- On Lucretius. 41
JEraque proporro cltalybemque senescere crudum: u, a, e all in- terchange : chalybem crudum, like Virgil's crudus en sis ; crudus also makes a good antithesis to senescere. I would start too from this law in emending a very difficult passage, vi. 955 957. I place 955 after -957, not in the awkward place which Lachmann assigns to it, and read : Et tempestates terra caeloque coortce In caelum terrasque remotae jura facessunt Morbida visque simul ("and together with them the morbid influence") cum ex- trinsecus insinuatur. This passage will be best illustrated by comparing it with 1095 &c., especially with the words, ea vis omnis morborum pestilitasque Aut extrinsecus ut nubes nebulaeque superne Per caelum veniunt, &c. iv. 1130 for the corrupt alidensia I cannot accept Lachmann's alideusia, for which there is no authority whatever. Comparing Juvenal viii. 101, where among other articles of great luxury are mentioned together Spartana chlamys, conchylia Coa, I read, Interdum in pallam ae chlamydem se Ciaque vertunt. The first m of chlamydem has been changed into al, a usual corruption, comp. Lachmann I. 665 ; the words have then easily passed into atque alidensi, and the a has been added for a termination. A chlamys of Laconian purple is probably intended. Lachmann's emenda- tion, iv. 633, unicus aptus, departs widely from the MSS. and unicus in my opinion is quite unsuited to the argument ; for cibusutvideamus I read cibu' suavis et ahnus ; suavis is opposed to triste et amarum in the next verse, and almus to venerium in 637 ; comp. also 658 : for the meaning of almus see Bentley ad Hor. Sat. n. 4. 13. v. 1214 I should read eterni for et taciti (etaciti). iv. 79, perhaps both Lachmann and Bernays depart too far from the MSS. in the readings they propose for the corrupt words patrum matrumque deorum. Is Lucretius here speaking of the senators in the orchestra, and can the true reading be something such as patrum coetumque decorum, or patrum auratumque decorem ? v. 853, I would read, Feminaque ut maribus conjungi possit, habere Mutua qui mereant inter se guadia uterque. Lachmann's avere is quite beside the purpose, for surely the avere is not necessary on the woman's part, comp. 964 and 965 ; and why possit avere ? It seems to me most preposterous to refuse to Lucretius such a slight change of construction as habere renders necessary, iv. 608, Lachmann's feriunt for fuerunt will satisfy few. Change the position of one
