alternis versibus longiusculis

[Lavrentivs]

Pro Archia 25:

.. malus poeta .. epigramma in [Sullam] fecisset --
tantum modo alternis versibus longiusculis ..

Is the following a præcise translation of the latter line?

but only with alternating<ly> somewhat longer lines

Cerutti says: "An epigram was usually a short poem composed in elegiac couplets (alternating lines of hexameter and pentameter verse [cf. alternis versibus longiusculis])." But surely Cicero's sense must be castigatory?

[adrianus]

Tecum concurro // I agree with you

Cicero, Pro Archia Poeta Oratio 25
Sulla ... quem nos in contione vidimus, cum ei libellum malus poeta de populo subiecisset, quod epigramma in eum fecisset, tantummodo alternis versibus longiusculis, statim ex eis rebus quas tunc vendebat iubere ei praemium tribui, sed ea condicione, ne quid postea scriberet.

Cerutti:
And we saw in a public assemply that this man [Sulla], when some bad poet from the crowd had presented him with a little book, merely because he had written an epigram about him in some verses of alternating length, immediately from those things which he was at that time selling, ordered a reward to be paid to him—but on this [one] condition: that he not write anything else afterward.

I would say // dico hoc:
Sulla...a man I myself saw at a public meeting, when from out of the crowd a bad poet shoved a little book at him on account of having written an epigram to him, but with every other line just a little too long, immediately after those matters he was promoting* decree he be given a reward, but on the condition that henceforth he would not write anything.

* I know this could be read otherwise // Id aliter legatur, audio.

[Lavrentivs]

* Yes, why not selling? I thought Sulla was selling goods from proscripts.

But your reading of nos as referring to Cicero alone seems right; it would be strange, if everybody had seen it.

[adrianus]

The context seems lacking for that sense, I thought, unless it was immediately obvious to think of Sulla as selling off confiscated property to foreign troops, and he did do that, so maybe that is the intended meaning.

Contextus caret, ut mihi visum est, nisi semper de Sullâ in dicendo eum res in publicum redactas stipendiariis vendere habeas, quod non mirum fuisset. Forsit peraptum anglicè "selling".

En locus in toto:

et nostri illi fortes viri, sed rustici ac milites, dulcedine quadam gloriae commoti, quasi participes eiusdem laudis, magno illud clamore approbaverunt?
[25] Itaque, credo, si civis Romanus Archias legibus non esset, ut ab aliquo imperatore civitate donaretur perficere non potuit. Sulla cum Hispanos donaret et Gallos, credo hunc petentem repudiasset: quem nos in contione vidimus, cum ei libellum malus poeta de populo subiecisset, quod epigramma in eum fecisset, tantummodo alternis versibus longiusculis, statim ex eis rebus quas tunc vendebat iubere ei praemium tribui, sed ea condicione, ne quid postea scriberet. Qui sedulitatem mali poetae duxerit aliquo tamen praemio dignam, huius ingenium et virtutem in scribendo et copiam non expetisset?

[25] And those brave men, our countrymen, soldiers and country bred men as they were, still being moved by the sweetness of glory, as if they were to some extent partakers of the same renown, showed their approbation of that action with a great shout. Therefore, I suppose, if Archias were not a Roman citizen according to the laws, he could not have contrived to get presented with the freedom of the city by some general! Sulla, when he was giving it to the Spaniards and Gauls, would, I suppose, have refused him if he had asked for it! a man whom we ourselves saw in the public assembly, when a bad poet of the common people had put a book in his hand, because he had made an epigram on him with every other verse too long, immediately ordered some of the things which he was selling at the moment to be given him as a reward, on condition of not writing anything more about him for the future. Would not he who thought the industry of a bad poet still worthy of some reward, have sought out the genius, and excellence, and copiousness in writing of this man?