Science and Poetry in Imperial Rome: Manilius, Lucan, and the Aetna Patrick Glauthier Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2011 © 2011 Patrick Glauthier All rights reserved ABSTRACT Science and Poetry in Imperial Rome: Manilius, Lucan, and the Aetna Patrick Glauthier This dissertation examines the relationship between scientific inquiry and hexameter poetry at Rome in the first century CE. It focuses on three poetic texts: Manilius’ Astronomica, Lucan’s Civil War, and the anonymous Aetna. It argues that despite generic and thematic differences, these works participate in a common dialogue and therefore can benefit from being read side by side. In particular, the dissertation demonstrates that all three authors reflect on the ability of poetry to communicate scientific knowledge, and that they simultaneously question or undermine the practical value of that knowledge. As a result, it allows us to see that scientific inquiry itself constitutes a dynamic and multifaceted area of creative literary activity in Early Imperial Rome. Table of Contents Acknowledgements iii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Structure and Contents 4 1.2 The Argument and its Context 8 2. Manilius and the Mathematics of the mundus 22 2.1 Mathematics and the Greco-Roman Literary Tradition 26 2.2 Complexity, Order, and Mathematical Knowledge 43 2.3 Addition, Enumeration, and the Supremacy of Mathematical Astrology 67 3. Science and Poetry in the Aetna 87 3.1 The Rejection of the Literary Tradition 89 3.2 Scientific Inquiry and the Marvelous Mountain 100 3.3 Reinventing the Aetna Topos 116 4. Lucan and the Limits of Didactic Poetry 133 4.1 The Reliability and Relevance of the Didactic Tradition 135 4.2 Cato and the Libyan Snakes 153 4.3 Acoreus and the Nile 178 i Conclusion 204 Bibliography 213 ii Acknowledgements While writing this dissertation I received assistance from a variety of individuals, and it is a great pleasure to thank them here. I owe an incalculable debt to the members of my committee. Professor Gareth Williams supervised the entire project; he helped me formulate and clarify my arguments at every stage, read numerous drafts, and offered invaluable criticisms and suggestions. Professor Katharina Volk was equally helpful and supportive from beginning to end; her feedback and insights improved virtually every aspect of the final product. Professor J.E.G. Zetzel commented on multiple drafts and provided stimulating input at various stages. Professors James Ker and Kristina Milnor graciously agreed to participate in the defense and read through the entire manuscript with diligence and care; their questions and comments encouraged me to look at familiar material in a different light. A dissertation completion fellowship from the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation provided a break from teaching duties and generous financial support. Jennifer Wasson heroically read and corrected drafts of several chapters, and Lisa Mignone gave encouragement and advice in difficult times (and shares my passion for all things volcanic). I owe a special debt of gratitude to my parents; they have always supported me, no matter what, and without them I would not be who I am today. And last but not least, I would like to express my deep and heartfelt thanks to Bridget, whose love, energy, and enthusiasm kept me sane and made it possible to finish. iii 1 Chapter 1: Introduction This dissertation examines the relationship between scientific inquiry and hexameter poetry at Rome in the first century CE. It concentrates on three poetic texts: Manilius’ Astronomica, the anonymous Aetna, and Lucan’s Civil War. It is my contention that despite generic and thematic differences, these works participate in a common intellectual dialogue and therefore can benefit from being read side by side. In this introduction, I will outline the arguments of the following chapters and then examine two basic problems with which all of these texts are concerned. As we will see, all three authors reflect on the suitability of poetry as a medium for communicating scientific knowledge and simultaneously call into question the value and practical benefits of that knowledge. Instead of considering the texts in chronological order, we will follow a narrative of increasing skepticism and trace the various ways in which these authors undermine the traditional motivations for, and even the very desirability of, explaining the natural world from a scientific perspective. At the same time, this project attempts to contribute to a growing interest in several areas of classical scholarship that have traditionally tended to receive less prominent critical consideration. Although Lucan’s poem has been the subject of a great deal of recent criticism, and a revaluation of so-called Silver Latin Poetry has been under way for some time, modern scholarship has paid comparatively little attention to the Astronomica and the Aetna, and no previous study has brought all three texts together. Similarly, despite widespread scholarly interest in Greco-Roman didactic poetry, discussions of Latin didactic tend to focus on Lucretius, Virgil, and Ovid. The permutations and reformulations to which post-Ovidian authors, such as Manilius and the Aetna poet, subject the genre have not received sufficient analysis, and Lucan’s 2 engagement with the tradition has gone virtually unnoticed.1 There is also a need for further examination of both Latin scientific writing and the treatment of scientific themes in verse. Historians of science routinely privilege Greek authors over their Roman counterparts and prose authors over their poetic rivals.2 This may seem natural enough. We possess a vast quantity of Greek scientific prose texts, the few poetic compositions that remain are generally considered to constitute mere verse adaptations of earlier prose treatises, and Rome rarely produced the kinds of highly original thinkers whom later scientists and historians of science turned into their own intellectual heroes and forebears. To put the matter simply, there appears to be no Roman Euclid, no Roman Ptolemy, no Roman Galen. Within a Roman context, Lucretius, Vitruvius, Seneca, and Pliny constitute the main exceptions to this trend, and their writings have seen a considerable renewal of interest in recent years.3 I wish to complement this renewal of interest and to add to the growing body of scholarship that takes seriously the literary value and intellectual subtlety of Silver Latin Poetry and post-Ovidian didactic. For the most part, however, I am not interested in the accuracy, origins, or immediate sources of the scientific 1 Comprehensive introductions to ancient didactic, such as Effe 1977 and Toohey 2006, do include later authors; cf. Schindler 2005 on Latin didactic as a whole. Notably, Schindler 2000 and Volk 2002 include Manilius in sustained analyses of Latin didactic. Volk 2005a treats the Aetna from this generic perspective, and Lausberg 1990 does the same for Lucan, albeit on a rather limited scale. 2 Some recent historians of science have devoted a good deal of substantive analysis to Roman prose and verse texts. Cuomo 2001, for example, offers a particularly subtle and insightful approach to ancient mathematics, both Greek and Latin. Similarly, Netz 2009 displays a unique sensitivity in his analyses of mathematical themes in Greek and Latin poetic texts. 3 Although Lucretius has long been popular, more recent works open up a variety of exciting perspectives; see, e.g., Gale 1994, Kennedy 2002, and Hardie 2009. Other recent stimulating studies of these authors include Beagon 1992, Inwood 2002, Murphy 2004, Hine 2006, and Williams 2012, which reworks and expands several earlier publications on Seneca’s NQ. Schama 1995 constitutes a particularly impressive study that offers keen readings of Vitruvius, Seneca, and Pliny within a vast historical and interdisciplinary framework. 3 theories that appear in the works under consideration. A variety of scholarly publications is available to explicate the theories themselves, and recent editors and commentators provide ample discussion.4 The derivative nature of much Roman technical writing is also well known, and there is little to be added to the results of more traditional forms of source criticism.5 Instead of creating genealogies or hunting for sources, I want to examine the ways in which scientific discourse itself functions as a key area of creative literary activity in the first century CE. By considering how Manilius, Lucan, and the Aetna poet probe the competing claims of different scientific traditions and actively negotiate the boundaries between science and poetry, this dissertation allows us to see that the literary exploration of different scientific fields makes a unique contribution to the intellectual history of the Early Empire. Before we begin, a word needs to be said about terminology. Recent historians of science have repeatedly emphasized that employing such terms as “science”, “scientist”, and “scientific” in ancient contexts constitutes a gross anachronism. The methods, goals, and fundamental assumptions of the modern sciences differ radically from those of any ancient intellectual pursuits, and any attempt to apply modern intellectual categories to Greco-Roman activities runs the risk of seriously misrepresenting the past.6 This is not the place to formulate a new vocabulary or approach, and despite the potential danger, I have decided to use these terms. 4 For Manilius, see Goold 1992, Feraboli, Flores, and Scarcia 1996-2001, and Volk 2009; Housman 1903-30 is still fundamental. For the Aetna, see Goodyear 1965, Paisley and Oldroyd 1979, Iodice 2002, and Volk 2005a. For the relevant portions of Lucan, see Lausberg 1990, Berti 2000, Raschle 2001, and Wick 2004. 5 For source criticism, see the works cited in the previous note, as well as Goodyear 1984, De Vivo 1989, and Bianchetti 1998 on the Aetna. It is particularly difficult to determine any of Manilius’ sources since the Astronomica is the earliest astrological text to have survived from Greco-Roman antiquity; accordingly, source-critical studies are highly conjectural.