Lucretius 3.1–3

Classical Quarterly 27 (02):354- (1977)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

‘The reading of the MSS, and not the Renaissance correction e, is certainly what L. wrote.’ So Kenney in his edition of Lucretius 3.1 I believe that he is right, but that the case for o rests on different grounds from those which he adduces. Kenney quotes D.A. West 's statement that e is ‘not worthy of the precise and vivid imagination of this poet’, and himself finds it anaemic by contrast with the sonorous o.2 These are subjective judgements. One can only reply by expressing disagreement and pointing out that e has seemed unexceptionable to the numerous editors who have printed it and have preferred it to o

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 107,650

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-09

Downloads
39 (#687,758)

6 months
20 (#182,783)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The Original Plan of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.G. B. Townend - 1979 - Classical Quarterly 29 (01):101-.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references