horace catullus and alexandrinism

Horace, Catullus, and AlexandrianismAuthor(s): N. B. CrowtherSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 31, Fasc. 1 (1978), pp. 33-44Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4430759 .Accessed: 22/04/2014 05:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 151.97.124.157 on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:02:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXI, Fase, ?

HORACE, CATULLUS, AND

ALEXANDRIANISM1)

BY

N. B. CROWTHER

The influence of Alexandrian and Hellenistic poetry on Horace has long been recognized; the discussions are numerous, but the

following may be noted: in the early years of the century Reitzen- stein 2) discussed his relationship to Hellenistic poetry; Pasquali3) devoted many pages to Hellenistic themes in Horace ; Wehrli 4) clearly showed Horace's indebtedness to Callimachus ; Alfonsi5) discussed Horace as a continuator of the 'neoteric' movement ; more recently Wimmel e) listed passages where Horace was influenced by Calli- machean theory; Schwinge7) discussed the stylistic theory of Horace with reference to Alexandria; Castorina 8) devoted a chapter to the 'neoterismo* in Horace; Gagliardi ?) composed a whole book on 'neoteric' tendencies in Horace. Yet even so, certainly in the

English-speaking world, the Alexandrian and Callimachean elements of Horace have not throughout the years received sufficient em-

phasis or wide-spread acceptance: Campbell10) maintained that Horace was the "least open to Alexandrian influences of all the

?) Some of the ideas in this article were included in a thesis submitted to the University of Sheffield for the degree of Ph. D. (1968).

2) R. Reitzenstein, Horaz und die hellenistische Lyrik, NJA 21 (1908), 81-102, 365-67. See also Horaz als Dichter, NJA 49 (1922), 24-41, A. Rostagni, Orazio, Arte Poetica (Torino 1930), 46 ff.

3) G. Pasquali, Orazio lirico (Firenze 1920), 141-641. 4) F. Wehrli, Horaz und Kallimachos, Mus. Helv. 1 (1944), 69-76. 5) L. Alfonsi, Poetae novi (Como 1945), 112 ff. 6) W. Wimmel, Kallimachos in Rom (Wiesbaden i960), passim. 7) E.-R. Schwinge, Zur Kunsttheorie des Horaz, Phil. 107 (1963), 75-96. 8) E. Castorina, La poesia d'Orazio (Roma 1965), 159-70. 9) D. Gagliardi, Orazio e la tradizione neoterica (Napoli 1971). io) A. Y. Campbell, Horace (London 1924), 139.


34 HORACE, CATULLUS, AND ALEXANDRIANISM

Latin classic poets"; Commager n) in his critical studies of the Odes called for a re-examination of Horace's relationship to Alexan- drian poetry. This study was to a large extent undertaken by Newman 12), whose ideas (a reviewer has pointed out1S)) are not as original as the author first thought. The purpose of this article is not to re-assess or re-emphasise the evidence for the relations of Horace to Alexandria, for the results are clear, but rather to examine Horace's relationship with Catullus, for Catullus has become a

stumbling-block for scholars in their discussion of Horace and Alexandrianism. For how could a poet who is often believed to be an opponent of 'neoteric' poetry be so steeped in Alexandrianism 14) ? It will be worthwhile to re-examine the relationship of Horace and Catullus with particular reference to their literary ideals.

The only reference of Horace to Catullus by name is found in the tenth poem of the first book of Satires. It is from this passage that to a large extent is deduced the antipathy of the two poets. But can this statement be justified in the light of the evidence ? In these much discussed verses (14-19) 15), Horace speaks of the writers of Old Comedy who should be imitated:

li) S. Commager, The Odes of Horace (New Haven and London 1962), 35, where he lists others who reject Alexandrianism in Horace. Cf. ?. Otis, Horace and the Elegists, TAPA 76 (1945), 190, who speaks of the opposition of Horace to the Alexandrianism of the neoterics.

12) J. K. Newman, Augustus and The New Poetry (Bruxelles 1967), 270 ff. 13) L. P. Wilkinson in Gnomon 41 (1969), 156-59. 14) Cf. F. Plessis, La po?sie latine (Paris 1909), 320, P. Grimal, Horace

(Paris 1958), 14, who believe Horace was critical of Catullus and the neoterics, j. Ferguson, Catullus and Horace, AJP y y (1956), i, Tenney Frank, Catullus and Horace (Oxford 1928), 162-64, A. Kiessling, R. Heinze, Horaz: Oden und Epoden (11 Edit. Z?rich-Berlin 1964), 484 ff., A. La Penna, Orazio e Videologia del principato (Torino 1963), 166 f.

15) G. L. Hendrickson, Horace and Valerius Cato, CP 12 (1917), 329-50, ?. Otis, op. cit., 177 ff., suggested the verses were disparaging. However, E. K. Rand, Catullus and the Augustans, HSCP 17 (1906), 15-30, B. L. UU- man, Horace, Catullus, and Tigellius, CP 10 (1915), 270-96, take the opposite point of view: Ullman believes that cantare can have the sense of satirize, but this interpretation is rejected by N. Rudd, The Satires of Horace (Cam- bridge 1966), 292-93 n. 15. See also Rudd, op. cit, 289 n. 46, who rejects the view of J. Perret, Horace (Paris 1959), 59, that cantare can mean to mock. The term cantare may well be connected with Cicero's cantores Euphorio-


HORACE, CATULLUS, AND ALEXANDRIANISM 35

ridiculum acri fortius et melius magnas plerumque secat res. illi scripta quibus comoedia prisca viris est hoc stabant, hoc sunt imitandi: quos neque pulcher Hermogenes umquam legit, neque simius iste nil praeter Calvum et doctus cantare Catullum.

Little is known of Hermogenes 1?) and the poet referred to as simius iste, who is identified by the scholiasts with Demetrius, but the terms pulcher and doctus obviously suggest the Catullan-type of

poetry (ironically or not). At the end of the same satire (90-91) Horace bids farewell to Demetrius and Hermogenes :

Demetri, teque, Tigelli, discipularum inter iubeo plorare cathedras

where it appears that mention of female pupils (discipulae) of chairs for women (cathedrae), and the phrase iubeo plorare (a play on the more common iubeo valere) suggest criticism of love-poetry 17). The criticism against Hermogenes and his contemporary is not that they merely followed Calvus and Catullus, but that they did so to the exclusion of other poets (nil praeter). As Brink explains, "Horace objects not to their tastes but to their narrow tastes" 18). Their narrow tastes were probably in terms of love-poetry, for in almost all cases where Calvus and Catullus are mentioned together by sub-

sequent writers, the author had love-poetry in mind 19). The attitude of Horace towards love-poetry and specially the preoccupa-

nis. See ?. ?. Crowther, ?? ?e?te???, poetae novi, and cantores Euphorionis, CQ 20 (1970), 325 ff., W. Allen Jr., Ovid's Cantare and Cicero's Cantores Euphorionis, TAPA 103 (1972), 1-14.

16) On the identification of Hermogenes, see M?nzer's article in RE VI AI, 943-46, Rudd, op. cit., 292-93 ?. 15. Ullman, loc. cit., made much of the fact that Calvus attacked a Sardian Tigellius (fr. 3 Morel), but it is uncertain whether this Tigellius can be identified with the Hermogenes Tigellius of Satire I 10. However, Hermogenes in I 4, 72 is associated with the vulgus, hardly a Catullan concept (see infra). Clearly Hermogenes does not possess all the qualities of a Catullus. Cf. Sat. I 9, 25 and invidia (infra).

17 See Ullman, op. cit., 277. 18) CO. Brink, Horace on Poetry. Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles

(Cambridge 1963), 167. 19) Cf. Prop. II 25, 3-4; 34, 87-90; Ov. Am. Ill 9, 61-62; Plin. Ep. I 16,

5; IV 27, 4; Aul. Gell. XIX 9, 7?



tion of a love-poet with a single theme is well-known 20). However, although there may be criticism of the subject-matter of Catullus in this poem, there is no apparent criticism of style or poetic principles.

A basic argument often put forward to show antipathy between Horace and Catullus is the allegation that the minor poets criticized in the Satires were the chief survivors of the Catullan school21). This originates, one feels, from the references to Valerius Cato and Furius. However, even if the passage is genuine 22), Cato is repre- sented by Horace as a defender of Lucilius (I io, 1-8) ?), and clearly there is no criticism here against Cato for writing Catullan-type poetry. Similarly, the Furius of II 5, 39 ff. and the Alpinus of I 10, 36 f., whatever their identities 24), are not attacked for 'neoteric' tendencies, but for quite the reverse, for writing turgid epic. Another known 'neoteric', Varr? of Atax (I 10, 46) is mentioned merely as a writer of unsuccessful satire. Of the poets criticized in the Satires, only Hermogenes, Demetrius (and perhaps Fannius who is associated with Hermogenes 110, 79 f.) appear to be 'followers' of Catullus, but it was their subject-matter, as we have seen, and not their style that was assailed. An examination of the other poets mentioned by Horace bears out this statement: Crispinus (I 1, 120 f,; 4, 13 ff.)

20) Cf. Odes I 33 where Albius (Tibullus ?) is chided for singing unceasing plaintive elegies, and Ep. II 2, 90 ff. where Horace contrasts his own poetry with that of an unnamed elegiac poet, often believed to be Propertius. (Here is found Horace's only direct reference to Callimachus v. 100.) Cf. Heinze, ad loc, Otis, op. cit., 188 f.

21) Cf. Hendrickson, loc. cit., Otis, loc. cit., Ferguson, loc. cit.Otis in Virgil. A Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford 1963), 33, believes that Horace was critical of the neoterics for their failure to apply to themselves their own principles of polish and artistry. Cf. also Newman, op. cit., 340.

22) For literature on the subject, see E. Burck in the Appendix to Heinze's edition of the Satires, 411. To his list add Brink, op. cit., 167 n.l.

23) For Cato's involvement with Lucilius, see R. P. Robinson, Valerius Cato, TAPA 54 (1923), 109, H. Bardon, La litt?rature latine inconnue I (Paris *952)> 338-39, Rudd, op. cit., 119.

24) On the identity of the poet(s), see the scholiasts, who (with the excep- tion of Porphyrion on the first passage) identify the bombastic epic poet with Bibaculus. For another interpretation, see Rudd, op. cit., 289 f. ?. 52. See also ?. ?. Crowther, Valerius Cato, Furius Bibaculus, and Ticidas, CP 66 (1971), 109., where it is shown that in fact Bibaculus is not a 'neoteric*.



was criticized for writing too much poetry, too fast25). Cassius Etruscus (I io, 61 ff.) was a prolific writer, but of a harsh style 2e). Fannius (I 4, 21 ff.) was attacked for presenting his books and bust unasked to an institution 27). The mimes of Decimus Laberius are said not to be true poetry (110, 6). Pitholeon of Rhodes (110, 21 ff.) mixed Greek and Latin words in his epigrams, said to be of poor quality **). Pantilius (110, 78) is an otherwise unknown poet 2g).

Horace's claims to originality in poetry have often been seen as evidence of a slight to Catullus30). The relevant passages are as follows :

princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos deduxisse modos. (Odes III 30,13-14) libera per vacuum posui vestigia princeps, non aliena meo pressi pede . . . .. . Parios ego primus iambos ostendi Lati?, num?ros animosque secutus Archilochi, non res et agentia verba Lycamben.

hunc ego, non alio dictum prius ore, Latinus volgavi fidicen. (Ep. I 19, 21-33).

25) Cf. Porphyrion: Plotius Crispinus philosophiae studiosus fuit. Idem et carmina scripsit, sed tam garrule, ut aretalogus diceretur.

26) He is identified by the scholiasts with Cassius Parmensis (cf. Ep. I 4, 3), a writer of epigrams, elegies, and tragedies, but this interpretation is rejected by Heinze.

27) See Rudd. op. cit., 120. 28) Porphyrion: epigrammata effutivit potius quam scripsit. 29) T. F. Higham, Ovid: Some Aspects of His Character and Aims, CR

48 (1934), I10> nas pointed out the similarity of language of I 10, 78 and A ? XI 322, where Antiphanes is attacking the water-drinkers (generally believed to be Callimachus and his school), e.g. ????e? and cimex. Cf. Heinze ad loc. Otis, TAPA (1945), 179 n.8, believes that here Horace is reviving against the poetae novi the abuse used against Callimachus and his friends. This is an interesting suggestion, but there is no evidence, as we have seen, in the Satires for attacks against 'neoteric* principles. One may consider against Higham and Otis the comparison of Cassius to a rushing river (I 10, 61 ff.), which is reminiscent of Callimachus' criticisms of ApoUonius! (Ap. 108 ff.). Cf. similar criticisms of Lucilius I 4, 11 and I 10, 50 f.

30) Cf. especially Ferguson, op. cit., 4, who states that Horace's claims "are really rather impudent".



Horace was obviously not the first literally to introduce to Rome Greek lyric poetry, nor Parian iambics31). It appears that claims to originality were almost conventional and much sought after in

Rome32). We may compare Horace's reference to Lucilius as the inventor in satire, although he was obviously preceded by Ennius. What Horace probably had in mind in the first passage quoted, was that he was the first poet to establish lyric as a distinct genre in Roman poetry, that he was the inventor or e??et?? 33). This does not necessarily imply criticism of earlier writers in the genre. A parallel may be seen in Propertius (II i, 3-4) :

primus ego ingredior puro de fonte sacerdos Itala per Graios orgia ferre choros

where the poet also claims originality, but was surely aware of his

predecessors. The comment of Camps on these verses seems equally applicable to Horace 34) : "it is as likely that he is simply rejoicing

31 ) Catullus had written two poems in Sapphics. Laevius, too, had written lyric, although probably not in the Greek manner (Porphyrion ad Odes III i, 2-3). However, the two poems of Catullus are mingled among other occa- sional poems in different metres. Even Quintilian (X 1, 96) does not include Catullus as a lyric poet, but only Horace and Caesius Bassus. In Ep. I 19, 32-33 Horace appears to exclude Sapphic stanzas by referring only to Al- caeus (hunc as identified by Bentley). See Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford 1957), 339 ff. on Ep. I 19. For other interpretations of Odes III 30, see Newman, Ennius the Mystic?II, G & R 12 (1965), 43 n. 2, who suggests that Horace was not concerned with metre, but rather with attitude : he adapted Aeolian lyric for an Italian national purpose. For the theory that Horace was being original in metre, see E. H. Sturtevant, Horace, Carm. 3. 30. 10-14, and the Sapphic Stanza, TAPA 70 (1939), 295 ff. On the term princeps, see E. Mar?ti, Princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos deduxisse modos, AAntHung 13 (1965), 104 ff. See also, Commager, op. cit., 158. For predecessors of Horace in iambics, see Heinze ad Ep. I 19, 23 and 26.

32) For other claims to originality in Horace, see infra. For the primus theme in other poets, cf. Lucretius I 117, 926; IV 1 ff.; V 336 f.; Virgil Eel. Ill 86; VI 1 f.; Georg. II 175; III 10 f.; Propertius III 1, 3; Statius Ach. I 9 f. ; III 292 f. ; Manilius I 6; III 1 ff. ; Aetna y f. Cf. W. Kroll, Studien zum Verst?ndnis der r?mischen Literatur (Stuttgart 1964. First pubi. 1924), 13 ff., G. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968), 253 and passim. For other references, see R. G. M. Nisbet, M. Hub- bard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book 1 (Oxford 1970), 307 f.

33) Cf. Heinze ad Sat. I 10, 46. 34) W. A. Camps, Propertius Elegies'. Book III (Cambridge 1966), 53.



in his own originality and achievement, without any particular intention to compare himself with others".

Despite their different temperaments and poetic themes, Horace and Catullus do in fact show a remarkable affinity in their literary ideals, which are based to a large extent on Callimachean theory. The following table gives an indication of these affinities with

particular reference to verbal similarities 3d).

The concept of originality was obviously of major importance to both Catullus and Horace. In the first line of his first poem Catullus

speaks of his novum libellum 3e). We have discussed above the primus I princeps theme of Horace37). We may add Horace's claim to originality in the poetry of Lesbos in Odes I 26, with the references to fontibus integris (v. 6) and fidibus novis (v. 10), and his hymn to Dionysus (Odes III 25), not heard before (recens v. 7). In his Ars Poetica (131 ff.) Horace also discusses the problems of originality with Callimachean allusions, but he seems to be no servile imitator of the Alexandrian, but adopts his theory for his own purpose 38).

Immortality was a hope of both poets. In his introductory poem Catullus hopes that his poem will last for more than one generation. Horace in stronger terms proclaims in the epilogues to Books II and III of the Odes that his poetry will not die. Catullus uses

35) For passages where the terms occur, see D. Bo, Lexicon Horatianum (Hildesheim 1965-66), M. ?. Wetmore, Index Verborum Catullianus (New Haven 1912), R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus II (Oxford 1953), 141 ff., and the discussion infra. For a further discussion of some of these terms and their use in other poets, see Wimmel, op. cit., passim, Gagliardi, op. cit., passim, W. Steidle, Studien zur Ars Poetica des Horaz (W?rzburg 1939), passim, J. H. Brouwers, Horatius en Propertius over Epiek en Lyriek (Nijmegen 1967), P. L. Smith, Poetic Tensions in the Horatian 'Recusatio', AJP 89 (1968), 56-65, C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry. The Ars Poetica (Cambridge 1971).

36) Cf. J. P. Elder, Catullus ?, His Poetic Creed, and Nepos, HSCP 71 (1966), 147.

37) See especially n. 32. 38) Cf. Brink, Ars Poetica, 208 f., who states that "Callimachus had

barred the road to the forms which for Horace were the most seriously poetic ... As so often, therefore, when Horace makes use of Callimachean language, he turns it upside down ; he employs it to affirm what Callimachus had denied". With this passage of Horace, cf. Call. Aet. I fr. 1, 27-28, Ep. XXVIII Pf.



Originality :

Brevity:

Epic terms:

Polish /toil:

Antipathy to Populace :

Description of Poems :

Qualities of Poetry:

HORACE

novus

princeps primus parvus libellus brevis tenuis tenuare

tumidus turgidus pinguis crassus durus fortis grandis gravis perpetuus labor operosus ars

populus vulgus invidia invidere plebs libellus nugae versiculi iambi carmina doctus tener lepidus illepidus ludere urbanus mollis facetus

l?vis deducere musa pedestris

CATULLUS

novus

parvus libellus

tumidus

expolitus (cf. invigilata Cinna fr. ii, ? Morel) populus

libellus nugae versiculi iambi carmina doctus tener lepidus j lepos illepidus ludere urbanus molliculus facetiae infacetiae infacetus

invenustus

CALLIMACHUS

(cf. A et. I fr. i, 25 ff., Ep. XXVIII Pf.) ????? ?????st???a ????? ??a??s???a??? ?p? t?t??? ?at? ??pp??

pa??? ?a???? ???a? d???e???

????p??? p????

f????? ?as?a???

?a????

s?f?? ?ept?? ?epta???? ???a??? ???s??? ?????


HORACE, CATULLUS, AND ALEXANDRIANISM 4I

the term perenne (I io), Horace per ennius (Odes III 30, 1) 39). Both poets espoused the ideal of brevity. Catullus refers in Poem

I to his libellus (see infra), and in Poem XCV b praises the parva monimenta of poetry. Horace uses both the terms libellus and parvus and others for his poetry *?).

Neither poet, in compliance with Callimachean theory, composed traditional epic poetry. Catullus, of course, followed the Alexan- drian innovation of writing the short epic or epyllion41). Horace wrote no such hexameter poem, but the Alexandrian qualities of the Europa ode have long been noticed42). Barred by Callimachus from writing the major genres of epic and drama, Horace used the Augustan device of recusatio \ excusatio *&). We may note in addition Horace's criticism of the opus longum (A. P. 360) **), his use of scriptor cyclicus (A. P. 136) in the same sense as Callimachus45), the derogatory term turgidus of the epic poet Alpinus (Sat. I 10, 36), which may be compared with the tumidus Antimachus of Catullus

(XCV b 2) 4e), his criticism of the bombast of tragedy, which is similar to that of Callimachus 47).

39) Hopes for immortality are not apparent in the fragments of Calli- machus, but see Ep. VII Pf.

40) For parvus, cf. Odes III 3, 72; IV 2, 31 ; 15, 3; Ep. II 1, 257; for brevis/ brevitas, cf. A. P. 25, 335; Sat. I 10, 9. For tenuis, which has a quantitative as well as a qualitative connotation, see Odes I 6, 9; II 16, 38; 20, 1 ; III 3, 72 (tenuare); Ep. II 1, 225, A. P. 46.

41) On the epyllion, see Crowther, op. cit., 322 ff. 42) See C. W. Mendell, Catullan Echoes in the Odes of Horace, CP 30 (1935),

289 ff., who comments on the theme of the betrayed mistress, the concen- tration on a small part of a myth. Cf. Ferguson, op. cit., 5 ff., Newman, New Poetry, 306 f. on the learned nature of the poem, Fraenkel, op. cit., on its Hellenistic qualities.

43) On Horace and the major genres, see Brink, Ars Poetica, 208 f.; on recusatio/excusatio, see Wimmel, op. cit., 162 ff., Smith, op. cit., 57 f. Cf. also Williams, op. cit., 46 f., who suggests that Horace and the Augustans gave a new twist to the terms: they praise Augustus by declaring their inability to write on great subjects. Cf. ?. 38 on originality.

44) Cf. Lucilius frr. 338-47 Marx, 401-10 Warmington. 45) Cf. Ep. XXVII 1 Pf. 46) Cf. pinguis indirectly of Furius (Sat. II 5, 40), tumidis sermonibus

(Sat. II 5, 98). These are the Callimachean equivalent of pa?? (fr. 398 Pf., of Antimachus). Cf. Aet. I fr. 1. 23 Pf.

47) Cf. ampullas (A. P. 97) and ???sa ?????????sa (Call. fr. 215 Pf.), and Porphyrion's comment: hoc a Callimacho sustulit.



Careful workmanship (ars-t????) is another noticeable feature of the two poets. Catullus uses the term expolitus in Poem I of his own

poetry, criticizes hasty workmanship in Poem XXII and praises the Zmyrna of Cinna published after nine years: "nonam post denique messem / quam coepta est nonamque edita post hiemem"

(XCV 1-2). Horace uses a remarkably similar phrase in the Ars Poetica, where he recommends that a poem be carefully worked over: nonumque prematur in annum (v. 388) 48). Horace is critical of shoddy workmanship in Satires I 4 and 110, especially of Lucilius, and of Roman poets in general for their lack of limae labor (A. P. 291) 4?). He compares himself to the Matinian bee and fashions his own poetry with incessant toil : per labor em \. . . operosa parvus \ carmina fingo (Odes IV 2. 29-32).

Catullus and Horace were both contemptuous of the common

people. Catullus was writing for an esoteric, learned circle who

appreciated Callimachean ideals of poetry, as set out in Poem XCV. Horace is especially critical of the envy of the people, malignum vulgus (Odes II 16, 39-40) *?). Like Catullus, he is concerned only with those initiated into poetry d1). Horace seems to have more in common than does Catullus with Callimachus, who is especially concerned with the envy of rival poets d2).

Especially interesting are the terms used by the two poets to describe their poetry. Catullus uses the term libellus in Poem I of his work 53), Horace libellus of the first book of Satires (Sat. I 10, 92) and libelli of the three books of Odes (Ep. 113, 4) 54). Porphyrion

48) Cf. Cinna invigilata . . ./carmina (fr. 11, 1-2 Morel), nocturna . . . manu (A. P. 269).

49) Cf. Brink, Ars Poetica, 322, who suggests that "the solemnity is so great that a humorous bathos is inevitable and can scarcely be uninten- tional". Can this be compared with Catullus' allusion to the carti laboriosi of Nepos in Poem I ?

50) Cf. invidia (Odes II 20, 4). For other references, see Sat. I 4, 72, Odes I 1, 32, IV 3, 16, Ep. I 19, 37.

51) Cf. odi profanum vulgus (Odes III 1, 1). 52) Cf. A et. I fr. 1, 17, Ep. XXI 4, Hymn Ap. 105, 107, 113 Pf. Cf. espe-

cially Odes IV 3, 16. 53) On what poetry is meant by libellus, see now W. Clausen, Catulli

Veronensis Liber, CP 71 (1976), 37-43. 54) See Heinze ad loc.



remarks on nugae : sic verecunde poetae nugas soient appellare vers?- culos suos 55) ; Catullus in Poem I and Horace in Satire I 9, 2 (of his Odes and Satires) seem to refer to their work with this mock-modest description 5e). Catullus uses the diminutive versiculi of his verses (XVI 3, 6; L 4), as does Horace (Sat. I 10, 32, Epod. XI 2). Both employ the term iambi to describe biting verse 57).

Catullus and Horace seem in general to agree on the desirable

qualities of poetry. We may take as illustrations the term doctus 58), and ludere 59) which seems to be a distinctive word in both poets to describe lyric poetry. However in the Ars Poetica Horace recommends that poetry should have pondus (v. 320), a quality which seems to contrast with Callimachean theory and have more in common with traditional epic eo). It should be pointed out that in this passage Horace is speaking of composing drama, and nowhere in his poetry is pondus a recommended quality for lyric 61).

Therefore, despite the obvious differences in themes and outlook the poetry of Catullus and Horace does have much in common, paiticularly in literary ideals, perhaps more than Horace would have cared to admit. What clearly Horace does not like are the

55) Ad Sat. I g, 2. 56) Cf. also Ep. I 19, 42; II 2, 141 ; A.P. 322, where nugae are contrasted

with the pondus of drama. Cf. Brink, Ars Poetica, 347, Newman, New Poetry, 348.

57) Cf. Cat. XXXVI 5 ; XL 2 ; LIV 6; fr. 3 ; Hor. Ep. I 19, 23 (of Epodes) ; Odes I 16, 3, 24; Epod. XIV 7. Noteworthy is the quote of Diomedes (GLK I 485, 15-17), who places Horace and Catullus in the same iambic tradition, and of Quintilian (X 1, 96), who speaks of the bitterness of the iambus in Catullus, Bibaculus, and Horace.

58) The word doctus becomes almost a technical term for poetic ability from the time of Catullus; cf. C. J. Fordyce, Catullus (Oxford 1961), 178, Brouwers, op. cit., 122 ff., Kroll, op. cit., 37. It seems to be the equivalent of the Greek s?f?a (Call. Aet. I fr. 1, 18; Ep. VII 4; XLVI 4 Pf.).

59) Catullus in Poem L 2, 5 uses it of composing poetry at leisure; in Poem LXVIII 17 it seems to be associated with love. Horace in Sat. I 10, 37 contrasts ludere with the writing ot bombastic epic. Cf. Brouwers, op. cit., y t ff., ?. Wagenvoort, Ludus poeticus, LEC 4 (1935), 108-20, who suggests the term is used for slight poetry as opposed to epic.

60) Cf. Brink, Ars Poetica, 345 f., who suggests it contrasts with the Calli- machean ???a???. Heinze ad loc. compares the gravitas of epic.

61) By contrast Horace speaks of his own poetry as l?vis (Odes I 6, 20; cf. Odes I 1, 31, II 1, 40).



exigui elegi (A. P. 77) ; but Horace probably had in mind love-elegy and the narrow tastes of its authors, as we have seen. One should not deny to Horace a general acceptance of Callimachean theory, if he rejects one small part of it e2).

London (Canada), University of Western Ontario

62) Brink, Ars Poetica, 167, suggests the term exigui elegi casts "a slur on Callimachean pride in the small and highly wrought poem", but it would be hard to find a better exponent than Horace of this kind of poem.


Article Contentsp. [33]p. 34p. 35p. 36p. 37p. 38p. 39p. 40p. 41p. 42p. 43p. 44

Issue Table of ContentsMnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 31, Fasc. 1 (1978), pp. 1-112Volume InformationFront MatterMetrical Lengthening and Epic Diction [pp. 1-26]Coscinomancy in Theocritus and Kazantzakis [pp. 27-32]Horace, Catullus, and Alexandrianism [pp. 33-44]"Provocatio" and Plebiscites. Early Roman Legislation and the Historical Tradition [pp. 45-60]Treveri liberi antea [pp. 61-67]MiscellaneaThe "Longum" and "Biceps" of the Greek Hexameter [pp. 68-70]Euripides, "Andromache" 356 [pp. 70-71]"Phaedrus" 262 D 1 [p. 72]Theocritus "Idyll" VII 62 [pp. 72-75]

De novis libris iudiciaReview: untitled [pp. 76-79]Review: untitled [pp. 79-89]Review: untitled [pp. 89-94]Review: untitled [pp. 94-98]Review: untitled [p. 98]Review: untitled [pp. 99-100]Review: untitled [pp. 100-101]Review: untitled [pp. 102-107]Review: untitled [pp. 107-112]

Back Matter

horace catullus and alexandrinism

Documents

horace wehrli

horace gagliardi

conditions34 horace

horace london

stylistic theory of

jstor terms

jstor archive

terms conditions of