Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:31:03.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Lost Line of Lucretius?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Extract

The only suggestions which attempt to deal with the reading of the manuscripts are that of Clodachzh (‘in search of spices’, which in addition to its improbability uses propter in a causal, and not in a local sense; the latter alone appears to be the Lucretian usage) and that of Ellis, ‘which does preserve most of the letters but shuffles them up in an impossible manner’ (Bailey) and for this reason has not found acceptance. Common ground for emendation is the need to provide a substantive with the meaning ‘ships’ for velivolis. It follows that if this is to be done, and if at the same time anything resembling the manuscripts' propter odores is to be retained, then a lacuna containing navibus must be presumed. (There is no help to be obtained from ii. 417, which does no more than record the existence of propter odores, words which there fit the context.)

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)