- On Lucretius. 45
pere officerent nobis Stymphala colentes Et Diomedis equi, &c. In 31, I read unhesitatingly Thracis, as nearer the ductus lite- rarum of Thracia, than Thracam is; moreover Thrax was the epitheton sollemne of this Diomede, to distinguish him from the other, who was equally famous for his horses : Nunc, quales Diomedis equi, nunc, quantus Achilles. Again, vi. 47 49, there is clearly a hiatus, but it is not so clear that one verse has managed to survive between two hiatuses; this, for manifest reasons, is improbable ; I therefore suppose that after 47, Quan- doquidem semel insignem, &c. there is a hiatus in which that sentence was completed, and that then a description followed of the fury of storms, and of the superstitious terrors they caused ; and that 48 and 49 allude to the ensuing lull: Ventorum ex ira ut placentur, ut omina rursum Quae fuerint sint placato con- versa furore. The alterations I have made are very slight, with ex ira ut changed to exirtant comp. virtuti for vir uti, iv. 820* There are also, I think, several other passages, which can only be rightly understood by assuming a hiatus. II. 501, &c. I am little satisfied with either Lachmann's or Bernays' correction of this passage ; I believe something is lost between 501 and 502. Again, n. 1030, I believe Principio is quite right, and that some such verse as the following has dropt out after it [Undique diffusum circum supraque tuere.] Again, iv. 397, I feel sure that Extantisque is genuine, and believe that something is lost after this or the next verse; Lachmann intrudes his usques usque ad nauseam. Again, vi. 696, &c. I cannot understand Lachmann's violent changes in this passage ; I believe the true way of proceeding is to suppose a hiatus after 697. With a text in the state in which that of Lucretius is, there is a wide scope for difference of opinion. I had collected a number of passages, in which I believed that the latest editors were mistaken either with the earlier ones, or in opposition to them; but, "spatiis inclusus iniquis," I must defer their con- sideration to a future opportunity. Lachmann has far too great a contempt for his predecessors; else he would hardly have rejected Wakefield's reading, iv. 1096, or Forbiger's claru' citat, v. 947 ; where his own clarigitat may well keep company with his manticuler. After dwelling so long on the shortcomings of his commen- tators, I will conclude with pointing out a blunder of the poet's
