>he doesn't think Ovid is the best Latin poet

File: 498324823.png (20KB, 638x547px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 638x547px

>wasting your precious time learning a dead language to read some dead old white dude

>>9412865
>implying there's anything wrong with being and old white male

Ovid's mighty entertaining, but Virgil's the best Roman poet. Easily.

>>9412865
>Romans
>white

Well there's like three decent Roman poets total. Why were the Romans such artless hacks?

>>9413114
how? that's like loving dryden or some shit. even lucretius could beat him with one poem, and i suspect the reason OP cites Ovid is because more poems.

>>9413330
They had other things to get getting on with, like conquering barbarians.

>>9413359
they also had a lot more poets than anon knows about

>>9413368
Beyond Virgil, Ovid, and Horace who really gives a shit? The best Roman writer was a biographer ffs.

>>9413426
>neither catullus nor lucretius
>but yes to virgil
you have shit and inconsistent taste.
>best Roman writer was a biographer
jfc are you reading translations? I'm assuming you mean Suetonius but, damn, that's retarded.

>>9412861
>he thinks it's not Horace

>>9413426
Just 50BC-50AD:

>Catullus
>Propertius
>Tibullus
>Lucretius
>Lucan

>>9413503
>>9413469
Oh wow a whole load of who gives a shit, I am defeated.

>>9413514
>I am defeated
and so graceful about it too

>>9413350
Lucretius beat Virgil? He was immensely successful at conveying the philosophy that doubly inspired and depressed him but he doesn't possess even half Virgil's art. This is merely true.

>>9414405
so you can't read Latin? good to know

>>9412861
i do think that pretty woman