Textkritische Überlegungen zu Lucr. 6.9–23

Abstract Four problems in Lucr. 6.9–23 are discussed: The paradosis possent in 11 is defended against Lachmann's posset, the humanist emendation corda instead of transmitted cordi is corroborated by referring to the context of the passage, and instead of Munro's sine ulla replacing the evidently corrupt querelis in 15 the palaeographically more plausible neque illis is proposed, restoring the beginning of 16 to the completion of the parenthesis pausa < es > t qu[]in fes[so]s cog < a > t saevire querelis, whereas the passive cog(e)i of Cippellarius, leaving the accusativus cum infinitivo without clear subject and object, is rejected.