302. e.g. iv. 799-end, vii. 385-459, 586-96, 617-46, 847-72, viii. 542-60, 793-end. 303. vii. 385-459. 304. There is nothing in these last seven books that can be regarded as in any way written to please Nero, save the description of the noble death of Domitius Ahenobarbus, Nero's great-great-grandfather (vii. 597-616). On the contrary there are many passages which Lucan would hardly have written while he was enjoying court favour: e.g. iv. 821-3, v. 385-402, vi. 809, vii. 694-6, x. 25-8. 305. See p. 98. 306. e.g. the two speeches of Cato quoted above. 307. He is, moreover, very careless in his repetition of the same word, cp. i. 25, 27 urbibus, iii. 436, 441, 445 silva, &c.; cp. Haskins, ed. lxxxi. (Heitland's introd.) 308. He is far less dactylic than Ovid. For the relation between the various writers of epic in respect of metre, see Drobisch, _Versuch üb. die Formen des lat. Hex._ 140. The proportion of spondees in the first four feet of hexameters of Roman writers is there given as follows: Catullus 65.8%, Silius 60.6%, Ennius 59.5%, Lucretius 57.4%, Vergil 56%, Horace 55%, Lucan 54.3%, Statius 49.7%, Valerius 46.2%, Ovid 45.2%. 309. Tac. _Ann._ xvi. 18, 19 (Church and Brodribb's trans.). 310. c. 118 sq. 311. cc. 1-5. 312. The first reference in literature to the _Satyricon_ is in Macrobius, in _Somn. Scip._ i. 2, 8. 313. cc. 1-5. 314. MS. fortuna. 315. MS. dent. 316. c. 83 317. Cp. Juv. _Sat._ 7; Tac. _Dial._ 9. 318. c. 89. It has been suggested that this poem is a parody of Nero's _Troiae halosis_! But the poem shows _no_ signs of being a parody. It is obviously written in all seriousness. 319. MS. _minor_, I suggest _minans_ as a possible solution of the difficulty. 320. c. 93. 321. Cp. also 128 and the spirited epic fragment burlesquely used in 108. 322. See p. 36. 323. Baehrens, _P. L. M._ iv. 74-89. 324. Nos. 76 and 86. Cp. Fulg. _Mythol._ i. I, p. 31; Lactant. _ad Stat. Theb._ iii. 661; Fulg. _Mythol._ iii. 9, p. 126. 325. Baehrens, _P.L.M._ iv. 90-100. 326. Poitiers, 1579 A.D. 327. Fulg. _Mythol._ i. 12, p. 44. 328. That the attribution to Petronius rests on the authority of the lost MS. is a clear inference from Binet's words, cp. Baehrens, _P.L.M._ iv. 101-8, 'sequebantur ista, sed sine Petronii titulo, at priores illi duo Phalaecii vix alius fuerint quam Petronii.' 329. Baehrens, _P.L.M._ iv. 101-8. 330. See note 4. 331. Petr. cc. 14, 83; Baehrens, _P.L.M._ iv. 120, 121. 332. Cp. _Satyr_. 127, 131; _P.L.M._ iv. 75; _S._ 128; _P.L.M._ iv. 121; _S._ 108; _P.L.M._ iv. 85; _S._ 79, iv. 101. 333. _P.L.M._ iv. 75. 334. _P.L.M._ iv. 81. 335. The MS. is hopelessly corrupt at this point. I suggest _naidas alterna manu_ as a possible correction of the MS. _Iliadas armatas s. manus._ 336. _P.L.M._ iv. 84. 337. _P.L.M._ iv. 85. 338. Ib. 76. 339. Ib. 82. 340. Ib. 78. 341. _P. L. M._ iv. 99. Cp. also 92 and 107. 342. 569 sqq. 343. 17-22, 43 sqq. He falls into the same error himself (203).