{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03584491587417703, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02852962692026335, 'mean_word_length': 4.772151898734177, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
NON SINE IRA ET STUDIO

position of 1085–6: the result is the removal of sea and river water from the picture, an ill-placed verse that can do nothing more than gloss corpora . . . liquoris of 1083–4. The bibliography that closes each book proves S.’s eclectic reading from the early nineteenth century onwards, although Lambinus and Creech perhaps find fewer citations in the commentary than their merits deserve. In addition, it is an admirable gesture to convenience, and a counterpoint to the vice of spatial stinginess that afflicts many publishers, to provide each bibliographical reference in full whenever such regularly occur within the commentary itself, often covering five or six lines of printed text. Faced with such positive glimpses into S.’s Lucretian labours, the reader would welcome further clarity about his purpose(s) in producing commentaries such as these. Perhaps a fourth volume and more are yet to come? If so, maybe a suggestive word could be put in for Lucretius’ treatment of sleep (4.907–1029) or of disease and the Athenian plague (6.1090–1287)? At any rate, although S.’s treatment of 5.416–508 (whose commentary covers only pp. 17–37) could have appeared instead as an effective article in a well-circulated journal, both volumes bring profit from consultation, and that on the close of Book 1 should leave its imprint on Lucretians.