Lucretius Final-5
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Foedera Naturae in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura by Lauren Tee BA, University of Victoria, 2011 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of Greek and Roman Studies © Lauren Tee, 2016 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. !ii Supervisory Committee Foedera Naturae in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura by Lauren Tee BA, University of Victoria, 2011 Supervisory Committee Dr. Cedric Littlewood, Department of Greek and Roman Studies Co-Supervisor Dr. Margaret Cameron, Department of Philosophy Co-Supervisor !iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Dr. Cedric Littlewood, Department of Greek and Roman Studies Co-Supervisor Dr. Margaret Cameron, Department of Philosophy Co-Supervisor Abstract Lucretius wrote his six-book philosophical epic poem De Rerum Natura a few decades before the fall of the Roman Republic and the start of the principate and the reign of Augustus in 27 BC, in a time of great social and political upheaval. This thesis examines Lucretius’ appropriation and correction of traditional Roman social and political rhetoric as part of his therapeutic philosophical programme, which aims to alleviate fear and anxiety through a rational understanding of nature. Specifically, this thesis examines Lucretius’ innovative use of foedus, a charged Roman word with many powerful connotations which is generally translated as “treaty”, “pact” or “covenant”. More than just an agreement, a foedus represented a divinely sanctioned ritualized contract between Rome and another polity, one which could not be broken without grave spiritual and political repercussions. They were an integral part of Roman life and culture and were strongly associated with imperialism, ambition, religion and sacrifice, and so Lucretius’ decision to adopt that word for the unthinking, unchanging, atheistic, necessary laws that limit and guide nature – despite his explicit condemnation of exactly those values foedus represents – is at first glance mystifying. As this thesis will show, however, foedus turns out to be an exceedingly apt choice, infusing almost every aspect of Lucretius’ Epicurean work with subtle complexity and meaning and contributing strongly to his polemical, therapeutic, ethical and didactic agendas. This thesis is divided into three chapters. The first chapter examines the social, political and philosophical contexts which influenced Lucretius to adopt Epicureanism. It then delves into some of the issues surrounding his innovative use of foedus. Chapter Two attempts to answer the research question of why foedus? by comparing and contrasting the essential characteristics of Roman foedera against those of Lucretius’ foedera naturae. This in turn provides a more detailed picture of Lucretius’ philosophical system both in terms of its physical and ethical doctrines, and suggests some possible motivations for Lucretius’ choice. Chapter Three looks at the deeper significance of Lucretius’ use of foedus and its role in his therapeutic programme of correction. Driving this chapter is Lucretius’ exploitation of the etymological connection between the noun foedus (‘treaty’, ‘covenant’) and the adjective foedus, ‘foul’. Chapter Three is divided into two sections, each focusing on Lucretius’ masterful manipulation of foedus and its !iv etymological roots – as well as generic expectations and language in general –first for polemical purposes, then for therapeutic. !v Table of Contents Supervisory Committee .......................................................................................................ii Abstract ..............................................................................................................................iii Table of Contents .................................................................................................................v Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................vi Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 ..............................................................................................................................6 Historical Context ............................................................................................................7 Cicero and Stoic Philosophy ..........................................................................................10 Lucretius’ Position .........................................................................................................17 Problems with Foedus ...................................................................................................20 Foedera in DRN .............................................................................................................24 Precedents for “laws of nature” .....................................................................................30 Stoic Natural Law ..........................................................................................................33 Foedus versus Lex .........................................................................................................36 Lex naturae in Lucretius ................................................................................................37 Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................42 I. Limits and Boundaries .................................................................................45 II. Foedera in Space and Time ..........................................................................63 III. Dual Roles in Destruction/Creation .............................................................76 Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................92 Part I: DRN as Social Critique ......................................................................................93 Part II: Foedus and Foeditas ........................................................................................128 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................165 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................177 Primary Sources ...........................................................................................................177 Secondary Sources .......................................................................................................180 !vi Acknowledgments I am gratefully indebted to my supervisors, Dr. Cedric Littlewood and Dr. Margaret Cameron, for their extreme patience and invaluable guidance and assistance in the preparation of this thesis. I could not have finished this thesis without their support and flexibility. I would also like to thank my external examiner, Dr. Allan Mitchell, and the entire faculty and staff of the Greek and Roman Studies and Philosophy Departments at the University of Victoria, who have guided both my undergraduate and graduate education. Thank you as well to my fellow graduate students both past and present, for their friendship, commiseration and support. Finally, I would like to thank my partner, Dr. Matthew Bouchard, for patiently enduring, encouraging and supporting me. Without him I would have given up on this a long time ago. Introduction This thesis examines Lucretius’ appropriation and correction of traditional Roman social and political rhetoric as part of his therapeutic philosophical programme, which aims to alleviate fear and anxiety through a rational understanding of nature. Specifically, this thesis examines Lucretius’ use of foedus, a charged Roman word with many powerful connotations which is generally translated as “treaty”, “pact” or “covenant”. More than just an agreement, a foedus represented a divinely sanctioned ritualized contract between Rome and another polity, one which could not be broken without grave spiritual and political repercussions. They were an integral part of Roman life, controlling the interactions between Rome and her allies, as well as those between Roman citizens and their leaders. Usually heavily weighted in Rome’s favour, foedera stood testament to Rome’s imperium and superiority over other nations, and were a vital component of Roman expansion. They dictated trade agreements and military obligations, guaranteed the sacrosanctity of tribunes from the Roman people, and played pivotal roles in Rome’s legendary past. The striking of a treaty was formally sanctioned through the ritual slaughter of a ten-day old piglet, while the rupturing of a treaty resulted in a ceremonial declaration of war; both rites fell under the provenance of the fetiales, a college of priests whose sole function was to oversee the making of war or peace through foedera. Roman foedera were thus strongly associated with imperialism and ambition, religion and sacrifice, and so Lucretius’ decision to adopt that word for the unthinking, unchanging, necessary laws that limit and guide nature – despite his explicit condemnation of exactly those values foedus represents – is somewhat perplexing. Scholars have typically viewed Lucretius’ foedera naturae or “laws of