LUCRETIUS.
Our information about Lucretius’ life is very scanty. Jerome yr. Abr. 1922 = B.C. 95, ‘T. Lucretius poeta nascitur, qui postea amatorio poculo in furorem versus, cum aliquot libros per intervalla insaniae conscripsisset, quos postea Cicero emendavit, propria se manu interfecit anno aetatis xliiii.’ (B.C. 52 or 51).
Donatus, vit. Verg. 2, ‘Initia aetatis Cremonae egit [Vergilius] usque ad virilem togam, quam xv. anno natali suo accepit isdem illis consulibus iterum duobus quibus erat natus, evenitque ut eo ipso die Lucretius poeta decederet’ (October 15).
Teuffel thinks xliiii. is wrong, and would read xlii., thus giving the dates as B.C. 96-55, as he thinks that Jerome has fixed the date of birth one year too late. Munro (vol. ii. p. 1) accepts xliiii., but thinks that Jerome (as elsewhere) is a few years wrong in the date of Lucretius’ birth, and gives the dates as B.C. 99-55. It is impossible to decide as to the date of birth, but most authorities agree on B.C. 55 as the date of death, a view which is supported by the only contemporary reference to the poet: Cic. ad Q.F. ii. 11, 4 (written in February, B.C. 54), ‘Lucreti poemata, ut scribis, ita sunt: multis luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis; sed cum veneris. Virum te putabo, si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo.’
The above extract is given in the reading of the MSS. Some editors read non before multis, others non before multae, but it is best to follow the MSS. (with Tyrrell), translating “But when you come (we shall talk about it). I shall consider you a hero, if you read Sallust’s Empedoclea; I shall not consider you a human being.”
As regards Lucretius’ madness, there is no absolute impossibility in the story. Munro (vol. ii. pp. 2, 3) accepts Jerome’s account of Cicero’s editorship; others, less probably, believe that Q. Cicero was editor. The first view is rendered probable by the high opinion Lucretius had of Cicero, as seen from the frequency with which he imitates his Aratea (Munro on Lucr. v. 619), and from the knowledge Cicero shows of Lucretius’ work, as in Tusc. i. 48.
The poet’s full name is given in the MSS. as T. Lucretius Carus.
This is all the direct evidence regarding Lucretius’ life.[32] The de rerum natura is addressed to C. Memmius.[33] From Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 1 (where Cicero tells us he employed his good offices with Memmius on behalf of Patro for the preservation of the gardens of Epicurus), it appears that he was not an Epicurean. Memmius is the only contemporary mentioned by Lucretius; i. 24,
‘Te sociam studeo scribendis versibus esse
quos ego de rerum natura pangere conor
Memmiadae nostro, quem tu, dea, tempore in omni
omnibus ornatum voluisti excellere rebus.’
Many, arguing from the fact that Carus is not known elsewhere as a cognomen of the gens Lucretia, think that the poet was a freedman or a freedman’s son, but from the tone of equality in which he addresses Memmius, it is more probable that he was a patrician; cf. i. 140,
‘Sed tua me virtus tamen et sperata voluptas
suavis amicitiae quemvis sufferre laborem
suadet.’
Several personal characteristics may be inferred from the poem:
1. His earnestness and sincerity; iii. 28,
‘His ibi me rebus quaedam divina voluptas
percipit atque horror,’ etc.
Cf. the importance he attaches to his subject, i. 926,
‘Avia Pieridum peragro loca nullius ante
trita solo.’
2. His admiration for the great men of the past. Cf. iii. 1024-52, where Ancus, the Scipios, Homer, Democritus, and Epicurus are praised; the introductions to Books i., iii., v., vi., on Epicurus; i. 716-33 on Empedocles; i. 117-9 on Ennius.
3. His powers of observation and love of nature. Cf. i. 716-25; ii. 29 sqq., 40 sqq.; 323-32; iv. 572 sqq.
4. His experience of women. Book iv. 1037-the end.
5. His wide reading. The poem shows knowledge of Epicurus, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Plato, the Stoic writers, Thucydides, Hippocrates, Homer, Euripides. Among Latin writers Ennius, Naevius, Pacuvius, Lucilius, and Accius are all imitated.
There is a reference to contemporary history in i. 41-3,
‘Nam neque nos agere hoc patriai tempore iniquo
possumus aequo animo nec Memmi clara propago
talibus in rebus communi desse saluti.’
Munro thinks that these lines were written B.C. 59, when Memmius was praetor designatus, in fierce opposition to Caesar, and on the side of the Senate. If this is so, the poem was probably written between B.C. 60 and 55. The lines on ambition and its attendant evils (as iii. 931 sqq., v. 1117-35, etc.) may have been written with a special view to the facts of Memmius’ life. Lucretius may refer to his recollection of the civil wars in v. 999,
‘At non multa virum sub signis milia ducta
una dies dabat exitio.’
In ii. 40 sqq. there is perhaps a reference to Caesar’s army in the Campus Martius at the beginning of B.C. 58.
The de rerum natura is an exposition of Epicureanism, especially on its physical side; i. 54,
‘Nam tibi de summa caeli ratione deumque
disserere incipiam et rerum primordia pandam,’ etc.
The title is taken from Epicurus’ περὶ φύσεως, which Lucretius followed closely, as is evident from the account of the Epicurean philosophy in Diogenes Laertius, x., and from the fragments of Epicurean writers discovered at Herculaneum in 1752. He probably used as his model Empedocles’ poem περὶ φύσεως.
The object of the poem is to deliver men from the fear of death and of the gods; iii. 37,
‘Et metus ille foras praeceps Acheruntis agendus’;
i. 62-101; cf. l. 101,
‘Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.’
Note that the invocation to Venus at the beginning of the poem is not inconsistent, but is an address to the universal principle of generation; cf. i. 21,
‘Quae quoniam rerum naturam sola gubernas.’
The scope of the Books is as follows: Books i. and ii. state the physical theories of Democritus and Epicurus. Book i. states the Atomic Theory of Democritus, held by Epicurus, that the world consists of atoms and void. The theories of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, etc. are refuted; i. 740,
‘Principiis tamen in rerum fecere ruinas
et graviter magni magno cecidere ibi casu.’
Book ii. treats of the combinations of atoms, and the principle of the swerve introduced to explain free-will. The varieties of atoms are shown to be limited. In Book iii. the nature of the mind and life is shown to be material. Religio and the fear of death (cf. ll. 978 sqq.) are attacked principally in this Book; iii. 830,
‘Nil igitur mors est ad nos neque pertinet hilum,
quandoquidem natura animi mortalis habetur.’
Book iv. treats of the theory of simulacra or images, of the senses, and particularly of love. Book v. treats of the formation of the earth and the heavenly bodies, the origin of life, and the progress of civilization. It is shown that nothing has been created, and that everything must perish. Book vi. treats of abnormal phenomena, such as thunder and lightning, tempests, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. The plague at Athens is described (from Thucydides). Books v. and vi. are unfinished.
Ethical views are given only by the way, the poem being primarily on physics. Pleasure is the end of action: ii. 172, ‘dux vitae dia voluptas.’ This pleasure is the absence of disturbance (ἀταραξία), hence all passion (as of love, iv. 1121-40) is deprecated; ii. 14,
‘O miseras hominum mentes, o pectora caeca!
qualibus in tenebris vitae quantisque periclis
degitur hoc aevi quodcumque est! nonne videre
nil aliud sibi naturam latrare, nisi utqui
corpore seiunctus dolor absit, mente fruatur
iucundo sensu cura semota metuque?’
Lucretius, as Epicurus, is often weak in physics. Cf. v. 564 sqq., of the sun’s size,
‘Nec nimio solis maior rota nec minor ardor
esse potest, nostris quam sensibus esse videtur.’
In i. 1052 sqq. he states well the theory of the antipodes but his dependence on Epicurus will not allow him to accept it. Reasons are sometimes given for a thing that never existed, as in iv. 710-21 for the fear that a lion has for a cock. Some passages come near the results of modern science, cf. v. 837 sqq. on extinct species; v. 855 sqq. on the struggle for existence; v. 610-3, on the invisible rays of the sun.
The references to Lucretius by name are few.
Nep. Att. 12, 4, ‘L. Iulium Calidum, quem post Lucreti Catullique mortem multo elegantissimum poetam nostram tulisse aetatem vere videor posse contendere.’
Ovid, Am. i. 15, 23,
‘Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucreti,
exitio terras cum dabit una dies.’
Trist. ii. 425,
‘Explicat ut causas rapidi Lucretius ignis.’
Stat. Silv. ii. 7, 76,
‘docti furor arduus Lucreti.’
Quint. x. 1, 87, ‘Macer et Lucretius legendi quidem, sed non ut phrasin, id est, corpus eloquentiae faciant; elegantes in sua quisque materia, sed alter humilis alter difficilis.’
Cf. Tac. Dial. 23.
His influence on Virgil is seen passim. Cf. Gell. i. 21, 7, ‘Non verba sola sed versus prope totos et locos quoque Lucreti plurimos sectatum esse Vergilium videmus.’
Verg. Georg. ii. 490 sqq. and Ecl. 6, 31 sqq. refer to Lucretius. Georg. ii. 490,
‘Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum
subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avari.’
Horace has also imitated him in several places: so Sat. i. 3, 99-110 (on primitive man) = Lucr. v. 1028 sqq.; Sat. i. 5, 101 sqq. = Lucr. v. 82 sqq. Most of the poets after him, particularly Manilius, came under his influence.