Volumina signata
Transforming the Relationship Between Work, Art, and Author in Horace’s Epistles I
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/CC.28.2025.28.04Keywords:
Horace, Epistles, Latin poetry, authorship, poetic book (liber), literary self-awareness, poetic voice, liber as artifact, authorial personaAbstract
The article examines the complex relationship between Horace and his poetic work, focusing on the transformation from the concept of performative lyric poetry to that of written epistles. It highlights the poet’s gradual separation from his creation, with the written scroll (liber) acquiring ontic status and autonomy. The study emphasizes the shifting paradigm from inspired song (cantare) to deliberate writing (scribere), portraying Horace as both a vates and a self-conscious artist. Through close textual analysis, it explores the metapoetic dimensions of the Epistles, illustrating the evolving concept of authorship and the aesthetic function of the poetic book within Horace’s mature poetics.
References
de Almeida Semêdo R., 2020, ‘Rhetoric in Homer? An Analysis of Odysseus’ Supplication to Nausicaa in Odyssey 6 (135–97)’, Nuntius Antiquus 16/1, pp. 13–34, https://doi.org/10.35699/1983-3636..21481.
Atkins J.W.H., 1934, Literary Criticism in Antiquity: A Sketch of Its Development, vol. 2: Graeco-Roman, Cambridge.
Bernstein F., 2007, ‘Complex Rituals: Games and Processions in Republican Rome’, [in:] A Companion to Roman Religion, J. Rüpke (ed.), Oxford, pp. 222–234.
Bowditch Ph., 2001, Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, Berkeley.
Brink C.O., 1963, Horace on Poetry: Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles, vol. 1, Cambridge.
Cody J.V., 1976, Horace and Callimachean Aesthetics, Brussels.
Devine A.M., Stephens L.D., 2013, Semantics for Latin: An Introduction, Oxford.
Freudenburg K., 2002, ‘Writing to/through Florus: Criticism and the Addressee in Horace “Epistles 2.2”’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 47, pp. 33–55, https://doi.org/10.2307/4238791.
Glare P.G.W., 1968, Oxford Latin Dictionary, P.G.W. Glare (ed.), Oxford.
Hall E., 2000, ‘Female Figures and Metapoetry in Old Comedy’, [in:] The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, D. Harvey, J. Wilkins (eds), London, pp. 407–418.
Havthal F., 1866, Acronis et Porphyrionis Commentarii in Q. Horatium Flaccum, vol. 2, F. Havthal (ed.), Berolini.
Karp A.J., 1977, ‘Homeric Origins of Ancient Rhetoric’, Arethusa 10/2, pp. 237–258.
Kopek W., 2023, ‘The Authorial Subject As a Metapoetic Figure in Ode I 9, Vides ut alta, and Ode II 19, Bacchum in remotis’, Classica Cracoviensia 26, pp. 329–356, https://doi.org/10.12797/CC.26.2023.26.10.
Kühner R., Holzweissig F.W., Stegmann C., 1912, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, vol. 2, part 1: Satzlehre, Hannover.
Lausberg H., 1998, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study, D.E. Orton, R.D. Anderson (eds), transl. M.T. Bliss, A. Jansen, D.E. Orton, Leiden.
Lewis C.T., Short C., 1881, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford.
Lowrie M., 1997, Horace’s Narrative Odes, Oxford.
Lyne R.O.A.M., 2005, ‘Horace Odes Book 1 and The Alexandrian Edition of Alcaeus’, The Classical Quarterly 55/2, pp. 542–558, https://doi.org/10.1093/cq/bmi049.
Mayer R., 1986, ‘Horace’s Epistles I and Philosophy’, The American Journal of Philology 107/1, pp. 55–73, https://doi.org/10.2307/294855.
Mojsik T., 2011, Antropologia metapoetyki. Muzy w kulturze greckiej od Homera do końca V w. p.n.e., Warszawa.
Nisbet R.G.M., Hubbard M., 1970, A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book I, R.G.M. Nisbet, M. Hubbard (eds), Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198149149.book.1.
Nisbet R.G.M., Rudd N., 2007, A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book III, R.G.M. Nisbet, N. Rutt (eds), Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199288748.book.1.
O’Gorman E., 2002, ‘Archaism and Historicism in Horace’s Odes’, [in:] Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, D.S. Levene, D.P. Nelis (eds), Leiden, pp. 81–101, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047400493_006.
Oliensis E., 1995, ‘Life after Publication: Horace, Epistles 1.20’, Arethusa 28/2–3, pp. 209–224.
Oliensis E., 1998, Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511582875.
Pavlovskis Z., 1968, ‘Aristotle, Horace, and the Ironic Man’, Classical Philology 63/1, pp. 22–41, https://doi.org/10.1086/365314.
Pinkster H., 2015, The Oxford Latin Syntax, vol. 1: The Simple Clause, Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.001.0001.
Pinkster H., 2021, The Oxford Latin Syntax, vol. 2: The Complex Sentence and Discourse, Oxford.
Quinn K., 1979, Texts and Contexts: The Roman Writers and Their Audience, London, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003503088.
Roman L., 2014, Poetic Autonomy in Ancient Rome, Oxford.
Santirocco M.S., 1986, Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes, London.
Sommerstein A.H., 2005, ‘A Lover of His Art: The Art-Form as Wife and Mistress in Greek Poetic Imagery’, [in:] Personification in the Greek World: From Antiquity to Byzantium, E. Stafford, J. Herrin (eds), London, pp. 161–171.
Thomas R., 2007, ‘Horace and Hellenistic Poetry’, [in:] The Cambridge Companion to Horace, S. Harrison (ed.), Cambridge, pp. 50–62, https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521830028.005.
Thomasson A., 2024, ‘Roman Ingarden’, [in:] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E.N. Zalta, U. Nodelman (eds), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/ingarden/.
Wolanin H., 2012, Gramatyka opisowa klasycznej łaciny w ujęciu strukturalnym, Kraków.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
