Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:22:33.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lucretius, Euripides and the Philosophers: De Rerum Natura 5.13–21*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

S. J. Harrison
S. J. Harrison
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Here in the proem to his fifth book Lucretius is praising the philosophical achievements or discoveries (‘reperta’) of Epicurus through favourable comparison with other discoveries of traditional heroic or divine figures; first, in this passage, with the products of bread and wine associated with the gods Ceres and Liber (Bacchus), and later with the deeds of the god-hero Hercules. This technique clearly derives from the σ⋯γκρισις of formal rhetoric, one of the basic exercises (προγυμν⋯σματα, exercitationes primae) through which composition was taught in ancient schools, and Lucretius begins with ‘confer’, an imperative which has something of a formulaic force in rhetorical comparisons. But it is not the purpose of this note to point out the rhetorical qualities of this passage; Lucretius' treatment of Ceres and Liber has other important literary and philosophical associations, links which have not been noted or explored by scholars.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , May 1990 , pp. 195 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

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.)

References

1 On the προγυν⋯σματα, in use in Roman as well as Greek schools by Lucretius' day, cf. Kroll, W. in RE Suppl. vii. 1117.22ffGoogle Scholar, Bonner, S., Education in Ancient Rome (London, 1977), pp. 250–76Google Scholar; on σ⋯γκρισις in particular, much used in literary criticism, cf. Russell on Longinus 12.4 and Focke, F., Hermes 58 (1923), 327–68.Google Scholar

2 cf. Cicero, , Rosc. Com. 20Google Scholar, Sulla 74Google Scholar, Ovid, Ep. 12.204, Juvenal 13.144.

3 cf. Dodds on Euripides, Bacchae 274–85Google Scholar, Varro, RR 1.1.5.

4 For Dionysus as ‘inventor’ of the vine or of wine in poetry, cf. Bömer, on Ovid, Fasti 2.239 and Met. 4.14, McKeown on Ovid, Am. 1.3.11; for the theme of πρτος εὑρετ⋯ς in general cf. Nisbet and Hubbard on Horace, Odes 1.3.12, Hunter on Eubulus, fr. 72.1 and Kleingünther, A., Πρτος Εὑρετ⋯ς (Leipzig, 1933).Google Scholar

5 So similarly at Vergil, Aeneid 10.189 ‘namque ferunt’ introduces a story which the poet avoids vouching for and which is evidently an echo of the Hellenistic poet Phanocles (fr. 6 Powell). On such ‘reporting’ devices in general cf. Nisbet and Hubbard on Horace, Odes 1.7.23, Stinton, T. C. W., PCPS n.s. 22 (1976), 60–89.Google Scholar

6 cf. Dodds on Euripides, Bacchae 274–80.Google Scholar

7 On Persaeus and his Περ⋯ Θεν cf. SVF i.96–102 and Deichgräber in RE xix.928.34ff.

8 For discussions of the text and interpretation of this papyrus, cf. Pease on Cicero, Nat. 1.38 and especially Henrichs, A., Cron. Erc. 4 (1974), 5–32Google Scholar and HSCP 79 (1975), 93–123.Google Scholar

9 The version which ascribes both views to Prodicus is persuasively argued for by Henrichs (see previous note), and is supported by the account of the theology of Prodicus and Persaeus given by Minucius Felix, Octavius 21.2: ‘Prodicus assumptos in deos loquitur, qui errando inventis novis frugibus utilitati hominum profuerunt. in eandem sententiam et Persaeus philosophatur et adnectit inventas fruges et frugum ipsarum repertores isdem nominibus.’

10 cf. Cicero, Tusc. 1.48.

11 Lucretius 3.322, Epicurus, , Ep. Men. 135.Google Scholar

12 cf. Ernout/Robin on 5.1105–7 and Lück, W., Die Quellenfrage im 5. und 6. Buck des Lucrez (Breslau, 1932).Google Scholar

13 On Lucretius' relations with Stoics in general cf. Schmidt, J., Lucrez und die Stoiker (Diss. Marburg, 1975).Google Scholar The persuasively cautious account by Furley, D., BICS 13 (1966), 13–33Google Scholar (now reprinted in id., Cosmic Problems [Cambridge, 1989], pp. 183–205Google Scholar) considerably discounts Stoic targets in favour of Platonic and Aristotelian ones.

14 On this difficult issue more caution is required than shown by Valle, G. Della, Tito Caro Lucrezio e l'epicureismo campano (Naples, 1935)Google Scholar: cf. Clay, D., Lucretius and Epicurus (Ithaca, NY, 1983), pp. 24–5.Google Scholar