In each example an adjective is separated from its noun by a verb and an unqualified noun. The separation by the verb may be regarded as conditioned by the metre, but not the further separation by the unqualified noun, as the qualified and unqualified nouns are metrically interchangeable. Horace would appear to prefer the wider separation to the less wide.

In poem 64 Catullus, as Fordyce points out in his edition , often has lines enclosed by a noun and its adjective, e.g.: 5 auratam optantes Colchis avertere pellem Very often, but not always, a syntactical unit is enclosed as well as the line. This is perhaps not surprising, considering the prevalence of punctuation at the end of the line in this poem. Nevertheless, an examination of the lines will show that when a noun and adjective1 enclose both line and (...) syntactical unit the fact that they enclose a syntactical unit can be regarded as a determinant of the word order. (shrink)

I Agree with R. G. Austin, who in his recent paper , 107 ff.) showed that Virgil did not write this proem to the Aeneid, and suggested that it was produced in the first half of the first century, perhaps prompted by the problem mentioned by Servius on A. I. I: ‘multi varie disserunt cur ab armis Vergilius coeperit.’ I wish here to comment briefly on the content of the lines. gracili qui... carmen refers to the writing of the Eclogues. (...) As Austin points out , Virgil has gracilis only in E. 10. 70 ff., the conclusion of the whole of the Eclogues: Haec sat erit, divae, vestrum cecinisse poetam, dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco, Pierides…. (shrink)

I Agree with R. G. Austin, who in his recent paper, 107 ff.) showed that Virgil did not write this proem to the Aeneid, and suggested that it was produced in the first half of the first century, perhaps prompted by the problem mentioned by Servius on A. I. I: ‘multi varie disserunt cur ab armis Vergilius coeperit.’ I wish here to comment briefly on the content of the lines. graciliqui... carmen refers to the writing of the Eclogues. As Austin (...) points out, Virgil has gracilis only in E. 10. 70 ff., the conclusion of the whole of the Eclogues:Haec sat erit, divae, vestrum cecinisse poetam,dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco,Pierides…. (shrink)

The following notes on the In Pisonem are largely based on the commentary of R. G. M. Nisbet . The references to the speech are by section and line of his text, and where my note is based on one of his I add a reference to the page of his commentary. 1. 20 voltus …, qui sermo quidam tacitus mentis est: ‘thoughts are usually revealed by the face.’ Add to Otto's, Seyffert-Muller's, and N.'s examples: Curtius 8. 6. 22 ‘voltus (...) haud sane securi animi index’, Juv. 9. 18 ff. (shrink)

It was a generally accepted tenet of ancient literary criticism that an excess of sibilants was cacophonous. To discover if and to what extent this antipathy is discernible in the actual practice of the main Latin poets, random samples of 50 lines from each were analysed. The results of this analysis are set out in Table I.

It was a generally accepted tenet of ancient literary criticism that an excess of sibilants was cacophonous. To discover if and to what extent this antipathy is discernible in the actual practice of the main Latin poets, random samples of 50 lines from each were analysed. The results of this analysis are set out in Table I.

The fact that the enclosing word order is not common in Latin prose, and is first found to any extent in the neoteric poet Catullus and in Cicero's Aratea, raises the possibility that they may owe this feature of their style to Alexandrian influence. In one way at least, in the inversion of connecting particles, atque, nam, etc., Alexandrian influence on Catullus' word order is generally admitted, e.g.

Of the capital manuscripts R and V have nexantem, M and P nixantem. The good minuscules favour nexantem on the whole, though Paris lat. 7906 has nixantem. nexantem is found in the Latin grammarians , v. 485 ), who quote the line because it contains this verb in its first conjugation form. Editors vary, and recently R. D. Williams, in his commentary on A. 5 , has preferred nixantem. So it seems worth restating the case for nexantem, especially as its (...) defenders have not used all the arguments open to them. (shrink)