Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace’s Odes Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico) https://orcid.org/0001-8591-4693 Abstract: This paper looks at the impact of the poetic creation criteria used by Callimachus in his epigrams and other works over the Carmina of Horace through the continuous and widely proven presence of textual epigrammatic allusions to Callimachus in plenty of Horatian iambic and lyric poems. This shows that the Callimachean epigram will be integrated with the Horatian lyric poetry not only through the recreated topics and textual allusions found in the poems but also in the inclusion of internal epigrammatic structural criteria as the result of the Hellenistic generic fusion between lyric and epigrammatic poetry made by Horace. Key-Words: Horace; Callimachus; Epigram; Iambic Poetry, Lyric Poetry. This text will look at the impact of the poetic creation criteria used by Callimachus in his epigrams and some of the fragments that we conserve over the Carmina of Horace through the continuous and widely proven presence of textual epigrammatic allusions to Callimachus in plenty of Horatian iambic and lyric poems that can also suggest a poetic structural influence. The influence of Callimachus of Cyrene over Horace’s poetry started to be widely studied in the beginning of the century in the works of Reitzenstein in 1908, Giorgio Pasquali in 1920, Wehrli in 1944, Wimmel in 1960, and, more recently, the specialized work of John V. Cody of 1976 that explores the relation between Horace and the Callimachean aesthetics. First, the new approach to Horace and Callimachus’ relation allowed to notice that there were some clear parallels between the poetic posture of both poets. For example, it is remarkable that the influence of Hipponax in the iambic poetry of Callimachus is very similar to the presence of Archilochus in the Iambi of Horace. Probably, the decision of Horace of taking the poet from Paros as his main inspiration and objective in the creation of his iambic poems was inspired by the Callimachean interpretation of Hipponax. Besides this, a large amount of intertextual presences of the poems of Callimachus have been identified all over the work of Horace. We have first the only mention of Callimachus in Horace’s works that have been read in very different ways (Hor. Ep. 2.2.99-101)1: 1 Except otherwise indicated, all translations of this paper are my own. https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-1950-7_7 125 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes Discedo Alcaeus puncto illius; ille meo quis? Quis nisi Callimachus? Si plus adposcere uisus, fit Mimnermus et optiuo cognomine crescit. I become and Alcaeus by his opinion, What is he by mine? What if not a Callimachus? If he seems to want more, he becomes a Mimnermus and with this adopted last name he grows. Even if Horace is not relating himself or his work to Callimachus, it is clear here that he is acknowledging the presence and importance of the Callimachean poetics in the literature of his time. Nevertheless, the clearest examples of the Callimachean presence in Horace’s Carmina will be noticed in the continuous intertextual and editorial occurence of the Hellenistic poet’s elements in the Roman’s work. If we follow the relation that Meleager establishes between the poets that he included in his Garland and the flowers and plants that he assigned to them in the elegy that was supposed to open his Anthology as an introduction and a programmatic poem (AP 4.1), Callimachus is related to the myrtus: (...) ἡδύ τε μύρτον//Καλλιμάχου, στυφελοῦ μεστὸν ἀεὶ μέλιτος (...and the myrtle of Callimachus, always full of sour honey).2 Probably, nowadays it is difficult to accurately understand the reasons why Meleager related poets with plants and it would rather appear more of a random choice to the modern reader than a clear and thoughtful decision from the poet of Gadara. Nevertheless, it is clear that this relations should have been relevant to the chronologically closer readers of his Garland. The botanic importance is a topic that continued in the Augustan poetry, in fact, there is a prominent presence of plants in many places of the Horatian work and, as thoughtful as Meleager should have been in his choices, Horace seemed to have planned very carefully the botanic appearances in his work and, especially, in his Books of Carmina. If we assume that Horace have had in mind the plant-poet relations of Meleager’s elegy, which may seem very plausible since one of the most read epigrammatic books in the time of Horace was precisely the Meleager’s Garland, we will have to put special attention to the appearance of the myrtle in the ending poem of the Book 1 of Odes (Hor. Carm. 1.38): Persicos odi, puer, adparatus, displicent nexae philyra coronae, mitte sectari, rosa quo locorum sera moretur. 2 126 AP 4.1.21-22. Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano simplici myrto nihil adlabores sedulus curo: neque te ministrum dedecet myrtus neque me sub arta vite bibentem. I detest Persian preparations, oh boy; Garlands tied with linden bast displease me, Omit chasing for the place where the late rose lingers. Please don’t care to add anything to plain myrtle: for you, as a servant, myrtle is not unsuitable, and neither for me, drinking beneath the vine branches. Horace says that he despises the philyrae coronae and prefers the simplex myrtus over the rosa quo locorum sera moretur and the myrtus was, as we have said, related with Callimachus in Meleager’s elegy. We are not going to deepen in this subject but we can also confirm the Callimachean presence in this text if we notice that 1.38 is, in fact, too short to be taken just as a lyric poem and, as scholars have already noted, the ode in fact is an epigram.3 The epigram was one of the main textual genres that Horace took to make intertextual connections with Callimachus4 and many topics that appear in the Carmina can be traced to the topics that we recognize in the epigrams that we keep of Callimachus.5 Hence the myrtus appearance in an epigrammatic format poem is a not easily ignorable fact to take in consideration. To begin with this point, it is necessary to say that the epigram was the literary genre that used for the first time the writing as the primordial expression form in Greece. Taken directly from the stone, the epigrams were collected and published under a special criterion where these little poems were grouped following a subject or a special interest of the editor and, in that way, they started to take part in a new work known as an anthology. Peter Bing has said that since the epigram is a genre inextricably tied to its inscribed quality, a written poem will be, always, an inscription.6 This asseveration, even if it sounds exceeding, seems plausible if we think that not only the literature had become inseparable from its written nature but also because the epigrammatic genre had turned in the model that inspired enormous changes in the epic and, especially for our interest, the lyric genre. In other words, the very understanding of lyric in antiquity was mediated by the Hellenistic idea that deduced that its most important 3 4 5 6 Owen Lee 1965. Höschele 2009. Schmitz 2010. Bing 1988:17. 127 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes authors were, at the same time, writers and producers of epigrams. The lyric and epigrammatic crafts were not opposites and the authorship of epigrams in the pen of a lyric creator was never an issue to believe for the common reader. It is evident that the presence in the Meleager’s Garland of authors that are much more known because of their lyric office like Sappho or Anacreon,7 beyond confirming their presence in the anthology, it refers the importance that their work as epigrammatist had for the editor from Gadara. This relationship that the Hellenistic authors established between the lyric and the epigram made, at the same time, that the understanding of the lyric genre would be conditioned by an epigrammatic textual interpretation.8 In addition to this, the location of the poem 1.38 as a closure of the book I, which was called by the Dennis Feeney as the most lyric of all,9 and its briefness just confirms us that the epigram is used by Horace as a way of ending or opening poetic units and insists in the Horatian procedure of establishing the epigram genre as part of the lyric creation process. The mixture of epigram and lyric poetry in the creation of the new Roman lyric genre is a renovation planned entirely by Horace. Robin Nisbet and Margaret Hubbard identified the presence of intertextual allusions to Anacreon but also to epigrams of Asclepiades of Samos and Philodemos of Gadara in the first verses of this poem.10 This gives us some evidence of what is normally seen as the use of one primary and one secondary source. Horace will continuously play with the intertextual relations between an Arcaic and a Hellenistic text, making his own poetry a result of the interaction between them, a method that we can immediately relate to the Callimachean poetics. He puts in practice in a central editorial point of the Carmina the importance of the equilibrium between the ancient and the modern, the Greek lyric poetry and the Hellenistic epigram. The mediocritas always underlined by the Horatian poetics seems essential to understand the idea of mixing more than two genres in the Odes, putting in practice a new form of the known Hellenistic Kreuzung der Gattungen. To confirm the Callimachus’ presence in Horace in the form of a plant, we could also relate the appearance of the hederae in the verse 29 of the opening ode of the first Book of Carmina (Hor. Carm. 1.1.27-30): Me doctarum hederae praemia frontium dis miscent superis, me gelidum nemus Nympharumque leves cum Satyris chori secernut populo (...) 7 AP 4.1.6 and 35, respectively. Höschele 2009: 80. 9 Feeney 1993: 143. 10 Nisbet-Hubbard 1970: 421-422. 8 128 Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano The ivy crown, reward of wise brows, blends me with the superior gods, the freezing grove and the smooth sound of the Nymphs with the Satyrs’ chorus set me apart from the crowd (...). If we follow the approach made to the iambic genre that relates it, by the etymologic connection established by authors like M.L. West between ἴθυμβος, διθύραμβος, θρίαμβος and ἴαμβος, to Dionysus, the God to which all this songs were dedicated or related in rites and festivals,11 we can assume that Horace thinks that he is, at the beginning of his lyric work, already worthy of the ivy crown and this subject is noticeable by the poet’s suggestion that shows him wearing his deserving forehead with the plant. This ivy certifies him now as a poet of Dionysus and that is because he has been already proven as a iambographer. Not only the ivy is an agent of the Bacchus’ presence, the God’s representation through this plant is immediately confirmed by the nymphs and satyrs that are dancing and singing in a chorus that promptly connects the scene with the typical Dionysian festivals. The way he holds the ivy in the first ode contrasts with the mention of the delphica lauro, the bay plant that appears in the verse 15 of the directly connected poem 30 of the Book 3 of Odes (Hor. Carm. 3.30.1416): (...) sume superbiam//quaesitam meritis et mihi Delphica lauro cingens volens, Melpomene, comam. ((...) Take the pride, meritoriously deserved, and with Delphic bay gird willingly, Melpomene, my hair). In these verses, Horace is asking to be crowned with the delphic bay, obviously related with Apollo, God that is, at the same time, related with the lyric poetry, just in the moment of the narration of the poem. We can see that, at the start of the Book 1, Horace is already wearing the ivy-crown and, at the end of the Book 3, we can see how he is just going to win the meritorious right to wear the bay at the same moment we finish reading the Book. Thus, Horace can wear the ivy because he have achieved the iambic accomplishment that Callimachus has already traced before him. The Callimachean Book of Iambi is a collection of 13 preserved poems, even if some specialists think that could have been up to 17,12 number that would, conveniently fit with the number of poems in Horace’s Epodes, that shows us an example of the experimental intention of transforming an archaic genre to new and modern poetics. We have already mentioned that the relation between Callimachus and Hipponax was the inspiration to Horace’s connection with Archilochean topics and poetics, nevertheless, the process of refashion of the iambic genre made by Callimachus, as is called by Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, which includes the persona loquens adaptation, the rehabilitation of ritual jeer and satiric derision 11 12 West 1974: 22-24. Lyne 2005. 129 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes as a criticism track for the poet and the commemoration and manipulation of tradition in a written support are all characteristics also present in Horace that gives us a clue about the relevance of Callimachus’ mediation of iambic genre for the poets after him.13 If we return to the epigram subject, as we have said, there has been a lot of intertextual relations identified between Horace’s Odes and epigrammatic poems from authors like Meleager, Leonidas of Tarentum, Asclepiades of Samos and, naturally, Callimachus. It is necessary to point out that these plentiful intertexts have also started to show some of the editorial and structural procedures in the formation of Odes and, also, the way the Odes are organized inside Horace’s Books. Recently, there has been a continuous effort to try to find editorial criteria and an internal structure disposition system based in some of the intertexts and intratexts in the work of Horace. The motto iniziale procedure discovered by Alberto Cavarzere,14 and the Da Capo structures found in some odes suggested by Richard Tarrant15 are some examples of the progress made by the modern scholars in their intention to find some order in what seems to be a big puzzle never meant to be solved. Nevertheless, we think that these procedures can be more useful to understand Horace if we relate them directly with the architectonic or structural studies that try to identify the distribution and placement of the Odes inside the Books of Carmina. The work of many scholars16 have made a big attempt to try to understand the connection between the nature of the odes and the reasons to occupy the place that they do inside the Carmina books of Horace There is a relation that can be detected between the inner structures of Horace’s Odes and the position of his poems inside its books and, therefore, this process is conditioned by the presence and importance of different literary genres like epic and tragedy but, specially, the epigram and, because of its importance among the epigrammatic authors, Callimachus’ work will determine the way the Horace’s lyric generic appropriation will act. The flexibility of the lyric form, as Stephen Harrison calls it,17 allowed Horace to integrate genres that could let him enrich the way he understood and how he wanted to adapt the lyric poetry to Latin literature. The epigram had two features that the roman poet wanted to display in his lyric vision: it was brief and it could show a great variety of subjects. This helped him to structure his poems with stanzas that were, at the same time, epigrammatic units and his odes were arranged inside the Carmina books as epigrams inside an Anthol- 13 14 15 16 17 130 Acosta-Hughes 2002: 2-4. Cavarzere 1996. Tarrant 1995. Collinge 1961, Santirocco 1986, Dettmer 1983, among others. Harrison 1992: 132-133. Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano ogy. This would mean that the editorial procedure of Horace at the moment of organizing his work would be some kind of concordia in variatione criterion in which the structure of the stanzas poems will give us clues to understand the reasons for the disposition of the carmina inside the books. There is an example of this process of variation in the first nine Odes of Carmina where a display of different meters, topics and addressees made the critics called it the “Parade Odes”. Although sometimes the scholars differ in the amount of poems grouped under this name,18 it is clear that there is a process of concordia in variatione in this Book 1 first poems, bringing relations that are even outside of this group, like the now commonly accepted theory of Michèle Lowrie in the so called “Parade of lyric Predecessors” from Ode 1.12 to 1.18.19 Besides this, there has been plenty of intertextual relations identified by scholars between Horace and Callimachus, for example, Fritz Bornmann connects the epigram 31 Pf. with the verses 105-108 of the Sermones and relates the Carm. 1.3.5-8 with Call. fr. 400 Pf.,20 however, one of the most clear and noticeable Callimachean intertexts is the famous motto iniziale of the Ode 3.1: Odi profanum volgus et arceo which translates the fourth verse of an epigram (Call. fr. 28Pf. 1-4): Ἐχθαίρω τὸ ποίημα τὸ κυκλικόν, οὐδὲ κελεύθῳ χαίρω, τίς πολλοὺς ὧδε καὶ ὧδε φέρει· μισέω καὶ περίφοιτον ἐρώμενον, οὐδ’ ἀπὸ κρήνης πίνω· σικχαίνω πάντα τὰ δημόσια. I detest the cyclic poem, I don’t like the road that takes many from here to there; I hate the revolving young lover, and I don’t drink from any well: I dislike all common things. We notice that there is a variation of the verb that describes hate or repulsion in three different forms in this epigram: Ἐχθαίρω, μισέω and σικχαίνω. This procedure can also be seen in the ode 1.38 of Horace where the poet takes three verbs to reject different objects but, in contrast to Callimachus, the Roman poet inflects the verb in different persons and the meaning of the verbs is in a descending intensity grade: from odi to displicent and finally to mitte sectari. It is interesting also to highlight that this poetic procedure is not coincidence. It has only 8 verses and, if we would not have found it inside a book of Carmina, it could easily be called an epigram, just as the fr. 28 of Callimachus. Also, we can 18 19 20 Santirocco 1986: 14-43. cf. Lowrie 1995. Bornmann 1993: 9-39. 131 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes see how this epigram is, at the same time, an independent poem and a complement to the ode before it. 1.38 topic is very similar to the symposiac theme of the last 6 verses of the Epode 9 (Hor. Epod. 9.33-38): Capaciores adfer huc, puer, Scyphos et Chia vina aut Lesbia vel quod fluentem nauseam coerceat metire nobis Caecubum. curam metumque Caesaris rerum iuvat dulci Lyaeo solvere. Bring larger cups, boy, and pour us Chian or Lesbian wine, or rather Caecuban so that it may check our seasickness. It´s a joy to get rid of our worry and fear for Caesar´s cause with the sweet Loosener´s help.21 To establish an intratextual relation of a piece of an epode and an epigramode by judging just the wine appearance and the symposiac theme as proofs would be not truthful but, if we look into the topic of the epode before this verses, it is a setting just after the Actium battle where it is a clear allusion and condemn to Cleopatra, just in the same way that we can read it in the famous Cleopatra ode, the carmen 1.37, which is just before the poem 1.38. The thematic relation of the verses 1-32 and 33-38 of the epode 9 is very similar to the connection of the ode 1.37, that also is composed of 32 verses, and the ode 1.38, of 8 verses. Namely, even the number of verses is similar between the first and second unity of the epode and the poems. This can suggest us that now Horace is working with Callimachean allusive epigrams to build an ending connection with a poem before it and is, at the same time, recreating a topic that he had already wrote about before. We have shown how some of the botanic mentions in Horace could allude a poet like Callimachus but we think that this can work with other elements, like birds, for example (Hor. Carm. 2.20.1-12): Non usitata nec tenui ferar pinna biformis per liquidum aethera vates neque in terris morabor longius invidiaque maior urbis relinquam. non ego, pauperum 21 132 Rudd’s translation (2004). Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano sanguis parentum, non ego, quem vocas, dilecte Maecenas, obibo nec Stygia cohibebor unda. iam iam residunt cruribus asperae pelles et album mutor in alitem superne nascunturque leves per digitos umerosque plumae. No ordinary or thin wing will take me through flowing airs, two-shaped bard, and I would not dwell anymore in the ground superior to envy I will move away from the cities. Not me, descent from poor parents, not me, I whom you call, dear Maecenas, to come, even the Stygian currents will not restrain. Just now, at this time, rough skin grows on my legs and I transform into a white bird in my upper part and soft feathers emerge from fingers to shoulders. We find in the ode 2.20, one beautiful and peculiar poem that is thematically related to 3.30, the mention of an album alitem, a white bird presumably a swan in which the poet is transforming. He describes that he is going to fly away and escape from death but, before this, he already calls himself vates biformis. Horace gives us here a huge amount of information to think of. First, the mention of the white bird is connected with a large poetic personification tradition but, specially, to the passage found in the Plato’s Phaedo (84e5-85b4) where a swan is also the main character. But there is also a little fragment of the Callimachus’ Aetia where the poet suggests that he is a bird that can’t move the wing (Call. Aet. 39-40): .............]σε ̣[..] πτερὸν οὐκέτι κινεῖν .............]η ̣ τ ̣[ῆ]μος ̣ ἐνεργότατος.22 (...) and I can’t move the wing anymore (...) and, therefore, be moving. We can think that probably Horace knew this part of the poem in its not fragmentary shape and that in 2.20 could be some intertextual allusions to the Aetia that are lost now for us. Nevertheless, let’s not lose attention to the 22 Call., Aet. 39-40. 133 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes mention of the vates biformis in verses 2-3. Nisbet and Hubbard suggested that the word biformis is used as a form of hybridization and that is also related with the transformation of the poet to a swan,23 on the other hand, Tony Woodman sees in that hybridization a metaphor of the mixture of eolic influences in a genre dualism between Sappho and Alcaeus.24 We follow the thought of seeing biformis as a metaphor of hybridization but we think that it can work, without denying the other interpretations, in two main ways: The iambic craft that Horace has already shown that now is conjoining to the lyric craft, and that is why the vates is now biformis, literally double, but also can refer to the generic hybridization that Horace is making in his lyric poetry, connecting different genres that usually didn’t share the same features, like the epigram and the lyric genre, transforming him in a vates like Sappho that could write epigrams and lyric poetry. Finally, we would like to propose an ode interpretation based in the epigrammatic Callimachean procedures inside the structure of the poems. In the odes of Horace, the fourth book of Carmina has usually been a little relegated from the interest that scholars have shown over the other three books. In this, in which we can find the poem that Eduard Fraenkel thought that was the most beautiful of the Carmina, the 4.7,25 the ode 4.12 has exposed serious problems to the scholars and readers to discover the identity of the Vergili to whom the poem is addressed (Hor. Carm. 4.12): Iam veris comites, quae mare temperant, inpellunt animae lintea Thraciae, iam nec prata rigent nec fluvii strepunt hiberna nive turgidi. nidum ponit Ityn flebiliter gemens infelix avis et Cecropiae domus aeternum opprobrium, quod male barbaras regum est ulta libidines. dicunt in tenero gramine pinguium custodes ovium carmina fistula delectantque deum, cui pecus et nigri colles Arcadiae placent. Adduxere sitim tempora, Vergili. sed pressum Calibus ducere Liberum si gestis, iuvenum nobilium cliens, nardo vina merebere. nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum, 23 24 25 134 Nisbet-Hubbard 1978: 338. Woodman 2002. Fraenkel 1957: 419. Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano qui nunc Sulpiciis accubat horreis, spes donare novas largus amaraque curarum eluere efficax. ad quae si properas gaudia, cum tua velox merce veni: non ego te meis inmunem meditor tinguere poculis, plena dives ut in domo. verum pone moras et studium lucri nigrorumque memor, dum licet, ignium misce stultitiam consiliis brevem: dulce est desipere in loco. Now the Thracian breezes, spring’s companions that calm the sea, drive forward the sails; now the fields are no longer frozen and the river no longer roar, swollen with winter snow. Weeping bitterly for Itys, the ill-starred bird is building her nest, she who brought everlasting shame on Cecrops’ house by the cruel vengeance she took on the king’s barbaric lust. On the soft grass the sheperds, tending their fat sheep, play tunes on their pipes, delighting the god who loves the flocks and dark hills of Arcadia. The season, Vergil, has brought thirst;but if you are keen to drink the God of Freedom’s juices, pressed at Cales, then you, the client of young nobles, will earn your wine with spikenard. A tiny shell of spikenard will coax out a jar which at the moment reposes in Sulpicius’ cellars, generous in giving fresh hopes, and effective at washing away the bitterness of depression. If you are eager for such delights, come quickly-with your contribution. I do not intend to let you tipple from my cups scot-free, as if I were a rich man with a well-stocked house. However, no more delay; forget the pursuit of money; bear in mind the smoky flames and, while it is possible, mix a little folly with your serious concerns. It’s nice to be silly on the right occasion.26 There are usually two postures: some scholars think that this Vergili is, naturally, the poet, to whom, according to the communis opinio, Horace has already dedicated some odes, and we should highlight the poem 1.3 where he calls Virgil animae dimidium meae, the other half of my soul. Some others think that this poem is dedicated to a perfume merchant, basing this, among other arguments, in the inconsistency of the poem presenting an alive Virgil and inviting him to get drunk because it is commonly accepted that, at the moment Horace wrote this, the Mantuan poet was already dead. And, also, because they as true the pseudo Acron commentary where he said that this ode was made by Horace ad Vergilium negotiatorem scribit admonens veris tempus esse aptum navigio and 26 Rudd’s translation (2004). 135 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes that in some manuscripts the title of the poem appears as ad Virgilium quendam unguentarium. The details of the controversy and the arguments of both sides of the debate can be better read in the Fedeli and Ciccarelli commentary to Book 4, the Cambridge Commentary to Book 4 made by Richard Thomas and the Sweet Folly’s Jenny Strauss Clay essay about ode 4.12 found in Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry book.27 Thus, we are not going to give more reasoning to one of the two stands but to take the intertexts and arguments already made by scholars to propose a different reading of the poem. First of all, we think that the inconsistency that the scholars read in the poem appears just in the moment that Virgil is mentioned. Before this verse, the poem seems to be referring to “a cheerful description of spring’s return” as Strauss Clay calls it,28 and, after that, the mention of king Cecrops, the character commonly known as the first king of Athens and a mythological description of the story of Philomela and Procne, sisters who were turned into a nightingale and a swallow respectively. The myth that is better described in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 6.438-485 shows a transformation into a bird that Horace named ambiguously infelix avis but that is considered to be the nightingale in which Philomela transformed. We can analyze the relations that scholars have found in this part of the poem that goes from verse 1-12. There are lots of intertextual presence of Virgil in this verses, Richard Thomas have shown great connections, at least 5 intertextual relations, between this poem and passages of Georgics and Bucolics. Even if this argument cannot persuade to think in Virgil as the Augustan poet, almost at the end of the third stanza, Horace mention for the first time the Arcadia, the place that Virgil made famous and that is an immediate reference to his bucolic work. The name of Virgil and these allusions should not be taken as a coincidence inasmuch as the opinions that speak against this identification take all their arguments from the part of the poem that goes from verse 13 to 28. Because of this, we think that there is enough information to probe that the first part of the poem, that goes from verse 1 to 13, is divided from the second part of it, that takes also verse 13 as its beginning verse. This is the reason why we can take this verse as the central part of the poem, an ending and start of the two units (1-12, 14-26). Therefore, the poem 4.12 would be divided between a first funeral epigrammatic unity (1-12) and an ending dedicatory verse (13) and another extended symposiastic lyric epigram that takes the addressee in verse 13 and invites him to take part of a drinking event. Thus, there would be two Virgils, the already 27 28 136 Fedeli and Ciccarelli 2008: 501-530, Thomas 2011 and Clay 2002. Clay 2002: 131. Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano dead poet to which Horace dedicate a sepulchral epigram recreating his favorite kind of poetry and the idyllic fields of the Arcadia, and a second one, another addressee that can be, and this is a suggestion, a namesake of the poet that Horace tries to invite to a symposium and to persuade of following the carpe diem point of view. The fact that all the intertextual allusions to Virgil are between verse 1 to 12 and that we cannot find practically none other for the remaining part of the poem can be also a clear prove of the contrast of addressees between the two units in the ode. It is specially interesting if we pay attention to some of the sepulchral epigrams of Callimachus, for example, the one who is addressed to a Heraclitus,29 where there is the mention of nightingales, ἀηδόνες, like the Horace allusion to a nightingale in the infelix avis in the myth of Philomela (Call. fr. 2 Pf.): εἶπέ τις, Ἡράκλειτε, τεὸν μόρον, ἐς δέ με δάκρυ ἤγαγεν, ἐμνήσθην δ’ ὁσσάκις ἀμφότεροι ἥλιον ἐν λέσχῃ κατεδύσαμεν. ἀλλὰ σὺ μέν που, ξεῖν’ Ἁλικαρνασσεῦ, τετράπαλαι σποδιή, αἱ δὲ τεαὶ ζώουσιν ἀηδόνες, ᾗσιν ὁ πάντων ἁρπάκτης Ἀΐδης οὐκ ἐπὶ χεῖρα βαλεῖ. Someone recalled to me, Heracleitus, thy death and brought me to tears, and I remembered how often we two in talking put the sun to rest. Thou, methinks, Halicarnasian friend, art ashes long and long ago; but thy nightingales live still, whereon Hades, snatcher of all things, shall not lay his hand.30 The power of the reader of an epigram can separate two contexts of the poem that can be seen as a read part or a spoken part in the representation of the text.31 That the first part of Horace’s poem is a literary epitaph and the second part is, in fact, a drinking invitation to another person and that the location of the verse 13 could give a different meaning, as the beginning or ending of each unit, would be perfectly valid in the Callimachean epigrammatic poetics. The tenero gramine of verse 9 could be perfectly related to the place of the Aeneid in Book 6 in the underworld where Aeneas finds his father Anchises and, in which, in terms of the Virgil’s narration, there are also poets (Verg. A. 6.659-659): 29 30 31 Call. ep. 2 Pf. Translation of A.W. Mair. Hunter 1992: 115-116. 137 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes Conspicit, ecce, alios dextra laevaque per herbam vescentis laetumque choro paeana canentis inter odoratum lauris nemus, unde superne plurimus Eridani per silvam voluitur amnis. Look, he sees others on the grass to right and left, feasting, and singing a joyful paean in chorus, among the fragrant groves of laurel, out of which the Eridanus’s broad river flows through the woodlands to the world above. The Arcadia is very similar to this beautiful place where blessed dead can rest in the Underworld and probably Horace is trying to allude this Virgilian scene to poetically create the place where his friend is resting after this life or, even more, like the nightingales of Heraclitus in Callimachus’ epigram and in the way that Horace also presents this in odes 2.20 and 3.30, the poet is going to live forever only through his poems. Also, the thirst is related to the spring heat in the second part of the ode but if we relate it, instead, with the dead poet dedicatory of the first part, it could be seen as the thirst of the dead that is also briefly described in Aeneid Book 6 by Anchises and that thirst in this context is, as Timothy Johnson posits it, a symbol of death32 (Verg. A. 6.713-715): Tum pater Anchises: ‘animae, quibus altera fato corpora debentur, Lethaei ad fluminis undam securos latices et longa oblivia potant’. Then his father Anchises answered: ‘They are spirits, owed a second body by destiny, and they drink the happy waters, and a last forgetting, at Lethe’s stream.’ There is one more sign that can help us to confirm this funerary thematic in this first part of the poem. First, the nightingale funerary allusion that appears in the Georgics’ Virgilian narration of Orpheus where the poet compares the Orpheus mourning to Eurydice to a nightingale’s lament (Verg. G. 4.511-513): Qualis populea maerens philomela sub umbra amissos queritur fetus, quos durus arator observans nido implumes detraxit (...) 32 138 Johnson 2004: 262. Nestor Ellian Manriquez Lozano As the nightingale grieving in the poplar’s shadows laments the loss of her chicks, that a rough ploughman saw snatching them, featherless, from the nest. We hope that we have shown that Callimachus’ influence cannot be found only in the intertextual references that Horace made to his work but, also, in the way that this references have shaped the way that the Roman poet understood the construction and rules of the poetry itself. The Horace’s epigrammatic units that conforms a poem, the interpretation of poetic influences and the Kreuzung of Gattungen in Augustan poetry is undoubtedly in debt to Callimachus. The vision of a poet creator of iambi that could also make lyric poetry and integrate genres like epigram is a Callimachean poetic procedure. A poet-editor that shows his art in his poems but also in the intratextual connections between them is necessarily a product of a self-reflective written society where the thoughts of Callimachus still were echoing. In other words, Callimachus is not only some words of Horace but the poetic comprehension of Horace is Callimachean itself. Bibliography Acosta-Hughes, B. (2002), Polyeideia. The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic iambic tradition. London, Berkeley. Bing, P. (1988), The Well-Read Muse. Present and past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets. Göttingen. Bornmann, F. (1993), “Callimaco e Orazio”, in Bruno, Giuseppe (ed.), Letture Oraziane, Matera, 27-42. Cavarzere, A. (1996), Sul limitare. Il “motto” e la poesia di Orazio. Bologna. Clay, J.S. (2002), “Sweet Folly: Horace, Odes 4.12 and the Evocation of Virgil”, in Paschalis, M. (ed.), Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry, Rethymon, 129-140. Cody, J.V. (1976), Horace and Callimachean Aesthetics. Bruxelles. Collinge, N.E. (1961), The structure of Horace’s Odes. New York. Dettmer, H. (1983), Horace: A study in structure. New York. Fedeli P.; Ciccarelli, Q. (2008), Q. Horati Flacci, Carmina. Liber IV. Bari. Fraenkel, E. (1957), Horace. New York. Höschele, R. (2009), “Epigrammatizing Lyric: Generic Hybridity in Horace’s Odes”, in Pereira, M.H.R.; Oliveira, F.; Ferreira, J.R. (eds.), Horácio e a sua perenidade, Coimbra, 71-88. Hunter, R. (1992), “Callimachus and Heraclitus”, MD 28: 113-123. Lyne, R.O.A.M. (2005), “Structure and Allusion in Horace’s Book of Epodes”, JRS 95: 1-19. 139 The influence of Callimachean epigram on the topics and internal structure of some Horace's Odes Mair, A.W.; Mair, G.R. (1921), Callimachus: Hymns and epigrams. Lycophron: Alexandra. Aratus: Phaenomena. London. Owen Lee, M. (1965), “Horace, Odes I,38: Thrist for life”, AJPh 86: 278-281. Pasquali, G. (1920), Orazio Lirico. Firenze. Reitzenstein, R. (1908), “Horaz und die hellenistische Lyrik”, Neue Jahrb. 21: 81102. Rudd. N. (2004), Horace Odes and Epodes. London. Santirocco, M. (1986), Unity and design in Horace’s Odes, London. Schmitz, T. (2010), “Epigrammatic communication in Callimachus’ epigrams”, GRBS 50: 370-390. Thomas, R. (2011), Horace: Odes IV and Carmen Saeculare. Cambridge. Tarrant, R. (1995), “Da Capo structure in some Odes of Horace”, in Harrison, S.J. (ed.), Homage to Horace. A Bimillenary celebration. Oxford, 32-49. Wehrli, F. (1944), “Horaz und Kallimachos”, MH 1: 69-76. West, M.L. (1974), Study in Greek Elegy and Iambus. New York. Wimmel, W. (1960), Kallimachos in Rom. Wiesbaden. Woodman, T. (2002), “Biformis vates: the Odes, Catullus and Greek lyric”, in Woodman, T. and Feeney D. (eds.), Traditions and contexts in the poetry of Horace. New York:? 53-64. 140