A Fawn in the Wood: Inuleus in Horace Carmen 1.

23
Author(s): Paul Roche
Source: Classical Philology , Vol. 108, No. 4 (October 2013), pp. 346-351
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/671788

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 [email protected].

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

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Classical Philology

This content downloaded from

78.30.11.98 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:32:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
346 Notes and Discussions

Reich, Franz. 1997. Lexicon in Apollonii Rhodii “Argonautica.” Vol. 3. Ed. Herwig Maehler.
­Amsterdam.
Rieu, E. V. 1959. Apollonius of Rhodes: The Voyage of the Argo. Harmondsworth.
Seaton, R. C. 1912. Apollonius Rhodius: “Argonautica.” Cambridge, Mass.
Tandoi, Vincenzo. 1992. Scritti di filologia e di storia della cultura classica. Vol. 1. Pisa.
Thomas, Richard. 1982. Catullus and the Polemics of Poetic Reference (Poem 64.1–18). AJP
103: 144–64.
Vian, Francis, ed. 1974. Apollonios de Rhodes: “Argonautiques.” Vol. 1. Paris.

A FAWN IN THE WOOD: INULEUS IN HORACE CARMEN 1.23

Vitas inuleo me similis, Chloe,

quaerenti pavidam montibus aviis
  matrem non sine vano
   aurarum et silvae metu.

The model for these lines, as all commentators and critics note, is Anacreon 408:
ἀγανῶς οἷά τε νεβρὸν νεοθηλέα / γαλαθηνὸν ὅς τ’ ἐν ὕλῃ κεροέσσης / ἀπολειφθεὶς
ἀπὸ μητρὸς ἐπτοήθη (“Gently, like a new-born sucking fawn, who is frightened, left
in the woods away from his horned mother,” trans. Campbell). Horace’s inuleus (for
Anacreon’s νεβρός) is formed from an exceedingly rare Greek word, ἔνελος, which
survives to us in no extant text except for the lexicon of Hesychius (LSJ, s.v. ἔνελος). 1
Inuleus is uncommon in verse: only here and at Propertius 3.13.35. 2 One can readily
understand why. Its three consecutive short syllables make it a difficult fit for most
meters, and Horace had to lengthen its first syllable to render it usable here (TLL vii2
240.24–25); 3 when Virgil translated Iliad 22.189 νεβρός at Aeneid 12.750, he opted for
cervus. Its rarity in verse, its Greek derivation, and its modified prosody each gently
distinguish inuleus in the opening line of the poem. This note argues that in the context
of its ode, inuleus is also as suggestive and as thematically engaged a choice as that
other Greek word of the opening line, the name of his love-interest, Chloe. 4
Inuleus contains a bilingual pun on the physical position of the fawn “in the wood,”
which would be in silva in Latin or ἐν ὕλῃ in Greek. This pun points directly to the
phrase ἐν ὕλῃ in Horace’s model at Anacreon 408.2 and its status as a pun turns
on the conceit that is a calque on this phrase. 5 The pun inuleus ~ ἐν ὕλῃ is thus
the first intimation of the imagined topography of the ode, details of which will be
revealed gradually to the reader as the stanza and poem progress (e.g., 2 montibus

I am grateful to CP’s two anonymous readers and especially to Robert Cowan for their advice and con-
structive criticism on this note.
1.  See Nisbet and Hubbard 1970, 274–75.
2.  Discussed below, p. 348.
3.  See Nisbet and Hubbard 1970, 275 for discussion.
4.  “Green shoot,” reflecting her tender age: see Lee 1965, 185–86; Nisbet and Hubbard 1970, 275: “[t]he
name suggests greenness and immaturity (χλόη)”; Ancona 1994, 72.
5.  The suggested pun on inuleus as a proper noun rather than a personal name is similar to, but distinct
from, his strategy of punning on names, for which see Cowan 2006, 322–24; Reckford 1997, 583–612, esp.
593–610; Putnam 1993, 127–28; Putnam 1994, 359. For bilingual etymologizing in the Odes, see Cairns 1995,
211–17 on the derivation of Agrippa’s name from ἄγριος and ἵππος, calqued by 1.6.3 ferox . . . equis.

This content downloaded from

78.30.11.98 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:32:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 347

aviis, 4 aurarum et silvae, 5–6 mobilibus . . . foliis, rubum). The formal elements of
this type of pun—formed from the local sense of the prefix in- (OLD in-1) and a noun
denoting a physical or geographical space—can be paralleled in a similar wordplay
at Aeneid 9.716 Inarime, evoking Iliad 2.783 εἰν ’Αρίμοις (“in the country of the
Arimi”). 6 Of course, ἔνελος is not etymologically connected with ὕλη; Horace is not
alluding to a known or accepted origin but (in Francis Cairns’ formulation) “actively
etymologizing,” 7 or (in James O’Hara’s terms) using “translation with paronomasia.” 8
The resulting effect stems not from a strict, independently asserted or accepted connec-
tion between the two words, but a suggestive association. Horace’s wordplay would
nevertheless have been recognizable and plausible to his first readers. 9 This is assured
by the existence of a relatively common Greek adjective, formed from the same local
sense of the prefix ἐν- in combination with the same root word ὕλη: ἔνυλος “involved
or implicated in matter” (LSJ, s.v. ἔνυλος I). 10 Likewise, the difference in quantity
between inŭleus and ἔνῡλος does not vitiate this wordplay. Both poets and etymolo-
gists in antiquity were generally less troubled by difference in vowel-quantity than
modern scholars often are (cf., e.g., Varro Ling. 5.6); 11 and Horace has in any case
already altered the vowel quantities that one would expect of a derivative of ἔνελος.
In Horace, this wordplay is marked for the reader in two ways, both of which are
very typical strategies encountered in poetic etymologizing. The first is the highly
irregular diaeresis in the key term silvae at line 4. 12 The effect of this is to bring silva
closer in pronunciation to its commonly purported etymological source, ὕλη. 13 Thus
the positioning of silŭae as a gloss on the nearby in-uleus can be paralleled in any
catalogue of wordplays and puns: compare, for example, the similar arrangement in
Tibullus 1.9.68 aut tenues denso pectere dente comas?, where dens glosses densum. 14
The second method is the stanzaic ring composition brought about by the positioning
of inuleus and silvae in second and second-to-last position respectively. Compare the
opening stanza of Horace Carmen 1.19 where the connection between Mater saeva
Cupidinum at line 1 and amoribus at line 4, as well as the less-obvious wordplay
between amoribus and saeva, as synonym of amarus (TLL i 1819.3)—the popular
etymology of amor 15—is also arranged in stanzaic ring composition. 16

6.  O’Hara 1996, 221–22; Hardie 1994, 224; Ravaglioli 1984–91, 2.932.
7.  Cairns 1979, 95–96: an important discussion.
8.  O’Hara 1996, 59.
9.  And unimpaired by the aspirate breathing of ὕλη, which does not constitute a letter: cf. Cairns 1979,
97 on Αrabs < ἁβρος.
10.  It is worth noting this adjective is present, albeit in its orthographic variant ἔναυλος (LSJ, s.v. ἔνυλος II
“wooded”), in the works of Horace’s contemporary, Arius Didymus (Epit. 11).
11.  Although vowel quantity as a signifier of difference should not be dismissed altogether, several schol-
ars have shown that it is anachronistic to object to etymological wordplay on this criterion alone; see, e.g.,
Cairns 2012, 295 n. 11, 369; O’Hara 1996, 61–62 with refs. at 62 n. 317; Thomas 1992, 142; Ross 1987, 43;
Ahl 1985, 56; Cairns 1979, 5; Wölfflin 1893.
12.  Only here and at Hor. Epod. 13.2; cf. Nisbet and Hubbard 1970, 276: an “artificial poeticism, not a
genuine variant”; Coleman 1999, 35.
13.  On the etymology: suppum . . . ex Graeco, videlicet pro adspiratione ponentes <‘s’> litteram, ut cum
idem ὕλας, et nos silvas, Fest. 290; on the strategy: Cairns 1979, 92–95.
14.  Drawn from Cairns 1979, 93.
15.  O’Hara 1996, 247, 251; cf. Snyder 1980, 65, 114.
16.  For ring composition in the Odes more generally, see, e.g., Syndikus 1995, 28–30 with further refs at
28 n. 17.

This content downloaded from

78.30.11.98 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:32:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
348 Notes and Discussions

It may be that Propertius saw and marked the same suggestive potential of inuleus
when he used it in Poem 3.13. Here is Stephen Heyworth’s text of lines 3.13.33–37
and his apparatus criticus for line 35: 17
his tum blanditiis furtiva per antra puellae
  oscula silvicolis empta dedere viris.
atque hinuli pellis totos operibat amantes,
  altaque nativo creverat herba toro,
pinus et incumbens lentas circumdabat umbras.

35 atque hinuli N ut vid., TSJWYC, humili FLK, humilis P, hinni Garrod: hinnulei Scal-
iger: at vituli Burman sen.

Both orthography and text are uncertain, but variants such as hinnulei may show
Horace consciously opting for an un-aspirated single -n- form of the noun to transliter-
ate more closely the phrase ἐν ὕλῃ. 18 On the other hand, Scaliger originally spelt his
own conjecture inulei: 19 if this is correct (and not influenced by Horace), silvicolis
viris may gloss the same etymology of inuleus in ἐν ὕλῃ that we are suggesting for
Carmen 1.23. 20
Horace’s pun at the opening of Carmen 1.23 is integrated into the themes of its ode
and has some potentially significant implications for our understanding of the poem
as a whole. The importance of time in the ode, particularly the advent of spring, has
long been recognized as of critical importance to its themes and persuasive agenda; 21
no less significant for these is its topographical setting. David West has argued that
the fawn is not in the silva at all, but is looking from a position below the wood-line
up at the wood into which its mother has fled. 22 Although it might seem a minor
detail, her position in the silva itself is an important distinction to preserve, since in
the ode the wood provides the setting for the “erotic hunt” 23 and Chloe’s imminent
sexual knowledge is reflected and foreshadowed in its agitated landscape. 24 Whereas
in early lyric the sylvan setting of such poems can be suggestive of “. . . the wild life
of Artemis, roaming the woods undomesticated and unloving of men,” 25 here Horace
has subordinated this notion to a characteristic concern with appropriate behavior for
each of life’s various stages. 26 Although Chloe currently acts with undue trepidation

17.  Heyworth 2007a 349–52; 2007b, 126–27.

18.  Other orthographic variants of inuleus were available to him: see TLL vii2 240.17–24.
19.  Heyworth 2007b, 350.
20.  I am indebted to Robert Cowan and one of CP’s anonymous readers, each of whom brought this pos-
sibility to my attention.
21.  See, e.g., Commager 1962, 238: “the ode’s controlling metaphor . . . is a seasonal one”; Ancona 1994,
70–71. I accept the text of lines 5–6 as they are transmitted by the manuscripts, i.e., veris inhorruit / adventus
foliis; for discussion, see Nisbet and Hubbard 1970, 276–77.
22.  West 1995, 108.
23.  See Watson 1994, 73–75 with refs. at 81 n. 44.
24.  Thus Oliensis 2007, 228–29. A number of authors have elicited erotic nuances from the landscape of
the ode’s wood: e.g., Nadeau (1987, 779) adduces the details of Lucr. 1.6–20 on the advent of Venus; Ancona
1989, 49–57; Bannon 1993, 220–22; Nielsen 1970, 373–78; Ronnick 1993, 156.
25.  Carson 1999, 85 on the presexual female.
26.  Edmunds 2010, 356–57: “The images of young women as animals in Horace differ, then, from the
ones in archaic Greek lyric, where the pervasive image of the adolescent girl as a filly or heifer needing to be
tamed by education and marriage points to the assumption of a static hierarchic relation of male and female.
The youth of the women in the poems of Horace just mentioned [sc. 1.23, 1.25, 2.5, 3.11] does not stand for
an inherent female nature.” See too the summation of Santirocco 1986, 58: Horace urges upon Chloe “a moral
necessity to conform to the passage of time.”

This content downloaded from

78.30.11.98 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:32:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 349

of the wood (1–2 non sine vano / . . . silvae metu), she ought not to be threatened by
Horace’s interest in her, because she is now tempestiva viro. 27 Thus, the pun inuleus
~ ἐν ὕλῃ is also an important first hint of the sylvan setting that is so important for the
poem’s rhetoric of persuasion. 28
Roman orators frequently exploited the notion that a person’s name revealed im-
portant information about their innate character. 29 The same principle operates here,
although we are considering a common noun rather than a proper noun and a devel-
opmental stage rather than moral character. The greenness and immaturity suggested
in Chloe’s name sits in tension with her affirmed place in the springtime wood as
suggested in the inuleus to which she is compared, and this tension—between her
emotional un-readiness and her desirability—is the central concern of the ode. This
tension is further underscored at the beginning of the poem by being played out largely
between the two conspicuously Greek words in its first line: although she is green
(χλόη), she is nevertheless now in the wood (ἐν ὕλῃ). To elicit the same nuance from
a slightly different angle, the first two words of the ode, vitas inuleo, can be seen as
staging the dramatic plot of the ode in nuce, via an action and an implicit conces-
sion: “you avoid me, [although you are now] in the wood.” This one-word concession
imported implicitly in the pun I suggest is balanced at the last line of the ode in the
one-word cause, tempestiva: “cease to follow your mother, since you are now ready.” 30
At the same time, the pun inuleus ~ ἐν ὕλῃ acts metapoetically, as an allusion to
a precise location in the literary tradition: that is, the wood in which the model for
Chloe’s fawn, Anacreon’s νεβρὸς νεοθηλής, was abandoned: ἐν ὕλῃ . . . / ἀπολειφθεὶς
(408.2). This allusion contributes to more than merely an “Anacreontic ethos” for
the ode, 31 as it makes a rather more direct claim for 1.23 as the poetic successor to
Anacreon 408 and thus plays a role in Horace’s larger mobilization of his own literary
tradition as a successor (and belated addition) to the Alexandrian canon of the nine
lyric poets in the Odes. 32 It is simultaneously a prominently placed, reflexive annota-
tion of the process of Horace’s engagement with Anacreon. 33 The notion of the fawn
as Horace’s literary creation being ἐν ὕλῃ insists on being read as marking his own
creative reconstitution of the subject matter of Carmen 1.23 from the “raw poetic
material” of Anacreon’s lyric. 34 To adapt the terms of Stephen Hinds, at this moment

27.  Mayer 2012, 171 on tempestiva is succinct: “This word justifies H.’s wooing of the girl.”
28.  For which see Lowrie 1997, 21–22.
29.  See Corbeill 1996, 73–74.
30.  The correlation between vitas . . . me and tempestiva viro is commonly cited: cf., e.g., Syndikus 2001,
1.231; Fredricksmeyer 1994, 257: Estevez 1979–80, 41–42.
31.  Although this is certainly a very important dimension to the poem: see, e.g., Mayer 2012, 171; Nisbet
and Hubbard 1970, 274.
32.  Stated most plainly at Carm. 1.1.29–36, on which see Leigh 2010, 268–71 with refs. at 268 n. 1;
Feeney 2009, 202–31. On allusion as assembling tendentious literary histories, see Hinds 1998, esp. 142–44.
33.  ὕλη / silva may fairly be considered the classic example of the reflexive annotation, whereby a poem’s
text has embedded within it reflection or commentary upon the nature of the poet’s allusive activity; see Hinds
1998, 1–16, esp. 10–14: a seminal discussion of Enn. Ann. 175–79 Sk. and Verg. Aen. 6.179–82. Vergil’s de-
scription of movement into an ancient wood at Aen. 6.179 (itur in antiquam silvam) finds an earlier parallel in
Horace’s pun and its effect of positioning the fawn within the wood. Moreover, puns and their apprehension by
the reader by their nature mobilize many of the most recognizable tropes of allusive annotation, viz., memory,
echo, repetition, and imitation.
34.  LSJ, s.v. ὕλη III.3 “matter for a poem or treatise”; ἔνυλος I “involved in matter,” i.e., ὕλη; OLD, s.v.
silva 5b “the raw material of a literary work.”

This content downloaded from

78.30.11.98 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:32:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
350 Notes and Discussions

in Carmen 1.23 the lyric design of the poet Horace moves in step with the amatory
design of the speaker of the ode. 35
“Poetic etymologizing is . . . a process demanding active involvement of the reader
. . . He was supposed . . . to be engaged while reading in constant speculation about
and discovery of etymological and other verbal complexes omnipresent in the text.” 36
In Carmen 1.23 Horace offers a fine illustration of the returns to be made on the active
involvement of the reader in this process. The thematic resonances of Chloe’s name
have long been appreciated. I hope to have shown here that inuleus is equally sug-
gestive for the setting, themes, and literary traditions being assembled in and behind
Carmen 1.23. It is, as it were, a one-word mise en scène. The careful elaboration of
the simile, so celebrated by critics and commentators, 37 is underway in the second
word of the poem.
Paul Roche
The University of Sydney

35.  Hinds 1998, 13.

36.  Cairns 1979, 95.
37.  E.g., Syndikus 2001, 1.231; Fredricksmeyer 1994, 254–57; Estevez 1979–80 35–44.

LITERATURE CITED

Ahl, Frederick. 1985. Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical
Poets. Ithaca, N.Y.
Ancona, Ronnie. 1989. The Subterfuge of Reason: Horace, Odes 1.23 and the Construction of
Male Desire. Helios 16: 49–57.
. 1994. Time and the Erotic in Horace’s “Odes.” Durham, N.C.
Bannon, C. J. 1993. Erotic Brambles and the Text of Horace Carmen 1.23.5–6. CP 88: 220–22.
Cairns, Francis.1979. Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome. Cambridge.
. 1995. M. Agrippa in Horace Odes 1.6. Hermes 123: 211–17.
. 2012. Roman Lyric: Collected Papers on Catullus and Horace. Berlin.
Campbell, David A., ed., trans. 1988. Greek Lyric. Vol. 2, Anacreon, Anacreontea, Choral Lyric
from Olympis to Alcman. Cambridge, Mass.
Carson, Anne. 1999. Dirt and Desire: The Phenomenology of Female Pollution in Antiquity. In
Constructions of the Classical Body, ed. James I. Porter, 77–100. Ann Arbor, Mich.
Coleman, Robert G. 1999. Poetic Diction and the Poetic Register. In Aspects of the Language in
Latin Poetry, ed. James N. Adams and Roland G. Mayer, 21–93. Oxford.
Commager, Steele. 1962. The “Odes” of Horace: A Critical Study. New Haven, Conn.
Corbeill, Anthony. 1996. Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic.
Princeton, N.J.
Cowan, Robert. 2006. The Land of King Mane: A Pun at Horace, Odes 1.22.15. CQ 56: 322–24.
Edmunds, Lowell. 2010. The Reception of Horace’s Odes. In A Companion to Horace, ed.
Gregson Davis, 337–66. Malden, Mass.
Estevez, Victor A. 1979–80. Chloe and the Fawn: The Structure of Odes 1.23. Helios 7: 35–44.
Feeney, Denis C. 2009. Horace and the Greek Lyric Poets. In Horace: “Odes” and “Epodes,”
ed. Michèle Lowrie, 202–31, Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford.
Fredricksmeyer, E. A. 1994. Horace’s Chloe (Odes 1.23): Inamorata or Victim? CJ 89: 251–59.
Hardie, Philip. 1994. Virgil: “Aeneid” Book IX. Cambridge.
Heyworth, Stephen J., ed. 2007a. Cynthia: A Companion to the Text of Propertius. Oxford.
, ed. 2007b. Sexti Properti Elegi. Oxford.

This content downloaded from

78.30.11.98 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:32:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 351

Hinds, Stephen. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry.
Cambridge.
Lee, M. Owen. 1965. Horace Carm. 1.23: Simile and Metaphor. CP 60: 185–86.
Leigh, Matthew. 2010. The Garland of Maecenas (Horace, Odes 1.1.35). CQ 60: 268–71.
Lowrie, Michèle. 1997. Horace’s Narrative “Odes.” Oxford.
Mayer, Roland, ed. 2012. Horace: “Odes” Book 1. Cambridge.
Nadeau, Yvan. 1987. Aenigma, an eloquens structura? Hor. c. 1.23 (uitas inuleo). Latomus 46:
778–80.
Nielsen, Rosemary M. 1970. Horace Odes 1.23: Innocence. Arion 9: 373–38.
Nisbet, R. G. M., and Margaret Hubbard. 1970. A Commentary on Horace “Odes” Book I.
Oxford.
O’Hara, James J. 1996. True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological
Wordplay. Ann Arbor, Mich.
Oliensis, Ellen S. 2007. Erotics and Gender. In The Cambridge Companion to Horace, ed. Ste-
phen J. Harrison, 221–34. Cambridge.
Putnam, Michael C. J. 1993. The Languages of Horace Odes 1.24. CJ 88: 123–35.
. 1994. Structure and Design in Horace Odes 1.17. CW 87: 357–75.
Ravaglioli, Serena A. 1984–91. Inarime. In Enciclopedia Virgiliana, vol. 2, ed. Francesco Della
Corte, 932. Rome.
Reckford, Kenneth J. 1997. Horatius: The Man and the Hour. AJP 118: 583–612.
Ronnick, Michelle V. 1993. Green Lizards in Horace: Lacertae Virides in Odes 1.23. Phoenix
47: 155–57.
Ross, David O. 1987. Virgil’s Elements: Physics and Poetry in the “Georgics.” Princeton, N.J.
Santirocco, Matthew. 1986. Unity and Design in Horace’s “Odes.” Chapel Hill, N.C.
Snyder, Jane. 1980. Puns and Poetry in Lucretius’ “De Rerum Natura.” Amsterdam.
Syndikus, Hans Peter. 1995. Some Structures in Horace’s Odes. In Homage to Horace: A Bimil-
lenary Celebration, ed. Stephen J. Harrison, 17–31. Oxford.
. 2001. Die Lyrik des Horaz: Eine Interpretation der Oden3. Darmstadt.
Thomas, Richard F. 1992. Review of S. J. Harrison, ed., Vergil: “Aeneid” 10. Vergilius 38:
134–44.
Watson, Lindsay. 1994. Horace Odes 1.23 and 1.25: A Thematic Pairing? AUMLA 82: 67–84.
West, David. 1995. Horace “Odes” I: Carpe diem. Oxford.
Wölfflin, E. 1893. Die Etymologieen der lateinischen Grammatiker. Archive für lateinische Le-
xicographie und Grammatik 8: 421–40, 563–85.

This content downloaded from

78.30.11.98 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:32:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms