Fortuna non mutat genus (Hor. epod. 4,6)
-
Dennis Pausch
Abstract
Fortuna non mutat genus. Reservations in Horace about social climbers like Horace. In a number of his poems, Horace describes the rapid social rise of the son of a not especially prosperous freedman from the south Italian town of Venusia to the highest social circles of the capital city of the Roman Empire. Although this story is not told in any one place in its entirety, but rather only in the form of momentary snapshots, a nevertheless relatively complete picture emerges. This is due not least to the fact that the reader notes the scattered elements of this story with particular attention, since the son of this freedman bears the same name as the author of the poems in which his story is told, and there is no shortage of hints inviting readers to identify this figure in the text with the real person of the author and to understand his recounted experiences as autobiographical. It is precisely this, however, which leads to that oscillating ambiguity between a referential and a fictional understanding of the text which Frank Zipfel took to be characteristic of autofiction. With the help of this concept, the confusion and uncertainty caused by this ambiguity can be described as an intentional effect. This paper sets out to study this phenomen in the special case of the fourth Epode, where a freedman whose biography, presented only in outline, bears a striking similarity with the biography the author presents as his own, is sharply criticized for his social rise and his flawed response to it. The attacks culminate in the explicit denial of any possibility of social mobility (fortuna non mutat genus), a denial which stands in direct contradiction to the story Horace presents, ultimately - despite setbacks - as a success story, about ‘Horace’. Despite such partial contradictions, we can see here an invective directed against the author, or against the figure of himself the author has created in his poems. This kind of autofictional presentation not only fits well with the ironic treatment of the figure that bears his name that one observes in Horace elsewhere, but can also be understood as a particular form of self-mockery and thus also as a part of the ancient iambic tradition.
Abstract
Fortuna non mutat genus. Reservations in Horace about social climbers like Horace. In a number of his poems, Horace describes the rapid social rise of the son of a not especially prosperous freedman from the south Italian town of Venusia to the highest social circles of the capital city of the Roman Empire. Although this story is not told in any one place in its entirety, but rather only in the form of momentary snapshots, a nevertheless relatively complete picture emerges. This is due not least to the fact that the reader notes the scattered elements of this story with particular attention, since the son of this freedman bears the same name as the author of the poems in which his story is told, and there is no shortage of hints inviting readers to identify this figure in the text with the real person of the author and to understand his recounted experiences as autobiographical. It is precisely this, however, which leads to that oscillating ambiguity between a referential and a fictional understanding of the text which Frank Zipfel took to be characteristic of autofiction. With the help of this concept, the confusion and uncertainty caused by this ambiguity can be described as an intentional effect. This paper sets out to study this phenomen in the special case of the fourth Epode, where a freedman whose biography, presented only in outline, bears a striking similarity with the biography the author presents as his own, is sharply criticized for his social rise and his flawed response to it. The attacks culminate in the explicit denial of any possibility of social mobility (fortuna non mutat genus), a denial which stands in direct contradiction to the story Horace presents, ultimately - despite setbacks - as a success story, about ‘Horace’. Despite such partial contradictions, we can see here an invective directed against the author, or against the figure of himself the author has created in his poems. This kind of autofictional presentation not only fits well with the ironic treatment of the figure that bears his name that one observes in Horace elsewhere, but can also be understood as a particular form of self-mockery and thus also as a part of the ancient iambic tradition.
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Frontmatter I
- Vorwort VII
- Inhalt IX
- Autofiktion(en) in der antiken Literatur 1
- Autofiktionen und Maskenspiele bei Kallimachos: eine Poetik der Irritation? 15
- Die römische Liebeselegie als autofiktionale Gattung? Überlegungen zu Chancen und Grenzen am Beispiel von Ovids Amores 31
- Ovidfiktionen: Zwischen Rom und Rumänien 53
- Apologien erotischer Dichtung und Autofiktion: Drei Fallstudien 73
- Zum Autofiktionsbegriff aus klassisch-philologischer Perspektive anhand von Ovids poetischer Autobiographie (trist. 4,10) – oder Autofiktion? 97
- Zur biographischen Modellierung des historiographischen Ichs bei Sallust, Livius und Tacitus 131
- Fortuna non mutat genus (Hor. epod. 4,6) 155
- Emicem liber: Text und (horazisches) Ich in Prudentius’ Praefatio 177
- In the Temple of Daphnean Apollo: “Philostratus” in His Works 193
- „Eines der ärgerlichsten Musterstücke verlogener Rhetorik“: Hieronymus’ Traum und die Begründung seiner Autorschaft 213
- Zu den Autorinnen und Autoren 241
- Index 243
Kapitel in diesem Buch
- Frontmatter I
- Vorwort VII
- Inhalt IX
- Autofiktion(en) in der antiken Literatur 1
- Autofiktionen und Maskenspiele bei Kallimachos: eine Poetik der Irritation? 15
- Die römische Liebeselegie als autofiktionale Gattung? Überlegungen zu Chancen und Grenzen am Beispiel von Ovids Amores 31
- Ovidfiktionen: Zwischen Rom und Rumänien 53
- Apologien erotischer Dichtung und Autofiktion: Drei Fallstudien 73
- Zum Autofiktionsbegriff aus klassisch-philologischer Perspektive anhand von Ovids poetischer Autobiographie (trist. 4,10) – oder Autofiktion? 97
- Zur biographischen Modellierung des historiographischen Ichs bei Sallust, Livius und Tacitus 131
- Fortuna non mutat genus (Hor. epod. 4,6) 155
- Emicem liber: Text und (horazisches) Ich in Prudentius’ Praefatio 177
- In the Temple of Daphnean Apollo: “Philostratus” in His Works 193
- „Eines der ärgerlichsten Musterstücke verlogener Rhetorik“: Hieronymus’ Traum und die Begründung seiner Autorschaft 213
- Zu den Autorinnen und Autoren 241
- Index 243
