Page:The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Volume 1, 1854.djvu/42

 32 Journal of Philology. the inanis, i.e. the Stoics, than the graves Graios, who seek the truth, the Epicureans. For fools, &c." (the poet here, and in I. 1068, retorts on the Stoics the epithet stolidly which they applied to all but themselves). " For how could such a diversity of things (645), be produced from single unmixed fire," and so on through a lengthened chain of reasoning. How could simple unmixed fire have the qualities which generating matter ought to have. But if ni is read in 628, and multis in 631, the argu- ment is utterly ruined*. I may here attempt to emend a verse in a passage to which I have just referred as bearing on the parts of atoms, and which has been awkwardly corrected by Lambinus, Lachmann, and others, n. 483 MSS. read : Namque in eadem una cujusvis in brevitate, &c. For Namque in read Nam quoniam, i. e. for q. in read qm> in and m of course being often confused; so iv. 710 MSS. have qum for quia. This quoniam then begins the protasis of a long sentence, which is taken up and continued at fac enim f and in 485 ; and then the apodosis commences with ergo 495, as in i. 526 and v. 260. The corruption may have been caused by the copyists looking on eadem as a trisyllable ; thus iv. 334, Lachmann rightly reads convertitur (i. e. convertit") eodem, instead of convertit eodem; and I think I can thus emend a corrupt passage, vi. 563 : Inclinata minent in eandem prodita partem ; for minent read minantur, e and a being continually interchanged ; with this use of minantur, compare v. 1237 dubiaeque minantur, and iv. 403. The interchange of the active and passive forms in our MSS. is very frequent ; thus at the end of II. 673 there is the corrupt traduntur, for which I should read condunt. The change of qm into que in may be compared with quoq. vere for coquere in v. 1102; and this suggests to me what I look upon as the right emendation of ii. 547, where for the corrupt sumant oculi Lachmann strangely After I had written the above strangely misunderstood by all editors, explanation of this passage, which I especially Lachmann, whose note is most have had by me for years, my attention perverse. Translate "You are not to was lately drawn to an article in the believe that that which we see moving PhUologus for 1851, in which the writer, uncertainly on the mere surface of Herm. Lotze (p. 701, &c), sees a part, things," viz. colour, "can be a property but only a part of the truth. The same inherent in the everlasting primal parti- writer has likewise explained a passage cles. n The passage is thus closely con- (11. 1010 1012) simple enough, but nected with what precedes and follows.