Faking It: "Dolor" in Horace, "Epode" 15

Author(s): W. Jeffrey Tatum

Source: Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica , 1999, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 3 (1999),
pp. 131-137
Published by: Fabrizio Serra Editore

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20546615

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fabrizio Serra Editore is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Faking it: Dolor in Horace, Epode 15

W. Jeffrey Tatum

o dolitura mea multum virtute Neaera! 11

nam si quid in Flacco viri est,
non feret assiduas potiori te dare noctes
et quaeret iratus parem,
nee semel offensi cedet constantia formae, 15
si certus intrarit dolor.

The speaker of Epode 15, betrayed by the false Neaera, repudi

ates her treacherous beauty, after which expostulation he turns to his
unknown rival, for whom he predicts an equally remorseful love af
fair i. This concise erotic poem may be parsed in multiple ways. Some
divide the poem simply into two portions: the poet's address to Neaera
and his apostrophe of the rival . On the other hand, Pl?ss long ago
drew attention to the shift in the poem that occurs at line 11, at which
point the speaker ceases to register his complaint about Neaera's false
oath and commences his angry rejection 3. Editors vary in their punc
tuation of line 10, but there seems no avoiding the transition identified
by Pl?ss: the speaker's cry
o dolitura mea multum virtute Neaera!

1 Basic is C. L. Babcock, LSi certus intrarit dolor. A Reconsideration of Horace's

Fifteenth Epode', Am. Journ. Philol. 87, 1966, pp. 400-419, who assembles earlier lite
rature. See also V. Grassman, Die erotischen Epoden des Horaz (Zetemata 39), Munich
1966, pp. 145-165; R. W. Carrubba, The Epodes of Horace, The Hague 1969, pp. 73
81; D. Mankin, Horace: Epodes, Cambridge 1995, pp. 234-243; L. C. Watson, 'Hora
ce's Epodes: The Impotence of IambosT\ in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Homage to Horace. A
Bimillenary Celebration, Oxford 1995, pp. 188-202, esp. pp. 195-197, all with referen
ces to recent scholarship.
2 Carrubba, op. cit. pp. 74-78, where further literature is cited.
3 T. Pl?ss, Das Jambenbuch des Horaz, Leipzig 1904, p. 96. Structural analyses
along similar lines are made by Babcock, art. cit. pp. 400-406 and Grassman, op. cit. p.
165.

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 132 W. J. Tatum

effectively and simultaneously concludes his rehearsal of his lover's

false oath and initiates his response. The structural importance of line
11 is underscored by the shape of the period following it (lines 12-16),
which itself terminates in the word dolor, an obvious echo of dolitura,
each word quite naturally conveying the pain of an unhappy lover 4.
There is further wordplay between line 11 and subsequent lines, the
most familiar of which is the punning relationship between lines 11
and 12
o dolitura mea multum virtute Neaera!
nam si quid in Flacco viri est

wherein the responsive virtute and viri, in conjunction with the cog
nomen Flacco (the literal sense of which is ^flaccid'), contrive an erotic
witticism, though this has not been conceded by every reader of the
poem 5. Thus Epode 15 joins with other erotic poems in the same
book in configuring the poet as something of "a perennial loser in
matters of love" 6. It is the purpose of this paper to propose another
level at which the punning complex of virtute /Flacco / viri operates in
this poem. My proposal is by no means competitive with the more ob
vious sexual joke of lines 11-12; in fact, if it can be accepted, it is com
plementary: both punning schemes reveal the speaker as something of
an impostor, driven to his pretenses by sexual jealousy.
In his response to Neaera, the speaker asserts that he will not tol
erate a rival but, on the contrary, roused to anger by such conduct on
her part, he will seek a suitable partner; furthermore, he insists, his
constantia will not be detracted from its purpose by Neaera's beauty.
All of these actions are contingent upon two conditions which open
and close the particulars of the speaker's response to his betrayal: si

4 The importance of lines 11-16: Babcock, art. cit. pp. 409-416.

a E.g. A. Kiessling-R. Heinze, Q. Horatius Flaccus: Oden und Epoden, Berlin
I96010, p. 544, reject the pun, as do several of the older commentaries; cf. Babcock, art.
cit. p. 413 n. 26. Most critics nowadays (rightly) accept the pun (though Grassman, op.
cit. p. 153 does not) and many tend to associate it with the theme of impotence in the
Epodes, on which topic see W. Fitzgerald, Tower and Impotence in Horace's Epodes\
Ramus 17,1988, pp. 176-191; E. Oliensis, 'Canidia, Canicula, and the Decorum of Ho
race's Epodes\ Arethusa 24, 1991, pp. 107-138; Watson, art cit. Impotence in elegiac
discourse: K. S. Myers, The Poet and the Procuress: The Lena in Latin Love Elegy',
Journ. Rom. Stud. 8, 1996, pp. 1-21. The cognomen Flaccus, it should perhaps be ad
ded, was believed to be derived from a peculiarity of the ears (cf. Plin. Nat hist. 11, 37,
50), and Horace resorts to that sense in order to make a pun at Sat. 2, 1,
18-19.
6 The expression is Watson's, cf. Watson, art cit. p. 194.

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Dolor in Horace, Epode 15 133

quid in Flacco viri est (line 12) and si certus intrarit dolor (line 16) 7.
The parallelism of the two conditions, and the importance of the final
word, dolor, have not been fully appreciated. Though a familiar term
for erotic anguish, dolor is appropriate company to vir and to virtus at
yet another level of discourse, for it is the natural and expected Roman
aristocratic response to any serious offense against one's dignitas. The
noble afflicted with dolor could be expected to become excessively
competitive and might resort to disreputable or even dangerous ac
tions to regain what he perceived to be lost ground. Nevertheless,
amongst the aristocracy the emotion was predictable and legitimate 8.
In sum, the word, while of course it can refer to the pangs of lovesick -
ness, also carries connotations of political and especially of sociologi
cal significance. If the presence of dolor in the speaker's representa
tion of his reactions to Neaera is given emphasis, and its position in the
period suggests that it should, then the reader is given the opportunity
to revise the specific reference of virtus and of vir in the lines above.
Understood along these lines, the speaker of the poem configures his
outrage in terms of Roman aristocratic pride, a humorous pose, to say
the least, in its otherwise erotic context 9.
There are further implications to this approach, but first it is nec
essary to address the dolitura of line 11: clearly Neaera can have no
aristocratic pretensions, nor is the speaker of the poem likely to at
tribute any noble qualities to her, which raises the question of her feel
ing dolor in the expectations of the poem. Now in fact the verb doler?
does not play so obvious a role in the political discourse surrounding
dignitas as does the noun dolor, and aristocratic dolor, given the (fa

7 Watson, art. cit. p. 195, correctly observes the effect of si in line 12 (which effect
is operative in line 16 as well).
8 Dolor. E. Badi?n, 'Tiberius Gracchus and the Beginnings of the Roman Revolu
tion', in Aufstieg u. Niedergang I 1, 1972, p. 692; M. G. Morgan-J. A. Walsh, Tiberius
Gracchus (tr. pi. 133 B.C.), the Numantine Affair and the Deposition of M. Octavius',
Class. Philol. 73,1978, pp. 200-210; cf. Cic. Har. resp. 43-44. Taking a different tack,
E. Narducci makes very similar observations about Cicero's use of dolor (in De domo) to
signify the suffering of exile (viz. loss of status, prestige, and so forth); cf. 'Perceptions of
Exile in Cicero: The Philosophical Interpretation of a Real Experience', Am. Journ. Phi
lol. 118, 1997, pp. 53-66 (cf. p. 56 for the importance, to Cicero, of genuineness in the
expression of dolor). Aristocratic virtus: D. Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of
Rome, Ithaca 1967, pp. 20-26.
9 This (humorous) conflation of the erotic and the sociological is hardly surpri
sing, least of all in author like Horace, and may be said to be typical of the 'multiplicity
of resonances' that 'can be experienced on several levels, depending on the intellectual
and social horizon of the reader' which seems a characteristic of Augustan literature; cf.
K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture. An Interpretative Introduction, Princeton 1996, p.
229.

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 134 W. J. Tatum

miliar) prepossessions of Roman society, tended to be a masculine

matter. Of course, the revision of lines 11-16 proposed here hardly re
quires the complete retranslation of every lexical item in the passage.
The similarity of the speaker's threatening cry to the assertions of
other love poets - especially to Catullus' at tu dolebis, cum rogaberis
nulla (Cat. 8, 14) - is obvious 10. No less apparent, however, are the
differences: Catullus, for instance, offers a cogent reason for Lesbia's
future unhappiness (viz. she will be unsought after); the speaker of
Epode 15, on the other hand, attributes Neaera's impending grief to
his own virtus, a distinctive claim and one which adumbrates the infe
riority of his successor in Neaera's affections, or at least it ought to do
so n. Yet throughout the poem, with the exception of the allusion to
Nireus (see below), the rival seems anything but inferior to the poet,
who, as we have seen, is himself the victim of an unkind pun that puts
in question his capacities as a lover. All of which is part of the poem's
fun, of course. Still, if line 11 is re-read in terms of the speaker's claim
to aristocratic bearing, then Neaera's predicted pain finds cogent jus
tification in the possibility posed by line 14 (viz. that the speaker will
turn to one of his own sort). Nevertheless, it is important that Neaera's
dolor fall exclusively under the erotic heading. Owing to the speaker's
explicit reference to his own virtus in adversarial juxtaposition with
Neaera, whose Greek name most probably means 'Girl', line 11 in
vokes the familiar Roman polarity between dominating virility and
un-Roman effeminancy 12. This polarity carried political implications
as well, not least during the triumviral and Augustan periods 13. In
other words, the aristocratic associations of virtus that are suggested
to be operative here are quite appropriate to the swelling moralism

10 Long recognized: cf. Kiessling-Heinze, op. cit. p. 544. Cf. also Tib. 1, 9, 78;
Prop. 2, 5, 8. On the elegiac dimensions of this poem (the significance of which is deba
ted), see Grassman, op. cit. pp. 145-65 (on line 11, see pp. 152-153); F. Kuhn, Illusion
und Disillusionierung in den erotischen Gedichten des Horaz, Heidelberg 1973, pp. 36
41. Focus on Catullus: E. Castorina, La poesia d'Orazio, Rome 1965, pp. 175
180.
11 The distinctiveness of the stress on virtus: Kiessling and Heinze, op. cit. p. 544.
It is not wrong to detect in virtus the sense of manly endurance (resumed in line 15 by
constantia), as do K. B?chner, Studien zur r?mischen Literatur III, Wiesbaden 1962, p.
16 and Grassman, op. cit. p. 153, but by no means should that be held to be the word's
only possible significance here.
12 A recent discussion of this polarity can be found in C. Edwards, The Politics of
Immorality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge 1992, pp. 63-97. Although 'girl' is the most
obvious signification of Neaera, cf. J. P. Postgate, 'Neaera as a Common Name', Class.
Quart. 8, 1914, pp. 121-122.
13 Cf. Edwards, op. cit. pp. 84-92; S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, Oxford 1995,
pp. 211-215.

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Dolor in Horace, Epode 15 135

implicit in line 11 - even if that moralism cannot survive the deflating

humor of the subsequent verse.
Let us return to the speaker's aristocratic pretensions. In view of
the sociological implications of virtus and vir, one can hardly avoid
giving close scrutiny to the cognomen Flaccus, which, as we have seen,
is already implicated in a self-deprecating erotic pun. The name Flac
cus was of course quite at home in the noblest of contexts: one need
but mention the distinguished Fulvii Flacci, who held so many consul
ships in the third and second centuries, or the Valerii Flacci, promi
nent from the fourth century through the first. And it is germane to the
present argument that, by the end of the late republic and during the
triumviral period, the nobles of Rome tended to assert their distinction
and station by stressing not their nomen but their cognomen 14. A no
ble Flaccus was quite a natural aristocratic concoction and a Roman so
distinguished might reasonably be expected to erupt into anger and
dolor should he feel his dignitas damaged. But of course this Flaccus is
no noble: he is the poet Horace, whose personal circumstances (at
least those relevant to his poetic voice) have been described in the first
book of his Satires (and at least mildly reinforced by Epode 14, where
the poet apologizes to Maecenas for his failure to deliver the promis
sum carmen on schedule) 15. Inasmuch as the poet's cognomen was in
fact Flaccus, he can hardly be accused of misappropriation in the
strictest sense. Nevertheless, the presence of Horace's own name in a
context of aristocratic virtue recalls the industry with which some Ro
mans of the late republic usurped the illustrious cognomina of the past
in order to associate themselves with grand family traditions 16. The
poet's noble pose in Epode 15 is clearly meant to be ridiculous, inas
much as the same book of satires which supplies the material for its
refutation also provides sufficient evidence of the poet's disapproval of
unduly elevated pretensions. More to the point here, the poet's disap
proval of overreaching poseurs is also made explicit in Epode 4, in

14 R. Syme, Roman Papers I, Oxford 1979, pp. 361-365. On the distribution of the
cognomen Flaccus, see I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki 1965, p. 240.
15 Especially, of course, Sat. 1, 6. On Horace's 'image-management' during the
triumviral period, see R. O. A. M. Lyne, Horace: Behind the Public Poetry, New Haven
1995, pp. 12-20.
16 False family claims: Cic. Brut. 62; Earn. 15, 20,1; Liv. 8, 40; cf. 4,16, 3-4; Plin.
Nat hist 35, 8; cf. T. P. Wiseman, Roman Studies, Liverpool 1987, pp. 207-218; M.
Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage I, Cambridge 1974, p. 441 (with further discus
sion and references); R. Ridley, ^Ealsi triumphi, plures consulatus\ Latomus 42 , 1983,
pp. 372-382. Usurpation of cognomina: E. Badi?n, 'The Clever and the Wise: Two Ro
man Cognomina in Context', in N. Horsfall (ed.), Vir Bonus Discendi Peritus. Studies in
Celebration of Otto Skutsch's Eightieth Birthday, Bull. Inst Class. Stud. London Suppl.
51, 1988, pp. 6-12.

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 136 W. J. Tatum

which an up-start ex-slave assumes all the dignities of a genuine

equestrian . Not unlike the erotic joke with which we began, the so
ciological witticism of lines 11 and 12 employs the poet's actual name
to deflate the implications of virtus and vir. What Watson has called
'the feeble-persona thesis' is enacted here at more than one
level18.
Still, the poet's construction of his angered and offended persona
presents what is, on the surface and at first blush, a rhetorically effec
tive foil to his enemies in all parts of the poem: Flaccus is a Roman
aristocrat; hence he will reject the treacherous Greek Neaera and find
an equal (line 14: et quaeret iratus parem), which is now a stronger
claim (though to be sure not an entirely honest one) than it might
seem if the line were felt to refer exclusively to a quest for amor mu
tuus 19. Similarly, the poet's unknown rival is described as if he, too,
hailed from the east: it is conceded that he might possess abundant
Lydian wealth (lines 19-20), enjoy an accurate knowledge of obscure
Greek philosophy (line 21) 20 and boast of beauty surpassing that of a
Greek hero (line 22). This Greekling, like the poet, will soon be sup
planted (line 23).
The contrast between the vir Flaccus and the Homeric hero
Nireus, to whom the rival is compared, calls for comment. It has long
been recognized that the specific choice of Nireus in line 22 constitutes
a slur against the poet's rival: Nireus, despite his great beauty (which
ought to have signified his arete), was ?Xanabvo? (feeble or easily ex

17 Watson, art. cit. pp. 197-199 notes the relevance of this poem to Horace's ridi
culous posture elsewhere in the Epodes.
18 Watson, art. cit. p. 196. Cf. the observation made (with reference to the first
book of Satires) by J. E. G. Zetzel, 'Horace's Liber Sermonum: The Structure of Ambi
guity', Arethusa 13, 1980, pp. 70-71: "... there is constant tension in the book between
the ideas and their presentation, between the conscious artistry of Horace and the inabi
lity of his persona".
19 Horace's complaint about Neaera's faithlessness obviously recalls similar senti
ments on the part of other love poets. But, in view of the poet's introduction of the co
gnomen Flaccus, is it possible that at least some in his readership might recall Cicero's
attack on the Greek accusers of Valerius Flaccus (pr. 63) at his trial in 59 for maladmi
nistration while governor of Asia? (cf. Flacc. 9-10, especially: testimoniorum religionem
et fidem numquam ista natio coluit, totiusque huiusce rei quae vis, quae auctoritas,
quod pondus, ignorant).
20 Further, and disreputable, implications can be drawn from this line, cf. Mankin,
op. cit. pp. 243-243, but it suffices here to accept the construction of the scholiasts (viz.
that the expression simply indicates that the rival is learned in philosophy); cf. A. Hol
der, Pomponi Porphyrionis Commentarium in Horatium Flaccum, Hildesheim 1967
(repr. of 1894), p. 211; 0. Keller, Pseudoacronis Scholia in Horatium Vetustiora I,
Stuttgart 1967 (repr. of 1902), p. 430.

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Dolor in Horace, Epode 15 137

hausted). 21. Consequently, he was not by any means the man he

seemed and no real hero. And so the impostures multiply. The angry
speaker of the poem asserts his Roman aristocratic virtus in order to
establish a stark contrast to the false arete of his Nireus-like rival. But
whatever the truth of the poet's imputation of misleading beauty to his
(unknown) rival, the poet's own and obvious falsifications undermine
his own position and render it ludicrous.
There is little integrity to be found in Epode 15. The poet, an
gered by sexual jealously (the dolor of sexual desire), attempts to dis
guise himself as a Roman motivated by dolor in the aristocratic sense
of the term. Hence his bravado rejection of Neaera as if she were a
clear inferior. And hence his bluff dismissal of his easternized rival.
Neaera at least appears to be a treacherous lover. And as for the rival,
if he exists and if he fits the description which the poet has given him,
he, too, is less than wholly genuine. The piece is a masquerade with a
cast of three. And the center of the fun, the object of ridicule, is the
poet himself. He has not avoided either his passion or his shame by
donning a disguise. For Flaccus there is but one real escape, even if it
is itself the original motive for the entire embarrassing charade: his
complete replacement by another. Once out of the picture, once an ob
server of elegiac follies and not a central player in them, then - at last
- it will be Horace's turn to join his reader in laughter: ast ego uicissim
ris ero.

The Florida State University

21 Cf. //. 2, 671-675. See Mankin, op. cit. p. 243.

This content downloaded from

78.30.10.151 on Sun, 04 Jul 2021 18:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms