The perfunctory remark in Cicero's letter to his brother Quintus (ad Quintum Fratrem II, 9, 3) "Lucretii poemata ut scribis ita sunt multis luminibus ingenii multae tamen artis," and the statement by St. Jerome in his continuation of Eusebius's Chronicle for the year of Abraham 1922, "Titus Lucretius-cum aliquot libros-conscribsisset quos Cicero emendavit," have for obvious reasons been the subject of inquiry as to whether there is any further evidence of Cicero's acquaintance with the poem. Many scholars have touched upon the question, as Behncke;1 Tyrrell, who says that Cicero's philosophical works undoubtedly show acquaintance with the De Rerum Natura; Weissenfels, who maintained that there is not the least trace in the poem of the correcting hand of Cicero; Castellani, who thought it impossible that Cicero could have published a work of a philosophical system to which he was so bitterly opposed; Krische, who remarked that Cicero from reading Lucretius was plainly indebted to a greater degree than had been previously recognized. Munro in his notes to Lucr. 2, 1092, 3, 983, 6, 396, declared that Cicero's works afford many proofs that he was familiar with the language of the poem; Woltjer maintained that Cicero 1 De Cicerone philosophiae existimatore et iudice. 2 Cicero's Correspondence, Vol. 2, p. 106. 3 WKP 13, 149. 3 4 Qua ratione traditum sit MTC Lucretii carmen emendatorem fuisse, p. 9. 5 Theologischer Lehre der Griechischen Denker, p. 118. 6 Lucretii philosophia cum fontibus comparata, p. 7. vix aut numquam Lucretii opus legisse, aut si legit, ne imbutum quidem esse iis quae legit; Giussani in his edition of Lucretius Vol. 1, p. xvii, thought the dependence of Cicero highly uncertain; and Hirzel' says that if Krische thought there were visible evidence of Lucretius in Cicero's De Deorum Natura I, he himself was blind. In order to come to an independent opinion in this much debated question I have lately read the entire works of Cicero with close comparison of Lucretius's poem. To begin, there is an antecedent improbability in Cicero's use of Lucretius's poem. His contempt for the school and for its doctrines was extreme, as may be seen from such passages as Fin. 2, 49; Tusc. 1, 48, 55; 2, 7; 5, 73; ND. 2, 46; Fato 38; Div. 1, 62; Off. 3, 39; Fam. 13, 1, 4. From time to time he names his authorities for Epicureanism: Epicurus himself in Piso 59, Fin. 2, 99, Off. 3, 117; Timagoras in Acad. 2, 80; Zeno in Fin. 1, 16, Tusc. 3, 38; Phaedrus in ND. 1, 93, Fin. 1, 16; and he was familiar with Catius Insuber in Fam. 15, 16, 1-2. Furthermore, his contempt for Latin writers of the Epicurean system was so great that in Tusc. 2, 7 he says that he does not despise the Latin Epicureans because he has never read their works, and only their own sectaries read the stuff. We shall not be justified in inferring a knowledge of Lucretius unless the parallels in Cicero are so convincing that no other conclusion is possible. De Inventione 2 Pro Sestio 91 The De Inventione was written long before the poem was published, and in the second section of that treatise there is a sketch of primeval society that has some correspondence with Luer. 5, 925-1010, and in Pro Sestio 91 there is the same thought. Aside from the fact that Lucretius's account probably goes back to Euphorion, Dicaearchus, or Diodorus Siculus, the precedence in time of the De Inventione precludes any Rhetorical indebtedness. There is no other parallel in the Rhetorical works. In the Orations there is no trace whatever of acquaintance. Only in Piso 59 is a reference to the indifference of the Epicurean gods, corresponding to 2, 650 sq., but the sentiment had become trite from Epic. Sent. 1. Works 7 Untersuchungen zu Ciceros Philosophische Schriften, I, 9. Philosophical In the philosophical works we should expect, if anywhere, to find traces of Cicero's acquaintance. Yet here it must be remembered that common Epicurean doctrines were a matter of public knowledge among Cicero's contemporaries, that Cicero had become acquainted with the leading principles of the Epicurean philosophy both from the lectures of Zeno and Phaedrus (Fin. 1, 16) and also from the controversial work of the Stoics and Academics. We therefore should infer Lucretius's poem as a source only when other Academica sources are improbable. In the Academica Cicero touches here and there on questions that Lucretius 1,27 also discusses. Thus in 1, 27 he speaks of the indi2, 19, 79-82 visibility of matter (1, 748) and in 2, 19, 79, 80, 81, 82 we have the stock illustrations of the tower, the bent oar, dove's neck, double vision, ship's movement, size of sun (4, 387, 599, 477, 465; 5, 564). These illustrations were usual among the ancient physicists; they are found in various writers of different schools both before and after Cicero's time-Sextus Empiricus, Seneca, Plutarch, Alexander Aphrodisias, Aristotle; and some of them can be found in the school books 2,88 2,120 2, 121 2, 105 De Finibus 1, 14 of this year of grace. In Acad. 2, 88 Ennius saw Homer's shade (1, 124) and in 2, 120 he touches on the controversy about the beneficent creation of vipers (5, 195 sq.), a theodicy discussed by Seneca, Pliny, Lactantius, and Epictetus. In 2, 121 is a remarkable array of adjectives describing the shape of the atoms -exasperis, levibus, hamatis, uncinatisque corporibus concreta and at first sight these might seem to be taken from Lucretius's vocabulary (2, 394, 402, 404), but uncinatis is inadmissible in the hexameter and probably both Lucretius and Cicero are translating from the Greek. In 2, 105 mare albescit and in Lucr. 2, 767 the sea vertitur in canos fluctus-a mere coincidence. In the De Finibus much common ground is covered. In 1, 14 there is a panegyric on Epicurus which 1,49 1,57 1,60 2, 100 2,102 2, 112 Tusculan is no real parallel to the Lucretian laudes Epicuri; and in 1, 49 is the commonplace of ancient ethical philosophers that the fear of death brings about decay of character and even suicide (3, 85, 79, 830 sq., 938). In 1, 57 the simple and plain ethical system of Epicurus is praised (6, 27), a commonplace of the school. In 1, 60 Cicero makes death impend like the rock over Tantalus, while Lucretius (3, 979) compares it to superstition. Munro (on 3, 983) says Cicero may well have been thinking of Lucretius here because in Tusc. 4, 35 he draws a different moral from some tragic poet. That may well be, but considering the haste with which Cicero wrote these works under the guidance of his Greek authorities, it is not strange that the same illustration should have had different applications. In 2, 100 it is plain that a common source may have been expressed in the same Latin words: Cicero scripsit [Epicurus] in eo libro quem. modo nominavi mortem nihil ad nos pertinere etc.; Lucr. 3, 830 nil igitur mors est neque pertinet hilum. In 2, 102 Epicurus traversed innumerable worlds as also in Lucr. 1, 74, but in Tusc. 5, 114 Cicero says the same thing of Democritus; as usual there was a common Greek source, and with this goes the rhetorical commonplace of Xerxes walking the sea and sailing the land, 2, 112 (3, 1029); cf. Mayor on Juv. 10, 173184. Passing on to the Tusculan Disputations, Cicero's superb contempt for all his predecessors in philosophical exposition is most remarkable. In Tusc. 1, 5 he says: philosophia iacuit usque ad hanc aetatem nec ullum habuit lumen literarum Latinarum; quae illustranda et excitanda nobis est; and then he continues that he will have to work all the harder because many books in Latin are said to be carelessly written by excellent men but uneducated-meaning of course Catius and Amafinius. It is hard to understand Cicero's silence about Lucretius here; the decade since 1, 10-11 1, 48 1,52 1,79 1, 83 1, 91 1, 93 1, 108 2,7 3,56 4,75 Lucretius's death ought to have removed any jeal- As if to put us on our guard against supposing that he had any opinion or knowledge of Lucretius, in Tusc. 2, 7 Cicero publishes a manifesto: there are some so-called philosophers who have written in Latin; but he has no opinion of them because he never reads them, because it is not necessary; and by this he means that a sufficient knowledge of Epicureanism could be. gained from Greek sources. In Tusc. 3, 56 is the commonplace that nature asks but little-Luer. 2, 20, 17, that is no more sectarian than our "Man wants but little here below"; and the precept in 4, 75 |