University of St Andrews School of Classics Cover-sheet for Undergraduate coursework Matriculation ID: 110001939 Module Code: LT4214 Title of Assessed Work: Commentary on Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura 1.545-64 Tutor’s Name: Dr Emma Gee Number in sequence (e.g. essay 1 of 2): 3 of 3 Date Submitted: 21/11/2014 Word Count: 2085 Declaration By entering my matriculation number above: • I confirm that I have read and understood the University’s policy on Good Academic Practice, including academic misconduct and plagiarism; • I confirm that this assignment is my own work and that I have not copied any other person’s work or any other piece of my own work; • I confirm that this piece of work has not previously been submitted for assessment on another course. • I confirm that I have already or will shortly submit both an electronic copy of this work via MMS and a printed copy via my tutor’s pigeonhole and that I understand that late submission penalties will be based on the time of electronic submission. DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT IDENTIFY YOU TO THE MARKER ON THIS COVER SHEET OR IN YOUR ESSAY. USE ONLY YOUR MATRICULATION NUMBER. Commentary on Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura 1.545-64 In order to fully appreciate the above passage one must examine it within the context of Lucretius’ subject matter. When first reading this section, the lines do not sound particularly enchanting or beautiful; in fact, they’re quite cumbersome and difficult to roll off the tongue. However, Lucretius is here discussing the atomic nature of matter – a topic of essential importance to his work – and what he must necessarily sacrifice poetically he makes up for in didaxis. As E.J. Kenney points out, the DRN is “dictated by two fundamental imperatives: the vital significance of the doctrine and the need for complete clarity in imparting it.” (2007) p,95 Lucretius never loses track of his goal – to enlighten the reader – and the above passage is an exemplary testament of his purpose. He moves logically through his argument, maintaining his vocabulary for the purpose of uniform meaning, reflecting in his lines the matter he is discussing and making sure that the poetry serves the didaxis. Indeed, much of the beauty and enchantment of the DRN is carefully buried within the words that, through Lucretius’ genius, themselves embody the subject matter, mimicking the void, the atoms and all else that he discusses. Therefore, this commentary will examine where the above passage fits within Lucretius’ argument, the manner in which he manipulates the Latin and to what purpose. The appropriate way to approach this passage is chronologically so as to follow the logical movement of Lucretius’ argument and establish beforehand the principles to which it is linked. However, I am not concerned with the philosophical aspect of the discussion; this approach is purely for the purpose of giving us a full perspective on the above passage. He establishes the argument in lines 499-502: ades, paucis dum versibus expediamus esse ea quae solido atque aeterno corpore constent, semina quae rerum primordiaque esse docemus Original quotations of the DRN obtained from thelatinlibrary.com It is imperative to note that Lucretius’ semina and primordia are the most basic units of matter – his ‘atoms’. He recycles primordia (which we will see in our passage) so as to keep it distinct from other concepts of matter, such as genitis… rebus (511). His purposeful choice of raw vocabulary is so that the words express the ideas at hand. genitis rebus literally means ‘produced/born things’, whereas primordia (from primus – ‘first’) unequivocally defines itself as “the primitive starting-points from which other entities are built up.” Sedley, D. (1998) p.38 Having established the argument, and the qualifying vocabulary, Lucretius makes sure that the following points flow coherently and the reader does not lose track. His method for keeping us abreast of the discussion is the use of ‘signpost’ words such as principio, praeterea, tum porro, denique and others – which is precisely what we find in our passage and the lines preceding it. Principio (503) hails the first part of the argument, followed by praeterea (511), tum porro (520), and praeterea (540). denique (551) in our section signifies that we are moving in a logical manner, each new ‘signpost’ introducing a point that will build on the prior ones. My aim in demonstrating the structural link revealed by these special words is to show that what occurs in our passage is intrinsically linked to the preceding lines and that the similarities we find between them are purposeful. In the five lines preceding our passage, Lucretius establishes that material must be everlasting, otherwise the world would be reduced to nothing and clearly something cannot be created out of nothing (540-4). 545-50 emphasises the same point, though articulated slightly differently, so as to embed it into the reader’s mind. These six lines can be split into two sections, both parallel in structure and meaning: esse inmortali primordia corpore debent, (545) Section 1 dissolui quo quaeque supremo tempore possint, materies ut subpeditet rebus reparandis. sunt igitur solida primordia simplicitate Section 2 nec ratione queunt alia servata per aevom ex infinito iam tempore res reparare. (550) Bot sections begin emphatically with verbs, with primordia sitting in the middle of the first line, and both end with two variations of the same words: rebus reparandis | res reparare. The purpose of this template-like repetition is clarity and unity of meaning. Section 1 argues that ‘everything disintegrates into the primordia that then again become world building blocks’; Section 2 simply states that point again: ‘primordia must be solid/non-perishable, otherwise they would disintegrate and could not renew the world.’ And just like primordia, materies (a derivative of mater) expresses the concept of ‘creation’ and ‘origins.’ Ibid So the argument here is thus: ‘things disintegrate into the basic units of primordia which then become building blocks once again, and this sufficiency is impossible if they themselves were disintegrated’. sunt igitur solida and nec ratione queunt alia are word-for-word repetitions from lines 510 and 530 respectively. The former emphasises the point that Lucretius has already made. It is complimented by simplicitate, stressing the solidity and singleness of these particles, and contrasts the duplex (503) aspect of nature – the two separate entities of matter and vacuity. Brown, M.P. (1984) p.131 The latter is a typical Lucretian phrase that allows him to summarise the argument – i.e. ‘no other explanation is possible’ – and move on. Moreover, his manipulation of language personifies the subject matter at hand. The archaic aevom mirrors the discussion of primordial concepts and starting-points, while the hyperbaton of infinito… tempore exhibits the great time span in question. Aside from clarity and unity in meaning, purposeful repetition intends to bring the most important subjects to the fore. In lines 545-64 alone, vocabulary of ‘time’ is dominant. Variations of tempus are repeated six times 546, 550, 554, 558, 560, 563; variations of finis, finitus and infinitus six times also 550, 551, 555, 558, 561, 563; and variations of aevum or aetas five times. 549, 553, 555, 558, 564 Clearly such duplication is intended to leave no doubt about the importance of the ideas discussed. “The didactic narrator repeats words and concepts because they are fundamental tenets of his theories, and the reader repeats their reading because this is the only way he can come to master the lesson.” Schiesaro, A. (1994) p.103 denique (551) initiates the new point of discussion: ‘the limits of breaking down’. The meaning of the line is emphatically interrupted by enjambment as frangendis rebus runs over to 552. Lucretius has cleverly ‘broken’ the line with frangendis, from frango: ‘to break’. Once again, the subject matter is embodied in the words. frangente breaks up aevo and priore in line 553, forming a hyperbaton; the hyperbaton of corpora… redacta (552-3) expresses the disintegration of the bodies; and finem (555) is symbolically relegated to the end of the sentence. Moreover, since Lucretius is discussing continuous wearing-down over the course of all time (usque redacta… aevo… priore (553)), he appropriately matches the theme with the archaic materiai, which “has the artistic justification of lending the poem added solemnity, dignity and grandeur,” which “is perhaps nowhere more noticeable than in the sonorous –ai genitive, to which Lucretius often gives emphasis by placing it at the end of the line.” Brown, p.xxxv And to further manifest within the lines the time-scale he wants us to envision, Lucretius elides summum and aetatis (555), blending the words together like the passing of time and creating a very spondaic, solemn line: cōncēp|tūm sūm|um āetā|tīs pēr|vādĕrĕ| fīnēm (555) Thus, from denique to finem Lucretius has made the following point: ‘there must be a limit to breaking down; if there were not, everything would be continuously worn down and would not be able to reach its prime’. This hypothesis augments the discussion in the preceding lines: ‘since there is matter in the world, its principle building blocks must be imperishable’. He further builds on this, stating in line 556 that everything we see around us breaks down faster than it renews itself. This is a crucial point as it justifies his postulation that there must be a finem… frangendis rebus, and he highlights it with enjambment as quam rursus refici spills over onto line 557, creating a dramatic pause, as it were. As the discussion once more picks up on the infinite span of time, Lucretius very powerfully, again, reflects the theme in the poetry. First of all, we have two elisions in line 558, infinita aetas and ante acti, to which the spondaic rhythm adds further weight: īnfī|nīta āe|tās ān|te āctī | tēmpŏrĭs | ōmnīs (558) What is more striking about the above line, however, is the multitude of temporal vocabulary to stress that Lucretius is discussing all the time that has ever passed: longa diei / infinta aetas ante acti temporis omnis (557-8). “The phrase is a remarkable accumulation, mirroring the endless piling of moment on moment in infinite time.” Ibid, p.133 Within this infinite time frame is the hypothetical breaking-down: quod fregisset adhuc distubrans dissolvensque (559). Lucretius’ addition of the two present participles makes the destruction more vivid, not only through further description but through the hissing sibilance: fregisset… disturbans dissolvensque. The conclusion he draws is that if things were broken down since the beginning of time without any limit, there would be no possibility of them being rebuilt in the remainder of time. The hyperbaton of relicuo and tempore (560) as always serves to highlight the point, while reparari (560) echoes the reparandis and reparare of 547 and 550 respectively, taking us back in full circle, in both sense and vocabulary, so as to drive home the point: ‘there must be sufficient material for reconstruction of objects, and the sufficiency cannot exist if the objects are interminably broken down’. Clearly, line-by-line, Lucretius meticulously maintains a coherent structure so as to build on this point rather than make them once and forever let them float away. In lines 561-4, Lucretius must recap on the ideas at hand. ni mirum (561) is his signifier of reason, frequently dispersed through the text e.g. 1.277, 365, 368, 524, to list but a few., and similar to nec ratione… alia. Both phrases serve to remove all doubt from the reader’s mind and affirm Lucretius’ postulations. Once again, he recycles his vocabulary for the sake of clarity: frangendi (561) echoes frangendis (552); refici (562) repeats the refici of line 557; aevi (564) reminds us of aevom (549); and videmus (562) echoes the videmus of 556, offering Lucretius not only metrical convenience but also reiterating that the disintegrating objects in question are still those that we can see – physical objects. Furthermore, in this final ‘summary’, he uses two enjambments for added stress: certa manet (562), referring to finis (561), runs emphatically over the line, as does stare (564), referring to finita… tempora (563). However, I believe that certa exhibits the occasional shortcomings that the merger of philosophy and poetry will inevitably produce. It is clear that Lucretius’ goal is clarity in meaning, but after such a discussion on ‘limits to disintegration’ he offers us no precise definition of these boundaries, leaving us only with the abstract certa for an answer. It is similar in this respect to nec ratione… alia and ni mirum, which seem to me at times lazy, summarising an argument that is not fully clear. Instead of providing further explanation and intelligibility in meaning, Lucretius sometimes conversely leave us in confusion. The passage comes to a close with florem (546), which expresses maturity. The idea of a flower is a vivid image for envisioning the full blossom of life. It alleviates and makes more accessible a topic as difficult as the atomic nature of matter. The poetic florem is there to remind us that Lucretius wishes to present his lessons in a sweet and amiable manner, as he makes clear in the proem to book four: nam vel uti pueris absinthia taetra medentes / cum dare conantur, prius oras pocula circum / contingunt mellis dulci flavoque liquore (4.11-13). Florem manifests the fact that Lucretius’ principal care is the reader and the wisdom that he wishes to share with them. His manipulation of language and poetic ingenuity serve to personify, reflect and symbolise the subject matter at hand. For him “it was the material that shaped the expression and metrical form of the message.” Kenney, p.95 As this passage demonstrates, his poetry becomes the subject. His argument flows logically, clearly signposted so as to keep us abreast of the discussion and complimented by the duplicative vocabulary that “is the essence of learning and befits a didactic poem much more than other forms of poetry.” Schiesaro, p.98 BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, Michael P. (1984) Lucretius: De Rerum Natura 1 (Bristol Classical Press: Bristol) Kenney, E.J. (2007) ‘Lucretian texture: style, metre, and rhetoric in the De rerum natura’ in The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius (ed. by Stuart Gillespie and Philip Hardie) (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) Schiesaro, A. (1994) ‘The Palingenesis of De rerum Natura’ in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40 Sedley, D. (1998) Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) www.thelatinlibrary.com