Sebastian Castellio's Bible


Staff member
Yeah, that must be it — as in Ionicus a minore, an Ionic foot starting with two short or unstressed syllables, and Ionicus a maiore, being the opposite.


Civis Illustris
I don't think think the -a in extincta can be read as long at all in any way. It's a feminine nominative modifying omnis improbitas (it appears as extinguenda below):
I know that it can't be long grammatically ... that's why I explicitely mentioned "if you consider the a long" ...

I'm not sure how you were solving this in Cicero's wording here
I am not talking about Cicero's wording.

Maybe if we do that for the grammarian's re-wording instead, on both the -a of extincta and the other -a of deleta, then the thing fits into a ditrochee + a bacchius of sorts, after basically reducing the first -e- of deleta too (dēleō dēlētus):

— u — u | u — —
(extīnc)tā sit atque dĕlētā
A bacchius can be both u – – and – – u, so you don't need to shorten anything in deleta, nor do you need to lengthen the a. with a long a in extincta, it would simply end in – u – u / – – u

The idea of considering a nominative a long sounds rather weird though.
It's possible that by ditrochee, he has the scheme – x – u in mind with x being either –, u or u u ... in that case, you would have (ex)tincta sit atque deleta as – uu(=x) – u / – – u ... with the bacchius starting with a long syllable, as Laurentius said. If you give a ditrochee the – x / – u scheme, you would also get away with considering conservare a ditrochee.

Although I don't discount that ignoring these -m and -r may have been what he actually meant.
I thought that's what you meant, that's why I said #1 made sense that way.

That said, this requires talking about the final trochee of dactylic hexametre as a "dactyl". Not sure how good that is.
It's rather weird, that's why I couldn't make heads nor tails of #2
Last edited: