Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:18:34.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DAEDALA IMAGO AND THE IMAGE OF THE WORLD IN LUCRETIUS’ PROEM (1.5–8)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2024

Alexandre Hasegawa
Alexandre Hasegawa*
Affiliation:
Universidade de São Paulo
*
[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article aims to discuss how Lucretius arranges the four ‘roots’ at the end of successive lines of verse in the De rerum natura (henceforth, DRN) (1.5–8). In this passage Lucretius, alluding to Empedocles, puts the words in such an order that one can see the layers of the world by a vertical reading. In the same passage, Lucretius imitates the very beginning of Homer's ecphrasis (Il. 18.478–85), which the allegorical tradition will explain as an image of the world, related to Empedoclean theory. The article also discusses the allusion to Daedalus by means of the adjective daedalus in DRN 1.7 (daedala tellus), which could be related to both Empedocles and Homer. This adjective is a keyword for discussing the image produced by the words on the written page.

Keywords

LucretiusDRNproemEmpedoclesfour ‘roots’Homervertical readingDaedalus
Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , December 2023 , pp. 670 - 681
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Since the publication of Friedländer's influential article,Footnote 1 in which he was the first to point out the relationship between Epicurus’ atomistic theory and Lucretius’ wordplays, many studies of the crafted language (daedala lingua)Footnote 2 of the DRN have emerged, closely scrutinizing Lucretius’ poetic technique not simply as a mannerism but also in relation to his philosophical background. In support of this view, scholars have always cited the passages in the DRN,Footnote 3 where Lucretius presents the analogy between letters (elementa), which produce words and lines, and atoms (elementa), which constitute the world; therefore, words and world would be analogous in the poem of Lucretius. However, I would like to point out in Lucretius’ proem (1.5–8) another poetic device which consists not of an association of two similar words within the same line or in nearby lines but of the disposition of words that are not similar in the same sedes in successive lines, as a result of which the reader can see what the poet says, something comparable to an acrostic,Footnote 4 and requiring a vertical reading. It is not, therefore, about producing a play with sounds but rather about producing an image with the words on the written page.Footnote 5 As I shall argue, such an image is related chiefly to two of Lucretius’ philosophical and poetic models, Empedocles and Homer.

Before looking at the daedala imago, it is also important to remember the Empedoclean presence in the much-debated proem of the DRN, with its famous and controversial invocation to Venus (1.1–43).Footnote 6 It is not my intention here to discuss the presence of the goddess at the very beginning of a poem in which the poet preaches the Epicurean doctrine, or even to examine why Lucretius, as an Epicurean, starts with allusions to Empedocles.Footnote 7 What is crucial for my purpose in this article is that the presence of Empedocles in Lucretius’ proem is recognized, even if there is no agreement regarding the interpretation of such presence.Footnote 8

I can now move on to the proem and first look at its image of the world (1.1–13):

Aeneadum genetrix, hominum diuomque uoluptas,
alma Venus, caeli subter labentia signa
quae mare nauigerum, quae terras frugiferentis
concelebras, per te quoniam genus omne animantum
concipitur uisitque exortum lumina solis: 5
te, dea, te fugiunt uenti, te nubila caeli
aduentumque tuum, tibi suauis daedala tellus
summittit flores, tibi rident aequora ponti
placatumque nitet diffuso lumine caelum.
nam simul ac species patefactast uerna diei 10
et reserata uiget genitabilis aura fauoni,
aeriae primum uolucres te, diua, tuumque
significant initum perculsae corda tua ui.

THE FOUR ‘ROOTS’

Discussing DRN 1.6–9, FurleyFootnote 9 was the first to note Empedocles’ four ‘roots’Footnote 10 in the proem. He recognized the ‘root’ air in line 6 as uenti, nubila and caeli; the ‘root’ earth clearly in line 7 as tellus, and the ‘root’ water in line 8 as aequora ponti. For the fourth ‘root’, Furley looked at line 9 and argued that caelum must be understood in a different way from the caeli of line 6, both at the end of their respective lines.Footnote 11 Although he mentioned lines 1–5, Furley did not draw attention to lumina solis (‘the light of the sun’) in line 5, immediately above caeli in line 6. If the repetition of caelum in line 9 is important, lumine in the same line, in the penultimate position, must have the same relevance, since it echoes lumina in line 5, in the same sedes.

The study of the proem was developed by Sedley,Footnote 12 building on Furley's observations, but also separating lines 1–5 from 6–9. He detected all four ‘roots’ at the very beginning of the DRN: the reference to the sky (2 caeli) as the ‘root’ air, to the sea (3 mare) as the ‘root’ water, to the land (3 terras) as the ‘root’ earth, and to the light of the sun (5 lumina solis) as the ‘root’ fire. I fully agree with Sedley's observations, but neither he nor Furley noticed that Lucretius arranged the four ‘roots’ at the endFootnote 13 of the successive lines 5–8, so that the reader can also see the layers of the world: the earth (7 tellus) between the sea or water (8 ponti), below, and the sky or air (6 caeli), above, and the sun or fire (5 solis), above all. Placing these key elements at the extremity of lines 5–8 brings to mind the simileFootnote 14 in which the doctor puts honey on the rim of a cup in order to give bitter medicine to children (DRN 1.936–50 = 4.11–25).Footnote 15

Lucretius, however, does not (after all) stop his ‘four roots’ at line 8, since the proem goes on to mention more explicitly air (11–12 aura fauoni | aeriae), water (15 rapidos … amnis; 17 maria … fluuiosque rapacis), earth (18 camposque uirentis) and fire (9 lumine caelum).Footnote 16 These do not enact the visual image (as did the identical sedes), but they do continue the Empedoclean theme in their own interestingly poetic fashions.Footnote 17

The terms used by Lucretius and their position in the verse, namely at the end of the lines, deserve further observations. The four ‘roots’ of Empedocles are not presented with a consistent vocabulary, rather they ‘are variously designated by the terms fire, air, earth and water, by the names of divinities, and by the most obvious manifestations in the physical world’.Footnote 18 For the ‘root’ fire, Empedocles uses, for example, πῦρ or ἠέλιος; for the ‘root’ air, ἀήρ or οὐρανός; for the ‘root’ water, ὕδωρ or πόντος; and for the ‘root’ earth, γαῖα or χθών.Footnote 19 It seems, therefore, that Lucretius in the proem alludes to the ‘roots’ by their manifestations in the physical world, using corresponding terms, such as sol (ἠέλιος) or pontus (πόντος), and that, like Empedocles, he uses varied vocabulary for indicating the four ‘roots’ throughout the poem.

In addition, I would like to draw attention to the arrangement of the terms in the Empedoclean lines, where all the four ‘roots’ are presented together: in three instances all the terms appear in only one line.Footnote 20 Apart from these lines, there is a tendency to place some terms at the beginnings of the lines. The most frequent pattern is to put two words at the beginning, one at the end, and for the fourth term to occupy any other position. This arrangement is found in three fragments: D 77a.3–6 (B 21.3–6): ἠέλιον (at the beginning of line 3), ὄμβρον (at the beginning of line 5) and αὐγῇ (at the end of line 4);Footnote 21 D 207.1–2 (B 109.1–2): γαίῃ (at the beginning of line 1), ὕδωρ (at the end of line 1) and αἰθέρι (at the beginning of line 2);Footnote 22 D 57.2–3 (B 6.2–3): here the ‘roots’ are presented by the names of gods: Zεύς (at the beginning of line 2), Ἀιδωνεύς (at the end of line 2) and Νῆστις (at the beginning of line 3).Footnote 23 There is only one example with three ‘roots’ placed at the beginning of successive lines: D 10.9–11 (B 115.9–11): αἰθέριον (at the beginning of line 9), πόντος (at the beginning of line 10) and ἠελίου (at the beginning of line 11).Footnote 24 In D 122.3–4 (B 38.3–4) there is one ‘root’ at the beginning (3 γαῖα) and another at the end of the same line (ἀήρ).Footnote 25 In only one example is a single ‘root’ placed at the beginning: D 190.1–2 (B 98.1–2), where Ἡφαίστῳ (2) is the first word.Footnote 26

Although there is no extant fragment where the terms appear as they do in the DRN—namely, the four ‘roots’ at the ends of successive lines—this tendency to collocate words, especially at the beginning of the line, can be another feature of Empedoclean λέξις, which Lucretius imitates, emphasizing the ‘roots’ by this position.Footnote 27 However, Lucretius not only highlights the four ‘roots’, placing them artistically in a specific place, but also makes us see Footnote 28 the layers of the world through the arrangement of the words. If this is the case, he goes one step further than Empedocles and gives even greater prominence to the ‘roots’, with his drawing of the universe, on the edge of the lines as an artist both of the elementa and the words.

ACROSTICS AND VERTICAL READING

I mentioned above that the reading I am proposing here is somehow similar to an acrostic and, I might even say, to a technopaignion, requiring the text to be read both horizontally and vertically. Quite apart from its associations with how Empedocles placed words in his lines, it is a Hellenistic characteristicFootnote 29 that can be traced back to didactic poets such as those by NicanderFootnote 30 and Aratus,Footnote 31 both of them poetic models in this genre for Lucretius. Therefore, I believe that the Roman poet by means of this image located at the edge of lines of verse inserts himself in the acrostic tradition, particularly an acrostic tradition related to didactic poetry. Castelletti, in a study of the allusions of Valerius Flaccus to Aratus’ Phaenomena,Footnote 32 focussing on the Flavian poet's use of acrostics, proposed three ‘objective criteria’ in order to ‘help verify’ whether an acrostic is intentional or not. These criteria are useful for my argumentation about elements located on the edge of lines of verse: ‘a) the relation between the acrostics and the context of the passage in which they appear; b) various signposting techniques devised by the author; and c) intertextual references that embed the acrostics within the literary tradition’.

The first criterion is the clearest: Venus is, as many scholars have pointed out, the Empedoclean principle of Love (φιλότης), and she acts on the ‘roots’,Footnote 33 bringing them into a unity. Second, words of ‘seeing’ could act as signpostsFootnote 34 to acrostics. This is the case with uisit (5) at the very beginning of the image. Even the phrase caeli subter labentia signa (2) could be interpreted as a sign to read in a vertical direction, and the mention of sky implies a vertical gaze.Footnote 35 This interpretation can be supported by other signposts present in the passage in which the LVCE acrostic occurs (5.710–16):Footnote 36

inde minutatim retro quasi condere lumen
debet item, quanto propius iam solis ad ignem
labitur ex alia signorum parte per orbem;
ut faciunt, lunam qui fingunt esse pilai
consimilem cursusque uiam sub sole tenere.
est etiam quare proprio cum lumine possit 715
uoluier et uarias splendoris reddere formas.

The word that initiates the acrostic is labitur (‘sinks, glides down’), the same verb as in the proem (labentia), and it could indicate the downward movement of the eye as it reads the acrostic.Footnote 37 Such movement is reinforced by subter (‘below’), where one finds signa (‘an image, as a work of art’).Footnote 38 Moreover, as KronenbergFootnote 39 has highlighted with regard to DRN 5.705–19, ‘Lucretius fills his LUCE acrostic passage and the surrounding context with words for light (luna, lumen).’ In the same way, in the proem and in the line immediately after it he places light (5 lumina; 9 lumine) in the penultimate position, significantly just before the first word of the image (solis) and in the line immediately following the last word in the image (ponti), as if embracing the words that should be read vertically. Furthermore, the repetition of ‘sky’ (6 caeli; 9 caelum) at the end of the lines draws attention to their extremities, where it is possible to see an image of the world. Finally, the third point in a way is the most difficult owing to the fact that, as far as I know, there is no tradition of producing an image by means of words at the edge of successive lines. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned, Lucretius inserts himself in the acrostic tradition, particularly related to didactic poetry. Perhaps, as KronenbergFootnote 40 has argued regarding DRN 5.705–19, Lucretius also emulates an Aratean name-acrostic in the proem, creating ‘his own brilliance’.Footnote 41

That Empedocles is an important point of reference in Lucretius’ proem is well known, and scholars have already paid a lot of attention to this. Aratus’ presence, however, at the beginning of the DRN, albeit acknowledged,Footnote 42 has not been extensively studied. Accordingly, in order to reinforce my arguments so far for the emulation of the Aratean acrostic, I would like to examine more closely the relationship between Lucretius’ proem and Aratus’ Phaenomena. As Asmis has argued, the Lucretian Venus is an allegorical rival to Stoic Zeus, the only ruler of the universe, according to Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. While admitting that Lucretius does not necessarily depend on Cleanthes’ Hymn,Footnote 43 she draws attention to similarities between them. Irrespective of this possibility, it is almost certain that Lucretius knew the Phaenomena, whose opening hymn (1.1–18) presents Stoic ideas.Footnote 44 Moreover, there are verbal correspondences, some of them unnoticed hitherto, between the invocation to Venus and the invocation to Zeus, as follows: Phaen. 2 μεσταί and DRN 1.4 concelebras;Footnote 45 Phaen. 3 θάλασσα and DRN 1.3 mare; Phaen. 5 τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν and DRN 1.4–5 per te quoniam genus omne animantum | concipitur;Footnote 46 Phaen. 10 σήματ’ ἐν οὐρανῷ and DRN 1.2 caeli … signa. It seems, therefore, that Lucretius read Aratus’ Phaenomena, at least through Cicero's Aratea.Footnote 47 If so, ‘a feeble day light’ (Phaen. 786 φόως ἀμενηνόν) and ‘the slender and clear [moon]’ (Phaen. 783 λεπτὴ μὲν καθαρή τε) of the Stoic Aratus of SoliFootnote 48 were replaced by ‘the lights of the sun’ (DRN 1.5 lumina solis), the sky of the Epicurean Lucretius which ‘gleams with spreading light’.

Before examining in some detail the daedala imago, I would also like to add that the four ‘roots’—fire, air, land and sea—are not found elsewhere in the DRN in this sequence but only in the proem (1.5–8). There are, for example, several cases where three of them appear, but the order does not duplicate the layers of the world,Footnote 49 as it does in the proem, as I have been arguing. Finally, the words at the end of the successive lines are prepared for by the penultimate words because these can be related to the ‘roots’ as their products: lumina solis (‘the lights of the sun’), nubila caeli (‘the clouds of the sky’) and aequora ponti (‘the [calm] surface of the sea’),Footnote 50 always a neuter noun followed by a word in the genitive case. However, there is a significant exception: daedala tellus (‘the crafty earth’ or ‘the variously adorned earth’, 7).

DAEDALA IMAGO

There is even more in this passage. Lucretius, fine craftsman that he is, makes us see another image. Let me separate what I argue to be an imago from the rest (1.5–8), highlighting the ingenious ‘picture’:

concipitur uisitque exortum lumina solis: 5
te, dea, te fugiunt uenti, te nubila caeli
aduentumque tuum, tibi suauis daedala tellus
summittit flores, tibi rident aequora ponti

I direct my attention now to daedala (7), which qualifies tellus, ‘the crafty earth’. In general, with small differences, the main commentariesFootnote 51 make reference here to Festus’ lexicon (Paul. Fest. 59.26), where the word is explained and Lucretius’ proem is mentioned along with passages from Ennius and Virgil.

I shall argue that, apart from the adjective's meaning and sense, Lucretius ‘draws’ with the words here and makes the reader see a picture, namely Daedalus’ famous flight. As I have already suggested, word order in DRN 1.5–8 is not random but rather has the purpose of showing an image of the world. It is not fortuitous, I think, that daedalus—a rare adjective—is also an attribute of wonderful things to see.Footnote 52 Here, in the horizontal reading axis, it describes the stupendous variety of suauis flores that are produced at the beginning of spring, but in the vertical reading axis the disposition of the words suggests an image of the flight of Daedalus, who must remain between the sky (6 caeli) and the sea (8 ponti) in order to reach the land (7 daedala tellus) safely. His son, Icarus, fell into the sea by trying to reach the sun (5 solis). Daedalus had enjoined his son neither to fly as high as the sun, nor to fly near the sea, but Icarus, not observing his father's recommendations, flew more and more highly, and, when the wax that bound the wings melted, he fell into the sea and died.

First, if in fact Lucretius ‘draws’ this picture with words on the ‘rim of his cup’, the narrative implied here could not only be the honey that helps readers to take the bitter medicine but also fulfil the key role of the admonition of the magister to the discipulus in didactic poetry.Footnote 53 As GaleFootnote 54 pointed out, ‘mythical imagery is acceptable provided it is used to illustrate vera ratio’.Footnote 55 Furthermore, the decision to place at the beginning of the DRN Daedalus, whose representations on artefacts have been documented by archaeology in archaic Italy since the sixth century b.c.,Footnote 56 does not seem accidental. When Daedalus was in Sicily, he artistically constructed (φιλοτεχνῆσαι), among other marvellous artefacts, a golden ram for the cult of Aphrodite of Mt Eryx, as Diodorus of Sicily tells us (4.78).Footnote 57 It is no coincidence, I believe, that in the proem, a hymn to Venus, we find an allusion, albeit indirect, to this artist who honoured the goddess.

My point can also be supported by another fragment of Empedocles (D 25 = B 128), usually attributed to his Καθαρμοί, not to the Περὶ φύσεως:Footnote 58

οὐδέ τις ἦν κείνοισιν Ἄρης θεὸς οὐδὲ Κυδοιμός
οὐδὲ Zεὺς βασιλεὺς οὐδὲ Κρόνος οὐδὲ Ποσειδῶν,
ἀλλὰ Κύπρις βασίλεια ∪ | — ∪ ∪ | — ∪ ∪ | — —
τὴν οἵγ’ εὐσεβέεσσιν ἀγάλμασιν ἱλάσκοντο
γραπτοῖς τε ζῴοισι μύροισί τε δαιδαλεόδμοις 5
σμύρνης τ’ ἀκρήτου θυσίαις λιβάνου τε θυώδους,
ξανθῶν τε σπονδὰς μελιτῶν ῥίπτοντες ἐς οὖδας⋅
ταύρων δ’ ἀκρήτοισι φόνοις οὐ δεύετο βωμός,
ἀλλὰ μύσος τοῦτ’ ἔσκεν ἐν ἀνθρώποισι μέγιστον,
θυμὸν ἀπορραίσαντας ἐέδμεναι ἠέα γυῖα. 10

In the fragment, in which Kypris/Aphrodite is Φιλία, as PorphyryFootnote 59 glosses in transmitting the passage, Empedocles describes the first generations of men, when Kypris was the only divinity worshipped, and in the Golden Age (1–3). The passage must have been relatively well known in antiquity, not only because Porphyry mentions it but also because AratusFootnote 60 imitates it. The first men propitiated Kypris with images of her (ἀγάλμασιν), painted animal figures (γραπτοῖς τε ζῴοισι), perfumes, myrrh, frankincense and honey (4–7). Apart from the reference to visual arts, the adjective related to perfumes, δαιδαλέοδμος (‘with artificial fragrance’), is a hapax legomenon, and therefore stands out. Here again there is an indirect reference to Daedalus in a context in which Venus/Aphrodite, goddess of life and peace, is honoured.Footnote 61

IMAGO MVNDI AND ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF HOMER

In Lucretius’ proem Venus can be taken as the force which brings all living things to birth, among the many possible interpretations which critics have advanced.Footnote 62 In that sense the invocation is also allegorical.Footnote 63 As is well known, allegorical interpretations emerged around the sixth century b.c. as a response to criticisms of Homer such as those of Heraclitus of Ephesus and Xenophanes.Footnote 64 As I shall argue, such allegorical exegeses are very important in understanding how Lucretius too imitates Homer in our passage (DRN 1.5–8).

The Epicurean Lucretius imitates the beginning of the Homeric ecphrasis of the Shield of Achilles (Il. 18.478–608), whose allegorizationFootnote 65 is preserved in two ancient texts: in the Homeric Problems ascribed to HeraclitusFootnote 66 and in Eustathius of Thessalonica's Homeric commentaries.Footnote 67 The Empedoclean four ‘roots’ or elements are represented in one version by the four metals (Il. 18.474–5) with which Hephaestus makes the shield,Footnote 68 and in another version by the three world-divisions (18.483) and Hephaestus as fire.Footnote 69 Furthermore, the two cities, one at peace (18.491–508) and one at war (18.509–40), are taken to be allegories of the two cosmic forces, Love (Φιλία) and Strife (Νεῖκος),Footnote 70 and Heraclitus (All. 49.2) mentions Empedocles in this context, saying that he should recognize that his theory was already to be found in Homer.Footnote 71 In short, the poet as a philosopher who explains nature provides an image of the world with the Shield of Achilles.Footnote 72

In addition to the allegorical tradition already mentioned, it is possible by looking at Homer's Iliad to see how in the proem to the DRN (1.5–8) Lucretius imitates the very beginning of the ecphrasis (18.478–85), an imitation hitherto unnoticed by scholars:

ποίει δὲ πρώτιστα σάκος μέγα τε στιβαρόν τε
πάντοσε δαιδάλλων, περὶ δ’ ἄντυγα βάλλε φαεινὴν
τρίπλακα μαρμαρέην, ἐκ δ’ ἀργύρεον τελαμῶνα. 480
πέντε δ’ ἄρ’ αὐτοῦ ἔσαν σάκεος πτύχες⋅ αὐτὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ
ποίει δαίδαλα πολλὰ ἰδυίῃσι πραπίδεσσιν.
ἐν μὲν γαῖαν ἔτευξ’, ἐν δ’ οὐρανόν, ἐν δὲ θάλασσαν,
ἠέλιόν τ’ ἀκάμαντα σελήνην τε πλήθουσαν,
ἐν δὲ τὰ τείρεα πάντα, τά τ’οὐρανὸς ἐστεφάνωται 485

First, although some scholars have correctly identified the three terms in the same line (483)—namely, earth, sky and sea—as the tripartite universe (a pattern that will be imitated in Latin poetry),Footnote 73 Lucretius probably saw here, as did some allegorical interpretations, the four elements or ‘roots’,Footnote 74 taking line 483 together with line 484 which has the sun at the beginning. Given that in Empedocles and in Lucretius the four ‘roots’ are designated by varied terms, it is very relevant for my purpose that the terms here used by Homer correspond to those used by Lucretius in the proem: ἠέλιος (484) and sol (5), οὐρανός (483) and caelum (6), γαῖα (483) and tellus (7), and θάλασσα (483) and pontus (8). Furthermore, only one term is repeated at the very beginning of Lucretius’ proem: caelum, in the same sedes in lines 6 and 9, as I have pointed out, exactly as is the case at the beginning of Homer's ecphrasis, where οὐρανός is also in the same sedes in lines 483 and 485.

However, the most important term here which links Homer and Lucretius very closely is δαίδαλα (482), announcing the many spectacular images which will be described in the Shield of Achilles. In addition, the word δαίδαλα plays an important role here because another word with the same root, δαιδάλλων (479 ‘adorning’), stands at the beginning of the opening of the ecphrasis, and δαίδαλα closes the introduction,Footnote 75 both words emphasizing the varied and marvellous images on the shield.

In Homer, however, Daedalus is not just the subject of an indirect reference; he is also explicitly mentioned in line 592. On the shield Hephaestus makes a dancing-floor, which is said to be similar to those Daedalus made in Cnossos for Ariadne. Therefore, the text itself establishes a link between the adjective, which qualifies works that are well decorated and difficult to achieve, and the proper name. Thus the works of Daedalus, who was the archetypical sculptor, are analogous to the works of Hephaestus himself,Footnote 76 since both men construct works which are θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι, such as the Shield of Achilles. So, if Lucretius imitates the Homeric passage, as I have argued so far, the word daedala in the proem of the DRN can also point to the image ‘drawn’ at the extremities of his poetic lines. It is important for Lucretius’ imitation that at the very beginning of his ecphrasis Homer refers to the rim of the shield where the description of the ornaments begins (479 πάντοσε δαιδάλλων, περὶ δ’ ἄντυγα βάλλε φαεινὴν). By decorating the extremities of his lines, Lucretius, in his invocation to Venus, imitates at the same time both Homer and the Ὁμηρικός Empedocles.

CONCLUSION

Lucretius, therefore, in the invocation to Venus, on the threshold of the book, alluding to Empedocles, his philosophical and poetic model, refers to the four ‘roots’ in various ways. In a manner hitherto unnoticed by scholars, he arranges the four ‘roots’ at the end of successive lines (DRN 1.5–8) in such a way that one can see the layers of the world, an image placed on the poem's extremities like the honey on the rim of a cup used by the doctor to give bitter medicine to children. As many scholars have pointed out, Lucretius praises Empedocles for the clarity of his λέξις, an important characteristic for the poet in making his reader see the rerum natura. Similes, analogy and images are essential in order to allow the invisible to become visible. In this sense, Daedalus, the skilled craftsman, who is able to amaze everyone's eyes with his wonderful works, is a very suitable character, here alluded to by the adjective derived from his name. daedala, as I have shown, plays an important role in the ecphrasis of the Shield of Achilles, a passage that has been interpreted allegorically as the image of the world and that has been imitated also by Lucretius in the proem. In addition, it is possible to see Daedalus’ successful flight to Sicily as a mythological example very suitable for the didactic genre in which the magister seeks to persuade the discipulus to follow his advice. Thus Lucretian language,Footnote 77 including daedala (DRN 4.551),Footnote 78 enables us to see that thin image which emanates from things, from the outermost body of things, and a discourse about the nature of things is by analogy an image of things (DRN 4.63–4):

quae quoniam fiunt, tenuis quoque debet imago
ab rebus mitti summo de corpore rerum.

Footnotes

I would like to thank Alessandro Schiesaro, Eduardo Henrik Aubert, Ewen Bowie, Jan Kwapisz, Luigi Galasso, Stephen Harrison and the referee for their help and valuable comments. I would also like to thank CAPES-PRINT (proc. 88887.371525/2019-00) for the scholarship that allowed me to develop this research as Visiting Professor at Oxford (2020).

References

1 Friedländer, P., ‘Pattern of sound and atomistic theory in Lucretius’, AJPh 62 (1941), 16–34Google Scholar.

2 See, for example, Snyder, J.M., Puns and Poetry in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (Amsterdam, 1980)Google Scholar, who cites Friedländer (n. 1), 31; Holmes, B., ‘Daedala lingua: crafted speech in De rerum natura’, AJPh 126 (2005), 527–85Google Scholar, who also mentions Friedländer's article at 527–8.

3 Cf. 1.196–8, 1.814–29, 1.907–14, 2.688–99, 2.1013–21. There are many discussions and commentaries about these passages, among which I refer to Snyder (n. 2), 31–51; Holmes (n. 2) with bibliography at 528 n. 4. On analogy as a method of explanation in Lucretius, see A. Schiesaro, Simulacrum et imago: gli argomenti analogici nel De rerum natura (Pisa, 1990), with further bibliography; Conte, G.B., Generi e lettori: Lucrezio, l'elegia d'amore, l'enciclopedia di Plinio (Milan, 1991), 21–3Google Scholar; Garani, M., Empedocles Redivivus: Poetry and Analogy in Lucretius (New York and London, 2007), 18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 On acrostics in Latin poetry, see Damschen, G., ‘Das lateinische Akrostichon. Neue Funde bei Ovid sowie Vergil, Grattius, Manilius und Silius Italicus’, Philologus 148 (2004), 88–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, M., ‘Arms and a mouse: approaching acrostics in Ovid and Vergil’, MD 82 (2019), 23–73Google Scholar; Robinson, M., ‘Looking edgeways: pursuing acrostics in Ovid and Vergil’, CQ 69 (2019), 290–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, as I will point out, my focus is not on letters but on words at the end of successive lines.

5 This is something similar to the use of tmesis in DRN 1.452, when Lucretius is writing of separation and fatal dissolution: there he makes us see the separation by means of the tmesis (seque gregari), which is also a dissolution of sense, as Hinds, S., ‘Language at the breaking point: Lucretius 1.452’, CQ 37 (1987), 450–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar pointed out.

6 In relation to Venus, see Gale, M.R., Myth and Poetry in Lucretius (Cambridge, 1994), 208–28Google Scholar, with bibliography, who summarizes many explanations put forward by earlier critics: Courtney, E., ‘The proem of Lucretius’, MH 58 (2001), 201–11Google Scholar; Asmis, E., ‘Lucretius’ new world order: making a pact with nature’, CQ 58 (2008), 141–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 157.

7 On this subject, see Sedley, D., Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge, 1998), 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who bases his study on Furley, D.J., ‘Variations on themes from Empedocles in Lucretius’ proem’, BICS 17 (1970), 55–64Google Scholar, and Clay, D., Lucretius and Epicurus (Ithaca and London, 1983)Google Scholar.

8 Sedley (n. 7), 34, for example, describes Empedocles as ‘father’ of the genre for Lucretius, a philosopher to whom Lucretius owes a poetic debt; contra, see Gale (n. 6), 210 n. 13. On Lucretius and Empedocles, see also Kranz, W., ‘Lukrez und Empedokles’, Philologus 96 (1944), 68–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bollack, J., ‘Lukrez und Empedokles’, Die neue Rundschau 70 (1959), 656–86Google Scholar; Hardie, P., ‘The speech of Pythagoras in Ovid Metamorphoses 15: Empedoclean epos’, CQ 45 (1995), 204–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 207–10.

9 Furley (n. 7), 55–7.

10 Empedocles did not use στοιχεῖα (‘elements’) for the basic units of the universe but ῥιζώματα (‘roots’), as in fr. D 57.1 (B 6.1): τέσσαρα τῶν πάντων ῥιζώματα πρῶτον ἄκουε.

11 Furley (n. 7), 56: ‘It is not true that the fourth sentence [line 9] simply repeats the first [line 6]. The disappearance of the clouds may cause the light of the upper sky to shine on earth. But the clouds are not the same as the light. The sentence about the clouds differs from the sentence about the light in just this way, that according to the traditional fourfold division the former says something about air and the latter says something about fire.’

12 Sedley (n. 7), 16–21.

13 The beginning and the end of a line are known to be emphatic positions.

14 On the similes in Lucretius, see West, D., The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius (London, 1969), 74–8Google Scholar, including this one about the doctor.

15 On this simile as an important passage for understanding Lucretian poetics, see Schrijvers, P.H., Horror ac divina voluptas. Études sur la poétique et la poésie de Lucrèce (Amsterdam, 1970), 27–47Google Scholar; on the repetition in DRN 4.11–25, see C. Bailey (ed.), Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex (Oxford, 1947), 756–8; on repetition and similes in the DRN in relation to Empedoclean poetics, see Gale (n. 6), 63–5.

16 With Furley's observation cited above (n. 11). Thus lumine caelum (9) reprises lumina solis (5).

17 I owe these observations to the referee.

18 M.R. Wright (ed.), Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (London, 1981), 22.

19 For a complete table of the terms used by Empedocles, see Wright (n. 18), 23.

20 Cf. frr. D 73.249 (B 17.18), D 101.2 (B 22.2), D 61.2 (B 71.2). In the first two, the ‘root’ fire (πῦρ and ἠλέκτωρ) is at the beginning. See, for example, DRN 5.434.

21 αἴης is not the first word in line 6, but is found immediately after the preposition ἐκ and the particle δ᾽.

22 πῦρ is in the penultimate position (2). All the terms are repeated in this passage.

23 Ἥρη is at the end of the first hemistich. On the identification of the gods with the ‘roots’, see Wright (n. 18), ad loc.

24 The fourth ‘root’, earth, appears twice in line 10: χθονός, fourth word from the beginning, and γαῖα, fourth word from the end, placed symmetrically.

25 Apart from the first line which is defective, the two other ‘roots’, πόντος (3) and αἰθήρ (4), are at the end of the first hemistich.

26 The other three—namely, ὄμβρῳ (2), αἰθέρι (2) and χθὼν (1)—are not at the beginning or at the end, but the first is at the end of the first hemistich. Also, note Κύπριδος at the beginning of line 3, immediately below Ἡφαίστῳ.

27 As W.J. Tatum, ‘The Presocratics in Book One of Lucretius’ De rerum natura’, TAPhA 114 (1984), 177–89 pointed out, Empedocles is an exemplum for a philosophical language, especially for clarity (DRN 1.732).

28 On this capacity in Lucretius, i.e. how the poet must know how to make the reader see things, see Conte (n. 3), 26.

29 On Hellenistic acrostics, see Danielewicz, J., ‘Further Hellenistic acrostics: Aratus and others’, Mnemosyne 58 (2005), 321–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As Conte (n. 3), 17 already emphasized, ‘Lucrezio è impensabile senza gli alessandrini, anche se è così diverso da loro.’

30 The acrostic signature in Ther. 345–53 is detected by Lobel, E., ‘Nicander's signature’, CQ 22 (1928), 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 On the acrostic in Phaen. 783–7, which was identified by Jacques, J.-M., ‘Sur un acrostiche d'Aratos (Phén., 783–787)’, REA 62 (1960), 48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar, there is a voluminous bibliography; see, e.g., L. Kronenberg, ‘Seeing the light, part I: Aratus's interpretation of Homer's LEUKĒ acrostic’, Dictynna 15 (2018[a]) (https://journals.openedition.org/dictynna/1535); L. Kronenberg, ‘Seeing the light, part II: the reception of Aratus's LEPTĒ acrostic in Greek and Latin literature’, Dictynna 15 (2018[b]) (https://journals.openedition.org/dictynna/1575); in particular, L. Kronenberg, ‘The light side of the moon: a Lucretian acrostic (LUCE, 5.712–15) and its relationship to acrostics in Homer (LEUKĒ, Il. 24.1–5) and Aratus (LEPTĒ, Phaen. 783–87)’, CPh 114 (2019), 278–92.

32 C. Castelletti, ‘Aratus and the Aratean tradition in Valerius’ Argonautica’, in A. Augoustakis (ed.), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past (Leiden, 2014), 49–72, at 49.

33 See, e.g., D 73.233–66 (B 17). For the identification of Love (φιλότης) with Cypris/Aphrodite (Κύπρις/Ἀφροδίτη) in Empedocles, see D 199 (B 73), D 200 (B 75), D 217 (B 95) and D 190 (B 98).

34 On signposts in acrostics, see Kronenberg (n. 31 [2018(a)]), 7 and n. 18, with further bibliography.

35 In order to corroborate the interpretation of signa caeli, note the repetition of caelum in lines 6 and 9. Another important word here is lumina (5), repeated in the same position in line 9, ‘highlighting’ the image.

36 It was considered accidental by Hilberg, I., ‘Ist die Ilias Latina von einem Italicus verfasst oder einem Italicus gewidmet?’, WS 21 (1899), 264–305Google Scholar, at 283.

37 See Kronenberg (n. 31 [2019]), 280.

38 See OLD s.v. subter 1.

39 See Kronenberg (n. 31 [2019]), 279.

40 Kronenberg (n. 31 [2019]), 287.

41 On the wish to overcome Alexandrian poetics, see Conte (n. 3), 16.

42 See, for example, Gale (n. 6), 210.

43 Cf. Asmis, E., ‘Lucretius’ Venus and Stoic Zeus’, Hermes 110 (1982), 458–70Google Scholar, at 468. On Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus and Lucretius, see E. Gee, ‘The rising and setting soul in Lucretius, De rerum natura 3’, in D. O'Rourke (ed.), Approaches to Lucretius. Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Rerum Natura (Cambridge, 2020), 195–215, at 198–200.

44 Gale (n. 6), 221 n. 63 had already observed this in relation to Asmis's thesis. On the Stoic element in Aratus’ opening hymn, see D. Kidd (ed.), Aratus Phaenomena (Cambridge, 1997), 10–12, 161–2.

45 This has already been noted by Gale (n. 6), 210, who also pointed out the correspondence between ἤπιος (Phaen. 5) and alma (DRN 1.1).

46 This is also in Gale (n. 6), 210. I would add that Aeneadum genetrix (DRN 1.1) may be related to this passage.

47 On the dialogue of the DRN with Cicero's translation, see Gee, E., Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition (Oxford, 2013), 81–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 189–231 (Appendix B).

48 Although I think that it would be a very subtle allusion to Aratus of Soli's ‘light’ (stars), at the beginning of the image (in line 5) there is a suggestion to see (uisit) lumina solis. On the possible pun on Aratus Soleus in DRN 5.705 (luna potest solis radiis percussa nitere), see Kronenberg (n. 31 [2019]), 287; on puns on proper names in the DRN, see Gale, M.R., ‘Etymological wordplay and poetic succession in Lucretius’, CPh 96 (2001), 168–72Google Scholar. Aratus himself puns on his proper name at the very beginning of the Phaenomena (2 ἄρρητον). The poet emphasizes the word ‘unspoken’, ἄρρητον, by placing it, in enjambement, at the beginning of the line followed by a strong pause (Phaen. 1–2 ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ’ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν | ἄρρητον. μεσταὶ δὲ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί). On this pun, see Kidd (n. 44), ad loc.

49 See, e.g., DRN 1.271–6 principio uenti uis uerberat incita pontum | ingentisque ruit nauis et nubila differt, | interdum rapido percurrens turbine campos | arboribus magnis sternit montisque supremos | siluifragis uexat flabris: ita perfurit acri | cum fremitus saeuitque minaci murmure uentus (on uentus here, see Bailey [n. 15], ad loc.); 1.1086–8 (here I do not quote Bailey's text, who transposes lines 1085 and 1086; see G.W. Munro [ed.], Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex [Cambridge, 1928]; A. Ernout and L. Robin [edd.], Lucrèce, De rerum natura: Commentaire exégétique et critique [Paris, 1925–1928], ad loc.) umorem ponti magnasque e montibus undas | at contra tenuis exponent aeris auras | et calidos simul a medio differrier ignis; 5.264–7 … sed primum quicquid aquai | tollitur in summaque fit ut nil umor abundet, | partim quod ualidi uerrentes aequora uenti | deminuunt radiisque retexens aetherius sol; 5.457–9 … ideo per rara foramina terrae | partibus erumpens primus se sustulit aether | ignifer et multos secum leuis abstulit ignis. See also DRN 5.650–2, 6.620–4, 6.680–2.

50 OLD s.v. aequor 1.

51 Cf., for example, C. Giussani, T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura libri sex, vol. 2 (Turin, 1896), ad loc.; H. Diels, T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura libri sex, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1923), ad loc.; Ernout and Robin (n. 49), ad loc.; Munro (n. 49), ad loc.; Bailey (n. 15), ad loc. Furthermore, the discussion is limited to the sense of the adjective, whether passive or active. daedala here is probably active.

52 See Holmes (n. 2), 562 n. 71, who advanced the discussion about the adjective in Lucretius. The adjective attributed to works of visual arts, namely sculpture, appears in DRN 5.1451 carmina picturas, et daedala signa polita. The other occurrences of daedala in the DRN are as follows: 1.228 daedala tellus; 2.505–6 daedala chordis | carmina; 4.551 uerborum daedala lingua; 5.234 naturaque daedala rerum.

53 The story of Daedalus and Icarus will be used as an exemplum of Ovid's didactic strategy in Ars am. 2.21–96. On Daedalus as poet and teacher for Ovid, see A. Sharrock, Seduction and Repetition in Ovid's Ars Amatoria II (Oxford, 1994), especially 146–55. Besides, flight is a common metaphor for poetry: for example, it is used by the didactic Virgil (G. 3.8–9). Lucretius also uses this metaphor to describe the power of Epicurus’ mind in search of the ultimate truths about the universe (DRN 1.72–7).

54 Gale (n. 6), 74.

55 On Lucretius’ use of the myth, see Gale (n. 6), especially 26–50.

56 See E. Simon, s.v. ‘Dedalo’, Enciclopedia Virgiliana, vol. 2 (Rome, 1985), 13. For Daedalus in Greek authors, see Sharrock (n. 53), 91–4 with further bibliography. I do not mean here that Lucretius is imitating a specific painting, but rather that the poet can use images of mythological episodes known or recurring in ‘allegorical works and allegorical interpretation of art’, as Gale (n. 6), 80–4 pointed out.

57 Diod. Sic. 4.78 χρυσοῦν τε κριὸν τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ τῇ Ἐρυκίνῃ φασὶν αὐτὸν φιλοτεχνῆσαι περιττῶς εἰργασμένον καὶ τῷ κατ’ ἀλήθειαν κριῷ ἀπαρεγχειρήτως ὡμοιωμένον.

58 On the works of Empedocles and the view that both of these works are the same poem, see Wright (n. 18), 17–21 as well as A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L'Empédocle de Strasbourg: (P.Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665–1666). Introduction, edition et commentaire (Berlin and New York, 1999), 114–19.

59 Porph. Abst. II 20. For Aphrodite's identification with Philia in the On nature, see frr. D 199 (B 73), D 200.2 (B 75.2), D 217 (B 95) and D 190 (B 98).

60 Phaen. 108–9 οὔπω λευγαλέου τότε νείκεος ἠπίσταντο, | οὐδέ διακρίσιος πολυμεμφέος οὐδέ κυδοιμοῦ. See E. Bignone, Empedocle. Studio critico (Turin, 1916), on fr. 128 (ad loc.), and Kidd (n. 44), ad loc. on Aratus.

61 In A. Laks and G.W. Most, Early Greek Philosophy, vol. 5, part 2 (Cambridge, MA and London, 2016), 376, fr. D 26 (B 130), a text preserved only in the scholium on Nicander's Theriaca, complements fr. D 25 (‘The reign of Cypris’) ἦσαν δὲ κτίλα πάντα καὶ ἀνθρώποισι προσηνῆ, | θῆρές τ’ οἰωνοί τε, φιλοφροσύνη τε δεδήει. If so, in Lucretius’ proem there may also be references to this passage, as I point out here (DRN 1.12 and [15] aeriae primum uolucres te, diua, tuumque and inde ferae pecudes persultant pabula laeta).

62 On the interpretations, see Gale (n. 6), 208–23.

63 The problems of a purely allegorical interpretation for Lucretius’ proem are discussed by Bailey (n. 15), 590–1 and Gale (n. 6), 217.

64 For the history of allegorical exegesis of poetry, see D.C. Feeney, The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition (Oxford, 1991), 5–33; D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley and Oxford, 1992), 23–72; Gale (n. 6), 19–26. For allegorical interpretation and mythological tradition in Lucretius, see Gale (n. 6), 26–45; for allegorical interpretation of Homer as an important tool in understanding Virgil's imitation, see P. Hardie, Virgil's Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium (Oxford, 1986), especially 25–32 and 340–75, with further bibliography on allegorical exegesis.

65 On the ancient allegorizations of the Shield of Achilles, see Hardie (n. 64), 340–6 and Hardie, P., ‘Imago mundi: cosmological and ideological aspects of the Shield of Achilles’, JHS 105 (1985), 11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 All. 43–51.

67 Eust. 1154.41–1156.9, where he refers to someone called Demo.

68 Heraclitus, All. 43.11–13.

69 Eust. 1154.45.6–50.9. In this passage he uses the adverb συμβολικῶς (‘symbolically’).

70 All. 49.4 τούτων δ’ ἑκάτερον Ὅμηρος ὑποσημαίνων πόλεις ἐνεχάλκευσε τῇ ἀσπίδι τὴν μὲν εἰρήνης, τουτέστι τῆς φιλίας, τὴν δὲ πολέμου, τουτέστι νείκους. For another allegorical interpretation of the two cities, see Hardie (n. 64), 343–6.

71 He had previously mentioned (24.6) Empedocles and the theory of the four elements (στοιχεῖα) in order to say that the philosopher imitates (μεμίμηται) the Homeric allegory.

72 Cf. Heraclitus, All. 43.2.

73 On this, see Hardie (n. 64), 293–335, who studies ‘universal expressions’ in Virgil's Aeneid, i.e. ‘phrases which summarize the totality of the world or universe in schematic form’ (293). This can be done basically with two (296–313), three (313–25) or four terms (325–9). For the Homeric passage (Il. 18.483–5) as the ultimate model for the three world-divisions, see Hardie (n. 64), 70, 320–4. On Lucretius, in particular, as an important source for Virgil, Hardie (n. 64), 324–5 asserts that Lucretius ‘frequently in the De Rerum Natura uses the tripartition of Earth, Sea and Heaven; Lucretius’ use of the tripartite world-picture consorts somewhat uneasily with the more scientific four-element categorization, which Lucretius also uses and which in its turn is superimposed on the basic atomistic dichotomy of the atoms and the void’.

74 Cerri, G., Omero. Iliade. Libro XVIII. Lo Scudo di Achille (Rome, 2010), 165Google Scholar, in his modern commentary on Il. 18.483–4a follows the ancient allegorical interpretations.

75 See Edwards, M.W., The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume V: Books 17–20 (Cambridge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ad loc. on lines 478–82.

76 Rutherford, R.B., Homer Iliad Book XVIII (Cambridge, 2019), 30–1Google Scholar goes further and considers that there is an analogy between Deadalus’ own work and the plastic arts.

77 The Lucretian phrase daedala tellus appears in a Latin inscription (CLE 469.1–3): inter odoratos nemorum ubi laeta recessus | Mater pingit humus, et lectis daedala tellus | floribus exultat …

78 On the daedala lingua, see Holmes (n. 2), especially 574–7, on how language is necessary to make people see ‘atomic reality’. I also think that the daedala lingua is in opposition to the Stoic theory of natural word order. On this topic, namely the arrangement of words in opposition to Stoic theory, see Freudenburg, K., The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire (Princeton, 1993), 132–45Google Scholar.