Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T08:33:54.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lucretius 4.1–25 and the proems of the De rerum natura

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Monica Gale
Monica Gale
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The status of the first twenty-five lines of De rerum natura 4 has been a matter of critical controversy since the appearance of Lachmann's edition of the poem in 1855. The lines are repeated almost verbatim from book 1 (926–50), and Lachmann refused to believe that Lucretius himself could be responsible for the duplication of such a long passage in such a prominent position. He condemned the repetition magisterially as a sign pauperis ingenii et nullius iudicii. The majority of subsequent editors and critics have followed him in attributing the repetition either to an editor or to an interpolator, or supposed that the poet intended eventually to delete the passage from one of the two locations, but was prevented from doing so by his premature death. The problems raised by the repetition are compounded by the transitional section (26–53): the transmitted text is cumbersome and repetitive, and most critics accept Mewaldt's theory that the passage consists of a ‘doublet’, in which two alternative versions of the usual summary and ‘syllabus’ (26–44 and 45–53) have been imperfectly integrated. Mewaldt himself argued that the doublet was the result of a change in the order of books 3 and 4: book 4 was originally intended to follow 2 directly, and lines 1–25 and 45–53 (which summarize the contents of books 1 and 2 only) date from this phase of composition. When the poet decided to insert book 3 between 2 and 4, he substituted the longer summary (26–44) and transferred 1–25 to a new location in book 1; but the posthumous editors of the poem failed to carry out the necessary deletions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 40 , 1994 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

References

Notes

1. K. Lachmann (Berlin, 1855) ad 1.922–7.

2. Munro4 (Cambridge, 1886), Brieger (Leipzig, 1894), Diels (Berlin, 1923), Leonard and Smith (Madison, 1942), Ernout and Robin2 (Paris, 1962), Büchner (Wiesbaden, 1966) and Müller (Zürich, 1975) all incline to one or other of these theories. Merrill (Berkeley, 1917) and Martin3 (Leipzig, 1957) print 4.1–25 as transmitted, without comment. Bailey (Oxford, 1947) hesitates between the views that Lucretius intended the lines to stand in both places, and that they were placed at the beginning of 4 merely as a stop-gap; similarly Paratore and Pizzani (Rome, 1960) argue that the passage is out of place in book 1, but are reluctant to invoke an interpolator because repetition is a characteristically Lucretian trait! Only Giussani (Turin, 1896–8) and Brown, (Lucretius on love and sex: a commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030–1287 with prolegomena, text and translation (Leiden, 1987) 5–7)Google Scholar argue positively in favour of retaining the passage in both locations.

3. Mewaldt, J., ‘Eine Dublette in Buch IV des Lucrez’, Hermes 43 (1908) 186–95Google Scholar (reprinted in Classen, C. J. (ed.), Probleme der Lukrezforschung (Hildesheim, 1986) 31–40)Google Scholar.

4. See especially Schmid, W., ‘Altes und Neues zu einer Lukrezfrage’, Philologus 93 (1938) 338–51 (= Classen (n. 3) 41–54)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bailey (n. 2) ad 1.921–50; Bücher, K., ‘Die Proömien des Lukrez’, C&M 13 (1952) 159–235Google Scholar (= Studien zur römischen Literatur I (Wiesbaden, 1964) 57–120)Google Scholar; Gompf, L., Die Frage der Entstehung von Lukrezens Lehrgedicht (diss. Cologne, 1960)Google Scholar; Gaiser, K., ‘Das vierte Prooemium des Lukrez und die “Lukrezische Frage”’, in Eranion: Festschrift für Hildebrecht Hommel (Tübingen, 1961) 19–41Google Scholar.

5. Brown (n. 2) 8.

6. See e.g. Clay, D., Lucretius and Epicurus (Ithaca and London, 1983) 183f.Google Scholar; Segal, C. P., Lucretius on death and anxiety: poetry and philosophy in De Rerum Natura (Princeton, 1990) 182–6Google Scholar. Two notable exceptions are Schrijvers, P. H., Horror ac divina voluptas: étude sur la poétique et la poésie de Lucrèce (Amsterdam, 1970) 27–47)Google Scholar, who argues that the lines belong in book 1; and Brown (n. 2) 8.

7. Bailey (n. 2) 758.

8. Schmid (n. 4) 346–51.

9. Bailey, loc. cit. (n.4).

10. Büchner (n. 4) 187–4. Cf. the similar arguments of Drexler, H., ‘Aporien im Prooemium IV des Lucrez’, Athenaeum 13 (1935) 73–100Google Scholar.

11. Gompf (n.4) 146–70.

12. Schrijvers, loc. cit. (n. 6).

13. Some critics have felt that the quod-clauses are slightly elliptical (e.g. Leonard and Smith (n. 2) ad loc: ‘The meaning, if expanded, would be “I joy in gaining this crown, which I deserve, first because …”’). This seems to me to be unnecessary. It is not possible to defend my view of Lucretius' meaning fully here: for a more detailed analysis, see my Myth and poetry in Lucretius (Cambridge, 1994) 141–51Google Scholar.

14. Cf. Bailey (n. 2) III 1181; Gompf (n. 4) 9–14.

15. Gompf (n. 4) 4–65.

16. Cf. Brown (n. 2) 9–13.

17. On the relationship between books 3 and 4, see further Brown (n. 2) 13–19.

18. Gaiser (n. 4); Canfora, L., ‘I proemi del De rerum natura’, RFIC 110 (1982) 63–77Google Scholar.

19. Virgil's imitation in Geo. 3.289–93, and the comments of Servius and Macrobius, are based on the passage as it appears in book 1. Nonius (319.12 etc.) and Quintilian (Inst. 3.1.4 and 8.6.45) quote the lines as from book 4, and Nemesianus (Cyn. 8f.) also seems to have the book 4 version of the passage in mind.

20. ‘Man and beast in Lucretius and the Georgics’, CQ 41 (1991) 414–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. See especially Townend, G., ‘Imagery in Lucretius’, in Dudley, D. R. (ed.), Lucretius (London, 1965) 95–114Google Scholar; West, D., The imagery and poetry of Lucretius (Edinburgh, 1969) 74–8Google Scholar and ‘Virgilian multiple-correspondence similes and their antecedents’, Philologus 114 (1970) 262–75Google Scholar; Pasoli, E., ‘Ideologia nella poesia: lo stile di Lucrezio’, Lingua e Stile 5 (1970) 367–86Google Scholar; Leen, A., ‘The rhetorical value of the similes in Lucretius’, in Bright, D. F. and Ramage, E. S. (eds.), Classical texts and their traditions: studies in honour of C. R. Trahman (Chico, California, 1984) 107–23Google Scholar; Hardie, P. R., Virgil's Aeneid: Cosmos and imperium (Oxford, 1986) 219–23Google Scholar; Schiesaro, A., Simulacrum et imago: gli argomenti analogici nel De rerum natura (Pisa, 1990)Google Scholar. Leen (op. cit. 117) characterizes Lucretius' use of imagery in general as ‘relentlessly didactic’.

22. On repetition in Lucretius, see especially Pasoli (n. 21); Ingalls, W. B., ‘Repetition in Lucretius’, Phoenix 25 (1971) 227–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clay (n. 6) 176–86.

23. Ingalls (n. 22) argues that Ennius was Lucretius' direct model here, though it is difficult to be sure how extensively repetition was used in the Annales. Cf. Moskalew, W., Formular language and poetic design in the Aeneid (Leiden, 1982) 55fGoogle Scholar.

24. For Lucretius' relationship with epic, see Murley, C., ‘Lucretius De Rerum Natura viewed as epic’, TAPhA 78 (1947) 336–46Google Scholar; Hardie (n. 21) 193–219; Mayer, R., ‘The epic of Lucretius’, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6 (1990) 35–43Google Scholar; Gale (n. 13) 99–128.

25. On Empedocles' use of repetition, and his relation to the epic tradition, see Bollack, J., Empédocle (Paris, 1965) I 277–327Google Scholar. Note especially frs. 25 and 35, which offer a kind of apology for the use of this technique.

26. See especially fr. 26, which consists almost entirely of repeated lines, and summarizes the contents of the first part of the poem.

27. E.g. 3.784–97 = 5.127–41, 3.806–18 = 5.351–63, 4.216–29 = 6.922–35. Lucretius usually makes minor alterations, analogous to the variations between 1.926–50 and 4.1–25, when he repeats a passage.

28. A good example is the passage which Clay calls ‘the Epicurean axiom of change’: nam quodcumque suis mutatum finibus exit, | continuo hoc mors est illius quod fuit ante, repeated at 1.670f., 1.792f., 2.753f. and 3.519f.

29. Ep. ad. Hdt. 35.

30. Diog. Laert. 10.33, Diog. Oen. n. fr. 5.3.3–14.

31. 2.55–61 = 3.87–93 = 6.35–41 (cf. 1.146–8). For the repetition of passages of programmatic importance, cf. also 1.738f. = 5.110f., 2.29–33 = 5.1392–6, 5.82–90 = 6.58–66.

32. On Lucretius and Callimacheanism, see further Ferrero, L., Poetica nuova in Lucrezio (Florence, 1949)Google Scholar; Kenney, E. J., ‘Doctus Lucretius’, Mnemosyne ser. 4.23 (1970) 366–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, R. D., ‘Lucretius and Callimachus’, ICS 7 (1982) 77–97Google Scholar.

33. It is perhaps worth noting that, while Virgil generally avoids the repetition of passages longer than a single line, even he will sometimes use repetition on a larger scale to achieve particular effects. Perhaps the most striking example is Georgics 4.549–53, where Cyrene's instructions to Aristaeus are repeated almost word for word from 538–46, emphasizing the scrupulous obedience with which Aristaeus carries out the ritual. On Virgilian repetition, see Moskalew (n. 23) (a much more sophisticated discussion than the earlier monograph by Sparrow, J., Half-lines and repetitions in Virgil (Oxford, 1931))Google Scholar.

34. ‘Lucretius 1.921–50’, TAPhA 98 (1967) 221–51Google Scholar.

35. Gompf (n. 4) 150 notes the contrast between Lucretius' characterization of his own style and that of Heraclitus. Tatum, W. J. (‘The Presocratics in Book One of Lucretius De Rerum Natura’, TAPhA 114 (1984) 177–89)Google Scholar argues that Lucretius is concerned with the rival philosophers' style, as well as their scientific theories, throughout the doxographical section.

36. Cf. Clay (n. 6) 131f.; Segal, C. P., ‘Poetic immortality and the fear of death: the Second Proem of the De Rerum Natura’, HSCP 92 (1989) 193–212Google Scholar. There are numerous verbal echoes: cf. especially primus (71: cf. 66) with the emphasis on primacy in 926–30; acrem … uirtutem (69f.) with acri … thyrso (922f.); peragraauit (74) with peragro (926); uiuida uis animi (72) with mente uigenti (925); irritat (70) with instinctus (925); and immensum (74) with auia (926); also nulla regione uiarum | finitumst (958f.) with auia … loca (926).

37. Cf. De Lacy, P. H., ‘Distant views: the imagery of Lucretius 2’, CJ 60 (1964) 49–55Google Scholar.

38. Cf. especially errare (10) with error (132) and uagantur (83, 105, 109); certare (11) with certantia (119) and certamine (573); noctes atque dies (12) with nulla quies (95), and the theme of restlessness in 80–141 passim.

39. See Gale (n. 13) 177–82.

40. Cf. Jope, J., ‘The didactic unity and emotional import of Book 6 of De Rerum Natura’, Phoenix 43 (1989) 16–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. For illusion as a theme of book 4, cf. Brown (n. 2) 22–38.

42. For the terms ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’, see Kenney, E. J., Lucretius: De rerum natura book III (Cambridge, 1971) 12fGoogle Scholar.

43. It is not always clear precisely where proem ends and ‘syllabus’ begins: in book 1, for example, the poet starts to list the content of the poem in 1.50ff., immediately after the ‘hymn’ to Venus, but then reverts to the praise of Epicurus in 62–79. Nevertheless, the proems are much more clearly demarcated than either the finales of the six books, or the so-called digressions.

44. Cf. Cox, A. S., ‘Lucretius and his message'’, G&R 18 (1971) 1–16Google Scholar.

45. Books 1–2 concern atoms and void, 3–4 psychology and sensation, 5–6 the cosmos. Alternatively, books 1–3 establish the basic principles of the system, and combat the fear of death, 4–6 deal with particular problems and combat the fear of the gods.

46. Light and dark: 1.9 and 136–45, 3.1f and 22, 5.11f. (cf. 2.15, 24–7 and 54–61, 4.8, 6.35–41). Calming the storm: 1.6–9,3.1 f. (and cf. simul ac …diffugiunt animi terrores, 3.13–15 with ‘te fugiunt uenti …nam simul ac (1.6, 10)), 5.10–12.

47. refert (75) is a pun: Epicurus both brings back his discoveries as booty and reports them to his followers. See Hardie (n.21) 173.

48. Cf. Cox (n. 44).

49. Sweetness: 2.1–8, 4.11–25. Healing: 4.11–25, 6.9–34. Wandering/journeying: 2.10, 4.1, 6.27–31.

50. The proem to book 3 is hymnic in style (cf. Kenney (n. 42) ad 3.9–10 and 11–13), and pater and inclutus are regularly used of gods (cf. Bailey ad loc.). The vocabulary of illumination, revelation and awe in 14–30 is suggestive of a mystic epopteia. In the proem to book 6, ueridicus (6 and 24), purgare (24) and profudit (6) all have religious connotations.

51. The phrase tenebris tantis perhaps suggests a backward reference, which can also be connected with the gloomy thoughts of the ploughman and the vine-dresser at the end of book 2.

52. Cf. Conte, G. B., ‘Proems in the middle’, YCS 29 (1992) 147–59Google Scholar (= Virgilio: il genere e i suoi confini (Milan, 1984) 121–33Google Scholar). Conte argues that Annales 1–12 were originally published separately, so that the proem to book 7 would correspond exactly with D.R.N. 4. He also discusses Virgil's adoption of the Ennian pattern in the Eclogues and Georgics (which both contain a programmatic section at the beginning of the second half), and in the invocation of Erato in Aen. 7.37–44, and suggests that Lucretius may have been an important mediator between Ennius and Virgil. Callimachus' Victoria Berenices and the invocation in Ap. Rhod. 3.1–5 can also be fitted into the pattern, and the impulse behind the ‘proem in the middle’ may even be traced as far back as Homer, who seems to echo his own opening invocation at the beginning of Od. 13 (89–92), just as his hero is finally on the point of landing in Ithaca (cf. Rutherford, R. B., ‘At home and abroad: aspects of the structure of the Odyssey’, PCPS 31 (1985) 138 and n. 29Google Scholar). On the fragments of Ennius' programme, see further Skutsch, O., The Annales of Q. Ennius (Oxford, 1985) ad locGoogle Scholar.

53. On Callimachean, Ennian and Lucretian echoes in Geo. 3.1–48, see Thomas, R. F., Virgil: Georgics (Cambridge, 1988) II 36–49Google Scholar. Cf. also Gale (n. 20) 414, n. 4.

54. Cf. 1.102–35, where Ennius is implicitly criticized for his views on the afterlife. For Epicurean views on history, see Cic. Fin. 2.67.

55. The variation in the final line also provides a transitional phrase appropriate to each half of the poem. Books 1–3 deal with the atomic structure of the world and the soul, books 4–6 demonstrate the utilitas of the theory by applying it to the particular problems of sensation, cosmology and meteorological and terrestrial phenomena. The variant percipis for perspicis can similarly be explained by reference to the context, since book 4 is precisely concerned with the mechanism of vision and thought (see OLD s.v. §4 for percipio in the sense of ‘perceive’ or ‘understand’), which both involve taking in (OLD s.v. §7) simulacra from the external environment.

56. See especially Heraclitus, Quaest. Hom. 4.2, and Plut. Non posse 1087a and De aud.poet. 15d. Cf. also Ep. frs. 117, 163–4, 228–9 Usener, Diog. Laert. 10.20, Sext. Emp. Adv. math. 1.296–9, Cic. Fin. 1.71f., [Virg.] Cat. 5.

57. For Metrodorus, see Plut. Non posse 1094e; for Colotes, see Crönert, W., Colotes und Menedemos (Amsterdam 1965), 4–12Google Scholar; for Cicero's Torquatus, see Fin. 1.71f. and 2.12. Philodemus (who was himself a poet as well as an Epicurean) seems to have retreated to some extent from Epicurus' complete rejection of poetry; but he was regarded by Cicero (Pis. 70) as exceptionally cultured for an Epicurean, and in any case the composition of erotic and sympotic epigrams is a rather different matter from enshrining Epicurus' teachings in verse. See further Schmidt, J., Lukrez, der Kepos und die Stoiker (Frankfurt am Main, 1990) 5–9Google Scholar; Gale (n. 13) 16–18.

58. Sen. Ep. 25.5 (= ft. 211 Us.); cf. Ep. 11.8 (= fr. 210 Us.).

59. The claim that poetry is ‘clearer’ than prose may seem puzzling; but the phrase lucida carmina directs the reader back to 1.136–45, where the poet speaks of illuminating the obscura reperta of the Greeks, and enabling Memmius to see ‘hidden things’. Lucretius' subject-matter is ‘obscure’ in the sense that it concerns the invisible, intangible and abstract: the atoms are caeci, the pre-history of book 5 and the future destruction of the world cannot be confirmed by sight or touch (5.1446f., 100–3), atomic motion is ‘secret and invisible’ (2.128). The clarity of poetry consists in its ability to concretize abstract ideas, to provide a simulacrum et imago of the invisible by the use of imagery and figurative language, enabling the reader to ‘see’ the nature of the universe in his mind's eye (1.949f.). Cf. Schrijvers (n. 6), 38–47; Clay (n. 6) 107; Hardie (n. 21) 219–23; Gale (n. 13) 138–55.

60. There is perhaps also a contrast with Anaxagoras, who seems to be criticized for the use of obscure technical jargon (1.830–33). See further Tatum (n. 35).

61. As far as the promise of 5.155 goes, Minadeo, R. (‘Three textual problems in Lucretius’, CJ 63 (1967–1968) 241–61)Google Scholar has put forward the attractive theory that the required proof is actually supplied by the remainder of books 5 and 6, where the poet's description of this world demonstrates that it could not possibly be a suitable environment for the abodes of the gods.