Lucretius

—Lucretian, adj.

/looh kree"sheuhs/, n. (Titus Lucretius Carus)

97?-54 B.C., Roman poet and philosopher.

* * *

in full Titus Lucretius Carus

flourished 1st century BC

Latin poet and philosopher.

He is known for his long poem On the Nature of Things, the fullest extant statement of the physical theory of Epicurus. In it Lucretius established the main principles of atomism and refuted the rival theories of Heracleitus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras; demonstrated the atomic structure and mortality of the soul; described the mechanics of sense perception, thought, and certain bodily functions; and described the creation and working of the world and of the celestial bodies and the evolution of life and human society.

* * *

▪ Latin poet and philosopher

Introduction

in full  Titus Lucretius Carus  

flourished 1st century BC

 

 Latin poet and philosopher known for his single, long poem, De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things). The poem is the fullest extant statement of the physical theory of the Greek philosopher Epicurus; (Epicurus) it also alludes to his ethical and logical doctrines.

Life

      Apart from Lucretius' poem almost nothing is known about him. What little evidence there is, is quite inconclusive. Jerome, a leading Latin Church Father, in his chronicle for the year 94 BC (or possibly 96 or 93 BC), stated that Lucretius was born in that year and that years afterward a love potion drove him insane; and in lucid intervals having written some books, which Cicero afterward emended, he killed himself in his 44th year (51 or 50 BC). Aelius Donatus, a grammarian and teacher of rhetoric, in his “Life” of Virgil noticed that Virgil put on the toga virilis (the toga of an adult) in his 17th year, on his birthday (i.e., 54 or 53 BC), and that Lucretius died that same day. But Donatus contradicted himself by stating that the consuls that year were the same as in the year of Virgil's birth (i.e., Crassus and Pompey, in 55 BC). This last date seems partly confirmed by a sentence in Cicero's reply to his brother in 54 BC (Ad Quintum fratrem 2, 9, 3), which suggests that Lucretius was already dead and also that Cicero may have been involved in the publication of his poem: “The poems of Lucretius are as you write in your letter—they have many highlights of genius, yet also much artistry.” Excepting the single mention in Cicero, the only contemporary who named Lucretius was a Roman historian, Cornelius Nepos (Atticus 12, 4), in the phrase “after the death of Lucretius and Catullus,” and the only contemporary whom Lucretius named was one Memmius, to whom he dedicated his poem, probably Gaius Memmius (son-in-law of Sulla, praetor of 58 BC, and patron of Catullus and Gaius Helvius Cinna), for whose friendship Lucretius “hopes.”

De rerum natura.

      The title of Lucretius' work translates that of the chief work of Epicurus, Peri physeōs (On Nature), as also of the didactic epic of Empedocles, a pluralist philosopher of nature, of whom Lucretius spoke with admiration only less than that with which he praised his master Epicurus.

      Lucretius distributed his argument into six books, beginning each with a highly polished introduction. Books I and II established the main principles of the atomic universe, refuted the rival theories of the pre-Socratic cosmic philosophers Heracleitus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, and covertly attacked the Stoics, a school of moralists rivaling that of Epicurus. Book III demonstrated the atomic structure and mortality of the soul and ended with a triumphant sermon on the theme “Death is nothing to us.” Book IV described the mechanics of sense perception, thought, and certain bodily functions and condemned sexual passion. Book V described the creation and working of this world and the celestial bodies and the evolution of life and human society. Book VI explained remarkable phenomena of the earth and sky, in particular, thunder and lightning. The poem ends with a description of the plague at Athens, a sombre picture of death contrasting with that of spring and birth in the invocation to Venus, with which it opened.

Argument of the poem.

      The argument in outline is as follows:

      1. No thing is either created out of or reducible to nothing. The universe has an infinite extent of empty space (or void) and an infinite number of irreducible particles of matter (or atoms (atomism))—though their kinds are finite. Atoms differ only in shape, size, and weight and are impenetrably hard, changeless, everlasting, the limit of physical division. They are made up of inseparable minimal parts, or units. Larger atoms have more such parts, but even the larger are minute. All atoms would have moved everlastingly downward in infinite space and never have collided to form atomic systems had they not swerved at times to a minimal degree. To these indeterminate swerves is due the creation of an infinite plurality of worlds; they also interrupt the causal chain and so make room for free will. All things are ultimately systems of moving atoms, separated by greater or smaller intervals of void, which cohere more or less according to their shapes. All systems are divisible and therefore perishable (except the gods), and all change is explainable in terms of the addition, subtraction, or rearrangement of changeless atoms.

      2. The soul is made of exceedingly fine atoms and has two connected parts: the anima distributed throughout the body, which is the cause of sensation, and the animus in the breast, the central consciousness. The soul is born and grows with the body, and at death it is dissipated like “smoke.”

      3. Though the gods exist, they neither made nor manipulate the world. As systems of exceedingly fine atoms, they live remote, unconcerned with human affairs, examples to men of the ideal life of perfect happiness (absence of mental fear, emotional turmoil, and bodily pain).

      4. Men know by sense perception and argue by reason according to certain rules. Though the senses are infallible, reason can make false inferences. Objects can be seen because they discharge from their surface representative films, which strike the eye just as smells strike the nose. Separate atoms are in principle imperceptible, having no dischargeable parts. The senses perceive the properties and accidents of bodies; reason infers the atoms and the void, which exists to explain the perceived movement of bodies.

      5. Men naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. Their aim should be so to conduct their lives that they get, on balance, the maximum of pleasure and the minimum of pain. They will succeed in this only if they are able, through philosophy, to overcome the fear of death and of the gods.

Literary qualities of the poem.

      The linguistic style and spirit of the poem are notable. The problem of Lucretius was to render the bald and abstract Greek prose of Epicurus into Latin hexameters at a time when Latin had no philosophic vocabulary. He succeeded by applying common words to a technical use. Thus, he used concilium (“assembly of people”) for a “system of atoms” and primordia (“first weavings”) for the “atoms” that make up the texture of things. When necessary, he invented words. In poetic diction and style he was in debt to the older Latin poets, especially to Quintus Ennius (Ennius, Quintus), the father of Roman poetry. He freely used alliteration and assonance, solemn and often metrically convenient archaic forms, and old constructions. He formed expressive compound adjectives of a sort rejected by Augustan taste—e.g., “the light-sleeping hearts of dogs,” “forest-breaking winds.” He imitated or echoed Homer; the dramatists Aeschylus and Euripides; Callimachus, a poet and critic; the historian Thucydides; and the physician Hippocrates. His hexameters stand halfway between those of Ennius, who introduced the metre into Latin, and Virgil, who perfected it. There is also some incoherence of rhythm, as well as harsh elisions and examples of unusual prosody.

      The influence of Lucretius on Virgil was pervasive, especially in Virgil's Georgics; and it is in clear allusion to Lucretius that Virgil wrote “Happy is the man who can read the causes of things” (Georgics II, 490).

      Lucretius spoke in austere compassion for the ignorant, unhappy human race. His moral fervour expressed itself in gratitude to Epicurus and in hatred of the seers who inculcated religious fears by threats of eternal punishment after death, of the Etruscan soothsayers with their lore of thunder and lightning, of the false philosophers—Stoics with their belief in divine providence or Platonists and Pythagoreans who taught the transmigration of immortal souls. The first appearance of religio in the poem is as a monster that thrusts its fearful head from the regions of the sky. Epicurus, not intimidated by these spectres, had ranged beyond the “flaming ramparts of the world” through the infinite universe, broken into the citadel of nature, and brought back in triumph the knowledge of what can and what cannot be, of that “deep-set boundary stone” that divides the separate properties of things, the real from the not real. And “so religion is crushed beneath our feet and his [Epicurus'] victory lifts us to the skies.”

Arthur Frederick Wells

Additional Reading

Introductions are James H. Nichols, Jr., Epicurean Political Philosophy: The De Rerum Natura of Lucretius (1976); and Diskin Clay, Lucretius and Epicurus (1983). D.R. Dudley (ed.), Lucretius (1965), is a collection of essays by eminent scholars on various aspects of the poem. Analyses of form, imagery, and philosophy include Richard Minadeo, The Lyre of Science: Form and Meaning in Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (1969); David West, The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius (1969); and Charles Segal, Lucretius on Death and Anxiety: Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum Natura (1990).

* * *