Lucretius 1.638-44: a New Facet and an Old Problem

100 Miscellanea / D. Marković / Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 100-103

Lucretius 1.638-44: A New Facet and an Old Problem

Heraclitus init quorum dux proelia primus, clarus ob obscuram linguam magis inter inanis quamde grauis inter Graios qui uera requirunt. 640 omnia enim stolidi magis admirantur amantque inuersis quae sub uerbis latitantia cernunt ueraque constituunt quae belle tangere possunt auris et lepido quae sunt fucata sonore. (Lucr. 1.638-44)

Th e lines belong to the opening of the section against Heraclitus and his followers in Book 1 of DRN. Th e precise aim of Lucretius’ attack is a matter of dispute. Building on stylistic observations of Lucretian commentators, Kollmann (1971, 79-85) suggested that the verses contain “a personal attack on Heraclitus and on his followers” and parody typical elements of Heraclitus’ style, i.e., elaborate rhythm, word order, antitheses, and word plays. Milanese (1989, 127-48), on the other hand, took lines 1.641-4 to be directed “not contra Heraclitum, but contra Heracliti laudatores”, i.e., the Stoics, already recognized by most commentators as tangential targets. Milanese explained Lucretius’ belle tangere auris as a Lucretian analogue of Philodemus’ τὴν ἀκοὴν γαργαλίζειν (135-6) and lepidus sonor as an analogue of the εὐφωνία of the Stoics (136-7), and argued that both expressions echo later Epicurean criticism of the Stoic aesthetic theories, according to which the quality of poetry must be judged by the beauty of its sound.1) In addition to this, Milanese argued that Lucretius’ expression inuersa uerba must stand for Greek ἀλληγορία and refer to the Stoic method of allegorical interpretation, allegorēsis (143-8). Th e problem cuts into a deeper scholarly controversy: some scholars believe that in general Lucretius’ philosophical criticism was derived entirely from Epicu- rus’ anti-Platonic and anti-Aristotelian polemics, and thus never necessarily directed against the Stoics; others believe that Lucretius was aware of the more recent philosophical debates of his fellow Epicureans, including their debates with the Stoics.2)

1) Th e relevant passages quoted by Milanese come from On Poetry of Demetrius of Laconia and Philodemus’ On Poems. Cf. Janko 2000, 9-10. 2) For the view that Lucretius does not engage in the philosophical debates that postdate Epicurus see Furley 1966 and Sedley 1998, 62-93. Contra Kleve 1978, Kullmann 1980, Schrijvers 1992, Algra 1997.

To return to the lines quoted above. So far no Lucretian scholar noticed that in line 1.641 the poet actually turns against the followers of Heraclitus a saying of Heraclitus himself:

βλὰξ ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ παντὶ λόγῳ ἐπτοῆσθαι φιλεῖ. (Heraclitus fr. 109 Marcovich [87 DK])

Lucretius’ particular forms and syntactic relationships do not follow closely those of Heraclitus, but his vocabulary certainly does: compare omnia (expanded by quae etc.) with ἐπὶ παντὶ λόγῳ, stolidi with βλὰξ ἄνθρωπος, admirantur with ἐπτοῆσθαι, and amantque with φιλεῖ. Th e overall sense of Lucretius 1.641 is very close to that of Heraclitus fr. 109. Just as the features of style in the entire section quoted above, so the content of this particular line turns out to be parodic, an example of the well-known rhe- torical strategy of attacking the opponent with his own words. Th is strategy is a common feature in those passages of DRN in which Lucretius, following of course the arguments of Epicurus, criticizes the philosophical opponents of uera ratio. Th us for example he disparages the Skeptics on the ground that they claim that nothing is known, and by claiming this prove that their own claim cannot be known either (4.469-72); or he turns Plato’s three periodic catastrophes (conflagration, earthquake, flood) against Platonic teaching about the immortal- ity of the world (5.338-47). If Lucretius’ stolidi simply renders Heraclitus’ βλὰξ ἄνθρωπος, the word must be taken to refer to the Stoics only in an extended, secondary sense—especially if Lucretius’ parody of Heraclitus’ line goes back to Epicurus, who might have orig- inally employed it in his own attack on the philosopher and his admirers. Th at Epicurus could have criticized the language of Heraclitus is not unlikely. Epicurus’ insistence on clarity, σαφήνεια, as the main virtue of style is rather well known,3) and he might have expressed his criticism of Heraclitus’ style in Book 14 of On Nature, devoted to rival monist theories.4) Timocrates’ claim that Epicurus called Heraclitus a κυκητής also suggests a possibility of criticism on stylistic grounds.5) On the other hand, Milanese’s connection between ἀκοή and εὐφωνία and the Stoics has a considerable factual support (i.e., the influence of Stoic doctrines on Crates of Mallos), although it should be noted that the main promoters of these

3) D.L. 10.13. 4) See Sedley 1998, 123-6 and Chart 1 at 133. 5) D.L. 10.8. Th us Bignone (1920) and Bailey (1926 ad loc.). Piazzi (2005, 25-7) argues that the word refers to Heraclitus’ physical doctrines.