Minyard J.D. Lucretius and the Late Republic

Citation preview

BY

J. D. MINYARD

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL

1985

SPT Oem eee eee r rr ene ans ee P T eee ee ee eee ee eee eee eeesecene oe oe ease rtsene

a

1. Roman Intellectual History

2. The Mos Matorum

e

e

eee eee ere reece rere reser esre reresesese a

i

la

The genesis of the preser Reality, and the Formy] as

the conference on Truth; : y *

.

°

of Truth in the

aper entitled ‘‘Appearances,

- 1983, T Professor William F. Wyatt, Jr. he co

, the stimulus the conference provided fo r developing those ideas into a longer treatmen t, and the kind hospitality afforded me and the other Participants, a num ber of whom made valuable suggestions for improving the argument and expl oring its implications. A somewhat different version of the material was th en presented on 7 November 1983 as the NEH Faculty Lecture, entitled ‘The Intellectual Situation of Lucretius,’’ to a seminar consisting of the members of the Departmentof Classics of Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. Thanks are due to Professor Dee Lesser Clayman, chairman ofthe department, for herinvitation to give thelecture and for the hospitality she and her department provided. Once again, the discussion following the presentation contributed significantly

to the improvement ofthis study. of re natu true the that ef beli the in The present essay is founded ex e th e it sp de , ed in am ex y ll fu n e e b t no s ha y or st hi l a u t c e l l e t n i n a m Ro rpo im of th al we a of d n a s ie ud st l ia rt pa t en ll ce ex f o r e b m u n a of e nc iste d a v ° a n e r o a om fr s er tt ma nt tant scholarly treatmentof releva

n ca al ri te ma is Th . y) or st hi al ci so (e.g. political or

ee a eee

n a n o R P Y s e he y or st hi al tu ec ll te in d to the questionsofcultural an st ie rl ea s it n il st t ryi to is th a e u s o at on the related belief th ua-

literature and of Lucretius place

_

‘t

t ea stages, with much fundamental work remaiig ese hisveorcrieitaictr al or

th fo d e c e o s ar ye ty ir th en ev s wa it as k tion is not as blea ment of Roman literature as 4 whole, 38 dike notion that Rome had

ve n ha w o s it ctof pa im d an n s, a or al th du au vi di t in f en o tm ea al ic tr histor

an intellectuallife of its own with a aaetory of scholarship. This study

yet to have their time of fashion int Teretive to his specifically Roman rd relating

wa to ep st a be is meant to

VIll

PREFACE

cultural context, treating the controversies of the Late Republic as serious intellectual conflicts over the nature, meaning, and direction of Roman society, and constructing a conceptual outline for studyingthe whole course of Roman intellectual history. The content of what follows reflects the continuing impact on my outlook of the two earliest sponsors of my Lucretian studies, Michael C. J. Putnam and Phillip H. DeLacy. Manydetails of the present discussion reflect the benefit I have received from the comments of Professors Giovanni Ferrari, D. J. Furley, Barbara K. Gold, Carl Rubino, Bruce

McQueen, Edward Harris, Hardy Hansen, and Howard Wolman, each of whom is owed thanks for several specific improvements.

Greensboro, North Carolina

J.D. M.

LU CRETIUS A ND THE LAT E REPUBLIC

1. Roman Intellectual Fiistory

peting accounts of truth and reality which constitutes the intellectual

crisis of the Late Roman Republic, that the De Rerum Na tura of Lucretius can, most powerfully and accurately be understood and, ab ove all, evaluated. The world in which Lucretius lived, the entire Mediterranean world of the First Century B.C., experienced a crisis as profound as can be

imagined absent its elimination. This crisis was general and from it emerged, first, the Augustan arrangement, or pax, and, last, the reorien-

tation of life by Christianity. The crisis was, at least, political, military,

cultural, and intellectual. It was perhaps also social and economic. At or ga ni ec za on an om d so ic ci t al h fo e r co ns de eq ep h ue it a nc d ra es te any , an d pr of od uc ti m on o d e al s te no r t di it d i f wo tion and content of this rld, bu t, cr is is Ro , a ma n si mp ly th an m o re the class framework. It was much

R o m e w a y th e of fu a nc ti on wa it s pa x, th e be fo re st ag es la st it s in since,

wo rl d Me di te th e rr an w ea a y n th e an d wo rl d Me di te th rranean e became th e fr om di st is in gu is i ha t bl e co nc er n ou r of pe ri od became Rome, in the

co nc ep tu al ly on . ly R o m e at crisis

as pe ct s, ot he r it s as we ll as in te ll it ec s tu in al cr is is , This Mediterranean th ro ug ra h n wh ic h th at wa s Fi rs t li ne s. fa ul t th re e manifested itself along

by pr od uc wa ed s m o v e m e wh n t er e it se lf , so ci et y R o of m a n st the ructures of pr oc es s th e fr om ul ti ma or te ly pr ox im at el y re su lt in g sh oc ks the various th e of so ci et ie th s e th ro ug ra h n wh ic h on e w a s S econd ex pa ns io n. Roman

n i a ex pa ns io n R o m a n an te da te d wh ic h al on g Greek East, movement : . 1 a of ac ti vi ty th e to ba ck tr ac ed be ca n ca us es w h ose a n d ar ea that 1n the old world of the

de ve lo pm in ents te to rn al ul ti ma a n te d ly Macedon

by co nf ir an me d d ex ac er ba th te en d w a s he re t ma R o m a n be tw ee cl n as th h e by d i by polis itself. earthianenl cr ea te d li ne a wa s Th ir d ex pa nsion. Roman

2

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

and Hellenistic imperializing cultures, along which occurred the struggle for cultural, intellectual, political, military, and economic dominanc e,

during the last period of Greek influence upon Republican Rome, in the

Middle and Late Republics. All three fault lines are evident in the De

Rerum Natura and can be identified as its historical context, indeed, as its historical causes making this poem a quintessentially Late Republican

document, bearing the clear stamp of its cultural environment. It could

have come from no other period of Roman history, for Lucretius’ poem is the direct product of the genuinecrisis of civitas Romana. The world of civitas, and with it its account of the way the world works, had been shattered by its own success, and this shattering set its members free to act on their own versions of truth and reality, to find their own sets of values, with the end that, by giving citizens freedom from their citizenship, the crisis cost them the freedom their citizenship had given. Civitas hadlost its place as the center and source of understanding and purpose, hadlost its power to organize life. Only some words andthe shells of old habits, which we call the institutions of the Republic andtheir articulation in law, remained. Theold structure ofideas, purposes, and values no longer offered what everyone acceptedas the explanation of the nature of things. Roman imperial expansion, had Hellenic civilization never been, would have produced eventually internal institutional crisis. Because there was such a civilization, because it owned such cultural power, because all Roman history had been characterized by the infusion of Romanlife by Hellenic culture, and because Hellenic society had already passed through its ownversion ofthis crisis, or wasin thelast stagesofits

version, the internal crisis at Rome was worked out ultimately in the

Mites

‘‘albulus columbus’’, ‘‘imperator unice’’, and ‘‘sinistra liberalitas’’,

here offering his version of the theme of the separation between words

and things. Financial and sexual corruption as the central images of modern politics reach their conclusion in the logic of modern life with the

corrupuonof pietas itself by the familial alliance of Pompey and Caesar for corrupt and even anu-Republican gain referred to in ‘‘socer gener-

que’’. This shows as clearly as anything in Catullus his conception ofthe inherent immorality of the old civic system. The very heart of that systern, the family, is created by alliances made for gain, ultimately for 1. 18 417 1) 97 (1 76 P C , ’’ 29 us ll tu Ca n o s te No al ic it Cr ‘‘ , d r a y n i M . D 12 See J.

specific symbolof the truth about hi _ ; th : the epigrams. Memmiusis pictureday, and his politics: the mentula of

mocks the papatttt ern on which Pompey, Caesar, Crassus and Ma , M e m m i u s . , Piso : ; murra practice poli Lp

tics by identifying it with c o r r u p t s e x, theft false friendship, and disgracef ul marriage, so he reduces the C i c e ronian practice to what he perceives as i ts

see as the self-centered pomposity and meaningless, indiscriminate superlatives of Ciceronian oratorical style, which elim inates language as

an

instrument

of

precise

communication,

and

mocks

the

un-

discriminating, meaningless friendships of the ‘‘optimus omnium patronus’’, so different from those of the discriminating ‘‘pessimus omnium poeta’’, who, on the same standard, would be, we may deduce, the real ‘‘optimus paucorum poeta’’ (compare Poem 95). The use ofoptimus here must hit at the language of Ciceronian political self-advertisement in the same way Jltberalitas and imperator make fun of the propaganda of

Caesar and Pompey in Poem 29.

ol d th e th at po in on t, at e be or li ev ed be li ha ev ed ve , mi gh t Catullus

co of nt em po my ra th ry la te r Sa ll in us t’ s po rt as ra ye d ofciv it as , pure world

an d va lu e mo ra l tr ue re pr es pa en st te , d Re pu bl pu ic a re an fr om decline hi st or by ic al ru in ed be en ha d th is th at bu t the paradigm of reality,

th e an d ma rr ia on ge 62 an d 6 1 Po em s ci rc um stance. change and modern

in th is su pp to or t m a d be e ca n mo ra of ls de cl th e in on e 64 P o em end of i n e a s pa th , a n d va lv e, re al it of y, ac co un t o w n hi s Ye t, terpretation.

4 ! a no has co mp hi os s of it n, pressed in the whole corpHus not only makesiofu an an is m ms e c th of e n e ] way. ;

with the ancestra .

vial politics, and his own brief personal participa-

a wi th co he nc 28 lu de P s o in e m bu e, t lower purposes © me 6 6 sa me th of e , pe ri th ph e o ery tion n 1 e t e p “ c i t s a c r a s e h t n i m r o f n r e d o m s t i d n a e c n a t i r e h n i of the buke s a s n a i c i t i l o . p t u o g n i k e e s r o f t e g u o y t a h w s ’ t a h t ‘ ‘ : ’ ; ’ s o c i s am neobbiilen e h t u a n o g n i w o l l o f e g a i r r a m t u b , e g a i r r a m e e s o t r e t t e b s i t I ’ ’ s ’ d . n e i r ‘frie h

a as saved only if not used

Ls in the time a -ivie worth,

. e f i l n a m u h d e r e t n e t c i l f n o c l i v i c n e h w t f e l s d o g e . h T . a i t i t s u alIso so 2i past,

26

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

The foundation of Catullan values upon personal feeling anda style that dictates both a pattern of life and a pattern of art can be illustrated,

for example, from such poems as 12, 14, 17, 22, 95, and 116. The qualities that make a good person are those shown by a good poem and

include wit, irony, and urbanity, in addition to integrity and the

faithfulness to personal feeling. Value in life is judged on the same stand-

ard as value in art. Suffenus may exhibit certain qualities in his personal

manner that make him admirable in that sphere, but the superficialityof

his qualities is shown bytheir absence in his art, which makes his poems false. Asinius Marrucinus’ behavior lacks these qualities and can be condemned on that ground. The subject matter of worthwhile, i.e. true, poetry, should be the representation of a truthful and honest pattern of neoteric personallife. In the process ofsetting out a personalistic accountof the world, with a new standard of truth, Catullus, rather than creating new terms,

redefines the old categories. This presents special problems for understanding him, problems which would have been even greater for his Roman audience, in much the same way it would have been difficult to understand precisely what Caesar was talking about. But the context in which he places the traditional terms makes his meaning clear to close reading. The best single example ofthis technique of redefinition is Poem 76, which is unintelligible if we read it by applying their old social meanings to the inherited words which appearin it: benefacta, pius, sancta fides, foedus, salus, purus, pudicus, pietas. What have all these to do with amor of the kind Catullus has exhibited and is talking about in this poem, except of se expen the at it to f himsel ted devo has who man the and it mn conde to exhas life his that ng claimi er, howev is, lus Catul to? refer they the world of basis the on , pretas to ically specif claim lays and s value these emplified ays portr he thing Every . favor their for gods the to ls appea he h whic conbe only can s poem his of rest the in ding defen and doing himself as at lboy schoo Every this. knew lus Catul . pietas civic to t affron strued as an t? mean have he can then What it. Rome knew

is lus Catul that ption assum the on 76, Poem to Meaning can be given

ing stand under by only nce, audie his se confu and fool to not simply trying

in world new the age, langu l tiona tradi the new definitions he gives the and social their of ped strip are They live. to which he has caused them of test the h whic in xt, conte nal perso a in civic reference and reapplied the as ng feeli nal perso of ty ntici authe but truthfulness is not public action

is It s. ip sh on ti la re c vi ci nno e, at iv pr f o t en hm is bl ta es e th r fo on ti motiva is 76 m e o P in ry la bu ca vo c vi ci e th of st re e th d n a as et pi at th on these lines . 9) 10 m e o P in ’ e’ ia it ic am us ed fo e ta nc sa ‘‘ as ll we as to be interp P reted ( and

, s c i t i l o p n i d e g a g n e t o n s a h Catullus

he is not speaking of

27

Republican values,

ate re]

married woman wh

amicittae in their ow .

.

il

* |

”

. S

*

‘

8

,

a

I

p

1 VE

.

‘

© e! son a]

1

fid.

fe

a

|

Ing

f ’

In

defian

A oF

. ’

18

inner

emotional

welfa I é

an

|

i

.

the words in an entirely new setting actual events of life. Caesar pretend S to us e the old word in the old context a

s the allegation of ancientright and value, but he is lying. He is using the word in a way the old context and an cient right does not allow. He is deliberately making nonsense of the term by empl oying it as the veil

of new action not as the indication of a new ki nd of worth he has discovered in the world.

Catullus, however, creates a new reference of feeling for these words.

Lesbia and her husband, however much married, were not joined in a

union ratified by feeling. Therefore, the marriage wasnotreal but an imitation. Respecting it would entail repudiation of the new fides, not its realization. Catullus’ own feeling for Lesbia was genuine, therefore the foundation ofa real foedus amicitiae because sanctified by true fides, notlike

the false amicitiae of public life. As it turned out, of course, Lesbia’s

sh e be ca fi us de no e s ha d Sh e sh a am . wa s fe el in g si declaration of ncere

th e o n ep ig o ra f ms nu a mb in er co nc en trates had nofeeling, and Catullus '3 s. rd wo r he d n a y t i l a e nr ee tw be exploration of the gap bulary, see D. O. Ross, Jr., Style iti ? : sion - saeMase1969) “especially80-95. Heisolates eae que le who he Ont 6 and Tradition

in Catullus (Cambn (89): “The most difficult question concerning c.76 is one

the intellectual point of Poem hered an

critic: what do the first five lines have to do with

ase phr His y. full ght insi his oits expl s Ros if r eve how d, bee e hav to m see not s doe that c civi of e uag ang “‘l e lik ing eth som by ed lac rep be the sixth? ht may Pe lliance” should tual llec inte and cal ethi es tut sti con e lov his for or aph met c “vi e nc po of ry ‘vocabula

association”. Catu we Ross’ method in Minyard, GJ 69 (1973-1974) 88-91, and D. T,

revolution. Criticism b ]

Analysis and the Generic Classification of Literature ,

ld Wor tic Ero e “Th , ino Rub C. is 76 m Poe of t oun acc her not eA 348 441 Benedickston, Phoenix 31 (1977) an 1974-1975) 989-298. There is much in Rubino’s interpretation that

of Catullus’’, CW 68( Itimately be integrated with the present discussion, especially the as ), (293 tem sys tual llec inte c chi gar oli the hin wit us ull Cat of is suggestive and can © ent tual llec inte e ofth ss ene los hec andt t ugh tho n ma Ro of ure uct str c e O the remarks on ern mod the for is and mut tis muta me, to ms see on iti pos ’s sieese Shaw He et I Rubino

e r o ary por tem con the n bee e hav will t wha of gm adi par a e th Gags. Dat, analytical CaO neon tthe Old Believers, to wit: ‘‘it is precisely the use of ... d ve 1 oe to d ate rel ms poe of x ple com ire ent the and 76 em Po es mak t tha y og ol in rm te to tion religious

‘eal ae ad

28

Sinn

AAA AME OES

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

In Catullus, civic institutions, patterns, and goals are empt y of con. tent. ‘They are the imitation of reality, an excuse or pretext for Corruption, and so utterly lack fides. Ina Roman setting, the poems of Catullus represent the extreme personalization of notions of truth, reality, anq value. ‘The person replaces the res publica in the shape of the civitas as the source of knowledge about reality and the location of the standard of truth. Personal feeling is the ground of our apprehen sion of the real world and the measure of the worth of our experience. In Catullus’ rejection of the civic inheritance and the location of value in private life and personal feeling, there is an obvious overlap with Epicurean doctrine, hence the inclination to as sociate Catullus with contemporary Epicureanism, or Lucretius with co ntemporary neotericism. It is clear that Catullus emerges from the same hist orical circumstances that produced the popularity of Epicureanism in th e Late Republic and that his poetry reflects the same crisis of ideas. We c an see a similarity between some of his themes and perspectives and th ose of the Epicurean poets Lucretius and Philodemus.'* But his notion of the value of passion is not Epicurean. Epicurus had established universa lly valid categories for the analysis of experience, test of truth, and con trol of the emotions. The ultimatetest of truth and value was a public and t estable process of reasoning from the phenomena of experience avail able to all persons equally on the same grounds. The feeling about these ph enomenaof each

person hadnothingto do with their status, evaluati on, or interpretation.

Epicureanism also providedtests for the estimation of p ersonal feeling, rejecting some feelings and advocating the moderation of all, but for Catullus there could be no question of the worth of sincere feeling, because this wasthe source of truth and the proper mot ivation of action. If, in his view, activity were controlled by convention al one, by external pressure, then it was only the imitation of experience, a false version of life. Fides, if it referred to an external warrantin behavior such that all the external forms were preserved regardless of what each party felt, was empty of content and the nameof a corruption. Ifit referred to authentic

feeling of faithfulness and loyalty, based on an emotion al attraction and

mad’’ (291) and ‘‘the erotic world of Catullus thus turns out to be a deranged world, for

darkness and madnessexist at its very center, at its beginning, and at its end’’ (298).

Jerome, perhaps reflecting a contemporary tale, says Lucretius went crazy too. In a linguistic sense, both poets—coupled by Nepos, who would have understood them both, in uo hisSelifee of in tirr cuer s—o, did. . L. AtFe Poetica nuova in Lucrezio (Firen ze 1949); C. L. Neudling, ‘“‘Epicureanism and the ‘New Poets’’’, TAPA 80 (1949) 429-430; J. I. M. Tait, Philodemus’ Influence on the Latin Poets (Diss. Bryn Mawr 1941); E. J. Kenney, ‘‘Doctus Lucretius’’, Mn 23 (1970) 366-392.

Cal

Greek philosophical systems, out of which he churned upa vulgarizing eclecticism. Asa political thinker, he will have employed old wordsin old ways, devising nothing new in the service of his own uninventive ambition. Such an interpretation would mistake Cicero’s role in the crisis. His goal was the demonstration that not only could the mos mazorum acco mth e be tw ee ar n bi tr co at it ul e d th at bu t th ou gh Gr t eek comodate Ro ma th n e th wa at s po si ti Hi on s sy st em s. peting Greek philosophical ri ch po te nt an ia d ll y fl ex ib le we re un de rstood, categories, when properly

Ro ma n up on co ns eq ue nt kn ow le dge enough to comprehend the wider

co nth ei r an d ca te go ri es th es e an d wo rl d, He ll en is th ti e c in to expansion

va li di th ty e te st in fo g r tr ut of h st an a da rd pr ov ide comitant values could

sy st em s an d ar gu me nt s, ob se rv at io ns , Gr ee k Th os e as se rtion. of Greek tible, wholly or partially, with the ancestral framework . which were compa no ater sophistication, subtlety, profundity, and could be

sed to aid therefore be used to support the values of the

ef fe in ct tha t en d, th is se to rv e un ab le Th os co e u an d un iv and ersality, tr ue . we re ancient citizenry, | . e s l a f e r e w , t n u o c c a d l of the o ‘on a f o e c n e d i v e y l l a u t c a s i m s i c i t c e l c e g n i o g y s a e n a e h t a ’ e igh. at mt s ate it in t as le at , m s i c i o t S . e s o p r u p d n a n o i t p e c n o c f o y | unit .

urea tnveseow

t h g i m r e v e t a h W . m u r o i a m s o larly useful to the m

it d we lo al h ic wh s ed se e th ed in later forms, was pariict it at least contal . e Old Stoa, it 4 i m e t s y s y l n o e h T . s a t i v i c f o t n e t n o c l a u t c e ance the ‘ntell Deveenstaiudally "to enh the r, 4 7 n ra the e, tru the was re He . ism ean cur Epi s wa n alie completelly y schont any potentiality for reconciliation with the inherite ion os ect rej ary ess nec and l ica rad ed olv inv it e aus bec s publica ihe ye al tot , form of the 7

30

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

of the culture of civic community. The se riousness of this threat to the Republican ide

a Cicero recognized, but in his eyes it was n ot civitgs that was therefore on trial, with the obligation of justif ying itself on the stand. ard of an alien system. Its difficulties were t he result of identifiable historical processes, not viciousness inherent in the old or der itself, and could be cured by taking those processes into considera tion. '5

essay comes from a treatise written near to the time of the deaths of

Catullus and Lucretius, and therefore of the final f orm of their work: the

De Re Publica. This has as its direct subject the worth o f the mos maiorum and its continuing vitality in Classical intellectual life . The positions adopted in all his other writings flow from the foundations he describes in this work. In the introduction to the dialogue, Cicero speaks of th e contemporary reluctance to participate in politics (versart in re publica ), particularly on the part of many adherents of philosophy, and his need to confute those who reject political activity and values before he can e ven enter upon a discussion of political philosophy. To the views of these philosophers, he

opposes thecivic criterion of value: ‘‘Nec vero habere virtutem satis est quasi artem aliquem nisi utare; etsi ars quidem cum ea no nutarescientia tamen ipsa teneri potest, virtus in usu sui tota posita est; usus autem eius est maximus Civitatis gubernatio, et earum ipsarum re rum quas isti in angulis personant, reapse non oratione perfectio.’’ (De Re P ublica 1.2.) Cicero preserves the traditional meaning of virtus as a pa ttern of action, not a potential or inner quality. It exists entirely (¢ofa) in its employment in the social sphere. This is explicit denial of the possibili ty of a purely

philosophical or intellectual virtus. This virtus in its best stat e retains its

civic form, but the degree of change which has taken pla ce in the world, and Cicero’s recognition of the change, is indicated by his statement that

the maximus usus virtutis resides in the gubernatio civitatis. T he activity originally containedin theset is real and remainsits foremost m ember,

but there are now otheractivities therein, able to be inc luded because they meetthetest of the original item. This attitudeis characteri stic of the

Ciceronian position and sets him apart from Caesar and Catullus. The set called virtus is not empty, nor hasits content been revolutionized. In the sentences immediately following the text quoted, Cicero brings

together the entire structure of the categories of the mos matorum, insisting

on their historical social origin and defending this social experience as authentic knowledge, the origin of philosophical wisdom itself, and thus, 18 See C. N. Cochrane (above, note 7) 37-60, for another discussion of Cicero’s in-

tellectual seriousness andpositive cultural contributions in the context of Late Republican

crisis.

LUCRETIUS AND THE L ATER REPUBLIC

os

31

of course, the ultimate test of the Wisdom of t | h e Philosophers enim dicitur a philosophis, quodq : ‘ Nihil u ide| m re, cte \oo nniestequedi

c atur, quod [non] ab lis partum confirm at um sit, a quibus ci v i t a tibus lura descripta sunt. unde enim Pletas, aut a quibusTreelliggic »? unde ius

aut gentium aut hoc ipsum civile quoddicitur ? unde lustia fide s a e q u i t a s ? unde pudor continentia fuga turpi[tu]dinis adpe tentia laudis et honest a t i s ? undein laboribus et periculis fortitudo? nemp eab iis qui h acc disciplinis i nfor-

he judged the values expressed in the various philosophical systems on the standard of their social utility, that is, their conformity to civic wisdom. The centrality in his imagination of the mos matorum as the source of true knowledge is summarizedin his concluding traditionally Roman conception of the foundation ofleges in mores. The form itself of the De Re Publica is an attempt not only to validate the basis of traditional knowledge but also to assert the necessarily tradicl ai m Ci ce do ro es on ly No t kn ow re le al of dg e. fo un tional dation res of hi st th or in y e kn ow an le d dg tr e ut of h repeatedly to find the source th at al l hi st or y th ei in r di sc overed publica Romana, that the Romans have th es e va li da te an d d di sc ov er ed ha ve th in ke rs sp ec ul at iv e the Greek e l co nv er th sa e ti on pl ac es he bu t ex pe ri of en ce , te st discoveries by the m n re po ° r t cl ai ms an d ma io re s, th e of gr ou a p in the past, among yo un a g w a s who so me on by e or al ly hi m to conversation was transmitted a f l e m s i m h i h s a w o h w , o r , e O c T i C } o t r o z a m f the dii alogue but y l p m i s is e h s y a s r o n i M o i p i c S d e e d n I . it d r a e h e h n e h w “ t a a a m g un yo aa is the strucs i w om sd wi he e th g in report

s i h T . r o i a M o t a C m o r f d e n r a e l s a h he

m s i l a n o i t a r k e e r G n o o t i s s e i c n o c s o r , e c i C ) i O S . t o l p Ss , e u g o l a j dl d e h t tu re O f heory,'® tak-

t k e e r G f o e c n e u l f n i e h t r e d n u y h p o s o l i h p l a c i t i l g o n p i t ivative i i b y wr iting derivat but e compatibl this for maximus usus virtutis ;

he

ing time from oh 1] have value because it defends, articulates, and so c i h w , s u s u r o n mi

wl

e d o m d l o e h t , y b d e n i a r t s e r , n i h t i w d e n i a t is con a c i l b u P e R e D e h t f o e r u t c u r t s e h T . e g d e l know

s it d te ca lo s i n i n ho } is in er wh , ce en ri pe ex al ci so h ug ro th lidated

lice™ ac; quired aj nd vasm l

c ru st in e th in xt ne e th o generation t

o r e c i C n o i an n o i t tr a s is r e v n o c e h t fides, and t a h t , o s , I o s l a , e t o n y a m e W . d l o e h t y b g n u o y e of th e h t f o n o i s s u c s i d l l u f a r o f d a an c i l b d of the De Re Pu ith (trans.), On the Comn u o r g k c a b k e re

i philosor

e e s , k r o w e m a r f ical o r e c i C s u i l l u T s u “Marc

mb

32

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

purports to have had with Publius Rutilius Rufus took place in Sm yrna,

during his youthful study in the schools of Hellas, so he incorpor ates the

new wider setting of civic ideas by the imperial and Hellenis tic Color he

gives the treatise, imaging the changed character of the wo rld to which the civic categories must be applied. In Book 2, Cicero openly contrasts the sources of Philos ophical anq social knowledge. In his claim to be handing down th e views of Cato the Elder, Scipio the Younger says that Cato said the Roma n Republic ex.

celled other commonwealths because it had no si ngle lawgiver, denigrating

thereby a central feature of Hellenic culture. He goes on: “‘.. nostra

autem res publica non unius esset ingenio sed multorum, nec una

hominis vita sed aliquot constituta saeculis et ae tatibus. nam neque ullum ingenium tantum extitisse dicebat, ut quem res nulla fugeret quisquam aliquando fuisset, neque cuncta ingenia conlata in unum tantum posse uno tempore providere, ut omnia comple cterentur sine rerum usu ac vetustate. quam ob rem, ut ille solebat, ita nunc mea repetet oratio populi Romani originem; libenter enim etiam verbo utor Catonis. facilius autem quod est Propositum consequar, si nostram rem publicam vobis et nascentem et crescentem et ad ultam et iam firmam atque robustam ostendero, quam si mihi aliquam, ut apud Platonem Socrates, ipse finxero.”’ (De Re Publica 2.2-3.) Cicero is not purporting here to reject Greek ideas but Greek method, not the truth of what the philosophers say, but their way of knowing whether what they say is true or not. His

point, above all else, is that real knowledge cannot be the product of the private insight of one man alone, since the test must always be historical

and social, and in looking for truth we must no t make up things in our heads, like Socrates in Plato, but share in publ ic thought. We must look outside ourselves for the origin and valida tion of ideas, conforming our

inward minds to the outward forms of society. There is located the fides of

ideas, the only fides of knowledge, not in the logic of individual

thinking.’

speeches in both Greek and Latin, showing his awareness of the relation between la nguage and thought, and asked Atticus (Ad Att. 8.11, repeated 8.12 .6) to send him the

nmept ‘Owovoiac of Demetrius of Magnesia to help him in his deliberati on. This is good

evidence for the linguistic sophistication of the age, the seriousnessofr hetoric as a vehicle of reasoning, and the contemporary consciousness of the li nk between language and idea. On these points, see also M. P. O. Morford, ‘‘Ancient and Mode rn in Cicero’s Poetry ; CP 62 (1967) 112-116, for more evidence of Cicero’s linguistic experi ence, his pride in Latin, his Romanism, and the grounds on which his whole ca reer, artistic as well as

33

7. Lucretius

It is from this context of intellectual c o n f l i c t t h a t t h e D takes its Origin and gains its form Whe, e Rerum Natura of Lucret ius

presented by the relationship of Lucretius and his ver ne problems

Epicureamism and the Epicurean communities of conte m p T o e r a l r e y and there are many, there is no difficulty in rel ating them to the cultural environment of Late Republican Rome.'8 | As an event in the history of technical philosophy it takes long, involved, and special argument to consider the De Re rum 4

treatises of the First Century B.C. in Greek or Latin. On the basis of a knowledge of Epicureanism before Lucretius and of Epicureanism in contemporary Italy outside Lucretius, it would have been difficult to predict or expect this poem. In this case, the gap between expectation and event, between the previous history of Epicureanism and this event in Epicurean history, is very great, if, indeed, the facts allow us to conof Obse rver s histo ry. Epic urea in n even t an sider this poem Natu ra, Reru m De the expe cted have not Epicureanism would not only auth enti c of impo ssib ilit y the pred icte d have they would confidently to e, ag e h t f eo em th t an rt po im is th th wi n r e c n o c ’s ro ce Ci of t n u o c c a (1954) 1-13, for an e b t s u m , us rp co an ll tu Ca e th of e l o h w e th ed de in d n a , us ll tu which Poems 50 and 51 of Ca ios ap xt Ju ve ti es gg su ly gh hi a , 2) 0. (1 ’ m’ su io ot ro fo e t a r e x u compared—e.g., ‘‘visum d of inherited

e l o h w e th n o t bu us rt vi n o ly on t no ed at er op s me ti e tion. The pressures of th m. iu ot r fo l) vi ci un or il iv (c as it gn di of nd ki a nd fi o t l fu ed ne ly al ci pe es t i e d a m thought and n o s iu at eb Tr o t er tt le ’s ro ce Ci t. en er ff di e it qu e r e w o r e c i C d n a us ll tu Ca of The solutions t o t en em at st it ic pl ex n a ns ai nt co ) 12 7. . m a F d A ( m s i n a e r u c i p E to n o i s r the latter’s conve ° o m m a n o u q d e S 5 g. e. , fe li c i v i toc m s i n a e r u c i p E of on ti la re e th Cicero’s perception of oo pr r ea cl s i ) s o . (7 : um vi ci n o n , as ci fa a s u a c a tu a i n m o m u c , es nd fe de so le al vi e ius ci ar mp co n e M e R e D e th of g n i n n i g e b e th at d n i m in d a h e h ly al ic if e ec th r sp o f , 2 1 ) . of whom ( ® S R S y og ol se ra Ph l ca ti li Po in ces: A Study

Wirszubski’s ‘‘Auda ' s ra n o o or an e n a e, ag us s ro ce Ci , d r o w is th of e c n e n i m o r p y r a r o p m e cont This strengthens Poem 1.

in s iu el rn Co to es s su au of n io at ic pl ap ’s et Catullus, as in the po

in , ew vi f to in po ’ us ll tu Ca t ou ab t n e m u g r a t en es pr e th d n a ! m e o P of the implications r. te ac ar ch n ia Ci i“yt ¢ tional and antl Ciceronian

ir i o j a m of y h p a r g o i l b i b h t i w s, ie ud st n a i t e r c u L in es su is e th f o s y e v a t a s e c e n x i ) 5 s 7 9 1 cue wo recen . s s a M , , ge e g id d i r b m a C ( a r u t a N m u : r s e U R th, Lucretiu De , ing

s e : , s y . r e s r E u e t i s e d t o e p n r a c . d u ) n r L 7 e o O 7 f 9 1 c x s O a ( a e e t M Works al ) s i u i e , e t m k n e n r o c i u z L e s g a ; d ) . W i 1 . H r r 3 J e 9 b h 1 m p o a s C o ( l J and Phi an Coen

lam 19!

. P. H.

t i w ), 1 m a d r e t s m A ( s a t p u l o V a n i v i D c a r o r r : o H , s r e v j i r h c S e th in e u l a V d n a e d o M , a nd J. D. Minyard

; 1 5 3 8 4 3 . 2 ) 0 e , 2 d n 7 1 F 7 ) e 8 n 9 7 d 8 1 a ; ) a ( 1 7 % 9 b 9 e 9 1 s g 1 2 e m a a i 2 d u l W r a g e ( t R c n s i m a C A r s L ( t u e , M t + r y d e n t u i t t review by E. J. M S n e a C

el

i

, d n a ) 3 6 9 1 s i r a e P m ( s i r u c i p é ’ l t e e c é e r c u , L é c n a y see P. Bo

34

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

Epicureanism taking such a turn. Ofall the events likely to have been

caused by Epicureanism, this one was likely to so small a degree that jr

could easily have been thought impossible. Of course Philodemus wrote poetry. But his poetry was like that of Catullus, like the tradition of Hellenistic epigram from which the poetry of Catullus took its start.

When hecame to write philosophy, he wrote it the way Epicurus said it should be written.

It is difficult to see how Lucretius cannot be thought isolated from the philosophical community of his time. Nothing in the form or method of

his work suggests he was a schoolman or even a disciple of the schoolmen of the Garden or its colonies in any technical orofficial sense. We can

point to no evidence that Lucretian innovations in doctrine, should any

be found, would have been recognized as valid by the School. Thatis, while he clearly claims to be a follower of Epicurus, is this anything more than his claim? An Epicurean in the broad, cultural sense he surely was,

but can wecall him, in termsofthe historical realities, an Epicurean in

the narrow sense, i.e. an officially and publicly recognized, not to say authorized, exponent of doctrine? !9 In the framework ofthe literary and intellectual history of Rome, the De Rerum Natura presents no such gap between expectation andactuality. 19 See below, note 34, for somestudies relevant to this question, and also the discussion

in section 8, ‘‘The Consequencesof Crisis’’, for observationson the illusion of Lucretius’

cultural isolation. The issue of Lucretius’ relation to his times, ‘‘The idea of Lucretius as

a lone hand”’ (as Kenneyputs it on page 6 of his Lucretius), is twofold, philosophical and

literary. Isolation in one sphere does not imply isolation in another. Kenney’s summary (Lucretius 7) is to the point: ‘“The most important and the mostreliable inferences that can properly be madefrom the D.R.N.are of a literary order. Mention has been madeofthe wide culture pervading the poem. Lucretius, however, was not only well read, observant, andintelligent. He was moreespecially a professional poet, professional in the sense that he wrote as one dedicatedto the futherance of an ancientpoetic tradition, the didactic epes;

and his poem belongs to the mainstream ofancient literary development.’’ This essayis

an attempt to provide additional support for this point of view, but we should not allow such wholly correct observations to obscure the fact that Lucretius’ poem was the most

original poetic document in the history of the Classical literatures. Poetry was no longer

the medium for real philosophy and was not supposed ever to be the medium for Epicureanism: no one had written a poem about a philosophical system which forbade the

philosophical use of poetry. And we should remember that Epicureanism was a living astillas dead philos ophy, dead and ancien t the of true not system with a school. This is

creative independent system, and one which never had a school, of Empedocles. WhateverSallustius did, he was not facing theissues Lucretius faced. Lucretius did not scienti or fic philos ophica toa l turn litera ry or reprod uction poetic a intend simply to give topic. He intended to set literature on a new path.

his is not, however, the kind of

Epicu rean and Physis Greek Natura : Rerum “De Clay, D. by originality suggested (32) observ es well he althou gh “47, 31 (1969) 100 TAPA Physiologia (Lucretius 1.1-148)'’,

and go tay Cicero 's Epicha rmus, Enniu s the distinction between Lucretius’ poem and Sen in note (above , Epru e and Lucreti us Sallustius’ Empedoclea. See now D. Clay, detaile d many tor 1971) (Camb ridge I] Book Natura Rerum De See also Kenney’s Lucretius: . r ! e c t a c r a a h r c a h c ry y ra r te a li r e t s ’ i l s ’ m e o p e h t n o j s n o i t a v r e s b o

st

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPURI c BLIC

35

.

poe his d an s tiu sre Luc val set of cineuy

m look like perfectly logical consequences of the o , sts ere f t ere int s, and , ure res -ss ssu pre s, cie den ten the es, anc gene It : of f tlthe ILatist e R e e tur cul > the € Republic. It is possible to point to many previous

in i s event ary nts por eve tem con y ny ma as l wel as , ion ect dir its in g in ad events le al ts ec fl re m poe it. His

harmony with

philosophy from Lucretius’ poem, we should have a very odd idea of what it was like. But it is easy to see whatthe rest of Late Republican literature waslike from the De Rerum Natura. If we were allowed to have the work of one authoronly from this period as evidenceof its literature, it would bedifficult to find an example more comprehensively indicative. Indeed, the De Rerum Natura makes no claim to be an event in the

history of philosophy. It does not declare that it contributes to the

development of philosophical method or knowledge but to Roman moral understanding and cultural life. It attempts to apply a philosophical what cours e, of is, This behav ior. soci al Roma n of realm the to system and meth od devel oped had he after but conte xt, Gree a k in Epicurus did and follo wers with school , a_ and syste m knowledge, created a as well as oppon ents techn ical his philosophical argument, confuting and litera te a is Lucre tius making positive technical contributions. an and histor y, of observ er cultu re, of man a as sees , who literary Roman acthis of utilit y poeti c and moral , social , histor ical, ambitious poet, the

which in conte xt The chanc e. main liter ary the say complishment, not to Greek , not litera ry, and oligar chic, Roma n, 1s he places his poem . l a c i h p o s o l i h p d n a scholastic, f o k r o w e h t t e r p r e t n i o t h c i h w n i e m a r f r e p o r p e h t t e s o t It is important o t y l e t a r u c c a e l b i s s o p t o n s i t i , e c n e r e f e r f o e m a r f a t u o h t i W . s u i t e r c u L d n a , s e c n e u q e s n o c , s e s u a c s t i e g d u j e n o l a t e l , t n e v e n a e v i e c r e p n e v e t o n s i t i , k r o w a f o d l r o w e h t n o t n e m e e r g a t u o h t i W . e c n significa x e f o d n u o r nce in the g

e g r e v i d e s u a c e b , t i s s u c s i d o t s r e d a e r r o f e possibl f o s e i r e s _ a e c u d o r p l l i w n o i t a t e r p r e t n i d n a , n o i t a u l a v e n o i t a t c pe f o y r o t s i h e h T . e u g o l a i d s a g n i d a r e u q s a m , s e i u ] , even solilog . i expl ain Repu blic Late the of crisi s ‘ntel lectu al monologues, © 1 e h t d n a e r 3 u t a r e t i l n a m e b p Ro i h s n o i t a l e e r .

~

.

?

h t d n a , a r u t a De Reé rum N

e h t f o t n e t n o c d n a m r , n i t the fo u p n e h t d n a n e s o h c s a w t n e t n o c s i h t y h w : t n e t n o c d n a m r o f i g i l l e t n i tween its y l t c e f r e p s i m e o p e h t , e m a r f s i h t n i h t i W . m r o f s i h t , s g n i h e s i t a e r t of all t l a c i h p o s o l i h p a s a e l o h w t n e r e h o c a s a e l b i g i l l e t n i y l d r a h s i t ° ” ble. I . d o h t e m d n a e s r u o c s i d l a c i h p o s o l i h p f o y r o t s i h e h t n i t n i o p s i h t at

e g a s i h o t s u i t e r c u L e t a l e r o t g n i t p m e t t a e b o t d e s u e r e h t n a h t s e i d u t s e r o 20 Th , s u i t e r c u L s u t c o D ‘ * , y e n n e K . J . E : e r a e s e h t g n o m a t vomnan culture Importan ‘‘Le Poéme de Lucréce en son Temps”’ in Entretiens and to Roman Cv m o r f t n e r e f f i d y r e v s n o i s u l c n o c e m o s s e h c a e r h c i h w ( 1978) 933-270 ?

ore a

36

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

Its famous First Proem sets a Roman, historical, and civic context fo r

the De Rerum Natura by its allusions to contemporary strife and such language as ‘“‘Aeneadum’’ (1), ‘‘patriai tempore iniquo”’ (41), “‘com.muni ... saluti’’ (43), ‘“‘impia’’ (81), ‘‘civis’’ (91), ‘‘felix faustusque’’

(100), ‘‘virtus’’ (140), and ‘‘amicitiae’’ (141), along with the address to the oligarch Memmius and the criticism of the heritage of religio which

begins here and runs through the poem. The addition to these el ements

of Greek philosophy (‘‘Graius homo’’ at 66), Greek mythology (thestory of what happened at Aulis at 84-100), Greek literature (the association of Ennius, Helicon, and Homerat 117-126), and the universal descriptions

2DDEL

A a ieao!

pi TCLS

and prescriptions offered as remedies for humanills, unrooted as they are in the particular experience of any specific people as anhistorical entity,

imparts a radically cosmopolitan ambience which bothgives the poem a dual origin and revealsits uncivil point. The De Rerum Natura is made to emerge from the ruinofcivil order as the non-civic remedyfor the errors and evil inherent in that order as the seeds of its own destruction. The first sixty-one verses of the proem contrast two ways of dealing

with the world, that of cévitas and thatof, as welater learn, Epicurus. The

first verse gives us voluptas and verse 43 communis salus, suggesting two opposing aims oflife, at least as the phrase communis salus is understood in its civic context. Although Lucretius prays for peace because he cannot set about his task with an even temper amid suchcivil strife and Memmius cannot devote himself to instruction because he cannot desert the cause of the welfare of the community, in fact, the point of the poem will be precisely to argue the preservation of an even temper amidall circumstance, based on vera ratio rerum, and that Memmius should desert the

communis salus as traditionally understood because the category is empty of intellectual and moral value. Indeed devotion to communis salus has led to the very crisis at which Rome now finds itself. What Lucretius will be doing in the poem to comewill be instructing Memmius in what amounts to a conception of true salus. The opening section of the First Proem is artful in all senses, not exactly misleading the reader, in terms ofhis ultimate understanding, but using words and expressions hethinks he understands already in order to

get him to follow the new path Lucretius is tracing. The end ofthis will be the creation ofa different meaningfor the opening of the poem in the eyes of the reader. As a hint of this, Lucretius affords a brief vision of his goal .

.

‘

ly

in regard to Caesar); see also,

those of this essay about that relationship, particularly 1n

A. K. Michels, ‘‘Lucretius, Clodius and Magna Mater

,

;

1n Mélanges ... offerts a J. Car-

copino (Paris 1966) 675-679, on a specific point of contact beween the poem and contemporary life. The works of Farrington (above, note 8) also place Lucretius inhis historical

t

t i

ay

z

setting.

38

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

cycles. The Trojan legends embodied the core of Greek values, provideg

the content for the most famous works of Greek literature, and, in their

Homeric form, were the center of Greek education. In picking a legen from this group, Lucretius strikes the heart of Classical literary, ethica] and political culture. He chooses a Greek story rather than an incident from Romanhistory because his aim is reformation of the literary tradjtion by provision of a new kind ofepic and hero, replacing the Iliad as a source of knowledge and Achilles as a model with a philosophically sound epic and Epicurus as a model, much the way Plato soughtto substitute for them the dialectic and Socrates and Virgil in the next generation wil] offer a world reshaped by Roman imperialism an epic of modern historical and philosophical content and Aeneas as the representative, imitable hero. Since Lucretius’ target is the whole shape and content of civic culture in the Greco-Roman form it has now realized at Rome, the story of Iphigeneia has special pertinence. Whatbetter illustration of service to communis salus than the epic andtragic sacrifice of a daughter by her father for the common welfare at the direction of divinity in orderto fight a war which will gain for its heroes greatest reknown andvalue? This tale from the centerofcivic literature will stir to life in any Roman mind all the grand categories: religio, pietas, familia, communis salus, gloria, laus, virtus, pater, fides. In this story, the mythology, literature, and pattern oflife of the civic tradition coalesce to play right into Lucretius’ hands. They deliver themselves as evidence against themselves to show how the Epicurean philosophy can furnish the basis for a coherence between fact and values in literature and life and, by implication, for a new literature andethic. The sacrifice of Iphianassa, in attonement and purification to remove the guilt incurred by violating what wassacer to a divinity, evokes the world of pretas (and its verb zo), an act of which is here enjoined to cleanse the pater and rex who hasbeenstained by a violation of the prohibitions of religio. But pretas is also the foundation ofthe religion of the family and1s thus the bondof obligation that gives separate form to each family. The passage flourishes conflict within the category pietas, between the pietas of pater and that of rex, as Lucretius hammers away atthe relationship between Iphianassa and Agamemnon and the violation of the expectations arising from that relationship under the pressure ofreligio: ‘‘ante aras adstare parentem / sensit’’ (89-90), ‘‘patrio princeps donarat nomine regem’’ (94), and ‘‘parentis’’ (99). More than this, since the king's daughter was brought to Aulis on the pretext of marriage, religio makes mockof the very foundation of familial pietas, a mockery perpetrated by rex, the to addi tion in dec ept the ion , of age nts The fide s. of the abrogation ‘‘pr ima the dele cti’ ’, ‘‘du ctor the es are pate r, as denying his obligation

ter

to ¢

tru

hay

lite abr dit

C1Vv

LUC RETIUS AND T HE LATE REPUJBBLLIIC

39

virorum', at the “‘civis’’. The princess is led t l a e h t o t d e l S h a r } d a s e r u n p a m p o o R r o N t . e ’ ’ d s u b i n a m m u r “yi e s s a p s i h G t N I C A “ é L ; ge could escape think ing of nobiles, civitas, and virtus. The purpose ofthi11s filthy bloo dshe .

m

%?>

’

and

m

SO

ty

.

——

.: j 85 in e’’ oed ‘‘f ‘ely sul ) t , IS Meant to mock the meaning

t civic formula described in the ancien tc . .

e daretur.’’ faustusqu Spe

Thecivic classes

()

f

verse

the;

100

»

:

5

€€

of

pi

d—and

—is pio and ptetas , .

want

“exitus ut classi felix

es cons | the oo _—asses and their purpossés spire in conpire the

5 name of re/igzo to accomplish impra facta. The aim of civiclife a lie the consequences of its ethic are its own condemnation . for The key words a

;

a

and a

and nce ere coh ed ert ass m oru mat mos the ch whi for ‘oto, 1: res wro ; t p at ific lj just ual ee Jt aL ation (religio,

pretas, fides, pater, familia, civitas, virtus) are set ee

at 0 s with one another. Lucretius does not so much shred the inheritance in this passage as allow it to shred itself, by the simple device of citing one of its own self-justifying stories. What before were interdependent entities become inimical to each other, and the old structure col7

.

lapses from its own inner contradictions. No strategy for demolishingthe civic idea could have been moreeffective or have accomplished more of his goals than the one Lucretius chose. Rather than succumbing to the temptation of scornful denunciation of the view he opposes, he allowsit to denounce itself. He accepts the story of Iphianassa and herfather as what abou t one true a but tale false a tell here not does Liter ature true. ances tral the Wher e world . the of view fals a e have peop le happens when concl usion s the in and real ity about assu mpti ons its literature is false is in cona is This relate s. it event s the from draw s it valu e and about purpose unifi ed the of part is liter ature the Since recti fy. to seeks dition Lucretius the attac ks error s and selfcontr adict ion its illus trati ng civic tradition, resha pof enter prise Lucre tian the launc hes and whole of the inheritance true the of stand ard the on tradi tion liter ary the and fe li n a m o R g in inphilo sophi cal not is purp ose poet’ s The y. it al re f o t n u o c c a n Epicurea ¢ l o | of tool the as itse lf instru ction or , e k a s n w o s t i r o f n o i t c u r t s n i novation or s I n o i t c u r t s n i e h t d n a y d a e r l a e d a m n e e b e v a h s n o i t a v o n n i e h T reform. instrument and s i h e b o t e r e w f l e s t i n o i t c u r t s n i f I . e r e h w e s available el e s r u o c s i d n a e r u c i p E f o m r o f m, the standard

i a s i h m r o f e r philosophical o t s a w m i a s i H . m u i d e m s u o u g i b m a n u d n a , t c e r i d , t n e i c i f f e e r o m a s a w y b n o i t a v o n n i y r a r e t i l d n a e f i l c i v i c r o f e n i r t c o d f o s n o i t a c i f i m a r e h t w o sh d e d n u o f e g d e l w o n k n r e d o m o t e l b a t p e c c a e r u t a r e t i l w e n a f o n o i t a e r c the

d e v i e c e r a n o d e d n u o f e r u t a r e t i l d l o e h t e c a l p e r o t e n i r t c o d d e v i e on rec e r e n o b ‘ Y E N R U O J s i n s n i g e b e H . y g o l o h t y m e v i a n y l l a c i f i t n e i h t and sc © g n i n a h y r a r e t i l e h t m o r f y r o t s 4 g n i t c e l e s y b s d n e c i v i c d an c i v i c e h t n i s e r u s s i f d e c u d n i f l e s e h t s e t a r t s u l l i t a h t e g a t i r e h l mythologica : . s a e e d v i i t f a o g e n m e a t s s a sy l l e w s a e v i t i s o p a s e v e i h c a s u i t e r c u L f , e o n g a o s i s a t p p s i e h c r In t e p n a m n o a R r e r h a t e g r n f i o g s s e c o r p e h t s n i g e b e h r result, fo

ad

40

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

reality by commencing the rearrangement of the Roman langua ge fo, that reality. As an Epicurean, he could not accept religio, but he could ac. cept pretas, if the role of the gods were properly defined. Indeed, he would want to accept a reformed understanding of pietas , because it was a4 category potentially important to Epicurean et hics as a support to its conception of the attitude of men toward the go ds. So, he does not reject the name pretas. He divorces it from religio and saves th e word for redefinition by condemning religio as its enemy.

Lucretius’ procedureis exactly the opposite of Cicero’s, Cicero applied the test of the civic system to Greek systems and accepted or rejected on that basis. Epicureanism failed this test, partly because it could not meet the requirements of both redigio and pretas. Lucretius subjec ts civitas to the test of Epicureanism and accepts and rejects on that basis. This is a test which pzetas, when properly instructed, can be made to pa ss and religio cannot. For Cicero, the mos maiorum has proven itself becaus e the test of truth is the test of historical experience and is social. For Lucretius, Epicureanism has proven itself because the test of truth is sens e perception interpreted by accurate science or rule (the canonic or ratio) and is private. The insights and observations of Epicureanism contain the wa rrant or credit (fides) of statements about the world. Religio, therefore, is a lie. A neat tactic enables Lucretius to symbolize both his view of the origin of knowledgeand the fact that he is holding Romansocial traditionalism to the standard of Hellenic rationalism. In verse 66, he refers to Epicurus in his description of that philosopher’s great service to man by his triumph over the gods, but he does not name him. He uses the phrase ‘‘Graius homo’’.*! This sharpens the conflict between mankind and the gods of tradition, emphasizing the human sources of knowledge. It

stresses the notion that the source of truth is individual, not societal. In

this connection, Lucretius also suggests a new meaning, or at least a new application, for virtus, when, at verse 70, he makes Epicurus’ rebellion *1 L. Edelstein, ‘‘Primum Graius Homo (Lucretius 1.66)’, TAPA 71 (1940) 78-90, does not believe Lucretius had Epicurus in mind here. His arguments seem to mefarfetched and based on a misreading of the poem, to wit (89): ‘Moreover, one should not

overemphasize the importance of religion for Lucretius’ thinking and consequently not overestimate the importance which the liberation from religious fears through

Epicureanism hasfor the poet’s mind.’’ The entire present essay is an answer to this point of view. Edelstein’s argument, however, rightly emphasizes the generality of the Lucre-

tian phrase: that the poet at this point stresses the Greekness of the accomplishment, rather than the identity of the individual. Compare ‘‘Graiorum obscura reperta’’ at 1.136. On Lucretius as a follower of Epicurus, see D. J. Furley, ‘‘Lucretius the Epicurean’’, Entretiens Hardt XXIV (Genéve 1978) 1-6. On the centrality of the struggle

against religion to Epicurus, see Farrington, Sctence and Politics (above, note 8) 87-129, 148-159, and 172-216 (on Lucretius), and The Faith of Epicurus (above, note 8) 63-104.

If we think so often of the Ciceronian position in the First Proem, we

are also reminded of Catullus in verse 79. Epicurus’ insights have raised

humanity to the level of the gods: ‘‘nos exaequat victoria caelo.’’ Thisis

the true source of supreme human happiness, that which can be called divine, not the celebration of a triumphus or victory in one of the great Greek games, let alone the association with the beloved ofa faithful heart we find in Catullus’ extrapolation of Sappho in Poem 51, whose perspective Catullus recalls in Poem 72, when hetells us that once upon a time Lesbia’s story was that she preferred him to Jupiter. We may recall both Cicero and Catullus at verse 141, in the phrase ‘“suavis amicitiae’’. Not only can wethink of the importance of amicttra as a civic pattern and Cicero’s later handling of the topic in his De Amicitia, 10 9, P o in e m am ic it f o ia e e’ d u ’ s ‘‘ sa nc ta Ca e tu llus’ but we can compare of cr ed or it fi de th s e b y g u an amicitia founded on passion and aranteed m a so n y in fr ie of nd sh ip n a t th u r e e w i t h personal feeling, and his concern ci vi l a n d pe rs on al b e t w e e n co nt ra th st e pa rt ic ul ar p ly o ems, of his friendships. in R o m a th n e of re va lu at io n L u c r e th t i e a n ou tl in es P The First roem

de ta in il ju st if ie a n d d o u t w o r k b e e d wi ll w h i c h k n o wledge, heritance of a as f a m a w i t h di sp en se a n s d re li gi o de va st I at t es p o e m . th e o f re st th e in c o m p a r e a n d (6 8, d e u m ’ ’ ‘ f a m a b e c a u s e source of knowing,

a n d a n i m , vi rt us me ns , b y s e c u is r e d de fe at w h o se li e a is 5.1133-1135) th social

e s u p p l a wi n t ll th at in te of ll ec t p r o c e s s pr iv at t e h e vivida vis animt, re fe o re f nc e f r a m e n e w A fi of de s. s o u r c e n e a w of ba si s th e o n matorum m o s a ncated for pietas, virtus, viclor (7 5), and victoria (79), and possibly salus ol d ot he of r el ev at th io e n In co ns is ts r e s h a p th i n is g o f si de o t h e r T h e (43). ra tr o, vo lu pt as , an al ys of is : ca te go ri es f u words to the status of ndamental a n d h e r e n a m e d ar , e re s of id ea th e o f su bd iv is ions pr in ci pa T l h e re s. and f res

o s t n e u t i t s n o c e h t . e . i , a r o p r o c d n a , a n i m e s , a i d r o m i r p : 1 k o o B n i r e lat s u i t e r c u L , m e o r p e h t r e t f A . w e i v f o s int f o n o i t a c r u f i b l a t n e m a d n u f e h t o t r e f e r l l i w s e r h t i w h c i h w , e n a n i adds n i , s u t r i v w e n e h T ‘ . l a e r g n i h t o n s i e r e h t h c i h w d n o y e b m u s e h t , y t i l rea e h t s e z i n g o c e r s a l e u p w e n e h t d n a , l a u t c e l l e t n i s i , l l a t a s t s i x e t i s a r o g sofar n i c a l p e r , s a t p u l o v s i e f i l f o m i a . di . w e n e h T . y t i n i v i d f o e c n e r ffe or fama be not will knowledge of source The lus. sqpone IDES a S s i n u m m o c g n i n i redef .

?

L =

~

#

“

wR

The centrality to the De Rerum Natura of th

noe

categories of reality in order to firmed near the >

the end of the First P roem by verse 136 4 whe afte e passag . about Ho mer, Enniu “Ms S, ar nd | thhee t e t} re ans °, n ce sf rere r .G3re "ek € : o f © t >

goal of enlightenment (146-148). The lish estab y for : )

a

P

: e

€

3

€

lit

as Ik

for

t

ot

«

pose for the enlightenment, which will require paritieserr niia ane Nec me animi fallit Grai orum obscura reperta difficile inlustrare Latinis ve rsibus esse

multa novis verbis praesertim cum s it agendum propter egest. atem linguae et rerum novit atem:? sed tua me virtus tamenet sperata voluptas suavis amicitiae quemvis efferre laborem suadet et inducit noctes vigilare serenas quaerentem dictis quibus et quo carmine demum clara tuae possim praepandere lumina menti, res quibus occultas penitus convisere possis. .

.

,

The passage stresses the poetic mode of presentation and the poetic problem: ‘ ‘difficile inlustrare Latinis versibus’’, ‘‘laborem’’, and “‘dictis employand on compositi the is concern ’ Lucretius carmine’’. quo et quibus form. poetic of choice the and diction, of choice the ment of Latin verses, novis ‘‘multa difficulty: c linguisti larger This is encompassed within the

pronot does exists t asi Latin linguae’’. egestatem ‘‘propter and verbis’”’

of nature true the explain to necessary , categories the terms, vide the does matorum mos the of Latin the that 1s coin the of reality. The other side not problem his ascribes Lucretius So reality. of account not give a true : y t l e v o n n a m o R s it o t t u b ’ ’ a t r e p e r a r u c s only to the ““Graiorum ob . m te ta vi no m ru re ‘‘ d an ’’ is rb ve ‘“novis 99

°

n a h t y r o g e t a c s u o n i m o e r o m r a f , r e g n o r t s r a f a s a w e m o R t a Newness ial

d r o m i r p a f o k n a r e h t n e k a t s a h t i e r e h w y t e i c o s or e g it can be in an a t o n d l u o c m e t a t i v o n ‘ ‘ d n a ’ ’ s i v o n ‘ ‘ f o s n o i t a t o n n o c l a c i t i l o value. The p e a v o n d n a s e r e a v o n d n a o m o h s u v o n h c i h w n i e g a u g n a l a n i d e d i o be av d n a y c a r i p s n o c n e h w e g a n a n i r o r e w o p h c u s f o s m r e t e r e w e a l l e b a f , r e b m e m e r o s l a t h g i m e W . e f i l l a c i t i l o p f o r i a e h t e r e w n o i t u l o rev Catullus,

f o n o i s s u c s i d e h t n i n e k a t e n i l e h t h t i w n o i t c e n n especially in co y b k o o b s i h n a g e b y r a r o p m e t n o c y r a n o i t u l o v e r y l l a c i t e o p ’ that Lucretius r a p f o y t i l a e r e h t f o r o e c n e t s i s i x e e h t f o n o i r e t i ~riterlon is a cr ‘ . . er it cr e Th ..t a h t y. it al n re a e of m y l n o n io er n a crit c s i h T . d o o h e s l a f d n a h t u r t f o n o i r e t i r c a o s l a is t i s t u b n o n r . o s .. g e n c i n e h t t ngs s thi i x e e r l r b la a i l cu s s tiicu o p e h t t u o b a s m e l b o r p e g d u j o t y l n o t o n e used m p o r iterion p f o e u l a v h t u r t e h t t u o b a s n o i t s e u q le tt se o t o s l a t bu , d l r o w e h t n i u a xisvtenocaen0el ea s. ect obj nt te is ex nno

or nt te is ex ositions about such

.

‘

.

»?

The centrality to the De Rerum Natur a

categories of reality in order to achie

fymed near the end of the First Proe assage about roaae Ennius, and the transference the wire a Ital

y, all

ie me animi fallit Graiorum obscura re perta ifficile inlustrare Latinis versibus esse multa novis verbis praesertim cumsit agendum propter egestatem linguae et rerum novitatem: sed tua me virtus tamen et sperata voluptas | suavis amicitiae quemvis efferre laborem suadet et inducit noctes vigilare serenas quaerentem dictis quibus et quo carmine demum clara tuae possim praepandere lumina menti, res quibus occultas penitus convisere possis. ?

ic et po e th d an on ti ta en es pr of e d o m The passage stresses the poetic is ct di “‘ d n a ’, m’ re bo la ‘‘ , ’’ us ib rs ve s ni ti La re ra st lu in le ci fi if problem: ‘ ‘d y o l p m e d n a n io it os mp co e th is n r e c n o c s’ iu et cr Lu ’. e’ in quibus et quo carm . rm fo ic et po of ce oi ch e th d n a , n o i t c i d of ce oi ch e th ment of Latin verses, s vi no a lt mu ‘‘ : ty ul ic ff di ic st ui ng li er rg la e th n i h t i w d e s s a p m o c n e is s i Th

opr t o n es do ts is ex t i as n ti La ’. e’ ua ng li m e t a t s e g e r te op pr ‘‘ d n a verbis’’ f o e r u t a n e u r t e h t n i a l p x e o t y r a s s e c e n , s e i r o g e t a c e h t vide the terms, s e o d m u r o t a m s o m e h t f o n i t a L e h t t a h t s i n i o c e h t f o e d i s r e h t o e h T . y t reali t o n m e l b o r p s i h s e b i r c s a s u i t e r c u L o S . y t i l a r e f o t n u o c c a e u r t a e not giv : y t l e v o n n a m o R s t i o t t u b > ’ a t r e p e r a r u c s b o m u r o i a r G ‘ ‘ only to the

. ’ ’ m e t a t i v o n m u r e r ‘ ‘ d an n a ? ’ ’ s s i i b r e v s i v “* no n a h t y r o g e t a c s u o n i m o e r o m r a f , r e g n o r t s r a f a s a w e m o R t a s s e n l a i New d r o m i r p a f o k n a r e h t n e k a t s a h t i e r e wh

y t e i c o s r o e g a n a n i e b t o n n a d l ‘t c u o c ’ ’ m e t a t i v o n ‘ ‘ d n a ’ ’ s i v o n ‘ ‘ f o s n o i t a t o n n o c l a c i t i l o p 2 e e a v o n d n a value. Th s e r e a v o n d n a o m o h s t o n u v o n h h c i h w 1 e g a u g n a l a n i d e d n y c a a r i p s be avoid n o | c n e h w e g a n a n i r o r e w o p h c u s f o s m r e t e r , e r w e b e a m l e l e m b e ta r o s l a t h g i m e W . e f i l l a c i t i l o p f o r i a e h t e r e w , s n u o l i l u t t u a l C o f v o n re o i s s u c s i d e h t n i n e k a t e n i l e h t h t i w n o i t c e n n o c y n b i k y o l o l a b i s c i h n espe a g e b y r a r o p m e t n o c y r a n o i t u l o v e r y l l a c i t e o p ’ s u i t e r c u L t a h t

r a p f o y t i l a e r e h t f o r o e c n e t s i s i x e f the t a h t n a e m y l n o n a c + s i . h T . . . d y o t o i h l e a s e l r a f f o d n n a o i h r t e u t r t i r f c n o n r o e c a n e t o s s i l x a e s e 1 l b t i 1 s s o t p u e b h t . . t . u o b s a g n s i m h e t l b o r a l r p ticu e g d u j o t y p o l r p n f o o t e o e u s n l o a t v d o s e h l t s a u u r t t e u e b h t t y u a o m b a s n n o o i y i t a r s m e n u o q i r e l e t t t the cri , d l r o w e h in t . s t c e j b o t n e t s i x e n o n ‘stent or 9?

TN

;

ne

liter

of three factors combine to lay the basis he poem k oree’s sis ffor. the

ENTE

ce EE eR t tRSE

ly loaded ‘‘laborem’’, as Catullu s followed ‘“‘novum libellum’’ ang “‘ausus es’’ in his poem with “‘labori osis’’ (1.7). The civic point becomes unambiguous in ‘‘virtus’’ and ‘“ “suavis amicitiae’’. Suggestion of civ i c reform will flow not only from the pi cture given previously of ‘‘virtys’’ but from its association here with the talk of novelty and ‘‘sperata voluptas’’ immediately after. The implicati ons are strengthened by the contrast between Greek and Latin cultures , repeated from ‘‘Graius homo” at 66, and thelocation of knowledge in Gr eek thought, particularly if we keep the contrary position of Cicero in mind . The hope of this novel poem is a novel value , the realization of new purpose in life. The new poetry and the newlif e will be achieved through the enlightenment of the private intellect (‘‘ tuae ... menti’’) and a resulting true perception of reality, up to now hid den not only from view but from the Latin language and Roman ways (“‘ res ... occultas’’), The instrument of this enlightenment will not be the old ed ucation to civitas, based on theinterpretation of life in the mos matorum bu , t the location of fides in ‘‘naturae species’’ whose standard of interpre tation will be ratio. Everything coheres. The philosophy is foundation and prov ocation of the poetry, whose endis intellectual and therefore civic revolut ion. The problem Lucretius hasto solve is not philosophical—th has been so lved at already and is a given—but a matter of linguistic reform andliter ary

revolution directed toward civic crisis. Even if the description of these verses to this point be taken to sharpe n and clarify the origin andthrust of 136-148, it must create a difficulty for understanding ‘“‘novis verbis’’ at 138, since the interpretation offered

claims that Lucretius’ procedure is the redeployment of old words, not

the creation of new ones. The style of the De Rerum Natura is inventive and even idiosyncratic.*? It is characterized by new coinages, hapax legomena which are probably quite often Lucretian in origin, and borrow-

ings from Greek vocabulary. What is to the present point, however, is

that much of the invention and idiosyncracy does not involve the creation of a new vocabulary, and so is irrelevant to understanding the passage, 23 Bailey (above, note 22) 132-17 - 1, for a survey oO f Lucret:ian stylhee, on which I have of ge gua Lan e ‘‘Th , ess uin Mag S. W. and n, sio cus reliedfor thetatormation in this dis

Lucretius” in D. R. Dudley (ed.), Lucretius (New York 1965) 69-93, which coversthe uc

.

.

.

basic material and coheres with the point of view exp ressed here about Lucretius same basic

inventiveness.

?

”

45

and that so little of what is new in the words j of language the involves 8 ‘“f as such Coinages analysis, philosophical rugiferentis’’, “argifluum’’,

or ‘“auricomos’’ are literary in characte

o n e v a h d n a , e l y t S am’’. ‘ aa the ole waun umbrati

such cc

as

opinatus’, .

>

and

moderatim’’ , rz

’

phi

‘‘summatus’?

to Lucretius’ intellectual structure. fenhs and other features, including the elaborate periphrases, which

i e tec nical analytic reference, contribute to the abund are and richly personal character of Lucretius’ style, but they do

nA iemirotepnpaaa

the Mu of mi na ti ng fa re Se s Wh at Gr ee the ks of dis cov dar eri k es at 1s most striking about Lucretius’ . an diction in this repect is its employment of familiar Latin words to express technical Epicurean concepts: e.g., imane, res, natura, semina, corpora,

primordia/principia, ratio, simulacra, tmago, materia/materies, spatium, species,

concilium, plagae, motus, discidium, sensus, voluptas. He does, of course, in-

be har dly ma y thi s (th oug h mo me n an d asclin amen vent new terms such by an d wri tin his g of fea tur e unu sua an l considered very new), but this is the get not do we An d ver bis ’’. nov is ‘‘m ult a to up liv es me an s no po em . the in wor ds Gr ee k the all ad d we if pr om is e thi s of justification Lat in. for voc abu lar y Epi cur ean tec hni a cal cre ate to They are not used nar row the to res tri cte d or co mm on an d lit era ry are the y la rg e, and By pur pos e, lim ite d ver y a ser ve thu s an d mu si c or me te or ol og of y areas m u r e R e D e h t f o e s n a p x e t s a v r o s e u s s i l a r t n e c e h t g n i h c u o t y l d r ha Natura.** m o c f o y t l u c i f f i d e h t d e s a e r c n i t c a f n i s d r o w n i t a L d l o e h t Using d e n e s s e l n e e b e v a h d l u o w h c i h w y t l u c i f f i d a , s u i t e r c u L r o f munication l a p i c n i r p s i h r o f s m r e t k e e r G d e h s i l b a t s e e h t d e t r o p m i y , had he simpl c i t c a d i d , y r o t a n a l p x e y l e r u p n e e b e s o p r u p s i h d a H . s e i r o g e t a c l a c i . e n o techn d e v a h d l u o h s e h t a h w s i s i h t , l a c i h p o s o l i h p y l e r u p , e v i t p i r c s e d m u r e and R e D e h t d n a — e c n e i d u a c i h c r a g i l o s i h o t n w o n k l l e w o n n e e b e Greek was v a h d l u o w t i d n a — > ? m e o p c i h c r a g i l o n a t o n f i g n i h t o n s i Natura ** Compare

g n i l d n a h s ’ o r e c i C f o n o i s s u c s i d a r o f ) 7 1 e t o n , e v o b a ( d r o f r o M O . M. P in

his Aratea.

e h t w o N ‘ ‘ : 4 e e s d n a , 3 . n 7 , 3 ) 8 1 e t o n , e v o b a ( s Lucretiu d e e d n I ” . g n i d a e r y s a e e l o h w e h t n o s i t i t a h t s i . N D.R. e h t a n n i C n i n i , , ’ ’ ’ s u s i u i t e r c u L s u i t i T f o s d l r o W o w T e h T ‘ , n a m e s i W s _ u r u c i p E f o h t gton, The Fai

i i g a n i , r r s a F u h . B T e e . S t o . 3 n 4 1 1 ) 4 7 9 1 r e t s e c s i t e s L i ( d n a g a s p y o a r s e p s E e s o a r p n n a a e m r o u c R i p r E e e h h t t O n e e d w n t a e b t t e s a r Po t n o c t n e r a d a p s p i a t I . e e h r u t t l u n c o d n a , n 9 o 3 i 1 t a c ) u d 8 e c e i h t c o r a n g i l o , e e h v t s w (abo o h s a r u t a N m u r e R e D e h T . s u i t e r c u L d an

e d d a e n r a a n y s a a s a r t i t r o the poet can p

47

lusion, the name of an empty set, if he can drain it of meaning, if he can Separate it from pietas, w h ich will then require a new definition in order to cont i n u e i n u s e, then the house of ancient city thought e ’ deprived of i ;1 ts jointures, wi , . , ;

He le amb ve b ose purp his to ence audi his ned wake e hav will then » Drought them to a

th f a been the had they f of thani ly firm e mor n ware haps eve b rooted In it—per i relio and s idea of between their world

fact. If the link and n, show be can gio l ana of gory cate a as ed lish demo be can io relig if have will they then oee. anch sv h s idea no choi: ce but to admit their ave no anchor in reality. There will be

nO choice but to find a new source of thought in a new account of reality, with the consequences of this new world view for their pattern oflife.

If . ired requ is d worl the of way the t abou ry theo If religio goes, a new

that theory stems from an observation of nature and not the experience of civitas, then the centrality of civitas will go too, and withit the last claim to to s etiu Lucr les enab s word n Lati ing loy Emp rum. maio mos primacy of the econs al soci the w sho to and on, acti and make the link between idea

l nica tech or s term l nica tech ek Gre used had he If s. idea his of quences were es valu an Rom ch whi in way the wn sho e hav not coinages, he could of ty rali cent the from d mme ste and life al soci of tied to the language is oach appr this of ss erne clev the , tegy stra tual llec ‘nte an AS religio. If ore. anym y ousl seri io relig take fact in not do s arch olig the if ed anc enh of on dati foun the is vain be to it adm they is lys ana of m ter a t tha he shows own r thei on ible fens inde more h muc ‘s tion posi r thei n the their life, n a c e h , n o i t i d d a n i , f I . a e d i g n i v i l l l i t s d e k c a t t a d a h e h f i n a h t terms : } n i w o h s y b s e i r o g e t a c d l o e h t f o y n a e m h e , v d a o s o t s r e d n u y l r e p o r p s i y t i l a e r n e h w , s i n o i t a l e r t a h t t a h w d n a y t i l a e r e c n a h c e r o m h c u m has

y a s t o n s e o d e H . e r u t a r e t i l o t h c a o r p p a ’ s u i t e r c u L f o e u r n t I . s d o i o t e s m r a e d n u t The e s o n s i t n i o p s t i t a h t false but

word.

s ‘ a i e n e g W i h p I f r e o y r o t s e h t t a h t e c n e d i v e t n a t r o p m i s i t ij t o n n s 1 o i t a t e r p r e t n i e h T . m e t s y s d l o e ] of th t u o b a g n i n a e m n e d d i h d n i f t o n s e o d t I . l a c i r o t s i h y l t c , i w r e n t a s s e r t i u u q b e r ' l a y c r o i t r s o g e h e t t all a h t s w o h s tory but

s e h t r o n i d e d d l r r o a w c s i d the e b o t e v a h t o n s e o d e r u t a r e t i L : y a w t a r h a t e r f o e b t n n u a o c s a t c n c a e t m i e l e s soliccit t I . y t i v i t c a n a s a t i e v a s der to

ne

AND THE L ATE REPUBL Ic

——

LUC RETIUS

48

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

man can not only discuss and interpret literature best, the wise m anc .

write poetry.

an

; » necessarily, a ney language for the description of reality and as the su bstance of its literature. He eliminates some categories as irredeemably empty of con. tent or value: religio, impertum, and civitas. The last simply does no t, for

understandable reasons, exist in Lucretius andis dispensed with by bei ng allowed no application in the real world. The only related word to o ccur is ‘‘civis’’, used to refer to the ordinary ‘“‘citizens’’ who aid in the

falsehearted and impious killing of Iphigeneia. So muchfor citizenry as a

guarantee oftruth, fides, honor, and pietas. Imperium findsits fate in Book 3 at verse 998, in the course ofthe diatribe that serves as the book’s close. Sisyphus’ ever vain toiling uphill with his rock is symbolic ofthelife of civic ambition. He stands for the man ‘‘quipetere a populofascis saevasque securis / imbibit et semper victus tristisque recedit’’ (996-997), a not very complimentary portrait of the pattern of civitas, for the goal of the contest for civil honor is in truth an empty name: ‘‘nam petere imperium quod inanest nec datur umquam’’ (998). Imperium is a name without a reference in the world of things. It is, in Epicurean terms, part of the void. Religio, although dismissed early on from the new language, is yet favored not only with mention elsewhere, mainly in the civic proems to the other five books but also with a lengthy treatment in the course of the satire on civic history in Book 5 at verses 1161-1240. Religio is a name not used there, but it is the subject of the description and denunciation, as Lucretius explains its historical origin. This is an event for which, he says, it is not difficult to present the rule of interpretation in words: ‘“‘ra-

tionem reddere verbis’’ (1168). Lucretius’ true interpretation (ratio) of fa ls t h o e e n b a w s it a e s d t h is a t g r e re w li w gi h b o i y c h p r the ocess p e r t c r eptions. u th e o ei f r b e i n h g s u b m y a ra n ti (i o) .e . understanding (‘ ‘r at io ni i s n o t f e r p r e p t r a i t n t i c r o i u t n p e h l e e l a c k e p d Because eople o f re o al f it y, t h e fa o a r ls y e d e v t e h l e o y p e d egestas’’ at 1211) of evidence, | . r e t n e c e h t is o i g i l e r which r e o r i t a s n h a o t i t i a w t e r p r e l t a n c i i r o t s Lucretius follows his purely hi s r i a f f a n a m u h n i o gt li re f o e l o r e h t d n a n i g i r diatribe against this o t a e b i r t a i d n a e r u c i p E r o n o i t n e v r e t n i l a c i r i t a s s i h o t r a l i m i s , ) 0 4 2 1 4 9 (11 to correct

d a e l l l i w o i t a r a r e v t a h t g n i t r e s s a y b s n i g e b e h e r e h w , 5 3 1 1117-1 e h t f o h c u m e l i h W . 0 6 1 1 8 4 1 1 d n a , h t l a e w e u r t s i t a h w t u o b a s n o i s u l c n co

cl d n a n a , n o i t a c i l p p a n i l a mment is univers e n n a , y e s v b s n o i g e T “ , ) 7 2 2 1 ( ’ ’ s i s s a l c m e r o t a r e p u d n i ‘ ‘ nent: ; P e h t o t n i s r e n g i e r o f s e t a r o p r o c n i e r e h ’ ’ s i t n a h p e l e ‘‘

LUCRETIUS A ND THE LAT E REPUBLIC

pacem votis’” (1229), ‘‘pulchros fascj

reader 1s reminded, by implication a and foundation of civic

religio Romana: ‘‘velatum’? (1198),

aras’’ (1199),

«

‘‘procumbere humi

(1200), “‘aras sanguine multo / 5

vota”” (1201-1202). While some of this language plication in thelife of the ancientcity, “

no Roman reader could fail to imagine anythin ii h t n a h t r e h t o r a i l i m a f e 8 we : 8 2 . y r n e z i t i c n a m o R f o rites In any case, Lucretius’ explicit point dictates the reference to Rome: thedefinition of the category puetas. He starts with “nec pietas ullast’’ (1198) and then shows what pietas is not. As in the Iphigeneia passage, it is not observation and performanceofthe rules of religio. Here, however, he goes on to give a positive definition of the category: ““sed mage pacata posse omnia mente tueri’’ (1203)—‘‘But moreis it the ability to watch everthing with an ordered (i.e. serene) intellect.”’ This is the Epicurean salvation of pretas, giving Lucretius’ destructive description a positive product. He then proceeds to illustrate the futility of prayer (1229) and the vanity of civic forms before the real hi of s un de th rs e ta re nd sh in mu ap g st e wo rl th d—which working of e prayer for civic peace at the opening of the poem. Fi rs t th e in be gu n st ru ct ci ur vi e, c th e fr om pi et as The separation of al so 5, Bo ok in de fi ni ti on un ci vi l po Proem and completed with a sitive e at id nd ca a as ed at ci so as is t i e er wh , 3 ok Bo to m e o r p e th in le ro a played s e s r u o c s i d s u i t e r c u L , 0 9 1 3 . 3 s e s r e v t A ?® a. ti ci ui am h t i w for redemption d n a , s t n e s e r p e r it il ev e h t , fe li c i v i c f o n r e t t a p n o m m once more on the co e h t : d l r o w e h t f o t n u o c c a e ls fa a n i s il ev s t i d an n r e t t a p t a h t f o e c r u o s the

is s i h T . h t a e d f o r a e f t n a d n e t t a e h t h t i w o gz lz re d n a n o r e h c A f o notion s m e t s fe li c i v i c f o m r o f e h t t a h t m e o p e h t n i t n e m e t a t s t s e r a e l c perhaps the

e h T . d l r o w e h t f o g n i k r o w e h t f o s r e f f o it n o i t a n a l p x e e h t from religio and e h t o t s d a e l o gi li re f o e s u a c r o , t l u s e r r o , t r a p a is h c i h fear of death, w

P. h ic wh t ns ai ag , ar ul ic rt pa in 98 11 d an 3, 20 -1 98 28 So Bailey (above, note 22) on 5.11 Bai ~ ad lapidem’’, Latomus 35 (1976) 550-554, arguing for reference to a poem. the of ambience general the or here context ‘n nvincing ““Velatan Boyancé, co 10) note (above, DeWitt W. N. see “‘virtues’’, Epicurean other Greck custom nd the 20-32 8) note (above, Epicurus of Faith The Farrington, B. 949-288 vd 589-327, but also 22) note (above, Introduction An Epicurus: Rist, and Justice’’) (‘‘Friendship versus Epicurean the of discussion “The Problem of Friendship’’). A contemporary | particularly and 1.42-70, Finibus De Cicero’s n 127-139 ( i n o i t i s o p x e ’ s u t a u q r o T n i d n u o . a virtues is f z i t c i u m r a s e e v v o l e s m s e n h a t e r u c i p g E n o m e a t a b e d f o t n u o c c a n a , 65-70

mae

my urenb wour me anbow we jum pe strat: fac

sendSmqQeseioas Bre

a

&

~

nee

—

aaa

saned starr x

saz / anbyunsed ozo xa owe yunedes Grapenbopurnd. og 1-sscree a Wary RE y

“QOL ye SRPOS MIU BW PUB eyYUM POyUT] sty CO CSE-TSE HF). CIeQeaP araqry

snsues urenb ouod apy aroreur pinb_, :snuaion] ut wordaauad asuas

Ul PAIOYUE SABMTE SI LIPLY y¢ WOSEAI O}) AMTOYING WOU] “ZanaQg “UO “(Ulu

-hgle Dustreuones JO asuas ferauas isoui si ut) So], Oo) ATaIsTyY “alam

Hse “urOy ‘aSpopmouy azveaud 02 Pemos UTOU! “mumpPe OL smpIsE wWRON] Parrys ' St sapf JO amos ayy “seu0Saie>) Piuaurepuny jo sme 22; Q)5 DAE Ao UE SPIOM MONT INMS “QUIMO OO Wa@Yy po Tayi wlOyy Ip PAQUaA “pyro am? UI Sapo MOU UO ayel sepapue ‘oymaD “srg “ser cwmiogun “ooFyey "QPOYM & se ase oy jo aureyi & “¢ yOog ul ({cpr ¢) _eummoeu uma, JO ULSLIO ay JO JUMOD0F ay] areduroo—sx pue oumwex Usaniag drysuonrpal ap JO sUisyI Ny] UeERAI 2 Ol apnye isnur asa u_, smwio se y2 “2ysno JO JQPsO NAD 2B ul sias Aadure jo saureu am ing Sump i y,

‘bd

a

£

wot

a

ae. .2uIeU & JO ayes oui 10y,. ystied oym asoyy (cg) ;

Snuaed

“ nb

-sore) ureuged,, pue ‘(g/) _,oSr2 sturmiou 22 umurenieis, ar) _ rou0y - orep,, ‘(cz) _wraiuaied.. “(1zZ) . smuemumooe spor Wapeer.. “(Qz) .@fiAD oummsues,, ‘(6¢) ..optdno edee2 umoUOY.. (FC) __UreuOTSyar,. (ec) _ Seuazur,, (ze) _ SIAIp .nqrueur,. ‘(Tc 1 wenuared..) pupa

au} O} S2dUaTJal SITY apeul Apealpe UIOd aul O02 UONIPpe UI “220U AEUI aM pue “worm sow 2u} JO SUIPUEUISIP prepuels sty oO) spadaid snuanny] ‘stm wiorg -asodind ueamsidy pue Meu & 01 Sspod ay Jo sapoge ay? UO GF-Z4°9 “ass4pQ WIOY UONeIONb am jo uONBTddear ayn :77-g] Sasa Ul INIVIDU] PSwWIsyUI ey? SUTULIOJAI JO [EOS 2 WIM peyuly awe wuoja HAD Ioy : UII SW pUe JSMIaAcTyoe snimoidy jo uondunsap ayy ‘QZ 28134 Ie __seadnyjoa eULAIp UEpoendb,_ 0) SuIpeal ‘spprusip JO anos mou = pue ‘Aauiowmne yeusoyed jo WOISIaA MoU B SI SIU] “YUIOM puke “adpapmouy ‘MIOpsim JO 2oIMOs am st snindidy inq ‘snuuY wipg rood WAM Rp W342 1OU ‘souoy UBITIGnday jo svjrusip ay 10U “szuj9g ILAID ay OU ‘sHrprRy 7G 2 yOu ‘unsowwu som 3y1 ION “(E]) ,.eUTISSTUBIP,, are yoy(ZT) Ba “Mp vane, sninoidg stpue ‘(§-g) ,,eidedaeid senpoddns ; siqou vung 9 “IOlUJAUT UINIaI ‘sa wyod n},, :9910] TedtyI9 pue iulod Arerodwiaques

*H osteid yey) aaL8 suoteoduil [Ald ay} Inq ‘snourey are Yoo ay} jo Suu “UIB3q Alaa au} 18 pasteid st snunosidq yorys ul sul) SY “UONNOAaL pera

“S][S2UI Jo yse] ues ay) sayeLIOpUN ¢ YOoY 0} Weo0Id ay) Jo Isat sy

“W3y} sAoijsap ‘uoneaynsnl pue woddns stay} Sutaq JO peaysul ‘ewdy2y Pio SAID WiOly payeredas aie ‘sojaig yim Buoje ‘uepng pue vywup

(¥g- RB) : 2

,. depens

BJIDLISGAS

uia}e}a1d

Ul

euluins

“TRU ouny ‘wiai0opnd arexaA IUNY,,

jo

quaduimi

/

reQLDlwWe

-sN[eA jeiour [Te jo UO} INYsIp

Oo¢

OYrlandad ALW! AHL GNY SOILEXONT

twice. Five of these appearances are as the idiom (or dead metaphor) ture

and have no analytic significance. The form iura appears twice, three verses apart in Book 5 (1144 and 1147), in the accountof the establishmentof civil society andits laws, whereit is used to refer to a stage of activity in history and notas a term ofanalysis. It is not differentiated from leges, in conjunction with which it occurs both times. Juris occurs at 3.61

in the phrase ‘‘transcendere finis / iuris’’, which, in context, refers to il-

la w” th ’. e ‘‘ br th ea an ki mo ng re li tt me le an an s d ca mpaigning legal At zu st of us . oc cu rr th en e ce fr s om This interpretation gains support is se ra ph e th , re tu Na y b h at de of ar fe s ’ n a m of e k u b e r e th 3.950, in , . on ti ac l ga le f o re he sp e th m o r f r o h p a t e m a ’, m’ te li ‘Sustam intendere m o r f s e m o c 1 4 2 1 . 4 t a ’ ’ m u t s u i r e t e a r p ‘ ‘ e s a r h p e h T . l a c i t y l a n a t o n d n a e c n O . m o i d i l a u s a c a n a h t e r o m g n i h t o n 1s d n a y t i l i r e t s of n o i t p i the descr t e n e s a c s i h t n i , y r o g e t a c c i v i c c i s a b a s e n i f e d e r t e o p e h t , n e h t , n i a ag : e n e t n i ' g n i r e d n e r t u b e c n e r e f e r s it g n i t f i h s r o t n e t n o c f o t draining i e c s p p o y e s i c e r p is s i h T , n o i t c n u f c i t y l a n a f o t i g n i v i r p e d ly trivial by 1 m s a e l o r r t n e c a s y a l p s u i h c i h w n i , n o i t i s o p n a i n o the Cicer n a n o s n o c y l erfect

p d n a , s r e d r o l a i c o s d n a l a r u t a n e h t n e e w t e b

ht.*? 0, 14 d 1. standard Epicurean thoug st mo re ambiguous. Verses 1.70 an e u r i f e of virtus 18 at s’ achievement and secondly associating the u r u c i p E o t t fehe a s r o i t [ l g e l n l i a r r r a e p f s e r picurean term

E n i 1 n o i n t io it i n i t a redef . t h g u o h t y r a r o p m e t n o c r e h t o n i d r o w e h t o t g n e o a 0 2 h t i w d s u t r wor e v , 3 6 8 d n a 8 5 8 . 5 t A . d e p o l e v e d r e v e n 8 1 ; val however, r o ; n o i t o m This potentia 7 the physical aggressiveness of animals, a de t y l p m i s refers

e t o n , e v o b a ( s u r u c i p E f o A w a F e h T , n o t g n i r r a F d n a 4 2 1 2 2 1 ) 2 2 e t o n e ’ v o b a S 1 ( e e e 31 e S

8) 20-32.

—

have ‘‘manhood’’? Thi. s is an application of virtus to which Cicero obnjiem ‘

openly: ‘‘Nam nec arboris nec equi v Cts irtus, quae dicitur, in quo abutimy ,

nomine, in opinione sita est, sed i n natura.”’ (De Legibus 1.45.) Here again a sharp line divides Cicero and Lucretius, as Cicero rebukes the manner in which Lucretius and others demean the name of civi] wardness. This leaves 2.642, where the reference is traditional (‘‘yj velin

|

t patriam defendere terram’’) but is part of the allegorical inter. pretation of the rites of the Magna Mater immediately to be rejected (645), as repudiated by the true rule of interpretation (‘‘a vera ratione

to Lucretius the Epicurean. Civitas is the order he wishes to destroy, and wus and virtus, while not as noxious as re ligio, were too much pillars of that order to be securely separable from it . They could not be saved for

Epicurean analysis, and, indeed, had no Epicurean utility, since rerum

natura and ratio, and the denial of divine p rovidence, left no place forius, and redefinition of virtus as voluptas, or an effect of voluptas, would have been, at best, an otiose exercise. Volupta s is the required concept and leaves nothing important for virtus to do.2 2 This consideration of Lucretius’ intellectua l vocabulary has still not advanced solution of the problem of ‘“‘mul ta novis verbis’’ at 1.138. It adds justification, as if justification were needed , for the claim of ‘‘rerum novitatem’”’ and the complaint of ‘“egestatem li nguae’’ at 1.139, but we have not yet found new words. On the basis of what Lucretius actually does, we should have expected a phraselike ‘‘mu lta nova patriis verbis’’, but this is not what he says. It is, however, abo ut what he must have had

in mind. At least it represents the real difficulty with whi ch he dealt and

the actual accomplishment of his poem. Lucretius create h s is new world mainly by the new use of old words, using the inherited nam es in novel

ways and with newrelations to one another— promoting, demoting, and

transferring to new assignments—to explain his many new thing s. Novelty of rank and application, ‘‘words used in new ways’’, is not what °? Compare Rist (above, note 22) 125 and DeWitt (above, note 10) 245-248 (‘‘The

Relation of Pleasure to Virtue’’). For vera voluptas as goal and standard, note De Rerum Natura 5.1433. Also compare Cicero’s litany of the old wordsin thesection from the introduction to the De Re Publica quoted in the text above, section 6.

ee:

ellectual history. His co ncern with religio

life and value, is the old way. They, € shown the interdependence of the parts, that, if one goes, all must go, and so they must be taught the

analytical and ethical consequences of their o wn indifference, an indifference whose significance they clearly do not the mselves understand. The perception of the poet’s awarenessof the civic roots of the system of knowledge he must destroy, if he is to win a way for Epicureanism, and therefore of the necessarily civic purpose of the poem, sharpens perception of the way in which Lucretius has arranged his material andgives intellectual significance to the pattern. Each ofthe six books of the De Rerum Natura begins with a civic proem to set the context and goal and predict the effect of the Epicurean description to follow. This includes the proem to Book 4, when the relation between Lucretius’ literary ambition and his civil point is understood, though, admittedly, some special argument is required to place this a w i t c h l o a s e l s b s o o o f k o l s u a r t s t h e o E f a c h c proem in a civic ontext.

h a v W e e b o o t k s w . o fi rs t t h e f r o o f m f t h e m satire on civic life,? setting

l o o h k a e W v d 6. e e a 4 n d B o o f o k e s n t d h s e e x f a o m r p le, immediately, c r a w w i l l a e t s h e a t g l a A n c 3. e a n 1 d B o o k t s o p r o e ms already at the

o s t a t e m e n p t o e m t h ’ e s o f e x t e n a t n d n a t u t r h e e out into stronger relief

43 PA TA ’, t’ is ir at asS s iu et cr Lu ‘‘ , on ht ug Ho P. H. : see ire, C. v; xli 6) 93 (1 67 PA TA ’, re ti nSa ma Ro d s an iu et cr Lu ‘‘ , ey --- C. Murl

(1912) xxxlv2008" the History of Satire’’, TAPA 70 (1939) 380-395; R. Waltz, Murley, “‘Lucrenwy ©tres d’humanité 8 (1949) 78-103; D. R. Dudley, ‘TheSatiric Ele-

ius ret h, Luc ac ll Wa P. 0; B. 13 511 ), 23 te , no ve bo (a ey dl Du R. e D. in qu ri e ti ‘‘Lucréc sa De : ius ret Luc , ey nn Ke J. E. d an ); 76 19 n de ei (L h at De ment in.Lucieiy*s.. i the Fear of ne fu o ar tw st ela 4. Th 24 9d 19 0 an ly -2 al 17 ci pe es ), 19 te e, no ov Tab be a ri at Di d the an l i l k o o tura B . c i p o t e h t f o s n o i t a r o l p x e e l

e

>_>,

aerate RIEae oe ea ,

il f o a r n d p a t t h o t i f e s r p n o t i h n e t a s f k o i r n g f o t u h n l e d a ation now in c l e b a r no e t m i i g h t t w h e r e s e c t t i h o i o n n s s e luminating the civic purpose

rm

CU

tT

ymoronic in name ;

Great Pompey, | (

N sACSO

1 NIN

Ul

S S

4

(

A

.

Me

?

S ius

MmM

Foiaftth Pdryog TY ™M contij nu € 8 and the two funda ‘The

mental

and the EpPiiccuurree:an, On the

refj

a

.

© nd Libeay r, a Hercules The

v™

‘

“

P

an

the“ old reJA liIZ g;ion

TE

d order were bestowed by Cer* e s

‘tiuss dedm emeea ; ns Particular l y . M a n y of » Not because t he storie:

cra multo ratione ferer e”’ (21-22). If you will

;

-

;

d, Herculesis the quintessen-

tially civil hero, which will lead Virgil, in one of his many rebukes of

Lucretius, to make so much of him in Aeneid 8. If Lu cretius is attacking Stoicism andits accomodation to the ethic of the mos maiorum anywher e, it

must be here, and no noble reader could fail to think of Stoicism at this

point. But if this is attack, it is only by implication and extension, since the poet’s real target is civitas. If that can be destroyed, the Stoic accomodations are nullified automatically.** ms of on ti es qu ge ar es th to ied all is sm ci oi St d an 34 The question of Lucretius

iginali

is

subject, see especially:

P.

H.

,

the d an us eti ucr ‘‘L , ley Fur J. D. 3: -2 12 ) 48 19 ( 79 A P A n so e O c ny A eiieeo

( 966 ) " 133 (1 ) BI St l CS s’ B lecs Sooi

’’, ius ret Luc in cs mi le Po l ica oph los Phi e Th ‘‘ ve, Kle 3; K. 13-3.? 1978) 39-75: D. J. Furley, “‘Tucretius the Epicurean”’

: ’ in 3 acy, y; ‘‘Lucretius and Plato’ in the same volume;; and dP P. H. Hi. DeL me sa g h d r a H Entriens A. D. . 07 A. -3 91 7. 30 129 e ant Gig lo cel Mar a ti er off no ma ro e co gre } } o ism ure pic a l’E cul ; e (above, no h ic wh ty ali gin ori n ia et cr Lu for nt me gu ar an s ke ma 5, {-1 e t i SUTTON: use . ion tat sen pre d an le sty ive ent inv his of ise pra an th re mo e h N t an ve po (a Winspear for de ma be to nt me gu ar allow any

ily eas t no es do s ce ur so e th f n aa s e m to seems s et cr bu for g in th no m ai cl her eit st mu We s. iu et cr Lu of y lit ina se The fragmentary

the om fr m ai cl a ke ma we if , or sm, ici ost agn l ica tor his ry sa es t o l ca hi op os il ph or e th r he et wh , hy op os il ph to on ti bu ri nt co al in ig or no de ma s f o n the basis for , o at Pl d an us eti ucr ‘‘L ’s cy La De in ng a eee icurus. Everythi relationship

the e ar mp Co f. sel him us ur ic Ep om fr me co ve ha i ble to d by Farrington in The Faith of Epicurus (above, note 8) and an s iu et cr Lu * his to on si lu nc co ’s ey rl Fu e Se 130-147. my s p a h r e p r o , y l e s i W ‘ “ ‘ : ) 2 3 ( s u i t e r c u L n o , e c n e t n e s l a n i f s i yh : De

y m e n r e e n n i i a m e h t n eo r i f s i h d e t a r t n e c i e r e h o c l l i w s i h T > i sues ane on rnt Tho in d ‘ e answ ts ’ mis ists wet 5 the Ato y ans t Firs Centur B.C. found 1 ‘ ;

i

thee

place Lucretius in his proper in-

95 ’

Cra Ssus

Caesoninus, C. Memmius. .

an

V

and. of ceeimius, L. Cal ;

’

of course

.

a purnius Piso

>

pete NRARONIRSLIE A ATE

.

»5

lin fa. ct) of the Lat e Republic:

act a ‘f ct si

d correctly: ‘‘Herculi

;

putabis / longius a vera multo ratione ferere” (21-29) . ‘Ifyou ll W1 u wi judge that the deeds of Hercules are more import h fa

7 t mnoe the true in the Epicurus, you will be carried much further awayy ffrom inter.

pretation than you werein evaluatingthe gifts of Ceres and Liber. In his role as the symbol of the process ofcivilization, of the establishtnent of order, and as the great servant of mankind, Hercules is the quintessenof rebukes many his of one in Virgil, lead will tially civil hero, which attacking is Lucretius If 8. Aeneid in him of Lucretius, to make so much it anywhere, maiorum mos the of ethic the to accomodation Stoicism and its this at Stoicism of think to fail could reader noble must be here, and no e c n i s , n o i s n e t x e d n a n o i t a c i l p m i y b y l n o s i it , k c a t t a s i s i h t f i point. But c a c i o t S e h t , d e y o r t s e d e b n a c t a h t f I . s a t i v i c 5 ‘ t e g r a t l a e r s ’ t e o p e th * * . y l l a c i t a m o t u a d e i f i l l u n e r comodations a s i h f o n o i t s e u q r e g r a l e h t o t d e i l l a 5 ‘ m s i c i o t S d n a s u i t e r d c u n L a f s u i t e r c u L “ , y c a L e D . H . P : y l l a i c e p s e e e s , t c e j b u s s i h e t h t n d n O a . y s t u i i l a t n e r c u origi L ‘ , y e l ‘cal r u F . J . D : 3 2 2 1 ) 8 4 9 1 ( 9 7 A P A T , » ’ » s u i t e r i c n u L n i s c e i m n e l O o P l a c i a h p p o o s s o o l i h P Phil e h T “ , e v e l K . K ; 3 3 3 1 ) 6 6 n 9 1 a ( e 3 r 1 u S c C i I p B E , ? e h t Stoics’ s u i t e r c u L “ , y e l r u F . J . D ; 5 7 9 3 m ) 8 7 n 9 a 1 n e v d e n n a e G ( s u i V t e I r c X u L X t d r , a y H c a s L n e e D i . H Entret . P . d D . n A a 0 3 _ ; 1 e e 9 t m 2 n u a l g o o i l G v l e c e r a m M t a t a r s e f o f o n e a h m t o o m r n o s @ i c i e e r r ) g u 1 c 2 i p E e ’ t l l o u n i s d u t , S e e v e o h c i (ab h w y t i l a n i g i r o n a i t e r c u L r o f t n e m u g r a n a s e k a m . n 5 o i 1 t a 1 t n e , ) s 0 1 e r p d n a e l y t t s e e v u i S t n : s r e v n i s Lubarno i h f o e s i a r p ); 10 n a e h r t o f no e t e d a m e b o t t n e m u g r a y n a w o l l a y l i s a e t o n s e o s u i s d t e r c u L r o f g n i h t o n m i a l c r e h t i e t s u m e W . s u i t e e h t m o r f of Lucr m i .a l c a e k a m e w f s , T O , m s i c i t s o n g : a l a c i . r o t s . i h y r e o l i h p o a t s s e c e n o n i a t u b i r j t n o c l a n i g i r o o n r o f e , d ’ o a t a m l P d n 5 7 4 ‘ a s u i t e r c u L “ s ’ y c a L asis of cretius e D n i g n i h t st say Lu p i h s n o i t a l e r e h t e r pa urus. Every

e a n o eems t

8

lf, Com

d n a ) 8 e t o n , e v o b a ( s u r u c i p E f o h t i a F e h T n i d n n a s u ingto i t e r c u L “ s i h o t sion

u l c n o c s ’ y e l r u F s p e a e h S r e . p 7 r 4 o 1 , y l e ) 130 s i W “ : ) 2 3 ( s u i t e r c u L n o e , D e : y m e sentenc n e n i a m e h t n o e r i f s i h d e t a r t n e c e n r e h o c l l 5 and co i w s i h T ’ ” . e r u t c i p d l elian wor n o t n r o h T n i d n u o ry B.C. f ° 1 r e p o r p s i h n i s u i t e r c u L e c a l p o t e v Jl ser

56

LUGRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC -

ye If, on the other hand, we identify the source of knowledge with

aie’ Pjlos

divinity, then Epicurus was a god. In the course of Lucretius’ extrapolas

p ess

tion of the praise of Epicurus from the Third Proem, he strengthens the assertion that he is the source of what is called wisdom (‘‘sapientia” at verse 10) because he is the man who first discovered the principle of

g scul BFyo "5d vi

understanding life, ‘“‘vitae rationem’’ (9).°° All knowledge comes frorq

Epicurus, and notales of the gods embedded in the civic account as the jusufication of its forms and religiones can compete with this. This is the point Lucretius develops in verses 56-90, where he contrasts the y . . . ss . Epicurean account of the evidence about reality with that ofcivil religion: ‘neve aliqua divum volvi ratione putemus’’ (81) and ‘‘rursus in antiquas — referunturreligiones’’ (86). Lucretius also revives the linguistic theme, _

particularly of the origin of names of things: ‘‘quove modo genus | we . . ial humanum variante loquella / coeperit inter se vesci per nomina rerum’ j (/1). In all ofthis, the poet also stresses his own literary ambition and | concomitant lack of philosophical pretension. He is writing a poem: ‘Quis potis est dignum pollenti pectore carmen / condere pro rerum -

.

.

°

oe

q

|

tellectual context and explain the reason for the persistence of his attack on religio and the notion of divine providence, both of which werethe categorical pillars of the fundamental ideas about the universe among the intellectual class, and among the mass, of the Late Republic. Plato and Aristotle erected the defense ofan intellectually refined civic heritage. This is why Epicurus attacked their conclusions, however much he also borrowed. This attack Lucretius transferred to Rome. He did not attack the Stoics or otherlate antiEpicurean arguments directly, because he was not a creative philosophical thinker (he was a creative poetic thinker) and because hedid not have to. His enemy was¢ivitas Romana as an intellectual structure. If he could destroy that, what need was there to bother with subsidiary defenses of what had been demolished? They would go the way of the nullified system. Lucretius was in the forefront ofthe intellectual controversy of his time, but as a poet not as analytical thinker. Philosophically, while Lucretius of course knew and knew of the schoolmen, in the narrow world of oligarchy and its Greek dependents, he was isolated fromtheir school structure and took no part in their debates. He and Catullus lived in the same literary world, for that was wheretheir talents lay.

St?

— i © |

: if I

yth¢ O9e: P wf O He rcl he f t ‘cl

EP 1 Ep see | tha Clas

D

inhe

sign!

the ] . Epic trac . pers spir and

dou ject

Pos fou ]

Reference should perhaps also be made to J. H. Nichols, Jr., Epicurean Political Philosophy (Ithaca 1976), which covers much of the conceptual material of this essay. Nichols’ discussion seems to me, however, to be too little rooted in the realities of historical developments in the Classical world, Roman society, and Greek and Latin

bet Cor i

titude to ‘‘politics’’, and his demonstration of Lucretian atheism (148-167) appears not

(

words to be of muchuse in understanding more than the surface shape of Lucretius’ pattern of thought. He does not take us veryfar into the literary, historical, and intellectual depths of the poem This leads to an unsatisfactory account throughout of Lucretius’ at-

nN the m

only to misconceive the method of the poem (and wrongly to interpret Lucretius on

My

turned more ontheissueof divine providence than divine existence) and the nature of an; cient (civic) religion andits connection with ‘‘politics’’. Indeed, in any discussion of _

Sp

analytic grounds), but to misunderstand the nature of the debate aver the gods (which

© of n tio men ct dire and io relig as h muc as d ere sid con be t mus as piet , ius ‘‘religion’’ in Lucret

of t par e sav will s Thi e. sens ean cur Epi an in ius ret the gods, and fvetas is saved by Luc

‘‘religion’’. Indeed, in the De Rerum Natura, the enemy is religio, not pcligion . 6-9. 21) e not , ove (ab n’’ urea Epic the 35 See D. J. Furley, ‘‘Lucretius

be

L UCRETIUS

AND THE LA TE REPUBLIC

maiestate hisque repertis?”’ (1-2.) Th . philosophical insight he has wholly rae 80al is to write one worthy of the

and value.

SaraR h ‘ie aan aleLE

eshee ere n a

Epicureanism, l.€. an entirely new literary tradi tion that will be for Epicureanism what Homerand Enniuswerefor civitas. It is here that we see not only the coalescence of the civic and literary goals of the poem,

that they are sides of the same Lucretiancoin, sinceitis impossible in the Classical world for literature, as part of the unified and indivisible civic

inheritance, not to have civic ramifications, but also therefore the civic

significance of Book 1.921-950, verses 926-950 of which are repeated as the proem to Book 4. While philosophically Lucretius traces the tracks of Epicurus (‘‘ingressus vestigia’’ at 5.55), poetically he sets out over trackless places, where no one has walked before: ‘‘avia Pieridum peragro loca nullius ante / trita solo’’ (926-927). His attempt and in(9 28 ), ‘‘ no vo (9 s. 27 .. ), fl or es ’’ ‘‘ in te no gr ve a r os l: e .. .f spiration ontes’’ is no ve T lt h e y (9 30 ). m u s a e ’ t ’ e mpora and ‘‘unde prius nulli velarint su bo b s a c n u r o e n po et ry wr it i in g double: of subject and purpose. He s pu rH i s (9 33 -9 34 ). c a / r m i n a ’ ’ p a n g o lu ci da t a m re d e ject: ‘‘obscura i t s o f ov er th th ro e w b u t li fe c i v o i f c va lu es th e of e x pose is not the pression | (9 32 ). ex so lv er no e’ di ’ s a n i m u m ‘ foundations: ‘religionum

re la ti th on e sh of ip qu es ti th on e a r g u to e es sa y th is of a i m th It is not e

in vi te h o w e do v e , r , fa ct s cl ea r T h e po et ry a . n d between Epicureanism

a n d E p i to c u r e a n i s m , d i m e n s i o n li te ra a ry ad de d L u c r e t ius conclusions. po in t, th is T o po et . a s a a n d E p i c a u n r as e a n b o t h n o v e l w a s h e th is in Lu cr et iu s do ct ri ne s. E p i of c u r e a n re nd it ion there had been no poetic

a a po et a , as n e w s o m e t d h o i n g to a m b i t i hi o n s f r o m as id e motivation, y v e e r H e p u r p o s e. Civic

p o e m th e of p r e s s u th r e e f med entirely rom ar ge , “ so ci et y in ro ot ta ke to w a s E p icureanism if th at believed # o v a w i d e r th e to o u t r e a c h m u s t it s o c i e t y , R o m a n in specifically J u . s us e w a s a u d i e n c e th at w h i c h to t e r m s th e o n a n d f o r m the a en

ci vd la s th e un ti l ef fe ct fu ll h a d h a v e n o t Epicureanism could = : re 2 w o r l d th e of v i e w i t of s f o u n d a t i o re n al th e a b o u t lightened be li ev t h e y sa id p e o p l e w h a t m a t t e r n o wh il e, ro ot t a k e n also it could ot

58

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

ed, their culture, including their literary culture, wascivil. Just asit Wa necessary to replace the old source of knowing and the old standa rd of in. terpretation, so it was necessary to replace the old poetry.

It may have been the civic character of the inhe rited literature, as much as the inadequacy of poetic expression for analytic argument, that caused Epicurus to say that the wise man will not write poetry, believing

that poetry could have only one ethic.36 Since it wa s also analytically useless, there could be no point in it. If so, Lucretius is saying that all of

life must have an Epicurean character, if life is to be lived according to

Epicurean principles. He attempts to save this position ph ilosophically by the famous simile of the physicians’ honied cups of medici ne, a simile he would never have constructed if there had not been a need to Justify the writing of an Epicurean philosophical poem. His claim to nove lty in this regardis correct, and it is a novelty he expected would create some su rprise and discomfort. Whether or not the writing of philosophical poetry does in fact contradict basic Epicurean attitudes, it does contradict the history of Epicurean practice, and for that practice there must have been a reason fundamentalto the history of philosophy since Socrates as well as to Epicureanism in particular. Lucretius’ position will, then, have had potential theoretical ramifications, if the schoolmen paid anyattention to his work as an authentic Epicurean document, whichis hardly likely, but they are ramifications he does not work out—and could not have, if he

were to live up to his claim to trace the tracks of Epicurus.?’ Analysis and art are two fundamentally different and differing modes of knowing. Epicurus recognized the former and notthe latter. Lucretius seems to have believed that poetry can tell the truth and communicate authentic knowledge. The difficulties here are enormous and intricate, and they do not seem likely to be moved towardsolution by anyofseveral lines of periphrastic special pleading that end, wherever they begin, by blurring an utterly basic and crucially important distinction, that was also of great historical importance in Classical thought for the exponents of the claims of philosophy, rhetoric, and poetry, at least since the time of 36 Diogenes Laertius 10.120; Plutarch, Mor. 1086f-1087a; Cicero, De Finibus 1.72,

Torquatus’ praise of Epicurus: ‘‘An ille tempus aut in poetis evolvendis, ut ego et sque omni as utilit a solid nulla us quib in et, umer cons mus, faci e ator hort Triarius te

of ple exam the but 08, 107-1 10) note ve, (abo tt DeWi See .’? ... puerilis est delectatio _ . ius ret Luc to ard reg h wit re the nor e her r the nei is s emu lod Phi e rol uea arg d an us cur Epi of er low fol ul thf fai a h bot be to 37 That is, he could not claim inve pa d ul co s iu et cr Lu if , se ur co of , ul tf ub do is It as. for poetry contrary to Epicurus’ ide en we et ce en er ff di a is e er Th f. el ms hi by nt me vented an analytically satisfactory argu ns mo de to le ab g in be d an , ue tr be to it g in ow kn en ev , ue tr be to g in th me so g in el fe l ca gi lo le ab pt ce ac n a in st ca n io nt ve in n w o s e’ on of s t n e m u g r a truth analytically with g en be e v a h to m e e s t no es do m r o f l ca gi lo r ea cl in s t n e m u g r a g in tt Pu form. . m i a s i h t o n s a w y l n i a t r e c Lucretius’ talents. It

EER AERA

Whatever the other and earlier presents of Athens, ma nkind was left still in care and lamentation: ‘‘anxia corda’’ (14) and ‘‘saevire querellis’’ (16). It was Epicurus who showed the truth aboutlife andits proper goal marking out the path by which mankind oughtto walk. This makes Liner,

not its civic pattern, Athens’ greatest gift, the man who, ironically, came

to show the limits andfailings in Athens’ past accomplishments. The rest of the proem sets out again the relationship of Epicureanism, civic aim, and poetic ambition (43-95). Again and again, Lucretius (41 ), ‘‘r ati oqu e’’ phe nom of ena : rat io pro a per of stresses the importance ra“‘c aec a (66 ), ‘‘r ati one ’’ (59 ), rat ion e’’ ‘nulla ratione’’ (56), ‘‘qua ten end a’’ cae liq ue [te rra e] ‘ra tio (80 ), tione’’ (67), ‘‘verissima ratio’’

igthe ir in me n lea ds tha t rati o cae ca is It (90 ). (83), ‘‘nulla ratione’’

is po em the whi ch fro m (62 ), ‘‘a nti qua s.. .religiones’’ int o bac k norance pro ces s thi s Fr om rati o. ver iss of ima app lic ati on by th em fre e to designed *‘p aci s deo rum : pax cat ego ry, ano the r for def ini tio n ne w a ari se wil l there passage as

the to cen tra l as 1s pea ce tru e of not ion Th e (69 ).* ? eorum’’

Pl ac e (73 ), pace ’’ cu m “‘p lac ida (69 ), “‘p aci s’’ (49 ), ‘‘p lac ato’’ ratio: me ant ra n tru e of emp loy men t Th e (78 ). pac e”’ ‘‘t ranquilla (75), In ret gzo of des tru cti on fin al the by sec ure d be wil l pax of redefinition clo ses Luc ret ius (82 -83 ). ver sib us” / ’ poli tis . & sun ornandda p and ‘‘volupae’ ? cc t vol new poetry: up and ‘‘re quie s’’ as def ine d 1s wh o Cal lio pe, to ‘ o n ; ; the wit h and pas sag e, the of r su o m c li e d with an invocaho” lit era ry and e o Epi cur ean u Ls p a l m u tas’ (94), the c m g a l p a c i n g i s n i n t y o “ i t i b m a c i t e o p s i h f o n o i t a r e t i e r n o i t c e s g n i s o l c e h T . n a g e b re it e h t f o t h g i l n i d n a g n i n n i g e ’s b r e t f A . e r e h w se

system of civic forms and Tesp onses. This did not give any t rue understanding or way of dea ling with the crisis. Al] the c i t izens (‘‘ civibus”’ at 1140) could employ w ere those forms of thought that in -

The preceding account in the book esta blishes the standard of interpretation on which the satire is to be bas ed: ‘‘haec ratio quondam morborum’’ (1138). Without this true account, the reader would not be able to perceive the satirical thrust of the descript ion, its Epicurean point, or 16), so the reaction to the plague was characterize d by ‘‘anxius angor”’ (1158) and ‘‘gemitu commixta querella’’ (1159). Those weary with disease uttered appealing cries mingled with lam ent: ““blandaque lassorum vox mixta voce querellae’’ (1245). Nothing they kne w how to do, none of the great Athenian gifts, enabled them to dea l with the plague, understand its causes, or adoptthe properattitude. Their scie nce was helpless: ‘‘mussabat tacito medicina timore’’ (1179). Someof the

sick mutilated their bodies from that fear of death, in the folly of which

the poem has long instructed us: ‘‘et graviter partim metuentes limina Jeti’? (1208) and ‘“‘mortis metus...acer’’ (1212). The disaster even

brought to some a loss of what had been known: ‘‘atque etiam quosdam

cepere oblivia rerum / cunctarum’’ (1213-1214). The forms of civic life,

convicted now of emptiness and pointlessness, were abandoned:

in-

comitata rapi certabant funera vasta’’ (1225), ‘‘nec fam religio divum nec numina magni / pendebantur’’ (1276-1277), and ‘‘nec mos ille i t j > ( 1 T 2 s 7 h h 8 a e r ) t n . i e o d n t m f e h p s e l e s sepulturae remanebit in urbe’’ ( ) d their relioio could not re li g t h e i d r e a t d h o e f b o d t i h e e s w i t h h i g h gods were piled

,

L a Book Ss proem. Civitas is empty. It stand s convicted of futility. Maakind waits for Epicurus and his truth. The method of Book 6 flows from that in Books 3-5 andthe foundation of the general ratio naturae set in Books 1 and 2. Inall cases, the Epicurean narrative of nature is necessary for understanding thecivicsatire, and the civic satire lets the Epicurean naturalnarrative play role in the contemporary intellectual crisis at Rome. In this way, the De Rerum Natura is far more than an Epzcurea, has far more importance and deeper significance for its period than Sallustius’ Empedoclea and Cicero’s Aratea, which enrich Roman culture with Greek but do not challenge a way of life or ofid ea a n . d in o st f it cr a is ut o is io f n c h t a h l t l e o e n g s e a o l fer ution o f p a r onth t e u n a d n e r s t r a e q n u d i ing res Satire, if it is to be effective,

s t a t n h d e a r d tr ut a h, n d v a o l f u e s t a n d a rd his audience of an author’s

a n o n d e p n e o n t d d o It e s m e is a s u r e sa d . ti re o f ob je t ct h e w h i c h against s t a n d t h e o f va li di t h ty e a b o u t a u d i e a n n c d e a u t h o r b e t w e e n agreement

c o m hi s if is , s t a n d t h a e r d w h a o t f p e r c e p t c i l o e a n r ard, but it does need

fl oa o ti f ng m i n a d t h a n m o r e a n y t a h s i n g sa ti re a s , s e e n b e t o a r e ments a c q u a i n t a n c e re ad er s’ hi s o n d r a w d i d a n d c o u l d bitterness. Lucretius e m a r f a s a m s i c i t i r c l a c i h t e r a l u p o p c i t s i n e l l e H f o n o i t i d a r t g n with the lo 4 d n a s 3 k o o e B s o l c t a s h e t b i r t a i d e h t , n e i l p m a x e r o ? f * , , as e c n e r e of ref : 3 k o o B f o g n i n n i g e b e h t t a s e c i v d r a d n a t s e h t o t s e c n d in th refere . ) 8 4 7 ’ 4 ’ ( a i d i s e d ‘ , ‘ ’ ’ s u x u l ‘ , ‘ ’ ’ a > i t n a l a ) l t * n u ? a ’ t a a e i i p t t ‘ i ) c r u p s ’ e ‘‘ ia’ erb a 6 un ?

This ;

.

.

.

.

e b o s l a d l u o c m s i c i t i r c l a r o m n a e r u c i p E h c i h w n the frame withi eas and its

r c of m s i c i t i r c n w o s i h e k a m o t e r e w t e Se if the po need the of proof were evils these that “nsist P located, but, l to | , n a e r u c i p E ly al ic if ec sp s to d a h e h , re cu y l n o r ei th s a w m s i n a e r u c i p E at th d n a m s i n a e r u foorr Enic . t a h t n a h t e r o m do much

a

. ) 3 3 e t o n , e v o b a ( y e n n e K d n a h c a l l a 40 See W

63

> natural focus ofhis descriptions, to

»

8 Lucretius to narrow he has narrowed the

the restless discontent of mode rn life (1053-1094) is a » and the range of observations in

sal condition of mankind, certainly not one peculiar to Rome, although, since it is a universal condition, it is therefore true also of Rome. There

are portions of the close of Book 3, however, which do breathe the atmosphere of the Late Republic. The section on Sisyphus as a symbol of the pattern ofoligarchy, cast in the vocabulary of Roman public life, has con ten of t em pt is ie d imp eri tha um t he re is It alr ead y. been mentioned

ex am pl es the ir an d 10 25 -1 03 5 ver ses are too (998). Special to Rome All Car tha ge. wit h wa r the Sci pio , An cu s, hi st or y: Ro ma n drawn from

we re pas t civ ic the of le ad er s gre at an d kin gs the of the power and glory

not hin g is wh ic h dea th, of rea lit y ine luc tab le the of delusions in the face descri

the in len gth gre ate r at bu t im pl ic it ly mor e ma de po in t a fea r, to

p-

. e u g a l P n a i n e h t tion of the A d l o e h t o t d e t i m i l t o n e r a e f i l n a m o R o t e l b a c i l p iticl

o t h t y m y b d e n g i s s a s i s o y t i T . s u l l u t a C y b d e t n e s ¢ s e r p e r s a e d i e h t s s pa f o y r o g e t a c a r o f l o b m y s r o e m a n a s a s i s a h e h y t i l a e r e h t t u b , n o e h t s Acher t n e s e r p e r e H . e v o l f o n o i s s a p e h t e s a , e c n e i r e p x e n ’ a ’ e a m r u c u h e n i d e p p u c t n u d n i c s ‘ ‘ m o h w ) 2 9 9 ( ’ ” m e t n e c a i e r o m a n h i c ‘ u s ‘ l l n a a e d u m l c n i l l i w d n a s u l l u t a C o t c i f i c e p s t o n ¢ n s 1 e c n e r e f e r e h h c u T s , e r u . t a ) r e 4 t i l c (99 i t s i n e l l e H n i d e i f i l p m e x ¢ y l l u f i t n e l p , e r e h w y e h t r e s a v e , o s e l a l p s u l l u peo t a C s e d u l c n i t i t u b , s u m e d o l i h P f o h o s m e o | as the p . e u l a v f o y r o e h t y r a r o p m e t n o c a f e O h t n e i y v l i e t v i s n e t x e e r representa o m h c u m d e l d n a h s i s u l l u t a C f o y l l a i n c o e i p t s i e , ) 7 8 2 1 8 5 The pos 0 1 s e s r e v ( 4 k oo y m o t o h c i , the d , y e n n e K e e S 41

. 0 9 3 0 8 3 , ) 0 2 e t o n , e v o b a ( ’ ” s u i t e r c u L s ‘“‘Doctu

62

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

What hadto be done was to makehis satire flow from an Epicurean ac-

count of reality. Lucretius does not simply criticize the world of the citizen for being false to its own standards or false to standards of rational

behavior in general. He does not offer a catalogue of isolated follies or even the description of a pattern of folly. He criticizes the intellectual foundation of citizenry by presenting a rival interpretation of reality, the effect of which he deepens and sharpens by rearranging the world of his audience before its eyes, by reshaping the structure of their language for describing reality. He rearranges the perceived relationship between words and things. ‘The consequence of his strategy is that the tradition of satire on civic life is made to confirm Epicureanism, to be an added proof of not only the necessity for some alternative but for this alternative. In | this respect, he uses the diatribe and the satirical themes in the way he used Iphigeneia and the quotation from the Odyssey at 3.19-22: the in- ; herited literature, properly understood, contains evidence for the noncivic truth of Epicureanism. Whilethe satirical description ofcity life, i.e. the recognition ofits ignorance and folly, is made a conclusion of argument drawn from Epicurean knowledge, and Epicurean knowledgeitself is made a conclusion of psychological need drawn from the observed insufficiency of civic life. The satire becomes consequence and justification of Epicurean doctrine. Lucretius thus controls the response of his audience to hissatire by rooung that satire firmly in an Epicurean narrative. Books 1 and 2 set out the fundamentalstructure of nature, to which all the description in Books 3-6 is subsidiary. This is the absolutely necessary foundation of knowledge, before anything else about nature or politics can be said, but by the end of Book 2 we are presented with conclusions closer to the events andfeelings of ordinary life. As we have seen, the proems to 1 and 2 have already established an ethical dimensionfor the poem, and Books 3-6 open with similar proems. Then, the description in Book3 of the true nature of the soul, including its mortality, lays the basis for the satire on the fear of death and punishment in the Underworld andof relatedfollies of civic life. ‘The satire on the passion andliterature of love, with concluding advice on sex and procreation, in Book 4 is founded in the description of sensation and human psychology which comprises the

book’s Epicurean narrative. Lucretius’ narration of the origin and growthofthe universe in Book 5 provides the frameworkfor his description ofthe origin of human life and the history of humanculture. In this historical satire, he presents the stages by which thefollies of contemporary life, described here and in the satires that close Books 3 and 4, arose through deviations from the life according to nature. Book 6 pictures the real status of those specific natural phenomena most obviously

oe Sa

4

ch}

46

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

‘ ; byhis required that than meaning technical their longer a task to indicate

terms with beginning of advantage the had have Latin words. He would associations, emotional distorting or that had no distracting references

of og ye p pe Cc " if yt

ch he ‘i ms a

ve 2 ay pe ss

Greek the by controlled been have and his explanations in Latin would

W 4s" 6

analytic clarity.?°

w eve? J

in gained have would presentation his Ultimately, meanings. technical

“ad pe

Lucretius’ decision not to adopt a Greek technical vocabulary posed a problem for him, but it also sharpens our perception of his purpose, which becomes comparable to the purposes of Catullus and Cicero. The

bé ied 0. or if th fac jigi9 c

does want to write a poem. Beyond this, he wants his poem to revaluate the literary heritage and rearrange Roman culture, to reform the languageitself and the society based onit. He does not simply wantto set out a philosophical system. He wants to create a direct effect for that system on the pattern oflife and thought. This cannot be accomplished by ignoring the language that reflects and embeds the inherited social form of thought and motivatesa pattern oflife it fossilizes and inspires.It can only be accomplished bydealing with the traditional vocabulary (and restructuring the relations of the words to one another) and with the traditional literary forms (revaluating the worth and pointof the various kinds and their typical content). He can then also recapitulate the typical Epicurean tactic of moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar?”—1n the case of words, from the familiar erroneous meanings to new content (which will refer to what is presently unfamiliar but true). These considerations bring us to the reason Lucretius spends so much time with religio. This nameis the central category of the mos maiorum. If

no © sc no cho with the if rel. that the rivitas, | primac make | enc wT ae con . tied ‘X religno enhat he sh their

former solution would not have beenliterary, specifically poetic, and he

if poict

term dressed to an oligarch. The problems itraises are the problems of oligarchy (the evils of nobilitas, not of the obscure life to which Epicureanism is the exhortation), and the solutions it offers are those available to oligarchs. Wiseman restates his position in ‘‘ Pete nobiles amicos: Poets and Patrons in Late Republican Rome’’, in B. K. Gold (ed.), Literary and Artastic Patronage in Ancient Rome (Austin 1982) 35-38. Religio is not the problem of the manin

Save reali ha s Wor

ridiculous, by implicitly comparing the nobiles to the untutored vulgus, to show them that

tha:

the street, as Lucretius defines it. It is the underpinning of nobilitas, even if the nobiles do not recognize this. His aim is to show the link, and by rendering religio vain and

therefore their whole patternoflife is intellectually no better than that of the lowest, most uncultured element of society. © Lucretius’ approach to the problem of expressing new concepts by old words is similar to Catullus’ and seems to me to mitigate the force of Rubino’s argument(above, note 13), particularly on 293. Catullus may have had no choice aboutusingthe inherited

language, while Lucretius did, but Lucretius’ choice and practice shows how far the

T

ter b ek all, th

reinterpretation of old words was possible. I would argue that Catullus and Lucretius, in their different aims, so far succeeded that it took Virgil a lifetime to put the inheritance

ex al

Livy, hindered by the subversions of Propertius and Ovid. 27 Compare Bailey (above, note 22) 58-59.

Ye fc

back into its old frame of reference (see below, section 8), with help from Horace and_

it

nee

and abrupt transition to force

the reader into perception of a | a‘ “> , a c nd ; deeeppeer, order ij n the po em and in the world than that of whj h h

e » ON thhe e babsasii s of hij s falsa 1ratio, is

presently aware. Having prayed to a Venus which ‘ the Ro mans . in e forc a as d tan ers und ans m;} Mem to nature and history, alluded

. . , 1t is clear that religio must re present a false notion of reality, an emptyset in termsof its claimed reference, and

a terrible scandal in social life, since it is around this name that the in-

herited community was organized and onthis basis that its history has been interpreted. For this poet, however, instead ofreferring to the principal line of interaction between humanity and divinity, along with its positive corollary pzetas, and being thus central to the true understanding of reality and well-being (salus), it is a heavy oppression upon mankind. The close connection between religio and pietas in the traditional acin te an rd d ependent co in sa me th e of si de s op po as si te re count of ality, in re co gn iz es Lu cr et iu s st ru ct ur e, elements of a coherent intellectual se du is ci ng he th in k ma y re ad er hi s th verse 81, where he acknowledges at th is de ny si mp ly co ul d He rel igi of o. de nu nc hi ia s ti on by him to impiety pu et as ca te go ry th e em pt y co ul d H e no t. do es he bu t potential allegation,

t n i e h t n e v i g , h g u o th . o d o t m i h d e t c e p x e e v a h t migh c u r t s e h t n i , n o i t r e s s a s i h T > . a t c a f a i p m ! e u q t a a s o r e l e c s t i r e p e p o ‘‘religi f o g n i n a e m e h t f o s i s a b e h t n O . s s e n d a m s i , n i t a L l a n o i t i d a r t ture of n o c d n a s a t e t p m o r f d e c r o v i d s i o i g i l e R . e u r t e b t o n n a c t i , s d r Latin wo s re

a e e t a e p e r n e v e s i t n i o p e h T . a i p m i 8 1 o t g i l e r : e t i s o p p o s t i . verted into t s i t . m u r o l a m e r e d a u s t i u t o p o i g i l e r m u t n a t ‘ ‘ : 1 0 1 e s r e v f O o y r e g dictum o r u s e h t s m r o f r e p s u i t e r c u L h c i h w n i , 1 0 1 d n a 3 8 n e r u e p w t n d a e o b h t e s m e h y t l r a verse e l c t s o l m i t s i tas from religto, hat d

c i t e o p d n a l a c i t c e l a i d g n i k i t r s st ’ as well as the poe e h a n a O propassage this of terpretation pose of the poem, n i e h T . s u i . s u i n e g d n , a r e w o i l a n i o ‘ n i n t o a e i L h t , o t a e t l r , d e u s ’ r n d m s a e i u c a i o t r e r p e c u o L t e

vides

the

s ni no em am Ag her fat r he by a) ss na ia ph (I ia ne ge language. ic th my k ee Gr e th of t an rt po im ly al ur lt cu d an d e e n The sacrifice

s o m e h t f o t r a p

1 rrsensng ehoer

revealed and developed seri ousness

was both precondition and product of merit, i.e. servic e t o family, polity and divinity. By such p erformance and sanctific a t i o n , a man became after his death one of the bi gger ones, one of the matores The entire wor ld of the citizen was thus r

(mos maorum) of the community (res publica). Truthfulness (pietas) to the

tion of mazores had made the senes preeminent, perhapsin the very earliest stages of the regal form of the society, and so counsel was at some point located in a senatus, chosen from those who could be called patres, the nucleus or origin of that rank called patricius. The warrant that demonstrated the truthfulness of a relationship or word wasin action, the link between words and things, that credit or guarantee, was fides, something public, testable, social, and observable because it tookits life in deeds and events andreferred to that active, visible bond in the work-

ing of the world expressed in the forms ofpolity.

What individualism there was in the world of the mos mazorum, i.e. the

kind of thing which, according to the categories of the modern analysis of reality, we call individualism, assimilating and warping the Roman perception to fit our own, lay in the degree of excellence of service to the community among the nobiles, the degree of assimilation to and exemplification of inherited patterns that led to nobilitas. The system of social value, like the social system it reflected and justified, was oligarchic. Each rank had obligation and value, but the rank of great value,

whose members were not personally obscure, was that which had the of or de r na tu th ra e as l hi er th ar is ch y re cognized nobilitas. All ranks things. The more a person stood out from the members of his class in the virtue of his merits, i.e. the more he might seem an individual in the categorizations of our language, the less he stood forth from his class, the more he expressed its standards, the more a part of the group he became.

in an le ss th e us , to se em mi gh he t ex ce ll ent The more individually

64

LUGRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

between words andthings, lovers’ language and things as they are, is the subject. ‘This is the Platonic variation on that theme,*? somethin g Lucretius may have gotten directly from Plato or intermediately from Epicurus. The gap between representation and reality 18 as great for those who set up thepassion of loveas the end oflife as for those who aim at the glories of citizenship. Amor as ultimate value (summum bo num) rests

on no better an account of the world than civitas, and incorp orates no

Strongera standard of truth. We cannot help but think of Catullus here, although the passage begins in Plato, the language is Greek, andthere js nothing in it, initially, directly reminiscent of Catullus. If anything in the passage comes from the world of poetry, it seems to stem from Hellenistic epigram and speak the language of the poemsof Philodemus. It is easy to believe that Lucretius had little use for this Garden schoolman wholived in comfort with so apparently vast a gap between the pretensionsof his

austere technical treatises in the tradition of the Founder, on the one hand, and, on the other, both the pattern of his dance of attendance on

the oligarchic princes of Republican empire and the monuments to triviality in his easy-going epigrammatic celebrations of the fluctuations of common passion. *3 The Greek of these verses will suggest the literature of Greece and, if allowed contemporary application, the literature of the Greeks in Late Republican Italy, but there is at least one phrase that may pointdirectly to Catullus: ‘‘tota merum sal’’ (1162). Here we can think readily of Poem 86, in which Catullus distinguishes between the qualities attributed to Quintia and the true requirements of the adjective formosa, which can be applied to Lesbia alone, high among whichis possession ofsal. The quality of sa/ is a recurring theme in Catullus, as is the character of the

person truly worthy of love, the subject of Poem 6. It must be admitted,

however, that Catullus is concerned throughout his poems with a firm relation between words andthings in poetry andlove, as well as in the world of civic life (e.g., Poem 29). In the case of Suffenus (Poem 22),

there is a split between poetic and personal style. In Poems 6 and 86, the one truly worthy of love or praise must reflect in her inner character the same qualities shown in physical appearance. It is because Flavius knows

this (in Poem 6) that he wants to hide his girlfriend. The same point is made in Poems 41 and 43 about the mistress of Mamurra (called Ameana in our modern texts). On this ground, then, if Lucretius’ target is #2 Plato, Rep. 474d-475a.

#3 Onthe identification of Philodemus the philosopher and Philodemus the poet, which hardly seems a subject for productive doubt, see A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek

ProA g, Neudlin L. C. (393); XXIII Poem on and Anthology (Cambridge 1968) 2.371-374

sopography to Catullus (Oxford 1955) 42-45, 123, and 137-141; DeLacy(above, note 11).

|

’

In this light, the plight of the exclusus ama tor in verses 1177-1191 may re-

mind us of Poem 67 or perhaps ps P Foems 32 or 51,

as well as the general

li fe of ." pa tt er n world of the Catullan | The longest treatment of the civic system occurs in th e history of the rise of civilization in Book 5 (verses 772-1457). This narrative should be juxtaposed to Cicero’s record of the development of Romein the De Re Publica, in which exactly opposite conclusions are reached about the value of human society as it developed historically and the origin of vices and evils. The development ofcivic society has, for Lucretius, removed man progressively farther from reality by adding tothe false notions of the way

the world works certain concepts, practices, institutions, and temptations that were not present to primitive man, who, of course, had his own

misconceptions and troubles.*° The developed form of society, as man has swerved more and more from clear understanding because of successive layers of false interpretation and intervening institutions, has om fr led cea con is th tru h ic wh in ys wa the d lie tip mul d an ed uat pet per ivis the d an th tru of t tes the is ero Cic for at him. The civic experience th a l, vei a ius ret Luc for is ld wor the of ble reflection of the real structure r. ro er of n io at iz il ss fo rm fi e th , on si lu snare, a de

s, iu et cr Lu of e ud it tt ea th e, ov ab us ll tu Ca th wi on ti ec nn co in , e r e dh #4 It may be note at ph s, si ri ec th n i us ll tu Ca d n a s iu et cr Lu of e ac pl e th t ou ab w o and all that is to be said bel ar rh s ap pe , ia it an ic am or d am ed nk li i us ll tu Ca e il wh t a, At gt d n a g < p d the Epicureans oppose ll wi is Th 9. 12 712 ly al ci pe es 9, 13 712 ) 22 te no , ve bo (a st Ri e Se y. og ol ym et y b ed nc ue infl . . .

. m s i n a e r u c i p E m o r f s u l l u t a C f o e c n e g r e v i d lear e l i h W . m e o p e h t f o n o i t c e s s i h t f n o o i s s u c s i d l l u f r o f , ) 1 2 e t o n , e v o b a y ( e l r u F e‘ e "eS S y e l r u F as , o ds an , s n o i t p e c n o c s i m d n a s il ev n w o s it ts bi hi ex y or st hi n a m u h f o e g a t s h c a e to Lucretius presente:

nt va le re ir ly ct ri st is e n i l c e d r o s s e r g o r p f o e su is e th , notes (9-10) n o d se ba s ce ur so re d n a s, ce ti ac pr , s t n e m u r t s n i , ns io ut it st in e r o m s p o l e v e d y et ci so tion, as

, t s u m it n, io at et pr er nt si mi r fo d el fi r e d i w g n i d i v o r p r o e r u t a n f retation o

“ei

rba e r o m d te ec er e v a h , es lu va d n a es ti vi ti ac d e s a b y l g n o r w e r o m ng si vi masini by de al tu ec ll te in n a s is i . h T re tu m na o r r e f h t r g nfu n therefore, a - ing thereby removi ma

e iv it im pr n a h t e s r o w e v a h e y b l i r a s s e c e tn o sn e o nd ma n r e d o M e su ig l oe eee tn ra is e f i sl hi t u b , r o i v a h e b il ev g in ll ro nt co r fo s t n e m u r t s n i e m o s d e t a e rather than? has cr m e n l a i e D r u c i p E n : e A u l a s d V s n e a c o r P , ‘ y ‘ c a L nature. See P. H. De man, and "e

more distan 38(1957) 114-126, for what might be conceived as a difficulty for Lucretius, ma, e ‘cyrean framework, perhaps caused by a conflict in the views of the Founder e v i e c r e p s e ie w lt cu fi if ed s th p a h r . e on P ti za li vi t ci n f e o m p o l e v e d e g th n i t n u o e in an e ic yt al al an in ig s or n on a ti as ta s’ mi iu li et cr m Lu o n r f himself, ; a elsewhere) stem ofte

e h h c i h w t u b g, in lv so re of e l b a p a c t o sn wa e th gh ou n th a e r u c i p E in s on in Book f (opresiei izing it. See, e.g., D. J. al re y ll fu t u o h t i w s p a h r e p , g n i t n e s ble of repre a p a c e a e p e p em rh dies in e k ts n

th Gree Atomis (Princeto 1967) 41.

2

ie

2RAREoN TNE

and the relationships founded on Passi o amicitia, and pietas) is a response to th e v alues found in Catullus’ poems.

66

LUCRETIUS AND THE LATE REPUBLIC

Lucretius returns to the relationship of names and things (n omina rerum) at 9.1028-1090. The origin of names is not found in a natural relation between word andthing or in the activity of a linguistic legislator but in the interrelationship of natura (1028), utilitas (1029), and sensus (1058, 1087). The importanceof this pointof view is that the growth of language is according to nature, but the absence of a naturalrelation and an Original all-knowing legislator, and the role ofutilitas and sensus, allows language to be reformed and the meanings of nomina refashioned in accordan ce

Since what Lucretius says contradicts so flatly what his audience

believes its experience to have been and what it considers to be the

reasonable conclusions from that experience, the ground of this new interpretation and the link between experience and observation must be

made ostentatious. He must make his audience agree that it does see

what he sees and then find a way of winning it to the notion that there is an iron chain linking observation, idea, and action, so that conclusions

become inevitable obligations, not matters of choice. This is the service

=~

eo}

poe

ct

La

oO

cores ma , P. Hi. —, Review of

os

348-351.

—, ‘‘Doctus Lucretius:

23 (1970) 366-392.

classiité |’antiqu sur ns Entretie as.” Pvcreti in Mnemonics

dation Hardt, 1978. Pp. 39-75. Kleve, K., ‘‘The Philosopmce in s Publication California of University Verse. > Non Gen’ve que t. 24: Lucréce. ia rn fo li Ca of ty si er iv Un : ey el rk Be 4. 15 314 . pp W. Aas Lert OS NO. 9, Merrill, Classical

Philology,

_™

in s n o i t a c i l b u P a i n r o f i l a C f o y t i s r e v i n U . ro ce Ci d n a us ti Press, 1921. f o y t i s r e v i n U : y e l e k r e B . 6 0 3 3 9 2 . p p , 10 . o N e e p f o , v e a r t e M e h T —, , uO Classical

, 1 8 1 4 7 1 ) 1 7 9 1 ( 6 7 y g o l o l i h P l a c i s s a l C ” ” . 9 2 s u l l u t a C n o s e t o N t a e N m e r P a i n s r e o m f r i l e l t H Ca . e g a u g _D., ‘*Cri n a L l a c i r t e M s ’ s u i t e r c u L in y d u t S m Natura: A 2 the De Reru

Minyard, J

. 8 7 9 , 1 g a l r r e e V n i e t z S n : a n r e F —, Mode and Value 1 39, Wiesbad ’ ’ . e m o R f o s n i g i r O e h t n o t r o p e R m i r e t n I Einzelsch riften An j

liano,

A.,

. 1 2 1 5 9 ) 3 6 9 1 ( 3 5 Ordies ds

Journa

ae

ie

>

9 4 , n 3 7 , 1 7 , 6 6 utilitas, 58 n. 36, 2 4 , 6 3 , 1 2 , 0 2 yerus,

victor, 41 1 4 , a i r o t c vi

Adcock, F. E., 12 n. 7 Allen, W., Jr., 18 n. 11 Badian, E. 12 n. 7 Bailey, 10. C., 98 42 n. 22, 4 4n. 23, 46 n. 27,

Maguiness, W.S., 44 n. 23

Merrill, W. A., 74 n. 59

Michels, A. K., 36 n. 20

Benedickston, D. T., 27 n. 13

inyard, J. D., 24n. 12 27

Bevan, E., 14n. 8 Bloch, R., 4n. 1

e938: 67 n. 46 Ee

Brunt, P. A., 6n. 3

Morford, M. P. O., 32 n. 17, 45 n. 24 Munro, H. A. J., 74n. 52

o"m6ig1°li5a6no, A., 4n. 1»,11/77n. 10, 18 n. 11,

Boyance, P., 33 n. 18, 49 n. 28 Bury, J. B., 14n. 8

Clarke, M. L., 12 n. 7, 18 n. 11 Clay, D., 33 n. 18, 34 n. 19 Cochrane, C. N., 13 n. 7, 30 n. 15 ’ 72 n. 48 Cole, T., 4.n. 1 DeLacy, P. H., 18 n. 11, 55 n. 34,

Murley, C., 53 n. 33

Murray, G., 14 n. 8 Neualing, C.L., 28n. 14, 64n. 43, 75 n.

Nichols, J. H., Jr., 56 n. 34 Ogilvie, R. M., 4n. 1 Palmer, L. R., 9n. 6

64 n. 43, 65 n. 45 DeWitt, N. W., 17 n. 10, 18 n. 11, 49 n. 29, 52 n. 32, 58n. 36, 77 n. 57 Dudley, D. R., 44 n. 23, 53 n. 33 Earl, D. C., 5 n. 2, 12 n. 7, 73 n. 50, 75 n. 54 Edelstein, L., 40 n. 21 6 n. 9 Meillet, A.-A. Ernout, , 1 1 . n 8 1 , 0 1 . n 7 1 , 8 . n Farrington, B., 14 , 9 2 . n 9 4 , 5 2 . n 5 4 36 n. 20, 40 n. 21,

Palmer, R. E. A., 12n.7, 17n. 10, 37 n.

50 Putnam, M. C. J., 77 n. 58 Rist, J. M., 42 n. 22, 49 n. 29, 51 n. 31, 52 n. 32, 65 n. 44 3 1 n. 7 2 ., Jr , . O . D , s s o R

4 5 n. 5 7 , 26 n. 6 4 , 13 n. 7 Rubino, C., 2 6 1 . n 1 3 , h t i m S . B . S . H Sabine, G. 8 1 . n 3 3 , . H . P , s r e v j i Schr

Segal, E., 12 n. 7 8 1 . n 3 3 , . E . E , s e k i S 1 . n 4 , . S . C , n o t e l Sing 9 4 . n 3 7 , 8 1 . n 3 3 Smith, M. F.,

, 8 4 . n 2 7 , 7 1 . n 2 3 , 7 . n 3 1 , . G . C , r r a St 79 n. 59 0 5 . n 3 7 , 8 4 . n 2 7 , 7 . n 2 1 , . . R , e Sym

7 . n 2 1 , s i Numa Den

6 1 a , . K . G Galinsky,

. 1 2 1 , . N , r e z l Ge

/>

9

4 1 . n 8 2 , . M Tait, J. I. 7 . n 2 1 , . R . Taylor, L

ons. n. 50

4 3 . n 5 5 , 7 . n Thorton, A., 13 1 . n 4 , . H Versnel,

5 . n 8 , . H , t Wagenvoor

8 . 2 4 1 , . W . F Walbank, 0 4 . n 1 6 , 3 3 . n 3 5 , . P . B , h c a l Wal 3 3 . n 3 5 , . R , z t Wal 8 1 . n 3 3 , . H . Waszink, J 0 1 . n 7 1 , 7 . n 2 1 , . S , k c o Weinst 0 5 . n 3 7 , . G Williams, 5 n. 34

' . 2 4 , . M , l c c u d r a Gu 12 n. q

. W , s i Harr

, n n a m r Her

V->

a . 2 4 7 L.,

n , . P , n o t h g u Ho n 8 1 a . H Howe,

, 9 1 . 0 4 3 , 8 1 , 3 3 , 4 1 , 0 4 , n 8 3 . n 1 6 m , ° o 3 g r 2 e 3 5 Hu , 5 2 . n 5 4 9 4 y e n ” Ken 41, 690. 47, 79

aon,

4 3 n .,59

_

5 , 0 1 . n 7 1 , AD 3 3 2 3 , 9 . n 6 1 , 7 _ n 3 1 , . h C , i k h s s b b u a z s Wiri W 8 4 . n 2 7 , 7 n. 1 . n 5 4 ; . P Wiseman, T. 9 . n 6 1 , . E Wistrand,

29,

6G “UCL ‘6p ‘U SZ ‘9G “U BG ‘6% “U 6h ‘snyenbio 7,

TZ ‘seprpAonyy,

6L ‘LU ET ‘snqR], $9 ‘9% ‘snuayyng I¢ ‘U #/ ‘6 “U OT ‘sntuojang LL ‘9L ‘BE “U 9G ‘GG “6% ‘0% “BT “UISIOIOIS pl ‘uoNeI00¢ 8S ‘8E ‘BE ‘seIeID0g 69 ‘gp ‘snydAdsicg ZE ‘TE ‘tesunoX sy) o1dtog

€9 ‘OT ‘t9pra ey} ordtog Q ‘p ‘OSIOA URTUINIeG

Ih ‘€% ‘3Z ‘oyddeg

6G ‘UG/ ‘HL ‘snIsud1oP{

LL ‘9% “U QF ‘a0eI0FY

LL ‘€9 ‘Z9 ‘OG ‘dassdpc

‘LL ‘8E ‘8 ‘Pour “LG ‘Eh ‘BE ‘gg ‘r1AWIOPY bP ‘poisapy 6G ‘LG ‘Gg ‘sapnor9azy $9 ‘$9 ‘19 ‘bE “ZE ‘6% ‘EZ ‘0% ‘6T

‘cI ‘G ‘g ‘aoUenTJur pue ainj[No oNstUaT[aPY{

6L ‘LL ‘SL ‘OL ‘69 ‘$9 ‘19 “LE-SF ‘Th ‘OF ‘BE-GE ‘ZE “TE “6% “2% ‘0% ‘6T

‘SI-§I ‘8 ‘9-] ‘9oUeNTJUI pue s1nj[Nd yaoI145) C ‘¢ ‘uvosniiy

8L ‘FL ‘69 “9 ‘T9-G¢G ‘OG ‘ZZ “YU SF ‘Th ‘Ob ‘6 ‘9E-SE ‘8% ‘2% ‘ET ‘snanoidy 8L-GL ‘EL ‘ZL “69 ‘89 “bh “U G9 ‘S9O-IG ‘6h ‘8h ‘OF “Ch ‘Zh ‘OF-BE

Gl ‘6T ‘U PE ‘sapopedury

‘61 ‘81 ‘9T-ZT ‘8 ‘9-3 ‘(ueuoy) oqnday

‘oS ‘SE “6% ‘8% ‘b% ‘ZS-LI ‘wstuvainoidg

GZ ‘T9 ‘6T “U HE ‘snNsnqieg GZ ‘TZ-6T ‘OT ULT “6 “UOT ‘ZUG ISNTTeES 6L ‘LL “bL ‘b9 “€9 “PE “U OG

‘GE “EE “BE “OE “BZ “LZ ‘GS “HZ “BS ‘TZ

9z ‘U oF ‘snnsodo1g [ ‘UF ‘eNqy suNsouseIg LL ‘€G ‘UGL ‘8h “USL

‘cg ‘ZT “U BE “GZ ‘6 ‘U OT ‘GT ‘Aadutog

gg “U gg ‘YoIeINI ¥9 ‘€9 “QI ‘WsIUOIeTg ¥9 ‘6G “PE “U 9OG-GG ‘BE *ZE ‘OIRT QL-FL “GG ‘cz ‘QI ‘sntuimdjen “qT ‘snqruossen osig EG “UGL “FL ‘“F9

"€9 “6G “OE “U BG “PE ‘8s “BT ‘sNUIepoTIYd ol ‘sntuolag ZL ‘snisiag

SI ‘OT ‘ULI ‘esueg

92 “U OF ‘PIAO LL ‘0193540

LL‘€G ‘UGL “HL ‘GG “LE “OE “GZ ‘snIUIUIDTy

LG ‘Sh “9¢ ‘6I “U HE ‘snTuUy

9¢ ‘u 8G ‘snivoe'y] souasoIq, LT

‘u GS ‘eISOUSe IAL jo SNII}IUWIIC]

GG ‘GZ ‘GT “snsseip GG UCL ‘FL ‘ET ‘UBz ‘FZ ‘sodan sntfauIo; 6L ‘TL ‘T ‘AwuensuyD

ZL ‘BI ‘© ‘01291-

8 ‘QL-ZL ‘OL ‘69 ‘G9 ‘T9 ‘9g “U Bg “FG ‘ZG ‘IG “60 ‘U 6h ‘OF “bh ‘TF ‘Ob “6 “U FE ‘LT ‘WU €¢ ‘ZE-6% ‘GZ ‘EZ ‘ZS “0% ‘BT ‘Or ULT ‘6 UOT ‘GT ‘Pb UB YW ‘O199IZ_ 6G “LG “Gg ‘sora_D LL ‘GL ‘PL ‘OL ‘69 ‘G9-€9 “FE “UOC ‘OF ‘Hh ‘EF ‘TF ‘PE “LE “U §E-ZE ‘TE-2% ‘TZ “GT ‘snyTmep

LL ‘¥@-61 ‘LT ‘t98unN0X sy} O1e_

ZE ‘TE “I9PTY ey? o1eD 6T ‘6 ‘UOT ‘ouTTNeD

FI ‘EI ‘9 ‘% ‘T ‘pptom ueouessolpopy

OT “U LT ‘snneyW EG “UCL “PQ “GZ ‘eIINUTe YY ZG ‘Iayepy euseyy GG ‘QT snqnon'y

wassod 6/-€€ “OE ‘BZ ‘ZZ ‘TZ “BT ‘GT ‘LU

El ‘bh ‘% ‘] ‘(ounwony wnsay aq) snneion'y ZZ ‘ueony

QZ U OF ‘ZUG ‘AArT 6G ‘LG ‘Gg ‘19qI'T

EG “U G/ ‘sniqsa'T GG UGL ‘Th ‘LZ ‘BIqQso’T GL ‘E} “U gz ‘awosof’ 82 ‘GL ‘Eg ‘6 ‘E ‘aamy[NO URE] pue Ale]

91 “snisser)

Lb “U 69 “89 ‘Zh “OF ‘OTuUOURD LL-¥L ‘ZL-69 ‘GG ‘0% “U OE ‘LT ‘UZE ‘OE ‘6% ‘ZZ-ST ‘snun[ --_ ‘resaeD GG UCL ‘PL ‘sryNY sniper 8g ‘9g ‘sITDYW

LL ‘8b “4 ZL “69 ‘(ueIAeIDO) smisnsny

PL-ZL ‘LT USE “ET “U Bz ‘snoMy 8Z “99 ‘9 ‘T9 ‘09 ‘6G ‘susTDYW ¢ ‘u cc ‘QT

“WISIURI[IIOISUY

PE “U OG ‘apoysty

g ‘J “Up ‘¢ oqeydye

th “WISIURLIPURX3TY

8L ‘LL ‘8g ‘g¢ ‘Sseousy 8g ‘OT “8 ‘Sotto 82 ‘29 ‘6p ‘UOIsY~DY

¢ ‘Z ‘ueadoiny-opu]

‘uouWoWIesy

6G ‘sa}eIYOST

8¢ “LE

29 “GG

‘6b-Lb ‘Th ‘6g-LE ‘(esseuerydy) erouasrydy]

SLOGLANS IVdIONIUd ‘¢

98

X@dNI

BL ‘LL ‘GG “piauapy ‘LL

smBojrq ‘Ll ‘LL ‘GG ‘9% “U Ob ‘BE “TESITA

gL ‘LE “snuUaA

Ty ‘9 ‘¢ ‘yduimin

LT USE ‘8T ‘OT “ULI ‘snneqerL

XHAaNI

L8