the term suggests Augustus.

132 Simpson (2002b) 89-94.

133 Favro (1996) 252. See also Jaeger (1990) 185, Leach (1997) 106.

134 Jaeger (1990) 146.

135 See the discussion above in section 1 of this chapter, especially n.88-94.

97 Twice in his lyric poetry Horace explicitly names Augustus princeps,136 a title the emperor claimed for himself in the Res Gestae.137 Much ink has been spilled, however, in wrestling with the reasons Horace uses the term. Putnam thinks that Horace is unable to call himself primus so he must remain simply princeps.138 Some doubt whether to take the term seriously, thinking that it would be "presumptuous, possibly even dangerous," for the poet to use the term.139 It seems clear, though, that the words are meant seriously, and that Horace intends to create a parallel between himself and Augustus. This is not, however, bad taste or the establishment of some sort of oppositional relationship between the two men. Nor should it be viewed as a challenge to Augustus. Rather, Horace is imitating. Horace's successes in the poetic world mirror those of his patron in the world of politics. He does not need to lessen Augustus or compete with him. Instead, Horace characterizes himself as equal to Augustus but in a parallel sphere.140 Horace functions as Augustus's equivalent, the princeps in the world of poetry.141

Horace continues the imperial analogy by describing his success, in line 14, with the verb deduxisse. Deducere is a word that frequently characterizes finely spun

136 C.1.2.50, C.1.21.14. See also Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) ad loc.

137Putnam (1973a) 10.

138Putnam (1973a) 3, Putnam (2006a) 2.

139 Rubino (1985) 103.

140 Galinsky (1996) 355, Kiernan (1999) 135.

141 Johnson (2004) 52, Santirocco (1986) 168.

98 Callimachean verse.142 Given the poetic context, it would be unwise to rule out this meaning. Considerable attention, however, should also be given to reading it as a technical term for leading something to Rome in triumph. The most obvious supporting example is again from C.1.37, in which Horace uses this exact verb to explain Cleopatra's reason for suicide:

deliberata morte ferocior aevis Liburnis scilicet invidens privata deduci superbo non humilis mulier triumpho. (C.1.37.29-32)

Once she had resolved to die she was all the more defiant – determined, no doubt, to cheat the cruel Liburnians: she would not be stripped of her royalty and conveyed to face a jeering triumph: no humble woman she.143

In the same way that the Mausoleum is a tomb and trophy, so too, Horace's monumentum declares the victories and triumphs he has achieved in verse. Horace is not just “the first to lead,” but, more appropriately, “the princeps to lead in triumph.”144

Horace continues his adoption of imagery associated with Augustus and with triumph when he concludes the poem with a command to the Muse to crown him with laurel (lauro cinge volens, Melpomene, comam). The laurel has a variety of meanings ranging from associations with Apollo, the god of poetry, to the wreath worn by Roman

142 For deducere as a spinning metaphor, see Pöschl (1967) 268; as a technical term for leading out a colony, see Maróti (1965) 97-109. See also West (2002) 266.

143 Rudd (2004) 95.

144 Woodman (1974) 124. See also Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) on C.1.37.31.

99 triumphators.145 In addition, the senate granted the laurels to Augustus as his permanent emblem: quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Augustus appellatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum vestiti publice (RG, 34.2).

Given the complex associations, it would be overly restrictive to assume Horace intended his use of laurel to have a single meaning. This has not stopped scholars from giving preeminence to one reading over another. Though conceding the point that laurel does have triumphal associations for Augustan poets, Nisbet and Rudd conclude that poetry is the laurel's primary evocation because Horace describes the crown emphatically at the end of the poem's penultimate line with the adjective "Delphica," and because

Horace is to be crowned by the muse.146 The only triumphal associations they will allow into this context are those of "a victor at the Pythian Games, not of a Roman triumphator."147

But Apollo has clear connections in Rome to triumphs and to Augustus. Roman triumphs started from the ancient Temple of Apollo outside the pomerium. Livy matter- of-factly declares the triumphal significance of the ludi Apollinares: haec est origo ludorum Apollinarium, uictoriae, non ualetudinis ergo ut plerique rentur, uotorum factorumque.148 In addition to these preexistent triumphal connections, Augustus went to

145Hardie (1993) 128.

146 Nisbet and Rudd (2004) 378.

147 Nisbet and Rudd (2004) 366.

148 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita. 25.12.

100 great lengths to incorporate the divinity into his symbolism.149 Octavian attributed his victory at Naulochus over Sextus Pompey in 36 BC to Apollo, and in gratitude vowed a temple in his honor on his property on the Palatine.150 Apollo, who already had a temple on the Actian promontory, was again credited with giving Octavian his victory there.

Even Apollo of the Muses is linked to Augustus. In the library of Apollo's Palatine temple which adjoined Augustus' house, Augustus is said to have set up a statue of

Apollo in his own likeness.151 It is thus possible to read the coronation at the end of

C.3.30 in the context of Augustus and a Roman triumph.152

For those who see the Roman triumphal imagery, another avenue of interpretation is still possible: defiance towards Augustus. Oliensis sees in Horace's request for the

Muse to crown him his refusal to submit to Maecenas and to Augustus. The triumph

Horace is celebrating is the triumph of his own poetic persona, which submits to no one and even displaces Augustus altogether from the position of true authority.153

Both the interpretations of Oliensis and of Nisbet and Rudd are unnecessary extremes which can be avoided simply by refusing to consider Horace's poetry from the

149 Galinsky (1996) 215ff. See also Beard, North and Price (1998) 1:198-199, Gosling (1986), Liebeschuetz (1979) 82-85, Gagé (1955).

150 For more on Apollo and Augustus' Palatine complex, see the discussions in Strazzulla (1990), Lefèvre (1989), Zanker (1988), Castagnoli (1984), Carettoni (1983), Zanker (1983), Jucker (1982).

151 West (2002) 267. Pseudo-Acro, commenting on Horace, Epistles, 1.3.17, remarks: sibi posuerat effigiem habitu ac statura Apollinis.

152 For more on the Roman Triumph, see Beard (2007). For triumphal imagery elsewhere in Augustan poetry, see Galinsky (1969b).

153 Oliensis (1998) 104.

101 perspective of oppositions. When one allows the variety of allusions to intermingle, one is left with a rich, complex, and more meaningful poetic declaration. Horace has woven together poetic and triumphal imagery. He asks the Muse to crown his triumphs with laurel, a plant which has double meaning both because it is poetry and because he has triumphed in it. This fusion of the laurel’s poetic and triumphal imagery is repeated in

Apollo’s words to Daphne in Ovid’s Metamorphoses:

cui deus 'at, quoniam coniunx mea non potes esse, arbor eris certe' dixit 'mea! semper habebunt te coma, te citharae, te nostrae, laure, pharetrae; tu ducibus Latiis aderis, cum laeta Triumphum vox canet et visent longas Capitolia pompas; postibus Augustis eadem fidissima custos ante fores stabis mediamque tuebere quercum, utque meum intonsis caput est iuvenale capillis, tu quoque perpetuos semper gere frondis honores!' (1.557-567)

To her the god said: “Since you are not able to be my wife, you will at least be my tree. My hair, my lyre, my quiver will always have you, O laurel. You will be present with Roman generals, when happy voice will sing their triumph, and the Capitol will see long processions. You stand at Augustus’ portals a most faithful guardian, and keep watch over the civic crown of oak which stands between. And as my head is ever young and my locks unshorn, so you also keep the perpetual honor of your leaves.

All the evocations of laurel in C.3.30 are found here: poetry, triumphs, the Capitoline, and Augustus.154

Similarly, in response to Oliensis, Horace is not attempting to displace Augustus, but rather is adopting him as a model or interpretive grid for understanding his own

154 For more on this passage, see Barchiesi (2005b) 142-145, Anderson (1997) 200ff. For more on the concept of triumph in Ovid, see Beard (2004).

102 accomplishments. Horace is engaging in imitatio Augusti to underscore his declaration of having accomplished in the poetic sphere what Augustus accomplished in the political.

Therefore, in C.3.30 Horace declares Odes 1-3 to be the poetic equivalent of what

Augustus constructed for himself on the Campus Martius: a structure which declares his commitment to Rome and to Italy, his rejection of eastern influences, his aspirations towards immortality, and his own personal triumph.

103 Chapter 3: The Impetus Behind Odes 4

Section 1: Answering Suetonius

The lack-luster reputation of Odes 4 has its beginnings in the story told by

Suetonius:1

Scripta quidem eius usque adeo probavit mansuraque perpetuo opinatus est, ut non modo Saeculare Carmen componendum iniunxerit sed et Vindelicam victoriam Tiberii Drusique, privignorum suorum, eumque coegerit propter hoc tribus Carminum libris ex longo intervallo quartum addere; (Vita Horati)

And to his writings, Augustus rated them so high, and was so convinced that they would be immortal, that he not only appointed himto write the Secular Hymn, but also bade him celebrate the victory of his stepsons Tiberius and Drusus over the Vindelici, and so compelled him to add a fourth to his three books of lyrics after a long silence.2

Though apparently straightforward about the impetus for the book, this passage can be mitigated by several arguments. First, Horace could not be compelled. Second,

Augustus was not the compelling type – for poets, at least. Third, several of the poems in

Odes 4 suggest that composition was under way even before the victories of Tiberius and

Drusus, much less the request made by Augustus after the fact.

1 Though there are some doubts concerning some of Suetonius’ other lives of poets (see, for instance, Naumann (1981)), the life of Horace is assumed to be genuine, if incomplete. Brugnoli (1968) 18 argues for a lacuna in the text in order to explain a twenty-three year jump from Horace’s early childhood to Philippi. In general, Suetonius draws on information gleaned from documents he had access to in his official post as ab epistulis under Hadrian and combines it with a straight autobiographical reading of the Horatian corpus. For more on the relationship between Suetonius’ official duties and scholary activity, see Wallace-Hadrill (1983) 78-96. For a possible explanation about how Suetonius could have become confused about the origin of Odes 4, see Hills (2001).

2 Rolfe (1914) 463.

104 It was once thought that Horace's position vis-à-vis Augustus or Maecenas was a precarious one due to his low birth and meager resources. Scholars, however, have come to doubt many of these aspects of Horace’s life. Horace was not "really" the son of a freed slave; he was not as impoverished as he claims; he did not need Augustus’ financial assistance.

Horace volunteers the biographical tidbit that he was son of a freedman in Satire

1.6. The traditional method has been simply to take him at his word.3 Three times he refers to himself as libertino patre natus, information which resurfaces in Suetonius' Vita

Horati: Q. Horatius Flaccus, Venusinus, patre ut ipse tradit libertino. But because

Suetonius states that the source of his information is the poet's own writings, the fact should provoke caution in the reader; one can never be sure whether one is reading autobiography or if the author has reasons for representing himself in a particular way.4

Even in genres like satire which claim to be the colloquial and personal rambling of the poet, it must be remembered that in such cases factors such as meter, genre conventions, and the poet's own artistic goals blur his supposed "honest effusions.”5

3 Highet (1973) 268-281.

4 For the traditional method of accepting first-person statements of Horace, see Fraenkel (1957), Levi (1997). For the more nuanced approach of interpreting these statements through the lens of the rhetorical or poetic strategies of Horace, see Harrison (2007), Schmidt (2002), Oliensis (1998), Horsfall (1998), Anderson (1995), Davis (1991), Anderson (1974) 33-56. For questions of autobiography and persona specifically in Horace's Satires, see Muecke (2007), Gowers (2003), Keane (2002), Schlegel (2000), Turpin (1998), Anderson (1995), Freudenberg (1993), Anderson (1982), Zetzel (1980), Leach (1971). For discussion of these concerns within the context of Greek lyric poetry Horace used as his models, see Lefkowitz (1991), Slings (1990).

5 Anderson (1974) 33-34.

105 In all this, one must be careful to avoid confusing "a generically prompted strategy designed to disarm the reader" with "a factual account of the poet's life."6 On the one hand, the poet within his poetry has the ability to present himself in ways that are favorable to his purposes or that complement his poetry. On the other hand, the poet as presented in the poetry needs, in some way, to be connected with the poet in real life.

The persona in the poetry should not necessarily be seen as a fiction generated by the poet’s imagination, but rather as a more malleable portrait of the poet as he wishes himself to be seen. "Art collaborates with autobiography to produce a charming 'myth.'"7

As one scholar has stated of Horace in a different context that applies equally to the question of persona, “he would have been chagrined to be taken literally, astonished to be attacked as a liar.”8 Though it is difficult to dismiss what Horace says about his own life, neither should the subjective confessions in his poetry be considered straight autobiography either.9

To interpret the phrase "libertino patre natus" correctly, it must be considered in its context. The three occurrences of the phrase in Sat. 1.6 should be understood not as the poet’s description of himself, but rather as the way he is derisively referred to by others.10 We must put quotation marks around them and consider him the "so-called

6 Schlegel (1994).

7 Anderson (1974) 43.

8 Griffin (1984) 199.

9 Anderson (1974) 42.

10 Williams (1995) 297-8.

106 freedman's son." The origin of the phrase may come from his family’s involvement in the Social War. We read in Appian (BC.1.42) that Venusia joined the rebel forces. It, along with its commander Trebatius, was conquered by Gaius Cosconius in around 88

BC. Diodorus (37.2.10) recounts that in that year Venusia in Apulia was overrun and three thousand prisoners taken. It is possible that Horace’s grandfather and father were among the captured prisoners that would have been sold into slavery.11 When civitas was extended to the Italians, though Horace’s relative might have had to be manumitted, he was probably granted full Roman citizenship. Thus libertino patre natus turns out to be a gross travesty of fact and an insult. This would explain the phrase’s use in Sat. 1.6.

Horace, describing his “peers” in Venusia and the reason his father took him to Rome for education, says the following:

causa fuit pater his, qui macro pauper agello noluit in Flavi ludum me mittere, magni quo pueri magnis e centurionibus orti, laevo suspensi loculos tabulamque lacerto, ibant octonos referentes Idibus aeris, sed puerum est ausus Romam portare, docendum artis quas doceat quivis eques atque senator semet prognatos. (Sat. 1.6.71-78)

I owe this to my father, who, though poor with a starveling farm, would not send me to the school of Flavius, to which grand boys used to go, sons of grand centurions, with slate and satchel slung over the left arm, each carrying his eightpence on the Ides – nay, he boldly took his boy off to Rome, to be taught those studies that any knight or senator would have his own offspring taught.12

11 Nisbet (2007) 7, Williams (1995) 308, Anderson (1995), Armstrong (1989) 9ff, Salmon (1967) 369 n.4.

12 Fairclough (1926) 83.

107

The fact that the centurions’ sons may be splendid physical specimens compared to the diminutive Horace is further support for the idea the Horace was a native because it has been determined that the locals were, on average, smaller in stature than Romans.13 One can easily imagine Horace being bullied by the sons of Roman centurions for his father’s role in the Social Wars. Such bullying would likely include jabs at Horace’s father’s citizenship status. It is in these people’s mouths, not his own, that he places the statement about his father. Years later, it is still these people he resents.14 The insult, however, is baseless. Horace says as much when he presents as a contrary-to-fact condition that his father was not freeborn.

Namque esto populus Laevino mallet honorem quam Decio mandare novo, censorque moveret Appius, ingenuo si non essem patre natus: vel merito, quoniam in propria non pelle quiessem. (Sat. 1.6.19-22)

For let us grant that the people would rather give office to a Laevinus than to an unknown Decius, and that an Appius as censor would strike out my name if I were not the son of a free-born father – and quite rightly for not having stayed quiet in my own skin.15

Horace’s subsequent career similarly reveals that he was not the son of an ex- slave. After going to Rome for education, Horace went on to Athens for education in philosophy and rhetoric, a privilege of wealthy elite. While in Athens, Brutus appointed

Horace to the post of tribunus militum, a rank normally given to young men of equestrian

13 Salmon (1967) 57.

14 Fraenkel (1957) 3.

15 Fairclough (1926) 79.

108 status starting their careers.16 From these facts it can safely be deduced that Horace’s father was also of equestrian rank. To quote Williams again, “Horace’s father was, in fact, a proud native born Sabellian whose family had suffered for supporting the rebel cause in 90 BC, though he had been able to lift the family’s fortune again in a short time, after he gained Roman citizenship.”17

Epistle 2.2, where Horace describes his life after the Philippi debacle, has often been cited to demonstrate Horace's modest origins and his alleged financial need for patronage:

unde simul primum me dimisere Philippi, decisis humilem pennis inopemque paterni et laris et fundi, paupertas impulit audax ut versus facerem: sed quod non desit habentem quae poterunt umquam satis expurgare cicutae, ni melius dormire putem quam scribere versus? (49-54)

Soon as Philippi gave me discharge there from, brought low with wings clipped and beggared of paternal home and estate, barefaced poverty drove me to writing verses. But now that I have sufficient store, what doses of hemlock could ever suffice to cleanse my blood, if I were not to think it better to slumber than to scribble verses?18

In this passage, Horace says that poverty drove him to write poetry, thus implying to most commentators that, after his attempt at the military life, he, like Archilochus, had left his shield behind and had turned to the possibility of making a living by securing

16 Taylor (1968) 477. See also Taylor (1925) 165 who states: “If, as the evidence seems to indicate, freedmen’s sons were normally debarred from knighthood, it is surprising that Brutus, however much he liked the young student of philosophy, should have showed laxness in his attitude toward the parentage of one of his officers.”

17 Williams (1995) 311.

18 Fairclough (1926) 429.

109 patronage for his poetry. The irony of the statement is clear when one realizes that

Horace is responding to Florus as to why he does not want to write poetry. His un-

Augustan answer is that he had to write poetry when he was young in order to sustain himself. Now that he is older and well off, he would rather sleep than compose verse.

One must, as Fraenkel suggests, recognize that while utter falsehood is unlike Horace, the poet never considers himself “obliged under all circumstances to speak the whole truth.

His adroitness in evading an unwelcome suggestion must always be taken into account, and no less his propensity to ejirwneiva and understatement.”19 Horace did not, nor did he wish to, make a living from his poetry. Suetonius is clear on what he did do after his stint in Republican circles.

bello Philippensi excitus a Marco Bruto imperatore, tribunus militum meruit; victisque partibus venia impetrata scriptum quaestorium comparavit. (Vita Horati)

He served as tribune of the soldiers in the war of Philippi, at the instance of Marcus Brutus, one of the leaders in that war. When his party was vanquished, he was pardoned and purchased the position of a quaestor’s clerk.20

After Philippi, Horace’s finances were not in as great a mess as he protests. He had funds enough to buy for himself the post of scriba quaestorius, testifying both to his wealth after Philippi and indirectly to what must have been a large inheritance before he joined Brutus.21 The scriba quaestorius was the highest rank of the apparitores, the

19 Fraenkel (1957) 14.

20 Rolfe (1914) 461.

21 Armstrong (1986) 262. 110 assistants to the magistrates.22 They were employed in the Treasury and kept track of the public finances, but since the Treasury also served as the modern equivalent of a Public

Records Office, they also had numerous non-financial responsibilities that included compiling the records of the Senate and keeping them on file.23 The fact that this official retained his office for life added to its prestige and importance.24 Another advantage was that, while profitable, the job was not burdensome. The actual daily work of the post could be placed on subordinates, thus giving a man like Horace both the financial security and the otium necessary to compose poetry.

Poetry was never Horace’s source of income. All (or at least most) of the

Neoteric and Augustan poets from Catullus on were fiscally independent. They undertook poetry not out of financial obligation but rather as “the leisure pastime of men who had the education and wealth to indulge in it.”25 Thus Horace was neither humble nor poor. Indeed, the neoteric idea of the doctus poeta, which "presumed on the part of the poet an education, which required money, and continuing study, which he must have had leisure in order to pursue," can be urged against Horace's claims of poverty.26 Poets throughout time have needed patronage for financial reasons, but the Augustans were not among them.

22 Purcell (1983), Mommsen (1887) i.346ff.

23 Jones (1949) 41.

24 Mommsen (1887) i.338.

25 Zetzel (1982) 90.

26 White (1978) 88.

111 Since it has been demonstrated that Horace was not in fact impoverished, and therefore, was not financially bound to the whim of a patron, what must next be dispelled is the notion that Augustus compelled Odes 4 either intentionally or otherwise. In the passage cited above, Suetonius recounts: eumque coegerit propter hoc tribus Carminum libris ex longo intervallo quartum addere. Though cogere may seem forceful, it, as well as iniungere, the word used by Suetonius to describe the commission of the Carmen

Saeculare, were both part of common formulas used among friends conversing about suggestions both advanced or received.27

Though the reasons Ovid gives for his exile to the Black Sea region – a carmen and an error – might, at first look, seem to provide ample proof that Augustus coerced a certain type of poetry from his clients and punished deviations from his wishes, this was not so. Ovid's exile is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there is no mention of it in any extant source except Ovid.28 It is hard to believe that his exile was “indicative of a concerted policy on the part of Augustus to repress freedom of speech” and yet never found its way into extant sources.29 It is modern scholars who have emphasized Ovid's exile in order to argue that Augustus attempted to control Roman writers. Evidently, ancient writes gave the events no such interpretation. But despite whatever inferences are made from Ovid's exile, Suetonius documents the singular

27 White (1993) 115. See also Brink (1982) 243, Becker (1963) 9ff, Brink (1963) 191 n.3.

28 Tristia.1.7.15-30, 2.345-61, 5.7.65-68; Epistulae ex Ponto.2.9.71-80, 4.6.9-16. For the alleged connection between Ovid's exile and the scandal involving Augustus's granddaughter Julia the Younger, see Kienast (1999) 121, n.219, 251, n.310, Levick (1976) 333ff, Syme (1978) 215-219.

29 Raaflaub and Samons (1990) 445-6.

112 occasion in Roman literature up to the conclusion of the Augustan Age where a poet supposedly yields to the demands of a patron.30 Such a fact should give us pause.

Horace reveals as much when he describes the nature of his relationship with

Augustus.

omnibus hoc vitium est cantoribus, inter amicos ut numquam inducant animum cantare rogati, iniussi numquam desistant. Sardus habebat ille Tigellius hoc. Caesar,qui cogere posset, si peteret per amicitiam patris atque suam non quicquam proficere; si collibuisset, ab ovo usque ad mala citaret “io Bacche!” modo summa voce, modo hac resonat quae chordis quattuor ima. (Sat. 1.3.1-8)

All singers have this fault: if asked to sing among their friends they are never so inclined; if unasked, they never leave off. That son of Sardinia, Tigellius, was of this sort. If Caesar, who might have forced him to comply, should beg him by his father’s friendship and his own, he could make no headway. If the man took the fancy, then from the egg-course to the fruit he would keep chanting “Io Bacche!” now with highest voice and now with one responding in lowest pitch to the tetrachord.31

Singers have this one fault, Horace says: when you ask them to sing they don’t, but, when you don’t ask, they won't shut up. What is important in this passage, though, is the way Augustus is presented: Caesar, qui cogere posset. He is able to compel but he chooses rather simply to petition. Also significant is the implication that in this context

Augustus would fail at getting Tigellius to sing on request.32

30 Putnam (1986) 21.

31 Fairclough (1926) 33.

32 Lowrie (2007) 91.

113 Horace's letter to the princeps provides another example of Augustus' treatment of poets.

Multa quidem nobis facimus mala saepe poetae (ut vineta egomet caedam mea), cum tibi librum sollicito damus aut fesso; cum laedimur, unum si quis amicorum est ausus reprehendere versum; cum loca iam recitata revolvimus irrevocati; cum lamentamur non apparere labores nostros et tenui deducta poemata filo; cum speramus eo rem venturam ut, simul atque carmina rescieris nos fingere, commodus ultro arcessas et egere vetes et scribere cogas. (Ep. 2.1.219-228)

We poets doubtless often do much mischief to our own cause – let me hack at my own vines – when you are anxious or weary and we offer you our book; when we are hurt if a friend has dared to censure a single verse; when, unashed, we turn back to passages already read; when we complain that men lose sight of our labours, and of our poems so finely spun; when we hope it will come to this, that, as soon as you hear we are composing verses, you will go so far as kindly to send for us, banish our poverty, and compel us to write.33

The last two words are the most important of the passage: scribere cogas.

Horace, again speaking on the foibles of poets, discusses the dream of every poet – to be in the service of the emperor, to be lacking nothing, to be compelled to write. The idea of compulsion presented here does not suggest that the patron dictated content but rather that he provided opportunity and support for the poet.34

From this evidence, it is clear that the uses of the term cogere in the passages above do not merit the definition of "compulsion" and one must question its use in the

33 Fairclough (1926) 415.

34 White (1993) 147.

114 Suetonius passage. Therefore, the evidence is strong in support of the idea that Augustus' requests were not intended as veiled commands, and that Horace, who was content to accept or deny any offer made to him by the princeps, perceived no compulsion in imperial suggestions.

Some view gift-giving from patron to poet as a mode of compulsion.35 Scholars have long claimed that Horace was indebted to Maecenas and, through him, to Augustus for the gift of the Sabine estate.36 They have seen in the Sabine estate the bestowal of fortune upon a needy client by a grateful patron. Horace, however, demonstrates in

Epistles 1.7 that, while the gift of the Sabine estate was a blessing that had indeed enriched him, it was not the only or even main source of his income, so he could give it all up if necessary.

Forte per angustam tenuis vulpecula rimam repserat in cumeram frumenti, pastaque rursus ire foras pleno tendebat corpore frustra; cui mustela procul, “si vis,” ait, “effugere istinc, macra cavum repetes artum, quem macra subisti.” hac ego si compellor imagine, cuncta resigno; nec somnum plebis laudo satur altilium nec otia divitiis Arabum liberrima muto. saepe verecundum laudasti, rexque paterque audisti coram nec verbo parcius absens: inspice si possum donata reponere laetus. haud male Telemachus, proles patientis Ulixei: “non est aptus equis Ithace locus, ut neque planis porrectus spatiis nec multae prodigus herbae: Atride, magis apta tibi tua dona relinquam.” parvum parva decent: mihi iam non regia Roma,

35 Bowditch (2001).

36 Ep.1.14.1-4 shows that Horace’s Sabine residence was not just a farm, for it was composed of five farms.

115 sed vacuum Tibur placet aut imbelle Tarentum. (29-45)

Once it chanced that a pinched little fox had crept through a narrow chink in a bin of corn, and when well fed was trying with stuffed stomach to get out again, but in vain. To him quoth a weasel hard by: “If you wish to escape from there, you must go back lean to the narrow gap which you entered when lean.” If challenged by this fable, I give up all. I neither praise the poor man’s sleep, when I am fed full of capons, nor would I barter my case and my freedom for all the wealth of Araby. Once have you praised my modesty, and have been called “king” and “father” to your face, nor do I stint my words behind your back. Try me, whether I can restore your gifts, and cheerfully too. Twas no poor answer of Telemachus, son of enduring Ulysses: “Ithaca is no land meet for steeds, for it has no level courses outspread, nor is it lavish of much herbage. Son of Atreus, I will leave you your gifts, as being more meet for you.” Small things befit small folk; my own delight today is not queenly Rome, but quiet Tibur or peaceful Tarentum.37

Gifts to Horace from the patron either directly or through Maecenas were valued and enjoyed, but they were unnecessary for Horace. There is no need to see Maecenas, as one scholar has melodramatically stated, as “smoked glass, as it were, between them and the naked glare of the sun of Augustus.”38 These well-to-do poets joined themselves to their patrons more for access to a ready-made audience base. Friendship with a powerful person would guarantee a larger audience for a poet. It is better, then, to see the gifts given as "the perquisites of friends rather than the due of poetry."39

37 Fairclough (1926) 297-9.

38 Griffin (1984) 195.

39 White (1978) 92.

116 Augustus, as well, was cautious about his legacy and the dangers of poetic compulsion. After the passage quoted above concerning Augustus’ ability to compel,

Horace describes the dangers of bad poetry.

sed tamen est operae pretium cognoscere, qualis aedituos habeat belli spectata domique Virtus, indigno non committenda poetae. gratus Alexandro regi magno fuit ille Choerilus, incultis qui versibus et male natis rettulit acceptos, regale nomisma, Philippos; sed veluti tractata notam labemque remittunt atramenta, fere scriptores carmine foedo splendida facta linunt. Idem rex ille poema qui tam ridiculum tam care prodigus emit, edito vetuit ne quis se praeter Apellen pingeret, aut alius Lysippo duceret aera fortis Alexandri voltum simulantia. quod si iudicium subtile videndis artibus illud ad libros et ad haec Musarum dona vocares, Boeotum in crasso iurares aere natum. (Ep. 2.1.229-244)

Nonetheless, tis worth inquiring what manner of ministrants attend on merit, tried at home and in the field, and never to be entrusted to an unworthy poet. Well-pleasing to the great king Alexander was that poor Choerilus, who could thank his uncouth and misbegotten verses for the philipps – good royal coin – that he received; but as ink when handled leaved mark and stain, so ofttimes with unseemly verse poets put a blot on bright exploits. That same king who lavishly paid so dearly for a poem so foolish, by an edict forbade anyone save Apelles to paint him, or any other than Lysippus to model bronze in copying the features of brave Alexander. But call that judgement, so nice for viewing works of art, to books and to the gifts of the Muses, and you’d swear that he’d been born in Boeotia’s heavy air.40

Horace reminds Augustus that Alexander the Great had tarnished his legacy by commissioning Choerilus to record his exploits. The poetry was bad and therefore the

40 Fairclough (1926) 415-7.

117 record of Alexander’s exploits shared in its failure. Though Augustus had gone to great lengths to imitate Alexander, this is one area where Alexander provided a negative example for Augustus to avoid.41

Horace, again, warns of the dangers that come from commissioning poetry in his first recusatio of the Odes.

Nos, Agrippa, neque haec dicere nec gravem Pelidae stomachum cedere nescii nec cursus duplicis per mare Ulixei nec saevam Pelopis domum

conamur, tenues grandia, dum pudor imbellisque lyrae Musa potens vetat laudes egregii Caesaris et tuas culpa deterere ingeni (C.1.6.5-12)

No such deeds, Agrippa, do I essay to sing nor the fell anger of Peleus' son, who knew not how to yield, nor the wanderings o'er the sea of the crafty Ulysses, nor the cruel house of Pelops – too feeble I for such lofty themes, since modesty and the Muse that presides over the lyre of peace forbid me lessen by defect of skill noble Caesar's glory and thine own.42

Though Horace's sincerity about his lack of poetic ability is laughable, the point he makes, nevertheless, is true enough: "poetical panegyric, in unskillful hands, may actually discredit the subject."43

Horace, in his Epistle to Augustus continues to warn the princeps of the dangers that are hazarded when one commissions encomium.

41 Brink (1982) ad loc. See also Feeney (2002), Kilpatrick (1990).

42 Bennett (1914) 21.

43 Griffin (1984) 201.

118 discit enim citius meminitque libentius illud quod quis deridet, quam quod probat et veneratur. nil moror officium quod me gravat, ac neque ficto in peius vultu proponi cereus usquam nec prave factis decorari versibus opto, ne rubeam pingui donatus munere, et una cum scriptore meo, capsa porrectus operta, deferar in vicum vendentem tus et odores et piper et quidquid chartis amicitur ineptis. (Ep. 2.1.262-270)

For men more quickly learn and more gladly recall what they deride than what they approve and esteem. Not for me attentions that are burdensome, and I want neither to be displayed anywhere in wax, with my features misshaped, nor to be praised in verses ill-wrought, lest I have to blush at the stupid gift, and then, along with my poet, outstretched in a closed chest, be carried into the street where they sell frankincense and perfumes and pepper and everything else that is wrapped in sheets of useless paper.44

Horace reminds Augustus that there is a bond formed between the poet and the laudandus. Once someone is "immortalized" by a poet, the two are forever linked. If a bad poet should praise Augustus, then, when the worthlessness of the poetry is manifest, the pages will be thrown out and used in the market place. The name of Augustus will be sullied by being written on discarded fish wrappers.

Bad encomium is worse than no encomium, a fact that Augustus understood as well. Suetonius records that, although he encouraged those with artistic skill, he took steps to prevent his name from being cheapened either through lampoon or by eager but incompetent poets and rhetoricians.

Ingenia saeculi sui omnibus modis fovit. Recitantis et benigne et patienter audiit, nec tantum carmina et historias, sed et orationes et dialogos.

44 Fairclough (1926) 419.

119 Componi tamen aliquid de se nisi et serio et a praestantissimis offendebatur, admonebatque praetores ne paterentur nomen suum commissionibus obsolefieri. (Aug. 89.3)

He gave every encouragement to the men of talent of his own age, listening with courtesy and patience to their readings, not only of poetry and history, but of speeches and dialogues as well. But he took offense at being made the subject of any composition except in serious earnest and by the most eminent writers, often charging the praetors not to let his name be cheapened in prize declamations.45

Some, however, would argue that a request from Augustus was, for all intents and purposes, the same as a command. In response to Syme’s remark that, “no despot can compel a poet to compose,”46 Griffin has noted “that a request from Augustus was a different thing from a request from anybody else.”47 But even if we accept that for some a request from Augustus might be thought the same as a command, it was not so for

Horace, who offers the example of a poet who had no problem denying imperial requests.

Augustus epistularum quoque ei officium optulit, ut hoc ad Maecenatem scripto significant: "Ante ipse sufficiebam scribendis epistulis amicorum, nunc occupatissimus et infirmus Horatium nostrum a te cupio abducere. Veniet ergo ab ista parasitica mensa ad hanc regiam, et nos in epistulis scribendis iuvabit." Ac ne recusanti quidem aut suscensuit quicquam aut amicitiam suam ingerere desiit. Exstant epistulae, e quibus argumenti gratia pauca subieci: "Sume tibi aliquid iuris apud me, tamquam si convictor mihi fueris, recte enim et non temere feceris, quoniam id usus mihi tecum esse volui, si per valitudinem tuam fieri possit.” (Suetonius. Vita Horati)

45 Rolfe (1913) 281.

46 Syme (1978) 176.

47 Griffin (1984) 191.

120 Augustus offered him the post of secretary, as appears in this letter of his to Maecenas: “Before this I was able to write my letters to my friends with my own hand; now overwhelmed with work and in poor health, I desire to take our friend Horace from you. He will come then from that parasitic table of yours to my imperial board, and help me write my letter.” Even when Horace declined, Augustus showed no resentment at all, and did not cease his efforts to gain his friendship. We have letters from which I append a few extracts by way of proof: “Enjoy any priviledge at my house, as if you were making your home there; for it will be quite right and proper for you to do so, inasmuch as that was the relation which I wished to have with you, if you health had permitted.48

Augustus wanted a secretary to help with personal correspondence. Horace had refused on the transparently false excuse of ill health. But Augustus was not angry or vindictive at having his requests denied. It even appears that Augustus was uneasy about the way in which his requests were received. In the letter to Maecenas quoted above, Augustus chooses his words carefully in order to demonstrate his urbanity and self-consciousness.

He says: Veniet ergo ab ista parasitica mensa ad hanc regiam, et nos in epistulis scribendis iuvabit. "The choice of these words, deliberately exaggerated, is evidently meant to smooth the potentially embarrassing fact that Augustus' unique power and position make a request from him a special one."49 Augustus was aware that his singular political power could have a bullying effect on those beneath him. He shows, in the passages above, that in the area of artistic patronage he was especially cautious to defuse any feeling of compulsion that might be read into his requests.

48 Rolfe (1914) 461-3.

49 Griffin (1984) 202.

121 Finally, what of the fact that Odes 4, which comes at the end of Horace’s poetic career, seems to be the work most influenced by the desires of his patron?50 One would expect such influence to exert itself at the beginning of a poet’s career when he is struggling for recognition and survival. Even so, as we have seen, Horace appears not to have cared much about such things even then. Should we not rather consider that

Horace, a poet who knew the dangers of poorly composed poetry and had demonstrated his ability to compose outstanding poetry, had a specific purpose in mind when he composed the conspicuous encomia of Augustus in Odes 4?

Section 2: The Carmen Saeculare and Its Importance for Odes 4

Section 2.1: Reception and Retirement – Ep.1.1 and 19

The standard line is that Horace was upset at the reception of Odes 1-3.51 The evidence for such an assumption is the uncritical acceptance of statements Horace makes in his other works, especially Epistles 1.1 and 19. Upon closer inspection, however, these epistles do not paint the picture of Horace's sobbing retreat into himself and philosophy in order to avoid the scorn of the crowd, but rather the winking recusatio of an innovative poet who, like any artist, would rather break new ground than regurgitate

50 Zetzel (1982) 92-3.

51 The most influential statement of this position is Fraenkel (1957) 339. See also Kiessling and Heinze (1955) III.177ff, Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) xxxvii, Armstrong (1989) 183, Freudenburg (2002) 133, Nisbet (2007) 14. For analysis and response, see Becker (1963) 43-45, esp. 43 n.14, Brink (1963) 180-182, Williams (1968) 2ff, 25-28, Mayer (1995) 291. For Epistles 1.1 and 1.19 in general, see Morrison (2006), Reckford (2002), Barchiesi (2001), Bowditch (2001) 170-193, Mayer (1994), Lefèvre (1993) 235- 251, Smith (1984), Macleod (1979), Macleod (1977), Kilpatrick (1975).

122 more of the same. Horace receiving the commission to write the Saecular Hymn further buttresses the idea that his poetry was well received.

Horace begins his first book of Epistles with a statement that he is retiring from lyric poetry.

Prima dicte mihi, summa dicende Camena, spectatum satis et donatum iam rude quaeris, Maecenas, iterum antiquo me includere ludo? Non eadem est aetas, non mens. Veianius armis Herculis ad postem fixis latet abditus agro, ne populum extrema totiens exoret harena. Est mihi purgatum crebro qui personet aurem: 'Solue senescentem mature sanus equum, ne peccet ad extremum ridendus et ilia ducat.' Nunc itaque et versus et cetera ludicra pono. (1-10)

You, of whom my earliest Muse had told, of whom my last shall tell – you Maecenas, seek to shut me up again in my old school, though well tested in the fray, and already presented with the foil. My years, my mind, are not the same. Veianius hangs up his arms at Hercules’ door, then lies hidden in the country, that he may not plead with the crowd again and again from the arena’s edge. Some one there is who is always dinning in my well-rinsed ear: “Be wise in time, and turn loose the ageing horse, lest at the last he stumble amid jeers and burst his wind. So now I lay aside my verses and all other toys.52

Calling his previous poetry “games,” Horace likens himself to a retired gladiator or an aging racehorse, unwilling to risk the fray. A few points must be mentioned. First, this poem is obviously a recusatio.53 The poet is pretending refusal on the grounds of

52 Fairclough (1926) 251.

53 Traina (1991) 301, Macleod (1979) 21. For more on recusatio in Horace see: Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) esp. on C.1.6 See also Sat. 2.1 which opens with Trebatius counseling Horace not to write more satire.

123 inability; but it is a ruse, an example of "the poet's performed discontent."54 He is composing verse that claims he is laying aside poetry. Some have argued that the versus et cetera ludicra (10) refers only to lyric poetry. Horace's philosophic hexameters, like his earlier satiric hexameters, are excluded from this category, enabling the statement to be adopted as sincere. A passage from Satires 1.4 is usually marshaled as evidence.

primum ego me illorum, dederim quibus esse poetis, excerpam numero: neque enim concludere versum dixeris esse satis neque, siqui scribat uti nos sermoni propiora, putes hunc esse poetam. (39-42)

First, I will take my own name from the list of such as I would allow to be poets. For you would not call it enough to round off a verse, nor would you count anyone a poet who writes, as I do, lines more akin to prose.55

Horace, the argument goes, did not consider his Satires "real poetry." The Epistles,

Horace's resumption of his earlier satiric mode should be considered in the same category. Horace himself answers these objections in the same satire and reveals how thin his refusal to accept the Satires as poetry was.

hoc est mediocribus illis ex vitiis unum; cui si concedere nolis, multa poetarum veniat manus, auxilio quae sit mihi—nam multo plures sumus—, ac veluti te Iudaei cogemus in hanc concedere turbam. (139-143)

This is one of those lesser frailties I spoke of, and if you should make no allowance for it, then would a big band of poets come to my aid, for we are a big majority – and we, like the Jews, will compel you to make one of our throng.56

54 Freudenburg (2002) 128.

55 Fairclough (1926) 53.

56 Fairclough (1926) 61. 124

Horace ends this satire about writing satire by including himself among the multa manus poetarum. His statement, therefore, that satire does not constitute "real poetry" needs to be rethought.

Horace's tenth satire also includes a reference to how he viewed the satiric genre:

atque ego cum graecos facerem, natus mare citra, versiculos, vetuit me tali voce Quirinus post mediam noctem visus, cum somnia vera: 'in silvam non ligna feras insanius ac si magnas Graecorum malis inplere catervas.' turgidus Alpinus iugulat dum Memnona dumque diffingit Rheni luteum caput, haec ego ludo, quae neque in aede sonent certantia iudice Tarpa nec redeant iterum atque iterum spectanda theatris. (31-39)

I, too, though born this side of the sea, once took to writing verses in Greek; but after midnight, when dreams are true, Quirinus appeared and forbade me with words like these: “Tis just as foolish to carry timber to a wood as to wish to swell the crowded ranks of the Greeks.” So while the pompous poet of the Alps murders Memnon and botches with mud the head of the Rhine, I am toying with trifles, which are neither to be heard in the Temple as competing for Tarpa’s verdict, nor are to come back again and again to be witnessed on the stage.57

In his resumption of the discussion of Sat.1.4, Horace playfully describes how he ended up choosing the satiric genre. What is interesting is that he uses the verb ludo (37) to describe his satiric compositions. Thus, when in Ep.1.1.10 Horace says Nunc itaque et versus et cetera ludicra pono, the scope of his terms must not be narrowed only to lyric but rather expanded to include all poetic genres.58 It should thus be taken as tongue in

57 Fairclough (1926) 119.

58 cf. Brink (1971) on A.P. 95. 125 cheek that Horace is using poetry to claim that he is no longer going to write poetry. In the same breath with which he renounces poetry, he announces that this is exactly what he is writing.59

Further proof that Horace's supposed abandonment of poetry for philosophy is less than genuine can be found in the next poem, Ep. 1.2.

Troiani belli scriptorem, Maxime Lolli, dum tu declamas Romae, Praeneste relegi; qui, quid sit pulchrum, quid turpe, quid utile, quid non, plenius ac melius Chrysippo et Crantore dicit. Cur ita crediderim, nisi quid te distinet, audi. (1-5)

While you, Lollius Maximus, declaim at Rome, I have been reading afresh at Praeneste the writer of the Trojan War; who tells us what is fair, what is foul, what is helpful, what not, more plainly and better than Chrysippus or Crantor. Why I have come to think so, let me tell you, unless there is something else to take your attention.60

This epistle articulates Horace's belief that even when it comes to ethical training, poets are better than philosophers. Horace, in stark contrast to philosophers since Xenophanes,

"declares that Homer is a clearer and better moral guide than the Stoic Chrysippus or the

Academic Crantor."61 The Epistles are supposed to be Horace's foray into philosophy; yet when he actually turns to the subject, he advocates the superior ability of poets in filling this role. His supposed poetry about philosophy is actually leading back to poetry

59 Macleod (1979) 22.

60 Fairclough (1926) 263.

61 Mayer (1986) 67.

126 Thus Horace's withdrawal from poetry described in Ep.1.1 is "clearly ironized."62

In the Epistles, Horace is reinventing his poetry, trying something new. He is transforming the walking muse of his earlier Sermones into an innovative new genre.63

When we turn to the poem which supposedly proves that Horace was upset with how his poems were received, we find that the picture Horace paints is indeed one of frustration, but not at the reception Odes 1-3. According to Fraenkel, Ep.1.19 revealed

"the depth of his resentment,"64 and was "the only thoroughly bitter document that we have from Horace's pen."65 On closer inspection, Horace is not complaining about the way his poetry is being received but rather about the expectations placed on him because his book was so successful.

The epistle begins with Horace describing the slavish ways that he is imitated by would-be poets. They lack his ability so they mimic his manners. This opening section concludes with Horace's cry of tired exasperation:

O imitatores, seruom pecus, ut mihi saepe bilem, saepe iocum uestri mouere tumultus. (19-20)

O you mimics, you slavish herd! How often your pother has stirred my spleen, how often my mirth!66

62 Morrison (2006) 55.

63 Ferri (2007) 124.

64 Fraenkel (1957) 308.

65 Fraenkel (1957) 350.

66 Fairclough (1926) 383.

127 After a middle section in which Horace reiterates his innovations and triumphs of

Odes 1-3, he concludes the epistle with what is taken as his frustration over his work being poorly received.

Hunc ego, non alio dictum prius ore, Latinus uolgaui fidicen; iuuat inmemorata ferentem ingenuis oculisque legi manibusque teneri. Scire uelis, mea cur ingratus opuscula lector laudet ametque domi, premat extra limen iniquus; non ego uentosae plebis suffragia uenor inpensis cenarum et tritae munere uestis; non ego nobilium scriptorum auditor et ultor grammaticas ambire tribus et pulpita dignor. Hinc illae lacrimae... 'Spissis indigna theatris scripta pudet recitare et nugis addere pondus,' si dixi: 'Rides' ait, 'et Iouis auribus ista seruas; fidis enim manare poetica mella te solum, tibi pulcher.' Ad haec ego naribus uti formido et, luctantis acuto ne secer ungui, 'Displicet iste locus' clamo et diludia posco. Ludus enim genuit trepidum certamen et iram, ira truces inimicitias et funebre bellum. (32-49)

Him, never before sung by other lips, I, the lyrist of Latium, have made known. It is my joy that I bring things untold before, and am read by the eyes and held in the hands of the gently born. Would you know why the ungrateful reader praises and loves my pieces at home, unjustly decries them abroad? I am not one to hunt for votes of a fickle public and the cost of supper and gifts of worn-out clothes. I am not one who, listening to “noble writers” and taking my revenge, deign to court the tribe of lecturing professors. “Hence those tears.” If I say, “I am ashamed to recite my worthless writings in your crowded halls, and give undue weight to my trifles,” “you are in merry mood,” says one, “and keep your lines for the ears of Jove. Fair in your own eyes are you, and believe that you, and you alone, distill the honey of poesy.” At this I am afraid to turn up a scornful nose, and lest, if he wrestle with me, I be torn by his sharp nails. “The place you choose suites me not,” I cry, and call for a truce in sports. For such sport begets tumultuous strife and wrath, and wrath begets fierce quarrels, and war to the death.67

67 Fairclough (1926) 383-5.

128

The scene Horace describes is indeed one of frustration. However, it is not with the assessment of the Odes' quality but with the imitators who are the subject of this epistle.

Horace declares that his readers praise and love his poetry (laudet ametque, 36). He is speaking from a position of strength and supreme confidence. His poetry has passed the scrutiny of his peers and has made him a model worthy of emulation.68 The actual complaints are petty responses to his aloofness, not evaluations of his poetry. The critics perceive their own marginalization and are jealous. Horace is not being faulted for bad poetry but for failing to attend "all those obligatory meetings of the PMAS, the Poets'

Mutual Admiration Society."69 Horace simply continues to maintain his distance from these people and ends the epistle by refusing to fight. These are not the words of a bitter and scorned poet. Horace has anticipated these words and proudly staked out a position ahead of time: odi profanum vulgus et arceo.70

Additionally, the commission to write the Carmen Saeculare is itself evidence that the Odes were successful. If they were not, Augustus would never have selected him to compose the Saecular Hymn. The ludi saeculares had been carefully considered and painstakingly arranged to reflect the new age dawning with the Augustan Age.71 Such a

68 Kilpatrick (1975) 126.

69 Reckford (2002) 5.

70 Kilpatrick (1975) 127.

71 For more on the historical background of the ludi, see Feeney (1998) 28-38, Beard, North and Price (1998) I.71-2, 111, 201-6, Pighi (1965), Taylor (1934), Nilsson (1920), Fowler (1910), Mommsen (1905). For more on the Augustan context and interpretation of saeculum, see Galinsky (1996) 100-106.

129 defining moment is not the right occasion for the princeps to attempt the rehabilitation of a poet whose most recent work had tanked.

Section 2.2: The Carmen Saeculare

Turning to the Carmen Saeculare, many critics, even those who recognize its importance for Odes 4, have taken their cue from Suetonius, and interpret the ode as "a perfunctory and unfelt response to an official charge, representing a mechanical translation of the three-day festival into verse."72 The poem becomes a target for scholarly condescension due to Horace referencing marriage laws or, his "sad duty" of saying the number one hundred and ten in poetry.73 In this line of reasoning, the Carmen serves as an impetus for Odes 4 by demonstrating the "freedom from ambiguity"

Augustus was looking for in his poetry. The Carmen is seen as Horace's acquiescence to

Augustus, showing the poet amenable to composing similar "straight-forward glorifications," this time of the emperor and his heirs.74

The problems the Carmen has faced stem from the fact that it was a performed poem about whose context we know a great deal. The reader is thus tempted towards extreme choices: either interpret the poem purely as a literary phenomenon, in which case substantial interpretive connections with the ceremonies are lost; or interpret it in the

72 Arnold (1986) 475.

73 Barchiesi (2002) 109-111.

74 Griffin (1984) 206.

130 context of the ceremonies, in which case it becomes a check-list to make sure all the points of the festival are suitably represented. This latter approach was most famously employed by Mommsen following the discovery of the official Acta for Augustus' games.

In 1890, during work on the Tiber embankments, a ramshackle wall was torn down. From the rubble several inscribed blocks emerged containing the record of events for the ludi saeculares celebrated by Augustus in 17 BC.75 Line 149 of the record contained the monumentous words: carmen composuit Q. Horatius Flaccus.76

Immediately upon this discovery, Mommsen delivered a paper in which he used the Acta to analyze the success of the Carmen Saeculare. His obvious standard was how well the poem could be used as a stanzaic version of the Acta. His conclusion was that Horace had failed in his commission.77

The first ludi saeculares had been celebrated in 249 BC during the bitterest phase of the First Punic War.78 Their focus had been directed toward infernal deities and towards the expiation of prodigies.79 The ludi saeculares of 17 BC, are "yet another

75 See above n. 71.

76 For text and commentary of the Acta, see Pighi (1965) 107-130.

77 Mommsen (1905). For evaluations of Mommsen and his approach, see Fraenkel (1957) 369ff, Hijmans (2004).

78 Beard, North and Price (1998) I:71. For the argument that the games may actually date back all the way to 348 BC and Roman anxieties about their relationship with the Latins, see Taylor (1934). For more on Sol in the Carmen Saeculare and its connection to these Latin roots, see Galinsky (1967).

79 Varro quoted by Censorinus De Die Natali. 17.8 recounts: uti Diti patri et Proserpinae ludi Tarentini in campo Martio fierent tribus noctibus et hostiae furvae immolarentur utique ludi centesimo quoque anno fierent.

131 example – on a massive scale – of the Augustan reinvention of early Roman Religion."80

They were still performed "Achivo ritu" as the old ones had been, but they were no longer directed towards infernal deities Dis and Proserpina. Additionally, the Augustan games marked not the close of the old age as much as the birth of the new. Their emphasis, therefore, was directed away from infernal expiation and towards future fertility.81 Also, former ludi had been night-time events. The new ludi added to the noctural rites an additional three ceremonies performed by day involving sacrifices and prayers to Jupiter

Optimus Maximus, to Iuno Regina, and to Apollo and Diana.

The Carmen Saeculare was also one of Augustus' greatest innovations.82 The

Acta are very specific about the role of Horace's poem in the festivities: Sacrifico perfecto pueri XXVII…et puellae totidem carmen cecinerunt; eodem modo in Capitolio

(147). The Carmen did not accompany any of the sacrifices and prayers. It was sung as a capstone to the entire festival when all of the elaborate ceremonies had been completed.

Such a performance in connection with a religious festival, but after the completion of the ceremonies proper, was without precedent in ancient sacred poetry and was indeed revolutionary.83 The Carmen functioned not as an organic and integral part of the sacred ceremonies, but rather standing on the outside, as a reflected "image of the ceremonies in

80 Beard, North and Price (1998) I:72.

81 Feeney (1998) 29, Nilsson (1920) 1716, Beard, North and Price (1998) I.203.

82 For detailed discussion of the various traditions and influences which intersect in the poetry of the Carmen Saeculare, see Putnam (2000a).

83 Fraenkel (1957) 379.

132 the mirror of poetry."84 But the Carmen does more than simply provide a poetic shorthand account of the ceremonies à la Mommsen: it interacts with the proceedings and provides an interpretation of the meaning of the rites and of the new saeculum.85

Horace's divergence from the basic account of the festival given in the Acta does not signal that the poet failed, but rather that the Carmen and the ritual are "not tautologous."86 Horace's goal was not to recount awkwardly in verse the schedule of the ludi, but to find a suitable poetic expression which captured the full force of this once-in- a-lifetime event.

Section 2.3: C.4.6 and the Carmen Saeculare

Odes 4.6 most clearly elucidates the effect the Carmen Saeculare had on Horace.

Though nobody doubts the connection of this ode with the Saecular Hymn, how exactly to interpret the relationship between the two poems has caused some disagreement.

Fraenkel strongly advocates the position that C.4.6 was a prelude of sorts to the Carmen

Saeculare, believing that "in one way or another [the performers] will, before the final performance of the Carmen Saeculare, have become acquainted with this ode, which was obviously designed to please and encourage them."87 In opposition to this view,

84 Fraenkel (1957) 381-2.

85 Barchiesi (2002) 120, Arnold (1986) 475.

86 Feeney (1998) 36.

87Fraenkel (1957) 406 .

133 Hendrickson argues that the poem demonstrates a "tone of confidence, almost of arrogance, as of one looking back upon a great role successfully played...confidence arising from accomplishment." Hence he sees this poem not as a prelude but as a

"retrospective imaginative scene" intended by Horace to claim as his own the hymn which is in fact anonymous and to make it "a record of all that the secular hymn and its performance had meant for his pride and his life as a poet, and to stamp it as his own."88

Still others argue for understanding C.4.6 in terms of its relationship to Pindar's sixth paean.89 Interpretation is further complicated by a disjuncture between the first half of the poem, which constitutes a hymn to Apollo, and the second half, which records performance directions.90 However, when one considers the way in which Horace mentions the Carmen Saeculare in this ode, the question of continuity is resolved and insight is gained into the effect the Carmen had in catapulting Horace into Odes 4.

Critical for our analysis is the final stanza of C.4.6.

Nupta iam dices: 'Ego dis amicum, saeculo festas referente luces, reddidi carmen docilis modorum uatis Horati.' (41-44)

Soon, when wedded, thou shalt boast, “I, trained in the measures of the bard Horatius, joined in rendering the hymn welcome to the gods, what time the cycle brought ‘round again the festal days.”91

88 Hendrickson (1953). See also Syndikus (1972) I.337. Contra: see Kiessling and Heinze (1955) I.419ff.

89 Hardie (1998).

90 cf. Fraenkel (1957) 400: "The modern reader may be tempted to think that the first six stanzas of ode iv.6, fine though they are in themselves, have little to do with the concluding part in which the poet's individual experience is directly and forcefully expressed."

91 Bennett (1914) 309. 134

This poem ends with the only occurrence in the Odes where Horace mentions his own name.92 It is surely significant that the poet chooses to name himself in connection with his composition of the Carmen Saeculare. Some argue that this was done out of practical concern, because the Carmen Saeculare nowhere names its author. C.4.6 serves to claim the Carmen Saeculare as one of Horace's works.93 The fact that the Acta clearly list

Horace as the composer of the hymn argues against this being the primary motivation for

Horace to include his name here.

This ode shows that Horace was extremely proud of his role in the ludi saeculares. "The Carmen Saeculare is his only work to which Horace ever refers directly in his other poetry, and there can be no doubt that, in his mind at least, it was one of his most important and successful compositions."94 The hymn he composed expanded the horizon of his poetry and opened up new directions for him. Specifically, it underscored the power poetry possessed to stand outside events in order to mirror them and perpetuate them. The ludi lasted three days. His hymn had taken only a matter of minutes to perform. Once the games were over, they were never to be seen again in the lifetime of those present. To immortalize the event, the Acta had been produced listing precisely what had been done, when, where, and by whom. The final line of C.4.6

92 Lefèvre (1993) 275. Throughout his corpus his name rarely appears. His nomen appears in Ep. 1.14.5. . He is addressed as Quinte at Sat. 2.6.37.

93 Hendrickson (1953) 75.

94 Hijmans (2004) 203-204.

135 clearly alludes to the inclusion of Horace's name in the Acta: carmen composuit Q.

Horatius Flaccus. In alluding to these lines, Horace is reinscribing them in the medium of poetry, thus proclaiming the superiority of his chosen medium.95 The Acta records the events so that those who come later are able to remember what happened. Horace has composed an ode which both references the Carmen Saeculare, and also in some senses recreates it. 96 The ode does more than repeat the poetic themes of the Saecular Hymn: it also attempts to translate into poetry the powerful transformative experience its performance had been for both the chorus and its composer.97 It invites the readers not just to remember the ludi but also to relive it and enter into the experience themselves.

This poem, therefore, demonstrates that the Carmen Saeculare was the singular poetic triumph98 which pushed Horace to expand the boundaries of his poetry. Horace had shown in Odes 1-3, and specifically in C.3.30, lyric's power to mirror public life within the private sphere. C.4.6 shows that the Carmen Saeculare was instrumental in directing Horace's vision for his lyric outward. The Carmen Saeculare had given him the opportunity to compose a significant, publicly performed poem which served as a capstone and mirror of the preceding celebration. Such an expansion of the role of poetry drove Horace to a reinterpretation of his earlier lyric.

95 Feeney (1998) 37 n.82.

96 Cairns (1971) 444.

97 cf. Lefèvre (1993) 275. Lefèvre calls c.4.6 Horace's personal Carmen Saeculare (Horaz' persönliches Säkularlied).

98 Hills (2001) 616.

136 Chapter 4: Horace’s Poetic Mausoleum

Horace builds his poetic monument to Augustus in three phases. First, he lays the foundation by connecting it with his earlier lyric and by conceptualizing it in terms of monumentality. Second, he forms the brick and mortar of his poetic mausoleum through a sustained meditation on the passage of time, the finality of death, and the power of poetry. Finally, Horace connects his own poetic monument to Augustus' by employing throughout Odes 4 many of the themes Augustus incorporated into his Mausoleum.

Among the various evocations of the Mausoleum, five emerge as most significant in

Horace's poetic mimesis: first, the mausoleum's declaration of Augustus's commitment to

Rome and Italy; second, the mausoleum's function as a Republican family tomb; third, the mausoleum's anticipation of Augustus's apotheosis; fourth, the mausoleum's celebration of Augustus's triumph; and fifth, the mausoleum's role in Augustus's plan for

Rome as a world city.

Section 1: The Foundation: The Monumentality of Horace’s Earlier Lyric

Horace lays the foundation for his literary Mausoleum by connecting it with his previous lyric and by conceptualizing his poetry in monumental terms. The first words of

Odes 4 are not just inaugurating but resumptive. Horace doesn’t just begin a new collection of odes but rather connects his new poetry with his previous work through the

137 image of love as war. “It is obvious, but often overlooked, that the most important poems for Odes IV are Odes I-III.”1

Intermissa, Venus, diu rursus bella moues? (C.4.1.1-2)

Venus, do you again instigate wars long interrupted?

These references to love and war harken back to Horace’s earlier collection and the poems in which he sings of convivia and proelia virginum (C.1.6.17ff).2 Of specific interest is C.3.26:

Vixi puellis nuper idoneus et militaui non sine gloria; nunc arma defunctumque bello barbiton hic paries habebit,

laevum marinae qui Veneris latus custodit. Hic, hic ponite lucida funalia et uectis et arcus oppositis foribus minacis.

O quae beatum diua tenes Cyprum et Memphin carentem Sithonia niue regina, sublimi flagello tange Chloen semel arrogantem. (C.3.26)

Until recently I lived suited for the girls, and I served not without glory. Now this wall that guards the left side of sea-born Venus shall have my arms and the lyre finished with wars. Here, here place the glowing torches and the bars and the bows threatening opposing doors. O goddess queen, you who hold blessed Cyprus and Memphis, free from Thracian snows, touch once the arrogant Chloe with your uplifted lash.

1 Johnson (2004) 5.

2 Kiessling and Heinze (1955), Lefèvre (1968), Bradshaw (1970), Wickham (1896).

138 In this short ode, Horace declares his retirement from love. More than that, this poem can also be read as his retirement from lyric as well. First, by including his barbitos among the dedications, Horace expands the scope of his retirement to include his poetry.3

On this ode the commentator Porphyry states: videtur iam renuntiare carminibus et lyram consecrare et amara desinere.4 Second, the poem occurs near the end of the collection and therefore serves as a symbolic conclusion to the work. The first words of Odes 4 resume this trope by phrasing Horace’s return to lyric in terms similar to those he used to announce his retirement. Horace, therefore, positions his new collection as a continuation of the old.

Another component of C.4.1 that has been seen as symbolizing the relationship between Odes 4 and the earlier lyric is the Ligurinus stanzas at the end of C.4.1. It has been noted that the final stanzas of C.4.1 do not seem to be needed. Remove them and the poem still makes perfect sense. These stanzas are to C.4.1 what Odes 4 are to Odes

1-3: "a coda … appended to something complete in itself.”5

Horace continues to connect Odes 4 with his earlier lyric in C.4.3, a poem that both summarizes the poet's earlier lyric victories and expresses them in monumental terms. The common assumption is that C.4.3 speaks only of the successes Horace experienced after the Carmen Saeculare.6 This however, is rooted in the notion that Odes

3 Nisbet and Rudd (2004) 311.

4 Holder (1894) ad loc.

5 Oliensis (1998) 120.

6 See especially Putnam (2000a) 9. 139 1-3 was poorly received. If one sets this assumption aside for a moment, as I argued in a previous chapter, one sees in C.4.3 a host of references looking back to Horace's entire earlier lyric corpus.

The first and most obvious link to the earlier work is in the dedicatee. 4.3 and

3.30 are are the only two poems dedicated to the muse Melpomene. Melpomene is mentioned at the beginning of C.1.24, a dirge written upon the death of Quintilius. The poem, however, is addressed to the poet Vergil consoling him on the loss of their friend.

Therefore, C.4.3’s dedication to Melpomene is best understood as a reference to the final ode of Horace’s earlier lyric.

C.4.3 also mimics aspects of C.1.1 by beginning with a priamel that contrasts the life of the poet with other vocations:7

Quem tu, Melpomene, semel nascentem placido lumine uideris, illum non labor Isthmius clarabit pugilem, non equus impiger

curru ducet Achaico uictorem, neque res bellica Deliis ornatum foliis ducem, quod regum tumidas contuderit minas,

ostendet Capitoli. (C.4.3.1-9)

Him, whom you, Melpomene, have once looked upon with peaceful eye at his birth, him no Isthmian toil will make a famous boxer, no swift steed will draw as victor in Achaean car, nor will martial deeds show him to the Capitol, a general decorated with Delian laurel, because he crushed the proud threats of kings.

7 Estévez (1982) 281, Becker (1963) 178-182, Syndikus (1972) II.312, Fraenkel (1957) 407-8, Kiessling and Heinze (1955) ad loc.

140 C.3.30 is also called to mind in line 12 by the reference to Aeolian songs:

sed quae Tibur aquae fertile praefluunt et spissae nemorum comae fingent Aeolio carmine nobilem. (C.4.3.10-12)

But the waters which flow past fertile Tibur and the dense leafage of the groves will make him famous for Aeolian song.

Aelium carmen is how Horace describes the earlier poetry of Odes 1-3 in which he triumphed:

Dicar, qua uiolens obstrepit Aufidus et qua pauper aquae Daunus agrestium regnauit populorum, ex humili potens princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos deduxisse modos. (C.3.30.10-14)

Where wild Aufidus thunders and where Daunus, poor in water, has ruled a rustic people, I, powerful from humble origin, will be called the first to have led Aeolian songs to Italian measures.

Similarly, the prophesy at the end of C.1.1 (Quod si me lyricis uatibus inseres, / sublimi feriam sidera uertice) finds fulfillment in Horace’s statement of his newfound role in

C.4.3: 8

Romae principis urbium dignatur suboles inter amabilis uatum ponere me choros, et iam dente minus mordeor inuido. (C.4.3.13-16)

The children of Rome, princeps of cities, think it fit to place me among the pleasant choirs of poets; and now I am bitten less by envy’s tooth.

8 Becker (1963) 181, Fraenkel (1957) 408.

141 The use of the word princeps in line 14 can also be seen as looking back to C.3.30 and his use of the same phrase to apply to himself. Though some consider the Carmen

Saeculare "palpably absent"9 from this ode, Horace does reference the hymn through mention of children (suboles) and the chorus (choros), which both look back to a time when Horace himself chose a chorus of children to sing the Carmen Saeculare.10

Moreover, the concluding lines of this poem, quod spiro…tuum est (4.3.24), make reference to C.4.6.29 – spiritum phoebus mihi…dedit – and by extension to the Saecular

Hymn.11 Even the reference to escaping the envious bite of his critics looks back to

C.2.20, which opens with the following stanza:12

Non usitata nec tenui ferar penna biformis per liquidum aethera uates neque in terris morabor longius inuidiaque maior

urbis relinquam. (C.2.20.1-5)

On no common or thin wing, will I, a double-formed poet, soar through the liquid air, nor will I delay longer on earth, but greater than envy I will leave behind the cities.

C.4.3, therefore, turns out to be a synopsis of sorts chronicling through allusion and reference Horace's earlier lyric career. The major milestones are remembered from

9 Oliensis (1998) 226.

10 Though most connect suboles to the chorus which sang the Carmen Saeculare, some consider it a reference to the Roman people. See Lambinus (1561) ad loc.: per Romae subolem populum Romanum significari puto.

11 Fraenkel (1957) 410 n.1. See also Hendrickson (1953) 74.

12 Becker (1963) 182.

142 C.1.1's priamel and prophesy and C.3.30's triumph to the crowning achievement of the

Carmen Saeculare. In C.4.3, Horace remembers and by remembering lays these works down as a foundation for the book he is writing. C.4.3 is the compression of his earlier lyric career into a single poem. Through references to C1.1, 2.20, 3.30, and the Carmen

Saeculare, Horace is able to demonstrate that what he is doing in Odes 4 is the continuation and culmination of his lyric career.13

By ending the first section of C.4.3 with a reference to C.2.20, the poem in which

Horace metamorphoses into a swan, Horace prepares the way for another metamorphosis at the end of this poem that will serve as a model for the poetry of Odes 4. The expectation of a metamorphosis is heightened by the penultimate stanza, which refers specifically to the swan of C.2.20:

O testudinis aureae dulcem quae strepitum, Pieri, temperas, o mutis quoque piscibus donatura cycni, si libeat, sonum (C.4.3.17-20)

O Pierian maid, you who temper the sweet noise of the golden shell; O you who, if it should please you, could give the sound of a swan to mute fishes.

Such wordplay prepares the way for a metamorphosis in the final stanza:

totum muneris hoc tui est, quod monstror digito praetereuntium Romanae fidicen lyrae; quod spiro et placeo, si placeo, tuum est. (C.4.3.21-24)

13 Becker (1963) 184. For more on the similarities between this ode, C.1.1, and C.3.30, see Estévez (1982) 281, Becker (1963) 175ff, Maurach (2001) 415-417.

143 This is your whole gift, that I am pointed out by the finger of those passing by as the minstrel of the Roman lyre. That I breathe, and that I please, if I please, is all your gift.

In C.2.20, Horace describes his metamorphosis into a swan, a symbol of Pindar and the

Greek poetry he has triumphantly translated into Latin. In C.4.3 Horace presents himself transformed again but this time into a living, breathing statue, a symbol of the relationship between physical and literary worlds and of the monumental poetry he is writing.

Horace has prepared the way for this by showing a similar sentient statue earlier in Book 4. In C.4.1, Horace describes the service Paulus will render to Venus:

Albanos prope te lacus ponet marmoream sub trabe citrea.

Illic plurima naribus duces tura, lyraque et Berecyntia delectabere tibiae mixtis carminibus non sine fistula;

illic bis pueri die numen cum teneris uirginibus tuum laudantes pede candido in morem Salium ter quatient humum. (C.4.1.19-27)

Near the Alban lakes he will set you up as a marble statue beneath a roof of citron wood. There you will inhale much incense, and you will delight in the mixed songs of the tibia not without the pipes. There twice each day boys, with tender maidens tender, praising your divinity, will beat the ground three times with white feet, in the manner of the Salii.

Horace here paints a picture of the goddess Venus being set up as a marble statue in a temple by the Alban lake. Though a statue, she is still sentient, able to experience the

144 devotion of her worshippers, including smelling their offerings.14 This image of the sentient statue of Venus becomes an icon of how the poetry of this book is to be considered.

When Horace says in C.4.3.13-15 that the children of Rome have placed him among the chorus of poets (inter amabilis uatum ponere me choros), the image is similar to the one expressed in C.4.1. The verb ponere is used in Horace frequently to mean not just "to place" but "to represent as a statue."15 The verb used to describe the work of

Paulus in the passage discussed above from C.4.1 is ponet. In C.4.8, Horace again uses ponere to describe the work of artists rendering the human or divine form in their medium:

Donarem pateras grataque commodus, Censorine, meis aera sodalibus, donarem tripodas, praemia fortium Graiorum neque tu pessuma munerum ferres, diuite me scilicet artium quas aut Parrhasius protulit aut Scopas, hic saxo, liquidis ille coloribus sollers nunc hominem ponere, nunc deum. (C.4.8.1-8)

I, generous to my friends, would give bowls and welcome bronzes, Censorinus, and I would give tripods, the rewards of brave Greeks; nor would you bear off the lowest of gifts, were I but rich, that is, in the arts which Parrhasius produced, or Scopas – skillful, this one in marble, that one in liquid colors, to depict now a man, now a god.

In the Ars Poetica, Horace again uses the verb ponere to describe the sculptor's craft:

14 Hardie (1993) 131.

15 Hardie (1993) 133, 138 n.44.

145 In uitium ducit culpae fuga, si caret arte. Aemilium circa ludum faber imus et unguis exprimet et mollis imitabitur aere capillos, infelix operis summa, quia ponere totum nesciet. (31-35)

The avoidance of blame leads to fault, if it lacks art. Near the Aemilian School, a low craftsman will mold nails and imitate soft hair in bronze, but unhappy at the sum of his work, because he will not know how to erect the whole figure.

All of this prepares the way for a complete understanding of the image with which

Horace concludes C.4.3:

totum muneris hoc tui est, quod monstror digito praetereuntium Romanae fidicen lyrae; quod spiro et placeo, si placeo, tuum est. (C.4.3.21-24)

This is your whole gift, that I am pointed out by the finger of those passing by as the minstrel of the Roman lyre. That I breathe, and that I please, if I please, is all your gift.

Horace finds himself the focus of public attention. The reference to 'being pointed at" as well as the mention of “passers-by” emphasize those who point, rather than the man pointed at. It may suggest the common epigrammatic conceit of the address by the object, the tombstone or statue, to the passer-by.16 Additionally, Horace uses the word spiro not just to mean "inspire" but also simply "to breath." 17 Spiro and spiritum are used by Horace two other times in C.4 to express "the power of art to create the illusion

16 Hardie (1993) 133. cf. Oliensis (1998) 226-7.

17 Camps (1973) 144-5.

146 of life."18 In C.4.8, Horace uses the term spiritus alongside vita to describe the gift given to the departed:

Non incisa notis marmora publicis, per quae spiritus et uita redit bonis post mortem ducibus (C.4.8.13-15)

It is not marble ingraved with public inscriptions, through which breath and life return to good generals after death.

In C.4.9, Horace uses the verb spirat alongside vivunt to describe the ability of poetry in bringing life:

spirat adhuc amor uiuuntque commissi calores Aeoliae fidibus puellae. (C.4.9.10-12)

the love still breathes and the passion of the Aeolian girl lives, having been entrusted to the lyre.

In both places, spiro/spiritum suggests the life-giving power poetry is able to contribute to those it takes as its subject. In C.4.3, therefore, Horace is claiming that through his poetry, he has succeeded in making a statue out of himself. His previous lyric constitutes a monument to himself.

Horace, therefore, has laid the foundations for this new collection of poetry, which is to function as a poetic mausoleum of Augustus, by establishing it upon two ideas. First, he connects it with his earlier lyric. To understand Odes 4, it must be read in the light of the lyric he has already written. What he accomplished for himself through his earlier work, Horace will now attempt for another. Second, Horace develops in Odes

18 Hardie (1993) 138 n.47.

147 4 the concept of poetry’s monumentality by presenting himself metamorphosed into a sentient statue reminding the reader of C.3.30 and his view of his earlier lyric as a monument to himself.

Section 2: Brick and Mortar: Death and Poetry

The combined themes of the passing of time and the power of poetry constitute the brick and mortar of Horace’s poetic Mausoleum. Throughout the book Horace intermingles images of the passing of time and death’s finality with his own meditations on the power of poetry to immortalize and on what the nature of that immortality is.

What emerges is a juxtaposition of seeming opposites similar to the Mausoleum, which simultaneously marks the place of burial and proclaims its occupant to be immortal.

Horace both exalts the superior power poetry has in comparison to other media to bestow immortality and at the same time emphasizes that this immortality is bestowed upon those whose lives have or will one day come to an end.

The opening stanzas of C.4.1 begin Horace’s meditation through the book on the passing of time:

Intermissa, Venus, diu rursus bella moues? Parce precor, precor. Non sum qualis eram bonae sub regno Cinarae. Desine, dulcium

mater saeva Cupidinum, circa lustra decem flectere mollibus iam durum imperiis: abi, quo blandae iuuenum te reuocant preces. (C.4.1.1-8)

148 Venus, do you again instigate wars long interrupted? Be merciful, I pray, I pray! I am not as I was under the rule of good Cinara. O savage mother of sweet Cupids, cease to bend, one now callous after ten lustra to thy soft commands! Go away rather to the place where the soothing prayers of youth recall you.

His plea to Venus to be left alone is grounded in his age. His fifty years have made him durum. The reign of Cinara stands in this passage as a recollection of “the bygones days of his youth.”19 Though Cinara is not mentioned in the Odes before C.4,20 it is arguable that she is to be connected with the Glycera of Horace’s earlier lyric.21 C.4.1.5 – Mater saeva Cupidinum – is an exact match for the opening for C.1.19, a poem about Horace’s pursuit of Glycera:

Mater saeua Cupidinum Thebanaeque iubet me Semelae puer et lasciua Licentia finitis animum reddere amoribus.

Urit me Glycerae nitor splendentis Pario marmore purius; urit grata proteruitas et uoltus nimium lubricus aspici. (C.1.19.1-8)

The savage mother Cupids and the son of Theban Semele and sportive Wantoness order me to return my soul to ended loves. The brilliance of Glycera, more dazzling that Parian marble, consumes me; her pleasing boldness and her face excessively dangerous to look at consumes me.

19 Fraenkel (1957) 411. See also Williams (1962) 42, Bradshaw (1970) 145, Porter (1975) 190.

20 Cinara is mentioned twice in Epistles 1 (7.25 and 14.32). In each case, she is a symbol of Horace’s departed youth.

21 C.1.19.5, C.1.30.3, C.1.33.2, C.3.19.28

149 Cinara makes another appearance in C.4.13, where she is contrasted with another woman who is trying to conceal the physical effects time has had on her. The poem ends with the following comparison:

Quo fugit Venus, heu, quoue color, decens quo motus? Quid habes illius, illius, quae spirabat amores, quae me surpuerat mihi,

felix post Cinaram notaque et artium gratarum facies? Sed Cinarae breuis annos fata dederunt, seruatura diu parem

cornicis uetulae temporibus Lycen, possent ut iuuenes uisere feruidi multo non sine risu dilapsam in cineres facem. (17-28)

Where has Venus fled, alas, or where has your complexion fled? Where your graceful movement? What do you have of her, of her, who breathed loves, who stole me from myself, happy after Cinara and once famous for beauty and for pleasing arts? The Fates gave to Cinara brief years, intending to preserve for a while Lyce equal in age to the ancient crow, so that ardent youths are able to see, not without much laughter, a torch reduced to ashes.

Here, Horace compares Cinara, who evidently died young, with Lyce, who endures into old age. Of note is the way that Horace unites the concepts of death and immortality.

Because Cinara died before she could age, she stands as an eternal symbol of youth and beauty. She has been immortalized by her death. The opposite is the case for Lyce. Her

150 long life has made her the equal not of Cinara but of cineres (ash).22 This juxtaposition between the immortal dead and the decaying living will continue through the book.

The concluding stanzas of C.4.1 have also been interpreted as references to

Horace’s bygone youth:

me nec femina nec puer iam nec spes animi credula mutui nec certare iuuat mero nec uincire nouis tempora floribus.

Sed cur heu, Ligurine, cur manat rara meas lacrima per genas? Cur facunda parum decoro inter uerba cadit lingua silentio?

Nocturnis ego somniis iam captum teneo, iam uolucrem sequor te per gramina Martii campi, te per aquas, dure, uolubilis. (C.4.1.29-40)

Me neither woman nor boy nor the credulous hope of a kindred spirit delights me now, nor to battle with wine, nor to bind my temples with new flowers. But why, O Ligurinus, why does a rare tear still trickle down my cheeks? Why does my eloquent tongue fall among words with unbecoming silence? In nocturnal dreams, I now hold you captured, now follow you, a bird, through the grass of the Campus Martius, now through the rolling waves, O hard-hearted one.

After having forsworn future escapades, Horace ends the poem pursuing fleeing

Ligurinus across the Campus Martius. It has been argued that since this type of homosexual attachment would be condoned only in a young man, who might naturally pass through this stage but would be expected to outgrow it, the “desperate poignancy” of

22 Johnson (2004) 179.

151 this ode is not primarily the poet longing for another but for himself as a young man.

They express, “with haunting sadness,” the poet’s desire for what he once possessed but could not now recapture except in dreams – not really Ligurinus but his own lost youth.23

Taken in this way, these lines respond to the recusatio a few stanzas earlier. He had used his age to excuse himself from the harsh commands of Venus. Now he longs for his youth, and the power associated with it that would enable him to compose lyric pleasing to the goddess.

On the heels of C.4.1, which focuses on the passing of time, Horace moves into a discussion of his poetry:

Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari, Iulle, ceratis ope Daedalea nititur pinnis, uitreo daturus nomina ponto. (C.4.2.1-4)

Whoever strives, Iulus, to rival Pindar, relies on wings waxed with Daedalean craft, and is about to give his name to a glassy sea.

The references to wings (pinnis) and water (ponto) connect the opening of this poem with the volucrem and aquas which end C.4.1. In this poem, however, Horace focuses not on the passing of time but on the nature of his poetry. The image used to convey the point that those who seek to rival Pindar are doomed to failure is one of death and memorialization. Icarus, though dead, is remembered because his name is attached to the sea into which he plummeted. Through this allusion, Horace is able to explain the type of

23 Bradshaw (1970) 151-3. For Ligurinus as imaginary, see Kiessling and Heinze (1955) ad loc. For Ligurinus as real, see Wili (1948), Wilkinson (1946) 51-3. For Ligurinus as an “emblem of the speaker himself, something he wants to be or remain, but cannot,” see Putnam (1986) 45-7.

152 immortality poetry confers. Icarus has derivative immortality because he has given his name to the vitreo ponto, a thing "arresting yet colorless…transparent and therefore insubstantial."24 The immortality Icarus acquires does him little good. His death is final.

Poetry can offer immortality, but it is of a type that does the recipient little good.

Death appears again at the end of the ode. The poem closes with a description of each poet's sacrifice:

te decem tauri totidemque vaccae, me tener solvet vitulus, relicta matre qui largis iuvenescit herbis in mea vota,

fronte curvatos imitatus ignis tertium lunae referentis ortum, qua notam duxit, niveus videri, cetera fulvus. (C.4.2.53-60)

Ten bulls and as many cows will release you; me a tender calf, which, having left its mother, is growing on the generous pastures to fulfill my vow, imitating on its brow the curving fire of the moon bringing back its third rising, snow-white to be seen where it bears the mark, but elsewhere tawny.

The “sacrificial vignette … subtly incarnates (and resumes) substantive points in the preceding stanzas.”25 One of the points this passage resumes is death. The calf serves as a further example of the relationship between poetry and death. Though the tender calf is to be sacrificed, in the ode the sacrifice has not yet occurred. The calf is immortalized, frozen in this one lyric moment, forever recently taken from his mother, forever growing

24 Putnam (1986) 52. For a more favorable reading of this passage in which Horace is at least assured of his own immortality, see Lowrie (1997) 213.

25 Davis (1991) 133.

153 fat on the generous pasture. In fact, as Putnam points out, the poem causes the calf to grow young (iuvenescit) rather than old.26 The calf demonstrates again the type of immortality that poetry offers. We perceive the calf enduring and forever growing young. The calf, however, is to be sacrificed. Its immortality is connected with its death.

C.4.7-9 constitute a triptych in the middle of the book in which Horace presents a sustained poetic meditation on the finality of death, the power of poetry, and the nature of what it confers.

Horace dedicates C.4.7 entirely to describing the hopeless "bleakness" of mortals before the raw fact of death’s finality and inescapability.27 Though such contemplation is not absent from Horace’s earlier work (cf. C.1.4),28 in C.4.7 ideas that had formed the background of earlier poems now become the centerpiece.29

In remarking on the renewal of the seasons Horace also points to the lesson we are to learn from it:

immortalia ne speres, monet annus et almum quae rapit hora diem (C.4.7.7-8)

The year and the hour, which seizes the nourishing day, warn you not to hope for immortal things.

26 Putnam (1986) 61.

27 Commager (1967) 280.

28 On the connection between C.4.7 and C.1.4 (Solvitur acris hiems), see Fraenkel (1957) 419ff, Woodman (1972) 752-778, Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) ad loc, Commager (1967) 277-281, Becker (1963) 147-158, Quinn (1963) 14-28.

29 Fraenkel (1957) 420.

154 The repetitive cycle of the seasons reminds us that we do not have the same ability. “The seasons come round again; we enjoy only one cycle, there is no rebirth, only pulvis et umbra."30 But the meditation on spring is just the “preliminary scaffolding” for Horace’s meditation on death.31 The passing of time reminds us that, while nature restores herself in cycles, humans are not afforded the same opportunity:

damna tamen celeres reparant caelestia lunae: nos ubi decidimus, quo pater Aeneas, quo Tullus dives et Ancus, pulvis et umbra sumus. (C.4.7.13-16)

Yet swift moons repair their celestial losses. We, when we have descended to the place where righteous Aeneas, where rich Tullus and Ancus have gone, we are dust and shadow.

The image of the moon’s restoration is similar to a Catullan image but with a different emphasis. In his fifth poem, Catullus incorporates the image of the sun’s demise and return into his plea to Lesbia:

Vivamus mea Lesbia, atque amemus, rumoresque senum severiorum omnes unius aestimemus assis! soles occidere et redire possunt: nobis cum semel occidit brevis lux, nox est perpetua una dormienda. da mi basia mille, deinde centum (Catullus 5.1-7)

Let us live, my Lesbia, and let us love, and let us consider all the rumors of more severe old men worth one cent. Suns are able to die and to return. For us, when once the brief light has died, one perpetual night must be slept through. Give to me a thousand kisses, and then a hundred…

30 Dyer (1965) 82.

31 Davis (1991) 155.

155

Horace and Catullus proceed along similar paths from celestial renewal to cognizance of our own inability to be renewed. After that, the poets diverge. Catullus’s momentary philosophizing moves on quickly to encourage distraction from this depressing reality by reveling in love. Horace sustains his meditation throughout the poem and demands that we look unflinchingly at the painful truth and grapple with how to respond.32 Even the founders of Rome could not escape death. Piety and wealth mean nothing in the face of it. Here we see Horace, again, qualifying the power of poetry to immortalize. Surely

Aeneas, through Virgil's epic, has been granted as much immortality as poetry can bestow; yet Horace considers even him to be shadows and dust.33 Horace goes on to warn Torquatus that if these great founders of Rome were powerless in the face of the inevitable, he should not expect more:

cum semel occideris et de te splendida Minos fecerit arbitria, non, Torquate, genus, non te facundia, non te restituet pietas (C.4.7. 21-24)

When once you will have died and Minos will have made his splendid judgement, not family, Torquatus, nor eloquence, nor piety, will restore you.

To emphasize further the hopelessness of the deceased, Horace concludes the poem by saying that even the gods themselves are unable to loose the bonds of death:

32 Putnam (2006a) 21-22. For more on the connections between C.4.7 and Catullus, see Putnam (2006a) 19-23, Becker (1963) 151, Putnam (1986) 141-2. For the connections between C.4.7 and Greek poetry, see Barchiesi (1996), Sider (1996).

33 Johnson (2004) 73, Lyne (1995) 207, Putnam (1986) 138.

156 infernis neque enim tenebris Diana pudicum liberat Hippolytum, nec Lethaea valet Theseus abrumpere caro vincula Pirithoo (C.4.7.25-28)

For neither does Diana release chaste Hippolytus from the infernal shades, nor is Theseus strong to break the Lethean chains for his dear Pirithous.

Nothing, not even the love of a divinity nor the friendship of a hero, is able to break the

Lethaea vincula and prevent us from forgetting and being forgotten.34 This notion of friendship that is incapable of overcoming death’s final separation will recur in Horace’s invitation to Vergil in C.4.12.

In counterpoint to the previous ode’s description of death's suffocating grip, C.4.8 offers poetry as able to supply that which nature denies. This ode espouses the twin ideas that only poetry has the ability to survive the ravages of time and death,35 and that through a poet's praise alone can anyone be granted immortality.36 But poetry is still limited. Closer reading will reveal the way in which Horace has continued to define the power and limits of his poetry.

The meter in which the poem is written is the first clue that the ideas expressed in this ode are important in understanding Horace's teleology. Horace, in C.4.8, employs the First Asclepiadean, a meter used in only two other odes: 1.1 and 3.30. C.4.8 is thus linked metrically to poems that are important for understanding Horace's poetic

34 Putnam (2006b) 403, Porter (1987a) 105, Dyer (1965) 83.

35 Porter (1975) 192.

36 Fraenkel (1957) 421.

157 program.37 In addition to meter, C.4.8 is connected thematically with C.1.1 through the shared theme of the choice of the profession of poet, and with C.3.30 in the claim of poetry to be a superior medium for immortalization.38 Though this type of poem is necessary for the understanding of the book, Horace places it, not at the beginning or end, but in the middle, hidden enough not to divert attention away from Augustus, but prominent enough to allow readers to appreciate the importance of the poem for understanding the book's purpose.39

After remarking in the beginning of C.4.8 that he would give libation bowls or tripods as gifts were his talent not poetry, Horace continues his priamel by also rejecting sculpture in favor of poetry. Horace then compares poetry with public inscriptions:

Non incisa notis marmora publicis, per quae spiritus et vita redit bonis post mortem ducibus, non celeres fugae reiectaeque retrorsum Hannibalis minae, non incendia Carthaginis impiae eius, qui domita nomen ab Africa lucratus rediit, clarius indicant laudes quam Calabrae Pierides; neque si chartae sileant quod bene feceris, mercedem tuleris. (C.4.8.13-22)

Not marble ingraved with public inscriptions, through which breath and life return to good generals after death, nor the swift flight of Hannibal and his threats thrown back on himself, nor the burning of wicked Carthage, declare more gloriously the praises of him who returned, having won a name from conquered Africa, than do the Calabrian Muses; nor would you

37 For the reasons this meter is suited for a declaration of programatic ideas, see Putnam (1986) 149.

38 Hardie (1993) 133.

39 Harrison (2004).

158 carry away a reward, if the pages are silent about what you have done well.

Horace declares that the public monuments do not recount the heroic deeds of

Scipio Africanus better than Ennius. 40 In poetry lies the true power to immortalize. The terminology used here is similar specifically to the language of tomb inscriptions.41 In this context, the Horatian passage can be seen as interacting with the inscriptions on the

Scipionic tomb. The lines therefore constitute a natural train of thought. “The thought sequence is this: the tomb inscriptions (written by Ennius) would not have been enough to immortalize Scipio, nor would his deeds by themselves have been sufficient. Only by a combination of these two, Scipio’s facta, glorified by the Calabrae Pierides, could this goal be accomplished.”42

Poetry’s ability to confer immortality, however, is qualified as it has been throughout the book. When considering the poem's addressee, one realizes that “the

40 An error exists in the passage above in which the exploits of the elder Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal in 202 BC and was the subject of Ennius' poetry, are combined with those of the younger Scipio Africanus, who burned Carthage in 146 BC, well after Ennius' death. Many editors remove line 17, refusing to believe that Horace was capable of such a glaring error. Some, instead of excising the lines, suggest that commentators should consider the “mistake” intentional. The removal of these lines also helps solve the enigma this poem causes by its line total being indivisible by four, the only ode of Horace to break the so called Lex Meinekiana. Various critics have spent time tracking down missing lines or eliminating existing ones in an attempt to bring the line total to a more mathematically satisfactory sum. For analysis of these textual issues and a particularly convincing argument for excising this line, see Harrison (1990) esp. 38-40 For various opinions on which lines need to be removed see Dornseiff (1942) 166-71, Becker (1959) 212-222, Stiehl (1955-57) 433-441. For arguments in favor of keeping the poem as handed down, see Porter (1986). For those accepting the mistake as intentional and what they make of it, see Commager (1967) 319, Wickham (1896) ad loc.

41 Kiessling and Heinze (1955) ad loc. See also Cicero, Phil. 14.33 and Livy 6.29.9.

42 Galinsky (1966) 229.

159 poem itself does not contain praise, but rather the assertion of poetry's power to praise."43

For this reason, C.4.8 should not be looked on as a singular poem focused primarily on praising Censorinus. The ode in this respect is a failure. Nothing but Censorinus's name has been immortalized. 44 From the poem we learn nothing about Censorinus’s life or what he has done to merit praise. In fact, it is not certain which Censorinus is being praised in this poem: Lucius Marcius Censorinus, praetor in 43 BC and consul in 39 BC; or his son, Gaius Marcius Censorinus, consul in 8 BC, the year of Horace's death.45 It is only with the help of additional prosopographical information that scholars are able, with some difficulty, to argue for either candidate as this ode's addressee. If Horace's prime motivation had been to write a poem that would immortalize Censorinus and his accomplishments for the coming ages, he has obviously failed. It is better to understand the poem as centrally concerned with proclaiming poetry's power without actually employing it at that time in the service of the addressee. This poem is theoretical, discussing rather than demonstrating what poetry is capable of.

The poem closes with the claim that poetry is responsible even for the immortality of certain heroes and divinities:

Quid foret Iliae Mavortisque puer, si taciturnitas obstaret meritis invida Romuli? Ereptum Stygiis fluctibus Aeacum virtus et favor et lingua potentium

43 Lowrie (1997) 76.

44 Putnam (1986) 154.

45 Harrison (1990) 32-33.

160 vatum divitibus consecrat insulis. dignum laude virum Musa vetat mori: caelo Musa beat. Sic Iovis interest optatis epulis impiger Hercules, clarum Tyndaridae sidus ab infimis quassas eripiunt aequoribus ratis, ornatus viridi tempora pampino Liber vota bonos ducit ad exitus. (C.4.8.22-34)

What would the son of Ilia and Mars be, if jealous silence opposed the merits of Romulus? The virtue, favor, and tongue of powerful poets consecrates Aeacus, rescued from the Stygian waves, on the Isles of the Blessed. The Muse forbids the man worthy of praise to die. The Muse exalts him to heaven. Thus tireless Hercules is present at the hoped-for banquets of Jove. And the sons of Tyndareus, a famous star, rescue shaken ships from the sea's abyss, and Liber, his temples decked with green leaves, brings vows to happy end.

The mention of Hercules, Castor, Pollux, Bacchus and Aeacus makes reference to C.3.3, where the same cast of gods appears alongside Augustus, who has been replaced, in

C.4.8, by Aeacus:

hac arte Pollux et vagus Hercules enisus arces attigit igneas quos inter Augustus recumbens purpureo bibit ore nectar

hac te merentem, Bacche pater, tuae vexere tigres, indocili iugum collo trahentes; hac Quirinus Martis equis Acheronta fugit, (C.3.3.9-16)

By this art Pollux and roving Hercules, having struggled, reached the starry citadels, reclining among whom Augustus drinks nectar with purple lips. By this art, Father Bacchus, that your tigers dragging the yoke on untrained neck bore you worthy. By this art Quirinus fled Acheron on the steeds of Mars.

161 The same image of divinity, admission to the "table of Jove" (C.3.3.12.34-36), is repeated in both poems. The immortality referenced in Ode 3.3, however, is a "full immortality" of the gods. Hercules, Castor, Pollux and Bacchus possess a real and unequivocal immortality based on merit and divine parentage. They exist distinct from poetry or the poet. Horace, in C.4.8, reverses this idea. The immortality of these same gods now hangs on the fiat of the Muse. It is poetry that is responsible for their immortality. But the kind of immortality offered is immortality figuratively speaking….immortality, yes, but through poetry. “Horace, in C.4.8 is saying therefore that the immortality of

Hercules, Castor and Pollux, Bacchus, (and Aeacus) is only a figure of speech."46 By doing so, Horace is able to delineate further the boundaries of his poetry. In the same way that the Mausoleum of Augustus functions both as a funeral monument and as a symbol of immortality, Horace's poetry explores this tension between death and immortality. One stands before the tomb of Augustus and is forced to consider the exact nature of the immortality conferred upon a man whose ashes are housed there. Horace's poetry compels the reader to ponder similar complications. His poetry offers immortality but it does so to men who are or one day will be pulvis et umbra.

Concluding Odes 4’s central triad of poems, Horace continues his meditation on death and the poetic offering in C.4.9:

Ne forte credas interitura, quae longe sonantem natus ad Aufidum non ante vulgatas per artis

46 Lyne (1995) 211.

162 verba loquor socianda chordis:

non, si priores Maeonius tenet sedes Homerus, Pindaricae latent Ceaeque et Alcaei minaces Stesichorive graves Camenae;

nec, si quid olim lusit Anacreon delevit aetas; spirat adhuc amor vivuntque commissi calores Aeoliae fidibus puellae (1-12)

Do not by chance believe that the words will perish, which Iborn near the far-sounding Aufidus spoke to be accompanied by strings, by arts not before made known. If Maeonian Homes holds the first place, the Muses of Pindar and Ceos are not hidden, nor the threats of Alcaeus or the seriousness of Stesichorus; nor if Anacreon formerly bantered anything, has time destroyed it. The love still breathes and the passion of the Aeolian girl lives having been entrusted to the lyre.

Horace at the outset claims immortality for his poetry and fraternity with the other great poets of the past, enlarging his peer group to include epic as well as lyric poets. He further sharpens his view of poetry in the middle section of the poem:

non sola comptos arsit adulteri crinis et aurum vestibus illitum mirata regalisque cultus et comites Helene Lacaena,

primusve Teucer tela Cydonio direxit arcu; non semel Ilios vexata; non pugnavit ingens Idomeneus Sthenelusve solus

dicenda Musis proelia; non ferox Hector vel acer Deiphobus gravis excepit ictus pro pudicis coniugibus puerisque primus.

vixere fortes ante Agamemnona 163 multi; sed omnes illacrimabiles urgentur ignotique longa nocte, carent quia vate sacro

paulum sepultae distat inertiae celata virtus. (13-30)

Spartan Helen was not the only one who burned for the glossy locks of an adulterer and admired the gold embroidered on his garments; nor did Teucer first discharge shafts from a Cretan bow. Not once alone has an Ilium been besieged; nor have great Idomeneus or Sthenelus alone fought battles worthy to be sung by the Muses. Nor were fierce Hector and sharp Deiphobus the first to receive heavy blows for chaste wives and children. Many heroes lived before Agamemnon; but all are pressed by an unending night; unwept, unknown, because they lacked a sacred poet. Hidden virtue differs little from buried sloth.

Here, as in C.4.8, Horace both expands and contracts the power of his poetry. Singling out Homer's work, he says that there were other heroes before those of the Iliad, but no one knows them because they lacked a sacred bard. Once again, Horace juxtaposes the need for poetry with poetry’s limitations. The only difference between the unnamed heroes and Agamemnon is not their present state – they are all dead (urgentur … longa nocte) – but rather that one is remembered and mourned while the others are not.

This meditation is fleshed out by the central issue this ode raises for critics. This poem is dedicated to Lollius. Why is he worthy of praise? From what we know of

Lollius, he led a prominent but less than smooth political life.47 His early career was exceedingly successful: he oversaw the annexation of Galatia, was consul in 21 BC, and proconsul in Macedonia. The bump in the road came in 16 BC. While in Gaul, he was

47 Ancient sources for Lollius: Velleius Paterculus 2.97, 102; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 9.118; Suetonius. Aug.23, Tib.12-13; Tacitus, Ann. 1.10, 3.48; Cassius Dio 53.26, 54.6.

164 ambushed by marauding Sygambri and lost the legion’s eagle. Though Lollius immediately regrouped and accomplished the defeat of the Sygambri and the recovery of the eagles, many modern scholars consider his reputation tarnished by the defeat. In the light of what Tacitus called the clades Lolliana, how are we to understand the praise

Horace offers?

Some choose to view the encomium as secondary. C.4.8 focused on poetics to the virtual exclusion of all information about the addressee. Why should C.4.9 be any different?48 Others see Horace doing the best he can with the material at his disposal.

The eulogy is “labored” and executed with “tact.” Horace has “gathered ungrudgingly all that could possibly be said in favour of him.” Horace did not find the laudes Lolli a

“congenial topic” and so dedicated “a decent minimum of space” in what is a rather lengthy poem.49 A similar but negative approach is taken by those who see in this ode a microcosm of the same compulsion which was the genesis of the entire book. The command to do a “whitewashing job” had been “imposed” on him. Horace, therefore, makes his encomium “viciously two-edged and fills it with “deliberate tactlessness” which “ensures that the reader does not miss the point.”50 Lastly, there is a group which sees this ode as an attempt, with varying understandings of its success, to rehabilitate

48 Reckford (1969) 130-1, Syndikus (1972) 375-6, 384.

49 Fraenkel (1957) 425-6.

50 Seager (1993) 37. See also Sage (1994), Ambrose (1965). 165 Lollius’ reputation.51 This approach, with slight variations, is advocated by most scholars. 52

I suggest that this poem is indeed a rehabilitation, not of Lollius, but rather for

Lollius. The poem is addressed to him. Horace presents him with the consolation of poetry. The unified message begins with “the poet’s words will never die,” moves to

“whatever lacks poetry will be forgotten,” and ends with “here is what you shall be remembered for.” Lollius’ supposedly inglorious defeat did not cause him to lose standing with Augustus nor prevent him from serving as advisor to Gaius Caesar when he assumed proconsular power. In this context, the poem can be read as Horace stating poetry's power not just to immortalize but to select and exclude from immortality. In

C.4.8 he stated that poetry has the power to confer immortality upon the departed. C.4.9 complements this with the idea that whatever is not remembered by poets is forgotten.

Lollius need not worry. Horace will exalt the fact that he is vindex (36), bonus atque fidus iudex (40-1), and victor (44). By refusing to mention clades Lolliana, Horace will consign it to black oblivion. The ode, therefore, is Horace’s attempt at seeing if poetry has the ability not just to bestow immortality but also to exclude things from being

51 Harrison (1990) 33, Garrison (1991) 358ff, Putnam (1986) 168-9 n.19, Lefèvre (1993) 276-77, Syme (1986) 402, Syme (1978) 153, Syme (1939) 428-9, Kiessling and Heinze (1955) ad loc, Quinn (1980) 34-44, Commager (1967) 321-2 n.18.

52For an excellent summary of the various approaches to Lollius as well as an analysis of the various agendas of later Roman historians which led them to an almost universal condemnation of Lollius, see Johnson (2004) 79-93.

166 immortalized. That he was not ultimately successful should not detract from the attempt or distract us from the window it gives into Horace’s conception of his own work.

Nowhere is the tension between death and poetic immortality expressed more poignantly than in C.4.12, where Horace invites Vergil to a symposium. The central problem in the poem is the identity of the addressee. While some scholars have suggested ignoring this prosopographical exercise, considering the identity of the addressee an unimportant, peripheral distraction from the ode,53 answering this question is a matter of major importance because clearly the interpretation of the ode hangs in the balance. A symposium invitation to the great Roman poet Vergil, now dead, would carry different hermeneutic baggage than an ode addressed to an unknown Vergil.

Advocates for the Vergil of this ode being some unknown Vergil suggest that it would be indecorous of Horace to address a poem to a deceased friend. Most notably, Fraenkel remarked: “A minimum of common human feeling should save us from the sense of humor that turns Horace, the most tactful of poets, into a monster of callousness."54 In addition to the initial "callousness" of a reference to a dead friend, opposition to this being the poet Vergil has been supported by the "inappropriate" phrases iuvenem nobilium cliens and studium lucri.55 Some scholars, pointing to the pejorative meaning

53 Commager (1967) 274-6.

54 Fraenkel (1957) 418 n.1. Other important denials of this being Vergil the poet include: Williams (1968) 122 n.1, who dismisses the idea of this being the poet Vergil as simply unintelligent, Putnam (1986) 205-6 n.13, Reckford (1969) 128-9, and Mayer (1985), who thinks the notion of Horace addressing a deceased friend as unacceptably rude.

55 For a fuller summary of problem, solutions, and relevant bibliography pertaining to this ode, see Johnson (2004) 159-180 and (1994) 49-66.

167 of these phrases, claim this proves the addressee could not have been the poet Vergil.

Others have concluded that though this may be the poet Vergil, this poem reflects some falling out that he and Horace must have had.56

But instead of positing an unknown person who happens to have the same name as Horace's deceased best friend or an unknown fight that makes its way into Horace's poetry after the death of his friend, a better explanation is to allow the plain reading of the ode to stand: that this is indeed the poet Vergil.57 If this were a sympotic invitation to a deceased close friend, this would change the interpretation of the phrases mentioned above from criticism to "backslapping heartiness."58 As Moritz wrote, "If we find anything offensive in these phrases as applied to the poet Vergil, it is surely only because for us Vergil is not, as he was for Horace, the friend with whom we have joked and drunk wine on the road to Brindisi."59 After all, this is the man whom Horace called animae dimidium meae (C.1.3.8). Furthermore, reading Vergil as the poet has three supports.

First, there are numerous verbal echoes in C.4.12 to other Horatian odes addressed to

Vergil (C.1.3; 1.24) and to Vergil's own poetry (Eclogues and Georgics).60 Second, the pattern in the fourth book has been to reserve the central stanza for a eulogy. An

56 Minadeo (1975/76) 163.

57 A short list of the scholars includes Bentley (1711), Bowra (1928) 165-7, Collinge (1976) 75-6, Quinn (1963) 11-14, who thinks this is, indeed, the poet Virgil, but that this work is an imperfect work from his earlier collection due mostly to the fact that the introductory description of spring rambles.

58 Collinge (1976) 74.

59 Moritz (1969) 189.

60 For echoes of C.1.3, see Minadeo (1975/76) 162-3. For parallels to C.1.24, see Reckford (1969) 128-9. For Vergilian parallels, see Bowra (1928) 166-7, Hahn (1945) xxxii.

168 unknown Vergil does not fit alongside Maximus, Maecenas, and the Neros (IV.4; 14).61

Only in three other instances in all of the Odes does Horace wait until the center of the ode to name the addressee: C.1.20 to Maecenas, C.1.24 to Vergil the poet, and C.3.8 again to Maecenas. Third, Horace mentions Vergil the poet nine other times in his works.62 "When the language and structure of ode IV.12 both point to the poet, how could it be the only exception without confusing the identity of the two Vergilii?"63

Given, then, that the addressee is the poet Vergil, an additional question immediately surfaces: was this poem written after Vergil’s death, or was it a piece written while Vergil was alive that was added to the book to fill it out, as some have alleged?64 Though important, this is a secondary question. As Putnam remarks, "Date of publication, not of writing, even if the poem is early, is the vital issue. It is the tone it sets in its published context which should be most closely evaluated."65 Even if written before his death, inclusion in a collection to be published after his death could give the poem added poignancy. With that in mind, though, the first three stanzas of the poem do contain elements which seem to indicate the poem was written after Vergil's death: the melancholy cries for Itys and the black hills of Arcadia. In fact, nothing in the ode, except the insistence that this is an actual invitation and not a poetic construct, would

61Johnson (1994) 52.

62 C.1.3.6, 1.24.10; Sat. 1.5.40, 1.5.48, 1.6.55, 1.10.45, 1.10.81; A.P. 55.

63Johnson (1994) 53.

64 Most notably Quinn (1963) 13-14.

65 Putnam (1986) 205-6 n.13.

169 indicate that it could not have been written for Vergil the poet after his death.66 There is no way to know for certain when exactly the poem was composed. Nor is there a requirement that it must have been composed all at once. It may be that the core of this poem is, in fact, a remnant of previous work which was edited after Vergil's death.

Whatever its genesis, the poem must be read in the context it is placed. When we do so,

C.4.12 emerges as an ode that demonstrates the raw reality of the juxtaposition between death and immortality which Horace has been emphasizing throughout the book. Perhaps

"callousness" is the criticism Horace wished to receive. The invitation of Vergil to the symposium demonstrates the shortcomings of poetry. On the one hand, the poem has succeeded in granting his friend a modest bit of immortality: as long as this song is sung,

Vergil will be remembered. On the other hand, this poem demonstrated the feebleness not just of Horatian lyric, but of poetry in general to offer anything directly to the addressee except remembrance. Vergil cannot come to the symposium; he is dead and will forever remain so. Horace has given to Vergil all poetry can give.67 He has constructed his own public poetic monument to Vergil, and, in doing so, has presented a microcosm of the entire book.

The ideas that have been expressed throughout book 4 on the finality of death and the supreme but imperfect power of poetry to memorialize are also applied directly to

Augustus and his heirs in order to underscore the poet's purpose, in this book, of building a lasting monument. Though C.4.4 and C.4.5 have drawn a great deal of attention from

66 Johnson (1994) 53 n.16.

67 Moritz (1969) 192.

170 scholars,68 the best ode for discerning the ways Horace fits his discussions of death and poetry together with his praise of Augustus and his progeny is C.4.14. The ode begins with a statement about the insufficiency of static monuments to immortalize Augustus adequately:

Quae cura patrum quaeve Quiritium plenis honorum muneribus tuas, Auguste, virtutes in aevum per titulos memoresque fastus

aeternet, o, qua sol habitabilis illustrat oras, maxime principium? quem legis expertes Latinae Vindelici didicere nuper,

quid Marte posses. (C.4.14.1-9)

What care of the fathers and Quirites, O Augustus, would immortalize your virtues into eternity with gifts full of honor through inscriptions and public records, O greatest of princes wherever the sun illuminates habitable regions? Whom the Vindelici, free until recently from Latin laws, learned what you were capable of in war.

This passage expresses in physical terms an idea Horace has been developing throughout the collection; namely that deeds alone will not ensure immortality. "The endurance of

Augustus and his significance depends on the inscriptions that publicize his deeds and dates, and give them the stability of stone."69 Here, however, the deeds are of such greatness that physical monuments will prove insufficient for the task. This poem will fill up what is lacking in the inscriptions set up in Augustus’ honor. Horace once again

68 For C.4.4, see Reckford (1960), Johnson (1969), Fraenkel (1957) 426-432, Wilkinson (1946) 85ff. For C.4.5, see Radke (1964), Bergson (1970), Becker (1963) 169-185.

69 Putnam (1986) 239.

171 establishes poetry's monumental role. It is poetry that is able to erect a monument to

Augustus that will ensure his accomplishments and virtues are celebrated into eternity.

To support this ode's function of uniting the encomium of Book 4 with the other themes in order to create an enduring funeral monument for Augustus, Horace echoes passages from C.3.30, when he writes:sic tauriformis volvitur Aufidus / qui regna Dauni praefluit Apuli (C.4.14.25-26). The references to Aufidus and Daunus harken back to

C.3.30.10-12: . . .qua violens obstrepit Aufidus / et qua pauper aquae Daunus agrestium

/ regnavit populorum . . .70 Horace, by means of this echo, recalls the valedictory poem of

Odes 1-3. By doing so, he prepares the reader for the unity of the book’s themes of death, immortality, poetry, and praise.

In sum, throughout Odes 4 Horace has woven together meditations on the finality of death and the power of poetry to confer a type of immortality. In doing so he has mimicked the juxtaposition of similar ideas expressed in a funeral monument and has composed his poetry in terms inspired by a funeral monument. In the next section I will focus specifically on the ways that Horace incorporates evocations specific to the

Mausoleum into his poetic creation.

70 Putnam (1982) 140 and (1973a) 8.

172 Section 3: The Aedifice: Various Evocations of the Mausoleum

Section 3.1: Allegiance to Rome and Italy

As mentioned in chapter two, there had been fear that the city of Rome would cease being the capital. Initially, Julius Caesar was rumored to have desired to relocate east, perhaps to Troy. Antony's alliance with Cleopatra amplified these dire suspicions.

Augustus, in response, underscored his commitment to the city and promoted Rome as the heart of the empire. Building the Mausoleum was one plank in this platform. This emphasis on place which Augustus put at the center of his program, however, was not an innovation by any stretch.71 Romans had always conceived of their religion, mythology, and politics as woven into the fabric of the city.72 Roman myths were in essence myths of place. Though Greeks also related their myth and religion to specific cities and territories, these regularly developed wider Greek, or Panhellenic, meaning. "In general,

Roman myths do not have such a wider context. Rather, the sites and monuments of the city of Rome dominate Roman mythology."73

71 Beard, North and Price (1998) I.168.

72 For more on the ways in which Romans tied their identity, religion, myth, etc. to place, see Beard, North and Price (1998) 167-210, Rives (2007). For general studies on the relationship between place and identity, see Smith (1978), Smith (1987), Mol (1976). For more on studies of place in Ancient Greece, see Alcock and Osborne (1994). For more general studies on Roman Religion, see Ando (2008), Liebeschuetz (1979), Beard, North and Price (1998).

73 Beard, North and Price (1998) I.173.

173 Such is true of Horace. In the same way that Augustus used the Mausoleum to declare his allegiance to Italy and to Rome, so too Horace locates his collection not in some abstract poetic reality but within Italy and the city of Rome.

C.4.1 incorporates a wide array of poetic models and has therefore been approached by critics from a variety of angles.74 One aspect of this poem that has been neglected, though, has been its emphasis on the importance of place. The poem reminds the reader of the city, and specifically the forum, by mentioning Paullus Maximus’ zeal on behalf of his clients (pro sollicitis non tacitus reis, C.4.1.14). The environs of Rome are again called to mind when Horace places the temple Paullus will build for Venus next to the Alban lake (Albanos prope te lacus / ponet marmoream sub trabe citrea, C.4.1.19-

20).75 In doing so, he summons Venus from the mythic realm and locates her in a real

Italian landscape.76 The reader is again reminded of Rome by the mention of Venus being celebrated in the custom of the Salian priests (in morem Salium).77 This poem's most obvious reference to Rome, though, occurs in its concluding lines:

Sed cur heu, Ligurine, cur manat rara meas lacrima per genas? Cur facunda parum decoro inter uerba cadit lingua silentio?

74 For surveys of the various approaches, see Johnson (2004) 229 n.85, Putnam (1986) n.1. For C.4.1 as epithalamium, see Habinek (1986), Bradshaw (1970); as apopompe for Venus, see Fraenkel (1957) 410; as recusatio see Commager (1967), Lefèvre (1968); as poetic preface see Pasquali (1920) 146, Fraenkel (1957) 413.

75 Kiessling and Heinze (1955) ad loc.

76 Syndikus (1972) II.276 For more on the ways in which Romans tied their identity, religion, myth, etc to place, see Beard, North and Price (1998) 167-210.

77 C.4.1.28. For more on the Salii, see Beard, North and Price (1998) I.216, II.126-8.

174

Nocturnis ego somniis iam captum teneo, iam uolucrem sequor te per gramina Martii campi, te per aquas, dure, uolubilis (C.4.1.33-40).

But why, O Ligurinus, why does a rare tear still trickle down my cheeks? Why does my eloquent tongue fall among words with unbecoming silence? In nocturnal dreams, I now hold you captured, now follow you, a bird, through the grass of the Campus Martius, now through the rolling waves, O hard-hearted one.

Horace here imagines chasing Ligurinus over the Campus Martius. Though this location has appeared before in Horace’s poetry, C.4.1 is the only place he calls it by its full name.78

Horace declares his Italian allegiance in the famous passage from C.4.2 in which he describes his poetic ability in contrast to Pindar:

Multa Dircaeum leuat aura cycnum, tendit, Antoni, quotiens in altos nubium tractus; ego apis Matinae more modoque

grata carpentis thyma per laborem plurimum circa nemus uuidique Tiburis ripas operosa paruus carmina fingo. (C.4.2.25-32)

Much wind raises the Dircean swan, Antonius, as he often soars into the high tracts of clouds. I, in the custom and manner of the Matinian bee, gathering the pleasing thyme through much toil around the grove and banks of well-watered Tibur, I, small, mold my labor-intensive songs.

78 Jaeger (1990) 171 Though C.3.7.25 does come close with gramine Martio.

175 Though much has been said about the poetic significance of the swan/bee image79 and about Horace’s sincerity in this section, germane to this discussion is that Horace again locates himself in Italy. Along the riverbanks in Tibur is where Horace can be found fashioning his carefully crafted poems.80 Throughout Horace's poetry, Tibur symbolizes rest. In C.2.6, Horace looks forward to Tibur as the place he will spend his old age:

Septimi, Gadis aditure mecum et Cantabrum indoctum iuga ferre nostra et barbaras Syrtis, ubi Maura semper aestuat unda:

Tibur Argeo positum colono sit meae sedes utinam senectae, sit modus lasso maris et viarum militiaeque. (1-8)

O Septimius, ready to go with me to Gades and to the Cantabrians not yet instructed to bear our yoke, and to the wild Syrtes, where the Moorish wave is always boiling. Let Tibur, founded by an Argive colonist, be the home of my old age. May it be the goal to one weary of the sea, and of roads, and of war!

Tibur also serves as a binary for Rome. Horace compares the two places in Ep.1.7.44-

45: mihi iam non regia Roma, sed vacuum Tibur placet aut imbelle Tarentum. He

79 For an exhaustive summary, see Johnson (2004) 49-50.

80 Horace's relationship with Tibur was much-discussed a century ago in the quest for Horace's villa. The debate centered around whether Horace had just the one Sabine farm, or whether he in fact had two country estates, one Sabine, the other in Tibur. Hallam and Ashby (1914) argue for two separate estates by focusing on Horace's own words where references to the Sabine farm are replaced with allusion to Tibur in his later works. They emphasize C.3.4.21-24 which differentiates between Sabina and Tibur. Additional support is provided by Suetonius, who, in his life of Horace, says that Horace owned property in both locations: Vixit plurimim in secessu ruris sui Sabini aut Tiburtini. Lugli (1926) advocates for a single Sabine farm by looking to C.2.18 (satis beatus unicis Sabinis). Suetonius's words are explained away with reference to Catullus 44 in which he debates the location of his own estate: O funde noster seu Sabine seu Tiburs. For recent work on the search for and recent excavations at Horace’s villa see: Frischer and Brown (2001), Frischer, Crawford and De Simone (2006).

176 remarks of his love and desire of both places in Ep.1.8.12: Romae Tibur amem ventosus,

Tibure Romam.

C.4.2 also ends with a description of two celebrations in honor of Augustus’s return. Again this passage is important to our discussion because Horace praises not just

Augustus, but his return, and he makes a point to locate the celebration in Rome:

Concines maiore poeta plectro Caesarem, quandoque trahet ferocis per sacrum cliuum merita decorus fronde Sygambros;

quo nihil maius meliusue terris fata donauere bonique diui nec dabunt, quamuis redeant in aurum tempora priscum.

Concines laetosque dies et urbis publicum ludum super impetrato fortis Augusti reditu forumque litibus orbum.

Tum meae, si quid loquar audiendum, uocis accedet bona pars, et: 'O sol pulcher, o laudande!' canam recepto Caesare felix;

teque, dum procedis, io Triumphe! non semel dicemus, io Triumphe! ciuitas omnis, dabimusque diuis tura benignis. (33-52)

You, a poet with a greater plectrum, will sings of Caesar, whenever he decorated with merited laurel, drags the fierce Sygambri through the sacred slope; than whom nothing greater or better have the Fates and the good gods given to earth, nor will the give, although the times return into the ancient gold. You will sing both of happy days and the public holiday of the city on behalf of the return of brave Augustus and of the forum free from litigation. Then if I can say anything worth hearing, a good part of 177 my voice will join in; and I happy with Caesar having returned will sing, "O beautiful sun, o worthy of praise." And while you are proceeding, not once will we say, "IoTriumphe!" The whole city will say, "Io Triumphe!" and we will give incense to the kind gods.

One is overcome by the sense of place contained in the specifically Roman imagery. The city in the midst of games, the forum free from litigation, Horace joining the crowd along the Sacra Via celebrating Augustus’s triumph all declare the context of this poetry to be

Rome.81

The address in line 45 of Augustus as sol is also important. Though some think that such a designation should be "considered oriental and characteristic of the corruptive influences hastening imperial decline,"82 it is better to connect it not to the east but to the cult of Sol Indiges,83 which seems to have originated in Lavinium and ultimately was identified with Aeneas Indiges.84 Horace's invocation of sol reinforces this poem's Italian connection by connecting Augustus both to Aeneas and to a cult with deep roots in Latin culture.85

81 On per sacrum clivum, see Wickham (1896) I.291: “The name was given to the slope by which the ‘Sacra via’ descended, from the spot where its pavement is still visible under the Arch of Titus, into the Forum, a fall of 53 feet.” See also Holder (1894) 141. On Roman triumphal processions and the need to rethink notions of prescribed route and ritual, see Beard (2007) esp. 92-105.

82 Hijmans (2004) 205.

83 For more on Sol Indiges, see Galinsky (1969c), Galinsky (1967), Alföldi (1965) 252-5, Bömer (1949) 355ff, Taylor (1934), Latte (1960) 44, 201, Koch (1933) 107.

84 Galinsky (1967) 628-9.

85 It is also possible that the reference to sol may anticipate the construction of the Horologium in the Mausoleum complex. Though the Horologium was not dedicated until c. 9 BC, it is extremely likely that plans had been in the works in years previous to Odes 4 being published and that Horace would be aware of the monumental addition. In fact, it may have been this renewed interest in further developing the 178 Numerous references to the city of Rome also emerge from C.4.3. Horace mentions the Capitoline (l.9) and the city itself (l.13) before calling himself Romanae fidicen lyrae (l.23). Resuming a refrain last heard in c.3.30, the poet declares himself the master of a Greek instrument, but in a Roman environment.86

All of this leads up to C.4.4, a poem which not only makes mention of Rome but more importantly is dedicated to the city itself:87

Quid debeas, o Roma, Neronibus, testis Metaurum flumen et Hasdrubal deuictus et pulcher fugatis ille dies Latio tenebris,

qui primus alma risit adorea, dirus per urbes Afer ut Italas ceu flamma per taedas uel Eurus per Siculas equitauit undas. (C.4.4.37-44)

What, O Rome, you owe to the Neros, the Metaurus River is a witness, and vanquished Hasdrubal, and that beautiful day when shadows fled from Latium, which first smiled with nourishing victory, since the dire African rushed through the Italian towns like a flame through pines, or Eurus through the Sicilian waves.

In addition to the dedication, the perspective of the poem is also Italian. Victory is characterized not in a nondescript or idealized way but specifically in topographical and meteorological terms: darkness fleeing from Latium (fugatis … Latio tenebris). Again

northern Campus Martius that brought the Mausoleum back to the mind of Horace. For current research and bibliography on the Horologium, see Heslin (2007).

86 Maurach (2001) 415.

87 Kiessling and Heinze (1955) ad loc, Syndikus (1972) II.303.

179 the poet emphasizes place and focuses the perspective of his poetry. Victory has cleared the sky over Italy.

C.4.5, a poem dedicated to Augustus and longing for his return, also demonstrates the commitment to Rome and Italy of Odes 4 by characterizing the benefits of Augustan rule in terms of the rebirth and restoration of the Italian culture:

Quis Parthum paueat, quis gelidum Scythen, quis Germania quos horrida parturit fetus incolumi Caesare? Quis ferae bellum curet Hiberiae?

Condit quisque diem collibus in suis et uitem uiduas ducit ad arbores; hinc ad uina redit laetus et alteris te mensis adhibet deum;

te multa prece, te prosequitur mero defuso pateris et Laribus tuum miscet numen, uti Graecia Castoris et magni memor Herculis.

'Longas o utinam, dux bone, ferias praestes Hesperiae!' dicimus integro sicco mane die, dicimus uuidi, cum sol Oceano subest. (25-40)

Who would fear the Parthians, who the frozen Scythian, who the hordes rough Germany breeds, as long as Caesar is safe? Who would care about war in wild Iberia? Each man spends the day on his own hills, and weds his vines to widowed trees; from there happy he returns to his wine, and at the second course invokes you as a god. You with many a prayer, you with pure wine poured from bowls, he worships; and mixes your godhead with his household gods, like Greece mindful of Castor and great Hercules. "O may you guarantee to Hesperia long holidays, good leader!" We pray, dry-lipped, in the morning: for this we pray when drunk, when the sun sinks beneath the Ocean.

180 This passage extols the benefits of Augustan peace by focusing on its commemoration in an Italian context. The Italian farmer enjoying his land undisturbed by war, after a hard day's work, is able retire to his house, enjoy the fruit of his labor and thank the one who has vouchsafed it for him.88

Horace's use of the term "Hesperia" in line 38 is of particular interest. It is easy to read over this word as simply a poetic term for Italy. The term, however, is loaded with prophetic significance. Though it is not sure who first used the term "Hesperia," it originated in the Greek world, derived from e{spero", and loosely designated the land to the west of Greece: Sicily, Italy, or even Spain.89 Stesichorus, the Sicilian poet from

Himera, is thought to have been the first to connect Aeneas with the West by using the word 'Hesperia' in his Iliu Persis to designate the land for which Aeneas is bound."90 The term is speculated to have appeared in Latin through Ennius, and it was adopted by

Vergil perhaps in imitation of either Ennius or Stesichorus, "as another name for Italy, especially in places where it is prophesied by a Greek or Trojan that Aeneas and his comrades will reach Italian soil."91 Whatever course it took on its road into Vergil's usage,92 Horace's use of the term harkens back to the Aeneid. By using a term associated

88 Wickham (1896) I.304.

89 Boas (1938) 35. The first documented use which is still extant is found in Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica 3.311.

90 Boas (1938) 37.

91 Boas (1938) 35.

92 For a more detailed discussion of Hesperia, Stesichorus, and the Tabulae Iliacae, see Roca (1988), Horsfall (1979), Galinsky (1969a) 106-113, Boas (1938) 35-8.

181 with the fulfillment of Aeneas' destiny, Horace subtly suggests that the peace achieved by

Augustus is the ultimate realization of what the fates had promised his forbearers. Such an idea prepares the way for Horace to develop this idea in a later poem where he describes Rome as a second Troy, built under better auspices.

Peace is also described in terms of a revival of Italian religion and worship of the

Lares. The Italian focus is underscored by the comparison to the Greek practice in l.35-6

(uti Graecia Castoris/ et magni memor Herculis). Using Greece as a point of comparison93 is simply another way that Horace roots his poetry in the Italian soil. Even

Horace's choice of Greek divinities belies his Italian perspective. He has specifically chosen Greek gods whose cults were some of the oldest in Rome and whose temples lie at the very heart of the city.94 In fact, were it not for the phrase uti Graecia, one would suppose that Horace was simply referring to the Temple of Castor in the Forum

Romanum and the Ara Maxima Herculis in the Forum Boarium.

93 Putnam (1986) 112.

94 The Temple of Castor was believed to have been vowed in 493 BC after the Battle of Regillus by the dictator Postumius. Interesting for its connection with this poem is that in AD 6, Tiberius completely restored this temple and dedicated it in his name and that of his brother Drusus (Suet.Tib.20). For more on the Temple of Castor, see LTUR (1993), Nielsen, "Castor, Aedes, Templum," I.242-5, Richardson (1992) 74-75, Nielsen, Zahle, Nilson and Persson (1985) 1-29, Lugli (1946) 179-83, Frank (1925) 79-102, Frank (1924) 78-79. The Romans considered the Ara Maxima to have been built either by Hercules himself, or by his companions, or by Evander following the hero's victory over Cacus. It was the oldest and most important site for worship of Hercules in Rome. For more on the Ara Maxima Herculis, see LTUR (1996), Coarelli, "Hercules Invictus, Ara Maxima," III.15-17, Coarelli (1988) 61-77, Richardson (1992) 186-7.

182 Section 3.2: Republican Family Tomb

In the same way that the Mausoleum functions as a Republican family tomb writ large, so too Horace constructs his poetic Mausoleum not just to include Augustus but also to make room for his family.

In the center of the programmatic ode C.4.8, Horace places a reference to one of the important Republican family tombs in Rome, the tomb of the Scipios:

Non incisa notis marmora publicis, per quae spiritus et uita redit bonis post mortem ducibus, non celeres fugae reiectaeque retrorsum Hannibalis minae, [non incendia Carthaginis impiae] eius, qui domita nomen ab Africa lucratus rediit, clarius indicant laudes quam Calabrae Pierides, neque, si chartae sileant quod bene feceris, mercedem tuleris. (C.4.8.13-22)

Not marble ingraved with public inscriptions, through which breath and life return to good generals after death, nor the swift flight of Hannibal and his threats thrown back on himself, nor the burning of wicked Carthage, declare more gloriously the praises of him who returned, having won a name from conquered Africa, than do the Calabrian Muses; nor would you carry away a reward, if the pages are silent about what you have done well.

Horace discusses the immortality of Scipio Africanus by juxtaposing inscribed marble and the songs of Ennius. Such a comparison suggests the Tomb of the Scipios, on which the likeness of the poet Ennius was immortalized in gratitude for Ennius’s gift of poetry to Scipio.95 Given this ode's obvious programmatic role for the entire book, the book by

95 Galinsky (1966) 229.

183 extension suggests a relationship between Augustus and Horace similar to that of Scipio and Ennius. In the same way that the poetry of Ennius is a better medium than the

Scipionic tomb for immortalizing Africanus, Horace declares his own work to be a surer path to immortality for Augustus. Such an analogy shows Horace’s intent to develop a comparison between this book and the Mausoleum and to see both in the shadow of

Republican-era tombs and especially that of the Scipiones.

Horace underscores the connection with the Scipios and their tomb by adopting

Ennius as a model not just in this poem, but throughout the book.96 The opening line of

C.4.1 is similar to a fragment of Ennius’ Annals 16:97

quippe vetusta virum non est satis bella moveri (Skutsch 403)

intermissa, Venus, diu / rursus bella moves (C.4.1.2)

Two other Ennian fragments also have possible connections with C.4.1. In the first the poet uses age as an excuse to resume his poetry. In the second he compares himself to an aged race horse:98

Post aetate pigret sufferre laborem (Skutsch 401)

Sicuti fortis equos spatio qui saepe supremo Vicit Olympia nunc senio confectus quiescit (Skutsch 522)

96 For the fragments of Ennius, see Skutsch (1985). For a more detailed discussion on the relationship of Ennius to Horace and Odes 4, see Hills (2001), Suerbaum (1968) 167 n.510, 177ff.

97 Hills (2001) 614, Hardie (1993) 129.

98 Hills (2001) 614-5.

184 Non sum qualis eram bonae sub regno Cinarae. Desine, dulcium mater saeua Cupidinum, circa lustra decem flectere mollibus iam durum imperiis (C.4.1.3-7)

I am not as I was under the rule of good Cinara. O savage mother of sweet Cupids, cease to bend, one who is now callous after ten lustra to thy soft commands!

The connection becomes clearer if we accept the commentators’ suggestion that flectere is a metaphor for reining in a horse.99 Also, the connection becomes more secure if fr.401 is emended to read durum sufferrem laborem.100 These examples point to Horace's substantial borrowing in Odes 4 from Ennius's Annales 16. In addition to the Scipionic connection, Ennius and Annales 16 serve as superb models for Odes 4 because in both works "poets were returning to add a supplement to a work that had previously appeared to be decisively finished.”101

Perhaps no aspect of Odes 4 has been more difficult to grapple with than the subject of the encomium for Augustus and his heirs. Many commentators seem content simply to group the encomium together under a rubric named something like "Augustus and his house" and move on. The motivation for such an approach is thought necessary because, after all, Horace had been compelled. In fact, much of the attention given to these poems (C.4.4, 5, 13, 14) has been along the lines of Horace's subversion of his

99 Kiessling and Heinze (1955) ad loc. Compare C.3.7.35: flectere equum.

100 Skutsch (1985) 565. Compare Lucretius.3.999: durum sufferre laborem.

101 Hills (2001) 615.

185 encomium.102 These are the poems Augustus requested, the sine qua non of the book.

Hopefully the discussion of an earlier chapter has helped blunt the edge of words like

“compulsion.” In addition, there is no reason to partition off the encomiastic poems from the rest of the work. On the contrary, there is good reason to consider these poems as integral to the book. Suetonius' statement that the book was intended in part to praise the

Vindelic victory of Tiberius and Drusus (Vindelicam victoriam Tiberii Drusique) is insufficient to explain the presence of the encomiastic poems. If Horace's intention had been to perform the minimum necessary to acquit himself appropriately of an imperial demand, C.4.14, which praises both Drusus and Tiberius, would have been sufficient.103

The additional encomiastic poems urge us on towards a more nuanced explanation.

Consideration of this book as a Republican family monument allows the reader better to account for Horace's encomium of both Augustus and other members of his family across multiple poems. In the same way that both Drusus and Tiberius would ultimately be buried in the Mausoleum of Augustus, so too Horace makes room for them in his poetic recreation.

In C.4.4, Horace places the praise of Drusus in the context of his relationship to

Augustus:

sed diu lateque uictrices cateruae consiliis iuuenis reuictae

102 See in particular Lyne (1995) 193-217.

103 Hills (2001) 615ff.

186 sensere, quid mens rite, quid indoles nutrita faustis sub penetralibus posset, quid Augusti paternus in pueros animus Nerones.

Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis; est in iuuencis, est in equis patrum uirtus neque inbellem feroces progenerant aquilae columbam;

doctrina sed uim promouet insitam rectique cultus pectora roborant; utcumque defecere mores, indecorant bene nata culpae. (22-36)

But the troops victorious far and wide were conquered by the plans of a youth and felt what mind, what character duly nurtured beneath an auspicious roof, and what fatherly devotion of Augustus toward the youthful Neros was capable of. The brave are begotten by the brave and the good; the valor of the fathers is in bulls and horses. And fierce eagles do not beget a timid dove. But training increases inborn worth, and good education strengthens the heart; whenever customs have failed, faults disgrace fair endowments.

Horace praises the Neros by connecting them with the paternus animus Augusti. In the same way that a family tomb includes a range of people but is focused on the most illustrious, so too Horace's monument praises Augustus's progeny but does so in the context of them making good on what has been invested in them. After having praised

Drusus and the paternal role of Augustus, Horace looks back to the Hannibalic Wars and another of the Nerones’ ancestors, the hero of Metaurus:

Quid debeas, o Roma, Neronibus, testis Metaurum flumen et Hasdrubal deuictus et pulcher fugatis ille dies Latio tenebris,

187 qui primus alma risit adorea, dirus per urbes Afer ut Italas ceu flamma per taedas uel Eurus per Siculas equitauit undas. (37-44)

What, O Rome, you owe to the Neros, the Metaurus River is a witness, and vanquished Hasdrubal, and that beautiful day when shadows fled from Latium, which first smiled with nourishing victory, since the dire African rushed through the Italian towns like a flame through pines, or Eurus through the Sicilian waves.

The victories Horace celebrates in this ode are compared to the victories of Drusus’s ancestor at Metaurus. Drusus is carrying on the legacy of his forebear. The concluding stanzas of this ode reinforce this connection:

Carthagini iam non ego nuntios mittam superbos; occidit, occidit spes omnis et fortuna nostri nominis Hasdrubale interempto.

Nil Claudiae non perficient manus, quas et benigno numine Iuppiter defendit et curae sagaces expediunt per acuta belli. (69-76)

No more will I send proud messengers to Carthage. All hope and fortune of our name has died, has died with Hasdrubal being killed. There is nothing the hands of the Claudii will not accomplish; whom Jupiter defends with his kind godhead and wise cares conduct through the perils of war.

Horace has throughout this ode established his praise in the framework of generational legacies. To understand the successes of Drusus, one must understand how he is connected with his family. In the same way that all those buried in the Mausoleum were understood primarily by their familial ties to Augustus, so too Horace grounds his praise

188 of Drusus in his relationship to a family member. By framing his praise with familial exempla Horace mirrors the Mausoleum and makes room for family members in his monument to Augustus.104

In addition to his stepsons, Horace expands his poetic monument to include members of Augustus’s extended family. C.4.1 is dedicated to Paullus Maximus, who was about to marry Marcia, the cousin of Augustus and grandniece of Julius Caesar.105

In fact, the reference to him as a suitable target for Venus’s attention alludes to his upcoming marriage.106 C.4.2, as well, is addressed to a relative: Iullus Antonius, who was the son of Mark Antony and Fulvia, and who had been raised by Octavia, and had become a favorite of Augustus. He was praetor in 13 BC and married to Augustus’s niece Marcella.107

In sum, Horace has included not just Augustus but also his heirs and other members of his family in this poetic funeral monument. Horace has also fostered a connection with Ennius and the Scipionic tomb. By doing so, he has mirrored the

Mausoleum's function as a Republican family tomb writ large.

104 The list of contemporary and subsequent family members included in the Mausoleum of Augustus is extensive, including Marcellus, Agrippa, Octavia, Lucius and Gaius Caesar, Livia, Agrippina, Tiberius, Drusus, and Claudius. For more on those buried in the Mausoleum, see: von Hesberg and Panciera (1994) 88-144, LTUR (1996), Macciocca, "Mausoleum Augusti: Le Sepolture," III.237-9, Arce (1988) 74-75.

105 Syme (1978) 135-55, Syme (1986) 403-20.

106 Habinek (1986) 409. See also Bradshaw (1970) 145-51. One of Bradshaw’s points, which I can’t help finding a bit humorous, is that this poem might have been written to aid Maximus in his wooing of Marcia.

107 Syme (1986) 144, 396-99.

189 Section 3.3: Immortality

Though Augustus expresses familial piety by means of the Mausoleum, he also has the more individual intention of suggesting his own immortality. This expectation of the apotheosis of Augustus also finds its way into Horace’s poetry. In C.4.5, Horace describes the honors paid to Augustus by a humble farmer:

hinc ad uina redit laetus et alteris te mensis adhibet deum;

te multa prece, te prosequitur mero defuso pateris et Laribus tuum miscet numen, uti Graecia Castoris et magni memor Herculis. (C.4.5.31-36)

Each man spends the day on his own hills, and weds his vines to widowed trees; from there happy he returns to his wine, and at the second course invokes you as a god. You with many a prayer, you with pure wine poured from bowls, he worships; and mixes your godhead with his household gods, like Greece mindful of Castor and great Hercules.

This passage, mentioned above under the discussion of the restoration of Italy, deserves consideration under this heading as well due to the way the happy farmer demonstrates his gratitude for the prosperity of Augustan peace. The farmer includes Augustus among the lares and honors him with a libation.108 Though neither numen nor lares necessarily connotes divinity, Horace clearly states that the farmer is offering heartfelt thanks to

108 For more on the tradition and innovation of the cult of the Lares under Augustus, see Lott (2004) 101-106, Beard, North and Price (1998) 181-186, Galinsky (1996) 300-302, DuQuesnay (1995) 181-2, Liebeschuetz (1979) 69ff. For more on the concept of numen and how it relates to notions of divinity, see DuQuesnay (1995) 181-2, Fishwick (1969), Nock (1947).

190 Augustus and honoring him as a deus.109 Such a statement is reminiscent of the words of

Tityrus from Eclogues 1.7: namque erit ille mihi semper deus.

Augustus's divinity is also suggested by a phrase in the penultimate poem of Odes

4, in which Augustus is addressed with the epithet o tutela praesens / Italiae dominaeque

Romae (C.4.14.43-44). The term tutela implies genius, as evidenced by the definition of genius given by Censorinus:

Genius est deus, cuius in tutela ut quisque natus est vivit. Hic sive quod ut genamur curat, sive quod una genitur nobiscum, sive etiam quod nos genitos suscipit ac tutatur, certe a genendo genius appellatur. (De Die Natali 3.1)

A Genius is a god under whose protection each person lives from the moment of his birth. Whether it is because he makes sure we get generated, or he is generated with us, or he takes us up and protects us one we are generated, in any case, it is clear he is called our "gen-ius" from "gen-eration."110

Describing the relationship, therefore, between Augustus and Rome in terms of tutela is another way of suggesting Augustus has a divine relationship with the state, further enhancing the aura of his name. 111

Section 3.4: Victory Monument

The Mausoleum, in addition to being a funeral monument, also functioned as a monument to the Actian victory. Similarly, side by side with the poetry which meditates

109 Taylor (1931) 182.

110 Parker (2007) 4.

111 Fishwick (1969) 360.

191 upon life and death, Horace places a parallel emphasis on triumph.112 Triumphal imagery is obvious in C.4.2, a poem which uses the triumph of Augustus as a backdrop for a meditation on poetic technique:

teque, dum procedis, io Triumphe! non semel dicemus, io Triumphe! ciuitas omnis, dabimusque diuis tura benignis. (49-52)

And as thou takest the lead along the ways, "Io triumphe!" we will should all of us together, not only once: "Io Triumphe!" and incense will we offer to the kindly gods.113

The presence of Hannibal in C.4.4 can be understood in this triumphal context:

Carthagini iam non ego nuntios mittam superbos; occidit, occidit spes omnis et fortuna nostri nominis Hasdrubale interempto. (69-72)

Carthage no more shall I send proud messengers; perished, perished is all hope and the fortunes of our name since Hasdrubal's destruction.114

Horace, not wishing to refer unambiguously to the civil wars, uses Hannibal as a symbol of an enemy from North Africa. Such an identification works well with Horace’s comparison between Augustus and Scipio – both conquerors of North African foes.115

112 For recent work on the Roman triumph, see Beard (2007).

113 Bennett (1914) 291.

114 Bennett (1914) 301.

115 It may seem a stretch to think of Egypt and Carthage being unified under the heading of Africa. However, in C.4.14 Horace catalogues lands conquered by Rome. The list, though not exhausted, does name multiple people from every region, except one. The Nile is the only mention made of anything in Africa. Perhaps the river was able to stand as an icon not just for Egypt but for all of north Africa because the Romans made some connection between the two. 192 Horace uses Africanus and Hannibal in C.4 to suggest a parallel with Augustus and to characterize Actium as Augustus’s African victory.116 Augustus wished to characterize his campaigning in Egypt not as civil war with fellow Romans but rather as a foreign war against an eastern queen. In this light, Actium becomes not the final instance of a century of fratricide, but Augustus's Zama.

The Actian victory is also alluded to in C.4.5. In describing the response of a happy farmer to Augustan peace, Horace lists a sequence of rites the rustic engages in during his humble meal:

hinc ad uina redit laetus et alteris te mensis adhibet deum;

te multa prece, te prosequitur mero defuso pateris et Laribus tuum miscet numen, uti Graecia Castoris et magni memor Herculis. (31-36)

Each man spends the day on his own hills, and weds his vines to widowed trees; from there happy he returns to his wine, and at the second course invokes you as a god. You with many a prayer, you with pure wine poured from bowls, he worships; and mixes your godhead with his household gods, like Greece mindful of Castor and great Hercules.

Actium finds its way into the poem in the phrase that references libations being made to

Augustus: te prosequitur mero/ defuso pateris (l.33-34). Among the honors the senate

116 Mankin (1995) 171-175. There is also an interesting parallel with the triumph of Claudius after Metaurus. Livy (28.9) says that the senate would only allow one triumph for the victory at Metaurus. Since the battle had been fought in the province of Marcus Livius and on the day he held imperium, it was decided that he, and would ride in the triumphal chariot with Claudius on horseback. The result, Livy says, was the Claudius’ reputation was increased for having yielded to his colleague (tantum honore conlegae cesserat, gloriam auxit). Such a story is similar in C.4.4 because again another Claudius is victorius but has his honors transferred to another person.

193 bestowed upon Octavian upon his return from Actium in 30 BC was that libations were to be poured out to his genius at all banquets public and private.117 So the libation which

Horace includes in this scene is not just a thank-offering to Augustus but also a commemoration of the victory that made Augustan peace possible.

The Actian victory, obliquely suggested by C.4.4 and C.4.5, is explicitly mentioned in C.4.14. Horace draws a direct line between the current triumphs that

Augustus and his progeny are winning and the triumph the Mausoleum celebrates:

Nam tibi quo die portus Alexandrea supplex et uacuam patefecit aulam,

Fortuna lustro prospera tertio belli secundos reddidit exitus laudemque et optatum peractis imperiis decus arrogauit. (34-40)

For on the third lustrum from the day on which suppliant Alexandria opened her harbors and empty palace to you, propitious Fortune brought a happy end of war and added fame and hoped for glory upon the deeds already accomplished.

Horace connects the successes of Tiberius and Drusus with the Actian victory through coincidence of date, then proceeds to unify them in purpose. Augustus’ heirs finished what he had started at Actium. Their triumph is a further remembrance of the Actian triumph. It is worth noting that Horace does not mention the Battle of Actium itself, choosing instead to reference the conquest of Alexandria. This is in keeping with the emphasis placed by Augustus on Alexandria instead of Actium. It was August 1st, the

117 Cassius Dio 51.19.7. See also Fishwick (1969) 356, Taylor (1931) 181ff.

194 day of Alexandria's conquest, not September 2nd, the date of Actium, that was to receive the attention, celebration, holiday, and remembrance. At least according to one source,

August 1st marked the day of dedication for the Forum of Augustus.118 It is also listed as the anniversary date for the goddess of Victory on the Palatine.119 The month itself was renamed in honor of Augustus in 8 B.C. As was discussed in an earlier chapter,

Augustus sought to demonstrate his domination over Egypt by appropriating it in Rome.

Many structures built by Augustus, most notably in the northern Campus Martius, bear witness to Augustus's desire to bring Alexandria to Rome.120 Actium was an important victory, but, it could be argued, one fought, at least in part, against other Romans.121

Alexandria was a foreign war of conquest. By conquering the Egyptian port city,

Augustus had subjected a foreign land to the domination of Rome. Horace follows this established pattern and marks the continuity between the victories of Augustus's progeny and Augustus's own conquest of Alexandria.

118 Dio 60.5.3. Though May 12th is given by Ovid's Fasti 5.545-98. For more on the debate, see

Anderson (1984) 68-9.

119 Galinsky (1996) 214-5.

120 For more on the Alexandrian associations in the architecture of Rome, see Rehak (2006), Galinsky (2008), Arya (2002) 234-240.

121 For more on the importance of Actium to the Augustan order, see Osgood (2006) 375ff, Gurval (1995), Hölscher (1985), Zanker (1988) 79-100.

195 Section 3.5: Rome as World City

Lastly, the Mausoleum was more than a monument to Augustus and his family: it was one component in his plan to make Rome a world city.122 So too Horace in Odes 4 celebrates the prominence that Rome has come to enjoy. First, in C.4.3 Horace describes

Rome as the princeps of cities.

Romae principis urbium dignatur suboles inter amabilis uatum ponere me choros, et iam dente minus mordeor inuido. (13-16)

The children of Rome, princeps of cities, think it fit to place me among the pleasant choirs of poets; and now I am bitten less by envy’s tooth.

Horace’s choice of words is significant. He has chosen to name Rome with a title, which, as discussed in an earlier chapter, Augustus and Horace had both applied to themselves. Horace is suggesting that what Augustus is for Rome, and Horace is for poetry, Rome is for the world. "The shared principate of Augustus in politics and Horace in poetry in Odes I-III yields in C.IV.3 to the principate of a third entity, Rome."123

Second, in C.4.6, Horace builds on the Aeneas legends and likens Rome to the

New Troy built under better auspices:

ille non inclusus equo Mineruae sacra mentito male feriatos Troas et laetam Priami choreis falleret aulam;

122 See discussions in Rehak (2006), Favro (2005), Edwards and Woolf (2003).

123 Estévez (1982) 290.

196 sed palam captis grauis, heu nefas, heu! nescios fari pueros Achiuis ureret flammis, etiam latentem matris in aluo,

ni tuis flexus Venerisque gratae uocibus diuom pater adnuisset rebus Aeneae potiore ductos alite muros. (13-24)

He would not have hidden within the horse pretending sacrifice to Minerva, nor deceived the Trojans celebrating badly, or Priam's court happy in dances; but openly cruel to his captives (o abomination! o abomination!) he would have burned in Grecian fires the boys not knowing how to speak, and even the infant hidden in its mother's womb, had not the Father of the gods, conquered by your appeals and those of pleasing Venus, promised to Aeneas' destiny walls built under better auspices.

There is nothing surprising about Horace likening Rome to the Second Troy. But the phrase takes on its full significance when considered within this poem's context of the performance of the Carmen Saeculare. Horace is commemorating his celebration of the fulfillment of this prophecy. Rome, through the Augustan achievement and its commemoration in Horatian poetry, has become the Second Troy.

Connecting Troy and Rome, though important in building the prestige of the city, nonetheless came with its own set of problems. Sensitivity was required when dealing with Rome's Trojan heritage in order to avoid the charges of eastern, oriental decadence, which had plagued Antony and others. The Augustan solution was to emphasize not just

Rome's Trojan heritage, but also Troy's Roman heritage.124 Aeneas was coming home to

124 For bibliography and discussion of whether this was an Augustan invention, see Horsfall (2000) 164-8, Cairns (1989) 116 n.15, Horsfall (1973) 74-79, Buchheit (1963) 151ff.

197 the land of his ancestors. The first hint comes in Aeneas’ introduction to Dido the first book of the Aeneid: Italiam quaero patriam et genus ab Iove summo (1.380). Though at this point the precise interpretation of patria is left open, genus ab Iove summo does remind the reader of the identity of Dardanus' immortal ancestor. The matter is more explicit in the speech of the Penates in book 3, where Aeneas is told that his eventual home lies not in Crete but in Italy:

est locus, Hesperiam Grai cognomine dicunt, terra antiqua, potens armis atque ubere glaebae; Oenotri coluere uiri; nunc fama minores Italiam dixisse ducis de nomine gentem. hae nobis propriae sedes, hinc Dardanus ortus Iasiusque pater, genus a quo principe nostrum. (163-8)

A place there is, by Greeks named Hesperia, an ancient land, mighty in arms and in richness of the soil. There dwelt Oenotrians; now the rumour is that a younger race has called it from their leader's name Italy. This is our abiding home; hence are Dardanus sprung and father Iasius, and from whom first came our race.125

Hesperia is his goal because that is where Dardanus had come from. The story is stated twice more in book 7:

atque equidem memini (fama est obscurior annis) Auruncos ita ferre senes, his ortus ut agris Dardanus Idaeas Phrygiae penetrarit ad urbes Threiciamque Samum, quae nunc Samothracia fertur. (205-8)

hinc Dardanus ortus, huc repetit (240-1)

And in truth I remember, though time has dimmed the tale, that Auruncan elders told how that in this land sprang Dardanus, and hence passed to the

125 Fairclough (1916) 359.

198 towns of Phrygian Ida and Thracian Samos, that men now call Samothrace…..Hence was Dardanus sprung and hither he returns.126

Such an emphasis on Aeneas' Italian ancestry allows for the appeasement of Juno and her eventual reconciliation. Juno, during her speech in Aeneid 12, ceases her opposition to

Aeneas on one condition; that Troy must remain defeated:

et nunc cedo equidem pugnasque exosa relinquo. illud te, nulla fati quod lege tenetur, pro Latio obtestor, pro maiestate tuorum: cum iam conubiis pacem felicibus (esto) component, cum iam leges et foedera iungent, ne uetus indigenas nomen mutare Latinos neu Troas fieri iubeas Teucrosque uocari aut uocem mutare uiros aut uertere uestem. sit Latium, sint Albani per saecula reges, sit Romana potens Itala uirtute propago: occidit, occideritque sinas cum nomine Troia.' (818-828)

And now I yield, and quit this loathsome war. I have one solemn request of you, banned by no law of fate, for Latium's sake, for your people's greatness: when soon with happy weddings – so be it! – they make peace, when soon they join in laws and treaties, do not command the native Latins to change their ancient name, nor to become Trojans and be called Teucrians, nor to change their tongue and alter their attire: Let Latium be, let Alban kings endure through the ages, let Roman stock be strong in Italian valor: Troy has falled, and fallen let her be, together with her name.

Portraying Dardanus as a proto-Roman is a way of appropriating Aeneas' Trojan heritage for Rome. The practices and customs Romans connected with their Trojan heritage can be reconceived as descended ultimately from Italy. Aeneas is able to be from Troy

126 Fairclough (1918) 17-9.

199 without being from the East. Aeneas is able to found Rome without upsetting Juno's

Trojan animosities.

A third way that Horace declares Rome to be a world city occurs in C.4.14, which describes Augustus as: o tutela praesens / Italiae dominaeque Romae (C.4.14. 43-44).

Through the use of the phrase domina Roma, this poem does more than express

Augustus’ commitment to Italy and Rome, it expresses his view of Rome as the caput mundi. Augustus is the guardian. It is Rome that is the lord.

200 Conclusion: From Civil Wars to the Augustan Vision

Reading Odes 4 as a literary Mausoleum of Augustus helps makes sense of a book which seems at times to be heading in several directions. My goal is not to close the door on other approaches to this work. Much illumination has been offered by exploring connections between book 4 and Greek Lyric, Pindar, Alexandrianism, the Neoteric poets, or the symposium. My thesis is offered not in opposition to these approaches but rather as an additional perspective on interpreting what has proved for so long an enigmatic and misunderstood collection.

Many of the ideas Augustus included in the Mausoleum find expression in

Horace’s poetry as well. Though some of the individual parts might appear in other areas of Augustan culture, when taken together the picture that emerges suggests a strong case for considering Odes 4 as a literary Mausoleum of Augustus. It must be remembered, however, what is and is not being suggested. I am not arguing that Odes 4 is some sort of positivist poetic blueprint for reading the Mausoleum. Rather, the connection between the book and the monument should be understood in terms of inspiration and poetic reflection. The Mausoleum imparts an inspirational force over Horace’s poetry. Odes 4 recreates and serves as a poetic equivalent of the Mausoleum.

There is a long tradition in the ancient world of poets looking to the physical world for sources to help illuminate their poetry. The Augustan poets were inspired by the city of Rome rising up around them and found in the new constructions useful material for articulating aspects of their message. Some at times used the city as a

201 metaphor to explain their poetics. Others used their poetry to describe and comment on the city, its history, and leaders. Horace himself had his own way of incorporating the city into his poetry. Horace appropriates the city. Engaging in a more subtle poetic technique, Horace adopts the evocation of the city and its structures which were present in the minds of his readers and uses them as the framework upon which to build the structure of his poetry. The Epodes employ the associations of the Esquiline Hill and the

Sacra Via for the purpose of ordering and reinforcing the continuity of his book. Horace, after having demonstrated his own lyric virtuosity in Odes 1-3, declares that this work constitutes his own funeral monument and describes it in terms which suggest the

Mausoleum. All of this leads to Odes 4, which was not a product of imperial compulsion but rather an innovation of lyric poetry by the poet laureate of Rome. The Carmen

Saeculare transformed Horace's understanding of himself in relationship to his poetry and to Rome. Horace saw in this poem the ability of poetry to create, to mirror, to immortalize. When he returned to lyric, he did so for the purpose of constructing a literary monument for Augustus similar to the one the princeps had built for himself.

Odes 4 is built upon the foundation of Horace's earlier lyric which the poet had already conceived of as his own literary Mausoleum. The book's meditations upon death, the power of poetry, and the nature of immortality serve as the brick and mortar of his poetic Mausoleum which give the book the shape of a funeral monument. Finally,

Horace has shaped his poetic construction in the likeness specifically of the Mausoleum through mirroring in the poetic sphere many of its themes. Odes 4 emerges as poetry

202 book that is both firmly a part of the Horatian corpus and an innovative attempt to extend the boundaries of his poetry.

Horace isn’t throwing together a haphazard array of second-rate poetry to fill out a book he was less than enthusiastic about writing. Rather, Horace, as he has always done, is artfully crafting and compiling his poetry. When read as a literary Mausoleum for Augustus, the book reveals a poet sincerely grateful for the Augustan peace which has brought an end to a generation of bloodshed. No place is this seen more clearly than in the final ode of the work, C.4.15, which functions as a capstone to his poetic monument.

Scholars looking for ways Horace undermines his praise of Augustus cannot escape the lack of ambiguity of C.4.15. Some derisively condemn this as Horace ceasing to qualify his praise of the princeps and simply providing "a direct narration of the res gestae of Augustus,"1 which I take to be exactly his goal. The inability of static inscriptions lamented in C.4.14 is now answered in C.4.15 by Horace inscribing the achievements of Augustus in song. Proclaiming the merits of its subject, this ode truly has the ability to function as the titulus on Horace's monument to Augustus. If Odes 4 is a Mausoleum, this final ode is its Res Gestae.2

1 Lowrie (1997) 343.

2 Of course, the Res Gestae wasn’t erected until after Augustus' death. An early version was probably composed in 23 BC when Augustus became deathly ill. It is also possible that a version circulated before Augustus' death. Some question, though, if it was there at all. All Suetonius says (Aug. 100) is Augustus stated in his will that he wished for it to be placed in front of the Mausoleum. When Strabo described the Mausoleum he made no mention of any inscribed texts being erected in front of the Mausoleum. For more on the Res Gestae, see Brunt and Moore (1967), Ramage (1987), Güven (1998), Wickkiser (1999) 125ff.

203 Horace's last ode begins as a recusatio. Apollo warns him of the dangers of attempting to sing of battle and conquest.

Phoebus volentem proelia me loqui victas et urbis increpuit lyra, ne parva Tyrrhenum per aequor vela darem. (1-4)

Phoebus rebuked me, wishing to celebrate on the lyre battles and conquered cities, not to spread my little sails over the Tyrrhenian Sea.

The uniqueness of this recusatio is underscored by the way in which Horace fails to fulfill the reader's expectation of what comes next. Standard poetic form would dictate that he change themes and pursue more slender topics like love, friendship, or wine – topics suitable for the lyric symposium. Horace does change theme but continues to sing of Caesar.3 Songs fitting to the lyre will follow – songs not of battle but of peace. The symposium can embrace Augustus because Augustus has ensured the peace necessary for its continuation.

The main body of 4.15 begins with Horace's "poetic summa of the Augustan age, which he calls simply tua, Caesar, aetas instead of aurea aetas or aureum saeculum."4

tua, Caesar, aetas

fruges et agris rettulit uberes et signa nostro restituit Iovi derepta Parthorum surperbis postibus et vacuum duellis

3 Putnam (1986) 270.

4 Galinsky (1996) 111.

204 Ianum Quirini clausit et ordinem rectum evaganti frena licentiae iniecit emovitque culpas et veteres revocavit artis,

per quas Latinum nomen et Italae crevere vires, famaque et imperi porrecta maiestas ad ortus solis ab Hesperio cubili. (4-16)

Your Age, Caesar, has brought back abundant crops to the fields, and restored to our Jove the standards torn down from the haughty doors of the Parthians, and has closed the doors of Janus Quirinus empty from war, and has cast reins upon licentiousness wandering beyond its proper bounds, and has banished crimes, and has recalled the old arts through which the Latin name and the strength of Italy increased, and the fame and majesty of our rule has been extended to the rising of the sun from its bed in Hesperia.

Enjambed into the end of the first stanza, the three-word phrase serves as the title of the poem and of the entire work. The stanzas that follow recount the accomplishments of Augustus in a series of perfect tense statements full of polysyndeton which "suggests an almost unlimited sequence of beneficial achievements."5 Horace also employs the prefix "re" several times in the passage to underscore that Augustus has not created something new but rather restored something that had fallen into disrepair.6

The second half of the poem begins with an ablative absolute declaring Caesar to be the guardian of Rome. The perfect tense changes to a string of future tense verbs declaring the benefits of Augustan peace.

5 Fraenkel (1957) 450.

6 Fraenkel (1957) 450-1.

205 custode rerum Caesare non furor civilis aut vis exiget otium, non ira, quae procudit ensis et miseras inimicat urbis;

non qui profundum Danuvium bibunt edicta rumpent Iulia, non Getae, non Seres infidive Persae, non Tanain prope flumen orti; (17-24)

With Caesar as the guardian of things, neither civic madness nor force, nor anger which forges swords and makes wretched cities enemies, will drive out otium. Those who drink the deep Danube will not break the Julian edicts, nor will the Getae, nor the Seres, nor the faithless Persians, nor those born near the river Don.

Some consider the fact that Rome's ruler is absorbed into an ablative absolute construction as containing perhaps "a hint of conditionality (if)."7 Such should not lead us to think that Horace is someone undermining his praise of Augustus. Rather, he is emphazing the tenuous nature of the peace that has been established. Rome needs

Augustus. As long as Augustus is "custos rerum," an appellation similar to those used in official inscriptions,8 civil wars will not disrupt Horace's otium.

Horace concludes the ode with a two-stanza statement about how Augustus' accomplishments will be perpetuated.

nosque et profestis lucibus et sacris inter iocosi munera Liberi, cum prole matronisque nostris, rite deos prius apprecati,

7 Putnam (1986) 264.

8 Galinsky (1996) 64-5.

206 virtute functos more patrum duces Lydis remixto carmine tibiis Troiamque et Anchisen et almae progeniem Veneris canemus. (25-32)

And on both ordinary and sacred days, among the gifts of jovial Bacchus, with our wives and children, having first duly invoked the gods, in song mixed with the Lydian tibia we will sing in the custom of our fathers about generals accomplished in virtue and about Troy and Anchises and the offspring of nourishing Venus.

Putnam, recognizing the way that this poem begins and ends with poetry, states, "Though

Augustan might is the ode's main theme, it is in fact the dynamism of poetry which frames, and therefore both monumentalizes and preserves, that magnificence."9 The poetry functions as the bricks and the mortar of Augustus' poetic tomb; the man and his deeds are the reason it was built.

The concluding word of the ode, the first personal plural future tense canemus, has generated much discussion.10 It is taken as a literary allusion to the first lines of the

Aeneid. Vergil has figured prominently in Odes 4. Here at the end Horace pays tribute his friend's greatest work. Such a connection is reinforced by Horace's mention of Troy,

Anchises, and the progeny of Venus.11 But the Aeneid isn’t the only work of Vergil the concluding lines of C.4.15 reference. The first line of Georgics 3 ends with the word canemus. Horace ends his literary Mausoleum of Augustus with the word that begins

9 Putnam (1986) 265.

10 For a more complete list of ways this final word and stanza have been understood, see Johnson (2004) 277 n.65.

11 For more on the connection between the end of C.4.15 and the beginning of the Aeneid, see Putnam (1986) 303ff, Johnson (2004) 212-3.

207 Vergil's description of the poetic temple he plans to build to Augustus. Such a connection further entrenches Odes 4 in the tradition of poetic monument building.

In addition to literary interpretations, the concluding word has been interpreted as a reflection of the poet's feelings towards Augustus. Fraenkel thinks that Horace "had realized the limits within which he had to keep if he wanted to be a sincere poet."12

Instead of placing these praises in his own mouth, he broadens the scope and places them in the mouth of a group, thus enabling him to retain inviolate "his own true self."13

Oliensis sees in this poem the loss of Horace's poetic identity stating disappointedly that the poem, and thus the book and Horace's lyric career, "ends with an act of self- obliteration that leaves Caesar in sole possession of the poem."14 By not carrying through with the recusatio, Horace leaves no room for himself. "At the last frontier of Horace's last collection the emperor usurps the place of the poet, and the empire overwhelms the poem."15 She goes on to interpret this poetic disappearing act as representing "not a failure of authority but a retreat from the Augustan challenge – Horace's exit from a game he has ceased to enjoy."16 All these positions interpret the transition from the singular me of the first line to the plural nos of the last as Horace's withdrawal into the crowd. The opposite is conceivably the case. The poet who sang the song of the age has realized the

12 Fraenkel (1957) 452.

13 Fraenkel (1957) 453.

14 Oliensis (1998) 152.

15 Oliensis (1998) 153.

16 Oliensis (1998) 153. 208 power he has to represent the desires, hopes, and dreams of a people and now steps forward and on behalf of the crowd sings the praises of the one who has ended civil war and brought peace with all its blessings to the Roman people.

Perhaps our estimation of Horace's sincerity in these lines and in this book as a whole is a measure of how many wars we have experienced. To those who have seen no battles and have known only peace, praise of powerful men will always seem stuffy and sycophantic, or ironized and underhanded. Such is the case with Ovid. To those like

Vergil and Horace, born into a world in upheaval and seeing a whole generation decimated by fratricide, praise of one who is able to establish and ensure lasting peace is capable of being sincerely effusive. To such a one, the words of Vergil seem an understatement: erit ille mihi semper deus.

209

Bibliography

Ahl, F. 1984. "The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius." Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.32.1: 40-110.

———. 1985. Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Alcock, S. E. and R. Osborne (ed.). 1994. Place the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Alföldi, A. 1965. Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Amand, M. 1987. "La Réapparition de la Sepulture Sous Tumulus dans l'Empire Romain." L'Antiquité Classique 56: 162-182.

Ambrose, J. W. 1965. "The Ironic Meaning of the Lollius Ode." Transactions of the American Philological Association 96: 1-10.

Anderson, J. C. 1984. The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora. Collection Latomus 182. Bruxelles.

Anderson, J. C., Jr. 1997. Roman Architecture and Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Anderson, W. S. 1974. "Autobiography and Art in Horace." In Perspectives of Roman Poetry, ed. K. Galinsky. Austin: University of Texas Press. 33-56.

———. 1982. Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton.

———. 1995. "Horatius Liber: Child and Freedman's Free Son." Arethusa 28: 151-164.

———. 1997. Ovid's Metamorphoses: Books 1-5. Norman: University of Oklahoma.

Anderson, W. S. and L. N. Quartarone (ed.). 2002. Approaches to Teaching Vergil's Aeneid. New York: Modern Language Association of America.

Ando, C. 2008. The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.

210 Arce, J. 1988. Funus Imperatorum: Los Funerales de los Emperadores Romanos. Madrid: Alianza Forma.

Armstrong, D. 1986. "Horatius Eques et Scriba: Satires 1.6 and 2.7." Transactions of the American Philological Association 116: 255-288.

———. 1989. Horace. New Haven: Yale University Press.

———. 1997. "Some Recent Perspectives on Horace." Phoenix 51.3/4: 393-405.

Armstrong, D., J. Fish, P. A. Johnston and M. B. Skinner (ed.). 2004. Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Arnold, B. 1986. "A Reevaluation of the Artistry of Horace's Carmen Saeculare." Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 4: 475-491.

Arya, D. A. 2002. The Goddess Fortuna in Imperial Rome: Cult, Art, Text. Dissertation: University of Texas at Austin.

Bacon, J. R. 1939. "Aeneas in Wonderland: A Study of Aeneid VIII." Classical Review 53: 97-104.

Badian, E. 1972. "Ennius and His Friends." In Ennius, ed. O. Skutsch. Genève: Foundation Hardt. 151-208.

Bahti, T. 1986. "Ambiguity and Indeterminacy: The Juncture." Comparative Literature 38.3: 209-223.

Balot, R. K. 1998. "Pindar, Virgil, and the Proem to Georgic 3." Phoenix 52: 83-94.

Barchiesi, A. 1996. "Poetry, Praise, and Patronage: Simonides in Book 4 of Horace's Odes." Classical Antiquity 15: 5-47.

———. 2001. "Horace and Iambos: The Poet as Literary Historian." In Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire, ed. A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni and A. Barchiesi. Lantham: Rowman & Littlefield. 141- 164.

———. 2002. "The Uniqueness of the Carmen Saeculare and Its Tradition." In Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace, ed. A. J. Woodman and D. Feeney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 107-123.

———. 2005a. "Learned Eyes: Poets, Viewers, Image Makers." In Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, ed. K. Galinsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 281-305. 211 ———. 2005b. "Lane-Switching and Jughandles in Contemporary Interpretations of Roman Poetry " Transactions of the American Philological Association 135.1: 135-162.

Barchiesi, A., J. Rüpke and S. A. Stephens (ed.). 2004. Rituals in Ink: A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Beard, M. 2004. "Writing Ritual: The Triumph of Ovid." In Rituals in Ink: A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome, ed. A. Barchiesi, J. Rüpke and S. A. Stephens. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. 115-126.

———. 2007. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Beard, M., J. North and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Becker, C. 1959. "Donarem Pateras." Hermes 87: 212-222.

———. 1963. Das Spätwerk des Horaz. Göttingen.

Benario, J. M. 1960. "Book 4 of Horace’s Odes: Augustan Propaganda." Transactions of the American Philological Association 91: 339-352.

Bennett, C. E. 1914. Horace: Odes and Epodes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bentley, R. 1711. Q. Horatius Flaccus Berlin.

Bergson, L. 1970. "zu Horaz, Carm. IV.5." Rheinisches Museum 113: 358-363.

Bernhard, M.-L. 1956. "Topographie d'Aléxandrie: Le Tombeau d'Aléxandre et le Mausolée d'Auguste." Revue Archéologique 47: 129-156.

Boas, H. 1938. Aeneas' Arrival in Latium: Observations on Legends, History, Religion, Topography and Related Subjects in Vergil, Aeneid VII, 1-135. Amsterdam: N.V. Noor-Hollandsche Uitgevers-MIJ.

Boatwright, M. T. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Boëthius, A. 1978. Etruscan Early Roman Architecture. New York: Penguin.

212 Bohm, C. 1989. Imitatio Alexandri im Hellenismus: Untersuchungen zum politischen Nachwirken Alexanders der Grossen in hoch- und späthellenistischen Monarchien. Munich.

Bömer, F. 1949. "Hendrik Wagenvoort: Roman Dynamism." Gnomon 21: 354-359.

Borzsák, I. 1964. "Exegi Monumentum Aere Perennius." Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 137-147.

Boschung, D. 1980. "Tumulus Iuliorum - Mausoleum Augusti: Ein Beitrag zu seinen Sinnbezügen." Hefte des Archäologischen Seminars der Universität Bern 6: 138- 141.

Bosworth, B. 1999. "Augustus, the Res Gestae and Hellenistic Theories of Apotheosis." Journal of Roman Studies 89: 1-18.

Boucher, J.-P. 1966. Caius Cornélius Gallus. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Bowditch, P. L. 2001. Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bowra, C. M. 1928. "Horace, Odes IV.12." Classical Review 42: 165-7.

———. 1964. Pindar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Boyle, A. J. 2003. Ovid and the Monuments: A Poet's Rome. Victoria, Australia: Aureal Publications.

Bradshaw, A. T. v. S. 1970. "Horace, Odes 4.1." Classical Quarterly 20: 142-153.

———. 1989. "Horace in Sabinis." In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History V, ed. C. Deroux. Bruxelles: Collection Latomus 206. 160-186.

Braund, S. H. 1989. "City and Country in Roman Satire." In Satire and Society in Ancient Rome, ed. S. H. Braund. Exeter. 23-48.

——— (ed.). 1989. Satire and Society in Ancient Rome. Exeter.

Bright, D. F. 1978. Haec Mihi Fingebam: Tibullus in his World. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Brink, C. O. 1963. Horace on Poetry 1: Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1971. Horace on Poetry 2: The Ars Poetica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 213 ———. 1982. Horace on Poetry 3: Epistles Book II: The Letters to Augustus and Florus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brugnoli, G. 1968. Suetonio, Vita di Orazio. Rome.

Brunt, P. A. and J. M. Moore (ed.). 1967. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buchheit, V. 1965. "Tibull II,5 und die Aeneis." Philologus 109.1/2: 104-120.

Burnett, A. P. 2005. Pindar's Songs for Young Athletes of Aigina. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burton, R. W. B. 1962. Pindar's Pythian Odes: Essays in Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bury, J. B. 1965. The Nemean Odes of Pindar. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.

Cairns, F. 1971. "Five "Religious" Odes of Horace. (I, 10; I, 21 and IV, 6; I, 30; I, 15)." American Journal of Philology 92.3: 433-452.

———. 1979. Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2006. Sextus Propertius: The Augustan Elegist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Camps, W. A. 1965. Propertius Elegies Book IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1966. Propertius Elegies Book III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1973. "Critical and Exegetical Notes." American Journal of Philology 94.2: 131- 146.

Cancik, H. 1969. "Zur Geschichte der Aedes (Herculis) Musarum auf dem Marsfeld." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 76: 323-8.

Carettoni, G. 1983. Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Carrubba, R. W. 1969. The Epodes of Horace: A Study in Poetic Arrangement. The Hague: Mouton.

214 Cary, E. 1917. Dio's Roman History VI: Books 51-55. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Castagnoli, F. 1947. "Il Campo Marzio nell'antichità " Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 8th. ser. 1.4: 93-193.

———. 1981. "Influenze Alessandrine nell'urbanistica della Roma Augustea." Rivista di Filologia e d'Instruzione Classica 109: 414-423.

———. 1984. "Apollo Palatinus." In Enciclopedia Virgiliana. Rome. 222-224.

Coarelli, F. 1988. Il Foro Boario: dalla Origini alla Fine della Repubblica. Rome: Quasar.

———. 1988. "Rom. Die Stadtplanung von Caesar bis Augustus." In Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik ed. M. R. Hofter. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. 68-80.

———. 1996. "Hercules Invictus, Ara Maxima." In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar III.15-17.

———. 1997. Il Campo Marzio: dalle origini alla fine della Repubblica. Rome: Quasar.

Coarelli, F. and Y. Thébert. 1988. "Architecture funéraire et pouvoir: Réflexions sur l'hellénisme numide." Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome, Antiquité 100: 761-818.

Collinge, N. E. 1976. The Structure of Horace's Odes London: Oxford University Press.

Colvin, H. 1991. Architecture and the After-Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Commager, S. 1967. The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Cornish, F. W., J. P. Postgate and J. W. Mackail. 1913. Catullus, Tibullus, Pervigilium Veneris. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cresci Marrone, G. 1980. "Imitatio Alexandri in età augustea." Atene e Roma 25: 35-41.

Davies, P. J. E. 2000. Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, G. 1987. "Quis...Digne Scripserit?: The Topos of Alter Homerus in Horace C.1.6." Phoenix 41.3: 292-295.

215 ———. 1991. Polyhymnia: the Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press. de Vos, M. 1980. L'egittomania in Pitture e Mosaici Romano-Campani della Prima Età Imperiale. Leiden.

Debrohun, J. B. 2003. Roman Propertius and the Reinvention of Elegy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Dettmer, H. 1983. Horace: A Study in Structure. Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien 12. Hildesheim: Olms.

Dickinson, S. K. and J. P. Hallet (ed.). 2000. Rome and Her Monuments. Bolchazy- Carducci.

Dobrov, G. W. (ed.). 1997. The City as Comedy: Society and Representation in Athenian Drama. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Dornseiff, F. 1942. "Eine Sphragis des Horaz (c.IV.8)." Philologus 95: 166-71.

Drew, D. L. 1924. "Virgil's Marble Temple: Georgics III.10-39." Classical Quarterly 18: 195-202.

Duff, J. W. 1932. A Literary History of Rome. London: E. Benn, Limited.

DuQuesnay, I. M. L. M. 1995. "Horace, Odes 4.5: Pro Reditu Imperatoris Caesaris Divi Filii Augusti." In Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration, ed. S. J. Harrison. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 128-187.

Dyer, R. R. 1965. "Diffugere Nives: Horace and the Augustan Spring." Greece & Rome 12: 79-84.

Dyson, S. L. and R. E. Prior. 1995. "Horace, Martial, and Rome: Two Poetic Outsiders Read the Ancient City." Arethusa 28: 245-264.

Eden, P. T. 1975. A Commentary on Virgil: Aeneid VIII. London: E.J. Brill.

Edwards, C. 1996. Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, C. and G. Woolf (ed.). 2003. Rome the Cosmopolis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

216 Eisner, M. 1978. "Zur Typologie der Mausoleen des Augustus und des Hadrian." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 86: 319-324.

———. 1986. Zur Typologie der Grabbauten im Suburbium Roms. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung. Ergänzungsheft 26

Elsner, J. (ed.). 1996. Art and Text in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Empson, W. 1930. Seven Types of Ambiguity. London: Chatto and Windus.

Espinosa Ruiz, U. 1982. Debate Agrippa-Maecenas en Dion Cassio: Respuesta senatorial a la Crisis del Impero Romano en Época Severiana. Madrid.

Estévez, V. A. 1982. "Quem Tu, Melpomene: The Poet's Lowered Voice (C.IV.3)." Emerita 50: 279-300.

Evans, J. D. 1992. The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Fairclough, H. R. 1916. Virgil: Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid I-VI. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. 1918. Virgil: Aeneid VII-XII, The Minor Poems. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. 1926. Horace: Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Fantham, E. 1997. "Images of the City: Propertius' New-Old Rome." In The Roman Cultural Revolution, ed. T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Farnell, L. R. 1932. The Works of Pindar. London: Macmillan.

Farrell, J. 1991. Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: The Art of Allusion in Literary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Favro, D. G. 1996. The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2005. "Making Rome a World City." In Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, ed. K. Galinsky. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 234-263. 217 Fedeli, P. 1965. Properzio Elegie Libro IV. Bari: Adriatica Editrice.

———. 1985. Properzio: Il Libro Terzo delle Elegie. Bari: Adriatica Editrice.

Feeney, D. C. 1993. "Horace and the Greek Lyric Poets." In Horace 2000: A Celebration, ed. N. Rudd. London.

———. 1998. Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2002. "Una Cum Scriptore Meo: Poetry, Principate, and the Traditions of Literary History in the Epistle to Augustus." In Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace, ed. A. J. Woodman and D. Feeney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 172-187.

Fellman, R. 1957. Das Grab des Lucius Munatius Plancus bei Gaeta. Basel.

Fennell, C. A. M. 1899. Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes. Cambridge: University Press.

Fentress, E. 2000. "Cosa and the Idea of the City." In Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures, ed. E. Fentress. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 38. 9-24.

——— (ed.). 2000. Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 38.

Ferri, R. 2007. "The Epistles." In Cambridge Companion to Horace, ed. S. J. Harrison. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 121-131.

Fishwick, D. 1969. "Genius and Numen." Harvard Theological Review 62.3: 356-267.

———. 1990. "Dio and Maecenas: The Emperor and the Ruler Cult." Phoenix 44.3: 267- 275.

Fitzgerald, W. 1988. "Power and Impotence in Horace's Epodes." Ramus 17: 176-191.

Fleischer, U. 1960. "Musentempel und Octavianehrung des Vergil im Proömium zum dritten Buche der Georgica." Hermes 88: 280-331.

Fordyce, C. J. 1977. P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Libri VII-VIII. Oxford.

Fowler, D. P. 1991. "Narrate and Describe: The Problem of Ekphrasis." Journal of Roman Studies 81: 25-35.

218 Fowler, W. W. 1917. Aeneas at the Site of Rome: Observations on the Eighth Book of the Aeneid. Oxford: B.H. Blackwell.

Fraenkel, E. 1957. Horace. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Frank, T. 1924. Roman Buildings of the Republic: An Attempt to Date Them From Their Materials. Rome: American Academy in Rome.

———. 1925. "The First and Second Temples of Castor at Rome." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 5: 79-102.

Fraser, P. M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Freudenburg, K. 1993. The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 2002. "Solus Sapiens Liber Est: Recommissioning lyric in Epistles I." In Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace, ed. A. J. Woodman and D. Feeney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 124-140.

——— (ed.). 2005. Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frischer, B., J. Crawford and M. De Simone. 2006. The Horace's Villa Project, 1997- 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frischer, B. D. and I. G. Brown (ed.). 2001. Allan Ramsay and the Search for Horace's Villa. Ashgate.

Gagé, J. 1955. Apollon Romain: Essai sur le Culte d'Apollon et le Développement du "Ritus Graecus" à Rome des Origines à Auguste. Paris: Boccard.

Galinsky, K. 1966. "Scipionic Themes in Plautus' Amphitruo." Transactions of the American Philological Association 97: 203-235.

———. 1967. "Sol and the Carmen Saeculare." Latomus 26: 619-633.

———. 1969a. Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 1969b. "The Triumph Theme in the Augustan Elegy." Wiener Studien 82: 75- 107.

———. 1969c. "Aeneas' Invocation of Sol (Aeneid, XII, 176)." American Journal of Philology 90.4: 453-458.

219 ———. 1974. "The 'Tomb of Aeneas' at Lavinium." Vergilius 20: 2-11.

———. 1975. Ovid's Metamorphoses: an Introduction to the Basic Aspects. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

———. 1992a. "Venus, Polysemy, and the Ara Pacis Augustae." American Journal of Archaeology 96: 457-475.

———. 1992b. "Aeneas at Rome and Lavinium." In The Two Worlds of the Poet: New Perspectives on Vergil, ed. R. M. Wilhelm and H. Jones. Detroit. 93-108.

———. 1992c. "Introduction: The Current State of the Interpretation of Roman Poetry and the Contemporary Critical Scene." In The Interpretation of Roman Poetry: Empiricism or Hermeneutics, ed. K. Galinsky. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 1- 40.

——— (ed.). 1992d. The Interpretation of Roman Poetry: Empiricism or Hermeneutics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

———. 1994. "Reading Roman Poetry in the 1990's." Classical Journal 89: 297-309.

———. 1996. Augustan Culture: an Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 2003a. "Clothes for the Emperor." Arion 3rd. ser. 10.3: 143-169.

———. 2003b. "Horace's Cleopatra and Virgil's Dido." In Literature, Art, History: Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition in Honour of W.J. Henderson, ed. A. F. Basson and W. J. Dominik. Franfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 17-24.

——— (ed.). 2005. Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2008. "Review of Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius by Paul Rehak." American Journal of Archaeology 112: 194-195.

Gessert, G. S. 2001. Urban Spaces, Public Decoration, and Civic Identity in Ancient Ostia. Dissertation: Yale University.

Gibson, B. J. 1997. "Horace, Carm.3.30.1-5." Classical Quarterly 47.1: 312-314.

Gildersleeve, B. L. 1965. Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.

220 Goldberg, S. M. 2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and Its Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2006. "Ennius after the Banquet." Arethusa 39: 427-447.

Goldhill, S. and R. Osborne (ed.). 1994. Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goold, G. P. 1990. Propertius: Elegies. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gosling, A. 1986. "Octavian, Brutus, and Apollo: A Note on Opportunist Propaganda." American Journal of Philology 107: 586-589.

Graff, G. 1987. Professing Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gransden, K. W. 1976. Aeneid, Book VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Green, P. 1993. Alexander to Actium: the Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Green, S. J. 2004. "Playing With Marble: The Monuments of the Caesars in Ovid's Fasti." Classical Quarterly 54.1: 224-239.

Griffin, J. 1984. "Augustus and the Poets: Caesar Qui Cogere Posset." In Caesar Augustus: Seven Apects, ed. F. Millar and E. Segal. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Grimal, P. 1948. "La Promenade d’Évandre et Enée à la Lumière des Fouilles Récentes." Revue des Études Anciennes 348-51.

Gruen, E. S. 2005. "Augustus and the Making of the Principate." In Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, ed. K. Galinsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33-51.

Grüner, A. 2004. Venus Ordinis: Der Wandel von Malerei und Literatur im Zeitalter der Römischen Bürgerkriege. Paderborn: Schöningh.

Güven, S. 1998. "Displaying the Res Gestae of Augustus: a Monument of Imperial Image for All." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 57.1: 30-45.

Habinek, T. and A. Schiesaro (ed.). 1997. The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

221 Habinek, T. N. 1986. "The Marriageability of Maximus: Horace, Ode 4.1.13-20." American Journal of Philology 107.3: 407-416.

Hagstrum, J. H. 1958. The Sister Arts: The Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Dryden to Gray. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hahn, E. A. 1945. "Horace's Ode to Vergil." Transactions of the American Philological Association 76: xxxii.

Hardie, A. 1983. Statius and the Silvae: Poets, Patrons, and Epideixis in the Graeco- Roman World. Liverpool.

———. 1998. "Horace, the Paean, and the Roman Choreia (Odes 4.6)." Papers of the Leeds Latin Seminar 10: 251-93.

———. 2002. "The Georgics, The Mysteries and the Muses at Rome." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 48: 175-2008.

Hardie, P. 1993. "Ut pictura poesis? Horace and the Visual Arts." In Horace 2000: A Celebration, ed. N. Rudd. London: Duckworth.

Harrison, S. J. 1990. "The Praise Singer: Horace, Censorinus, and Odes 4.8." Journal of Roman Studies 80: 31-43.

——— (ed.). 1995. Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 2001. "Some Generic Problems in Horace's Epodes: Or, On (Not) Being Archilochus." In Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire, ed. A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni and A. Barchiesi. Lantham: Rowman & Littlefield. 165-186.

———. 2004. "Lyric Middles." In Middles in Latin Poetry, ed. S. Kyriakidis and F. De Martino. Bari: Levante. 81-102.

——— (ed.). 2007. Cambridge Companion to Horace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hendrickson, G. L. 1953. "The So-Called Prelude to the Carmen Saeculare." Classical Philology 48.2: 73-79.

Henry, E. 1986. "Virgil and the Monuments." Proceedings of the Virgil Society 18: 19- 46.

222 Heslin, P. 2007. "Augustus, Domitian, and the So-called Horologium Augusti." Journal of Roman Studies 97: 1-20.

Hetland, L. M. 2007. "Dating the Pantheon." Journal of Roman Archaeology 20: 95-112.

Highbargher, E. L. 1935. "The Pindaric Style of Horace." Transactions of the American Philological Association 66: 222-254.

Highet, G. 1973. "Libertino Patre Natus." American Journal of Philology 94: 268-281.

Hijmans, S. 2004. "Sol and Luna in the Carmen Saeculare." In Metamorphic Reflections: Essays Presented to Ben Hijmans at his 75th birthday, ed. M. Zimmerman and R. T. v. d. Paardt. Leuven: Peeters. 201-224.

Hills, P. D. 2001. "Ennius, Suetonius and the Genesis of Horace, Odes 4." Classical Quarterly 51.2: 613-616.

Hofter, M. R. (ed.). 1988. Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Holder, A. (ed.). 1894. Pomponi Porfyrionis Commentum in Horatium Flaccum Innsbruck: Wagner.

Holloway, R. R. 1966. "The Tomb of Augustus and the Princes of Troy." American Journal of Archaeology 70.2: 171-173.

Horsfall, N. 1995. A Companion to the Study of Virgil. Mnemosyne Supp. 151. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Hutchinson, G. 2006. Propertius: Elegies Book IV. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jaeger, M. 1990. The Poetics of Place: The Augustan Writers and the Urban Landscape of Rome. Dissertation: University of California, Berkeley.

———. 1997. Livy's Written Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

———. 2002. "Vergil and the Monuments." In Approaches to Teaching Vergil's Aeneid, ed. W. S. Anderson and L. N. Quartarone. New York: Modern Language Association of America. 131-137.

Johnson, M. J. 1996. "The Mausoleum of Augustus: Etruscan and Other Influences on Its Design." In Etruscan Italy: Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to Modern Era, ed. J. F. Hall. Provo: Museum of Art, Brigham Young University. 217-240. 223 Johnson, T. S. 1993. Wine, Song, and the Potens Vates: The Sympotic Structure of Horace's "Odes". Dissertation: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

———. 1994. "Horace, C.IV.12, Vergilius At The Symposium." Vergilius 40: 49-66.

———. 2004. A Symposion of Praise: Horace Returns to Lyric in Odes IV. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Johnson, W. R. 1969. "Tact in the Drusus Odes: Horace, Odes 4.4." California Studies in Classical Antiquity 2: 171-181.

Jones, A. H. M. 1949. "The Roman Civil Service (Clerical and Sub-Clerical Grades)." Journal of Roman Studies 39: 38-55.

Jucker, H. 1982. "Apollo Palatinus und Apollo Actius auf Augusteischen Münzen." Museum Helveticum 39: 82-100.

Keith, A. 2007. "Imperial Building Projects and Architectural Exphrases in Ovid's Metamorphoses and Statius' Thebaid." Mouseion 7: 1-26.

Keppie, L. 1995. "Augustus' Tomb." Classical Review 45.2: 382-383.

Kienast, D. 1969. "Augustus und Alexander." Gymnasium 76: 430-456.

———. 1999. Augustus, Prinzeps und Monarch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Kiernan, V. G. 1999. Horace: Poetics and Politics. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Kiessling, A. and R. Heinze (ed.). 1955. Q. Horatius Flaccus: Oden und Epoden. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Kilpatrick, R. S. 1975. "Horace on His Critics: Epist. 1.19." Phoenix 29: 117-27.

———. 1990. The Poetry of Criticism: Horace, Epistles II. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.

Kleiner, D. E. E. 2005. Cleopatra and Rome. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Koch, C. 1933. Gestirnverehrung in Alten Italien: Sol indiges und der Kreis der Di Indigetes. Frankfurt: V. Klostermann.

Kornemann, E. 1938. "Octavians Romulusgrab." Klio 31: 81-91.

224 Korzeniewski, D. 1968. "Monumentum regali situ pyramidum altius (zu Hor. C.III.30)." Mnemosyne 21: 29-34.

———. 1972. "Exegi Monumentum. Hor. Carm.III.30 und die Topik der Grabgedichte." Gymnasium 79: 380-88.

Kraft, K. 1967. "Der Sinn Des Mausoleums Des Augustus." Historia 16: 189-206.

Kreikenbom, D. 1992. Griechische und römische Kolossalporträts bis zum späten ersten Jahrhundert n.Chr. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kurke, L. 1991. The Traffice in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kyriakidis, S. and F. De Martino (ed.). 2004. Middles in Latin Poetry. Bari: Levante.

La Penna, A. 1963. Orazio e l'ideologia del principato. Turin: G. Einaudi.

La Rocca, E. 1999. "Pantheon (fase pre-adriana)." In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar V.280-283.

———. 1999. "Sepulcrum: L. Cornelius Sulla." In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar IV.286.

Lahusen, G. 1983. Untersuchungen zur römischen Ehrenstatuen in Rom. Rome.

Lambinus, D. 1561. Q. Horatius Flaccus, Ex fide, atque auctoritate decem librorum manu scriptorum, opera Dionys. Lambinu Montroliensis emendata: ab eodemque commentariis copiosissimis illustratus, nunc primun in lucem editus. Paris.

Larmour, D. H. J. and D. Spencer (ed.). 2007. The Sites of Rome: Time, Space, Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Latte, K. 1960. Römische Religionsgeschichte. Munich: Beck.

Leach, E. W. 1988. The Rhetoric of Space: Literary and Artistic Representations of Landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 1993. "Horace's Sabine Topography in Lyric and Hexameter Verse." American Journal of Philology 114: 271-302.

———. 1994. "Horace, Carmen 1.8: Achilles, the Campus Martius, and the Articulation of Gender Roles in Augustan Rome." Classical Philology 89: 334-343.

225 ———. 1997. "Horace and the Material Culture of Augustan Rome: A Revisionary Reading." In The Roman Cultural Revolution, ed. T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105-121.

———. 1998. "Personal and Communal Memory in the Reading of Horace's Odes, Books 1-3." Arethusa 31: 43-74.

Lefèvre, E. 1968. "Rursus Bella Moves?: Die Literarische Form von Horaz, c.4, 1." Rheinisches Museum 111: 166-189.

———. 1989. Das Bildprogramm des Apollo-Tempels auf dem Palatin. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.

———. 1993. Horaz: Dichter im Augusteischen Rom. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Lefkowitz, M. 1991. First-Person Fictions: Pindar's Poetic 'I'. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lesk, A. L. 2007. ""Caryatides Probantur Inter Pauca Operum": Pliny, Vitruvius, and the Semiotics of the Erechtheion Maidens at Rome." Arethusa 40: 25-42.

Lessing, G. E. 1766. Laocoön, oder über die Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie.

———. 1930. Laocoön: an Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry. Translated by E. A. McCormick. Indianapolis: Merrill.

Levi, P. 1997. Horace: A Life. London: Duckworth.

Levick, B. 1976. "The Fall of Julia the Younger." Latomus 35: 301ff.

Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 1979. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lott, J. B. 2004. The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lowrie, M. 1997. Horace's Narrative Odes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 2002. "Beyond Performance Envy: Horace and the Modern in the Epistle to Augustus." In Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry, ed. M. Paschalis. Rethymnon: University of Crete, Dept. of Philology. 141-171.

———. 2007. "Horace and Augustus." In Cambridge Companion to Horace, ed. S. J. Harrison. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 77-89.

226 Ludwig, W. 1961. "Die Anordnung des Vierten Horazischen Odenbuches." Museum Helveticum 18: 1-10.

Lugli, G. 1946. Roma Antica: Il Centro Monumentale. Rome: G. Bardi.

Lundström, S. 1976. "Der Eingang des Proömiums zum dritten Buche der Georgica." Hermes 104: 163-191.

Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1995. Horace: Behind the Public Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Macciocca, M. 1996. "Mausoleum Augusti: Le Sepolture." In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar III.237-9.

Macleod, C. W. 1977. "The Poet, the Critic, and the Moralist: Horace, Epistles 1.19." Classical Quarterly 27.2: 359-376.

———. 1979. "The Poetry of Ethics: Horace, Epistles I." Journal of Roman Studies 69: 16-27.

Mader, G. 1993. "Architecture, Aemulatio and Elegiac Self-Definition in Propertius 3.2." Classical Journal 88.4: 321-340.

Magnusson, B., S. Renzetti, P. Vian and S. J. Voicu (ed.). 1997. Ultra Terminum Vagari: Scritti in onore di Carl Nylnader. Rome: Quasar.

Maltby, R. 2002a. "Tibullus 2.5 and the Early History of Rome: A Comparison of TIbullus 2.5, Virgil's Aeneid, and Propertius 3.9 and 4.1." Kleos 7: 291-304.

Mankin, D. 1995. Horace: Epodes. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

Manning, C. E. 1970. "Canidia in the Epodes of Horace." Mnemosyne 23: 393-401.

Manuwald, B. 1979. Cassius Dio und Augustus: Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Büchern 45-56 des Dionischen Geschichtswerkes. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Maróti, E. 1965. "Princeps Aeloium carmen ad Italos deduxisse modos." Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 13: 97-109.

———. 1969. "Aere perennius." In Beiträge zur alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6. 10. 1968, ed. R. Stiehl and H. E. Stier. Berlin: De Gruyter. 452-458.

227 Maurach, G. 2001. Horaz: Werk und Leben. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.

Mayer, R. G. 1985. "Horace on Good Manners." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 31: 33-46.

———. 1986. "Horace's Epistles I and Philosophy." American Journal of Philology, 107: 55-73.

———. 1994. Horace: Epistles Book I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McGann, M. 1970. "The Date of Tibullus' Death." Latomus 29: 774-780.

McKay, A. G. 1967. "Aeneas' Landfalls in Hesperia." Greece & Rome 14.1: 3-11.

———. 1970. Vergil's Italy. Greenwich: New York Graphic Society.

Meban, D. 2008. "Temple Building, Primus Language, and the Proem to Virgil's Third Georgic." Classical Philology 103: 150-174.

Michel, D. 1967. Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius: Archäologische Untersuchungen. Bruxelles: Latomus.

Miles, G. B. 1980. Virgil's Georgics: A New Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Millar, F. 1964. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1993. "Ovid and the Domus Augusta: Rome Seen From Tomoi." Journal of Roman Studies 83: 1-17.

Millar, F. and E. Segal (ed.). 1984. Caesar Augustus: Seven Apects. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Miller, J. F. 1983. "Propertius 3.2 and Horace." Transactions of the American Philological Association 113: 289-299.

Minadeo, R. 1975/76. "Vergil in Horace's Odes." Classical Journal 161-164.

Mol, H. 1976. Identity and the Sacred: a Sketch for a New Social-Scientific Theory of Religion. Oxford.

Mommsen, T. 1887. Römisches Staatsrecht 3vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

———. 1905. "Die Akten zu dem Säkulargedicht des Horaz." In Reden und Aufsätze. Berlin: Weidmann. 351-359.

228 Moore, T. J. 1998. The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Moritz, L. A. 1969. "Horace's Virgil." Greece & Rome 16: 174-193.

Morrison, A. 2006. "Advice and Abuse: Horace, Epistles 1 and the Iambic Tradition." Materiali e Discussioni per l'Analisi dei Testi Classici 29-61.

Muecke, F. 2005. "Rome's First 'Satirists': Themes and Genre in Ennius and Lucilius." In Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire, ed. K. Freudenburg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105-120.

Murgatroyd, P. 1994. Tibullus: Elegies II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Naumann, H. 1981. "Suetonius' Life of Virgil: The Present State of the Question." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 85: 185-187.

Nethercut, W. 1961. "Ille parum cauti pectoris egit opus." Transactions of the American Philological Association 92: 389-407.

Newlands, C. 1991. "Silvae 3.1 and Statius' Poetic Temple." Classical Quarterly 41: 438- 452.

———. 2002. Statius' Silvae and the Poetics of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Newman, J. K. 1997. Augustan Propertius: The Recapitulation of a Genre. Spudasmata 63. Hildesheim: Olms.

Nicolet, C. 1991. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Nielsen, I. 1993. "Castor, Aedes, Templum." In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar I.242-5.

Nielsen, I., J. Zahle, K. A. Nilson and C. Persson. 1985. "The Temple of Castor and Pollux on the Forum Romanum. A Preliminary Report on the Scandinavian Excavations 1983-1985." Acta Archaeologica 56: 1-29.

Nilsson, M. P. 1920. "Saeculares ludi." Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 2R.IA.2: 1696-1720.

Nisbet, R. G. M. 2007. "Horace: Life and Chronology." In Cambridge Companion to Horace, ed. S. J. Harrison. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 7-21.

229 Nisbet, R. G. M. and M. Hubbard. 1970. A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nisbet, R. G. M. and N. Rudd. 2004. A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oliensis, E. 1991. "Canidia, Canicula, and the Decorum of Horace's Epodes." Arethusa 24: 107-138.

———. 1998. Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page, T. E. 1960. P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica et Georgica. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Palmer, R. E. A. 1974. Roman Religion and Roman Empire: Five Essays. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Papaioannou, S. 2003. "Founder, Civilizer and Leader: Vergil's Evander and His Role in the Origins of Rome." Mnemosyne 56.6: 680-702.

Parker, H. N. 2007. The Birthday Book: Censorinus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Paschalis, M. (ed.). 2002. Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry. Rethymnon: University of Crete, Dept. of Philology.

Pasquali, G. 1920. Orazio Lirico. Firenze: Le Monnier.

Patterson, J. R. 1992. "Survey Article: The City of Rome: From Republic to Empire." Journal of Roman Studies 82: 186-215.

Pearcy, L. T. 1977. "Horace's Architectural Imagery." Latomus 36: 772-781.

Pietilä-Castrén, L. 1987. Magnificentia Publica: The Victory Monuments of the Roman Generals in the Era of the Punic Wars. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Pighi, G. B. 1965. De Ludis Saecularibus Populi Romani Quiritium. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: P. Schippers.

Porter, D. H. 1975. "Recurrent Motifs of Horace, Carmina IV." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79: 189-228.

———. 1986. "A Note of the Text of Horace, C.4.8." American Journal of Philology 107: 416-421. 230 ———. 1987a. "From Separation to Song: Horace, Carmina IV." Illinois Classical Studies 12: 97-119.

———. 1987b. Horace's Poetic Journey: A Reading of Odes 1-3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 1995. "Quo, Quo Scelesti Ruitis: The Downward Momentum of Horace's Epodes." Illinois Classical Studies 20: 107-130.

Pöschl, V. 1967. "Die Horazenode Exegi Monumentum (c.3.30)." Giornale Italiano di Filologia 20: 97-109.

Purcell, N. 1983. "The Apparitores: a Study in Social Mobility." Papers of the British School at Rome 51: 125-73.

Putnam, M. C. J. 1973a. "Horace C.3.30: The Lyricist as Hero." Ramus 2: 1-19.

———. 1973b. Tibullus: A Commentary. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

———. 1982. Essays on Latin Lyric, Elegy, and Epic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 1986. Artifices of Eternity: Horace's Fourth Book of Odes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

———. 2000a. Horace's Carmen Saeculare. New Haven: Yale University Press.

———. 2000b. "Horace c.3.23: Ritual and Art." In Rome and Her Monuments, ed. S. K. Dickinson and J. P. Hallet. Bolchazy-Carducci. 521-543.

———. 2006a. Poetic Interplay: Catullus and Horace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 2006b. "Horace to Torquatus: Epistle 1.5 and Ode 4.7." American Journal of Philology 127: 387-413.

Quinn, K. 1963. Latin Explorations. London: Routledge.

Raaflaub, K. A. and L. J. Samons. 1990. "Oppositions to Augustus." In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, ed. K. A. Raaflaub and M. Toher. Berkeley: University of California Press. 417-454.

Raaflaub, K. A. and M. Toher (ed.). 1990. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate. Berkeley: University of California Press.

231 Race, W. H. 1997a. Pindar Vol. 1: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. 1997b. Pindar Vol. 2: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Radke, G. (ed.). 1961. Aparchai 4: Gedenkschrift für Georg Rohde. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.

———. 1964. "Dux bonus (Horat. C.4.5)." Interpretationem 57-76.

Ramage, E. S. 1987. The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' Res Gestae. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.

Ramage, N. H. and A. Ramage. 2000. Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine. London: Laurence King.

Rea, J. A. 2007. Legendary Rome: Myth, Monuments, and Memory on the Palatine and Capitoline. London: Duckworth.

Reckford, K. J. 1960. "The Eagle and the Tree (Horace, Odes 4.4)." Classical Journal 56: 23-28.

———. 1969. Horace. New York: Twayne Publishers.

———. 2002. "Pueri Ludentes: Some Aspects of Play and Seriousness in Horace's Epistles." Transactions of the American Philological Association 132: 1-19.

Reeder, J. C. 1992. "Typology and Ideology in the Mausoleum of Augustus: Tumulus and Tholos." Classical Antiquity 11.2: 265-304.

Rees, R. 1996. "Revisiting Evander at Aeneid 8.363." Classical Quarterly 46: 583-586.

Rehak, P. 2006. Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius. Edited by J. G. Younger. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Reinhold, M. 1987. From Republic to Principate: an Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 49-52 (36-29 B.C.). Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Renaud, C. 1990. Studies in the Eighth Book of the Aeneid: The Importance of Place. Dissertation: University of Texas at Austin.

Richard, J.-C. 1970. "Mausoleum: d'Halicarnasse à Rome, puis à Alexandrie." Latomus 29: 370-388.

232 Richardson, L. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. Oxford.

Richter, W. 1957. P. Vergilii Maronis Georgica. Munich.

Rives, J. B. 2007. Religion in the Roman Empire. Malden: Blackwell.

Rolfe, J. C. 1913. Suetonius, Vol. I. Loeb Classical LIbrary. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

———. 1914. Suetonius, Vol. II. Loeb Classical LIbrary. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rothstein, M. 1966. Propertius Sextus Elegien 3/4. Dublin: Weidmann.

Rothwell, K. S. 1996. "Propertius on the Site of Rome." Latomus 55: 829-854.

Rubino, C. A. 1985. "Monuments and Pyramids: Death and the Poet in Horace, Carmina 3.30." Classical and Modern Literature 5: 99-111.

Rudd, N. (ed.). 1993. Horace 2000: A Celebration. London: Duckworth.

———. 2004. Horace: Odes and Epodes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rüpke, J. 2006. "Ennius's Fasti in Fulvius's Temple: Greek Rationality and Roman Tradition." Arethusa 29: 489-512.

Rutherford, I. 2001. Pindar's Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survery of the Genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sage, P. W. 1994. "Vatic Admonition in Horace Odes 4.9." American Journal of Philology 115: 565-86.

Salmon, E. T. 1952. "Horace's Ninth Satire in its Setting." In Studies in Honor of Gilbert Norwood, ed. M. White. Toronto. 184-93.

———. 1967. Samnium and the Samnites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Santirocco, M. S. 1986. Unity and Design in Horace's Odes. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

233 Scheid, J. 2005. "Augustus and Roman Religion: Continuity, Conservatism, and Innovation." In Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, ed. K. Galinsky. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 175-193.

Schlegel, C. M. 1994. The Satirist Makes Satire: Self-definition and the Power of Speech in Horace, Satires I. Dissertation: University of California at Los Angeles.

Schmitzer, U. 1994. "Vom Esquilin nach Trastevere: Hor. Sat. 1,9 im Kontext Zeitgenössischen Verstehens." In Horaz-Studien, ed. S. Koster. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen-Nürnberg. 9-30.

Sciarrino, E. 2006. "The Introduction of Epic in Rome: Cultural Thefts and Social Contests." Arethusa 39: 449-469.

Scott, R. T. 1997. "The Shield of Aeneas and the Problem of Ecphrasis." In Ultra Terminum Vagari: Scritti in onore di Carl Nylnader, ed. B. Magnusson, S. Renzetti, P. Vian and S. J. Voicu. Rome: Quasar. 301-308.

———. 2000. "Vestae Aedem Petitam?: Vesta in the Empire." In Rome and Her Monuments, ed. S. K. Dickinson and J. P. Hallet. Bolchazy-Carducci. 173-191.

Scullard, H. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Seager, R. 1993. "Horace and Augustus: Poetry and Politics." In Horace 2000: A celebration, ed. N. Rudd. London.

Shackleton-Bailey. 2003. Statius: Silvae. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sherwin, W. K. 1973. Deeds of Famous Men (De Viris Illustribus). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Shipley, G. 2000. The Greek World After Alexander, 323-30 BC. Routledge History of the Ancient World. London: Routledge.

Sider, D. 1996. "As Is The Generation of Leaves in Homer, Simonides, Horace and Stobaios." Arethusa 29.2: 263-282.

Simpson, C. J. 2002a. "Exegi Monumentum: Building Imagery and Metaphor in Horace, Odes 1-3." Latomus 61: 57-66.

———. 2002b. "The Tomb, Immortality, and the Pontifex: Some Realities in Horace Carm. 3.30." Athenaeum 90: 89-94.

234 Skutsch, O. 1968. Studia Enniana. London: Athlone.

———. 1985. The Annals of Q. Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Slings, S. R. (ed.). 1990. The Poet's 'I' in Archaic Greek Lyric. Amsterdam: Paul & Co.

Smith, J. Z. 1978. Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Leiden: Brill.

———. 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, R. A. 1997. Poetic Allusion and Poetic Embrace in Ovid and Virgil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

———. 2005. The Primacy of Vision in Virgil's Aeneid. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Smith, W. S. 1984. "Horace Directs a Carouse: Epistle 1.19." Transactions of the American Philological Association 114: 255-271.

Solmsen, F. 1948. "Propertius and Horace." Classical Philology 43.2: 105-109.

Somella, P. 1974. "Das Heroon des Aeneas und die Topographie des antiken Lavinium." Gymnasium 81: 273-297.

Steinby, E. M. (ed.). 1993-1999. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. 5 vols. Rome: Quasar.

Steiner, D. 2001. Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stiehl, R. 1955-57. "Incendia Karthaginis inpiae (Horat., carm. 4,8,17)." Clio 7-9: 433- 441.

Strazzulla, M. J. 1990. Il principato di Apollo. Rome: L'erma di Bretschneider

Suerbaum, W. 1968. Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung Älterer Römischer Dichter: Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Ennius. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

Syme, R. 1978. History in Ovid. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1986. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Syndikus, H. P. 1972. Die Lyrik des Horaz: eine Interpretation der Oden. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

235 Taillardat, J. 1965. Les Images d'Aristophane: Études de Langue et de Style. Paris: Sociéte d'édition Les Belles Lettres.

Tamm, B. 1961. "Le Temple des Muses à Rome." Opuscula Romana 3: 157-167.

Taylor, L. R. 1925. "Horace's Equestrian Career." American Journal of Philology 46.2: 161-70.

———. 1931. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Middletown: American Philogical Association.

———. 1934. "New Light on the History of the Secular Games." American Journal of Philology 55.2: 101-120.

———. 1968. "Republican and Augustus Writers Enrolled in Equestrian Centuries." Transactions of the American Philological Association 99: 469-486.

Thomas, R. F. 1988. Virgil: Georgics Vol. 2: Books III-IV. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

———. 1999. Reading Virgil and His Texts: Studies in Intertextuality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

———. 2000. "A Trope by Any Other Name: "Polysemy," Ambiguity, and Significatio in Virgil." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100: 381-407.

Toynbee, J. M. C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Traina, A. 1991. "Orazio e Aristippo. Le Epistole e l'Arte di Convivere." Rivista di filologia 119: 285-305.

Trencsényi-Waldapfel, I. 1964. "...Regalique Situ Pyramidum Altius." Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 149-167.

Treves, P. 1953. Il mito di Alessandro e la Roma d'Augusto. Milan: E. Riccardi.

Trimpi, W. 1973. "The Meaning of Horace's Ut Pictura Poesis." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36: 1-34.

Van Sickle, J. 1974. "Propertius (vates): Augustan Ideology, Topography, and Poetics in Eleg. IV, 1." Dialoghi di Archeologia 8: 116-145.

Vasaly, A. 1993. Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory. Berkeley: University of California Press. 236 von Hesberg, H. 1992. Römische Grabbauten. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. von Hesberg, H. and S. Panciera. 1994. Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften. München.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1983. Suetonius: The Scholar and His Caesars. London: Duckworth.

———. 1989. "Rome's Cultural Revolution (review of Zanker 1988)." Journal of Roman Studies 79: 157-164.

Watson, L. C. 1995. "Horace's Epodes: The Impotence of Iambos?" In Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration, ed. S. J. Harrison. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 188-202.

———. 2003. A Commentary on Horace's Epodes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Watts, N. H. 1923. Cicero, The Speeches: Pro Archia Poeta, Post Reditum in Senatu, Post Reditum ad Quirites, De Domo Sua, De Haruspicum Responsis, Pro Plancio. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Welch, T. S. 2001. "Est locus uni cuique suus: City and Status in Horace's Satires 1.8 and 1.9." Classical Antiquity 20.1: 165-192.

———. 2004. "Masculinity and the Monuments in Propertius 4.9." American Journal of Philology 125: 61-90.

———. 2005. The Elegiac Cityscape: Propertius and the Meaning of Roman Monuments. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

West, D. 2002. Horace Odes III: Dulce Periculum. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

White, P. 1978. "Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome." Journal of Roman Studies 68: 74-92.

———. 1993. Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Whitehouse, J. E. G. 1969. "The Ambitious Builder." Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association 31: 28-39.

Wickham, E. C. (ed.). 1896. Quinti Horati Flacci Opera Omnia: The Works of Horace with a Commentary. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

237 Wickkiser, B. L. 1999. "Famous Last Words: Putting Ovid's Sphragis Back into the Metamorphoses." Materiali e Discussioni per l'Analisi dei Testi Classici 42: 113- 142.

Wilhelm, R. M. and H. Jones (ed.). 1992. The Two Worlds of the Poet: New Perspectives on Vergil. Detroit.

Wili, W. 1948. Horaz und die Augusteische Kultur. Basil: Benno Schwabe and Co.

Wilkinson, L. P. 1946. Horace and His Lyric Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1969. The Georgics of Virgil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1970. "Pindar and the Proem to the Third Georgic." In Forschungen zur Römischen Literatur: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Karl Büchner, ed. W. Wimmel. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. 286-290.

Williams, G. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1995. "Libertino Patre Natus: True or False?" In Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration, ed. S. J. Harrison. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 296-313.

Williams, R. D. 1973. The Aeneid of Virgil: Books 7-12. New York: St. Martin's Press.

———. 1979. The Eclogues and Georgics. London: Macmillan.

Wimmel, W. 1960. Kallimachos in Rom; die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit. Hermes. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

———. 1961. "Tibull II 5 und das elegische Rombild." In Aparchai 4: Gedenkschrift für Georg Rohde, ed. G. Radke. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. 227-66.

Wiseman, T. P. 1984. "Cybele, Virgil and Augustus." In Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus, ed. A. J. Woodman and D. West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 117-128.

Woodman, A. J. 1974. "Exegi Monumentum: Horace, Odes 3.30." In Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry, ed. A. J. Woodman and D. West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 115-128.

Woodman, A. J. and D. Feeney (ed.). 2002. Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

238 Woodman, A. J. and D. West (ed.). 1974. Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——— (ed.). 1984. Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zanker, P. 1972. Forum Romanum: Die Neugestaltung durch Augustus. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth.

———. 1983. "Der Apollotempel auf dem Palatin: Ausstattung und Politische Sinnbezüge nach der Schlacht von Actium." Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. Supplementum 10: 21-40.

———. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

———. 2000. "The City as Symbol: Rome and the Creation of an Urban Image." In Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures, ed. E. Fentress. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplement 38: . 25-41.

Zetzel, J. E. G. 1982. "The Poetics of Patronage in the Late First Century B.C." In Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, ed. B. K. Gold. Austin: University of Texas Press. 87-102.

Zevi, F. 1999. "Sepulchrum (Corneliorum) Scipionum." In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby. Rome: Quasar IV.281-285.

Zimmerman, M. and R. T. v. d. Paardt (ed.). 2004. Metamorphic Reflections: Essays Presented to Ben Hijmans at his 75th birthday. Leuven: Peeters.

239 Vita

Steven Lawrence Jones was born on Tachikawa Air Base in Tokyo, Japan on

August 11, 1975, the son of Lawrence Merl Jones and Carol Ann Jones. After graduating from the Berlin American High School, Berlin, Germany, in 1993, he entered Baylor

University in Waco, TX, where he graduated in 1997 with the degree Bachelor of Arts with a double major in Greek and Latin. In the fall of 1997, he began his graduate education at Bryn Mawr College in Bryn Mawr, PA, where he earned the degree Master of Arts in Classical Languages. In January 2001, he entered the Graduate School of the

University of Texas.

Permanent Address: 2211 Hazen Lane, Austin, TX 78745

This dissertation was typed by the author.

240