24 Journal of Philology . it the last five years of his busy life, reading expressly for its illustration a large portion of Latin literature ; and it is unques- tionably his masterpiece. This edition has been followed by one without notes by Bernays, published in 1852. With great modesty he has bowed to the authority of his predecessor ; and it seems to me that he has been often led into error by too great a deference to him : not but that he corrects him in many places, and in others deserts him, I think, without reason. As a critic of the language, Lachmann is supreme ; as an interpreter of the philosophy, he appears to me to be less successful, and in not a few passages to have done violence to his author's meaning. Every one who reads this paper will possess Lach- mann's, and ought to possess Bernays* edition ; I shall therefore content myself with attempting to throw new light on that which I conceive to have been misunderstood by them and pre- vious editors, and by offering emendations of some corrupt pas- sages, Lucretius affording of course a wide scope for this, as his text is derived from a single uncertain source. Wherever Lachmann examines for himself, his accuracy may be depended upon ; where he has trusted to others, he has sometimes been misled. During a residence at Florence in the summer of 1851 I inspected the eight MSS. of Lucretius belong- ing to the Laurentian library. On comparing the one in Plut. xxxv. 31 with ten MSS. of the same library, written in a beau- tiful hand and subscribed with the name of Antonius Marii Filius, neither the learned Head- Librarian nor myself could detect the very smallest point of resemblance between the writing of the latter and the MS. of Lucretius. Lachmann again attributes numberless emendations to this Antonius M. F. which are found also in the manuscript Plut. xxxv. 30, attributed to the well- known Nicolaus Nicoli. On the other hand, corrections made in xxxv. 31 are often assigned to Marullus, Lambinus, and others ; and Lambinus receives credit for the reading Jinem facis (in. 943) which appears in Avancius. Thus Lachmann, as often happens, from a too great anxiety to give every one his due has overshot the mark. MS. Plut. xxxv. 32 is only noticeable on account of some marginal notes which do not extend much beyond the thousandth verse of the first book, but which display great knowledge and acutcness for the time at which they must have been written. They appear to be principally founded on
