Tuesday, March 12, 2024
Better One Than Two
A.E. Housman, "Bailey's Lucretius," Classical Review 14.7 (October, 1900) 367-368 (at 368):
Newer› ‹Older
Mr Bailey says in his preface that he has been sparing of original conjectures because he does not wish to inflict new wounds upon the text. This estimate of his own talent in that department is certainly modest and seemingly correct. He prints only one emendation, and it is intust. Better one than two.Bailey printed the conjecture at 4.961, but he had been anticipated. See G.B.A. Fletcher, "Lucretiana," Latomus 27.4 (October-December, 1968) 884-893 (at 891):
Ernout, Diels, Martin and Buechner attribute to Bailey, who attributes it to himself, Everett's conjecture intust made in Harv. Stud. in Class. Philology, 7, 1896, p. 32.See also Marcus Deufert, Kritischer Kommentar zu Lukrezens De rerum natura (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), pp. 265-266.
