Post on 27-Feb-2023
UNIVERSITY OF CRETE
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOLOGY
Horace
and
Greek Lyric Poetry
Edited
by Michael Paschalis
Introduction
by Michael C. J. Putnam
Fantasizing Lyric: Horace, Epistles I.19 iii
PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CRETE – DEPARTMENT OF PHILOLOGY
GR 741 00 – Rethymnonhttp://www.philology.uoc.gr/RethClaS
© Department of Philology, UoC 2002
Series Editor: Michael Paschalis
All rights reserved. No part of thispublication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted in any formor by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording,or otherwise, without the prior writtenpermission of the Series Editor, or as
expressly permitted by law.
First published 2002
Printed in Greece at Grafotehniki Kritis
S.A.
A catalogue record for this book isavailable
from the Library of the University of Cretehttp://www.libr.uoc.gr
Horace and Greek lyric poetry / edited by MichaelPaschalis;
introduction by Michael C. J. Putnam.ix, 195 p.; 24 cm. —(Rethymnon Classical Studies; vol. 1)
Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 960-714-318-3 (pbk)
1. Horace—Criticism and interpretation—Congresses.2. Greek poetry—Influence—Congresses.
3. Literature, Comparative—Greek and Latin—Congresses.
Alessandro Barchiesi
Palingenre: Death, Rebirth and Horatian
Iambos
SWhat is the connection between literary genres
and the tales we tell about genres? This essay is an
attempt to discuss this question through the study
of iambic poetry. It takes its bearings from the
connection between the practice of literary genres
and the critical consciousness that beginning with
Aristotle has fed the idea of genre and influences
(as it describes) the production of texts. This is
one case among many in which it is neither possible
nor expedient to separate the study of genres from
the theories of genres.
In his Ars Poetica Horace clearly states what an
iamb is. It consists of three distinct things which
are in agreement with one another: a verse; an
aggressive kind of poetry; and, at the very bottom
of everything, two syllables. We know that the same
name links together rhythmic unity, verse and
literary genre. However, in his Ars Poetica Horace
shows that this wonderful solidarity can be carried
further, until it creates a small dramaturgy, or
maybe a criminology of poetic forms.
Archilocum proprio rabies armavitiambo;hunc socci cepere pedem grandesquecothurnialternis aptum sermonibus et popularesvincentem strepitus et natum rebusagendis.
A.P. 79-82
Rage armed Archilochus with its special weapon,iambos: this foot was accepted by the shoes ofcomedy and the heavy boots of tragedy, suitableas it is to dialogue, able to surpass theconfusion of the crowd, and born for action.
It is interesting to notice that metrical foot,
iambic line, and iambic genre converge, from
Horace’s viewpoint, and tend to become mutually
illustrative.1 At line 79, a link clearly binds
together the initiator of the genre, its aggressive
quality, and the fast rhythm that serves as a
weapon. The link is so strong and dense that no
commentator before Steidle and Brink noticed that
1 Generic origins and generic decorum regulate the nexus
between form, content, and representations; good observations in
Steidle 1939, 49 f. and 13.
Palingenre: Death, Rebirth and Horatian Iambos 3
proprio is to be construed not with Archilocho but with
rabies: “the rage of aggressivity has armed
Archilochus with its own (not ‘his own’) specific
weapon, the iambos”. Later we will see what it means
to Horace understanding iambos as a weapon. But we
can notice right now that the representation of the
iambic foot is loaded with some kind of weird,
uncontrolled energy: apparently Horace likes to
picture iambos in iambic inflexions.
Strangely, in line 80, Brink who is always
attentive, lets slip by a play on words that is
possible only in this surreal kind of atmosphere: in
order to say that “the iambic rhythm changed from
the poetry of Archilochus to the stage”, Horace
changes for a crazy instant the metric foot into a
human foot: “this foot was received by the stage
footwear, the sock and the buskin”. The wordplay on
“the metric foot” is found in almost all ancient
poetry, but the most incisive examples belong to
poets who come from the iambic tradition (broadly
speaking): Aristophanes and Catullus.2
The animation of iambos is intensified later in
the poem:
2 A brief history of the pun in Barchiesi 1994a, 135-8.
4 Alessandro Barchiesi
Syllaba longa brevi subiecta vocaturiambus,pes citus; unde etiam trimetrisaccrescere iussitnomen iambeis, cum senos redderet ictusprimus ad extremum similis sibi †nonita pridem†.tardior ut paulo graviorque veniret adaures,spondeos stabiles in iura paternarecepitcommodus et patiens, non ut de sedesecundacederet aut quarta socialiter. Hic etin Accinobilibus trimetris apparet rarus, etEnniin scaenam missos cum magno pondereversusaut operae celeris nimium curaquecarentisaut ignoratae premit artis crimineturpi.
A.P. 251-62
A long syllable added to a short one is what wecall the iambos, a swift foot; building on this,the iambos wanted that the trimetra should bearthe name of “iambic”, giving them a sequence ofsix beats, equal and pure from beginning to end …In order to be perceived a bit slower andsteadier, the iambos accepted the weightyspondaei in its family property, tolerant andfavorable, except that it would not so easily bedislodged from its quarters in the second andfourth sedes. So the iambos is featured onlyrarely in Accius’ lofty trimetra: and it indictsEnnius’ lines, verses thrown into the stage withtheir heavy load, the unpleasant accusation being
Palingenre: Death, Rebirth and Horatian Iambos 5
that they are too hasty and careless, or thatpoetic art has been neglected.
Here the physical aspect of the iamb increases
again when we find it as a main character – and a
grammatical subject – in an eleven-line sequence.
The first line warns us that the iamb is an
abstraction – one short and one long syllable – but
its energy, and its degree of presence, appear
immediately superior to the normal metrical unit. We
already suspected this, since we understood that the
iamb is a product of rabies and that it was born to
act and perform (natum rebus agendis). Because of this,
the iamb – rapid foot (pes citus) – develops in
accordance with nature: first, its energy gives
orders for the formation of the trimeter (iussit); the
trimeter is a clear line that characterizes itself
with a six-“kicker” (ictus in Horace’s time was a
metrical neologism, but also a word meaning “blow,
kick, butt” and therefore a very iambic word). But
then the six-beat line transforms itself by
restraining itself. We can see it adopting as a
corrective measure within its hereditary line (that
is, the “iambic” trimeter, the iamb’s natural son)
the calmer (stabilis) spondee. With this compromise,
the iamb shows itself to be adaptable and tolerant,
6 Alessandro Barchiesi
and it acts with sociable affability (commodus,
patiens, even if not always socialiter): if one is not
confused by the personification, one will feel a
small thrill, because sociable, affable and tolerant
are the very last qualities that come to mind when
one talks about a tradition that was born from rabies
and Archilochus. But the last word has not been
said. It is true that the final pronouncement has a
very technical value: it concerns the evolution in
meter that causes the trimeter in archaic Roman
poetry to be weighed down so much that its identity
is compromised. But Horace’s parlance shows that a
sense of coherence has not been lost. The iamb
remains the subject of the sentence, even when it is
contaminated. The last words of the section show
that, after all, the original iamb still remains
underneath. What is, in fact, more normal for the
bad iambic spirit than slandering and shaming?premit … crimine turpi?
A.P. 262
In short, the iamb is still always a dangerous
weapon, and not only for the one who suffers it, but
also for the one who uses it.3
3 Line 260, in which the heaviness of Ennian scenic verses is
conveyed, has four consecutive spondees. Brink 1971, ad loc.
I used the word weapon, but to maintain Horace’s
exact metaphor I ought to have said a “living
human”, armed and aggressive. As a matter of fact,
in his Ars Poetica, Horace reveals his familiarity
(from the first line, Humano capiti …4) with the
Aristotelian discourse that interweaves literary
genres and biological classifications.5 In the Ars
Poetica the description of the literary genres
presupposes an idea of the literary genre as aresists the idea that the metrical pattern is loaded, because a
sequence of four spondees is not rare in the Ars. Yet, if one
considers that there are no wholly spondaic lines in the whole
poetic output of Horace, one might argue that such a cluster of
long syllables is at least an upper limit. The result is a
funny, and iambic, paradox: Ennius betrays an excess in
compositional hurry and speed (celeris nimium … curaque carentis)
through an excess of rhythmic slowness: his dramatic
compositions are poor in fast iambs. It is important to keep in
mind that for a Roman – writing in a language so poorly equipped
with short syllables by nature – the nervous speed of iambs is
associated with art, not just (as in the Greek tradition) with
imitation of “live” conversation.4 In the first image of the Ars, artistic coherence is
identified with the natural purity of different species.5 Schaeffer 1992, 21 on Aristotelian Poetics: “man is endowed
with a ‘generic’ nature simply because man generates man.
Therefore one should assume the same model of ‘generation’ for
literary genres …”.
generative principle, and as a natural kind. This
idea, in its turn, presupposes, as we shall see, a
concern for the origins and the survival of a
“genre”. A concern which is not per se Aristotelian:
I would like to imagine that the problem arises when
Aristotelian theory meets Alexandrian and Roman
experiences of displacement and loss.
Before we leave the Ars Poetica, I would like to
note that the poem can be read in a much less
orderly and neo-classical way than our eighteenth
century tradition maintains. These surreal
variations with regard to the iamb are not isolated
eccentricities in a work that concludes with a comic
apocalypse: fall in the ditch and jump into the
volcano, instead of the poetic apotheosis to which
readers of Horatian lyric have been customized (non
ego obibo … non omnis moriar : the solemn theme of
immortalization closes Odes 2 and 3). Also, in the
last five lines, the poet’s image is transformed
first into a crazy bear, and then into a leech full
of blood and this happens after a beginning which
condemns the excesses of visual fantasy and the
medley of images in the name of a poetic internal
coherence and decorum: the poem begins with a
negative example of mixed natural forms, a human
head with a horse’s body and a fish-tail, but
finishes by rattling the cage of metamorphic images,
the speciality of the mad poet who threatens to take
control of the work.
But let’s return to our present topic: the iamb,
its poetic manipulations and the relationship
between the Augustan poet and the origins of the
literary genre. It seems to me that this short
reading from the Ars Poetica showed that Horace is
sensitive to two problems: the relationship between
the iamb and its origins, and the danger that marks
the practice of writing iambs. If Horace was looking
at the Greek idea of the iamb’s origins, it couldn’t
fail to strike him that composition in this mode was
traditionally dangerous. The noun itself, iambos, was
actually derived from:
a. iambizein “to slander, to attack”
b. ion bazein “poisonous speech”
c.hiein “throwing weapons”; or from hiein kai boan,
the shout of the javelin thrower; or from
Iambos, the spear-armed warrior and Ares’ son.
d.Iambê, an old woman who provoked laughter in
Demetra with obscene words and the exhibition
of her genitals.6
Of course these competing etymologies do not
eliminate each other; rather they support and
strengthen each other. It is quite legitimate to put
personifications, analogies, and exemplary anecdotes
near etymologies: dog, wasp, masculine strength,
poison, fire, rage; lyssa, rabies, and cholos; Lycambids
and Bupalus.
As far as the method is concerned, it seems
important to remember that Horace will have been
facing a series of exemplary texts – the models
being the “books” of Archilochus and Hipponax that
were read by Alexandrians and Romans – but also an
extratextual set of models, a kind of hypertext in
which iconographies, memories of rituals and
biographical script come together. Each retelling of
the iamb is, at the same time, a reflection on the
various images of Archilochus as author, character
in his works, character in his reconstructed
biography, and more. Each recollection presupposes a
dispute in which we take part doubly, both as
6 On the different traditions of etymology and aitiology see
Barchiesi 1994b, with references.
Archilochus’ modern readers and as readers of his
readers in the Hellenistic / Roman Age.
Thus, we arrive at the question that I am most
concerned to introduce. What kind of model of genre
are we using when we are talking about a Roman
author who was inspired by earlier Greek poets as
models? The first solution that comes to mind today
is the one suggested by Francis Cairns, Generic
Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (1972). I think that
it is fair to say, in brief, that his point of view
stresses such ideas as the continuity,
reproducibility, and sharing of genres. The genre is
seen as a system of rules that Cairns finds mainly
in the prose-rhetorical treatises of the Imperial
Age. The utility of the genre is based on its
capacity of being reproduced in ever-new texts that
can be recognized and little by little included in
the class of literary works by which they were
inspired. In this way the modern critic, the reading
public and the author find themselves to be in
agreement with each other, because they share a
taxonomy. My language of continuity and permanence
is still, however, too bland when compared to the
one used by Cairns: according to him (1972, 32) “in
a very real sense antiquity was in comparison with
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries a time-free zone
(my emphasis)”.
This model is only apparently in contradiction
with another typical tool of classical philology,
that is the idea of “Kreuzung der Gattungen”,7 the
crossing or hybridization of literary genres,
because the “Kreuzung” confines itself to
strengthening the validity of its apparent opposite,
that is, the idea of a “pure” genre. The
intersection of the genres presupposes that pure and
recognizable models exist. This recognizability
extends also to the hybrids which are divided
according to the different traditions which come
together in them. The model of the genre as a class
which continues to produce its new components does
not become problematic if we wear the glasses of
Wilhelm Kroll, rather than those of Francis Cairns.
If we look at the iambic tradition, three
methodological problems arise. The first is a
question of chronology. The poetry of Archilochus
precedes that of Horace (as Horace himself knew) by
about 620 years; this is just the distance that
separates today from the writing of the Cronicas which
Ayala dedicated to the story of Pedro the Cruel and
7 On the problems in this approach see Fantuzzi 1993.
his ally, the Black Prince.8 The Romans had precise
chronographic interests: Cornelius Nepos dated
Archilochus to the reign of Tullus Hostilius (see
fr. 7, Marshall) and Cicero, exaggerating (Tusc.
1.1.3) synchronized him with Romulus. It does not
seem that one can say that Archilochus and Horace
coexisted (for us, or for Horace himself) in a
“time-free zone”. When Horace in Odes 1.1 announces
his insertion in the canon of the lyricists as his
main objective, it does not mean that, in
literature, time has stopped. Rather, this indicates
that the poet is ironically conscious of the
insurmountable distance that separates him from the
past: the canon is made by the Greeks for the
Greeks,9 and Pindar, the latest poet included in the
canon of the Nine, had been dead for some 420 years
at the time of the publication of Horace’s Odes.
The second methodological difficulty, to which
we will return, regards the difficulty of reading
and determining the context of poets like
8 This reference to Spanish history looks back to a symposium
on Los géneros Literarios hosted in 1993 by the University of Santiago
de Compostela, where I presented a first precursor of this
paper. My thanks to the organizer, Prof. Dulce Estefanìa.9 Feeney 1993, 41 f.
Archilochus and (to a lesser degree) Hipponax. I am
not speaking of linguistic difficulties. The problem
involves everyone who concerns himself with
Archilochus, not only Horace’s interpreters, but
also the scholars of ancient Greece; and also
concerns Horace and his public. They had more texts
at their disposition than we have but, in their
turn, encountered other difficulties. Every time
that we read Horace, we can do nothing but construct
an image for ourselves of his models. To say
anything is risky, but it is also risky to pretend
that a consensus exists about how to read those
models. It is enough for me to name the most crucial
areas of uncertainty for scholars of Archilochus:
the names of persons against whom the poet hurls his
invectives; the implied addressees and the contexts
of performance; the variation of the metric form,
and of the genres used; the effect of the movement
from oral communication to the written text, and
from the written texts to the actual edition.
The third problem regards Alexandrian mediation.
Not even with the method of Cairns is it possible to
reconstruct the rules which govern the production of
new iambs. Therefore, Alexandrian mediation reduces
itself to two acts of great historical importance:
the publication of the complete works of Archilochus
in the form of handwritten books and the publication
of the Book of Iambi of Callimachus. This last event
has been considered decisive for understanding how
the use of the iamb was taken over by Roman culture.
Callimachus (in what has become a commonplace for
Latinists) distances himself from the cruel
aggressiveness of the archaic iamb; instead, he
offers a civilized, moderated, artistic version that
the Romans will be able to make their own.
The bases for this interpretation seem to me to
be equivocal. A first assumption is that Callimachus
manifests aversion towards the poetry of
Archilochus, but all that we have are two fragments
without context. One refers to Archilochus as an
“alcoholic” poet (540 Pfeiffer) and one associates
his poetry with the bilious rage of dogs, the
stinger of wasps, and poison (380 Pfeiffer): all
these are ways of describing the poetics of the iamb
which traverse Greek culture from Pindar to the
Greek Anthology. It seems to me that it is hard to
derive from them a specific opposition to the
poetics of Archilochus as an individual, or even to
his iambic productions. The dangers of interpreting
fragments of Callimachus out of context are obvious:
think only of the scandalous abusive constructions
based solely on the interpretation of “I sing nothing
unattested” (see fr. 612 Pfeiffer), or “A big book is a big
evil” (fr. 465 Pfeiffer). The other testimony invoked
is at the beginning of Iamb 1,10 where Hipponax
unexpectedly re-emerges from Hell saying:
Listen to Hipponax: in fact, here I am!I comefrom where livestock costs one shilling,carrying an iamb that doesn’t sing my waragainst Bupalus …
fr. 191.1-4 Pfeiffer
Who exactly is speaking? Hipponax says that he
is still himself, and, in fact, he is speaking in
choliambs, and the second line (“livestock costs a
shilling per head”) is in his best comic-starving
style, and all the diction has a marked Ionian
accent; however his iambs no longer speak of the war
against Bupalus. From this detail, one might deduce
that the iambs of Callimachus are pacified: the
Diegeseis recount that in Iamb 1, Hipponax brings10 Depew 1993, offers new insights on the issue of performance
and textuality. On the many problems of the fragmentary text,
and particularly on the dimension of intertextuality with
Hipponax in the initial lines, one should consult the commentary
to the iambic Callimachus by Arnd Kerkhecker (1999).
together the “philologists” (or “philosophers”) of
Alexandria at the temple of Serapis to warn them of
the dangers of mutual jealousy and of
quarrelsomeness. To soothe the learned Alexandrians,
Hipponax recounted, for the ninth time in Greek
culture, the story of a golden bowl to be given to
the best of the Seven Sages. It is the story of a
potential competition which is transformed into a
competition of reciprocal gift-giving: each of the
sages awards the bowl to another, until the object
returns, once again, into the hands of Thales, who
dedicates it to Apollo.
All of this can be edifying,11 but, with a poet
like Callimachus, a second or third reading of the
fragmentary remains would not be wasted. Hipponax
says he will come with his iambs, but without his
feud with Bupalus: must we conclude that
Callimachus’ iambs will harm no one? The meager
fragments offer us the brawls of avid, petulant
philologists, characters who in the limited world of
the cultured people in Alexandria, Egypt, certainly
did not escape attempts to identify them. Among
11 Recently Schmidt 1990, 127: “Professorenethik”, “Dieser
neue Hipponax, der Bitterkeit und Streit aufgibt, ist
Kallimachos”.
these philologists are individuals who bring to mind
profiles of recognizable people, a bald man with a
ragged cape (191.29-30), a dangerous crazy man,
known as “Alcmeon” (191.74-5), a nosy sneak with a
tongue similar to that of a dog that is drinking
(191.83-4). The affirmation of Hipponax “I am still
me, but I am singing different things” lends itself
to a certain dialectic, a spiral movement between
identity and difference. His role as “peacemaker”
is, without a doubt, a new factor in the iambic
tradition, but behind him stands Callimachus, who,
as Iamb 13 will unveil for the readers, lives in a
world full of poisons and competition. I would like
to underline that the choice between a “pacified
iamb” and a “return of the iambic aggressiveness” is
left to each new reader, and that each extreme
implies its opposite. Once the language of
aggressiveness is learned, it is not easy to
control; the iamb is a medium that slanders almost
compulsively by repetition. We know that Hipponax is
revived by Callimachus and made to name Pythagoras
“Euphorbus the inventor of the triangle”; if
“Pythagoras”, according to this same theory, is a
reincarnation of Euphorbus, why not substitute his
name? Would Pythagoras have the right to protest if
we were to study “Euphorbus’ theorem?”.12 And the
dead iambographer mentions “Euhemerus” resorting to
the not very neutral periphrasis, “the old garrulous
man who invented for himself ancient Zeus of
Panchea, and he scribbled his book with impiety”. We
can valorize distance, doctrine, separation and
irony but we can also insist on continuity in
Callimachus’ presentation of Hipponax: to the degree
to which Hipponax becomes himself again, it is
Callimachus who is dragged towards the poetics of
the iamb, not the poetics of the iamb which becomes
mild.
The story of Bathycles’ cup and the Seven Sages
also raises some doubts: it is an apologue with a
message of peace, and therefore serves to
illuminate, by contrast (a contrast which is
fundamentally iambic!), the petty competition among
the intellectuals of Alexandria. But it is a story
of reconciliation which bears the mark of an
unstoppable competition. Almost every one of our
sources assigned the Cup of wisdom to a different
winner: the “philologists” that report the apologue
are almost as competitive as the philologists that
12 See Schmidt 1990, 127, who offers a new angle on the
“Prioritätsstreit”.
Hipponax must keep in check. By a lucky chance, we
know to whom Hipponax (before he is resuscitated)
gave the palm: and it is striking to note that
Callimachus’ Hipponax follows not the version of
Hipponax but that of one local historian, Leandrius
(?) of Miletus. Many annotators of Callimachus
press, once again, the pedal of moderation: here is
a learned and pacified iamb, not too different in
tone from the antiquarian research of the elegiac
Aitia. Perhaps it is possible that Callimachus had
some unused files after composing some of the Aitia,
and thought that his first Iamb was a container as
good as any other to recover an ancient Ionian
fragment. But is it not interesting that a story
whose fundamental theme is harmony between ancient
scholars – the Seven Sages are not able to choose
the best among them – and that is used to promote a
truce among modern scholars, is narrated in such a
way as to resuscitate the memory of conflictual
variations and of an inexhaustible – and Alexandrian
– contest: grammatici certant?
My purpose in recovering the iambic nature of
the iambs of Callimachus is to stress the distance
and discontinuity between models and imitators that
is at the base of my contribution. I am convinced
that one needs to see in Callimachus a more real
iambic poet than one usually does, precisely to be
able to conclude that Callimachus is more distant from
the iambic tradition than many think. I would like
to invoke, as a witness, the voice of Callimachus in
his other programmatic iamb, namely Iamb 13. As the
iambic poet Hipponax was on the attack in Iamb 1, so
here the iambic poet Callimachus is forced to defend
himself.13 The assailants of Iamb 13 are perhaps the
target of Iamb 1. In the first person, the poet
faces his critics, and the three important
criticisms to which he must answer are: (a) you
write iambs without ever having been in Ionia; (b)
your style is a confused mix: Doric, Ionic and
hybrid dialects; (c) you practice different literary
genres. Among these three accusations, only the
second (but certainly not the third) can, in some
way, be useful to those who believe that texts are
normally generated by fusion of genres (the
“Kreuzung der Gattungen”),14 while the first is that
13 The theme of “succession” is in fact one of the unifying
ideas in Iamb 1: a conversation with David Konstan has made this
point clearer to me. See Hunter 1997 and Konstan 1998.14 On the limits of this approach compare Fantuzzi 1993; Depew
1992; Cameron 1992; Hunter 1997.
which interests me the most. The iamb evidently is
bound to Ionic culture and Callimachus uses it
illegitimately. The iambic collection measures
itself against an accusation that negates the
legitimacy of the Alexandrian revival of Hipponax’s
Ionic iamb.
But this difficulty was already implicit in thepoetics of Iamb 1. Hipponax is a poet dead for twoand a half centuries and his public in Alexandria isformed from characters that the Diegeseis callsynthetically “philologists”. The circumstances ofthe execution of the iamb are clearly impossible andthe first word, “listen”, serves to point out theimpossibility of an iambic performance15 in the wrongplace and time. Obviously, literary imitationcontinues to be possible: Callimachus expendstreasures of talent on glosses, proverbs,colloquialisms filtered by the Hipponactean model,epicisms, parodies, aggressive apostrophes; but thismagnificent pastiche is “performed” by a poet whomCharon’s boat is urgently waiting (191.96). Theliterary genre returns as a post-mortem enunciation.Above all, the intense moment of self-consciousness
15 In this perspective the problem of the Hipponactean
quotations remains important but given the limits of our
knowledge we should focus on alternative approaches.
should not be lost, in which Hipponax commands thepublic of scholars:
be quiet and write down this discourseof mine
fr. 191.31 Pfeiffer
Here the textuality of the new iambs ofCallimachus is exactly the force which supplants andobliterates the social and material context of theoriginal performance. The public which at one timewas invited to hold the cape of the poet16 “because Iwant to give Bupalus a black eye” becomes a writingpublic: presumably, as scholars, they cannot wait tobecome readers, instead of listeners. Hipponax whosays “write down” is perhaps more revolutionary thana Hipponax who imagines himself as a poet whowrites. The site of true change is in the public, insociety, and in the mode of communication; and forCallimachus, the practice of composing iambs is
16 From my limited angle I must neglect the problems set by
the originary poetics of Hipponax: however, for readers of
Hipponactean texts, it is hard to avoid conjectures on what was
the impact of this claim to directness on the audience for which
Hipponax was composing. For Callimachus and Horace, there was no
way of stopping short from questions on the meaning of the text
at its lost point of origin: the activity of reading cannot be
separated from interrogations about performance and social
context.
constituted by the origins of the literary genre,with all the forces that determined it, plus thesense of its irremediable out-datedness,displacement, and loss of context. The model of the“Kreuzung der Gattungen” (“blending of genres”),goes further to suggest the existence of lawswritten with the purpose of violating them, but I donot see traces of these iambic laws in Alexandrianculture. This model posits acts of mixture andhybridization which, as they change the recipe ofthe genre serve also to keep it alive, and in thelast analysis, reinforce its identity and stability.The sense of discontinuity that we are outlining ismuch more radical. The variety in the Iambs is not,in itself, revolutionary: today scholars haveserious difficulties in defining the limits ofexperimental freedom in poets like Hipponax andArchilochus. The Alexandrian editions of these poetsshould have been an instructive performance ofpoikilia. Moreover, Callimachus’ formal experimentationimpresses us less now that we have a hymn ofSimonides, in elegiac couplets, as a prologue to amilitary celebration (POxy 3965).17
17 On this important discovery, after the editions by Parsons
and West, see also the essays in Boedeker & Sider 1996.
Seen in this light, genre seems to us less likea taxonomy that controls the production of newtexts, and more like a theater of contradictions.The recall to the origins must be considered both anecessary legitimization and the trace left by anincurable loss. The work assumes as its problematiccontent the impossibility of being as the traditionwould like it to be. Imagination about originscoexists with self-reflexivity. Genre is displacedfrom its reproductive condition to become the“difficult” content of the new literary work. Now weshould try to recover some of these ideas by lookingat the Book of Horatian Epodes.
Epodon Liber
The text of the Epodes solicits a double
perspective. The ancient iamb and Alexandrian poetry
impose themselves as alternative references. Those
who choose the second route – as Fedeli 1977 and
1978 – are encouraged to valorize variety, doctrine,
attenuation, epigrammatical movements, influences of
erotic Greek poetry; recall of Archilochus is seen
as an occasional and circumscribed strategy; not by
chance is the technique of the initial motto
prominent when Archilochus is being appropriated.
Those who choose the first route, as does David
Mankin 1985, often in controversy with Fedeli, look
with interest on the renewal of scholarship in the
field of archaic Greek poetry. These studies have
shown that the notion of “iamb” cannot be limited to
the tradition of the invective. The dimension of
“blame” (psogos, blame poetry) is interwoven with
another dimension, which is about unity: poetry of
friendship, of shared values, of common struggles.
If we view Horace as following this tradition, many
barriers are eliminated: one can begin to imagine
where lies the unity of a book that alternates
Actium and Chiron with Mevius and the witches.
Again, one could react in the name of the
Alexandrian “feeling”. The reference to the archaic
iamb neglects important dimensions like, for
example, the cohesive structure of the Horatian
collection. The “crossing of genres” model has its
own effectiveness to indicate contamination and
modernization. Both the formal architecture and the
sense of controlled disharmony seem more Alexandrian
than archaic. And yet, Mankin retorts, there are no
certain instances of allusions to Callimachus in the
book, while allusions to Archilochus are easily
recognizable and supported by explicit programmatic
statements.18
But after my long introduction, I can briefly
explain why I do not thoroughly believe in either
the “crossing” model or the dichotomy between
Archilochus and the Alexandrians.
According to the perspective which I adopted for
Callimachus’ Iambi, the Alexandrianism of the Epodes
consists exactly in the deed of re-proposing the
original iamb.19 That which renders Horace more
Callimachean is precisely the act of citing early
Greek authors: because this profession of faith in
the revival of iambic poetry is an admission of
detachment. The new poetics of the iamb contains,
simultaneously, itself (the iamb as it has always
been) and the admission of its crisis. Seen in this
light, the Alexandrianism of the Epodes is even
stronger than it seems to those who concern
themselves with separate interferences and
allusions: because it consists of a full and self-18 Mankin 1996, 6 n. 28; 12 n. 44: for the limits of this
extreme position see Barchiesi 2001, but it is undeniable that
Satires 1, the other Horatian work of the Thirties, is much more
open to Callimachean influence (Freudenburg 1993, 104-80).19 Fedeli 1978, whose focus is firmly on Hellenistic and
neoteric influence, is perfectly aware that modern poetics is
also an approach to late Archaic literature.
conscious adhesion to a model which is perceived as
out-dated and impossible to re-perform. Certainly,
Horace differs from Callimachus as a “classicist”
(one could almost say a postmodernist) differs from
a modernist. His Archilochean mottoes are divergent
from the Hipponax-like pastiche of Callimachus; but
in the meantime his distance from the origins has
done nothing but increase. Not only do the culture
of the book and of the metropolis create a barrier,
but more importantly a change in the linguistic code
is thereby activated. The role of continuity that
Callimachus entrusts to the dialectical isogloss
(e.g. Ionisms) is now substituted by the practice of
citation and of the motto: translinguistic
reproduction instead of stylistic mimesis. Both
these techniques are unimaginable without a culture
of written reproduction: the Ionic in Alexandria
entrusted itself to writing (the public that takes
notes in Iamb 1!) just like certain Roman uses of
the “initial motto” presuppose editions of texts,
poems in sylloge that are recognized and categorized
according to their incipit.20
20 See Cavarzere in Enciclopedia Oraziana, s.v. “Motto iniziale”;
Feeney 1993, 44.
In the perspective that I try to adopt, the roleof the literary genre in reading the Epodes becomesimportant provided that one grasps the dialecticfunction: it is a matter of combining “the return tothe origins” with a sense of discontinuity andfracture.
The sense of the origins disseminates important
recollections in the reading of the Epodes. It is not
just a matter of intertextual presence; beyond the
separate allusions Horace is recapitulating the
rules of a literary institution.
If it is understood that the iamb entails not
only invective but also solidarity (philoi and hetairoi
united in the politics of the symposium21), one
cannot continue to treat the Actian Epodes (1 and 9)
like marginal poems with respect to the iambic
inspiration. Horace who prepares himself for the
naval battle is a poet that re-evokes the heroic
beginnings of the iambic voice: partisanship, virile
friendship, symposium as preparation for struggle
are coming back on stage.
Epode 6 can be read as a meditation on the
trademark of the iamb: the voice “of the dog” that
21 Mankin 1985, extends to Horace approaches found, e.g., inNagy 1978; Bossi 1990; and Pellizer 1981, treating Archilochus.
sets this genre apart by qualifying its Archilochus-
like origins is now re-evoked and even reduplicated.
We now have two poets and two dogs, two different
models of iambic aggressiveness that define
themselves reciprocally.
One can therefore no longer treat Epodes 8 and 12
according to critical and marginalizing categories
(comic experiments, “Vetula-Skoptik”). Because the
origins of the iamb are marked by figures like Iambe
and Baubo: old women who exhibit their sex, obscene
midwives, paralyzing nudity.22 The laugh which
exorcises the discomfort with respect to women is
the original function of the symposiastic context.23
Horace, using as a strong connection the implied
return to iambic origins, links together diverse
characters like Cleopatra of the eunuchs (Epode 9),
the cow woman and the elephant woman (Epodes 8 and
12) and, most important of all, Canidia, the new
Muse24 of the old-fashioned iamb.22 Arans 1988. The Horatian address to Canidia ends,
interestingly, with a shocking picture of a counterfeitedchildbirth (17.50-2). See also Barchiesi 1994a.
23 Pellizer 1981.24 Oliensis 1991. Conjectures on a somewhat parallel model in
the poetry of Hipponax, a programmatic aggression by an old
woman, have been raised by Rosen 1988 and Brown 1988, both
From this vantage point one can newly perceive
themes spread throughout the whole collection, such
as poison, remedy, intoxication and cure. The
neutral title liber epodon (“Book of the Epodes”) could
also be paraphrased as “Book of Magic Formulas” or
“Book of Remedies” (from epôdê instead of epôdos). We
should not forget the etymology of the iamb that
means “poisonous speech”, and the use of analogies
like the mad dog, the wasp, the snake, the black
bile, the bitterest poison. The poet stinks of
garlic (3), describes the poisons of Canidia (5) and
tries to eliminate their effects (17), mithridatizes
himself against love (11), laments the effects of
dangerous nepenthe (14), and looks for drugs and
immunity from the impotence of singing (9, 13). This
poetic genre is deeply involved in a discourse on
poetry as illness, symptom and treatment. Hence, the
importance of drugs and singing, and of poisoners
like Medea, Circe, and Canidia. Above all, the book
becomes animated with words that produce actions. No
other book of Roman poetry includes as many illocutory
formulas and promises of actual effectiveness. The
poet addresses with audacity a whole community (7
and 16), and we can find in his style the immediacy
independently building on Hipponax, test. 21 Degani.
and the force of address that characterizes the
original iamb: orders, prayers, spells,
supplications, motions, curses, toasts, and oaths.
The epodic collection is filled with all those kinds
of use of language which have at least one thing in
common: they are all forms of illocutory, performative
speech. They presuppose a context to which we can
respond in an active way, re-enacting obedience:
call for divine help, damage, slander, magic action,
compassion, collective decision, revenge, stipulated
bond. It is clear that the iamb is first of all the
genre of words oriented to action, natum rebus agendis.
But all these returns to the origins have in
them the sign of a crisis. As we did before for
Callimachus, it seems wise to take very seriously
the interpreters that assign this poetic book to the
iambic genre, but precisely because the sense of
loss and of discontinuity becomes more acute this
way: discontinuity from one (imagined?) culture
where all these poetic formulas are perceived as
something that works.
When we start our reading from the departure for
a risky campaign and a celebrated naval battle (Epode
1), it is difficult not to think that in antiquity
Archilochus is famous as a poet and a warrior. His
iambs about political struggle and battles on the
sea are anthologized in the “monument of Sosthenes”,
which recalls, among other things, the tradition for
which the poet dies in a bloody naval battle.25
(Horace thinks about Archilochus and other Greek
poets when he acknowledges the loss of the shield at
Philippi; but difference is even more important than
analogy. The Archilochus-like model authorizes the
loss of the shield, but the original also continues:
“I will buy myself a better one”. Horace will become
a poet only by quitting the army.) In the light of
this tradition, should we believe that the Actian
Epodes reflect a continuity of the iamb and of its
social function (Mankin): or is it not better to
integrate this poetics with the crisis that
announces itself when the first qualification of the
poetic voice in the book is the passive iussi (1.7)?
In Iamb 6 Horace wrenched the image of the
iambographic “dog” from a negative monopoly, by
doubling it and by annexing the names of Archilochus
and Hipponax vs Lycambes and Bupalus to a more
positive image. But perhaps it is not so easy to
disengage two opposite versions of the same genre;
25 The text has been discovered, lost and rediscovered, a plot
of events not without some iambic flavor (Peek 1985; West 1985).
the accusations that strike the rival, the ignoble
dog, are exactly the same that traditionally deform
the image of Archilochus (gratuitous aggressiveness)
and Hipponax (base venality) and of their
successors, the Cynic iambographers. The iambic
genre is revived only at a high price, projecting
next to it an image if its vicious, maligned
version, which must be refuted.26
The relationship between the iambic voice and
the victim of invective entails dangerous backfire.
The virile voice that bombards the women exposes
itself to counter-accusations of impotence (12)
until the prodigious word play: siquid in Flacco viri est
(15.12, after mea … virtute in the preceding line).27
Masculinity and weakness tend towards dangerous
cross-dressing.28 The political voice constitutes
26 To our knowledge Archilochus compares himself to a cicada
(fr. 223 West) and to an ant (fr. 23.16 West) but never to a
dog, good, bad, or otherwise.27 The proximity to vir and virtus suggests that a Flaccus (cf.
flaccidus) is not enough of a man to face the situation.28 1.10 non mollis viros; 16 imbellis ac firmus parum; 5.83-4 non, ut ante,
mollibus … verbis; 6.16 inultus ut flebo puer?; 8.2 viris quid enervet meas;
8.17-8 illitterati num minus nervi rigent / minusve languet fascinum?; 9.11-4
Romanus … emancipatus feminae … miles et spadonibus / servire rugosis potest;
10.17 non virilis heiulatio; 12.3 nec firmo iuveni; 12.8 pene soluto …
itself as a message of liberty (4.10 liberrima indignatio;
11.16 libera bilis; 26 libera consilia), and projects a
community of free citizens around itself; the free
people can condemn, through the voice of the poet,
the base character who struts in the city, a slave-
tribune enriched thanks to civil wars (4). But the
liberty of the readers can be pushed until, in this
polemic, it also involves the son of a freedman who
attempted to achieve social promotion as a tribune
fighting on the wrong side of the barricade in
Philippi.
Poisons, drugs, enchantments and intoxications
backfire on the poet more than they are effective on
his enemies: victim of garlic (3)29 as of the potions
of Canidia (17) and of the pain of love (11, 14,
15), the poet is exposed to the negative effects of
the black bile (yellowish complexion, 17.21-2) that
are the product of the iambic physiology. Epode 17,
Horace’s most quintessentially iambic text, closes
the story with a threat of failed suicide by hanging
(17.72-3 frustraque vincla gutturi nectes tuo/ fastidiosa tristis
indomitam rabiem; 12.15-6 semper ad unum / mollis opus; 14.1 mollis inertia;
16.37 mollis et exspes.29 An awful breath for a poet summoned to “talk poison”
(Gowers 1993).
aegrimonia; “obsessed with painful depression, you
will tighten a rope around your neck, but to no
effect”). Now tristis, that is melancholy like his
model Archilochus, Horace experiments with the role
of victim in the most spectacular success that an
iambic poet has ever had, the suicide of the
Lycambids. A noose around his neck, the iambic poet
tries in vain to fill even this role. Canidia has
the last word, for her ars and for the iambic book30
that finishes here:
plorem artis in te nil agentisexitus?
Epod. 17.81
The occasion of Epodes 7 and 16 offers anunsteady31 opportunity for a poet who has theunlikely right to apostrophize in public the guiltyof the civil war (7) or the community still able torecover its reason (16). The message is Roman; theconditions of the utterance and the political spaceit presupposes are very pointedly Hellenic. Thisimprobability is related to the impossibility ofrehabilitating the audible voice of the archaic iamb
30 See Barchiesi 1994b.31 On the link in Epode 16 between poetic persona and
reference to Greek models I am indebted to Cavarzere 1992.
and to project the immediacy of the “live” eventaround the poetic proposition. In its turn, theimprobable efficacy of the message is implicated inthis defeat. Epode 7 cures the Roman community withan analysis of Roman history in terms of theRomulean archetype; 16 adds the proposition of aconiuratio totius Italiae to flee towards the West, like thePhoceans routed by their Eastern foes, preciselywhile all the readers are already looking at thevictorious confrontation in the Orient. Theunrealistic anticipation of a “live” audienceresponse foregrounds a more critical response byreaders who know that the poet has no ius agendi cum
populo. “Perhaps someone has a better proposition?”(16.23); “… give me an answer. They are silent …”(7.14-5): the consciousness of the genre as a lostorigin is foregrounded in these moments. (GreatCallimachean-like solutions: “Listen to Hipponax …Write down my discourse” or “Can’t you see?” said toa public of an imaginary and synthetic ceremonial,Hymn 2.4, that can only respond “No, I can’t see, Iam only reading you”, because it is a public ofAlexandrian readers. The irrecoverable heredity ofArchilochus’ formulas like “Oh, wretched citizens,understand my words”, fr. 109 West).
The illocutory language continuously takes theHoratian iamb to the boundary which separates wordand action, and written word from “realized” word.Often the outcome of imprecations, magic, prayers,motions and oaths eludes us.32 The bard of Epode 16offers the citizens a poem that is a formula bywhich one can swear:
sed iuremus in haec …Epod. 16.25
However, if one realizes that the order of thepoems in the book is not an inactive assemblage,33
one can keep in mind that the poet of Epode 15proposed to his beloved a not very different formula(an adynaton), that is words that have been carriersof a perjury:
cum tu magnorum numen laesura deorumin verba iurabas mea …
Epod. 15.3-4when you, ready to offend the power of the greatgods, were repeating my oath …
32 Austin 1965, 14: “a performative utterance will, for
example, be in a peculiar way hollow or void if said by an actor
on the stage, or if introduced in a poem, or spoken in soliloquy
… Language in such circumstances is in special ways –
intelligibly – used not seriously, but in ways parasitic upon its
normal use – ways which fall under the doctrine of the etiolations
of language”.33 See Heyworth 1993.
To sum up, the way we read texts is deeplyconditioned by the model of the literary genre thatwe have in mind. To view genre as a biologicalspecies and work as living organism, as we haveseen, can explain some aspects, but it leaves outsome others. On the other hand, tropes and analogiesthat this kind of outlook carries with it are verytenacious: Aristotle really doesn’t want to go away.One can choose to question Aristotle and say, forexample, that the genres, considered outside theworks that bring them up-to-date, are “dead all thetime”. But, could it be that this language, evenagainst our wishes, perpetuates by implication andopposition that same paradigm from which it wouldlike to free itself? We tried to oppose the rhetoricof biological continuity to our own rhetoric ofdiscontinuity and crisis. However, it would alwaysbe possible to change paradigms and choose a vision,according to which the genre evolves according toits genetic code following features given once andfor all. In my opinion Horace’s iambic poetry wascreated by all the forces that originated the genreplus the consciousness of its crisis; but someothers, following a rhetoric different from mine,have with good reason made one notice that already
in Archilochus’ fragments a strong sense of crisisof the political voice and of amêchaniê comes out.34
The schema of birth – death – rebirth canprobably be seen as the result of a useful, howeverunstable, compromise. The Aristotelian temptationmakes it natural to imagine genres as biologicalentities that have birth and development – and thatwill leave open the problem of death. But separateartists have a very definite interest in picturingthemselves as the ones who bring the dead back tolife and resume an extinguished tradition: for them,the best model is certainly the one that balancescontinuity and discontinuity.35
34 Schmidt 1990. I should reply that Horace constructs himself
in terms of amêchaniê, but this entails a re-mythologization of
Archilochus: no matter how we relate to Archilochus, the model
is distanced by Horace, who constructs the source of iambic
poetics as a model of effective, transitive allocution (cf. Epod.
1.19.25 agentia verba Lycamben).35 My thanks to Alberto Cavarzere, Mary Depew, David Konstan,
Dirk Obbink, Lowell Edmunds, to Michael Paschalis and all my
friends in Crete. Preliminary, partial versions of this paper
have been presented at the University of Santiago de Compostela
in 1993 and at a Subfaculty seminar on meter and meaning at
Oxford in 2000, under the title “Horace on Iambos: the Short and
Long of it”. I thank respectively Dulce Estefania and Llewellyn
Morgan.
BibliographyAbel, E. 1891. Scholia recentia in Pindari Epinicia, vol. 1.
Berlin.Adorno, T. W. 1991. Notes to Literature, vol. 1, trans. S.
W. Nicholsen. New York.Albert, W. 1988. Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike:
Geschichte und Typologie von den Anfangen bis in die augusteische Zeit. Frankfurt am Main.
Albrecht, M. von, 1993. “Musik und Dichtung bei Horaz”, in Bimillenario Oraziano: Atti del Convegno di Venosa(8-15 Novembre 1992): 75-100. Venosa.
Alfonsi, L. 1954. “Il nuovo Alceo e Orazio”, Aegyptus 34: 215-9.
Ancona, R. 1994. Time and the Erotic in Horace’s Odes. Durham,NC.
Anderson, W. S. 1966. “Horace Carm 1.14: What Kind of Ship”, CP 61: 84-98.
____ed. 1999. Why Horace?: A Collection of Interpretations. Wauconda, IL.
Arans, O. R. 1988. Iambe and Baubo: A Study in Ritual Laughter. Ph.D. Thesis: University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.
Asper, M. 1997. Onomata Allotria: Zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion Poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos. Stuttgart.
Athanassaki, L. 1990. Mantic Vision and Diction in Pindar’s Victory Odes. Ph.D. Thesis: Brown University.
_____1994. “Choral and Prophetic Discourse in the First Stasimon of the Agamemnon”, CJ 89: 149-62.
Austin, J. L. 1965. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford.
Baak, J. J. van, 1983. The Place of Space in Narration: A Semiotic Approach to the Problem of Literary Space. With an Analysis of the Role of Space in I. E. Babel’s Konarmija. Amsterdam.
Barchiesi, A. 1993. “Insegnare ad Augusto: Orazio, Epistole 2,1 e Ovidio, Tristia II”, MD 31: 149-84.
____1994a. “Alcune difficoltà nella carriera di un poeta giambico: l’Epodo XI”, in R. Cortès Tovar & J. C. Fernandez Corte, eds., Bimilenario de Horacio: 127-38. Salamanca.
____ 1994b. “Ultime difficoltà nella carriera di un poeta giambico: l’Epodo XVII”, in Bimillenario Oraziano: Atti dei Convegni di Venosa, Napoli, Roma: 205-20. Venosa.
____1996a. “Poetry, Praise, and Patronage: Simonidesin Book 4 of Horace’s Odes”, CA 15: 5-47.
____1996b. “Simonides and Horace on the Death of Achilles”, in Boedeker & Sider 1996: 247-53.
____2000. “Rituals in Ink: Horace on the Greek LyricTradition”, in Depew & Obbink 2000: 167-82.
____2001. “Horace on Iambos: The Poet as a Literary Historian”, in A. Cavarzere et al., eds., Iambic Ideas. Lanham, MD.
Barchiesi, M. 1962. Nevio epico: Storia, interpretazione, edizionecritica dei frammenti del primo epos latino. Padua.
Barra, G. 1973. “L’amicizia tra Virgilio e Orazio”, Vichiana 2: 22-50.
Belmont, D. E. 1980. “The Vergilius of Horace, Ode 4.12”, TAPA 110: 1-20.
Bing, P. 1988. The Well-Read Muse. Göttingen.Bizzaro, F. C. 1999. Poetica e critica letteraria nei frammenti
dei Poeti Comici Greci. Naples.
Bloom, H. 1973. The Anxiety of Influence. Oxford.Boedeker, D. & Sider, D., eds. 1996. The New Simonides
[Arethusa 29, 2].____2001. The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire.
Oxford.Bonavia-Hunt, N. A. 1969. Horace the Minstrel: A Practical and
Aesthetic Study of his Aeolic Verse. Kineton.Borzsák, I. 1960. “Descende caelo …”, Acta Antiqua 8:
369-86.Bossi, F. 1990. Studi su Archiloco. Bari.Bowie, E. L. 1993. “Lies, Fiction and Slander in
Early Greek Poetry”, in C. Gill & T. P. Wiseman,eds., Lies and fiction in the ancient world: 1-37. Exeter.
Brink, C. O. 1971. Horace on Poetry: The ‘Ars Poetica’. Cambridge.
____1982. Horace on Poetry. Epistles Book II: The Letters to Augustusand Florus. Cambridge.
Brown, C. G. 1983. “From Rags to Riches: Anacreon’s Artemon”, Phoenix 37: 1-15.
____1988. “Hipponax and Iambe”, Hermes 116: 478-81.Büchner, K. 1970. “Die Epoden des Horaz”, in Studien zur
römischen Literatur, vol. 8: 50-96. Wiesbaden.Burnett, A. P. 1983. Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus,
Sappho. London.____1985. The Art of Bacchylides. Cambridge, MA.Cairns, F. 1971. “Five ‘Religious’ Odes of Horace.
(I, 10; I, 21 and IV, 6; I, 30; I, 15)”, AJP 92: 433-52.
____1972. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. Edinburgh.
____1977. “Horace on Other People’s Love Affairs (Odes I.27, II.4, III.12)”, QUCC 24: 121-47.
Cameron, A. 1992. “Genre and Style in Callimachus”, TAPA 122: 305-12.
____1995. Callimachus and his Critics. Princeton.Campbell, A. Y. 1924. Horace: A New Interpretation.
[Reprint Westport, CT, 1970].Campbell, D. 1988. Greek Lyric II: Anacreon, Anacreontea, Choral
Lyric from Olympus to Alcman. Cambridge, MA.Campbell, D. A. 1990. Greek Lyric I: Sappho and Alcaeus 2.
Cambridge, MA / London.Carson, A. 1999. Economy of the Unlost: Reading Simonides of
Keos with Paul Celan. Princeton.Cavarzere, A. 1992. Orazio: Il libro degli epodi. Venice.____1996. Sul limitare: il “motto” e la poesia di Orazio. Bologna.Citroni, M. 1983. “Occasione e piani di destinazione
nella lirica di Orazio”, MD 10-11: 133-214. [Revised as chapter 6 of Poesia e lettori in Roma antica:forme della communicazione letteraria. Rome 1995].
Cody, J. V. 1976. Horace and Callimachean Aesthetics. Brussels.
Commager, S. 1957. “The Function of Wine in Horace’sOdes”, TAPA 88: 68-80.
____1962. The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study. Oklahoma.Courtney, E. 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford.Cremona, V. 1982. La poesia civile di Orazio. Milan.Davies, M. 1981. “Artemon Transvestitus? A Query”,
Mnemosyne 34: 288-99.Davis, G. 1989. “Ingenii cumba? Literary aporia and the
Rhetoric of Horace’s O nauis referent (C. 1.14)”, RhM132: 331-45.
____1991. Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse. Berkeley/Los Angeles.
De Man, P. 1983. Blindness and Insight 2. Minneapolis.
Degani, E. 1993. “Aristofane e la tradizione dell’invettiva personale in Grecia”, Entretiens Hardt 38: 1-49. Vandoeuvres-Genève.
Della Corte, F. & Mariotti, Sc., eds. 1997. Enciclopedia Oraziana. Rome.
Depew, M. 1992. ἰαμβεῖον καλεῖται νῦν: Genre, Occasion and Imitation in Callimachus, frr. 191 and 203 Pf., TAPA 122: 313-30.
Depew, M. & Obbink, D., eds., 2000. Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA.
Douglas, A. E. 1966. Cicero: Brutus. Oxford.Drachmann, A. B. 1903. Scholia vetera in Pindari Carmina,
vol. 1. Leipzig.Du Quesnay, I. M. Le M. 1995. “Horace, Odes 4.5: Pro
Reditu Imperatoris Caesaris Divi Filii Augusti”, in Harrison 1995: 128-87.
Duff, T. 2000. Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Vice and Virtue. Oxford.
Dupont, F. 1994. L’Invention de la littérature: de l’ivresse grecque au livre latin. Paris.
Edmunds, L. 1992. From a Sabine Jar: Reading Horace, Odes 1.9. Chapel Hill / London.
Ernout, A. & Meillet, A. 1932. Dictionnaire étymologique dela langue latine. Paris.
Fantuzzi, M. 1993. Il sistema letterario della poesia alessandrina, in G. Cambiano et al., eds., Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, vol. 1.2: 31-73.
Färber, H. 1936. Die Lyrik in der Kunsttheorie der Antike. Munich.
Fedeli, P. 1977. “Nox erat et caelo fulgebat luna sereno. Tra elegia e giambo”, RCCM 19: 373-81.
____1978. “Il V epodo e i Giambi d’Orazio come espressione d’arte alessandrina”, MPL 3: 67-138.
Feeney, D. C. 1993. “Horace and the Greek Lyric Poets”, in Rudd 1993: 41-63.
____1998. Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs. Cambridge.
____April 28, 2000. “All talk, no substance”, Reviewof Dupont 1994, TLS 5065: 9.
____2002. “Una cum scriptore meo: Poetry, Principate, and the Traditions of Literary History the Epistle to Augustus”, in Woodman & Feeney 2002.
Felson, N. 1999. “Vicarious Transport: Fictive Deixis in Pindar’s Pythian Four”, HSCP 99: 1-31.
Fitzgerald, W. 1995. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley.
____1999. “Horace, Pleasure and the Text”, in Anderson 1999: 105-14. [Originally in Arethusa 22 (1989) 81-104].
Fletcher, J. 1999. “Choral Voice and Narrative in the First Stasimon of Aeschylus Agamemnon”, Phoenix 53: 29-49.
Focke, F. 1923. “Synkrisis”, Hermes 58: 327-68.Fontenelle, B. Le Bovier de. 1991. Oeuvres complètes,
vol. 2, ed. A. Niderst. Paris.Ford, A. 1992. Homer: the Poetry of the Past. Cornell.Fowler, D. P. 1995. “Horace and the Aesthetics of
Politics”, in Harrison 1995: 248-66.____2000. Roman Constructions: Readings in Postmodern Latin.
New York.Fowler, H. N. 1914. Plato, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA.Fraenkel, E. 1957. Horace. Oxford.Freudenburg, K. 1993. The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory
of Satire. Princeton.
Führer, R. 1967. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zum den Reden in der frühgriechishen Lyrik (Zetemata 44). Munich.
Gerber, D. E. 1997. A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets. Leiden.
Godolphin, F. 1934. “The Unity of Certain Elegies ofPropertius”, AJP 55: 62-6.
Gowers, E. 1993. The Loaded Table. Oxford.Grant, M. A. & Fiske, G. C. 1924. “Cicero’s Orator
and Horace’s Ars Poetica”, HSCP 35: 1-74.____1929. Cicero’s De Oratore and Horace’s Ars Poetica.
Madison.Gurval, R. A. 1995. Actium and Augustus: The Politics and
Emotions of Civil War. Ann Arbor.Habinek, T. N. 1998. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing,
Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton.Hardie, P. 1986. Virgil’s Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium.
Oxford.Harrison, G. 1979. “Horace, Odes. 1.27: a Borrowed
Motto”, Latomus 164: 271-4.Harrison, S. ed. 1995. Homage to Horace: a bimillenary
celebration. Oxford.____2001. “Simonides and Horace”, in Boedeker &
Sider 2001: 261-71.Heinze, R. 1960. “Die Horazische Ode”, in E. Burck,
ed., Vom Geist des Römertums: ausgewählte Aufsatze: 172-89. Stuttgart.
Helm, R. 1935. “Reden in den Oden des Horaz”, Philologus 90: 352-71.
Henderson, J. 1987. “Suck it and see (Horace, Epode 8)”, in M. Whitby, ed., Homo viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble : 105-18. Bristol / Oak Park, IL.
Heyworth, S. 1993. “Horace’s Ibis: On the Titles, Unity, and Contents of the Epodes”, PLLS 7: 85-96.
____1995. “Dividing Poems”, in O. Pecere & M. Reeve,eds., Formative Stages of Classical Traditions: Latin Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance: 117-48. Spoleto.
Highbarger, E. L. 1935. “The Pindaric Style of Horace”, TAPA 66: 222-55.
Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge.
Holder, A. ed. 1894. Porfyrionis Commentum in Horatium Flaccum. Innsbruck.
Hölscher, T. 1985. “Denkmäler der Schlacht von Actium. Propaganda und Resonanz”, Klio 67: 81-102.
Horsfall, N. ed. 1988. Vir Bonus Discendi Peritus: Studies in Celebration of Otto Skutsch’s Eightieth Birthday (BICS, suppl.51). London.
____1993a. “Empty Shelves on the Palatine”, G&R 40: 58-67.
____1993b. Review of G. Vogt-Spira, ed., Strukturen der Mündlichkeit in der römischen Literatur (ScriptOralia 19 A 4,1990). Tübingen.
____1994. “The Prehistory of Latin Poetry: Some Problems of Method”, Rfil 122: 50-75.
____1996. La cultura della plebs romana. (Cornucopia 2, Repertoris i materialis per a l’estudi del Món Clàssic). Barcelona.
Hubbard, M. 1975. “The capture of Silenus”, PCPS 21: 53-62.
Hubbard, T. 1993. “The Theban Amphiaraion and Pindar’s Vision on the Road to Delphi”, MH 50: 193-220.
Hunter, R. 1997. “(B)ionic Man: Callimachus’ Iambic Programme”, PCPS 43: 41-52.
Jocelyn, H. D. 1982. “Boats, Women, and Horace Odes 1.14”, CP 77: 330-5.
____1988. “Studies in the Indirect Tradition of Plautus’ Pseudolus. III The ‘Archaising Movement’,Republican Comedy and Aulus Gellius’ Noctes Atticae”, in Horsfall 1988: 57-72.
Johnson, W. R. 1982. The Idea of Lyric. Berkeley.Kambylis, A. 1965. Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik:
Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennius. Heidelberg.
Kennedy, D. F. 1992. “ ‘Augustan’ and ‘Anti-Augustan’: Reflections on Terms of Reference”, in A. Powell, ed., Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus: 26-57. London.
Kennedy, N. T. 1975. “Pindar and Horace”, AClass 18: 9-24.
Kerkhecker, A. 1999. Callimachus’ book of Iambi. Oxford.Kiessling, A. & Heinze, R. 1914. Q. Horatius Flaccus.
Briefe 4. Berlin.____1960. Q. Horatius Flaccus. Oden und Epoden. Berlin.Kilpatrick, R. 1990. The Poetry of Criticism: Horace, Epistles II
and Ars Poetica. Edmonton.Klingner, F. 1964. “Horazens Brief an Augustus”, in
Studien zur griechischen und römischen Literatur : 410-32. Zürich.
____1965. Römische Geisteswelt. Munich.Konstan, D. 1998. “The Dynamics of Imitation:
Callimachus’ First Iambic”, in M. A. Harder et al., eds., Genre in Hellenistic Poetry: 133-42. Groningen.
Korzeniewski, D. 1968. Griechische Metrik. Darmstadt.
Kraus, C. S. 1994. Livy: Ab urbe condita, Book VI. Cambridge.Kroll, W. 1924. Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur.
Stuttgart.Kurke, L. 1991. The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of
Social Economy. Ithaca.____1999. Coins, Bodies, Games and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in
Archaic Greece. Princeton.La Penna, A. 1972. “Sunt qui Sappho malint: Note sulla
σύγκρισις di Saffo e Alceo nell’ antichità”, Maia24: 208-15.
Lamberton, R. 1997. “Plutarch and the Romanizations of Athens”, in M. C. Hoff & S. I. Rotroff, eds.,The Romanizations of Athens: 151-60. Oxford.
Leach, E. W. 1997. “Horace and the Material Culture of Augustan Rome: A Revisionary Reading”, in Th.Habinek & A. Schiesaro, eds., The Roman Cultural Revolution: 105-121. Cambridge.
____1998. “Personal and Communal Memory in the Reading of Horace’s Odes”, Arethusa 31: 43-74.
Leo, F. 1901. Die griechisch-römische Biographie nach ihrer litteratischen Form. Leipzig.
Lockwood, J. 1970. “Aristophanes”, in Oxford Classical Dictionary 2: 114. Oxford.
Lotman, J. 1977. The Structure of the Artistic Text (Michigan Slavic Contributions 7), trans. G. Lenhoff & R. Vroon. Michigan.
Lowrie, M. 1995. “A Parade of Lyric Predecessors: Horace C. I. 12-18”, Phoenix 49: 33-48.
____1997. Horace’s Narrative Odes. Oxford.____2002. “Horace, Cicero, and Augustus, or the Poet
Statesman at Epistles 2.1.256”, in Woodman & Feeney2002.
Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1995. Horace. Behind the Public Poetry. NewHaven / London.
Mace, S. 1996. “Utopian and Erotic Fusion in a New Elegy by Simonides (22 West2)”, ZPE 113: 233-47.
Macleod, C. 1977. “The Poet, the Critic, and the Moralist: Horace, Epistles 1.19”, CQ 27: 359-76.
____1986. Horace. The Epistles. Rome.Maehler, H. 1963. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen
Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars. Göttingen.____1997. Die Lieder des Bakchylides. Zweiter Teil. Die Dithyramben
und Fragmente. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Leiden / New York.
Mankin, D. P. 1985. The Epodes of Horace and Archilochean Iambus: A Preliminary Study. Ph.D. Thesis: University of Virginia.
____1996. Horace. Epodes. Cambridge.Marg, W. 1975. “Zum Musengedicht des Horaz (Carm.
3,4)”, in E. Lefèvre et al., eds., Monumentum Chiloniense. Studien zur augusteischen Zeit (Festschrift für E. Burck): 385-99. Amsterdam..
Mayer, R. 1994. Horace. Epistles: Book I. Cambridge.Mendell, C. W. 1938. “Horace i.14”, CP 33: 145-56.Miller, J. F. 1998. “Horace’s Pindaric Apollo (Odes
3.4.60-4)”, CQ 48: 545-52.Minadeo, R. 1975-76. “Vergil in Horace’s Odes 4.12”,
CJ 71: 161-4.Mühll, P. von der, 1940. “Zu Anakreon 43 Diehl und
den Lyrikern”, Hermes 75: 422-5.Münzer, F. 1905. “Atticus als Geschichtsschreiber”,
Hermes 40: 50-100.Murray, O. 1993. “Symposium and Genre in the Poetry
of Horace”, in Rudd 1993: 89-105. London.
Nagy, G. 1976. “Iambos: Typologies of Invective and Praise”, Arethusa 9: 191-205.
____1990. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic past. Baltimore.
____1994. “Copies and Models in Horace: Odes 4.1 and4.2”, CW 87: 415-26.
Newman, J. K. 1965. “De verbis canere et dicere eorumque apud poetas latinos ab Ennio usque ad aetatem Augusti usu”, Latinitas 13: 86-106. [Translated and revised in Newman 1990: Appendix2].
____1967. Augustus and the New Poetry. Brussels.____1990. Roman Catullus and the Modification of the Alexandrian
Sensibility, Hildesheim.Nisbet, R. G. M. & Hubbard, M. 1970. A Commentary on
Horace: Odes Book 1. Oxford.____1978. A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book II. Oxford.Oakley, S. P. 1998. A Commentary on Livy: Book VI-X, vol.
2. Oxford.Oliensis, E. 1991. “Canidia, Canicula, and the
Decorum of Horace’s Epodes”, Arethusa 24: 107-38.____1998. Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority. Cambridge.Page, D. 1955. Sappho and Alcaeus. Oxford.____1962. Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford.____1972. Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoediae. Oxford.Παπαγγελής, Θ. 1994. Η Ποιητική των Ρωμαίων “Νεωτέρων”.
Προϋποθέσεις και Προεκτάσεις. Αθήνα.Parsons, P. J. 1992. “Simonides, Elegies”, in E. W.
Handley et al., eds., Oxyrhychus Papyri 59: 4-50. London.
Paschalis, M. 1995a. “Spatial Structures in the Portrayal of Horace’s and Maecenas’ Status in the Odes”, Hellenica 45: 267-75.
____1995b. “Names and Death in Horace’s Odes”, CW 88: 181-90.
____1997. Virgil’s Aeneid: Semantic Relations and Proper Names. Oxford.
____forthcoming. “Etymology and enargeia: Re-reading Moschus’ Europa (vis-à-vis Hor. C. 3.27)”, in C. Nifadopoulos, ed., Etymologia: Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference on Ancient Etymology. Münster.
Pasquali, G. 1920. Orazio lirico. Florence.Pearce, T. E. V. 1981. “Notes on Horace, Odes 1”,
Latomus 40: 72-87.Peek, W. 1985. “Ein neues Bruchstück vom
Archilochos-Monument des Sosthenes”, ZPE 59: 13-22.
Pelling, C. 1988. Plutarch: Life of Antony. Cambridge.____1997. Review of Gurval 1995, JRS 87: 289-90.Pellizer, E. 1981. “Per una morfologia della poesia
giambica arcaica”, in I canoni letterari. Storia e dinamica: 35-48. Trieste.
Petrochilos, N. K. 1974. Roman Attitudes to the Greeks. Athens.
Pfeijffer, I. L. 1999. Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar. A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, & Pythian VIII (Mnemosyne, suppl. 197). Leiden.
Porter, D. H. 1972. “Horace, Carmina IV, 12”, Latomus 31: 71-87.
Pretagostini, R. 1982. “Anacr. 33 Gent.=356 P.: due modalità simposiali a confronto”, QUCC 39: 47-55.
Price, S. 1990. “Anacreontic Vases Reconsidered”, GRBS 31: 133-75.
Putnam, M. C. J. 1986. Artifices of Eternity. Horace’s Fourth Book of Odes. Ithaca / London.
____1993. “The Languages of Horace, Odes 1.24”, CJ 88: 123-35.
Quinn, K. 1963. Latin Explorations. London.Reitzenstein, R. 1963. Aufsätze zu Horaz; Abhandlungen und
Vorträge aus den Jahren 1908-1925. Darmstadt.Romano, E. 1991. Q. Orazio Flacco: le opere, vol. 2. Rome.Rosen, R. M. 1988. “A Poetic Initiation Scene in
Hipponax?”, AJP 109: 174-9.Rosenmeyer, P. 1992. The Poetics of Imitation: Anacreon and the
Anacreontic Tradition. Cambridge.Ross, D. O. 1975. Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy
and Rome. Cambridge.Rudd, N. 1960. “Patterns in Horatian Lyric”, AJP 81:
372-92.____1979. Horace: Satires and Epistles 2. Harmondsworth.____1989. Epistles, Book II and Epistle to the Pisones (‘Ars Poetica’).
Cambridge.____1993 ed. Horace 2000: A Celebration: Essays for the
Bimillennium. Ann Arbor.Russell, D. A. 1979. “De Imitatione”, in D. West &
A. J. Woodman, eds., Creative Imitation and Latin Literature: 1-16. Cambridge.
Santirocco, M. S. 1995. “Horace and Augustan Ideology”, Arethusa 28: 225-43.
Schaeffer, J.-M. 1992. Che cos’è un genere letterario. Parma [Paris 1989].
Schlegel, F. 1988. Kritische Schriften und Fragmente 1794-1797(vol. 1), Kritische Schriften und Fragmente 1798-1801 (vol. 2), eds. E. Behler & H. Eichner. Paderborn.
Schmidt, E. A. 1990. Notwehrdichtung. Moderne Iambik von Chénier bis Borchardt (mit einer Skizze zur antiken Iambik). Munich.
____1993. “Öffentliches und privates Ich. Zur Funktion frühgriechischen und alexandrinisch-neoterischen Epochenstils in Horazens Iambik”, in G. W. Most et al., eds., Philanthropia kai Eusebeia (Festschrift Dihle): 454-67. Göttingen.
Segal, C. P. 1986. Pindar’s Mythmaking: The Fourth Pythian Ode. Princeton.
Servais, J. 1967. “Horace et Homère (A propos d’ Horace, Odes, I, 15, 34)”, AFLA 43: 195-207.
Shackleton-Bailey, D. R. 1995. Horatius Opera 3. Stuttgart.
Sider, D. 1996. “As is the Generation of Leaves”, inBoedeker & Sider 1996: 263-82.
Silk, E. T. 1952. “Cicero and the odes of Horace”, YCS 13: 147-58.
Sinko, T. 1926. “De Horatii carmine I 15 eiusque exemplari graeco”, Eos 29: 135-55.
Slater, W. J. 1976. “Symposium at sea”, HSCP 80: 161-70.
____1978. “Artemon and Anacreon: No Text without Context”, Phoenix 32: 185-94.
Smith, O. L. 1968. “A Reading of Horace, Carm. I, 15”, C&M 29: 67-74.
Smith, W. S. 1984. “Horace Directs a Carouse: Epistle 1.19”, TAPA 114: 255-71.
Snell, B. & Maehler, H. 1987. Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis. Pars I. Epinicia. Leipzig.
Steidle, W. 1939. Studien zur Ars Poetica des Horaz. Würzburg.
Steinmetz, P. 1964. “Horaz und Pindar. Hor. carm. IV2”, Gymnasium 71: 1-17.
Stemplinger, E. 1918. “Der Mimus in der horazischen Lyrik”, Philologus 75: 466-9.
Striker, G. 1995. “Cicero and Greek philosophy”, HSCP 97: 53-61.
Svenbro, J. 1993. Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece, trans. Janet Lloyd. Ithaca.
Syndikus, H. P. 1972. Die Lyrik des Horaz. Eine Interpretation der Oden. Band I. Erstes und zweites Buch. Darmstadt.
____1973. Die Lyrik des Horaz. Eine Interpretation der Oden. Band II. Drittes und viertes Buch. Darmstadt.
Tarditi, I. 1968. Archilochus. Rome.Theiler, W. 1970. “Das Musengedicht des Horaz”, in
Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur: 394-429. Berlin.Thomas, R. F. 1999. Reading Virgil and His Texts: Studies in
Intertextuality. Ann Arbor.Thornton, A. H. F. 1965. “Horace’s Ode to Calliope
(III,4)”, AUMLA 23: 96-102.Tomaszuk, K. 1992. “Horaz, carmen I 15”, Eos 80: 63-
8.Traill, D. A. 1979. “Horace, Odes 1,14: Genealogy,
Courtesans and Cyclades”, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 1: 266-70. Brussels.
Treggiari, S. 1973. “Cicero, Horace, and mutual friends: Lamiae and Varrones Murenae”, Phoenix 27: 245-61.
Vardi, A. D. 1996. “Diiudicatio locorum: Gellius and the history of a mode in ancient comparative criticism”, CQ 46: 81-9.
Vessey, D. W. T. 1985. “From Mountain to Lovers’ Tryst: Horace’s Soracte Ode”, JRS 75: 26-38.
Vian, F. 1952. La guerre des Géants. Le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique. Paris.
Watson, L. C. 1995. “Horace’s Epodes: the Impotence of Iambos?”, in Harrison 1995: 188-202. Oxford.
West, D. 1995. Horace Odes I. Carpe diem. Text, Translation and Commentary. Oxford.
West, M. L. 1974. Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus. Berlin / New York.
____1985. “Archilochus: New Fragments and Readings”,ZPE 61: 8-13.
____1993. “Simonides Redivivus”, ZPE 98: 1-14.Wheeler, A. 1930. “Tradition in the Epithalamium”,
AJP 51: 205-23.Wili, W. 1948. Horaz und die Augusteische Kultur. Basel.Wilkinson, L. P. 1951. Horace and his Lyric Poetry.
Cambridge.Williams, G. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry.
Oxford.Wissowa, G. 1912. Religion und Kultus der Römer 2. Munich.Wistrand, E. 1964. “Archilochus and Horace”, in
Entretiens Hardt 10: 255-87. Geneva.Woodman, A. J. 1974. “Exegi monumentum: Horace, Odes
3.30”, in A. J. Woodman & D. West, eds., Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry: 115-28. London.
____1980. “The Craft of Horace in Odes 1.14”, CP 75:60-7.
____1983. “Horace, Epistles I, 19, 23-40”, MH 40: 75-81.
Woodman, A. J. & Feeney, D. C., eds. 2002. Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace. Cambridge.
Yatromanolakis, D. 1998. “Simonides fr. eleg. 22 W2: To Sing or to Mourn?”, ZPE 120: 1-11.
Zanker, P. 1983. “Der Apollotempel auf dem Palatin. Ausstattung und politische Sinnbezüge nach der Schlacht von Actium”, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, suppl. 10: 21-40.
Zielinski, T. S. 1912. Cicero in Wandel der Jahrhunderte. Leipzig.
Zumwalt, N. K. 1977. “Horace’s nauis of Love Poetry”,CW 71: 249-2.