f On Lucretius. 35 away from the nerves, blood, &c, just as it forbids a tree to grow in the air;" and then with enim the meaning would be, for if it could so exist, it would rather exist in the head or shoulders, &c. a clear non-sequitur ; you want evidently a disjunctive par- ticle, such as quod si. Again, it would be absurd to say that " it would be accustomed to be born in any part you please in the same man, and to remain in the same receptacle :" what is the meaning of same ? And besides this, the passage does not agree with what follows ; tandem also would have the meaning of denique, which Lucretius would surely not have given to it. Truly we may say with Creech, " Omnia displicent." Now by a very slight change in the first verse, which is manifestly corrupt, viz. by reading non for enim, (and in MSS. enim and non are often written almost alike), and by changing the punctuation, all will be intelligible : Quod si posset, non multo prius Posset et innasci ? quavis in ... . manere ? " But even were that possible, would not the soul much rather exist and be born in the head or shoulders or heels (i. e. in some extremity of the body) ? would it, I should like to know (tandem), continue to reside in any part you please to select of the same man and of the same receptacle/' i.e. would it not be liable at any moment to quit any man? Esse et innasci, used together, exactly correspond to durare genique in 797. iv. 92, the older editors must be right in reading intrinsecus ortai; extrinsecus torte is without meaning ; so vi. 1099, intrinsecus and extrinsecus are confused in one MS. What Lachmann means iv. 1058 by momen for nomen, and by putting a stop after ilkec, I cannot conceive ; the mean- ing of the passage seems to me most clear, " mute desire tells of the pleasure to come : this pleasure is for us our Venus :" comp. 1084 5; "from that desire comes the name we give to love (cupido), from that desire," &c. Creech's numen is quite intel- ligible, though unnecessary, and Lachmann's objection is most perverse, for Lucretius would of course mean that the divinity of love is nothing more than this desire, v. 805, Lachmann should not change primum to passim; "the earth then first gave forth races of mortal men." Mortalia saecla is used in the same sense as in v. 988, not for living creatures generally ; and the succeeding lines, for instance pueris, v. 816, prove this. Lachmann is throughout far too rigid in refusing to Lucretius a poet's privilege of using words in different senses. As a philosopher, 32
