(2) _In Metre._--As regards metre, Ovid in the _Metamorphoses_ is nearest to him, but differs in several points, He imitates him--(_a_) in not admitting words of four or more syllables, except very rarely, at the end of the line; (_b_) in rhythms like _vulnificus sus_ (viii. 358), and the not unfrequent _spondetazontes_; (_c_) in keeping to the two caesuras as finally established by him, and avoiding beginnings like _scilicet omnibus | est_, &c. In all these points Manilius is a little less strict than Ovid, _e.g._ (i. 35) _et veneranda_, (iii. 130) _sic breviantur_, (ii. 716) _altribuuntur_. He also follows Virgil in alliteration, which Ovid does not. They differ from Virgil in--(_a_) a much more sparing employment of elision. The reason of this is that elision marks the period of living growth; as soon as the language had become crystallised, each letter had its fixed force, the caprices of common pronunciation no longer influencing it; and although no correct writer places the unelided _m_ before a vowel, yet the great rarity of elision not only of _m_ but of long and even short vowels (except _que_) shows that the main object was to avoid it, if possible. The great frequency of elision in Virgil must be regarded as an archaism. (_b_) In a much lesser variety of rhythm. This is, perhaps, rather an artistic defect, but it is designed. Manilius, however, has verses which Virgil avoids, _e.g. Delcetique sacerdotes_ (i. 47), probably as a reminiscence of Lucretius. Imitations in language are very frequent. Propertius gives _ah pereat! qui_ (i. 17, 13), from the _Copa_. Again, _Sit licet et saxo patientior illa Sicano_ (i. 16, 29), from the _Cyclopia saxa_ of _Aeneid_, i. 201; _cum tamen_ (i. 1, 8) with the indic. as twice in Virgil; _Umbria me genuit_ (i. 23, 9), perhaps from the _Mantua me genuit_ of Virgil's epitaph. These might easily be added to. Ovid in the _Metamorphoses_ has a vast number of imitations of which we select the most striking; _Plebs habitat diversa locis_ (i. 193); _Navigat, hic summa_, &c. (i. 296); cf. _Naviget, haec summa est_, in the 4th Aeneid; _similisque roganti_ (iii. 240), _amarunt me quoque Nymphae_ (iii. 454); _Arma manusque meae, mea, nate, potentia, dixit_ (v. 365); _Heu quantum haec Niobe Niobe distabat ab illa_ (vi. 273); _leti discrimine parvo_ (vi. 426); _per nostri foedera lecti, perque deos supplex oro superosque neosque, Per si quid merui de te bene_ (vii. 852); _maiorque videri_ (ix. 269). These striking resemblances, which are selected from hundreds of others, show how carefully he had studied him. Of all other poets I have noticed but two or three imitations in him, _e.g. multi illum pueri, multae cupiere puellae_ (iii. 383), from Catullus; _et merito, quid enim...?_ (ix. 585) from Propertius (i. 17). Manilius also imitates Virgil's language, _e.g. acuit mortalia corda_ (i. 79), _Acherunta movere_ (i. 93), _molli cervice reflexus_ (i. 334), and his sentiments in _omnia conando docilis solertia