This article aims to show that the two lacunae postulated in Lucretius 6, 607-608 e 6, 839-840 (at the beginning of the discussion on constantia maris and on wells and springs, respectively) should be rejected. The paradosis, indeed, does not allow to suspect any textual loss in either case, and the incipit ex abrupto of these sections can be traced to the absence of the Author’s summa manus.
Due lacune nel VI libro di Lucrezio (vv. 607-608 e 839-840)? Un bilancio
Leonardo Galli
2024
Abstract
This article aims to show that the two lacunae postulated in Lucretius 6, 607-608 e 6, 839-840 (at the beginning of the discussion on constantia maris and on wells and springs, respectively) should be rejected. The paradosis, indeed, does not allow to suspect any textual loss in either case, and the incipit ex abrupto of these sections can be traced to the absence of the Author’s summa manus.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
