PREFACE
In any consideration of the Book IV odes, one should always bear in mind that the text we accept today can have very little in common with that which Horace would have originally produced. Over the years it has undergone a great deal of editing. The only factor that has perhaps remained unaltered is that Book IV was intended to be an entity in itself and has remained as such. It must also be a fair assumption that the word content of each ode has also remained reasonably intact. Beyond that, from the Uncial script that Horace would have produced to the punctuated, metrically pre–formed and stanza orientated text of today, we should assume that a great deal of manipulation has taken place.
Such manipulation will have been undertaken for many reasons. For instance, Augustus may have decreed changes in the presentation of the odes in order to present Book IV as a composite work dedicated to himself and his clients, illuminating the rise of the imperial era. Book IV now commences with a dedicatio to a close friend of his and ends with a panegyricus to himself, but was it always so?. The early monastic transcriptions may well have imposed some Christian 'political correctness' in certain areas. The transcribers of the Renaissance era may well have reversed the process and, in doing so, may well have added some nuances of their own. At some point in time word separation and word order will have been addressed and, later still, punctuation will have been inserted. While one would expect the first two to be inviolable for metrical reasons, the last is very much a case for stylistic judgement and could have been made very subsceptible to such contemporary poetical values as then existed. Of the present edited texts available to us, Wickham/Garrod, 1912 and Klingner/Teubner, 1939, one should remain aware that their pre–formed and punctuated presentation may well be heavily dependent on such poetical values, first assessed in the early 18th. century. For a proper study of the content of the individual odes, nothing of their presentation in such a form, for instance the stanza presentation and particularly the precise punctuation, should inhibit a wider ranging scrutiny of intended meaning.
In this context one should feel free to consider the wider fields of meaning that would have be available to the reader of the original Uncial text, before it was broken down by stanza groupings and internal punctuation. The content of all the odes in Book IV break down logically into natural 'episodes'; each contextually complete in meaning, phrasing and rhythm. They could have almost been regarded in the same way as music notation in the manner in which they were meant to be read and the reader, or performer, would have been skilled in interpreting them as such. So much so that it was probably only within the boundaries of such 'episodes' that word order, and thereby true meaning, could be comprehended. To fence such episodes with formal punctuation must therefore be considered as personally judgemental on the part of an editor, as though a conductor had impressed his own musical values, rather than those of the composer, in the performance of an orchestral score. Therefore, throughout this book and particularly in the Analysis & Commentary section, such episodes are given priority of consideration over both the stanza compartmentation and the internal punctuation, where these might be seen to obtrude on logical meaning.
Quintilian once remarked that 'history is very near to poetry, and may be considered in some sense as poetry in prose'. In doing so he undoubtedly had in mind that the inherent energy of poetry, with its metrical rhythms and repetitive rounds, transfers the emotive content of history extremely well. While this is very apparent in the work of Homer, particularly in the dash and splendour of the Iliad, that of Thucydides, dealing with political intrigue and ineptitude, does not lend itself so readily. What he might have added is that poetry makes history so much more digestible, while beautifully balanced prose makes history so much more understandable and, by corollary, both can make the sometime quite unpleasant and bitter facts of history more palatable. Where they differ is that poetry, unlike prose, can more easily soften their harsh outline or even cloak them in disguise. When the commentary is intended to be on contemporary history this factor offers the poet concerned a much needed sense of security from whatever powers might be in charge.
The creation of the Book IV Odes of Horace is assumed to have followed that of the Secular Hymn which was performed in 17 BC. Precisely when is a matter of some debate. Whether it was conceived as a single entity is also open to question. However it must have been completed by the spring of 8 BC., the year of Horace's death and that of his patron, Maecenas. The earliest event, 20 BC., mentioned in Book IV is the return of the eagles, originally captured by the Parthians, in separate battles, from Antony and Varrus resprctively Other events mentioned include the defeat of Lollius by the Sygambri in 16 BC., their retreat before Augustus in 15 BC., the defeat of the Vindelici and Rhaetii by Drusus and Tiberius in 14 BC.and the return of Augustus in 13 BC.. There is also a reference to a 'recent law', iure ... proprio, connected in some way with Maecenas, requiring him to 'submit an accounting', adfluentis ordinat annos, in the spring of a certain year. This could well be the lex Juliae de maiestate promulgated in 8 BC.. A reference that may also account for the very strange ode addressed to Censorinus, the consul in 8 BC., in which Horace admits to having nothing of value to give Censorinus except his poetry. If so, then Book IV covers the year of his death also. This book is an attempt to understand what the poet wished to say rather than to promulgate the patterns of classical poetical architecture into which the Book IV odes have always been constrained.