The Role of Internal Politics in American Diplomacy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Horace’s Mythological Lexicon: Repeated Myths and Meaning in Odes 1-3 Blanche Conger McCune Augusta, Georgia B.A., Wheaton College, 2007 M.A., University of Virginia, 2009 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Virginia May, 2014 i ©Copyright by Blanche Conger McCune All rights reserved May 2014 ii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines repeated mythological references in the first three books of Horace’s Odes. Several mythological figures occur more than once in the Odes; those studied in this dissertation are Daedalus and Icarus, Prometheus, Tantalus, Hercules, and Castor and Pollux. I argue that in Odes 1-3 recurrent myths constitute part of a personal lexicon, a mythological vocabulary Horace uses to speak about themes such as hubris, poetry, and immortality; for example, Daedalus and Icarus, Prometheus, and Tantalus are consistently linked with immoderation, and Hercules and the Dioscuri are consistently emblematic of complementary aspects of Augustus’ rule and of his future deification. This mythological lexicon can be read across poems so that the interpretation of a mythological figure in one poem can aid in understanding the use of the same mythological figure in another poem, and the collective effect of all of the uses of that figure is itself something that can be analyzed and interpreted. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first word of thanks goes to my advisor, Jenny Strauss Clay, whose Odes seminar in the spring of 2010 first taught me how to love this seemingly impenetrable poet. She has consistently supported and guided me, since I first embarked on this project, even during one year when neither of us was in residence in Charlottesville. Her ability to ask the right questions and to put her finger on key problems has left a lasting impression on my thinking for which I am deeply grateful. Thanks are also due to John F. Miller, whose kind and sensible advice at every stage of the process, from the prospectus through the final chapter, has been invaluable. I am also grateful to Tony Woodman, who has been a warm, inspiring figure in my development as a classicist both by encouraging me to sharpen my ideas and by inviting open-ended conversations about Horace. Thanks also to Paul Cantor, whose European literature course helped me become a better teacher and enriched my appreciation for the whole compass of the literary tradition in which Horace is situated. I would also like to thank the dear friends and mentors each of whom has in their own way played a crucial role throughout not only this project but also everything that led up to it: Rachel Bruzzone, Jane Webb Crawford, Courtney Evans, Harriet Livesay, Sarah J. Miller, and Randall Nichols. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my parents, without whose support over the years this whole venture would have been impossible, to my brother Preston, who listens well, and to Nannie, for reading me books. And, finally, to my husband and fellow scholar Adam, for his unflagging help as sounding board and writing consultant. iv CONTENTS Introduction 1 Part I: Mythology and Moderation Chapter 1: Daedalus and Icarus 15 Chapter 2: Prometheus and Tantalus 67 Part II: Mythology and Deification Chapter 3: Hercules 110 Chapter 4: Castor and Pollux 155 Conclusion 198 1 Introduction W. J. Henderson, speaking about Horace’s use of the paraklausithyron motif in the Odes, writes, Horace . varies that motif in length, tone, context and ingredient elements; seldom is there repetition, the total picture of the motif growing in the reader’s mind over several poems; there is a deliberate invitation to the reader to compare the various occurrences and applaud the poet’s technical finesse.1 Many such repeated motifs—e.g., carpe diem, wine, “too old for love”—can be found running throughout the Odes, and studies of them often find that, far from revealing a lack of imagination, they form by means of repetition and variation an interdependent network of poems that have a total effect on the mind of the reader.2 However, as Commager concludes in his examination of the “Function of Wine in Horace’s Odes,” The relation of a critic to a poet tends to be that of some uneasy Procrustes, confronted by a Proteus. Yet if Horace’s imagination defies any rigorous arrangement, we may at least define the shapes it seems to assume. The relations between these aspects of wine and the wine god are felt rather than formulated, obscure rather than precise. Horace appears to be seeking a vocabulary to express feelings not susceptible to ordinary discourse. Wine, the banquet, the various gods, and the country itself, seem invoked in order to conceptualize something for which there was no ready language, and which in any case is perhaps best conveyed in semi-metaphorical terms.3 1 Henderson (1973) 66. 2 Cf. Johnson’s (2003) reading of the Lydia poems as a dramatic sequence, another example of repetition (this time not of a motif but a character) aiding in the interpretation of the connected poems. 3 Commager (1957) 80. Cf. similar comments by P. A. Miller on the subtlety of the connections between Horace’s odes and their perception in the mind of the reader (Miller 2 This “vocabulary” of motifs and topoi is part of Horace’s poetic toolbox; it allows him to create poems that build on or comment on one another, which makes each poem, each repetition of the topos, more meaningful. I argue that Horace does much the same thing with repeated mythological figures and motifs in the Odes 1-3.4 Myths, repeated, become a personal lexicon, a mythological language Horace uses to speak about themes such as hubris, poetry, and immortality. This mythological lexicon, like the vocabulary of topoi, can be read across poems so that the interpretation of a mythological figure in one poem can aid in understanding the use of the same mythological figure in another poem, and the collective effect of all of the uses of that figure is itself something that can be analyzed and interpreted. Previous scholarship on mythology in Horace As Breuer points out, mythology is a key recurring element in the Odes which have proportionally more mythological content than the Epodes, Satires, and Epistles.5 [1991] 366). 4 I deal here only with the unity of the first three books of the Odes. It is possible Horace uses the same mythological lexicon in the later, fourth book, but (apart from a short excursus to 4.2 in the first chapter) I will not discuss in this dissertation instances of myths from Book 4. 5 Breuer (2008) 17. 3 However, all of Horace’s poetry is infused with mythological references6 and narratives, and there is a long history of scholarship on this mythological content. Previous approaches to the topic “myth in Horace” can generally be put into the following categories: cataloguing without grouping (that is, essentially listing references), cataloguing with grouping (that is, references are put into categories, but we are still dealing to some extent with a list), dealing with myths as exempla, interested in gods as gods (that is, with religion rather than with a view to mythology), or interested in Horace’s technical use of myths in his poems. A. Cataloguing without grouping The first two categories are “cataloguing,” a technique that can be divided further into “cataloguing without grouping”—that is, simply making a catalogue—and “cataloguing with grouping”—that is, creating a catalogue but within the catalogue grouping together myths in Horace that have similarities. Previous scholars who have catalogued mythological references in Horace without grouping them include first Olivieri,7 who lists mythological figures found in art in Pompeii and Herculaneum and 6 For clarity and convenience (and not so much with theoretical intentions) I will use the term “reference” throughout to mean a reference or allusion to a myth in general, not necessarily to a specific text in which it appears; the term “allusion” will be used to mean a reference/allusion to a specific text (e.g., “This is a reference to the myth of Theseus and Ariadne,” “This is an allusion to Catullus 64”). 7 Olivieri (1903). 4 compares them to Horace. Psichari,8 another early twentieth-century scholar, lists mythological references from throughout the Horatian corpus and gives “remarks” about the references; he does not attempt to tie them together or use them to interpret the poems in which they appear. Psichari focuses on divinities, though there are some heroes, and their attributes (more of a religious concern) rather than on stories; Bassi,9 on the other hand, deals not just with gods but also with heroes and famous mortals in the poetry of Horace. Bassi is interested in what moment in each figure’s story Horace chooses to portray rather than on simply the bare fact that the figure is mentioned. Finally, Oksala’s10 work on religion and mythology in Horace, the most comprehensive treatment of mythology in Horace, is predominately cataloguing, though there is a section on exempla which is more like “cataloguing with grouping.” Before moving on, I will mention briefly here a sort of sub-category of “cataloguing without grouping”: works that deal with a single mythological figure throughout Horace, such as Deschamps’11 study of Horace’s use of Venus. These tend to be slightly different, since the smaller scale means that more analysis can be done on the catalogue. In her article on Horace’s depiction of Bacchus, Batinski12 catalogues 8 Psichari (1904). 9 Bassi (1942-3) 10 Oksala (1973).