{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04693140794223827, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01660649819494585, 'mean_word_length': 4.611336032388664, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Aeneas and the Omen of the Swans (Verg. Aen. 1. 393-400)

describe Cinna's poem and then, introduced by at, the same number describe Volusius'. The second period (9-10) repeats this on a smaller scale: a verse on Cinna; then, introduced by at, another on Volusius. This produces a conclusion that satisfies as much by its structural rhythm as by its meaning. Among the many proposals made for filling the lacuna at the end of line 9, Bergk's Philetae has obvious appeal, since it contrasts Philetas, as the type of refinement, with Antimachus, as the type of long-winded inelegance. 15 The presumptuous familiarity in saying "my Philetas" renders this unlikely, however. On the whole, the supplement sodalis (cf. 10. 29), provided by Catullus' concittadino Avantius for the first Aldine edition (1502), seems best. If this is right, Catullus draws a triple contrast between Cinna and Volusius to justify the former's success and coming renown: the linked points of comparison are care in composition (small vs. swollen), subject and (by implication) narrative form (epyllion vs. annals), and intended audience (coterie of friends vs. the common people). About the nature of the literary criticism in poem 95 I shall have more to say elsewhere. I hope, however, that this study of the poem's structure and the questions that attend it has helped recapture the original form of the text.