Abstract

The hypothesis that “Odes” 1.34 and 1.35 constitute a single poem is supported by a systematic examination of the use of address in the “Odes”. Specifically, the lack of address in 1.34 and the address of Fortuna by way of a circumlocution at 1.35.1 are both almost unparalleled; the combined poem, however, follows the common Horatian practice of addressing a previously named god by means of an epithet or circumlocution. The structure and progression of thought, furthermore, closely resemble that of “Odes” 1.2. Quite possibly the division arose when the delayed address was taken to signal a new poem.