Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:52:01.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CAESAR, LUCRETIUS AND THE DATES OF DE RERUM NATURA AND THE COMMENTARII*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

Christopher B. Krebs
Christopher B. Krebs*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In February 54 b.c. Cicero concludes a missive to his brother with a passing and – for us – tantalizing remark: 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. Quintus had, it seems, read De rerum natura, or at least parts thereof, just before he left Rome for an undisclosed location nearby, and he shared his enthusiasm with his brother per codicillos. Meanwhile, he was corresponding with Julius Caesar, whose staff in Gaul he was about to join. When, a few months later, he was stationed with Caesar, he was involved in another literary affair, this time concerning his brother who wrote to him, inquiring about his autobiographical De temporibus suis:

quo modo nam, mi frater, de nostris versibus Caesar? nam primum librum se legisse scripsit ad me ante, et prima sic ut neget se ne Graeca quidem meliora legisse; reliqua ad quendam locum ῥᾳθυμότερα (hoc enim utitur verbo). dic mihi verum: num aut res eum aut χαρακτὴρ non delectat?

(Q. fr. 2.15.5)

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 772 - 779
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

It gives me great pleasure to thank Luca Grillo (Amherst College), Tom Keeline, Gregory Mellen (both Harvard University), Debra Nousek (University of Western Ontario), and especially Jan Felix Gärtner (Universität Leipzig) for their comments on an earlier draft, and to express my gratitude, once again, to Tony Woodman (University of Virginia) for his exceptional generosity. Thanks also to the editor of CQ, Bruce Gibson, and the two anonymous readers.

References

1 Cic. Q. fr. 2.9.3. The text, much debated, is Bailey, D.R. Shackleton's (Cicero. Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum [Cambridge, 1980]Google Scholar, no. 14). Interpretations have varied too; especially the plural poemata and the contrast between ingenium and ars have caused difficulties: see Shackleton Bailey, ibid. 190–1. I will discuss Hutchinson's (2001) dating of De rerum natura and his interpretation of Lucreti poemata at the end of this paper (see n. 41).

2 Cf. Cic. Q. fr. 2.9.1: epistulam hanc convicio efflagitarunt codicilli tui. I am assuming that Quintus opined on Lucreti poemata in these codicilli (and not in a previous correspondence). For the location see Shackleton Bailey (n. 1), 197 on Q. fr. 16.4.10 (Lupercalibus).

3 Cf. Cic. Q. fr. 2.10.4 de Caesare, fugerat me ad te scribere, with Shackleton Bailey (n. 1) ad loc.

4 Cf. also Cic. Q. fr. 2.13.2: quoniam tu scribis poema ab eo nostrum probari. This is one of several letters in which the two brothers discuss poeticizing Caesar's British campaign; see Allen, W., ‘The British epics of Quintus and Marcus Cicero’, TAPhA 86 (1955), 143–59Google Scholar. On the ‘Letters of Caesar and Cicero to each other’, see Pauli, A.F. in CW 51 (1957), 128–32.Google Scholar

5 On the circumstances of De analogia see Hendrickson, G.L., ‘The De analogia of Julius Caesar; its occasion, nature, and date, with additional fragments’, CPh 1 (1906), 97–120Google Scholar. For evidence of Caesar's linguistic interests in his Commentarii de bello Gallico, see C.B. Krebs, ‘A neglected aspect of elegantia Caesaris: loans, technical terms and rare words (including neologisms?)’ (forthcoming).

6 For ‘Caesar's poetic interests’, see Spaeth, J.W., CJ 26 (1931), 598–604Google Scholar. Caesar's Epicureanism is commonly accepted in modern scholarship, even though the evidence (as presented in Bourne, F.C., ‘Caesar the Epicurean’, CW 70 [1977], 417–32)Google Scholar is suggestive rather than conclusive. See the more recent discussion in Benferhat, Y., Ciues epicurei: les épicuriens et l'idée de monarchie à Rome et en Italie de Sylla à Octave (Brussels, 2005), esp. 284–302.Google Scholar

7 Dale, F.R., ‘Caesar and Lucretius’, G&R 5 (1958), 181–2Google Scholar. Németh, B., ‘Death of Cotta and date of Lucretius’ De rerum natura', ACD 20 (1984), 39–41Google Scholar adduces circumstantial evidence from the lives of Caesar, Cotta and Memmius to support Dale's thesis.

8 See TLL 3.658.11–20 [Wulff]. The spelling varies both from text to text and, occasionally, manuscript to manuscript.

9 Menge, R. and Preuss, S., Lexicon Caesarianum (Hildesheim, 1890, repr. 1972)Google Scholar, s.v. ventus, list 28 instances. The only other wind name in BGall. is the Africus: ad solis occasum naves solvit et leni Africo provectus media circiter nocte vento intermisso cursum non tenuit (5.8.3).

10 Cf. BGall. 4.22.4: Huc accedebant XVIII onerariae naves, quae ex eo loco a milibus passuum VIII ventotenebantur quo minus in eundem portum venire possent; 23.6: His dimissis, et ventumet aestum uno tempore nactus secundum, dato signo et sublatis ancoris, circiter milia septem ab eo loco progressus, aperto ac plano litore naves constituit; 28.1: His rebus pace confirmata, post diem quartum quam est in Britanniam ventum naves XVIII, de quibus supra demonstratum est, quae equites sustulerant, ex superiore portu leni ventosolverunt.

11 Holmes, T.R., Commentarii rerum in Gallia gestarum VII; A. Hirti Commentarius VIII (Oxford, 1914)Google Scholar, 176 on BGall. 5.7.3.

12 See Bailey, C., Lucretii De rerum natura, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1966, orig. 1947)Google Scholar, 1577, whose conjecture ‘corus’ in 1.271 does not affect my argument.

13 Cf. Menge and Preuss (n. 9), s.v. All other instances are in BCiv. 3: 25.1, 26.5, 47.3.

14 It also occurs in Lucr. 4.652–4, where it is used more generally: esse minora igitur quaedam maioraque debent, | esse triquetra aliis, aliis quadrata necessest, | multa rotunda, modis multis multangula quaedam.

15 See Gomme, A.W., Andrewes, A., Dover, K.J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1970)Google Scholar, vol. 4, ad loc.

16 Cf. Tim. FGrH 566 F 37: … ὅτι τρεῖς ἄκρας ἔχει.

17 Hor. Sat. 2.6.55–6: militibus promissa Triquetra | praedia Caesar an est Itala tellure daturus? Sil. 5.489–92: huc Hennaea cohors, Triquetris quam miserat oris | rex, Arethusa, tuus, defendere nescia morti | dedecus et mentem nimio mutata pauore | certatim sese tulit … Cf. also Quint. Inst. 1.6.30.

18 I am grateful to Debra Nousek who encouraged me in correspondence to take another look at this passage.

19 The expression rerum natura, however, is frequently attested in Cicero (e.g. Rosc. Am. 71) and twice in Caesar (for one of the relevant passages, see n. 20).

20 In BGall. 4.17.7 (tanta erat operis firmitudo atque ea rerum natura, ut, quo maior vis aquae se incitavisset, hoc artius inligata tenerentur) it obviously carries a different sense.

21 At BCiv. 3.96.1 there is even multaque praeterea. For instances of multa praeterea see e.g. Cic. Rab. Post. 22; Caes. BCiv. 3.32.1; BHisp. 2.1.

22 Lucr. 1.400; 2.109; 3.358; 5.943; 6.588, 797, 903, 1182.

23 See Penna, A. La, ‘Towards a history of the poetic catalogue of philosophical themes’, in Harrison, S.J. (ed.), Homage to Horace (Oxford, 1995), 314–28.Google Scholar

24 Bailey (n. 12), 583.

25 Woodman, A.J., ‘Horace and historians’, PCPhS 55 (2009), 157–67, esp. 165–6.Google Scholar

26 It would also be odd to refer to a poem in which the existence of gods is denied only to follow it up with a mention of deorum immortalium vis ac potestas.

27 Rumoribus may be an instrumental ablative or an indirect object in the dative (the former seeming more likely).

28 Bailey (n. 12), 1346, with reference to Caesar, speaks of ‘a curiously close parallel’. The entry in TLL 1.1216.35–1217.44 (Zimmermann) also lists Lactant. Div. Inst. 4.6.1 nihil nos adfingimus, nihil addimus, which is close but different.

29 Cf. Menge and Preuss (n. 9), s.v. BCiv. 1.53.1 multa rumores adfingebant (accepted by Klotz) is a conjecture.

30 TLL 7.1.878.10–12 (Ehlers) also suggests a certain affinity between the two passages.

31 The order of lines quoted is that proposed by Lachmann and printed by Bailey (n. 12).

32 See Bailey (n. 12), 1529–31 for discussion; the quotation is on p. 1530.

33 Housman, A.E., ‘The first editor of Lucretius’, CR 42 (1928), 122–3.Google Scholar

34 Deufert, M., Pseudo-Lukrezisches in Lukrez. Die unechten Verse in Lukrezens De Rerum Natura (Berlin, 1996), 267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 TLL 10.2.858.70–860.48 (Stella).

36 TLL 10.2.701.42–60 (Ramminger). Aside from Caesar and Lucretius, there are Verg. Aen. 2.572–3 illa [sc. Helen] … deserti coniugis iras | praemetuens; and Phaedr. 1.16.4 illa [sc. the sheep], praemetuens dolum [sc. on the part of the wolf] – both of these, it will be noted, with accusative objects. The four late antique instances are: Symm. Ep. 1.1.6; Prudent. C. Symm. 2.682; Paul. Carm. 10.306; Epit. Alex. 88.

37 On conscia factis (instead of factorum) and the function of sibi (dependent on praemetuens or adhibet or both, the last of which I find most plausible), see Bailey (n. 12), 1165, with references to Giussani and Ernout.

38 Bailey (n. 12), 1282: ‘a typical ἅπ. λεγ.’.

39 Either 51/50 b.c.e. (Jer. Chron. 01.171.3, p. 149 Helm) or 55 b.c.e. (Donat. Vit. Verg. 6): see Sandbach, F.H., ‘Lucreti poemata and the poet's death’, CR 40 (1940), 72–7Google Scholar, esp. 73–5, for a critical discussion.

40 Sandbach (n. 39), 76 summarizes: ‘Lucreti poemata … might be translated “the poetry of Lucretius”, “the passages of Lucretius”, or “the passage of Lucretius”’. He bases his dating on his interpretation of Lucr. 1.29–43 and the political situation in 55/4 b.c.e. (ibid. 76–7).

41 Hutchinson, G.O., ‘The date of De rerum natura’, CQ 51 (2001), 150–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; like Sandbach (n. 39), he bases his argument on an interpretation of Lucr. 1.29–43. His dating has more recently been embraced (albeit hesitatingly) by Schiesaro, A., ‘Lucretius and Roman politics and history’, in Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P. (edd.), The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius (Cambridge, 2007), 41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 53–4. See also n. 44 below.

42 C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii, cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum. Caesaris Hirtiique fragmenta (Leipzig, 1847), 3.Google Scholar

43 The latest contribution to this controversy is that of Wiseman, T.P., ‘The publication of De bello Gallico’, in Welch, K. and Powell, A. (edd.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter: The War Commentaries as Political Instruments (London, 1998), 1–10Google Scholar, who argues for serial publication. The other position was most forcefully argued by Rambaud, M., L'art de la déformation historique dans les commentaires de César (Paris, 1966), 9–12, 403–05.Google Scholar

44 Most recently, Volk, K., ‘Lucretius' prayer for peace and the date of De rerum natura’, CQ 60 (2010), 127–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar has offered an alternative interpretation of the same passages Hutchinson focussed on; overall, her reading does greater justice to the internal logic of the proem and should therefore be given preference.