No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Bailey posed the problem succinctly and clearly: ‘Though you can be said to “fashion a dream for yourself”, it is not easy to see how you can do it for someone else.’ He agrees with Giussani: somnia = ineptae fabulae, which is unexceptionable. But in fact Bailey's objection to the ‘literal’ meaning of the text is baseless. Dream control was indeed practised in antiquity.
1 Aside from its obvious virtues, Marullus' emendation possunt is probably supported by Claudian's imitation at Eutrop. 1. 170 fingere somnia possunt, though in Claudian somnia is subject rather than object.
2 The Vergilian line qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt (Ecl. 8. 108) is the only other example I know of somnia fingere. It is, however, not relevant for an understanding of the Lucretian text both because, as Bailey says, it refers the action to oneself and also because it is a traditional description of lovers, here phrased in Lucretian language.
3 This need not imply that Lucretius believed in it, only that he knew others did. We might also recall Lucretius' interest in the terrifying consequences of dreams elsewhere (1. 133,4. 34–7).
4 To Professor Abraham Wasserstein I am indebted for helpful suggestions.