Horace, Pindar, Iullus Antonius, and Augustus: Odes 4. 2

Abstract Odes 4. 2 hasreceived much critical attention,1 owing to several evident difficulties. First, what docs it mean for Horace to reject imitation of Pindar in a poem which is itself somewhat Pindaric and which appears in a book together with other poems which are notably so (e.g. Odes 4. 4 and 4. 14)? Second, how is Iullus Antonius, the addressee, treated? Is he really envisaged as himself composing a poem in a context where Horace is unable to produce one, am\ if so whc1t kind of poem? Finally, does the poem in fact constitute effective praise of Augustus on Horace’s part, and is there a unified sequence of thought which links up the initial section on the poetry of Pindar and Horace (1–32), the middle section on Iullus and the return of Augustus (33–52), and the final vignette of the two differing sacrifices (52–60) The present treatment will deal with these themes, which form the central concerns of previous discussions, with the aim of producing a coherent and credible account of the poem in its social and literary context.