Horace and Seneca Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Herausgegeben von Susanne Daub, Michael Erler, Dorothee Gall, Ludwig Koenen und Clemens Zintzen Band 365 Horace and Seneca Interactions, Intertexts, Interpretations Herausgegeben von Martin Stöckinger, Kathrin Winter und Andreas T. Zanker ISBN 978-3-11-052402-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-052889-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-052861-9 ISSN 1616-0452 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Foreword Thisvolumeisbasedon aconferenceheld in the Seminarfür Klassische Philo- logieat the Universityof Heidelberg in Julyof 2015. In its productionwe would liketoregisteroursincerestthankstotheAlexandervonHumboldtStiftungand Amherst College, as well as to the Mommsen Gesellschaft, for their generous funding. We would also like to thank Jürgen Paul Schwindt and Gerrit Kloss fortheirsupportoftheproject,aswellastheadministratorsandstudenthelpers whomadetheconferenceitselfrunsosmoothly.Thetypescriptwaseditedwith aplomb by Eugenia Lao. Wewouldliketodedicatethevolumeinthenameofallofitscontributorsto thememoryofourkeynotespeaker,JohnMoles,who,withhiscustomarygener- osity and enthusiasm, contributed greatly to the original gathering. Only two months after we met in Heidelberg we were deeply saddened to hear that he hadpassedaway.Thethreeeditorsofthepresentvolumestillremember,andal- wayswill,ourwalkwithJohnacrossHeidelberg’sAlteBrückeovertheNeckaron the late-summer afternoon before the conference began. Notesconcerningthetextsandtranslationsemployedareprovidedinthein- dividualcontributions.Abbreviationsofnamesandtitlesfollowtheconventions of the LSJ and OLD. Latin titles,when cited in full, are generally printed in the original, save for Horace’s Odes, Epodes, Satires, and Epistles,whose frequency in thescholarship,wefeel,overrides our aspirations to uniformity (this also al- lows Seneca’s Epistulae Morales to be more clearlydifferentiated from Horace’s Epistles). Martin Stöckinger, Kathrin Winter, Andreas T. Zanker Table of Contents Introduction 1 I Philosophy in Literature – Literature in Philosophy Barbara Del Giovane Dressing Philosophy with sal niger. Horace’s Role in Seneca’s Approach to the Diatribic Tradition 27 Francesca Romana Berno Nurses’ Prayers, Philosophical otium, and Fat Pigs: Seneca Ep. 60 versus Horace Ep. 1.4 53 Catharine Edwards Saturnalian Exchanges: Seneca, Horace, and Satiric Advice 73 II Horatian Verse in Senecan Tragedy Richard Tarrant Custode rerum Caesare: Horatian Civic Engagement and the Senecan Tragic Chorus 93 Christopher Trinacty Horatian Contexts in Senecan Tragedy 113 Tobias Allendorf Sounds and Space. Seneca’s Horatian Lyrics 137 Jonathan Geiger Strictness, Freedom, and Experimentation in Horatian and Senecan Metrics 159 VIII TableofContents III Themes and Concepts Gregor Vogt-Spira Time in Horace and Seneca 185 Barak Blum Studiorum instrumenta: Loaded Libraries in Seneca and Horace 211 Elena Giusti The Metapoetics of Liber-ty. Horace’s Bacchic Ship in Seneca’s De Tranquillitate Animi 239 Alexander Kirichenko Constructing Oneself in Horace and Seneca 265 IV Modes of Quotation and Issues of Reception Ute Tischer Nostrafaciamus. Quoting in Horace and Seneca 289 Nina Mindt Horace, Seneca, and Martial: ‘Sententious Style’ across Genres 315 Victoria Moul Seneca, Horace, and the Anglo-Latin ‘Moralising Lyric’ in Early Modern England 345 Table of Correspondences 371 Works cited 401 Contributors and Editors 431 General Index 433 Introduction Thepairingoftwoauthorsmayappearbothold-fashionedandarbitraryintwen- ty-firstcenturyclassicalstudies:thecomparisonofHomerandVirgil,Pindarand Horace,SallustandTacitus,andVirgilandLucanhasprovidedtopicsfornumer- ousbooks,articles,andchaptersoverthedecades.Theabundanceofsuchstud- ies has in part been balanced by the changingscholarly modes of dealingwith theliteraryrelationshipsinvolved–termssuchasimitatioandaemulatio,‘influ- ence,’ ‘anxiety of influence,’ ‘allusion,’ ‘reference,’ ‘intertextuality,’ ‘tradition,’ ‘dynamics of genre,’ and ‘reception,’ to give but a few examples, each come withtheirownemphasesandframingsoftheconnectionsbetweentextsandau- thors.Butwhyaddanotherpairingtothisvastbodyofscholarship?Andwhythe particular pairing of Horace and Seneca?¹ A preliminary, and somewhat blunt, answer is that to the best of our knowledge no one has undertaken it before, at least not with due consideration to the entire oeuvres of both authors. Several studies from the nineteenth and early twentieth century address or touch on Horace and Seneca in tandem, often as part of an investigation of an author-specifictopicsuch as‘Seneca’stechnique ofimitation’or‘tropesinSen- ecan tragedy’: by wayof example we might note Zingerle (1873),Gaheis (1895), Kapnukajas (1930), and Keseling (1941).Twoscholars of this period focused ex- clusively on the relationship between Seneca’s tragedies and Horace’s Odes – Gerber (1883),who explored Seneca’s use of Horatian metre, and Spika (1890), who listed verbal parallels and imagery common to both Horace’s Odes and the choral odes of Seneca. Although these studies still offer much useful mate- rial,their methodology is of course dated. In more recent decades,we find two brief overviews by Mazzoli (1974 and 1998) and an influential essay by Berthet (1979),inadditiontoanumberofarticlesdevotedtospecificproblemsandtop- ics by other scholars.² Important observations concerning the relationship of HoraceandSenecahavebeenmadebyTarrantinhiscommentariesontheAga- memnon(1976)andtheThyestes(1985),aswellasinaseriesofarticles,suchas thoseonSeneca(2006)andthereceptionofHorace(2007).Whatisstillrequired,  OnemightcomparetherecentvolumeofBerlincourt/GalliMitić/Nelis2016,whosetitle, LucanandClaudian,revealsthesametraitsasHoraceandSeneca.Intheirintroduction,theed itorsnotethatthesimilaritytotraditionalstudiesoftheaforementionedvarietyisintended,yet clearlystatetheiraimnottoneglectmorerecenttheoreticalpointsandmethodologies.Cf.Ber lincourt/GalliMitić/Nelis2016,2 4.  E.g.Dionigi1980;Degl’InnocentiPierini1992and2013;Blänsdorf1998;Stevens1999;Schöps dau2015;Littlewood2016. DOI10.1515/9783110528893001 2 Introduction however,isacomprehensivestudyoftherelationshipoftheHoratiancorpusto Seneca’s philosophical and poetic works, one that takes into account modern critical theory and methodologies. First steps in this direction have recently beentakenbyTrinacty(2014),withafocusonHorace’sRomanOdes,andbyRi- mell(2015a,82–147),whosestudyoftheconceptofenclosedspaceincludesan analysis of the Horatian angulus and its reception in Seneca’s prose. But beyondthis needtofill agapin the scholarship,thestudyof theinter- playbetweenthesetwoauthorsisattractiveforavarietyofotherreasons.Horace andSenecareveal,forexample,inmanyrespectsstrikingsimilarities,butareat thesametimeparadoxicallydissimilarpreciselyatthesepointsofcontact.Both authorswritephilosophyinaliteraryframeworkandtherebyengagecontinually withthesamethemesandquestions–forexampletheideaofthegoodlife,the properuseoftime,theformationoftheself,thedesideratumofmoderation–yet do so from different philosophical angles (namely quasi-Epicureanism and Roman Stoicism). Both have been criticised for their proximity to political power,yetthisproximitytakesadifferentformineachcase–Horaceslowlyap- proaching the centre of power from great distance, Seneca swiftly distancing himselffromhispositionofgreatintimacywithNero’scourt.Bothworkinava- rietyof differentgenres in the course of their longcareers,which, although the precise genresdiverge greatly,constituteanalogous forms: philosophical letters (whether in poetic sermo or in prose),dialogue (as can already be noted in the authors’useofthetermssermoanddialogusasdescriptorsforindividualworks), theinfluenceofdiatribeandsatire(housedincompletelydifferentgenres),and of course lyric – and hereSeneca’s choral songswouldbe unthinkable without Horace’sOdes,eveniftheyexistinadifferentcontextandserveadifferentend. Finally,we might mention the similarities when it comes to the authors’ ironic style, together with the formal correspondences – even down to the minora – whichmakethecaseforadeepunderlyingconnectionbetweenthetwoauthors allthemorecompelling.Noneoftheseitemsispreciselyreplicated,andyetthe similarity is too clear to be denied. Even from a superficial syncrisis such as that just outlined one recognises thefundamentalandperhapsuniquecharacteroftherelationshipbetweenHor- aceand Seneca:itconsistsin similarity rather than uniformity.The corporaare ofcourseextremelydifferent,yetwhenset next toeach other they revealthem- selves to be interlaced with non-systematic parallels and congruencies in their composition, their workmanship, and in numerous details (although never in their entirety).The relationship has the appearance of being both intimate and distanced. It is precisely in this that the fascination of the theme ‘Horace and Seneca’lies,aswellasitsgreatdifficulty:sweepingattemptstodescribethere- lationshipexhaustivelyortoprovideanunderlyingaxiomforitsanalysisgener-