Betensky Lucretius and Love Classical World

8/9/2019 Betensky Lucretius and Love Classical World

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/betensky-lucretius-and-love-classical-world 1/10



LUCRETIUS

AND

LOVE

Fewreaders

till elieve

he

myth

hat

ucretius ent

mad nddied

f

love.'

But he

mage

f love-crazed

oet

haranguinggainstovehas n-

fluenced any eaders'

mpressions

f the nd of De Rerum

Natura

,

despite

he

distinction

owobserved etween

ersona

nd

personality,2

and

despite

ur

knowledge

hatwhetherr not

Lucretius escribed is

own

xperiences,

edrew n traditionalources hich e

can

pinpoint.3

The

end

fDe Rerum

atura is most ften till ead

n

ccordance

ith

the

tereotype

f

Lucretiuss an anti-love

oet,4

hen

n

facthe

ap-

proves f ove.The ntentf

this aper sto demonstrate

hat ucretius

acknowledges

wo

facets f

ove,

ach

centeredn the

figure

f

Venus,

with omplexonnectionso each other.One facetmaybe termedhe

happy deal,

he ther hebleakreality;nd

the

poetwears t one time

the ersona

f

dealistnd

t

anotherhe ersona f

realistndeven es-

simist,lways ware

fthe apbetweenhe

wo nd ryingo find reso-

lution.

Let us beginwith

ucretius' enus n De Rerum

atura . He intro-

duces

her s

physiologicallys

possible,

moving rom discussion

f

1

St.

Jerome

eportedhat

ucretius entmad nd

killed imself

nder he

nfluencef

a love

potion.

he

question

f

the

oet's

ersonality

as

njected

tselfnto

nalysis

f

his

poem ver ince. speciallynfluentialavebeenM. Patin'snotionf I'antilucrecehez

Lucrece, nEtudes ur

a

poesie atine

Paris

1883)

nd

Otto

Regenbogen,

Lukrez:

eine

Gestalt n seinem

Gedicht,

Neue

Wege

zur

Antike

2

(1932), repr.

n

Kleine

Schriften

(Mtlnchen

961)

296-386,

ollowed

y

Marc

Rozelaar,

ukrez,

Versuch

iner

eutung

(Amsterdam

943).

ome

recent

riterstill

ubscribeo this

myth,

mong

hem

. P.

Wisemann his

fascinatingry t

biography,The

Two Worlds

f Titus

Lucretius,

n

Cinna

the

Poet and Other

Roman

Essays Leicester

974)11-43.

But

more

ften

ritics

owreject he

myth. .

Ziegler,

Der Tod des

Lucretius,

Hermes 1

1936)

21-40,

hows

ts

uspectharacter.. P.

Wilkinson,Lucretiusndthe

Love-Philtre,

R

63

1949)

7-48,makes

good

ase

hat erome

rhis

ource

uetonius

misread

Lucretius

or

ucullus, hodid

dieof a love

potion,

ccordingo

Nepos

nd

Pliny.

. E.

W.

Wormell,

Lucretius:

he

Personalityfthe

oet, G&R

7

(1960)

4-65,

rejectshe

vidence

or

nsanity.

. E.

Kinsey,The

Melancholy

f

Lucretius,

rion

(1964)115-30,ndEdwardM. Bradley,Lucretiusndthe rrational, J67 1972) 17-

22,

rgue

hat

melancholy,

pessimism,

nd

irrationality

re matter

f he

oem's

intentional

hetoric

ather

han f

personality.

n

the

ntroductionohis

ecent

ranslation,

Lucretius:

On the

Natureof

Things New York

1974), Palmer

Bovie does

not even

mention

the

myth.

2

See

Archibald

llen,

'Sincerity'

nd he

Roman

legists, P45

(1950) 45-60.

3

See

Godo

Lieberg,

uella

Divina

Amsterdam

962)

284-300,nd

E. J.

Kenney,

Doctus

Lucretius,

nem.

3 1970)

66-92.

4

For

various iews f

Book

4

as

someform

f

attack n

love,

ee:John .

Stearns,

Epicurusnd

Lucretiusn

Love, CJ31

1936) 43-51

the

iolencef

Lucretius'

attack

on ove s

quite

n-Epicurean,.

349);

he

ommentariesf

Leonard

nd

Smith

Madi-

son

1942) nd

Cyril

aileyOxford

947);

H.

St.H.

Vertue,

Venus

nd

Lucretius,

&R

3

(1956)140-52

Between

heVenus

f

Book and

the

Venus fBook

v

theres a

com-

plete iscrepancy, . 150);W. S. Anderson,DiscontinuitynLucretianymbolism,

TAPA

91

1960)1-29

as the

oem

rogressesenus

swell

s

other

ymbols

eteriorates

and becomes

ostile o

mankind);

enney,bove,

note3;

andmost

ecently

aneM.

Snyder,

Lucretius

nd

he

tatus f

Women,

B

53

1976)

7-19.

291

This content downloaded from 129.67.63.107 on Sun, 25 May 2014 18:36:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





292

AYA BETENSKY

dreams

o

wet reamsnd

then othemechanicsfejaculation, hich e

showsmockinglyobethebody's nactmentf the omanticxpression

''woundof ove : semens equatedwith lood purting

utofa wound

(4. 1049-1056).' he

physiologicalection nds with he ine namque

voluptatemraesagitmuta upido for n unspoken

esire oretellshe

pleasure o come, 4.

1057).And new aragraphn the sychologyf

love s inked

o

the

revious aragraph ith heseines:

Haec Venus st

nobis;hinc utemst omen

moris,

hinc llaec rimum eneris ulcedinisncor

stillavitutta t uccessit

rigida

ura.

4. 1058-1060)

Asis typicalfLucretius'ogic, hisntroductiono his hemesalsothe

conclusiono

be

proven.

t

is

a

punning

eductionf the

mythology

f

Venus o physiology.t s also an emphatictatement:his s

ourVenus,

this

s how

we

Romans

now

her,

nd this s

how

he functions

or

s,

devoid

f

personality

r

divinity,ausing nly

waste nd

destruction.

These ines efer

oignantly

o

a

choral de on love

n

Euripides' ip-

polytUs.6

And

the ragedyf

overemains

n

the

escription

hat

ollows,

but

t

s

based

ntirelyn

humanack

f

elf-control.henVenus

s

per-

sonified ere he s

not

goddess

ut

whore

r

a

mere

bject

f sexual

desire

volgivaga Venere,

071;

Veneres

ostras,1185).

Otherwise

he

s

equivalent

o

voluptas,

which s reduced

o

meaning

ex

tself,'

s

not

al-

ways leasurable,ndhas ittleodo with picureandeals.

Using

he

ragicerminology

hat erives rom reek

yric

ndHellen-

istic oetry,

ucretius rites

ffuror 1069, 1117),

olor

1067),

rdor

(1077),

miser

1076,

1096),

anus/insanus

1075),

ulcus

1068),

vulnus

(1070), epos 1133), nd deliciae

1156).

He

is

trying

o heal

hemind's

wounds1048), ut

he

applies his erminologyhysicallys

he describes

writhingouples

who

bite

nd

hurt ach

other

n

their

renzied

fforts

t

total

possession1079-1083, 101-1104).

he Lucretian

over,

bsorbed

in

perfumesnd flowers,

isregardsfficia

nd

ama 1124)

nd tries o

ignore

he

knowledge

hat

his fountain

f

pleasures

s bitter

1133).

Lucretiusims omeof hismost arcasticines t theblindnesshat l-

lows

the over o

idealize

his

mperfect

istress

yconcealing

he

ugly

physical eality

nder

uphemisticet

names

1153-1170).8

e

is in-

terested

nly

n

hitting

hemost bvious

argets

ere.

This

paragraph

limaxes

with

n

imaginary

vocation

f

the mells

whichwouldmake he hut-out

over lee

gain

f

he

were ver dmitted

to his mistress' oor.9

But

Lucretius emoves

he

ting

nd

closes

he

paragraph

o

gently

hat he hift

may

be overlooked.

nce the over

realizes

he

ruth,

hat

o mortal oman

an

have uch

ivine ttributes

s For

a

good discussion

ee

Kenney note

3) p. 381.

6

Alleditors ote his eference, hichKenney iscussesnote 3) pp. 384-85.

7

1057,

1075, 1085,

1114, 1201, 1208,

1263.

8

See

Lieberg note 3) pp.

284-300 for a thorough nalysis

of

Lucretius'

Hellenistic

sources.

9

For possibleLucretian

nfluence,ee Juvenal ,

Pope's Rape of the Lock, and

the

close-up f theBrobdingnagian

omen nSwift'sGulliver's

Travels.







LUCRETIUS

ND

LOVE

293

(1184),

he

may

be

ready

to

forgive

er

defects,

i

bello

nimost

t

non

odiosa

1190), if she has a fairmind nd isnothateful. The important

thing s to shake

offone's

own

blindness

cupidine

aeci,

1153),

discover

the

truth bout

thewoman,

and

bring

t

out

into the

open (omnia

.

.

protraheren

lucem,

1188-1189).

n the ight f

reason,

an

image

which

Lucretius

has

used

repeatedly

or the

revelation

f

Epicurean

philos-

ophy,'0

he over

can

become a

proper

Epicurean

nd

make the

best

of

reality.

After such

conciliatory

ines Lucretius

rapidlychanges

his

tone.

Throughout

his ectionhe

has included

womenwith

men n his

demon-

stration f ove's

folly:

hey oo

want

o possesstheir

artner ut

cannot.

Untilnow, however,he has sympathizedwithmen and made womenseemthe

deceitful nes, the

nstigatorsf

ealousy

and

causes ofbitter-

ness, as ifthey

had

actively

bettedmen's

delusions bout

themselves.

Now

that he has

admitted hat

defects

maybe

overlooked,he

moves

away

from

atire

to a

more

fair-minded

nd

Epicurean

approach.

He

says that women

mayfeel

ove

genuinely nec

ficto more) nd

desire

mutualpleasure

1192-1196). 1

hen

he corroborates is

statement

yde-

scribing

he

behavior

fanimalsof

both exes

1197-1208).

He

concludes

that

ll

living reatures

earchfor

shared

pleasure,

ommuni'

voluptas

(1208).

The

comparison

o

animals

may

ound

ike

traditional

misogyny.

On

the

contrary,

ere

it is based

on

one

of Epicureanism's

most en-

lightened octrines, hatpeople and animalsfunction ccording o the

same

processesof

nature.

Lucretius llustrateshis

doctrine

hroughout

the

poemwith

xamplesfrom

reaming,

he

exercise f

will,

nd

expres-

sions of

emotion,

s well as

biological

functions.'2 he

paragraph s a

positive

cknowledgementhat

uch a

doctrinepplies to

oveas well.

In

the ourse

of the ection

n love,

Lucretius

uggests wo

alternatives

for the

Roman

male as

an

escape from

destructiveove

affairs.

Both

require n end

to

self-delusion.

or theshort

un, n the

earlierpassage

he

advises

going

to a

prostitute

1070-1072);' forthe

ongrun,

ateron

he advises

settling

nto a

relationship

escribed n the

anguage of

both

10

The

light

f

reason: 1.

146-148,

115-1117; .

55-61;

3.

87-93;

5.

1454-1457;

.

35-41,

and

other

assages.

I

Bailey

ntroduces

his

ection

with

he

comment,

The

woman's

ove is

often

s

gen-

uine

as

the

man's

(p.

1312).

Lucretius

oes

not

make

the

comparison;

Bailey

s

assuming

that

he

man's

love s

tself

lways

genuine.

12

For

discussions

f

Lucretius'

use of

animals

ee

Anne

Amory,

Obscura

de re

ucida

carmina:

cience

nd

Poetry n

DeRerum

Natura,

YCS21

(1969)

145-68,

sp.

pp.

161-64;

Richard

Minadeo,

The

Lyre

of

Science: Form

nd

Meaning

n

Lucrelius'

De

Rerum

Natura

(Detroit

1969)

on

the

natural

ycle ;

CharlesF.

Saylor,

Man,

Animal,

nd

the

Bestial n

Lucretius,

CJ

67

(1972)

306-16;

Aya

Betensky,

A

Lucretian

Version

of

Pastoral,

Ramus

5

(1976)

45-58;

and

Urs

Dierauer,

Tier

und

Mensch

m

Denken der

A

ntike.

tudien

zur

Tierpsychologie,

nthropologie

nd

Ethik

Amsterdam

977),

pp.

194-98,

75-77;

nd

see

p.

298

below.

Amory nd

Sayloreach notein passing thatLucretius s notso vehe-mentlygainst ove but is more

positive

han

commentators

cknowledge

p.

162, n.

31,

and

p.

308,

n.

12,

respectively).

erhapsthe

nimal

comparisons

hat

re their

ubject

pro-

vide

better

erspective

or

valuating

ucretius'

ttitudes

o

human

beings.

13

This

was

also

the

elder

Cato's

advice,

according o

Porphyry

n

Horace

Serm. 1.

2.

31.







294

AYA BETENSKY

friendship

nd marriage.

e devotesbout

one-thirdfthe ntireove

section1209-1287)o advice boutgeneticsnd fertilityn marriage,

natural

xtension

f the cientificoneof the nimal omparison.

he

main oint

s that

nfertilitys not punishment

rom he odsbut sign

of

the ncompatibilityfgenetic

eeds,

which reproduced,uite emo-

cratically,yboth artners.

ailey

emarks ith urprise

hat ucretius

soundsmore ike good

Roman

aterfamiliasere han

nywherelse n

the poem,

s he talks bout

what s proper or our

wives, nostris

coniugibus

1277).Lucretiuslso

sounds ike good

Aristotelian.

n-

deed,here

ecombinescience,

picureanism,

ndRoman radition.'4

At

the nd

of Book 4 Lucretiusepeats

is

convictionhat ove

does

not omefrom upid's rrow ndcharacterizest nsteads consuetudo,

a gradual, onscious,

ndrealistic rocess

f learningo livewith n-

other

erson

1278-1287).

he

term s

synonymous

ith oncubitusr

matrimonium,

n

addition o

meaning intrigue r

affair

(in

Terence ndLivy).

t

is also

the

Epicurean

erm

or

riendship.

he of-

ficial ndritual spects

f marriagere clearly

ubordinated

ere o ts

personalspects.

picurean heory

eems o have been

mbivalentn

this ubject. exual ctivity

as ometimes

onsideredgood

release nd

sometimes

angerous.

picurus

asopposed

o

marriage

ecause f

ts

inconvenience,ut

espectednd

helped

is

friends'hildren.'

ucretius

himself

akes he

evelopmentf familyies

mportant

n

ofteningnd

civilizing ankind5. 1011-1027),nd hespeaks ympatheticallyfthe

attachment

etweenhildrennd

parents3.

894-896).I6

oman radition

naturallyncouraged

arriage

ecause

f the

need o maintain

amily

name, power

and wealth mong

the

upper

classes,

as well

as

the state's

need for rmies nd rulers. ucretius

as combined

ome of bothworlds,

perhaps

adding

his own

interpretation

f

Epicurean

doctrine.He

de-

scribesmarriage

n terms

of friendship,

he

highest

Epicurean

ideal,

whileyet

etaininghe

cceptableRoman context.

Such

a

conclusionfollows

ogically

rom ucretius'

arlier

tatements

about

overlooking efects,

nd

he thusconnects

ove

to the

gradual nd

purposeful

ttainment

f the

Epicurean

ife.

Marriage

s described n

such a lowkey, fter hesharpbrilliancend offensivenessf the ttack

against

passion,

that

readers

may

not realizeLucretius

s

offering

real

solution.

e has

carefullyhaped

is

onclusion

o

answer is

ntroduc-

tion f

ove:extreme

uman motions

re calmed

s the

magery

f the

sweet rop of

Venus,

which

oon

turns

hilling1059-1060),

s

trans-

formed

nto

he

lower,

more eutral

nd

more

atural

rocess

f

water

dripping

nto

stone.'7

14

Bailey's comment, . 1316. Lucretius

s

reflecting

he

nterest ristotle howed

n

de

Generatione nimalium,

istoriaA nimalium, nd de Partibus

A nimalium.

15

For

Epicurus n sexual

activity,ee Bailey's references,. 1303. On marriage,

ee DL

10.119,19-21;Usener 4; J.M. Rist,Epicurus, n IntroductionCambridge 972),pp. 134

and 138 the

atter

comparison f

Epicut

an

attitudes oward

marriage

nd

friendship).

16

His

sympathyan be realeven though t s true hat he

passage tself s satirical. ny-

der

considers

t

atirical

nd

insincere

note4) pp.

18-19.

17

Compare

the

earlier

xample

of

water

dripping

n stone

nd

wearing

t

away 1.

313)

and

of

waves

wearing way

rocks

1. 326-327).







LUCRETIUSND OVE

295

But

why hesharpness f this ttack

on

passion?

s it

really

motivated

ornecessary? he vehemencemany eadershaveperceivedn t has ledto

the

theory,

ased

on

themyth

f the

ove-potion,

hatLucretius s

speak-

ing bitterly r

in

madness

of his own

experiences

nd that

he hated

women.This s too

simplistic

view;

t does

not eventake accountof his

occasional fairness o

women,

or

of

the

conspicuously

Roman tone

of

the

genetics assage.

It makes more sense

to

see,

first f

all,

the

traditions

f diatribe nd

satire t work

here, pointing

o

the evils of a sick

society.'8

ucretius'

insistence

n the evils of

passion

is neither arsher

nor

more

sardonic

than

his

insistence

n

other

ections

f the

poem

on the

corruptions

f

greed, mbition, uperstition,r the fear of death. Whenhe discounts

theterror f

myths

bout

sinners

n

Hades,

he

gives qual

weight

o

Tan-

talus, who fears

the

gods; Tityos,

who is

consumed

by love; Sisyphus,

who

hungers orpower;

nd

the

Danaids,

who waste ife n

greed 3.

978-

1010). Each is an

example

of

a universal

ice,

as

contemporary

s

it is

mythological.

All of

these

are

evils

because theyrob

the

individual f

self-controlnd make

his

ife nd others'

unstable nd

wretched.

What s

particularly angerous

bout

losing

self-controls

that, first,

ne sur-

renders

reewill,

nd is

therefore

s

much slave to

passionas he

might

have been to fate and the

gods; and,

second,

that

n

one's

appetite

for

love,which annot

be satiated ike

hunger

nd

thirst,'9

ne

violatesnat-

ural boundaries ixed orhumanbehavior n the nalogyofthephysical

boundaries and rules fixed for

the

operation

of

the

universe

finita

potestas

tque

lte

erminus

aerens,

.

76-77;

.

89-90).'0

uch

xamples

of

human

vice

were raditional efore

ucretius

nd

remained o for

en-

turies.

The

contrast

hat

needed to be

made between ice and

virtue

e-

manded great

eal of

rhetorical

xaggeration.

Anotherreason for

the

seemingharshness f

Lucretius'criticism

f

love sthe hange n

attitudes

incehis time.We are now

readier oattack

contemporary

orms

f othervices

together

ith

he

atirist:

estructive

quests

for

progress, iolence,political

orruption,

orporate reed.But

we do not consider ove or even ust vice.The concept f romanticove

has

risen n

value,

thanks n

part o

theRoman ove

poets, Virgil's

Dido,

and

courtly

ove. So

has

the

concept

of female

quality. These we

are

ready

to

defend.

Lucretius annot be

made over to

satisfy ur require-

ments, utwe

should ry o

understand im

on his ownterms.

Yet another

actor

n

Lucretius' reatment

f ove sconcerned n a

dif-

ferent

way

with he

conceptofromantic

ove. WhatLucretius s

attack-

ing s a romantic

nd obsessive

ttitude o love which

mayhaveexisted n

life, hen

nd now,and which

we certainly

ind eflectednd

amplifiedn

literature.

n

a sensethemodels

of fictionre always

morepowerful

han

18

See B. P. Wallach's ucretiusndtheDiatribegainsthe earofDeath,De Rerum

Natura

.

830-1094,

nem.,

uppl. 0

1976).

19

Lucretiusses n

unnamed

antalus

ype n 4.

1097-1104

s

an

example f

nsatia-

bility.

20

1430-1433s

one

of

many

assages

n

Book5

where

ucretius

riticizes

uman

is-

regard

f

hese

oundaries.







296

AYA

BETENSKY

life, o thatLucretiuswas right oconsider hem specialdanger;Plato

would

have

agreed

withhim.

Literary

models of

obsessive ove

have

ranged

rom

haedra to

Proust's

Swann. A

particular

modelthat

maybe

usefulhere s the

poet-lover

n

Catullus' love

poems.

Since

Catulluswas

contemporary

ith

Lucretius,

t

is

reasonable

to

assume that

he

repre-

sents

attitudeswith

which

Lucretius

was

familiar.

Lucretius'

atire

on

love gains

evenmore

point

f t

s

read as a

commentaryn

thewayof

ife

of

the

Catullan over.

Some

critics

ave

claimed hat

Lucretiuss

criticiz-

ing

Catullus' own words

and the

way

of

life

of

his

circleof

friends;

we

may at least

take the

Catullan over

s

an

example

of the

type

Lucretius

has in

mind,

type hat

xisted n Latin

iterature,

speciallyn

the ub-

category xclusus mator,as early s Plautus and Terence.2'This type

exemplifies

rival kind

of withdrawal

rom

veryday

Roman

life

and

perhaps even

an

insidious

popularized

form of

Epicureanism

which

Lucretius

maywell

have

beenanxious

to

combat.

Both

poets

use

the

conventional

anguage

of

disease

and

insanity

or

love's

obsessiveness.

ucretius'

description f the

over's

lassitude nd

contempt

or

the forum

may

remind s

of Catullus'

use

of

otium

c.

10,

50

and

51). Catullus

describes

erceptively

he

awakening f the

over's

doubts and his

realizationnot

only

of his

mistress'

nworthiness,

ut

of

his own

blindness

n

imagining

n

impossible deal

for

her.

The

resulting

disillusionmentreates sharp polarizationfor theCatullan loverbe-

tween he

deal, goddess-like eroin-Lesbia and

the whore

Lesbia,

the

same

polarization

we find

for

Venus

n

De Rerum

Natura

4.

When the

Catullan over riticizes

esbia,

he

s

more

avageby

far han

s

Lucretius

whenhe

criticizeshose

nicknamed

mistresses.22

21

On

the

exclusus

mator, ee F. 0.

Copley, ExclususAtmator. Sludy n Latin Love

Poetry Baltimore1956). Was Catullus a source forLucretius, r did they efer ack and

forth

o

each other?

Elaborate theoriesnvolving

heir

eath dates have been created, nd

verbal nd dramatic oincidences ited, ncluding se of Cybele nd relationship o Gaius

Memmius.See TenneyFrank'srather

nconvincing The Mutual Borrowings nd What

They mply, CP28(1933)249-56;

L.

Ferrero, oeticanuovain Lucrezio Florence1949);

Leon Herrmann's lso unconvincing Catulle et Lucr&e, Latomus 15 (1956) 465-80

(Lucretius commentingn Catullus) and his

later Lucrece et les amours de Catulle,

Studi Castiglioni Florence 1960) 445-50

(Lucretius

and

Catullus borrowed from ach

other).

Wormell

note 1)

is

certain

hatLucretius riticized

atullus

ndhiscirclefor heir

poetry

nd

way

of

life;

Lieberg

note 3)

finds ommon

themes;

C.

W.

Mendell,

Latin

Poetry:

The New Poets and

the

A

ugustans West Haven 1965), pp.

14-27

onsiders ucre-

tius new poet ;

and

Kenney note 3) thinks

ucretiusmay

have readCatullus.

22

We might ompare Catullus' question to Lesbia, cui labella

mordebis?

8. 18) with

Lucretius'bitingovers 1079-1083,1101-1104).

n

Catullusc. 5

the

phrase

onturbabimus

illa (I1) challengesLesbia to confuse he

number f kisses

o

jealous old men

will

not be

able

to

cast spells;

Lucretius dvises he

over, onturbes

ulnera

1070),

confuse

new

pas-

sion by assaulting

t withnew wounds

fromprostitutes. aileynotes

this

atter

orre-

spondence

without iscussion

d

loc. Two of Catullus'

idealizing oems might

ave

been

Lucretius' exts or he over's blindness: . 86 formulatesesbia's beautybycontrastwith

Quintia's, and

c.

43 proclaims hatAmeaena

s

no

matchfor

Lesbia. Lucretius'reductive

translation

f the

pet

name

chariton

mia,

totamerum al

(1162)

as

squat

and dwarfish

seems

to mock

and

further

xaggerate

hese favorite

ontemporary

nd

Catuilan

expres-

sions. Tota merum

al

might e an absurd

onflation

f

sal

and

meros mores

13. 5

and

9).

Catullus also uses sal

for

wit

n

12

.4 and 16 .7.

(Afranius rg.

0

is an earlier nstance f







LUCRETIUS

ND

OVE

297

ButCatulluslso tries or compromiseetweenis mpossibledeal

and

his

pessimistic

iewof love's

reality.

ike

Lucretius',

is

com-

promise lso involves

marriage,

ut

as

one

might xpect

t

is

a

more

romanticersion

f

marriage

nwhich ecombines

ersonal

nd

mytho-

logical

lements ith

still-recognizable

oman radition

c. 61, 62,

and

68).

In68 he dmitsnd

s

willing

o

accept

he

nconsistency

etween

is

hopes or esbia's

fidelity

ndher emonstrated

nfidelity,

etween

deal

and

reality,

hus,

s

it

were,

omantically

ollowing

ucretius'

dvice.

Lucretius'ttack n romanticove

does

notmean

hat

he

s never

o-

mantic

imself.

uthis

romantic iew s

turned

ot

toward

uman o-

mance ut

oward he

arger

nd ess

personalromance f

thenatural

ideal.Lovefinds placehere, oo. So farwe have eenhim ounseling

realism

hich

s

partly

oman nd

partlypicurean. ut

heres

more

o

be

said

of

his

portrait

f

Venus.

he

s

not

merely

ex,

nd

this s

not

her

only

ppearance

n

the

poem.When

he

ppears

t

the

poem's

pening,

she

s

entirely

ifferentrom

he

Venus fBook

4. Inthe

Proem o

Book

I

she

symbolizes

reation,

pringtime,

picurean

pleasure,

Mother

Earth,

nd

Nature

erself

these

wowill

ater ssume

er

ole),

nd

sug-

gests

s well the

charming

nd

seductive

phrodite

f the

Homeric

hymns.he

singingines,

with

heir

postrophesnd

direct

ddress,

x-

press he

oy ofall

living

eings t

the

vibrancy

f

her

rrival.

At

the

same ime he salsoa Roman oddess,hemotherf Aeneas ndcon-

sortof

Mars.

She alone

can insure

ertility

nd

peace,and

therefore

Lucretius

egins is

poem

with

hymn

raising er nd

requestinger

help.

t s an

idyllic

icture f

Epicurean

leasure

nd

tranquility

hich

Lucretius

ssociates

n

thenatural

evelwith

heproper

rocreationf

each

pecies,

nd

on

the

human

evelwith

eacefor

heRomans.

But

n

Book4

nothingf

this ortrait

emains.

enus'

quieting

m-

brace

f

Mars,

who

s

wounded

o

beneficently

y

ove, s

replaced y he

unquiet

mbraces

f

menand

women

wounded

isastrously

y love.

Whydoes

Lucretius

olarizeVenus

o? Why

s she

made o

idyllicn

Book

1

and so

bleak n

Book

4? Simply

ut,one

portraitf

her

rep-

resentsn deal,while he therepresentseality.

The

Venus f

Proem

representsn

deal

natural orld

ntowhich

he

Epicurean as the

power

owithdraw

wayfrom

eality.t

existsnthis

form

nly

ymbolically;

ucretius

ould

be thefirst

oadmit

hat ll is

atoms

nd

void,

nd

thatVenus

oes not

ctually

ppear

t

springtime;

but

her

presence

nites

aturend

humanity

nthe

ifegivingatural

cycle f

things.23he

Venus fBook

4

representshe

bleak

eality hich

the

picurean

deal

ttemptso

supplant.

merum

al, citedby

Bailey.)

Lucretius riticizes

he

deal of

venustas Cat.

3 .2

and 36 .17

for

venustus)

nd

perhaps .

86

itselfwhen

he

urges

he

over

o

reject woman

even f he

has the

powerof

Venus

herself; errero

note

21),

Lieberg note 3) and

Kenneynote 3)compare . 1171-1172 ndCat. 86. 5-6.

23

Despite

the

echnical

on-involvementf

the

gods,she

representseal

forces: n 1.

44-

49

see Paul

Friedlander,

The

Epicurean

Theology

n Lucretius'

First

Prooemium I. 44-

49),

TAPA 70

1959) 368-79.







298 AYA BETENSKY

The naturalworld s an ever-present

xample f this deal; for nimals

it exists utomatically, s it once did for primitivemankind. n it all is

physical rocess.

There

re

no ethical

problems,

or

nimalsdo not need

to make decisions bout theproper

way

to

live; nstead,nature rovides

for them

5. 218-234).

Hence the animals follow Venus instinctivelyn

Proem 1.

But

human beingshave

more troublewithVenus, as

we

have

seen.

In

thehuman

realm he

Epicurean

deal shardtoachieve,forreal-

ity

s

full

f

greed, ust, mbition, nd

destruction. he reason s not that

humans are more complex than animals. Lucretius nsists hat animals

have the ame feelings s people and

that ack of speech s a trivial iffer-

ence 5. 1056-1061).

The

real

reason

s

people's lack

of

rationality

n

the

use of their ntelligencend lack of respect for natural boundaries.

Lucretiushas to show in concrete erms hat rrationality

s

making he

good

life

mpossible

for his

contemporaries.ndeed,

he has to describe

reality n heightened olors in orderto set his ideal against t. Whatto

escapefrom

s as

important

s what

o

escape to,

and

positive

deals are

always esscolorful

o

describe

han the

terrible eality.

ut at

the

same

time

he

has

to

teachthe

readerhow to

cope

with

eality

efore

t

destroys

thepossibility f an ideal. So

the

poem

has a double structure,picurean

and

Roman,

deal

and reality.

One of Lucretius'methods f teaching

he

reader

o

manage reality

s

to

start

imply,

hento move

slowly

owardgreater omplexity.24

rom

single toms he proceeds otheir ombinationsndmotion, rom hysics

to

physiology, umanbehavior, nd

psychology.

uman fears

f

death

are oftenmentioned ut are treated

ully nly

t

the nd of Book

3,

after

the

physics

f the

soul's

dissolution

ave been

explained

t

length.

Nat-

ural destruction

s saved

for

the

plague

at the end of Book

6,

after

he

painstakingly

ationalisticccounts

f natural

henomena,

lthough

ef-

erences

o

it

occur

throughout.

n

the ame

way,

Venus n Proem

com-

bines the Roman

and

Epicureanism

n

an

ideal but

disembodied

way.

Only

whenthe

readerhas

progressed

ufficiently

n

the

poem

s

he

ready

to

face the

Roman

reality

f

Venus,

and

finally

o

accept

some sort

of

reconciliation etween er wo spects.

In

his idealizations,Lucretius ombines

traditionalRoman ideals of

simplicity, rugality,nd uprightness ithEpicureanethics.The picnic

scene

of

2. 29-33

s

a

good example f

self-sufficiencynd communityn

a natural

etting, inging ostalgic

choes

of

the

Sabines'

outdoor

ife

s

well as

of

theGarden.

That

is why

Lucretius an sound at the ame time

both Roman and

un-Roman.

But

those

Roman deals

can

carry

im

only

part

of

the

way,

for

his own ideals are

so

radical that

their

ealization

goes beyond

raditionalism

nd

verges

n

iconoclasm.He

wants o

main-

tain

the Roman

moral foundation

o

beloved

n

legends

f

earlyRome,

but

he

must

destroy

he

corrupt uperstructure,

hichno

longer

bears

muchresemblance o thefoundation. or himpoliticians re no longer

statesmen,

nd

war

s

no

longer

matter f

self-defense

r

patriotism

ut

rather f

self-aggrandizement.

hat

he s

trying

o create

n

his

poem

s a

24

See

Leo Strauss,

Notes on Lucretius, n

LiberalismAncient nd Modern (New

York 1969)76-87. His terms

re to movefrom he sweet

to the bitter.





Betensky Lucretius and Love Classical World

Documents

Transcript of Betensky Lucretius and Love Classical World