No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
DAEDALA IMAGO AND THE IMAGE OF THE WORLD IN LUCRETIUS’ PROEM (1.5–8)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 March 2024
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.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
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.