Lucretius' De Rerum Natura and Satire
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LUCRETIUS’ DE RERUM NATURA AND SATIRE T. H. M. Gellar-Goad A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doc- tor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics. Chapel Hill 2012 APPROVED BY: James J. O’Hara, UNC-Chapel Hill, advisor Jed W. Atkins, Duke University, reader Sharon L. James, UNC-Chapel Hill, reader Catherine C. Keane, Washington University in St. Louis, reader James B. Rives, UNC-Chapel Hill, reader © 2012 Theodore Harry McMillan Gellar-Goad ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT T. H. M. GELLAR-GOAD: Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and Satire (Under the direction of James J. O’Hara) This dissertation provides the first extended, systematic analysis of De Rerum Natura (DRN)’s engagement with the Graeco-Roman satiric traditions and argues that DRN plays an important part in the development of the Roman genre of satire. Chapter 1 treats key preliminaries to the topic: the prior scholarship on satire in DRN, the typology of ancient didactic, the poem’s contexts (literary, philosophical, intellectual), the distinc- tion between the “mode” of satire and the “genre” of satire, and methodology. Chapter 2’s first half develops a portrait of the satirist-figure in Graeco-Roman literature, in a synthesis of “satiric” poetry (works that employ the broader “mode” of sat- ire, as opposed to works of the actual Roman genre of satire) and current scholarship on the topic: the satirist employs a personal voice of comic mockery from a self- contradictory position of moral superiority and social abjection. Chapter 2’s second half evaluates how DRN’s speaker takes on the role of satirist both in familiar “diatribal” or “invective” passages (against the Presocratics in book 1, the fear of death in 3, love in 4) and in other passages less often connected with satire and comic mockery. Chapter 3 fo- cuses on other features of DRN’s engagement with the satiric mode, particularly the for- mal characteristics of satire and the tensions between satire and didactic in both satiric iii literature and DRN—which, as both chapters show, deserves inclusion in the category of “satiric literature.” Chapter 4 turns to the Roman genre of satire. After examination of ancient defini- tions of the genre, the term satura, and the programmatic statements by later satirists about Lucilius, the chapter considers the thematic, stylistic, generic, and poetic connec- tions between DRN and earlier Roman satire—not only Lucilius but also Ennius’ Saturae. Chapter 5 argues that DRN takes advantage of generic tropes in Roman satire; that Lucretius’ poem influences how the later satirists Horace, Persius, and Juvenal use such tropes; and that these satirists allude prominently to DRN. The chapter also argues that the ends of DRN books 2–6 are satires on Roman civic life. A general conclusion speculates on implications of the dissertation’s line of inquiry. iv for Mom you told me so v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I give thanks first and foremost to Jim O’Hara, my dissertation advisor, and to Christopher Polt, without whose advice and guidance this dissertation would not exist. For help with bibliography and with specific points, I am grateful to John Henkel, Mi- chael Broder, Amy Richlin, Caroline Bishop, Serena Witzke, Jessica Westerhold, Cathy Keane, and Jeremy Gerlach and the rest of my spring 2011 Latin 204 class at the Univer- sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Patrick Dombrowski was an excellent sounding board for many of my ideas and arguments, and I drew on a great source of support and encouragement from D. C. A. Wiltshire, Elizabeth Greene, and Erika Zimmermann Damer. Thanks are due also to Sharon James, my M. A. thesis advisor (and member of my dissertation committee), who taught me that I could write a project of this length. The UNC Writing Center’s disserta- tion boot camp was immeasurably valuable to me in making great headway on the project in the summer of 2011, and half of it would be missing without the continued countless hours spent writing alongside my dissertation boot camp buddy Cathay Liu. My husband, Jake Gellar-Goad, has of course been very supportive, and has helped me figure out how to word some of the big and complex ideas contained herein; he also showed that I can be at my most productive in the lobby of a fast food restaurant in eastern North Carolina. Deepest gratitude goes to Jeffrey Beneker, who got me started with Latin twelve years ago, to Arum Park and Sydnor Roy, who both helped my path to vi graduate study become successful, and finally to Zola Packman, who introduced me to Lucretius (“bless his heart!”) in the fall of 2003, and thus set me on the journey towards the profession of Classics. vii PREFACE All citations and quotes of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura are from the text of Rouse & Smith [1975]. I have modified that text’s spelling conventions to replace low- ercase V with the more accurate lowercase U, so that the adjective “sweet,” for instance, is not suavis but suauis. For the fragments of the satires of Lucilius, I use the text of Charpin [1978–1991/2002–2003]. All translations are my own. When quoting modern scholarship in languages other than English, I have in most instances offered a paraphrase of the citation’s basic argument. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction...............................................................................................1 The literary and cultural context of DRN.................................................................5 Satire: genre and mode...........................................................................................23 Methodological prolegomena................................................................................29 Overview of this study...........................................................................................32 CHAPTER 2: The Satirist-Figure in the Mode of Satire and DRN............................35 The position of the speaker in Graeco-Roman satiric poetry................................37 The satiric speaker and poetic mockery.....................................................38 Juvenal and the disenfranchisement of the satirist.....................................45 Satirists and seriousness.............................................................................50 The satirist’s double audience....................................................................58 The satiric speaker position and the Lucretian ego................................................61 The Lucretian ego as comic speaker..........................................................63 Personal voice............................................................................................79 The “high ground”.....................................................................................87 Abjection....................................................................................................93 Mockery and blame in DRN......................................................................99 The speaker’s justified indignation..........................................................113 ix Collusion: speaker, reader, addressee......................................................123 Summary: DRN’s ego as satirist..........................................................................131 Epilogue: Natura Rerum as satirist......................................................................133 CHAPTER 3: DRN and the Elements of the Satiric Mode........................................140 Irony and other features of satire.........................................................................141 1. Object: prior offenses of the satiric target............................................141 2. Formal antecedent: prior model for satiric discourse..........................142 3. Humor: parody and irony.....................................................................143 4. Ambiguity............................................................................................146 DRN’s satiric traits...............................................................................................148 1. Object...................................................................................................148 2. Formal antecedent................................................................................152 3. Humor..................................................................................................154 4. Ambiguity............................................................................................157 Poetic initiation........................................................................................160 Didactic tension in satire......................................................................................162 Satire’s didactic pose...............................................................................163 Conflict between teacher and satirist.......................................................171 Satire and didactic in DRN...................................................................................176 Straw men................................................................................................177 Dogma......................................................................................................180 Poetry vs. philosophy?.............................................................................183 The teacher’s transitoriness......................................................................188