GRICE E FRIXIONE

 It cannot be denied that the poem of Lucretius failed to awaken any  marked interest until long after its publication. The almost unbroken  silence of his contemporaries regarding him is significant of the com-  parative indifference with which his production was received. The  reasons for this neglect are various and not far to seek. In the first  place the moment was inopportune for the appearance of such a work.  "It was composed in that hapless time when the rule of the oligarchy  had been overthrown and that of Caesar had not yet been established,  in the sultry years during which the outbreak of the civil war was  awaited with long and painful suspense." ^ The poet betrays his sol-  icitude for the welfare of his country at this crisis in the introduction  of his work, in which he invokes the aid of Venus in persuading Mars  to command peace —   Efficc ut inter ea f era moenera militiai   Per maria ac terras omnis sopita quiescani '^ —   and acknowledges that his attention is diverted from literary labors by   the exigencies of the state :   N^am neque nos agere hoc patriai tempore iniquo  Possumus aequo animo nee Memmi clara propago  Talibiis in rebus comrnuni desse saluti. ''   Munro believes these lines were written toward the close of 695,  when Caesar as consul had formed his coalition with Pompey and  when there was almost a reign of terror.* The reflection of a state of   1 Monimseii, Hist. Rome, IV, p. 698 (Eng. Tr. ).   ' I. 29. 30.   M. 41-43-   ^Muiim. Luiictiiis. II. p. 30.     6 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS.   tumult and peril is equally obvious in the opening verses of the second  book, where the security of the contemplative life is contrasted with  the turbulence of a political and military career.' Particularly signifi-  cant are the lines :   Si non forte tuas legiones per loca campi  Fervere cum videas belli simulacra cientis,  Subsidiis magnis et ecum vi constabilitas,  Ornatasque armis statuas pariierque animatas,  His tibi turn rebus timefactae religiones  Effugiunt animo pavide ; mortisque timores  Turn vacuum pectus lincunt curaque solutum,  Fervere cum videas classem lateque vagari}   It can readily be appreciated that a period of such fermentation  and alarm would afford opportunity for philosophic study to those  alone who were able to retire from political excitements to private  leisure and quiet. Moreover the very characteristics of the Epicurean  philosophy would recommend it chiefly to persons of this description.  Participation in public life was distinctly discouraged by the school  of Epicurus, who regarded the realm of politics as a world of tumult  and trouble, wherein happiness — the chief end of life — was almost, if  not quite, impossible. They counselled entering the arena of public  affairs only as an occasional and disagreeable necessity, or as a pos-  sible means of allaying the discontent of those to whom the quiet of  a private life was not wholly satisfactory.'' Such instruction, though  phrased in the noble hexameters of a Lucretius, was scarcely calculated  to enjoy immediate popularity in the stirring epoch of a fast hurrying  revolution.^   1 Sellar, Rommi Pods of the Republic, p. 290.   2 II, 40-47. " Caesar after his consulship remained with his army for three  months l)efore Rome, and was bitterly attacked by Memmius. Does Lucretius here  alhide to Caesar? " Munro, II, p. 122.   •^ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 491, 3, 6.   * " In consequence of his mode of thought and writing lieing so averse to his own  time and directed to a better future, the poet received little attention in his own  age." Teuflfel, Hist. Rom. Lit. I, 201 (Eng. Tr.). "It (Epicureanism) arose in a  state of society and under circumstances widely different from the social ar.d  political condition of the last phase ol the Roman Republic." Sellar. Roman Poets  of the Republic, p. 357.     IXTRODUCTIOX. 7   A somewhat ingenious, but unsuccessful, attempt has been made to  account for the indifference with which Lucretius was treated on the  ground of his assault Upon the doctrine of the future life. It has  been suggested that as the enmity of the Christian writers was early  called down upon his head for this cause, he was likewise whelmed  ' ' under a conspiracy of silence on the part of his Roman contempo-  raries and successors " for the same reason. ^ But so general was the  skepticism of his age on this question, that it is scarcely credible that  the publication of his views could have seriously scandalized the cul-  tured classes who read his lines. The same judgment will hold true  with reference to the entire attitude of Lucretius toward the tra-  ditional religion. It is a sufficient answer to the theory that his in-  fidelity created antipathy toward him to record the fact that Julius  Caesar, than whom no more pronounced free-thinker lived in his day,  was, despite his skepticism, pontifex maxi'mus of the Roman common-  wealth, and did not hesitate to declare in the presence of the Senate  that the immortality of the soul was a vain delusion.^ That he rep-  resented in these heretical opinions the position of many of the fore-  most persons of the period is the testimony of contemporary literature.   Shall we not find the better reason for the apparent neglect of  Lucretius in the era immediately following the issue of his poem in  the fact that there was no public at this juncture for the study  of Greek philosophy clothed in the Latin language .? Cicero, who de-  voted himself with the zeal of a patriot to the creation of a philosoph-  ical literature in his native tongue, complained of the scant courtesy  paid to his efforts. Xon eram nescius. Brute, cum, quae summis in-  geniis exquisitaque doctrina philosophi Graecn sermone tractavisseni, ea  Latinis Uteris mandaremus, fore ut hie noster labor in varias reprehen-  siones incur reret. Nam qiiibusdam, et Us quidem non admodum indoctis,  totum hoc displicet, philosophari. Quidam autem non tam id reprehendunt,  si remissius agatur, sed tantum studium tamque muUam operant ponendam  in eo non arbitrabantur. Erunt etiam, et ii quidem eruditi Graecis Utter is,  contemnentes Latinas, qui se dicant in Graecis legendis operant maUe  consumer e. Postremo aliquosfuturos suspicor, qui me ad aUas Utter as vocent,   * This is the view advanced by R. T. Tyn-il of the University of Dublin. See  his LiiUn Poc'try, p. 74, (Houjrhton, Mifflin & Co., N. Y., 1895).  ^ Merivale. History of the Romans. If. p. 354.     8 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS.   genus hoc scribendi, etsi sit elegans, personae iamen et digtiiiatis esse  negent.^ Yet this work, as he explains in his De Divinatione,'^  was undertaken with the commendable purpose of benefitting  his countrymen. He anticipated with delight the advantages  which would accrue to them when his researches were com-  plete. Magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ut  Graecis de philosophia litteris no?i egeant. ^ And later he reaped his re-  ward in an awakened interest in the subjects of his studious inquiries.  But he was compelled in the beginning to cultivate a sentiment in  behalf of those investigations. Lucretius addressed himself to an un-  sympathetic public, and was likewise required to wait for applause  until a' more appreciative generation rose up to do him honor.   Yet it must not be supposed that Epicureanism exercised a feeble  influence over the thought of cultivated Romans in this period of  their history. The very theme which engaged the genius of Lucretius  had also employed the energies of predecessors and contemporaries.  Among attempts of this character were the De Rerum Natura of  Egnatius, which appeared somewhat earlier than the work of Lucretius ;  the Empedoclea of Sallustius mentioned by Cicero in the much dis-  cussed passage relating to Lucretius; and a metrical production en-  titled De Rerum Natura by Varro.* Commentaries on the principles  of Epicureanism had also been extant for some time. Chief among  the authors of such compositions was Amafinius who preceded  Lucretius by nearly a century. Our knowledge of him is mainly  derived from Cicero, who says : C Amafijiius exstitit dicens cuius libris  editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eain potissimum disciplinam}  Rabirius is also mentioned by the same author as belonging to that  class of writers, Qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vol-   * Dc Finilnts, I, i.   ^ Quaercnti mihi vmltumquc d diu cogitanti, quanotii re possem prodesse qtiam plu-  rimus, ne quando intervdtterem considere reipubiicae, nulla niaior occurrebat^ quam si  optimaruni artiwn vias traderevi vicis civibus; quod conpluribus iam libris me arbitror  conseciiturn. . . . Quod enim munus rei publicac adferrc mains nieliusve pos-  s tonus , quam si docemus at que erudimus iuveiitutem^ his praesertim in or i bus at que  iemporibus, qtdbus ita prolapsa est, etc. II, I, 2.   ^ De Divinatione, II, 2.   ^ Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 278.   ^ Acad. I, 2, 5.     INTRODUCTION. 9   gari sermone disputant.^ Rabirius indulged in a popular treatment  of philosophy and covered much the same ground as Amafinius.  Another contributor to the literature of Epicureanism whom Cicero  records in no complimentary way is Catius — Catius insuber, Epicur-  eus, quinuper est vioriuus, quae ille Gargettius et iam ante Democritus ctSuXa,  hie spectra nominat. ^   The interest in this school of philosophy among Romans of the  time of Lucretius is further apparent in the prominence which cer-  tain Epicurean teachers attained. Conspicuous among them is Zeno  the Sidonian, whose lectures Cicero in company with Atticus had at-  tended on the occasion of his first visit to Athens, 79 to 78 B.C.,  whom he calls the prince of Epicureans in his De Natura Deorum,'^  and wliose instruction is doubtless liberally embodied in Cicero's  discussions of the system of Epicureanism.* Contemporary with  Zeno was Phaedrus/ who had achieved distinction in Athens and  Rome, in both of which places Cicero studied under his direction.  Somewhat later Philodemus^ of Gadara appeared in Rome, and is  mentioned by Cicero as a learned and amiable man. The consider-  able body of writings bearing his name found in the Volumina Her-  culanensia'^ indicates his position among the philosophic instructors  of his day. Scyro * a follower of Phaedrus, said to have been the  teacher of Vergil ; Patro * the successor of Phaedrus, who taught in  Athens; and Pompilius Andronicus,^" the grammarian who gave up his  j)rofession for the tenets of Epicurus, were eminent also at this period.   Partly as a result of the activity of these teachers of philosophy, and  partly on account of the prevailing anxiety to arrive at some satis-  factory scheme of life, the number of disciples of Epicurus steadily  increased at this time, and included not a few illustrious names.   »7>/j6. Disp., IV, 6.   ■'Ad Fam.. XV, 16, 2.   ^I. 21. Cf. Diogenes Laertius. X, 25.   * Rilter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec, 447. a.  -^Ad Fam., XIII, i.   ^De Fin., II, 35, 119.   • Ritter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec, 447, a.  ^Ad. Fam., VI. ii.   ^Ad. Fam., XIII, i. Ad Attic, V, 11.   ^•^Zeller. Stoics. Fpicnreans and Sceptics, p. 414, i.     lO CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS.   These are known to us chiefly through the writings of Cicero/ who  mentions T. Albutius, Velleius, C. Cassius, the well-known conspirator  against Caesar, who may himself be classed among those who had  lost confidence in the gods/ C. Vibius Pansa, Galbus, L. Piso, the  patron of Philodemus, and L. Manlius Torquatus. Other notable  personages are apparently regarded as Epicureans by Cicero, but  grave doubts have been expressed concerning their real attitude  toward the school. It is barely possible that Atticus may justly be  denominated an Epicurean, for he calls the followers of Epicurus  nostri familiar es^ and condiscipuli.* But his eclectic spirit would  seem to forbid his classification with any single system, and Zeller^  feels that neither he nor Asclepiades of Bithynia, a contemporary of  Lucretius, who resided at Rome and was associated with Epicureans,  can be regarded as genuine disciples of Epicurus.   The discussions of the Epicurean philosophy in De Natura Deorwn,  De Finibus and other works of Cicero evince the profound interest he  had in the school, though his general attitude was one of unfriendli-  ness. What reason, then, we may ask, can be given for his almost  uninterrupted silence concerning Lucretius } The only reference we  have to the poet in all Cicero's voluminous compositions occurs in a  letter to his brother Quintus,* four months after the death of Lucretius,  in which he says, Lucretii poemata, ut scribis ita sunt: viultis lunmiibus  ingenii, viultae etiam artis; sed cum veneris virum te putabo, si Sallustii  Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo. These words certainly imply  that both Marcus and Quintus had read the poem, and many scholars  accept the statement of Jerome in his additions to the Eusebian  chronicle — quos Cicero emendavit — as applying to Marcus.' But if he  was closely enough identified with the work of Lucretius to edit his  manuscript, why in those writings wherein ample opportunity was af-  forded, did not Cicero mention his labors in the field of philosophy .?   ^ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 414, 3.  ■^Merivale, Hist. Rom., II, pp. 352, 3.  ^De Fin., V, i, 3.  ^Legg., I, 7» 21.   '^Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 415.  ^Ad Quint ton, II, II.   ^ Munro (II, pp. 2-5) who discusses this question with his usual lucidity, inclines  to the opinion that Jerome, following Suetonius, has indicated M. T. Cicero as the     INTRODUCTION. I I   This is a particularly pertinent inquiry in view of the fact that he does  speak of Amafinius, Rabirius and Catius, as we have already observed,  and that he devoted so much attention to the discussion of Epicur-  ean principles. Munro answers this question by declaring that it was  not Cicero's custom to quote from contemporaries, numerous as his  citations are from the older poets and himself; that had he written  on poetry as he did of philosophy and oratory, Lucretius would have  undoubtedly occupied a prominent place in the work, and that more  than once in his philosophical discussions Cicero unquestionably re-  fers to Lucretius.^ Munro is not alone in contending that the liter-  ary relations between Lucretius and Cicero were more or less intimate.  Other critics have traced to Cicero's Aratea important lines in  Lucretius, while many passages in Cicero closely resemble utterances  of the poet. Martha quotes several remarkable parallels between De  Finibus and various lines in Lucretius.^ But it is argued on the other  hand no less vigorously that didactic resemblances prove nothing, ex-  cept that Lucretius and Cicero wrought from like sources their several  Latinizations of Greek philosophy.   And herein there is suggested a possible explanation of Cicero's ap-  parent indifference to the poet, whether he did him the favor of edit-  ing his verse or not. Cicero had made an earnest study of Greek  philosophy long before the poem of Lucretius had been introduced  to his notice. He had resorted to original authorities for informa-  tion concerning Epicureanism. Zeno the Sidonian and Philodemus  of Gadara, as already noted, had supplied him with much material.  Everywhere in his philosophical works there is evidence that he re-  garded himself a sort of pioneer in this peculiar field of investigation.     editor of Lucretius, and that this was the real fact. Sellar, Roman Poets of the  Republic, pp. 284-6, though suspending judgment does not deny the probability  that M. T. Cicero performed this favor for Lucretius. Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit.,  I, 201, 2, while expressing doubt concerning the evidence of Cicero's connection  with the poem, declares that at any rate his " part was not very important, and it  might almost seem that he was afraid of publishing a work of this kind." Prof. E.  G. Sihler, N. Y. University, presents an argument of great force against the prob-  ability of Cicero's editorship. See Art. Lucretius and Cicero. Transactions Amer-  ican Philological Association^ Vol. XXVIII, 1897.   1 Munro, II. pp. 4, 5.   ^ M. Constant Martha, La: L^oeme de Lucrece, quoted in Lee's Lucretius, p. xiv, I.     12 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS.   and therefore deserving of the pre-eminence therein. He d()u])tlcss  placed no importance upon any Latin writings beside his own which  treated of this class of Greek culture. Indeed the references which  he has made to persons engaged in an undertaking similar to his own  are in no instance flattering. And Lucretius would only be esteemed  by him a competitor in the same department of inquiry, who wrote  in Latin verse instead of Latin prose.   Keeping these facts in mind the comparative silence of Cicero re-  garding Lucretius does not seem wholly incompatible with the theory  of his editorship. He was himself an expositor of Epicurus — and  that too of the hostile kind. He had " popularized the Epicurean  doctrines in the bad sense of the word," and had thrown "a  ludicrous color over many things which disappear when they are more  seriously regarded. " ^ Yet his opposition to the tenets of Epicurus  would not preclude him from friendly association with many who  professed them, and if asked to lend his name to the publication of  Lucretius' verses, there could be no reason for withholding it. But  if his antagonism to Epicureanism would lead him to speak against  the doctrines of the poem, his admiration for the literary excellences  of the work, as exhibited in his willingness to stand sponsor for its  issue, would deter him from adverse criticism. Silence in such a  case is the best evidence of friendship.   Mommsen ^ remarks that "Lucretius, although his poetical vigor  as well as his art was admired by his cultivated contemporaries, yet  remained — of late growth as he was — a master without scholars."  But with increasing knowledge in what is best in Epicurus and a  finer taste to appreciate the moral and literary virtues of Lucretius,  subsequent generations gave ample recognition to the poet. Horace  and Vergil were greatly influenced by him, particularly the latter, who  is supposed to refer to Lucretius in the famous lines :   Felix qui potuii rerum cognoscere causas\  Atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum.  Subiecit pedihus strepitumque Achernntis avari.'^     1 Lanjje, History of Materialism. I. p. 127 (Eng. Tr.).  =* Hist. Rome, IV, p. 699.  ^ Georgica, II. 490 2.     INTRODUCTION. I 3   Ovid pronounced words of high eulogy upon him :   Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucre tt  Exitio terras cum dabit una dies. ^  The persistency of the Epicurean school of philosophy despite perse-  cution and opposition down to the fourth century A. D. demon-  strates its marvelous vitality and the almost deathless influence of  the personality of Epicurus, whose single mind projected its grasp  upon human thought throughout the whole existence of the sect.  And not the least important agent in affecting this result, because of  his almost idolatrous devotion to his master and the persuasive charm  of his lines, was the poet Lucretius.