Lucretius offers a clear and comprehensive, yet concise, overview for the non-specialist reader of Titus Lucretius Carus (1st century BCE) and his significance for Latin literature. In this brief but well-documented book, the author does not overlook the most important issues that the text presents for Lucretian philology.
After addressing the manuscript tradition of De Rerum Natura (DRN), the author provides a detailed analysis of the structures of each of the six books that make up the poem, focusing on the microstructures of the prologues and finales. The analysis of these microstructures naturally leads the author to address Lucretius’s method of argumentation, not forgetting to mention his influence on subsequent tradition: “The beginning of an argument is often explicitly marked by verbs and phrases like nunc agere incipiam (4.33), expediam (2.66), or quae restant percipe porro (6.46). Later didactic poets imitated these opening phrases” (p. 20).
Lucretius does not attempt to impose the doctrine of Epicurus dogmatically; rather, he provides arguments to support it. These arguments are often imbued with a series of metaphors or analogies that bolster not only his argumentation but also his ideology.
Schindler’s book pays special attention to the detailed study of the meter of DRN in comparison with the neoteric and Augustan poets, as well as its language and style, giving a good account of the traditional differentiation between two Lucretian styles: one poetic and artistic, and the other prosaic and didactic. The author rightly notes that “the language of the poem is the language of ‘pre-classical’ Latin” (45), insofar as it uses a large number of archaisms. Moreover, the author provides a careful analysis of Lucretian neologisms. Finally, the reader will find a detailed analysis of the Grecisms in Lucretius’ poem.
Lucretian style is also marked by the prolific use of metaphors, asyndeta, alliterations, and etymologies. Claudia Schindler carefully analyzes these elements, with thorough documentation. This meticulous study showcases Lucretius’ mastery in making the text a simulacrum naturae (48). As the author aptly points out, in DRN there is an analogous structure of the text and the world it presents: “The conscious treatment of the relationship between the text and the world it describes stands out as a notable feature of the Lucretian text” (48-9). This is clearly seen in the parallel between the letters of the alphabet and the atoms, an analogy that Lucretius adopts from Epicurus.
Schindler also examines the literary tradition in which DRN is inscribed. For a long time, Lucretius has been considered a solitary genius; however, it is unlikely that the author himself viewed himself as detached from a tradition. Scholars have recognized references to all kinds of literary traditions in DRN, from Greek historiography, present in the account of the plague of Athens and the description of numerous miracles, such as the flooding of the Nile, to Platonic writings. Likewise, numerous allusions to tragedy can be found in DRN.
The tradition of so-called didactic poetry, in which the poem is inscribed, is also reviewed by the author, starting with the pre-Socratics Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Empedocles, then, in the fourth and third centuries, Aratus and Nicander, up to the didactic poetry of Ennius. The author also notes and does not overlook the great influence of Empedocles on Lucretian doctrine.
An important clarification the author makes on more than one occasion: the fundamental purpose of Lucretian argumentation is not to teach the fundamentals of physics. Rather, the observations always have a therapeutic function: to free humanity from the fear of death and the gods: “In the title DRN, Lucretius announces a poem on the nature of things, de rerum natura. But he does so only in order to conquer the fear of death and fear of gods with rational insight into the atomistic structure of the universe” (64). Only those who recognize that there is no third principle apart from matter and void will easily accept the mortality of the soul and cease to fear the gods.
By mentioning Ennius and Homer in the first book of DRN, Lucretius inscribes himself in the tradition of heroic epic. The author discusses to what extent DRN can be considered an epic poem, gathering perspectives from scholars who have addressed this discussion, such as Clyde Murley, David West, and Monica Gale, among others. While many elements of the epic can be recognized in Lucretius’ poem, such as the repetition of words and phrases, the author rightly concludes that this is not sufficient to consider it heroic epic, as it lacks an appropriate narrative structure with human protagonists and a temporal sequence, as is typical of the epic poem.
How orthodox is Lucretius with respect to Epicurus? Schindler discusses to what extent Lucretius strictly follows Epicurus’ doctrine. It is evident that, given the contextual differences, Lucretius does not strictly adhere to it. The very title, De Rerum Natura, reflects this, as the word natura does not have an exact correspondence with the Greek φύσις. Lucretius adapts Epicurus’ doctrine to the conditions of Late Republican Rome. For example, Lucretius intensifies Epicurus’ attack on religion. This is in line with the poem’s intention since, as mentioned above, the goal is not to achieve ataraxia but to free people from the fear of death and the gods. Thus, Lucretius creates a new Epicureanism, grounding his poem in Roman traditions. The author rightly concludes that DRN is a combination of Greek philosophy and Roman identity.
The figure of Memmius, the internal narratee of the poem, and his relationship with the historical character is also discussed. The author points out that, far from a condescending and arrogant attitude of the narrator towards his disciple, there is a respect shown towards him as a member of the Roman nobility. In this regard, I disagree with the author: as J. Penwill shows, the choice of the internal narratee is deliberately ironic because Memmius’ career by the time of DRN’s publication was already over.[1] However, the author is correct in seeing a critique of the aspirations of the Roman upper class, in their pursuit of luxury and military power (84). The treatment of Memmius, as a representative of this class, cannot be anything but ironic. The narrator’s attitude towards his master Epicurus is equally ambivalent. The author speaks of a “change of perspective” to refer to the vacillation between a novice and a master attitude.
This is a well-balanced and extremely well-documented book. Among its most clear merits is the fact that it shows that the objective of Lucretian poetry is not Epicurean physics, but to find a way to eradicate the fear of death and the gods. Lucretius is a brief but comprehensive book, condensing the most important academic discussions about a fundamental poet.
Notes
[1] ‘Lucretius and the First Triumvirate’, in W. J. Dominik, J. Garthwaite, and P. A. Roche (eds.), Writing Politics in Imperial Rome (Leiden / Boston, 2009), 63-87.