Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T09:03:16.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISASTROUS EARTHQUAKES IN LUCRETIUS AND THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2018

Boris Kayachev
Boris Kayachev*
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Dublin
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the final book of his poem Lucretius spends some time discussing earthquakes and their causes (6.535–607). In accordance with the standard Epicurean practice, Lucretius considers four alternative physical mechanisms that may be responsible for the phenomenon. The first three explanations involve three different kinds of subterranean matter—rock (6.543–51), water (6.552–6) and air (6.557–76)—causing the commotion of the earth's deeper regions, which is then transmitted to the surface. The fourth type of earthquake is different, as it is produced by the seismic agent affecting the surface directly and potentially causing its deformation rather than just trembling. This happens when a gust of subterranean wind (6.583–4)

      exagitata foras erumpitur et simul altam
      diffindens terram magnum concinnat hiatum.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , May 2018 , pp. 333 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For Epicurus’ treatment of the topic, see Ep. Pyth. 105.5–106.2. On multiple explanations as a fundamental method of Epicurean science, see recently Hankinson, R.J., ‘Lucretius, Epicurus, and the logic of multiple explanations’, in Lehoux, D., Morrison, A.D., Sharrock, A. (edd.), Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science (Oxford, 2013), 69–97Google Scholar; cf. also Hardie, P., ‘Lucretian multiple explanations and their reception in Latin didactic and epic’, in id., Lucretian Receptions: History, The Sublime, Knowledge (Cambridge, 2009), 231–63Google Scholar (originally published in Beretta, M., Citti, F. [edd.], Lucrezio, la natura e la scienza [Florence, 2008], 69–96)Google Scholar. Cf. further Stat. Theb. 7.809–16, where Statius caps Lucretius by offering as many as six alternative explanations for the chasm that swallowed Amphiaraus (with Smolenaars, J.J.L., Statius Thebaid VII: A Commentary [Leiden, 1994], 386–7Google Scholar).

2 Strabo 1.3.16 γενομένου σεισμοῦ καταποθῆναι πόλιν (citing Posidonius). See Bailey, C., Titi Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex (Oxford, 1947), 3.1644Google Scholar. The date of the earthquake is uncertain: see Ambraseys, N., Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900 (Cambridge, 2009), 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Cf. e.g. Ov. Met. 15.293–5 si quaeras Helicen et Burin, Achaidas urbes, | inuenies sub aquis, et adhuc ostendere nautae | inclinata solent cum moenibus oppida mersis. For a collection and analysis of ancient testimonia, see Ambraseys (n. 2), 86–8.

4 Text follows Nikiprowetzky, V., La troisième Sibylle (Paris, 1970), 308Google Scholar. The text of the list of cities (mostly omitted in the quotation) is unstable; see the apparatus in Geffcken, J., Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig, 1902), 65–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 It may be worth adding that Lucretius uses the Greek loanword barathrum at 6.606 (it only appears in Lucretius one or two more times: at 3.966 and possibly at 3.955).

6 See Buitenwerf, R., Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting (Leiden, 2003), 130Google Scholar; cf. Lightfoot, J.L., The Sibylline Oracles (Oxford, 2007), 95–6Google Scholar.

7 Kenney, E.J., ‘Doctus Lucretius’, Mnemosyne 23 (1970), 366–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar is seminal; cf. further e.g. Brown, R.D., ‘Lucretius and Callimachus’, ICS 7 (1982), 77–97Google Scholar; Knox, P.E., ‘Lucretius on the narrow road’, HSPh 99 (1999), 275–87Google Scholar; Edmunds, L., ‘Mars as Hellenistic lover: Lucretius, De rerum natura 1.29–40 and its subtexts’, IJCT 8 (2002), 343–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, B., ‘Rationalism and the theatre in Lucretius’, CQ 66 (2016), 140–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Lucretius’ attitude to literature more generally, see Erler, M., ‘Physics and therapy: meditative elements in Lucretius’ De rerum natura’, in Algra, K.A., Koenen, M.H., Schrijvers, P.H. (edd.), Lucretius and His Intellectual Background (Amsterdam, 1997), 79–92Google Scholar.

8 On the possibility of Virgil engaging with the third book of the Sibylline Oracles in the fourth eclogue, see Nisbet, R.G.M., ‘Virgil's fourth eclogue: easterners and westerners’, BICS 25 (1978), 59–78Google Scholar; Courtney, E., ‘A basic approach to the fourth eclogue’, Vergilius 56 (2010), 27–38Google Scholar; Horsfall, N., ‘Virgil and the Jews’, Vergilius 58 (2012), 67–80Google Scholar. On its possible presence in Horace's epode 16 and ode 1.2, see Macleod, C.W., ‘Horace and the Sibyl (Epode 16.2)’, CQ 29 (1979), 220–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, R.J., ‘Ilia's excessive complaint and the flood in Horace, Odes 1.2’, CQ 60 (2010), 262–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On a possible allusion in Tibullus, see below. Finally, it has been suggested that in Metamorphoses 1 Ovid alludes to the Biblical flood narrative: see Ryder, T.T.B., ‘Ovid, the flood, and Ararat’, G&R 14 (1967), 126–9Google Scholar; Fletcher, K.F.B., ‘Ovidian “correction” of the Biblical flood?’, CPh 105 (2010), 209–13Google Scholar; Ryder (this note), 128 considers the possibility of Ovid deriving information about the Biblical version from the Sibylline Oracles, but points out that the extant third book does not mention Mt Ararat.

9 αὔτανδρος belongs to a productive family of adjectives of the type αὐτ(ο)-X, with the sense ‘in one piece with, together with [X]’ (LSJ s.v. αὐτός V.6); one could compare αὐτογλώχιν ‘in one piece with the point’ (LSJ s.v.), αὐτόδορος ‘hide and all’ (LSJ s.v.), αὐτόπρεμνος ‘together with the root’ (LSJ s.v.), among others. This class of adjectives corresponds to the idiom (σὺν) αὐτῷ X, with the sense ‘in one, together [with X]’ (LSJ s.v. αὐτός I.5); in particular, αὔτανδρος corresponds to (σὺν) αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν, both of which are regularly used in the same kind of contexts (most often of capturing or destroying a ship with the crew). Lucretius’ suis pariter cum ciuibus would seem to indicate that he correctly interpreted αὔτανδροι as equivalent to (σὺν) αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν.

10 See D. Jacobs, ‘The images of space in the Third Sibylline Oracle’ (Diss., Humboldt University of Berlin, 2011), 150–1.

11 Of course, Virgil too mentions comets (G. 1.487–8 non alias caelo ceciderunt plura sereno | fulgura nec diri totiens arsere cometae), in a passage that is often considered Tibullus’ model (though note the scepticism of Murgatroyd, P., Tibullus: Elegies II [Oxford, 1994], 211Google Scholar: ‘the fact that so many [portents] are found in the Virgilian passage has led some to claim that T[ibullus] was here selecting from Virgil, but there are no significant verbal similarities, Virgil does not mention the rain of stones or sound of trumpets, and […] Virgil was not the only earlier author to list together prodigies’). Whether or not Tibullus was influenced by Virgil, his reference to a comet is still verbally closer to the Greek of the Sibylline Oracles.

12 Cf. Collins, J.J., Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden, 1997), 182–4Google Scholar.