mastery of classical mythology helped to counteract in him the marked tendency of his time, in which "the. importance and development of individuality had become the importance and development of personal peculiarity" (xxxi). Milton's poetry is thus, in the main, free from the conceits and curious figures from which much of the poetry of his time now no longer read-suffered (xxxi-xxxv).

Another characteristic of Milton's treatment of classical mythology is set forth (xxxv), in a discussion of the description of celestial dawn at the beginning of Book 6 of Paradise Lost:

Taken as a whole, it is a beautiful synthesis, or fitting together, of three or four very distinct classical ideas. As we have seen, Homer and Ovid are united, these are joined to Hesiod, and the group is finished with a tradition common to classical poets. We have already noticed in the treatment of similes the tendency to accumulation or synthesis, and it occurs frequently in the use of mythology throughout Milton's poetry. In the description of Eden, Pan, the Graces and the Hours, Proserpina, Daphne, and Amalthea were all gathered to illustrate the beauty of the garden, like petals about the honeyed center of a flower. So also in the Second Book of Paradise Lost, the description of the terrors of Hell is reinforced by a reference to 'Typhoean rage' and by describing the death agony of Hercules, when, mad with pain, he slew his own companion. The infernal rivers are mentioned-hated Styx, Lethe, Acheron, Cocytus, 'named of lamentation loud', and Phlegethon, the torrent of flames. There also is the wretched Tantalus, together with Medusa and the other Gorgons, and Hydras and Chimeras dire. At the bounds of Hell are two monsters, the one, like Scylla, girt with wide Cerberean mouths, the other black as Night, and fierce as ten Furies. Here again the allusions are all arranged about one idea and focused upon it, thus emphasizing it and throwing it into relief.

accom

Another characteristic (xl) is a certain width of range and sweep, which often. panies a synthesis of mythological legends; the myths seem to be transformed from their original state into something large and exalted. Milton seems to carry them into a larger universe, where through his poetic imagination and his sense of truth he expands and purges them, somewhat as Plato has done in the passage from the Phaedrus quoted near the beginning of our discussion.

Back of this synthesis and this range lie two conditions: (a) Milton's enormous learning; (b) "his inclusion of material, that is, his power of mastering it and making it subservient to the truths embodied in his poetry. The first qualification is extensive, the second intensive" (xli).

This leads to a discussion (xlii-xliii) of Milton's learning his attainments and his preferences in reading. He derived most help from Homer, Hesiod, Vergil, and Ovid (xlii).

Hesiod, in proportion to the body of his poetry, probably furnished Milton with the greatest amount of material, and nearly all of this comes from the Theogony.

Of the Iliad, Books I (especially its closing episode), 2, 5, and 18 are the favorites; of the Odyssey, Books

8, 10, 11 are favorites. Books I and 6 of the Aeneid are used more than the other books of the poem; not infrequently, however, use is made of Books 3, 4, and 5. The Metamorphoses and the Fasti appealed to Milton more than Ovid's love-poetry. Every book of the Metamorphoses, except Book 12, is used; the first is employed most frequently (xlii). Euripides, Pindar, Theocritus, the Homeric Hymns, Pausanias, and Apollodorus are the next most important sources (xlii).

Milton has also drawn some of his mythology from Aeschylus, Sophocles, Plato, the Orphic Hymns, and Apollonius of Rhodes; from Herodotus, Plutarch, Pliny, Diodorus, and Strabo; from Horace, Statius, Claudian, and the tragedies of Seneca. To these we may add, though the list will be by no means exhaustive, Cicero, Athenaeus, Hyginus, Aratus, Macrobius, Lucretius, and most of the minor poets of the empire.

Into the rest of this scholarly and suggestive Introduction there is, unfortunately, not space to enter. We pass, then, to the second part of the book, entitled The Sources (87 pages of fine print). Here we have, in an alphabetical arrangement, a series of articles, Acheron, Achilles, Ades (=Hades), Adonis, Alcestis, Alcinous, etc., etc., each of which gives references to the passages in Milton where the person, place, or thing represented by the article is mentioned, and groups the passage or passages in ancient authors upon which Milton was drawing. Some of these articles are long: e.g. Apollo (8-13), Aurora (14-15), Chaos (21-22), Diana (28-29), Elysium (31-32), Fates (34-35), Jove (48-50), Muses (56-58), Naiads (58-60), Night (62-64), Nymphs (64-65), Orpheus (66-67), Pan (67-68), Saturn (74-75), Sleep (78-80). The method adopted can be made fairly plain by the citation of one example.

Paradise Lost 9.13-17 runs as follows:

Sad task! yet argument
Not less but more heroic than the wrath
Of stern Achilles on his foe pursued
Thrice fugitive about Troy wall; or rage
Of Turnus for Lavinia disespoused;

This passage gives rise to two of Professor Osgood's articles, as follows (3, 83):

ACHILLES.-P.L. 9.15.

The subject of the Iliad is 'the wrath of Achilles, Peleus's son, the ruinous wrath that brought on the Achaeans woes innumerable' (I1. 1.1 f.) Il. 22 tells of Achilles' fight with Hector. Cf. 22.165 f.: <a line and a half of Greek are quoted>.

'Stern' is not a Homeric epithet of the hero. Vergil calls him 'immitis' (Aen. 1.34; 3.87).

TURNUS.-P.L. 9.17.

In the enumeration of great epic themes in P. L. 9. 15-19 occurs the rage of 'Turnus for Lavinia disespoused'. The story is told in Aen. 7-12. Latinus, whom Aeneas found reigning in Latium, had promised his daughter Lavinia to Turnus, but, warned by a dream, he made a final choice of Aeneas. A Fury, sent by Juno, aroused the rage of Turnus (7.413, 466), which was renewed in 12.1-2. The character of Turnus is fierce and intrepid throughout the struggle.

He then pointed out (2) that it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the vaguer, more general allusions, that any fairly intelligent man might make, though he had never read a line of the Classics, and definite and detailed allusions (2-3):

an allusion to the death of Hercules with mention of the poisoned shirt of Nessus and the fate of the page Lichas, lodged by his master on the horns of the moon, is possible only to one who has read a detailed account of the fable, such as that given by Ovid or Seneca. Though the number of these definite allusions in Shakespeare is smaller than that of the vague ones, they are yet sufficiently numerous to admit of satisfactory conclusions. Of these allusions for which a definite source can be assigned, it will be found that an overwhelming majority are directly due to Ovid, while the remainder, with few exceptions, are from Vergil. The vaguer allusions, though admitting of no confident attribution, are nearly all of such a character that they might have been drawn from Ovid or Vergil. In other words, a man familiar with these two authors, and with no others, would be able to make all the mythological allusions contained in the undisputed works of Shakespeare, barring some few exceptions to be considered later. Throughout, the influence of Ovid is at least four times as great as that of Vergil; the whole character of Shakespeare's mythology is essentially Ovidian.

The bulk of Shakespeare's mythology comes from the Metamorphoses of Ovid. His familiarity with every book of that poem-save, perhaps, Books 12 and 15-is clearly demonstrable. There are some indications that Shakespeare knew the Heroides. From the Fasti he drew much of his Rape of Lucrece. Dr. Root (4):

Says

Sharply contrasted with the frequency and variety of Shakespeare's references to Ovid is the comparative paucity and narrow scope of his Vergilian allusion. Perhaps the restraint and delicacy of Vergil's art are less in harmony with the temper of the Elizabethan age; perhaps his story lends itself less readily to casual allusion. Only three episodes of the Aeneid seem to have made a deep impression on Shakespeare-the account of the fall of Troy with the stratagem of Sinon and the death of Priam, the grief of the forsaken Dido, and the infernal machinery of Vergil's Hades-episodes all of them which savor more or less of the sensational, and thus approach the prevailing taste of Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare was not content, however, with merely selecting sensational episodes; he sets to work deliberately to heighten the sensationalism.

Of Latin influence other than that of Ovid and Vergil there is very little trace (5). That Shakespeare looked into Homer is proved by the fact that several incidents of Troilus and Cressida are founded on the Iliad, and that in three or four instances a mythological allusion must be referred to the same source (5-6). Dr. Root fails to find the slightest hint of any other Greek influence (6). Shakespeare's ignorance of Hesiod is in sharpest contrast to the wide use made of Hesiod by Milton (see above, in the notice of Professor Osgood's book). Dr. Root thinks it in the highest degree probable that Shakespeare read Ovid's Metamorphoses in the original (6-7); that he derived his mythology at second hand, through English authors, Dr. Root will not believe (7).

What conception did Shakespeare entertain of the mythology thus derived by him in the main from Ovid? Dr. Root answers this question on page 8:

He found in Ovid, and in classical mythology as a whole, what all the Renaissance found before him: a treasure-house of fascinating story wrought out in rich magnificence of detail, all but void of any deep spiritual significance. Graceful ornament and brilliant imagery he found in abundance; but for the expression of his profound meditations on the great mysteries which round our little life he found small aid. In so far as Shakespeare is a 'child of the Renaissance', a reveler in the beauty of external form, he finds Ovid congenial reading; in so far as he represents the deeper spirit which I have called Mediaevalism, he finds Ovid, and the system he learned from Ovid, quite inadequate. Shakespeare is essentially religious; Ovid is as essentially irreligious.

To the demonstration of the truth of these statements Dr. Root then addresses himself (8-13). In this demonstration he maintains that Shakespeare's use of mythological allusions is different at different periods of his work. This proposition he now employs (14-20) as "a new sort of internal evidence as to the Shakespearian authorship of a disputed play or portion of a play. ." Then, finally, he points out (20-22) that Shakespeare uses mythology and fables to heighten the beauty of his verse by effective simile and metaphor. But (22)

the aspect of mythology which appealed most deeply to Shakespeare, which he most fully and vitally incorporated into his own thoughts, is that original aspect of the system which gives a divine

personality to the great forces of nature. The sun in its rising and its setting, the 'gray-eyed dawn' and the 'black-browed night'; the procession of the seasons from 'well-apparelled April' to 'old Hiems' with his 'thin and icy crown'; 'Great Neptune's ocean' and the 'mutinous winds'; the crash of Jove's dread thunderbolt-to express his appreciation of all these, Shakespeare has constant resource to the forms of expression given us by the ancients, or, still more significantly, imitates their methods of thought without employing their exact terms.

In the pages under the caption Classical Mythology in Shakespeare Dr. Root follows essentially the plan adopted by Professor Osgood in the second part of his monograph. The two works afford abundant material for the instituting of comparisons and of contrasts between the two poets.

Finally, the plays are listed in what Dr. Root believes to be the approximate chronological order, and the use made of mythology in each is indicated.

We may make reference here to a book on Ovid, the poet whose name occurs so often in the monographs of Professors Osgood and Root. In 1913, in the University of California Publications in Modern Philology 4.1-268, appeared a monograph, by R. Schevill, entitled Ovid and the Renaissance in Spain. This was reviewed, in American Journal of Philology 35 (1914), 330-335, by that inimitable critic, Kirby Flower Smith, whose untimely death in December last not only dealt a cruel blow to the humane and humanistic study of the Classics, but for many a classicist added a keen personal sorrow to the many burdens of a year fraught with sore trials and distress already.

Of Mr. Chislett's book it is difficult to give an account, because in Part 1, The Classical Influence in English Literature in the Nineteenth Century (1-47), the part of the book that is likely to be of interest to readers of THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY, the author touches briefly, all too briefly for the ordinary reader, on a vast array of authors.

He begins with definitions of Classicism, Romanticism and Realism (1-2), discusses Classicism, Romanticism and Realism in Greek and Latin Literature (2-3), passes on to a consideration of these three elements in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and Modern Times (3-5), and, finally, in English Literature (5-6). Next he discusses (8-10) The Romantic Revolt. Here, in forty-nine lines, he talks of Coleridge, Wordsworth, William Godwin and his circle, Shelley, Thomas Love Peacock, Keats, Byron, and Southey. On pages 11-14 he discusses Major Prose Writers, Exclusive of the Novelists; on pages 15-17, he treats 6 Major Victorian Poets; on pages 18-23, about 30 Novelists; on pages 24-32, 71 Minor Writers; etc., etc.

This rapid passing in review of so many writers leaves one rather breathless. None the less Mr. Chislett's remarks suggest boundless opportunity for personal study, in the way of checking up his statements during our own reading of the authors he names.

Mr. Chislett has evidently read widely himself, and has formed his own judgments; he has used, too, the writings of others on the themes with which he deals. The numerous footnotes are of great value.

In Section VII, entitled Conclusion (36-47), Mr. Chislett at first challenges statements about the study of the Classics, or the nature of the Greek spirit, made by Mr. A. C. Benson, Professor E. Vernon Arnold, Mr. John Jay Chapman, Mr. Will Hutchins, and Mr. R. W. Livingstone. But, we may ask, will any one man ever define the Greek spirit in terms which will win immediate and permanent acceptance from all other seekers of that spirit? We bring back from India,

it has been said, what we take to India; and so, in our search for the Greek spirit, what we take with us in the search-our own make-up, physical, intellectual, spiritual-we bring back again; fortunate are we if we bring back something else also. Though Mr. Chislett does not exactly see this at least he does not state it in terms, this is, in reality, the underlying idea of the following excellent paragraph (41):

The Englishman especially the nineteenth century Englishman-finds the Greek genius so complex that

he

can discover Puritanism, paganism, temperance, extravagance, tragedy, comedy, didacticism, emotionalism, classicism, romanticism or realism in it as he pleases. Landor is attracted by Epicurus, Greek lyric and elegy; Southey by Epictetus; Macaulay by Greek history and oratory; Lamb by Hesiod; Moore by Anacreon; Keats by Homer; Shelley by Plato; Peacock by Aristophanes, Lucian and Nonnus; Meredith by Menander; Rossetti by Sappho; Wilde by the Anthology; Swinburne by Sappho, Catullus, Pindar and Aeschylus; Jefferies by Diogenes Laertius; FitzGerald by Plato; Kingsley by the Alexandrians; Arnold by Homer and Empedocles; Tennyson by Virgil; Browning by Euripides and Aristophanes; Mrs. Browning by Aeschylus and Sappho; Andrew Lang by Homer and Theocritus; Thomas Hardy by Sophocles, and Robert Bridges by Aeschylus and Menander.

The next paragraphs deal with the way in which various prose writers of the nineteenth century show a Greek strain (e.g. FitzGerald put Plato into his Euphranor; Peacock put Lucian and Aristophanes into his novels); with translations and paraphrases; the Greek note in nineteenth century poetry; "a further triumph of nineteenth century art remains in its use of mythology"; the Roman influence, seen especially in "the interest the century felt in viewing Rome archaeologically"; and "poems and prose tales that capture or aim to capture the spirit of ancient Rome". The final paragraph (47) runs as follows:

We have surveyed the nineteenth century by authors, summarized them and dealt with them under the different phases of the classical influerice. What is our conclusion? That Greece and Rome did not die in the romantic, realistic nineteenth century nor are likely to in the unfathomed twentieth. Through philology, archaeology, interest in ancient philosophy, admiration for the graceful Greek tongue and the mosaic-like architectonic Latin, a use and not abuse of mythology, a very wide reading of ancient authors, major and minor, in the original and in translations, and finally through the vivifying of ancient life by travel and by prose and poetry embodying the ancient spirit, Greece and Rome have lived as never before, and bid fair to live while men and arts endure.

С. К.

REMARKS ON ROMAN POETIC DICTION

(Concluded from page 182)

I will discuss one of the groups the adjectives denoting color. Let me emphasize that I am not here presenting a full discussion of these adjectives. Space will not permit this. The purpose of the following lists and the comment upon them is a restricted oneto show what adjectives denoting color occur in that portion of Latin covered by the investigation (approximately the period of the Republic), what adjectives in this list the poets used, why they did not use others, and lastly to determine what adjectives deserve to be classed as 'poetic'.

The term 'color' is loosely employed, for the Romans used albus, niger, purpureus, etc., quite as loosely as the layman nowadays uses 'white', 'black', 'red', etc. They knew nothing of the scientific classification of colors. For historical purposes the poetry of Catullus and Lucretius has been made the starting-point, since their work affords the best opportunity of determining what was the general poetic technique of the last years of the Republic, or in terms of our problemwhat adjectives were acceptable to the poetry of the period.

Group I: 'white', 'pale'.

(1) Adjectives occurring in Catullus or Lucretius10: albus**, albulus*, albicans*, candidus**, candens**, cānus*t, niveus*, pallidus*, pallidulus*, pallenst, marmoreus (II).

(2) Adjectives occurring in Republican prose and verse, not occurring as color adjectives in Catullus or Lucretius: albens, albātus, albicēris, albicapillus, subalbus, subalbicans, dealbātus, buxeus, candidatus, candidulus, incānus, cānātus, crētātus, gypsātus, lacteus (15).

(3) Adjectives occurring later than the Republican period-partial list": albiceratus, albicolor, albicomus, albidus, subalbidus, albinus, albineus, albidulus, peralbus, subalbens, argenteus, percandidus, praecandidus, succandidus, canens, praecanus, semicanus, cerussatus, cineraceus, cinereus, eburnus (-eus), lactaneus, lactineus, lacticolor, leucos, leucaspis, leucocomus, perpallidus, vepallidus, suppallidus (and about 16 others, or about 46 all told).

An approximate conception of the number of words in this group and this applies to the other groups also can be formed by adding (1) and (2), and by assuming that a good many of the words in (3) must have existed in the Republican period, although they do not happen to occur in the extant remains of the literature. In some cases this assumption amounts to a certainty: e.g. the proper names Albinus, Canidius,

etc., show that corresponding common adjectives existed. It is pretty safe to make the same assumption concerning such words as albidus, subalbidus, percandidus, etc. But of course the statistics cannot take this assumption into account.

The adjectives occurring only in poetry have the best right to be considered 'poetic': compare in (1) and (2), albicans, albicapillus, buxeus, canus (except when referring to hair), niveus, pallidulus, pallens, marmoreus, canutus, incanus. To these we may add candens, which, except in the meaning 'white hot' for branding, etc. (Cicero, Varro), occurs only in poetry and in two passages of elevated prose (Auctor ad Herennium, Cicero, De Re Publica). The remaining words in (1) belong to the common stock of prose and verse: albus, albulus, candidus, pallidus. In (2), two words, which are not used by Catullus or Lucretius to denote color, deserve to be classed as 'poetic': albicapillus (Plautus), incanus (Plautus, Vergil). Mere occurrence exclusively in verse does not, of course, prove that a word is 'poetic', but in this group there seems to be no good reason to deny the title to any of the words mentioned. Some are so rare that no history can be traced: albicans (once, Catullus; the case cited by the Thesaurus from Varro is a conjecture); pallidulus (Catullus, one case); pallens (Lucretius, one case). But, until the Silver Age the verb albico (-or) is itself poetic, Catullus certainly felt pallidulus (65.6) as poetic, and in the next generation Vergil, Tibullus, and Lygdamus accept pallens: hence the classification is

reasonable.

Of the words classed as 'poctic', candens is probably a useful metrical equivalent for candidus. Ennius began the wider use of canus which was continued in later poetry. Bednara (A. L. L. 15.224) thinks that some dactylic poet 'invented' niveus: certainly the word is confined almost entirely to the work of these poets. The form of albicapillus (Plautus, one case) indicates that it may have become poetic in later times, although it does not occur. Incanus (Plautus) does not occur again in Republican Latin, but it was taken up by Vergil and Ovid.

The rejected words (2) were in some cases not suited to dactylic verse; this is true of albicēris, subalbicans, candidātus (albicans is used in the difficult galliambics of Catullus 63). Some belong to formal groups which were not favored by elevated poetry: subalbus, subalbicans, dealbatus (compare English adjectives in -ish, 'whitish', etc.). Some are lowly technical terms: dealbatus, cretatus, gypsatus (craftsman's terms), buxeus (the color of the duck's bill, Varro); canutus (applied to a fish, Plautus).

Group II: 'black', 'dark', 'dusky'.

(1) Catullus, Lucretius: ater**, niger*t, caecus*t, opacus*†, tenebricosus* (5).

(2) Republican Period: aquilus, subaquilus, ātrātus, obātrātus, caligans, caliginosus, fuscus, meruleus, nigrans, nigellus, nigriculus, perniger, subniger, nocticolor, pullus, occaecatus, tenēbricus, umbrosus (18).

(3) Later Latin-partial list: atricolor, atricapillus, cacabaceus, caligineus, coracinus, furvus, infuscus, praefuscus, suffuscus, nigricans, nigrescens, nigricolor, nigridius, internigrans, obniger, nubilus, praenubilus, obscurus, peropacus, piceus, picinus, pullatus, pulleiaceus, tenebrosus (6 or 8 others; total, about 30). (Obscurus is common, but it is not a real color adjective).

All the adjectives in (1) belong to the common stock of prose and verse-even the rare tenebricōsus (Catullus, Cicero, Varro), although some phrases into which caecus enters (caeca nocte, caeca caligine) seem to have been confined to poetry.

In (2) caligans (Cicero's poetry), nocticolor (Laevius), and tenebricus (Pacuvius, Cicero's poetry) are poetic. In the rejected class we have compounds of per- and sub- (compare Group I); the diminutives nigellus, nigriculus: technical words nigrans (a breeder's term, used by Varro, of the color of the horns of cattle), probably also atratus, obatratus. Aquilus, fuscus, and pullus belong to the common stock, although they do not occur in Catullus or Lucretius. Meruleus (cf. subaquilus) occurs once in a jesting passage of Plautus, and probably remained a colloquial word. Occaecatus occurs but once (Plautus) and no inference can be made with certainty about it. Umbrosus belongs to the class of adjectives in -osus which were. not liked in the elevated style. Metrical reasons excluded or helped to exclude others (including some already viewed with disfavor on other grounds): caliginosus, subaquilus, meruleus. Nigrans, a breeder's term in Varro, won a place in the elevated style in the next generation (Vergil, Ovid, Propertius).

Group III: 'blue'.

(1) Catullus, Lucretius: caerulus*t, caeruleus* †, caesius*†, glaucust, lividus*, ferrüginust (6).

(2) Republican Period: cumatilis (?) (1?).

(3) Later Latin-partial list: aerius, aerinus, aquaticus, aquosus, caerulans, caeruleatus, subcaeruleus, cyaneus, flucticolor, glaucicomans, hyacinthinus, hyacinthizontes, ianthinus, sublividus, tyrianthinus, venetus, violaceus, violeus (a very few others; total, about 20).

The only poetic word in (1) and (2) is glaucus (γλαυκός), which occurs only in Accius and Lucretius 1.719. Munro translates by 'green', but Goetz (op. cit.) shows that the predominant meaning is 'blue'.

Lividus and ferruginus occur only once each (Catullus 17.11, Lucretius 4.76), neither in a really elevated passage. They are probably not to be classed as poetic (Vergil preferred ferrugineus to ferruginus).

The one word in (2), cumatilis, a hybrid, is explained as 'blue' by Nonius on Plautus Epid. 233, but it may rather mean 'wavy', 'billowy'.

The other words belong to the common stock. Caerulus and caeruleus supplement each other in verse, but there is no difference between them in meaning; some shade of blue fits nearly all the cases except when the words are applied to objects in the lower

world (cf. Goetz). Caesius, during the Republican period, is always applied to the color of the eyes of men or animals, and this restriction continued with one exception throughout the language; it is not a complimentary term and does not occur in really elevated passages.

Of the words in (3) aerius is found in Catullus and Lucretius, but not in the color meaning. Hyacinthinus also occurs in Catullus but only in its proper sense. Violaceus occurs once in Republican Latin. Plautus's violarii, 'dyers of violet-color', indicates that other adjectives of this group must have existed.

Group IV: 'green'. (1) Catullus, Lucretius: virens*t, thalassinust (4).

viridis*t, viridans*†,

(2) Republican Period: herbeus (1).

(3) Later Latin-partial list: callainus, herbaceus, herbidus, herbosus, hyalinus, hyaloides, perviridis, subviridis, viridicans, pervirens, porraceus, prasinus, prasinatus, prasinianus, pratens, smaragdinus, smaragdineus, vitreus (a very few others; total, about 20).

Only two of the words in (1) and (2) are poetic: viridans and virens, both poetic substitutes for the stock word viridis, and both rare. Thalassinus occurs only in Lucretius 4.1127 (a dressmaker's term). Munro renders by 'sea-colored' and thinks it refers to some shade of purple. Goetz classifies the word as 'blue', but he relies wrongly on Plautus, Mil. Glor. 1282 (cf. 1178, thalassicus). Thalassicus refers to the pseudomariner's garb, which is called ferrugineus in color, but it is very doubtful whether ferrugineus in Plautus means 'blue', and thalassicus, at any rate, is not a color adjective at all. I have classified thalassinus with this group because in Greek, when θάλασσα enters into words which denote color, 'green' is the usual meaning.

Of division (2) herbeus occurs but once (in a comic passage of Plautus); many of its forms are not adapted to dactyls. It probably remained too colloquial for dignified passages, for list (3) shows that, although several adjectives derived from herba were used in later times, herbeus is not among them.

Group V: 'yellow'.

(1) Catullus, Lucretius: flavus*t, flavens*, fulvust, crocinus*, aureus*t, aureolus*, melichrust, lūridust (8). (2) Republican Period: albicērus (-ris), gilvus, helveolus, rāvus, rusceus (?) (5?).

(3) Later Latin-partial list: auricolor, auricomus (-comans), aurosus, aurulentus, cereus, cerinus, chryseus (-ius), crocatus, croceus, flavescens, flavicomus (-comans), flavidus, fulvaster, galbinus, galbineus, galbus, helvinaceus (-ius), melleus, murreus, sucinaceus, sufflavus, etc. (about 6 others; total, about 27).

The poetic adjectives of (1) and (2) are fulvus, which was also much used by later poets, aureus (in the color sense), flavens (one case only, Catullus 64.354), and possibly crocinus (one case only, Catullus 68.134).