Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

LVCRETIANA QVAEDAM*

  • David Butterfield
Published/Copyright: September 25, 2009
Philologus
From the journal Volume 152 Issue 1

Abstract

(I) At 2. 88 abeuntibus should be read for the impossible a tergibus of OQG; Voss' popular conjecture a tergo ibus is likewise untenable. (II) The phrase tempore puncto at 2. 263, 456 and 1006 should be emended to tempori' puncto; at 4. 214 paruo tempore should be read; at 6. 230 more serious corruption has taken place and we ought to read et liquidum facit aes aerumque in tempori' puncto. (III) The elision of an iambic word at 4. 741 is indefensible; read equi forte humanae for equi atque homines casu of OQ. (IV) At 5. 849 we should not defend the sole instance of Lucretian synaphia but rather write debere occurrere rebus for rebus concurrere debere. (V) At 6. 742 we should reintroduce the technical phrase e regione loci, reading loci quod for ea quod loca, and at 743 Struve's remigium should be read for a number of strong reasons. (VI) At 6. 762 the various conjectures involving pote or potis for the mss' nonsensical poteis should be rejected on linguistic and semantic grounds; in place of Munro's repetitive forte his I suggest primum his. (VII) Finally, 6. 1109 should be seen as a stark interpolation, not only because of its geographical and argumentative inappropriateness but also owing to the stylistic anomalies of atque at the close of 1008 and usque ad opening 1009. Nine other conjectures, in Lucretius and other authors, are offered throughout the paper with far briefer argumentation.

Published Online: 2009-09-25
Published in Print: 2008-06

© Akademie Verlag

Downloaded on 25.2.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1524/phil.2008.0018/html
Scroll to top button