Horace is regarded as belonging to the group of Latins who were highly influenced by the ancient Greek lyric poets, in particular Alcaeus. 1 His carm . 1. 32, written in Greek meter and according to the standards of Greek predecessors, is a hymn
critic known from Philodemus’ On Poems, Book I thought that, that poet
could be considered a great one who is able to write a fine poem even on
garlic. Horace did this in Epode 3, parodizing by this the extreme formalists
Απολογητέον: The author defends the conservatism of his edition of Horace against his critics by proving that his reading of the manuscript texts is correct. In his opinion we should believe (πειστέον) the manuscripts, and should follow and explain, rather than modify their texts.
This study attempts to give an interpretation of Horace’s final piece of his First Book of Epistles from the point of view of the ancient culture of books and literature. Horace’s Epistles expressly mention the Library of Palatine Apollo. From a distance, they refer to some of the principles of Augustan cultural politics which created the library itself, and also draw an accurate picture of the process of the auto-canonization process which created the (concept of the) golden age of Roman literature. First, the study outlines the basic characteristics of the Horatian epistle, then looks for answers to the following questions: what are the forms of literary publicity and how do libraries appear in the Epistles? What does the need for canonization mean? How is it possible to canonize the living? How does the concept of the golden age of Roman literature take shape in the literature around 10 BCE?
We found in the work in prose and verse of Sidonius Apollinaris (5th century) a few number of brief allusions to Augustus, and it comes to him in detail in the preface of Majorien’s Panegyric (Poems IV) and, indirectly, in the dedicatory poem of the same Panegyric (Poems III). We here consider for what purpose Sidonius refers to Augustus, how he is presented, and what are the qualities that are highlighted. It appears that his relations with Virgil and Horace represent an ideal relationship between the poets and the power that Sidonius wants to give as an example.
La tragédie de la guerre civile est déjà présente chez Homère, avec des débuts d'humanisme.Horace de Corneille,Siegfried etLa guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu de Jean Giraudoux sont des drames très célèbres tout comme «Au-dessus de la mêlée» (Romain Rolland) qui font entendre la voix de l'humanisme dans la tragédie des guerres, dans lesquelles le sort le plus
envié, selon la poésie héroïque, est de tomber glorieusement pour la patrie, à la fleur de l'âge. Le tragique du dilemme entre
les liens familiaux, symbole des liens avec la grande famille humaine, à déchirer et les exigences de la raison d'Etat amène
chez Homère et chez Corneille seulement les débuts d'une analyse des raisons de guerre et d'une exhortation à la paix, sur
lesquels les drames de Giraudoux sont basés, sans pourtant être pacifistes.
The main question of the paper is the place of the poem beginning with the words
in the first book of the satires. One of the links with his other poems is Lucilius; the great predecessor is evoked, among other things, by the topic itself, the two litigating figures, and, also, by the “stylistic exercise” character of the poem. It is a conspicuous feature of Horace’s first book how the poet’s portray takes shape from the allusions scattered in the poems. While seemingly incidentally sketching his self-portray, Horace puts a special emphasis on his “handicaps”: his low origin and his being a native of the provinces. The indirect mention of the fact that he used to belong to Brutus’s camp suits these things. However, by putting the poem based on a rude joke into the book, the poet might have also spoken about his freedom (of speech) and about the prevailing atmosphere around Maecenas’s table. The playfulness and boldness of
suggest an atmosphere similar to what Horace depicted so pictur-esquely in the first poem of the second book of the satires, when he described the friendship of Lucilius and Scipio. The paper, in the analysis of the poem, also touches on its “political topicality”, as well as on the most interesting feature of this
: the re-interpretation of the meeting of Diomedes and Glaukos.
The concise history of Rome, covering the 700 years from Romulus until Augustus and composed by an author with the cognomen Florus, is ranked since the Renaissance among the most often printed and most widely read ancient Latin prose works. But whereas this small work was until now commonly supposed to have been written by a “L. Annaeus” oder “P. Annius” Florus during the age of the emperor Trajan (or even later), the present article — based on four essays I have published already more than 20 years ago — demonstrates that almost the entire work was originally composed by a contemporary of Augustus, most likely by the same Iulius Florus to whom Horace addressed two famous letters (I 3 and II 2). We must, indeed, distinguish between two different versions of this work, namely on the one hand the genuine text edited by Iulius Florus, whose name appears as the author in the very important Codex Bambergensis (9th century), immediately after the consecration of the deceased Augustus (17 Sept. 14), and on the other hand a second edition prepared by an anonymous redactor in the era of Trajan (98–117), which was considered a revival of the Golden Age of Augustus; in addition, some further editions appeared later in the second century. All these new editions of Iulius Florus’s work contain just two crucial differences from his original text, namely two short interpolations in Iulius Florus’s preface: the short colon ut postea velut consenuerit, inserted into § 4, and the last sentence (§ 8), added to the original preface. Both interpolations, however, stand in marked contrast to the entire context of Florus’s composition. The main purpose of my article is, therefore, a reconstruction of the original form of Iulius Florus’s historical work, which contained not four or two books (as it is now generally assumed), but only one book, presented as a brevis tabella or breviarium of Roman history.