Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)

[falmouth]

(I've started a new thread and set out here the general hypothesis
again, adjusted for my earlier errors)

(1) αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
[Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 derives from a Hellenistic author, probably
someone dealing with Alexander the Great

(2) Gallus in 44BC wrote something like
"Caesar, et Euphraten iam sub tua iura fluentem"

(possibly "subter" not "iam sub" - NB that Propertius only uses
"subter" twice in his
whole works - in this very poem 3.4.16 and Prop. 2.34.67).

Gallus is closely adapting (1), complete with 'eurreitao' and
etymologising.


(3) Gallus in 38BC echoing his own poem, signals his own adaption by
going to the same Greek line, again complete with 'eurreitao' and
etymologising.
Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)


[(4) Vergil in, say 38BC glances at Gallus' 'subter... fluentem' with
his
exotic 'subterlabere' (Ecl. 10.4 cf. the 'carmina sunt dicenda' in
the
previous showing that Vergil has Gallus 44BC poem in mind): cheekily
misreading Gallus as if subter...fluentem was as it were in tmesis.]
(this only if "subter... fluentem")

(5) Vergil in Georgics 4 glances at Gallus 44BC poem with his
Euphrates + 'iura'

(6) Vergil in the Aeneid closely adapts (3) with
finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis (Aen. 8.726) leaving just
the traces of Gallus' etymologising play.

(7) Propertius in 3.4.4 goes to Gallus 44BC poem and slightly
awkwardly squeezes Gallus' hexameter into a pentameter (whose
'iura')?
"Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent"

(8) Ovid at Met. 2 remembers the start of Gallus' (3) whether aware
or
not that "et Euphrates" was to render "eurreitao".

[falmouth]

If one were entertaining:

Fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia, quom tu
maxima Romanae pars eris historiae,
postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum
fixa legam spolieis deivitiora
tueis 5

Caesar, et Euphraten iam sub tua iura fluentem

I do see the inelegance of the repeated vocative, but one can imagine
it as an attempt to convey the repeated shouts of Caesar at the
imagined triumph. I believe that somewhere in Gallus, he will go onto
say something like

miles 'io' magna voce 'triumphe' canam (cf. Tib. 2.5.118; Ov. Tr.
4.2.52; Hor. Odes 4.2.49-50 - noting 'Augusti reditu... tum meae...'
at 43ff).

(I want to keep Caesar in that line on the assumption that [Oppian]'s
model started αυταρ ευρρειταο like [Oppian])

I appreciate that now one's going beyond speculation to pretty much
pure fantasy although I do like the "fixa" / "fluentem" contrast

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

My sense of style rejects any *any* of the period in ll. 1-4 is justified;
there should be a full stop and a new sentence. If you must have Euphrates,
Tirgrin et Euphraten . . . fluentes, except that I have a nasty feeling
Gallus would have expressed the notion as Tigrim atque Euphraten; even
Vergil after all prefers -im to -in as the accusative of Greek -is nouns. On
the other hand, he was probbaly not so archaic as to write Euphratem
(fifth-declension, not third), though the poets of the 50s BC (Cicero,
Catullus, Lucretius) seem to have no accusatives singular of Greek masculine
first-declension nouns at all.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237

[falmouth]

Assuming it's right that Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 is part of a longer poem
which e.g. Prop. 3.4, Ov. AA 1.177ff and Ov. Tr. 4.2 imitates, I think
one would expect somewhere a long(-ish) period representing the
objects of the imagined triumph in the accusative case - cf.
especially Prop. 4.3.13-18; Ov. Tr. 4.2.19-24.

I think I've mentioned before my vague feeling that Gallus would be
happy with Greek form proper names on the basis of lines in Vergil on
the one hand and Propertius on the other hand where one suspects
Gallus' influence: Ecl. 2.1; 2.73 "Alexin"; Ecl. 10.31-2 "Arcades...
Arcades"; 10.55 "Maenala"; Prop. 1.1.10 "Iasidos"; Prop. 1.20.51-2
"his, o Galle, tuos monitus servabis amores / formosum ni vis perdere
rursus Hylan". This would be consistent with the tutelage of
Parthenius and being a 'cantor Euphorionis'.

The suggested line "Caesar, et Euphraten iam sub tua iura fluentem"
was mainly intended to illustrate (albeit incompetently in the first
few instances...!) that transferring Prop. 3.4.4 into a hexameter
without any major change except giving 'tua' its natural corresponding
vocative, comes up with a different line, very close to the line of
[Oppian]. I'd rather lose the suggestion that it could follow
immediately Fr. 2.2-5 than lose that Caesar ~ αυταρ. Besides, Prop.
3.4.4 'Tigris et Euphrates' in Prop. 3.4.4 strikes me as a bit of a
'waste' of two exotic rivers - I'd suspect that G. may well also have
mentioned the Tigris, but gave it a line of its own (cf. AA. 1.223-4),
with some corresponding point to the Euphrates / eu-reo one.

On a sidenote, I happened to come across an article by Somerville 'The
Literary Merit of the New Gallus' Classical Philology 104 No. 1 (2009)
yesterday. The article has two main thrusts (i) that Gall. Fr. 2 *is*
as carefully wrought as one might have expected of the poet whom V.
apparently admired so much - taking up e.g. the argument that 'quom
tu' is an allusion to Callimachus' hexameter ending 'kai se' (sounds
like "Caesar", I'd add); and (ii) one cannot underestimate the impact
of genre on the expression - any clunkiness is a deliberate effect.

Stimulated by that, I had the following train of thought: say we agree
[Gallus] is 'Ovidian' (post-Ovidian? sub-Ovidian?) in its smoothness
(I get there even with my uncouth ear) - by that one would mean
smoother than say Prop. 1 especially, 2, 3 and 4 to a lesser extent;
and smooth in a different way to Tibullus. We think of Gallus as not
having such smoothness under the possibly mistaken view of Gall. Fr.
2, but also nudged perhaps in the wrong way by Quintilian's durus, and
also by Propertius 1 - but Prop. 1 is an immature poet. But if one
looks at such as we have of *Greek* narrative elegists (I ignore
epigram deliberately) that G. would have been interested in other than
Callimachus - I'm thinking of e.g. what we have of Phanocles and
Parthenius [1] - is one so far from the 'Ovidian' easy fluidity -
(this, from my position of relative ignorance, is not a rhetorical
question!)? I appreciate that one would have to also factor in
Catullus, but maybe Catullus' elegiacs are influenced by the fact that
he's interested in Callimachus especially.

[1] I'm thinking of POxy 4711 especially if that is his: the
circumstantial case seems strong, but a surprise is the apparent
simplicity of the expression.

On 2 Oct, 22:01, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> > not that "et Euphrates" was to render "eurreitao".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

The un-Ovidian harshness of Gallus can be judged by the ear (to be sure some
of Catullus' pentameters are even worse), but he is also separated from the
Augustans, and linked to his predecessors, by his sentence-structure, which
is not different from that of prose. Nothing wrong with that, if one loves
the long periods of Lucretius (quae quoniam rerum naturam sola gubernas . .
.), but taste changed with Vergil's Bucolics.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[falmouth]

Say one had been asked to forge 9 lines of Gallus before 1979 - what
one would have come up would have been very different to the Qasr Ibrm
fragment? Perhaps more different to genuine Gallus than pseudo-Gallus
(AL 914)?! What does that illustrate? Perhaps no more than that the
speculator will more often than not fall flat on his face, but maybe
also the extent to which a handful of lines may have a distorting
effect.

Chronologically, one could allow [Gallus] (if = Gallus) to have
smartened up his act - adjusted his taste - in response to (some of)
Vergil's Bucolics, even if those had not yet been published as a
group.

On Oct 5, 12:33 am, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Before the Romantic age, one would expect a forger to produce something like
AL 914; after it, when we were more sensitve to period and less to
tyimelessness, something more like Qasr Ibrim. The notion that Gallus could
have changed so quickly is rather hard to take, paricularly as Vergil could
have not taught him not to end a pentameter with a trisyllable (fixa legam
spolieis), of which indeed you will still find examples in Prtopertius and
Tibullus, but none in Ovid until Ex Ponto. No, no. it really won't do: I'm
still a Richard Dawkins on this one.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[falmouth]

I'm continuing to argue the toss, with your indulgence, less in an
attempt to convince you - probably not even in an attempt to convince
myself - of the genuineness of AL 914, but rather to try to calibrate
how unlikely that hypothesis is. The point that I was trying to make
above is that when Fr. 2 first appeared everyone threw up their hands
in protest that Gallus could have written something so 'wretched': the
corollary of that is that the communis opinio was, prior to that, that
Gallus' versification would be expected to be rather less neanderthal
than Fr. 2 appears. But does the discovery of Fr. 2 mean that the
prior communis opinio was wholly wrong? In terms of possible progress,
one should take into account not only that (i) 6 or so years pass
between the assumed date of Fr. 2 and the notional date of [Gallus];
and (ii) that if our dates for Gallus are approximately right - i.e.
coeval with Vergil, one would expect Fr. 2 to be a comparatively
(very) early production; but also that (iii) scarcely a decade will
pass before Tibullus 1 appears on the scene. Who was responsible for
all that speedy progress in elegiac composition - is it so off-the-
wall to suggest that it could have been G. under the influence of, in
particular, Parthenius?

On polysyllabic pentamater endings, the way these are clustered in
Propertius 1 (especially) support the possible inference that
Propertius knew that they had a particular (Graecising? and/or
weighty?) effect - if so, the corollary would be an awareness that
sticking to disyllables would have the opposite effect. In Gallus Fr.
2, "Romanae... historiae" - a conscious contrast between the epithet
"Roman" and the Greek word 'historia', reflected by Greek sounding
polysyllabic pentameter (perhaps there is even an actual Greek model
for this line): Caesar as the greatest thing in *Roman* (not Greek)
history (an Alexander for Rome)? NB that in [Gallus] one *does* have a
pair of polysyllabic pentameter endings at 54 and 56 (two more
elsewhere) where the subject matter is the weightiest. (I appreciate
that trisyllables are a slightly different phenomenon and don't have
any particular thoughts on 'spolieis', but these seem to have gone out
of fashion even more quickly).

On Oct 5, 9:17 am, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

The versification of fr. 2 did not strike me as at all implausible provided Caesar waa the Dictator, whereas if he were Imp. Caesar Gallus would have been a total stick-in-the-mud (not indeed that that was impossible). If the communis opinio held otherwise, taht was shere intellectual laziness; and in any case Gallus' pentameters are an advance on 'quam modo qui me unum atque unicum amicum habuit', wrtten a decade or so earlier. My point is that even if Gallus could turn stylistically on a sixpence, the change in his pentameter technique seemed suspiciously excessive. Whereas tetrasyllables and pentasyllables at the end of the pentameter are lawful in moderation--it is only in the Ars Amatoria that Ovid eschews them altogether--and hence do not tell against AL 914, the avoidance of trisyllables is a mark of spuriousness, not so much because Propertius and Tibullus still have a few, since the poem is too short a sample, but because in an even shorter sample the real Gallus has two trisyllables agaisnt only on tetrsyllable, not only spolieis but uereor; indeed, that is the harsher line, since there is a clash of two stressed syllables in 'iudice tE uEreor', for obviously te is emphatic.

> > Before the Romantic age, one would expect a forger to produce something l=

> ike
> > AL 914; after it, when we were more sensitve to period and less to

> > tyimelessness, something more like Qasr Ibrim. The notion that Gallus cou=
> ld
> > have changed so quickly is rather hard to take, paricularly as Vergil cou=
> ld
> > have not taught him not to end a pentameter with a trisyllable (fixa lega=
> m
> > spolieis), of which indeed you will still find examples in Prtopertius an=
> d
> > Tibullus, but none in Ovid until Ex Ponto. No, no. it really won't do: I'=

> m
> > still a Richard Dawkins on this one.
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone

> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=

> > > is not different from that of prose. Nothing wrong with that, if one lo=
> ves
> > > the long periods of Lucretius (quae quoniam rerum naturam sola gubernas=

> > > immediately Fr. 2.2-5 than lose that Caesar ~ áõôáñ. Besides,=

> > > > Tirgrin et Euphraten . . . fluentes, except that I have a nasty feeli=
> ng
> > > > Gallus would have expressed the notion as Tigrim atque Euphraten; eve=

> n
> > > > Vergil after all prefers -im to -in as the accusative of Greek -is
> > > > nouns.
> > > > On
> > > > the other hand, he was probbaly not so archaic as to write Euphratem

> > > > (fifth-declension, not third), though the poets of the 50s BC (Cicero=

> > > > model started áõôáñ åõññåéôáï like [Oppia=

> n])
> >
> > > > I appreciate that now one's going beyond speculation to pretty much
> > > > pure fantasy although I do like the "fixa" / "fluentem" contrast
> >
> > > > On 1 Oct, 20:11, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > (I've started a new thread and set out here the general hypothesis
> > > > > again, adjusted for my earlier errors)
> >

> > > > > (1) áõôáñ åõññåéôáï ðáñ' ï÷=
> èáéò Åõöñçôáï

> > > > > [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 derives from a Hellenistic author, probably
> > > > > someone dealing with Alexander the Great
> >
> > > > > (2) Gallus in 44BC wrote something like
> > > > > "Caesar, et Euphraten iam sub tua iura fluentem"
> >
> > > > > (possibly "subter" not "iam sub" - NB that Propertius only uses
> > > > > "subter" twice in his
> > > > > whole works - in this very poem 3.4.16 and Prop. 2.34.67).
> >
> > > > > Gallus is closely adapting (1), complete with 'eurreitao' and
> > > > > etymologising.
> >

> > > > > (3) Gallus in 38BC echoing his own poem, signals his own adaption b=

> y
> > > > > going to the same Greek line, again complete with 'eurreitao' and
> > > > > etymologising.
> > > > > Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)
> >

> > > > > [(4) Vergil in, say 38BC glances at Gallus' 'subter... fluentem' wi=

> th
> > > > > his
> > > > > exotic 'subterlabere' (Ecl. 10.4 cf. the 'carmina sunt dicenda' in
> > > > > the

> > > > > previous showing that Vergil has Gallus 44BC poem in mind): cheekil=
> y
> > > > > misreading Gallus as if subter...fluentem was as it were in tmesis.=

[falmouth]

Hang on...!

Gallus Fr. 2


                    tristia nequit[ia     . . .]a, Lycori, tua.

          Fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia, quom tu
                    maxima Romanae pars eris historiae,
          postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum
                    fixa legam spolieis deivitiora

tueis.                           5

          [          ]. . . i . tandem fecerunt c[ar]mina Musae
                    quae possem domina deicere digna mea.
          [                   ]. atur idem tibi, non ego, Visce,
                    [            ]. . . . . . . . l . Kato, iudice te,
vereor.


This is x3 disyllabic pentameter endings: "tua" (1); "tueis" (5) and
"mea" (7); x1 quadrisyllable "historiae" (3); x1 trisyllable
"vereor" (9)
(+ query "[T]yria" (11) if this is correct and the end of a
pentameter).

"spolieis" is a trisyllable at the end of the first hemistich of a
pentameter, but that's not in any way problematic?

But I agree that the absence of *any* trisyllabic pentameter endings
in AL 914 is suspicious - in particular, Prop. 1.10 and 1.13 addressed
to Gallus have one each "lacrimis" / "manibus". But one might expect
Gallus' technique to change over 4 books of his amores as much as
Propertius' does over his 4 books?

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Sorry, I was quoting from memory. But it is iudice te uereor that is really rough anyway; when the Augustans do admit trisyllables, they are usually 2 + 2 + 3. (Oddly enough, the chap who really goes in for final trisyllables is Apuleius.) Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far apart in technique as Gallus fr. 2 and AL 914.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Hang on...!
>
> Gallus Fr. 2
>
>

> tristia nequit[=

> ia . . .]a, Lycori, tua.
>

> Fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia, quom=
> tu
> maxima Romanae =

> pars eris historiae,
> postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum

> fixa legam spol=
> ieis deivitiora
> tueis. =
> 5
>
> [ ]. . . i . tan=

> dem fecerunt c[ar]mina Musae

> quae possem dom=
> ina deicere digna mea.
> [ =

> ]. atur idem tibi, non ego, Visce,

> [ =

> ]. . . . . . . . l . Kato, iudice te,
> vereor.
>
>
> This is x3 disyllabic pentameter endings: "tua" (1); "tueis" (5) and
> "mea" (7); x1 quadrisyllable "historiae" (3); x1 trisyllable
> "vereor" (9)
> (+ query "[T]yria" (11) if this is correct and the end of a
> pentameter).
>
> "spolieis" is a trisyllable at the end of the first hemistich of a
> pentameter, but that's not in any way problematic?
>
> But I agree that the absence of *any* trisyllabic pentameter endings
> in AL 914 is suspicious - in particular, Prop. 1.10 and 1.13 addressed
> to Gallus have one each "lacrimis" / "manibus". But one might expect
> Gallus' technique to change over 4 books of his amores as much as
> Propertius' does over his 4 books?
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 11:47 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:

> > The versification of fr. 2 did not strike me as at all implausible provid=
> ed Caesar waa the Dictator, whereas if he were Imp. Caesar Gallus would hav=
> e been a total stick-in-the-mud (not indeed that that was impossible). If t=
> he communis opinio held otherwise, taht was shere intellectual laziness; an=
> d in any case Gallus' pentameters are an advance on 'quam modo qui me unum =
> atque unicum amicum habuit', wrtten a decade or so earlier. My point is tha=
> t even if Gallus could turn stylistically on a sixpence, the change in his =
> pentameter technique seemed suspiciously excessive. Whereas tetrasyllables =
> and pentasyllables at the end of the pentameter are lawful in moderation--i=
> t is only in the Ars Amatoria that Ovid eschews them altogether--and hence =
> do not tell against AL 914, the avoidance of trisyllables is a mark of spur=
> iousness, not so much because Propertius and Tibullus still have a few, sin=
> ce the poem is too short a sample, but because in an even shorter sample th=
> e real Gallus has two trisyllables agaisnt only on tetrsyllable, not only s=
> polieis but uereor; indeed, that is the harsher line, since there is a clas=
> h of two stressed syllables in 'iudice tE uEreor', for obviously te is emph=

> > > > Before the Romantic age, one would expect a forger to produce somethi=

> ng l=
> > > ike
> > > > AL 914; after it, when we were more sensitve to period and less to

> > > > tyimelessness, something more like Qasr Ibrim. The notion that Gallus=
> cou=
> > > ld
> > > > have changed so quickly is rather hard to take, paricularly as Vergil=
> cou=
> > > ld
> > > > have not taught him not to end a pentameter with a trisyllable (fixa =
> lega=
> > > m
> > > > spolieis), of which indeed you will still find examples in Prtopertiu=
> s an=
> > > d
> > > > Tibullus, but none in Ovid until Ex Ponto. No, no. it really won't do=

> : I'=
> > > m
> > > > still a Richard Dawkins on this one.
> >
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone

> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil =

> est,=
> > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> >

> > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512=

> 237
> >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:35 AM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >
> > > > Say one had been asked to forge 9 lines of Gallus before 1979 - what

> > > > one would have come up would have been very different to the Qasr Ibr=

> m
> > > > fragment? Perhaps more different to genuine Gallus than pseudo-Gallus
> > > > (AL 914)?! What does that illustrate? Perhaps no more than that the
> > > > speculator will more often than not fall flat on his face, but maybe
> > > > also the extent to which a handful of lines may have a distorting
> > > > effect.
> >
> > > > Chronologically, one could allow [Gallus] (if = Gallus) to have
> > > > smartened up his act - adjusted his taste - in response to (some of)
> > > > Vergil's Bucolics, even if those had not yet been published as a
> > > > group.
> >
> > > > On Oct 5, 12:33 am, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > The un-Ovidian harshness of Gallus can be judged by the ear (to be =
> sure
> > > > > some
> > > > > of Catullus' pentameters are even worse), but he is also separated =
> from
> > > > > the
> > > > > Augustans, and linked to his predecessors, by his sentence-structur=
> e,
> > > > > which
> > > > > is not different from that of prose. Nothing wrong with that, if on=
> e lo=
> > > ves
> > > > > the long periods of Lucretius (quae quoniam rerum naturam sola gube=

> rnas=
> > > .
> > > > > .
> > > > > .), but taste changed with Vergil's Bucolics.
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > Oxford
> > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > alter?
> >

> > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 5122=

> 37
> >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 11:46 PM
> > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >
> > > > > Assuming it's right that Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 is part of a longer poem

> > > > > which e.g. Prop. 3.4, Ov. AA 1.177ff and Ov. Tr. 4.2 imitates, I th=

> ink
> > > > > one would expect somewhere a long(-ish) period representing the
> > > > > objects of the imagined triumph in the accusative case - cf.
> > > > > especially Prop. 4.3.13-18; Ov. Tr. 4.2.19-24.
> >
> > > > > I think I've mentioned before my vague feeling that Gallus would be

> > > > > happy with Greek form proper names on the basis of lines in Vergil =

> on
> > > > > the one hand and Propertius on the other hand where one suspects

> > > > > Gallus' influence: Ecl. 2.1; 2.73 "Alexin"; Ecl. 10.31-2 "Arcades..=

> ..
> > > > > Arcades"; 10.55 "Maenala"; Prop. 1.1.10 "Iasidos"; Prop. 1.20.51-2

> > > > > "his, o Galle, tuos monitus servabis amores / formosum ni vis perde=

> re
> > > > > rursus Hylan". This would be consistent with the tutelage of
> > > > > Parthenius and being a 'cantor Euphorionis'.
> >
> > > > > The suggested line "Caesar, et Euphraten iam sub tua iura fluentem"

> > > > > was mainly intended to illustrate (albeit incompetently in the firs=

> t
> > > > > few instances...!) that transferring Prop. 3.4.4 into a hexameter

> > > > > without any major change except giving 'tua' its natural correspond=

> ing
> > > > > vocative, comes up with a different line, very close to the line of
> > > > > [Oppian]. I'd rather lose the suggestion that it could follow

> > > > > immediately Fr. 2.2-5 than lose that Caesar ~ áõôáñ. Besi=

> des,=
> > > Prop.
> > > > > 3.4.4 'Tigris et Euphrates' in Prop. 3.4.4 strikes me as a bit of a

> > > > > 'waste' of two exotic rivers - I'd suspect that G. may well also ha=
> ve
> > > > > mentioned the Tigris, but gave it a line of its own (cf. AA. 1.223-=

> 4),
> > > > > with some corresponding point to the Euphrates / eu-reo one.
> >

> > > > > On a sidenote, I happened to come across an article by Somerville '=
> The
> > > > > Literary Merit of the New Gallus' Classical Philology 104 No. 1 (20=
> 09)
> > > > > yesterday. The article has two main thrusts (i) that Gall. Fr. 2 *i=

> s*
> > > > > as carefully wrought as one might have expected of the poet whom V.
> > > > > apparently admired so much - taking up e.g. the argument that 'quom

> > > > > tu' is an allusion to Callimachus' hexameter ending 'kai se' (sound=
> s
> > > > > like "Caesar", I'd add); and (ii) one cannot underestimate the impa=

> ct
> > > > > of genre on the expression - any clunkiness is a deliberate effect.
> >

> > > > > Stimulated by that, I had the following train of thought: say we ag=
> ree
> > > > > [Gallus] is 'Ovidian' (post-Ovidian? sub-Ovidian?) in its smoothnes=

> s
> > > > > (I get there even with my uncouth ear) - by that one would mean

> > > > > smoother than say Prop. 1 especially, 2, 3 and 4 to a lesser extent=
> ;
> > > > > and smooth in a different way to Tibullus. We think of Gallus as no=
> t
> > > > > having such smoothness under the possibly mistaken view of Gall. Fr=
> ..
> > > > > 2, but also nudged perhaps in the wrong way by Quintilian's durus, =

> and
> > > > > also by Propertius 1 - but Prop. 1 is an immature poet. But if one
> > > > > looks at such as we have of *Greek* narrative elegists (I ignore

> > > > > epigram deliberately) that G. would have been interested in other t=

[falmouth]

"Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far apart in technique as

Gallus fr. 2 and AL 914.".

Is that really right though? Say all we had of Propertius which we
knew to be genuine was Prop. 1.16 and then Prop 4.1 turned up in the
Renaissance (I pick this because we would know it was either
Propertius or someone pretending to be Propertius from line 71 rather
than any particularly tactical choice - Prop. 1.16 is, however, a
tactical choice, but the point could me made with other poems). Would
we really recognise these as the same poet from their metrical
technique? From their treatment of pentameters? Quite the opposite, I
would suggest. And here we would feel rather more secure in our
appreciation of 'genuine Propertius' with a far larger sample in Prop.
1.16 than we have from Gallus Fr. 2.

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

he examples are well chosen, but I still find the difference to be a couple of decades versus sixteen centuries, Really, it's a question of telling Stork from butter. But I suggest you get hold of a good book of Rebaissance Latin verse (the Sparrow-Perosa collection oublished by duckwirth for example, if you can find it in a library) to get a feel for how poets wrote; or for forgeries the three letters concocted in the name of A. Sabinus in reply to Ovid's Heroides.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> "Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far apart in technique as
> Gallus fr. 2 and AL 914.".
>
> Is that really right though? Say all we had of Propertius which we
> knew to be genuine was Prop. 1.16 and then Prop 4.1 turned up in the
> Renaissance (I pick this because we would know it was either
> Propertius or someone pretending to be Propertius from line 71 rather
> than any particularly tactical choice - Prop. 1.16 is, however, a
> tactical choice, but the point could me made with other poems). Would
> we really recognise these as the same poet from their metrical
> technique? From their treatment of pentameters? Quite the opposite, I
> would suggest. And here we would feel rather more secure in our
> appreciation of 'genuine Propertius' with a far larger sample in Prop.
> 1.16 than we have from Gallus Fr. 2.
>
> On Oct 5, 1:24 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:

> > Sorry, I was quoting from memory. But it is iudice te uereor that is real=
> ly rough anyway; when the Augustans do admit trisyllables, they are usually=
> 2 + 2 + 3. (Oddly enough, the chap who really goes in for final trisyllabl=
> es is Apuleius.) Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far apart in techniq=

> > > > The versification of fr. 2 did not strike me as at all implausible pr=
> ovid=
> > > ed Caesar waa the Dictator, whereas if he were Imp. Caesar Gallus would=
> hav=
> > > e been a total stick-in-the-mud (not indeed that that was impossible). =
> If t=
> > > he communis opinio held otherwise, taht was shere intellectual laziness=
> ; an=
> > > d in any case Gallus' pentameters are an advance on 'quam modo qui me u=
> num =
> > > atque unicum amicum habuit', wrtten a decade or so earlier. My point is=
> tha=
> > > t even if Gallus could turn stylistically on a sixpence, the change in =
> his =
> > > pentameter technique seemed suspiciously excessive. Whereas tetrasyllab=
> les =
> > > and pentasyllables at the end of the pentameter are lawful in moderatio=
> n--i=
> > > t is only in the Ars Amatoria that Ovid eschews them altogether--and he=
> nce =
> > > do not tell against AL 914, the avoidance of trisyllables is a mark of =
> spur=
> > > iousness, not so much because Propertius and Tibullus still have a few,=
> sin=
> > > ce the poem is too short a sample, but because in an even shorter sampl=
> e th=
> > > e real Gallus has two trisyllables agaisnt only on tetrsyllable, not on=
> ly s=
> > > polieis but uereor; indeed, that is the harsher line, since there is a =
> clas=
> > > h of two stressed syllables in 'iudice tE uEreor', for obviously te is =

> emph=
> > > atic.
> >
> > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'm continuing to argue the toss, with your indulgence, less in an

> > > > > attempt to convince you - probably not even in an attempt to convin=
> ce
> > > > > myself - of the genuineness of AL 914, but rather to try to calibra=
> te
> > > > > how unlikely that hypothesis is. The point that I was trying to mak=
> e
> > > > > above is that when Fr. 2 first appeared everyone threw up their han=
> ds
> > > > > in protest that Gallus could have written something so 'wretched': =
> the
> > > > > corollary of that is that the communis opinio was, prior to that, t=
> hat
> > > > > Gallus' versification would be expected to be rather less neanderth=

> al
> > > > > than Fr. 2 appears. But does the discovery of Fr. 2 mean that the

> > > > > prior communis opinio was wholly wrong? In terms of possible progre=

> ss,
> > > > > one should take into account not only that (i) 6 or so years pass

> > > > > between the assumed date of Fr. 2 and the notional date of [Gallus]=
> ;
> > > > > and (ii) that if our dates for Gallus are approximately right - i.e=
> ..

> > > > > coeval with Vergil, one would expect Fr. 2 to be a comparatively
> > > > > (very) early production; but also that (iii) scarcely a decade will

> > > > > pass before Tibullus 1 appears on the scene. Who was responsible fo=

> r
> > > > > all that speedy progress in elegiac composition - is it so off-the-

> > > > > wall to suggest that it could have been G. under the influence of, =

> in
> > > > > particular, Parthenius?
> >
> > > > > On polysyllabic pentamater endings, the way these are clustered in
> > > > > Propertius 1 (especially) support the possible inference that
> > > > > Propertius knew that they had a particular (Graecising? and/or
> > > > > weighty?) effect - if so, the corollary would be an awareness that

> > > > > sticking to disyllables would have the opposite effect. In Gallus F=
> r.
> > > > > 2, "Romanae... historiae" - a conscious contrast between the epithe=

> t
> > > > > "Roman" and the Greek word 'historia', reflected by Greek sounding

> > > > > polysyllabic pentameter (perhaps there is even an actual Greek mode=

> l
> > > > > for this line): Caesar as the greatest thing in *Roman* (not Greek)

> > > > > history (an Alexander for Rome)? NB that in [Gallus] one *does* hav=

> e a
> > > > > pair of polysyllabic pentameter endings at 54 and 56 (two more

> > > > > elsewhere) where the subject matter is the weightiest. (I appreciat=
> e
> > > > > that trisyllables are a slightly different phenomenon and don't hav=
> e
> > > > > any particular thoughts on 'spolieis', but these seem to have gone =

> out
> > > > > of fashion even more quickly).
> >
> > > > > On Oct 5, 9:17 am, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > > Before the Romantic age, one would expect a forger to produce som=
> ethi=
> > > ng l=
> > > > > ike
> > > > > > AL 914; after it, when we were more sensitve to period and less t=
> o
> > > > > > tyimelessness, something more like Qasr Ibrim. The notion that Ga=
> llus=
> > > cou=
> > > > > ld
> > > > > > have changed so quickly is rather hard to take, paricularly as Ve=
> rgil=
> > > cou=
> > > > > ld
> > > > > > have not taught him not to end a pentameter with a trisyllable (f=
> ixa =
> > > lega=
> > > > > m
> > > > > > spolieis), of which indeed you will still find examples in Prtope=
> rtiu=
> > > s an=
> > > > > d
> > > > > > Tibullus, but none in Ovid until Ex Ponto. No, no. it really won'=

> t do=
> > > : I'=
> > > > > m
> > > > > > still a Richard Dawkins on this one.
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > > Oxford
> > > > > > usque adeone

> > > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM ni=

> hil =
> > > est,=
> > > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > > alter?
> >

> > > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865=

> 512=
> > > 237
> >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:35 AM
> > > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >

> > > > > > Say one had been asked to forge 9 lines of Gallus before 1979 - w=
> hat
> > > > > > one would have come up would have been very different to the Qasr=
> Ibr=
> > > m
> > > > > > fragment? Perhaps more different to genuine Gallus than pseudo-Ga=
> llus
> > > > > > (AL 914)?! What does that illustrate? Perhaps no more than that t=
> he
> > > > > > speculator will more often than not fall flat on his face, but ma=

> ybe
> > > > > > also the extent to which a handful of lines may have a distorting
> > > > > > effect.
> >
> > > > > > Chronologically, one could allow [Gallus] (if = Gallus) to have

> > > > > > smartened up his act - adjusted his taste - in response to (some =

> of)
> > > > > > Vergil's Bucolics, even if those had not yet been published as a
> > > > > > group.
> >
> > > > > > On Oct 5, 12:33 am, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > > > The un-Ovidian harshness of Gallus can be judged by the ear (to=
> be =
> > > sure
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > of Catullus' pentameters are even worse), but he is also separa=
> ted =
> > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Augustans, and linked to his predecessors, by his sentence-stru=
> ctur=
> > > e,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > is not different from that of prose. Nothing wrong with that, i=

> f on=
> > > e lo=
> > > > > ves

> > > > > > > the long periods of Lucretius (quae quoniam rerum naturam sola =

> gube=
> > > rnas=
> > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .), but taste changed with Vergil's Bucolics.
> >
> > > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > > > Oxford
> > > > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > > > alter?
> >

> > > > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 =

> 5122=
> > > 37
> >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 11:46 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >

> > > > > > > Assuming it's right that Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 is part of a longer p=
> oem
> > > > > > > which e.g. Prop. 3.4, Ov. AA 1.177ff and Ov. Tr. 4.2 imitates, =

> I th=
> > > ink
> > > > > > > one would expect somewhere a long(-ish) period representing the
> > > > > > > objects of the imagined triumph in the accusative case - cf.
> > > > > > > especially Prop. 4.3.13-18; Ov. Tr. 4.2.19-24.
> >

> > > > > > > I think I've mentioned before my vague feeling that Gallus woul=
> d be
> > > > > > > happy with Greek form proper names on the basis of lines in Ver=
> gil =
> > > on
> > > > > > > the one hand and Propertius on the other hand where one suspect=
> s
> > > > > > > Gallus' influence: Ecl. 2.1; 2.73 "Alexin"; Ecl. 10.31-2 "Arcad=
> es..=
> > > ..
> > > > > > > Arcades"; 10.55 "Maenala"; Prop. 1.1.10 "Iasidos"; Prop. 1.20.5=
> 1-2
> > > > > > > "his, o Galle, tuos monitus servabis amores / formosum ni vis p=

[falmouth]

I will try to get hold of Sparrow-Perosa and see whether that helps
me. The Sabinus letters are an interesting example: what is it that
would convince us that these were Renaissance forgeries rather than
earlier forgeries or the real Sabinus' letters, if one had not had
Angelo's own admission? I sense, although my antennae are hardly the
best, no particular connection between the style of the Sabinus
letters and AL 914 (that is, I find them no closer to each other than
either, particularly AL 914, is to e.g. Ovid). I find the diction of
AL 914 more direct, A. Sabinus feels somewhat rococo to me.

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

In the case of Sabinus, metre.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone

OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237

[falmouth]

So the example of Sabinus would show that where something is a
'genuine' Renaissance forgery, one might expect to be able to prove it
as such by reference to metre...?

Incidentally, what is the nature of the giveaways in Sabinus?

On 5 Oct, 18:24, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Elisions in second half of pentameter, final vowel plus st- scanned short,
and worst of all a short syllable lengthenes before a vowel at the
diaeresis. In fact I came on these poems cold without knowing on advance
that they were fakes, and came to that conclusion as I read.

[falmouth]

But in AL 914 there is nothing so clearcut?

On 5 Oct, 20:12, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Short syllable with impure s again, and Augstus Caesar, but the overall feel
of Renaissance origin was more pronounced.

[falmouth]

Fair enough. "overall feel of Renaissance origin was more pronounced"
- is that something which can be reduced to particulars?

On Oct 5, 8:50 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Just as in other walks of life, not necessarily.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Fair enough. "overall feel of Renaissance origin was more pronounced"
> - is that something which can be reduced to particulars?
>
> On Oct 5, 8:50 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > Short syllable with impure s again, and Augstus Caesar, but the overall f=

> eel
> > of Renaissance origin was more pronounced.
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone

> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=

> nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> >
> > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:24 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >
> > But in AL 914 there is nothing so clearcut?
> >
> > On 5 Oct, 20:12, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Elisions in second half of pentameter, final vowel plus st- scanned sho=

> rt,
> > > and worst of all a short syllable lengthenes before a vowel at the

> > > diaeresis. In fact I came on these poems cold without knowing on advanc=

> > > > > he examples are well chosen, but I still find the difference to be =
> a
> > > > > couple of decades versus sixteen centuries, Really, it's a question=
> of
> > > > > telling Stork from butter. But I suggest you get hold of a good boo=

> k
> > > > > of
> > > > > Rebaissance Latin verse (the Sparrow-Perosa collection oublished by

> > > > > duckwirth for example, if you can find it in a library) to get a fe=
> el
> > > > > for
> > > > > how poets wrote; or for forgeries the three letters concocted in th=

> e
> > > > > name
> > > > > of A. Sabinus in reply to Ovid's Heroides.
> >
> > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > "Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far apart in technique as
> > > > > > Gallus fr. 2 and AL 914.".
> >

> > > > > > Is that really right though? Say all we had of Propertius which w=
> e
> > > > > > knew to be genuine was Prop. 1.16 and then Prop 4.1 turned up in =

> the
> > > > > > Renaissance (I pick this because we would know it was either
> > > > > > Propertius or someone pretending to be Propertius from line 71
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > than any particularly tactical choice - Prop. 1.16 is, however, a
> > > > > > tactical choice, but the point could me made with other poems).
> > > > > > Would
> > > > > > we really recognise these as the same poet from their metrical

> > > > > > technique? From their treatment of pentameters? Quite the opposit=

> e,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > would suggest. And here we would feel rather more secure in our
> > > > > > appreciation of 'genuine Propertius' with a far larger sample in
> > > > > > Prop.
> > > > > > 1.16 than we have from Gallus Fr. 2.
> >
> > > > > > On Oct 5, 1:24 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:

> > > > > > > Sorry, I was quoting from memory. But it is iudice te uereor th=
> at
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > real=
> > > > > > ly rough anyway; when the Augustans do admit trisyllables, they a=

> re
> > > > > > usually=
> > > > > > 2 + 2 + 3. (Oddly enough, the chap who really goes in for final
> > > > > > trisyllabl=

> > > > > > es is Apuleius.) Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far apart =

> > > > > > > > This is x3 disyllabic pentameter endings: "tua" (1); "tueis" =

> (5)
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > "mea" (7); x1 quadrisyllable "historiae" (3); x1 trisyllable
> > > > > > > > "vereor" (9)
> > > > > > > > (+ query "[T]yria" (11) if this is correct and the end of a
> > > > > > > > pentameter).
> >

> > > > > > > > "spolieis" is a trisyllable at the end of the first hemistich=

> of
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > pentameter, but that's not in any way problematic?
> >
> > > > > > > > But I agree that the absence of *any* trisyllabic pentameter
> > > > > > > > endings
> > > > > > > > in AL 914 is suspicious - in particular, Prop. 1.10 and 1.13
> > > > > > > > addressed
> > > > > > > > to Gallus have one each "lacrimis" / "manibus". But one might
> > > > > > > > expect

> > > > > > > > Gallus' technique to change over 4 books of his amores as muc=

> h
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > Propertius' does over his 4 books?
> >
> > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 11:47 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The versification of fr. 2 did not strike me as at all
> > > > > > > > > implausible
> > > > > > > > > pr=
> > > > > > ovid=
> > > > > > > > ed Caesar waa the Dictator, whereas if he were Imp. Caesar
> > > > > > > > Gallus
> > > > > > > > would=
> > > > > > hav=
> > > > > > > > e been a total stick-in-the-mud (not indeed that that was
> > > > > > > > impossible). =
> > > > > > If t=

> > > > > > > > he communis opinio held otherwise, taht was shere intellectua=
> l
> > > > > > > > laziness=
> > > > > > ; an=
> > > > > > > > d in any case Gallus' pentameters are an advance on 'quam mod=

> o
> > > > > > > > qui
> > > > > > > > me u=
> > > > > > num =

> > > > > > > > atque unicum amicum habuit', wrtten a decade or so earlier. M=

> y
> > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > is=
> > > > > > tha=
> > > > > > > > t even if Gallus could turn stylistically on a sixpence, the
> > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > in =
> > > > > > his =
> > > > > > > > pentameter technique seemed suspiciously excessive. Whereas
> > > > > > > > tetrasyllab=
> > > > > > les =
> > > > > > > > and pentasyllables at the end of the pentameter are lawful in
> > > > > > > > moderatio=
> > > > > > n--i=
> > > > > > > > t is only in the Ars Amatoria that Ovid eschews them
> > > > > > > > altogether--and
> > > > > > > > he=
> > > > > > nce =

> > > > > > > > do not tell against AL 914, the avoidance of trisyllables is =

> a
> > > > > > > > mark
> > > > > > > > of =
> > > > > > spur=

> > > > > > > > iousness, not so much because Propertius and Tibullus still h=

> ave
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > few,=
> > > > > > sin=
> > > > > > > > ce the poem is too short a sample, but because in an even
> > > > > > > > shorter
> > > > > > > > sampl=
> > > > > > e th=

> > > > > > > > e real Gallus has two trisyllables agaisnt only on tetrsyllab=

> le,
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > on=
> > > > > > ly s=
> > > > > > > > polieis but uereor; indeed, that is the harsher line, since
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > a =
> > > > > > clas=

> > > > > > > > h of two stressed syllables in 'iudice tE uEreor', for obviou=

> sly
> > > > > > > > te
> > > > > > > > is =
> > > > > > emph=
> > > > > > > > atic.
> >
> > > > > > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >

> > > > > > > > > > I'm continuing to argue the toss, with your indulgence, l=
> ess
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > attempt to convince you - probably not even in an attempt=
> to
> > > > > > > > > > convin=
> > > > > > ce
> > > > > > > > > > myself - of the genuineness of AL 914, but rather to try =
> to
> > > > > > > > > > calibra=
> > > > > > te
> > > > > > > > > > how unlikely that hypothesis is. The point that I was try=

> ing
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > mak=
> > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > above is that when Fr. 2 first appeared everyone threw up
> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > han=
> > > > > > ds
> > > > > > > > > > in protest that Gallus could have written something so
> > > > > > > > > > 'wretched': =
> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > corollary of that is that the communis opinio was, prior =

[falmouth]

OK - that will have to satisfy me.

Can I trouble you again with that last line which troubled me

dum loquimur nox est mortis et umbra subit

I'd been worried by 'mortis... umbra' - the biblical (i.e.
unclassical) 'shadow of death', i.e. as if punctuated 'dum loquimur,
nox est, mortis et umbra subit' (which I guess would be suggested by
the metre as well)

But could one punctuate it as 'dum loquimur, nox est mortis, et umbra
subit.' I.e. 'it is a night of death' or 'night is [full of]
death' (i.e. [Gallus] remembers he's still on campaign) ... 'and
darkness approaches' (cf. 'Omnia pacis erant' (64) - a deliberate
contrast?), or is that scarcely Latin?

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Nox est mortis 'night belomgs to death' might be credible, but the division of the pentameter would be bad, and the shadow after death anticlimactic. We are back with the Biblicism.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> OK - that will have to satisfy me.
>
> Can I trouble you again with that last line which troubled me
>
> dum loquimur nox est mortis et umbra subit
>
> I'd been worried by 'mortis... umbra' - the biblical (i.e.
> unclassical) 'shadow of death', i.e. as if punctuated 'dum loquimur,
> nox est, mortis et umbra subit' (which I guess would be suggested by
> the metre as well)
>
> But could one punctuate it as 'dum loquimur, nox est mortis, et umbra
> subit.' I.e. 'it is a night of death' or 'night is [full of]
> death' (i.e. [Gallus] remembers he's still on campaign) ... 'and
> darkness approaches' (cf. 'Omnia pacis erant' (64) - a deliberate
> contrast?), or is that scarcely Latin?
>
>
> On Oct 6, 11:43 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Just as in other walks of life, not necessarily.
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Fair enough. "overall feel of Renaissance origin was more pronounced"
> > > - is that something which can be reduced to particulars?
> >
> > > On Oct 5, 8:50 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > Short syllable with impure s again, and Augstus Caesar, but the overa=

> ll f=
> > > eel
> > > > of Renaissance origin was more pronounced.
> >
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone

> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil =

> est,=
> > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> >

> > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512=

> 237
> >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:24 PM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >
> > > > But in AL 914 there is nothing so clearcut?
> >
> > > > On 5 Oct, 20:12, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > Elisions in second half of pentameter, final vowel plus st- scanned=

> sho=
> > > rt,
> > > > > and worst of all a short syllable lengthenes before a vowel at the

> > > > > diaeresis. In fact I came on these poems cold without knowing on ad=

> vanc=
> > > e
> > > > > that they were fakes, and came to that conclusion as I read.
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > Oxford
> > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > alter?
> >

> > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 5122=

> 37
> >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:54 PM
> > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >
> > > > > So the example of Sabinus would show that where something is a

> > > > > 'genuine' Renaissance forgery, one might expect to be able to prove=

> it
> > > > > as such by reference to metre...?
> >
> > > > > Incidentally, what is the nature of the giveaways in Sabinus?
> >
> > > > > On 5 Oct, 18:24, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > In the case of Sabinus, metre.
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > > Oxford
> > > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > > alter?
> >

> > > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 51=

> 2237
> >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 6:13 PM
> > > > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53 (cont.)
> >

> > > > > > I will try to get hold of Sparrow-Perosa and see whether that hel=
> ps
> > > > > > me. The Sabinus letters are an interesting example: what is it th=
> at
> > > > > > would convince us that these were Renaissance forgeries rather th=
> an
> > > > > > earlier forgeries or the real Sabinus' letters, if one had not ha=
> d
> > > > > > Angelo's own admission? I sense, although my antennae are hardly =

> the
> > > > > > best, no particular connection between the style of the Sabinus

> > > > > > letters and AL 914 (that is, I find them no closer to each other =
> than
> > > > > > either, particularly AL 914, is to e.g. Ovid). I find the diction=

> of
> > > > > > AL 914 more direct, A. Sabinus feels somewhat rococo to me.
> >
> > > > > > On Oct 5, 4:30 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:

> > > > > > > he examples are well chosen, but I still find the difference to=
> be =
> > > a
> > > > > > > couple of decades versus sixteen centuries, Really, it's a ques=
> tion=
> > > of
> > > > > > > telling Stork from butter. But I suggest you get hold of a good=
> boo=
> > > k
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Rebaissance Latin verse (the Sparrow-Perosa collection oublishe=
> d by
> > > > > > > duckwirth for example, if you can find it in a library) to get =
> a fe=
> > > el
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > how poets wrote; or for forgeries the three letters concocted i=

> n th=
> > > e
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > of A. Sabinus in reply to Ovid's Heroides.
> >
> > > > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >

> > > > > > > > "Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far apart in technique=

> as
> > > > > > > > Gallus fr. 2 and AL 914.".
> >

> > > > > > > > Is that really right though? Say all we had of Propertius whi=
> ch w=
> > > e
> > > > > > > > knew to be genuine was Prop. 1.16 and then Prop 4.1 turned up=

> in =
> > > the
> > > > > > > > Renaissance (I pick this because we would know it was either

> > > > > > > > Propertius or someone pretending to be Propertius from line 7=
> 1
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > than any particularly tactical choice - Prop. 1.16 is, howeve=
> r, a
> > > > > > > > tactical choice, but the point could me made with other poems=
> ).
> > > > > > > > Would
> > > > > > > > we really recognise these as the same poet from their metrica=
> l
> > > > > > > > technique? From their treatment of pentameters? Quite the opp=
> osit=
> > > e,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > would suggest. And here we would feel rather more secure in o=
> ur
> > > > > > > > appreciation of 'genuine Propertius' with a far larger sample=

> in
> > > > > > > > Prop.
> > > > > > > > 1.16 than we have from Gallus Fr. 2.
> >
> > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 1:24 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was quoting from memory. But it is iudice te uereo=

> r th=
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > real=

> > > > > > > > ly rough anyway; when the Augustans do admit trisyllables, th=
> ey a=
> > > re
> > > > > > > > usually=
> > > > > > > > 2 + 2 + 3. (Oddly enough, the chap who really goes in for fin=
> al
> > > > > > > > trisyllabl=
> > > > > > > > es is Apuleius.) Propertius 1 and 4 are by no means so far ap=

> > > > > > > > > > This is x3 disyllabic pentameter endings: "tua" (1); "tue=
> is" =
> > > (5)
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "mea" (7); x1 quadrisyllable "historiae" (3); x1 trisylla=
> ble
> > > > > > > > > > "vereor" (9)
> > > > > > > > > > (+ query "[T]yria" (11) if this is correct and the end of=
> a
> > > > > > > > > > pentameter).
> >
> > > > > > > > > > "spolieis" is a trisyllable at the end of the first hemis=

> tich=
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > pentameter, but that's not in any way problematic?
> >

> > > > > > > > > > But I agree that the absence of *any* trisyllabic pentame=
> ter
> > > > > > > > > > endings
> > > > > > > > > > in AL 914 is suspicious - in particular, Prop. 1.10 and 1=
> ..13
> > > > > > > > > > addressed
> > > > > > > > > > to Gallus have one each "lacrimis" / "manibus". But one m=
> ight
> > > > > > > > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > > Gallus' technique to change over 4 books of his amores as=

> muc=
> > > h
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > Propertius' does over his 4 books?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 11:47 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > The versification of fr. 2 did not strike me as at all
> > > > > > > > > > > implausible
> > > > > > > > > > > pr=
> > > > > > > > ovid=

> > > > > > > > > > ed Caesar waa the Dictator, whereas if he were Imp. Caesa=

> r
> > > > > > > > > > Gallus
> > > > > > > > > > would=
> > > > > > > > hav=
> > > > > > > > > > e been a total stick-in-the-mud (not indeed that that was
> > > > > > > > > > impossible). =
> > > > > > > > If t=

> > > > > > > > > > he communis opinio held otherwise, taht was shere intelle=
> ctua=
> > > l
> > > > > > > > > > laziness=
> > > > > > > > ; an=
> > > > > > > > > > d in any case Gallus' pentameters are an advance on 'quam=

> mod=
> > > o
> > > > > > > > > > qui
> > > > > > > > > > me u=
> > > > > > > > num =

> > > > > > > > > > atque unicum amicum habuit', wrtten a decade or so earlie=

> r. M=
> > > y
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > is=
> > > > > > > > tha=

> > > > > > > > > > t even if Gallus could turn stylistically on a sixpence, =

> the
> > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > in =
> > > > > > > > his =

> > > > > > > > > > pentameter technique seemed suspiciously excessive. Where=
> as
> > > > > > > > > > tetrasyllab=
> > > > > > > > les =
> > > > > > > > > > and pentasyllables at the end of the pentameter are lawfu=

> l in
> > > > > > > > > > moderatio=
> > > > > > > > n--i=
> > > > > > > > > > t is only in the Ars Amatoria that Ovid eschews them
> > > > > > > > > > altogether--and
> > > > > > > > > > he=
> > > > > > > > nce =

> > > > > > > > > > do not tell against AL 914, the avoidance of trisyllables=

> is =
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > mark
> > > > > > > > > > of =
> > > > > > > > spur=

> > > > > > > > > > iousness, not so much because Propertius and Tibullus sti=

> ll h=
> > > ave
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > few,=
> > > > > > > > sin=
> > > > > > > > > > ce the poem is too short a sample, but because in an even
> > > > > > > > > > shorter
> > > > > > > > > > sampl=
> > > > > > > > e th=

> > > > > > > > > > e real Gallus has two trisyllables agaisnt only on tetrsy=

> llab=
> > > le,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > on=
> > > > > > > > ly s=

> > > > > > > > > > polieis but uereor; indeed, that is the harsher line, sin=