Endecasillabi faleci e sistemi ionici nelle Menippeae di Varrone (con un excursus su Laev. fr. 8 Blänsdorf [2nd ed.])

Varro certainly composed phalaecians (Men. frr. 565-568 B[ücheler], from Virgula divina; fr. 49 B., from Bimarcus, might be a trochaic septenarius) and regarded the phalaecian as an ionic trimeter. As a phalaecian Röper interpreted fr. 101 B. and Della Corte both fr. 101 and fr. 19. Bücheler, on the contrary, ascribed frr. 19, 87, 101 (dubitatively), 489 and perhaps 579 to systems of continuous ionics a maiore as well as a minore (fr. 579): he compared them with Laev. fr. 8 Blänsdorf (2nd ed.]), from Phoenix (two verses, both undoubtedly ionics a maiore, according to Müller’s opinion; Leo wrongly unterstood the first verse as an ionic a minore); since Laevius’ Phoenix is a carmen figuratum, Bücheler also supposed that fr. 489 comes from a carmen figuratum. This fragment, however, is too corrupt and it’s impossible to reconstruct its metrical form. Fr. 579 is an Augustinus’ exemplum fictum, erroneously attribuited to Varro. Frr. 19, 87 and 101 finally must be considered sotadeans.