Peter Stothard, Horace, Poet on a Volcano (Yale)
At school we were educated to understand that Roman civilisation was disciplined, efficient and much to be admired but perhaps we were then too inclined to believe its publicity and in thrall to our classical exemplars. Peter Stothard's life of Horace is part history, part biography and part literary criticism and the history part serves to emphasize, to those of us who haven't before seen it put together in such a way, that the power struggles in England later were in comparison little local difficulties compared to the carnage among the generation of leaders in Julius Caesar's time.
Horace socially climbed into events through a friendship with Maecenas, a sort of political advisor if not minister, and some considerable poetic talent. He was a supporter of Brutus and then Octavian, no soldier, no 'renaissance man' or athlete but a short, portly, blotchy man who lived 'in media res', preached about 'seizing the day' and enjoyed wine and himself.
Greek literature came before Roman and provided the models for it and the example of Antilochus provided Horace with his 'perfectionist' poetics in an age that admired formal discipline more than our laissez-faire culture now that raises no objection to 'free verse', an idea that would have made no sense and been an oxymoron to Horace.
I had imagined him a sort of Roman Dr. Johnson, full of humane wisdom and less deceived good sense and there's a bit of that to him but the Satires, the Odes and the Letters show him developing different approaches and providing his and subsequent languages with a number of set piece phrases, memorability being essential if your work is going to outlast bronze as he presciently said his would.
Nunc est bibendum, the best known use of a gerund, 'now is the time to drink', might have become a general entreaty to enjoyment but was first used to celebrate the suicide of Cleopatra. Peter Stothard doesn't go to any lengths to make Horace any more likeable than I already thought he was from the poems. He certainly had an eye for an opportunity and the career he was clearly born for but one can still find sympathy for him in the letter in which he,
began to pour out his feelings about his own poetry as he never had before. He wrote about the precariousness of his place in society, the perils of seeking perfection when no one noticed or cared, the madness, alienation and despair that were necessary for the only art that mattered.
Many poets through the ages will have thought as much despite the celebrity some of them achieved at least in part through that tortured image, and perhaps some pop singers, the exaggerated embodiment of the 'poet' in the last 70 years, have exploited it further and so rather than the template of the sound-minded, equable writer, he might have been the prototype of the artist who took himself all too seriously and thus caused Baudelaire.
In a coda outlining the legacy Horace left to be picked up by two millennia of poets since, Stothard omits Marvell's explicit citation in his Horatian Ode, written to mark a public event which won't have been an oversight and so perhaps isn't Horatian enough but the general verdict is that Milton amongst others didn't do him any favours and that perhaps he is inimitable, and much better in the finely-crafted Latin. Stothard's summaries of the poems he finds significant are very useful but, time and again, he interprets the poems as opening with a shout, some thumping declaration, which is not the Horace I ever conceived of or what comes across in translation and so I'm left not all that much closer to him than I thought I was before but I do now have a synopsis of a seminal period of history that was as chaotic and dangerous as any one can think of. Not orderly. The 'order' only arrives once a proper poet puts it all into inventive, metrical lines.












