Chris Omnibus Salutem Dicit…
I was looking at the books of Phaedrus (for the first time) at the Latin Library, particularly “Lupus et Agnus.” The first line, “Ad rivum eundem lupus et agnus venerant,” does not seem to have any metrical organization. Are these lines of Phaedrus versified (and am I missing the pattern or structure) or are these prosaic books broken into lines according to textual tradition?
Valete,
Chris
Have a look here, Chris. Salve Christophore. Vide http://bestlatin.net/fabblog/2006/11/lupus-et-agnus-wolf-and-lamb.html et http://audio.bestlatin.net/blog/2006/12/lupus-et-agnus-wolf-and-lamb.html
Yeah, as adrianus via Laura Gibbs points out, it’s iambic. Iambic meter was fluid though. Here’s a rough text on the meter.
Gratias vobis, Adriano et Christophori, habeo…
The links are very, very helpful. I’m a beginner when it comes to Latin poetry, so it’s hard for me to recognize anything as poetic outside of dactylic hexameter, hendecasyllabic lines, or epigrams unless it’s pointed out.
Valete!
P. S. The woodcut was a cool touch.
Ok…Now I don’t feel so stupid:
This might be why when I sat down with my printout of the poem and some paper, I couldn’t see the meter easily. 
Anyway, it does strike me as an interesting lyrical choice.
Valete
Chris Omnibus Salutem Dicit…
I have spent some time (about a week now) trying to scan Lupus et Agnus. It was much more difficult than I thought to find the XLXL-XLXL-XLSL in each line but I think I’ve done it (with big thanks to Chris W. and Adrianus). I thought I’d share what I’ve done in case anyone sees errors. I’ve taken each of the fifteen lines and first placed above them the syllable quantities. Above those, if necessary, I’ve rewritten the line if I used elision to scan it. Finally, above them all, is the iambic senarius pattern I found.
X L X L |X L X L |X L S L
Ad rīv’eundem lupus et agnus vēnerant
u - u - - u u u - - - u -
Ad rīvum eundem lupus et agnus vēnerant,
X L X L |X .L. XL |X L S L
u - - - u u u u- - - u u
sitī compulsi. Superior st?bat lupus,
X L X .L.|X L X L | X L S L
longēqu’īnferi-or agnus. Tunc fauc’improba
- - u - u uu - - - - u - u u
longēque īnferior agnus. Tunc fauce improba
X L X L|X L X L|X L S L
latr’incit?tus iurg’ī causam intulit
- - - u - u - u- - u - u u
latr? incit?tus iurgiī causam intulit;
X L X L |X L X L|X L S L
- - - - u - - - - - u u
‘Cūr’ inquit ‘turbulentam fēcistī mihi
X L X L |X L X L |X L S L
u - u - - - u - - - u -
aquam bibentī?’ L?niger contr? timēns
X L X L|X .L. X L |.X. L S L
- - - - - u u u - u u - u u
‘Quī possum, quaes?, facere quod quereris, lupe?’
X L X L |X L XL |X L S L
u - - - u - u- - - u -
A tē dēcurrit ad me?s haustus liquor.’
X L X L |X L X L|X L S L
u - u - u - u - - - u u
Repulsus ille vērit?tis vīribus
X L X L |X .L. .X. L|X L S L
‘Ant’h?s sex mēnsēs male’ a-it ‘dīxistī mihi.’
u u - - - - u u uu - - - u u
‘Ante h?s sex mēnsēs male’ ait ‘dīxistī mihi.’
X L X L |X .L.. X L|X L S L
u - u - u u u - - - - u u
Respondit agnus ‘Equidem n?tus n?n eram.’
X L X .L |X L X .L. |X L S L
‘Pat’hercle tuus’ ill’inquit ‘male dīxit mihi;’
u u - u uu - u - - u u - - u u
‘Pater hercle tuus’ ille inquit ‘male dīxit mihi;’
X .L. X L |X .L. X L |X L S L
Atqu’ita correptum lacerat iniust? nece.
- u u u - - - u u u - - - u u
Atque ita correptum lacerat iniust? nece.
X L X L |X L X .L.|X L S L
Haec propter ill?s scripta’st hominēs f?bula
- - u - - - u u u u - - u u
Haec propter ill?s scripta est hominēs f?bula
X L X L|X L X L |X L S L
- - - - - - u - - - u -
Quī fictīs causīs innocentēs opprimunt.
Thanks again for all the help.
Best,
Chris
I notice a difference between your first line and Laura Gibbs’, Chris. She gives “Ad riv(um) ~ eun~dem lu~pus 't ag~nus ve~nerant” (but her “lu” in “lupus” seems long!). I think differently again. To my ear, this is better: ^-|^-|^ ^^|^-|^-|^- for “Ad rÄ«v(um) eunde(m) lupus et agnu(s) vÄ“nerant”. What do you think? [I couldn’t line up the symbols below so I wrote it as you see.] By the way, great job, Chris.
Primâ lineâ tuâ cum illâ Laurae Gibbs comparandâ, differentiam adnoto. Laura dicit “Ad riv(um) ~ eun~dem lu~pus 't ag~nus ve~nerant” (at “lu” syllaba in “lupus” dictione brevis est!). Aliter iterum dico. Auribus meis, sic meliore est:
Ad rīv(um) = ^ - |
eund = ^ - |
de(m) lupus = ^ ^ ^ | – [“l” littera hic vocalis similis est. Vide http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/LatinBackground/PoetryandReadingVerse.html ]
et agn = ^ - |
nu(s) vÄ“ = ^ - | – [Final “s” after short vowel can be dropped or elided. Ad elisionis rationem, in fine dictionis post vocalem brevem “s” litteram omisi vel elisi licet. Vide nexum suprá.]
nerant = ^ - |
Quid dicas, Christophore? [Typum ordinare non poteram. Eâ causâ, scripsi ut vides.] Obiter, factum bonum!
I don’t want to be mean to someone who is trying to do good things with Latin, but Laura Gibbs ought not to try to apply “meter marks,” as she calls them, to a meter she so obviously does not understand. Someone who is learning, of course, is expected to make mistakes – that is how we all learn, and there is no shame in that. She seems, however, to want to present herself as somehow knowledgeable about the meter. After one reads the way she scans the first two lines, it becomes quite clear that she is not.
The correct scansion of the first two lines is:
– – ⌣– | – : ⌣ ⌣ ⌣ – | – – ⌣ –
ad riu(um) eundem lupus et agnus uenerant
⌣– – – | – : ⌣ ⌣⌣– | – – ⌣ –
siti compulsi; superior stabat lupus
I have marked the metra by | and the caesurae by :.
In the first line the anticipated longum in the first foot of the second metron has been resolved into two shorts (lupus).
In the second line the anticipated breve of the second foot of the first metron is a longum; i.e., a spondee has replaced an iamb in that foot (compul-). This is the “irrational spondee,” so called because a spondee is manifestly not quantitatively equal to an iamb. In the first foot of the second metron, we again see resolution of the longum (super-).
I have not looked at your scansion beyond the first two lines either, but I’ll be happy to try to answer any specific questions you might have. The Latin iambic and trochaic meters can be tough, and even Cicero once commented that he found it hard to perceive the meter in comic senarii.
Good luck!
Second line. However, I’m no expert, Chris, so be warned.
De secundâ lineâ. Caveas, Christophore, quod peritus non sum.
sitī = ^ - | = X L
compuls = - -| = X L
si. = _ : | --[cum caesurâ] = X L
Superi = ^ ^ ^| = X L
or st? = - -| = X L
bat lupus = ^ ^ ^| = S L = “l” similis vocalis ?
Hi, Didymus, [Didn’t see your post earlier]. Help me, please. Why do you mark the last syllable of the second line long?
Salve, Didyme. Me quoque adjuves. In lineâ secundâ, quâre “us” syllaba ultima longa sit?
Apud Harris, “A vowel followed by a stop consonant (-p-,-b-, -ph-, -d-, -t-,-th-, -k-, -g-, -gh-) followed by a liquid (-l- or -r-) may be considered long OR short in Classical poetry, although it is always short in early verse.” Pes ultimus: “[sta]bat lupus” = ^ ^ ^| = S L 
A syllable is long if it ends with a consonant (a “closed” syllable). The last syllable is thus long in the second line of our example. It is in any case conventional to think of the syllaba anceps at the end of the line as long.
The muta cum liquida rule does not extend across word boundaries: the vowel must be followed by the two consonants in the same word.
I should perhaps have noted earlier that it is by no means agreed that “metra” are a useful category of analysis for senarii, but I included them because I think they are helpful to understand the scansion. Speaking of understanding the scansion, any introduction to the iambic meter of Plautus or Terence should basically hold true for Phaedrus. The only point to note is that Phaedrus does not admit of iambic shortening.
Ah. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks. 
Gratias. Id non intellexi.
Because in poetry a syllable’s length could be affected by the neighbouring word, I assumed the same for muting.
Quod in poemâ syllaba adfecta a dictione vicinâ longa fiat, ratione mutationis cum liquidâ eâdem assumsi.
A syllable is long if it ends with a consonant (a “closed” syllable). The last syllable is thus long in the second line of our example.
Me paenitet, Didyme, sed esne certus? Estne solùm de poeticâ res?
Apologies, Didymus, but are you sure about that? Is that specific to poetry?
Quite certain, and no, it’s not at all confined to poetry, although that of course is where you will most often meaningfully encounter it. The definition is somewhat subtle though, because it relies on a division of syllables that you may not be accustomed to. If a word like lupus is followed by a word beginning with a vowel, as in the first line of our example, the final consonant is pronounced with the initial vowel of the following word, and so the syllable is not “closed.” Does that make any sense?
Not really, Didymus (non mihi saltem). Very interesting. If you wouldn’t mind, please do you have a reference on that? “Closed syllable” intellego, sed non intellego, ut “us” syllaba in “lupus” dictione longa fiat. Id mihi maximè interest. Amabò te de re ullam auctoritatem editam mihi dare, si tibi non molestum est.
Thanks so much, Didymus. Because, on looking, I found that you are indeed right. I never noticed that rule before (or read it and as quick forgot). I (humbly) put my hands up and laugh at myself.
Recte quidem dicas, Didyme. Adpetendo, inveni. Illam regulam ego antehac numquam animadvertebam (vel legi et confestim dedidici). Humilimè, manus adtollo et mihi ipsi rideo. Gratias tibi ago.
Chris Adriano et Didymo Salutem Dixit:
Thank you both again for your help…gratias vobis bene habeo. I am curious, however, if the first line can’t be scanned more easily without any elision, i.e.,
X L X L |X .L. X L |X L S L
u - u - - u u u - - - u -
Ad rīvum eundem lupus et agnus vēnerant,
Perhaps I let the scanning given by the Gibbs page prevent me from thinking of the line afresh. Fortasse licet “eu” sicut una syllaba diphthongum manere, syllabam longam quae inventa in iambo tertio saepe est quasi duas breves syllabas scandere, ac nulla syllaba in hoc versu eliditur. Sed tu, Didyme, recte dixisti…si metrum senarii erat Ciceroni difficile visu, difficillimum mihi ero. 
As for the last syllable of the line (ecce duo asses mei ), though many are short by nature, such as “lupus,” I simply assumed that the same tactic used in reading dactylic hexameter is applicable here. Since the short syllable is at the end of the line, it can be read aloud with the same length as a long taking into account the natural pause at the end of the line. However, I have no reference for this being an applicable practice here.
Gratias vobis rursus,
Chris
(Chris, Christophoris, m.)
Sorry, Chris. I see you prefer Chris, Christopheris. I have all along been using Christophorus, -i (2nd). You also have Christoper (indeclinable) and Christoverus (2nd) (and Chrispianus, too, perhaps, for Chris).
Me paenitet, Chris. “Chris, Christopheris” mavis. Ego utebar Christophorus (secundae declinationis). Habes etiam Christoper atque Christoverus (et si velis Chrispianus).
Hehe…to be honest, I never quite knew how to decline my name with any certainty or intertextual references. But, just thinking about it now, I guess I’ve always been a 3rd declension kinda guy.
But “eundem” has three syllables, Chris. “Eu” isn’t a diphthong here. Hic “Eu” diphthongus non est. At “eundem” dictio tres syllabas habet.
Ok…please bear with my ignorance, but why isn’t “eu” a diphthong in this case? Isn’t it usually a diphthong? Looking in my M&F, it says that the active participle of “eo” is “iens” with a long e, but the genitive is “euntis” with no designation that I shouldn’t treat it as a diphthong. Same with the future passive “eundum” and the gerund “eundo.” Shouldn’t “eundem” behave the same way?