No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Lucretius was born in the 90s and died in the 50s of the first century B.C.; greater precision the evidence hardly warrants.These were the years which saw the proscriptions of Marius (87) and Sulla (82), the rebellion of Spartacus (73-71), the consulship of Cicero and the death of Catiline (63-62), the first Triumvirate (60), and the acquisition of Rome’s empire in the Near East. When Lucretius died the stage was set for a civil war memory of which was to haunt the Roman conscience for the succeeding century. Of all this the only overt hint in the De Rerum Natura occurs at the beginning of the poem, in the poet’s prayer to Venus for peace in his time:
This implies the detachment proper to the Epicurean philosopher; the tone of certain other passages, especially in Book III, suggests that the poet, a Roman writing for Romans, was not indifferent to the agonies of the dying Republic. That Lucretius was indeed a Roman citizen, and probably a man of good family, may be plausibly inferred (though it cannot be proved) from the tone in which he addresses Memmius, from the familiarity displayed in his writing with upper-class ways of life, and above all from the literary culture evident in the D.R.N.
1. For full discussions of the chronology of Lucretius’ life see Bailey, 1-5; Smith, x-xi.
2. See in particular D.R.N. 3. 70-3; and cf. Sellar, 290-1; Martha, 25-9; Mullett, 317-18.
3. Smith, xiv-xv. Wiseman, 25-6, infers from technical allusions in the D.R.N. that Lucretius ‘worked for his living at more than one trade and saw Rome, if not from the bottom of the social ladder, at least from a good way below the top of it’. This, and the corollary, that the D.R.N. was addressed to the man in the street (ibid., 27), seem extremely implausible. Cf. Elder, 102 n. 38.
4. Lieberg, 284-90; Kenney (1970), 389-90. That Lucretius was not attacking Catullus and that his outburst on love in Book IV ‘dealt a crippling blow to Latin love poetry’ (Quinn, 144-6) seem to me almost equally unlikely.
5. Cf. Smith, xvii-xviii. On Catullus’ use of ‘Epicurean phraseology’ cf. Wormell (1965), 42-3.
6. Cf. OLD s.v. lumen, 11a and b. It is suggested by Sikes, 38-9, that the reference is to figures of speech and thought; if so, the phrase is oddly compressed. Cf. Dalzell, 96-7.
7. Cf. Kenney (1970), 366-9; Sikes, 37-8; and for the ancient sources see Russell and Winterbottom, Index s. w. ‘Art’ and ‘Inspiration’. It is worth noting that the word doctrina, which like other similar terms (e.g. paraclausithyron, epyllion) springs readily to the pen of the modern scholar, was not used in a technical sense by ancient writers. The quality which distinguished the doctus poeta was ars = τέχνη. Cf. Ov. A.A. 1.1-2 ‘si quis in hoc artem populo non nouit amandi, / hoc legat et lecto carmine doctus amet.’
8. Crawley, 18-22.
9. See Howe.
10. Santayana, 29.
11. Cf. on (e.g.) Cic. De Off. 3 Hunt, 178-87.
12. That Lucretius knew this early work of Cicero’s seems clear: cf. Bailey, 30; Kenney (1971), 117.
13. Saintsbury (1924), 131.
14. Crawley, 21-3. For a useful discussion of the ‘conspiracy of silence’ theory see Traina.
15. See e.g.Epp. 1.11, 14; on the latter cf. Kenney (1977a).
16. Hadzsits, 167-72.
17 Echoes of Lucretius are in fact rare in the Thebaid: Vessey, 48.
18. It is hardly likely that Statius lifted and adapted his characterization from Cicero, even if the letters to Quintus were known to him.
19. Cf. Hadzsits, 171-9.
20. This is the commonly accepted year; for other possibilities see Bailey, 3.
21. See Dalzell, 402-3; Smith, xviii-xxvi. For an attempt to connect the story with Lucretius’ relationship with Memmius see Wiseman, 40-3.
22. Santayana, 19.
23. Smith, xxi.
24. Juvenal is another case in point.
25. See Dalzell, 404-6.
26. Cf. Smith, xxii-xxiv. For the importance of context in such questions see Kenney (1972a), 19-23 on the ‘animals in warfare’ crux; and see further below, pp. 34, 42.
27. Saintsbury (1923), 181.
28. ‘It is hard to find two more uncompromising thinkers than Zeno and Epicurus. Yet both of them, when they are almost free from the popular superstitions, when they have constructed complete systems which, if not absolutely logic-proof, are calculated at least to keep out the weather for a century or so, open curious side-doors at the last moment and let in all the gods of mythology. True, they are admitted as suspicious characters, and under promise of good behaviour. Epicurus explains that they do not and cannot do anything whatever to anybody.. .’ (Murray, 129).
29. For the view that Lucretius was an atheist see Nichols, 153-5; but his arguments appear naive. In particular what Posidonius said that Epicurus must have thought (Cic. N.D. 1. 123) is not evidence.