^{page 102 note 1} All these proposals involve taking velivolis as substantival—an interpretation which Lord, like many other scholars, evidently regards as impossible. It is true that the word is elsewhere an adjective, but (1) the word is a rare one; (2) if used here substantivally, there could be no obscurity: the word, already used by Ennius (cf. also Aesch. PV 468Google Scholar λινόпτερ' ηρε ναυτ⋯λων ⋯χήματα), could refer only to ships, and the boldness of the usage is lessened by the occurrence earlier in the poem of the line ‘quos agimus praeter navem velisque volamus’ (iv. 390); (3) Lucretius is fond of adjectival substantives (cf. Smith, , op. cit. 48)Google Scholar, and the Roman reader, accustomed as he was to words like bidens ‘a two-pronged hoe’, no doubt found even the more unusual examples perfectly intelligible and acceptable.

^{page 103 note 1} Cf. Smith, , op. cit. 50.Google Scholar