Re-evaluating a conjecture at Hor. Carm. 2.20

This paper examines a philological problem within Horace’s Carm. 2.20, namely the textual variant at l. 13. Presenting the manuscript tradition, which offers notior and ocior , the discussion highlights the interpretative difficulties arising from each. Subsequently, Richard Bentley’s conjectural emendation, tutior , is introduced and advocated for. The argument posits that tutior not only addresses the immediate semantic and stylistic issues but also enriches the ode’s meaning through intratextual resonance with Horace’s engagement with Pindar in Carm. 4.2, and Bacchic poetics in Carm . 2.19.