Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:58:26.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONVIVIAL BED-WETTERS: LUCR. 4.1026–9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Archibald Allen
Archibald Allen*
Affiliation:
New York
*
archibaldallen@icloud.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note offers a new conjecture on the manuscripts’ puri at Lucr. 4.1026 which would identify more clearly the dreaming bed-wetters as well-wined dinner guests.

Keywords

dreamsbed-wetterstextual conjectures
Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , December 2022 , pp. 942 - 944
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Let me thank the journal's anonymous reader for helpful criticisms and suggestions.

References

1 Brown, R.D., ‘The bed-wetters in Lucretius 4.1026’, HSPh 96 (1994), 191–6Google ScholarPubMed offers an excellent analysis of the passage and its scholarship. He argues persuasively against the view that the dreamers are children, pace M. Deufert, who prints Clarke's parui in his new Teubner edition, Titus Lucretius Carus De rerum natura libri VI (Berlin and Boston, 2019).

2 Merrill, W.A., ‘Criticism of the text of Lucretius’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 3 (1916–18), 135–247Google Scholar, at 70.

3 A. Zingerle, Ovidius und sein Verhältnis zu den Vorgängern und gleichzeitigen römischen Dichtern 2 (Innsbruck, 1869–71), 12–47, at 45–7.

4 For et = etiam in Lucretius, see Butterfield, D., ‘Supplementa Lucretiana’, Arctos 42 (2008), 17–30Google Scholar, at 27. The suggested cum <et> would be especially appropriate if Avancius’ generic multi is preferred (cf. M.F. Smith, ‘Notes on Lucretius’, Sileno 11 [1985], 219–25, at 224: ‘I have little doubt that Avancius was right to suggest multi’).