No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
InG & R xvii (1970), 197–8, H. G. Lord discusses the textual problem in Lucretius v. 1442 and proposes
tum mare velivolis florebat propter ad oras
navibu', non ausi tum in altum vertere proras.
Since the crux is one of those desperate ones of which it is almost true to say ‘quot editores tot sententiae, suos quoique mos’, and I have already published my own emendation, I will not attempt a refutation of a proposal which I myself find unconvincing. However, there are some inaccuracies in Lord's article upon which comment must be made. He states: ‘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.’
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1971
References
page 102 note 1 All these proposals involve taking velivolis as substantival—an interpretation which Lord, like many other scholars, evidently regards as impossible. It is true that the word is elsewhere an adjective, but (1) the word is a rare one; (2) if used here substantivally, there could be no obscurity: the word, already used by Ennius (cf. also Aesch. PV 468Google Scholar λινόпτερ' η
ρε ναυτ⋯λων ⋯χήματα), could refer only to ships, and the boldness of the usage is lessened by the occurrence earlier in the poem of the line ‘quos agimus praeter navem velisque volamus’ (iv. 390); (3) Lucretius is fond of adjectival substantives (cf. Smith, , op. cit. 48)Google Scholar, and the Roman reader, accustomed as he was to words like bidens ‘a two-pronged hoe’, no doubt found even the more unusual examples perfectly intelligible and acceptable.
page 103 note 1 Cf. Smith, , op. cit. 50.Google Scholar