In February 54 b.c. Cicero concludes a missive to his brother with a passing and – for us – tantalizing remark: Lucreti poemata ut scribis ita sunt, multis luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis. sed cum veneris. virum te putabo si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris; hominem non putabo.Footnote 1 Quintus had, it seems, read De rerum natura, or at least parts thereof, just before he left Rome for an undisclosed location nearby, and he shared his enthusiasm with his brother per codicillos.Footnote 2 Meanwhile, he was corresponding with Julius Caesar, whose staff in Gaul he was about to join.Footnote 3 When, a few months later, he was stationed with Caesar, he was involved in another literary affair, this time concerning his brother who wrote to him, inquiring about his autobiographical De temporibus suis:
quo modo nam, mi frater, de nostris versibus Caesar? nam primum librum se legisse scripsit ad me ante, et prima sic ut neget se ne Graeca quidem meliora legisse; reliqua ad quendam locum ῥᾳθυμότερα (hoc enim utitur verbo). dic mihi verum: num aut res eum aut χαρακτὴρ non delectat?
(Q. fr. 2.15.5)Caesar, apparently, communicated on literary matters with both brothers,Footnote 4 who enthused over Lucretius' poem. It would thus seem likely that the former also learned about it during the spring or summer of 54; the more so as Caesar – a leading authority in the contemporary discussion of linguistic usage (as evidenced by his De analogia, completed in 54 and dedicated to Cicero),Footnote 5 a part-time poet and possibly an EpicureanFootnote 6 – would have been thrice interested in a poem on Epicureanism that announced nova verba in its proem (Lucr. 1.138).
This likelihood increased when F.R. Dale proposed that Caesar's rendering of Cotta's dramatic end in BGall. 5 (covering events in 54) contained two Lucretian expressions: with nulla in re communi saluti deerat (BGall. 5.33.2) all but quoting talibus in rebus communi deesse saluti (Lucr. 1.42), and Caesar's clamore et fletu omnia complerentur (BGall. 5.33.6) adapting the poet's uagituque locum lugubri complet (Lucr. 5.226), and, more particularly, the usage of complere.Footnote 7 Dale granted that ‘sheer coincidence [was] not impossible’, but went on to suggest that in ‘the year when Lucretius was new and was first being read, Caesar twice over uses the words of Lucretian phrases. The point is not negligible for the question how and when the Commentaries were written, and supports Sir Frank Adcock's view that the events of each campaigning season were recorded in the following winter’. But these two instances will hardly sway sceptics (which may account for the little attention Dale's proposition has received); and the latter part of his argument is not a strictly logical inference either. Fortunately, there is more and more persuasive evidence for Caesar's familiarity with Lucretius' poem, which might in turn corroborate Dale's findings and shed new light on the question of the dates of De rerum natura and the Commentarii.
LUCRETIAN ECHOES IN CAESAR'S GALLIC WARS
When Caesar was about to set sail for Britain for the second time, he experienced delay … quod C[h]orus ventusnavigationem impediebat, qui magnam partem omnis temporis in his locis flareconsuevit … (BGall. 5.7.3). The name ‘Corus’ (or ‘Caurus’Footnote 8) is noteworthy for several reasons. First, even though winds and tempests figure frequently in the Commentarii, specific names are exceedingly rare;Footnote 9 as a matter of fact, this is the first time a specific name is given. More particularly, in his account of the previous year – when Caesar had crossed over to Britain for the first time – he did not name any winds at all, although he suffered from their capricious nature and mentioned them generically three times.Footnote 10 Third, given that the ancients ‘could not tell with mathematical precision the point from which the wind was blowing [and that] the wind called “Corus” may have blown from any quarter between NW. and W. by N. 1/3 N’,Footnote 11 one might wonder what motivated Caesar to give a specific name to an at best imprecisely located wind, especially since the juxtaposition of ‘ventus’ indicates that he considered the name in some measure recherché. It may be the fact that this particular wind had just been mentioned for the first time in Latin literature in Lucretius:Footnote 12
One further curious observation: as marked, Lucretius twice uses a compound of flare; while the simple verb form is attested four times in Caesar's commentarii,Footnote 13 it occurs for the first and only time in BGall. in the passage above in conjunction with ‘Corus’.
Lucretius, mentioning Empedocles' place of birth, characterizes Sicily as an island of triangular coasts:
The adjective triquetrus is comparatively rare; the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina lists a total of thirty instances; it also specifies that Lucretius is the first to use it.Footnote 14 Its application to islands, more specifically Sicily, is not exactly intuitive. But it had Greek precedent: Thucydides is only the first one of many to speak of Σικανία … Τρινακρία καλουμένη (6.2.2);Footnote 15 furthermore, it was more or less true in the case of Sicily (as Timaeus observed for the Greek nounFootnote 16); finally, triquetrus is metrically convenient (as the tribrach ‘Sicilia’ does not fit the hexameter), and Lucretius would be followed by Horace and Silius Italicus.Footnote 17 All this may explain why Lucretius associated triquetrus with Sicily; and the Greeks' usage of τρινάκριος may also explain why Caesar in his ethnographic digression on Britannia described the island as insulanatura triquetra … (BGall. 5.13.1). Nevertheless, given the other parallels and the temporal proximity between the two Latin authors, it seems more plausible to assume that it was the Lucretian precedent that inspired Caesar's sole usage of the adjective in discussing Britannia. It may also be pertinent to remember that, as Tacitus' summary discussion reveals (Agr. 10.3), other Latin authors, Livy being one, found expressions very different from Caesar's to render the shape of the island.
In BGall. 6, in his ethnographical excursus, Caesar describes the druidic caste and lists the subjects of their teaching: multa praetereade sideribus atque eorum motu, de mundi ac terrarum magnitudine, de rerum natura, de deorum immortalium vi ac potestate disputant et iuventuti tradunt (BGall. 6.14.6).Footnote 18 There are at least five reasons why we should identify in de rerum natura another reminiscence of Lucretius. First, as a search of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina reveals, de rerum natura is, prior to Caesar, only attested in Lucretius:Footnote 19
It should be noted also that Caesar employs the expression in Lucretius' sense, as the immediate context reveals.Footnote 20 Second, even though multa praeterea is attested quite frequently in other authors (and Caesar himself) in contexts where no connection with Lucretius can be divined,Footnote 21 it is tempting to read it as echoing the Lucretian formula multaque praeterea, which occupies the initial position of a line eight times.Footnote 22 One could add that the formal feature of a ‘catalogue of philosophical themes’ itself, as employed by Caesar, might have had a poetic ring: It would become stock-in-trade among the Augustan poets who adapted it from their Greek (and quite possibly Roman) predecessors.Footnote 23 Third, just as Lucretius conveys his teachings in verse (versibus), the druidic doctrine is imparted to students in verse: magnum … numerum versuumediscere dicuntur (BGall. 6.14.3). Fourth, the Lucretian passage forms part of the hymnic invocation of Venus, which, aside from being one of the memorable ‘purple’ passages, may have been particularly dear to Caesar, since a Venere Iulii, cuius gentis familia est nostra (Suet. Iul. 6.1). Finally, the Lucretian expression talibus in rebus communi deesse saluti (1.43), which, as Dale argued, recurred in BGall. 5.33.2 (see above), follows the passage in question after only a few lines. The two borrowings thus validate one another.
Lucretius almost certainly entitled his work De rerum natura,Footnote 24 and it is perfectly conceivable that Caesar thinks of it or even alludes to it, just as Horace in his reference to Marsaeus, amator Originis ille (Sat. 1.2.55) alludes to Cato's Origines.Footnote 25 In the case of the latter, Caesar's de rerum natura could be decoded as ‘material covered in the poem De rerum natura’. But for the arguments given above, I find it more plausible that Caesar had in mind the particular passage in the proem, which left more than one trace in his ethnographic digression.Footnote 26
The next four echoes all appear in BGall. 7. Caesar opens his account of his showdown with Vercingetorix in 52 with a description of the Gauls' rebellious stirrings. He remarks how they bandied rumours concerning news received about affairs in Rome: adduntipsi et adfinguntrumoribus Galli (BGall. 7.1.2).Footnote 27 The pair addunt et adfingunt is otherwise attested only once in the rest of all Latin literature. When Lucretius ends a list of fancy notions commonly held about the gods and their acts, he forgoes further discussion, using the same pair:
A Lucretian debtFootnote 28 seems all the more likely because of the fact that Caesar does not use adfingere anywhere else in his works (except, possibly, at BCiv. 1.53.1Footnote 29). One could also add that both Lucretius and Caesar share a dismissive undertone, disparaging such fancy notions and the barbarians' rumour-mongering.
When confronted with Vercingetorix's guerilla tactics, Caesar and his troops face difficulties etsi, quantum ratione provideri poterat, ab nostris occurrebatur, ut incertis temporibus diversisque itineribusiretur (BGall. 7.16.3). This expression is surprisingly close to the one used by Lucretius in his descriptions of atoms' swerving:Footnote 30
After the fall of Avaricum, Vercingetorix continues to enjoy the confidence of the Gauls: plusque animo providereet praesentireexistimabatur, quod re integra primo incendendum Avaricum, post deserendum censuerat (BG 7.30.2). The emphasis on Vercingetorix's acumen in combination with the verbal abundance is noteworthy, as is the usage of praesentire (Caesar employs it only once elsewhere, at BGall. 5.54.2: … cum ille praesensisset ac profugisset …). Lucretius, in his account of warfare (which is part of his history of civilization), expresses his surprise about the lack of foresight of those who led tamed beasts into battle only to discover that they could not control them after all:
These lines are attended by a host of problems – not least because of ‘the fantastic character of the whole passage’ surrounding them.Footnote 32 F. Neumann was the first to propose athetizing all of 1341–9; Housman, discussing the three lines quoted above, suggested that they had flowed from Cicero's pen, noting that, among other incongruities, the ‘elliptic use of adducor’ was not found elsewhere in Lucretius but several times in Cicero (but the periphrasis ‘fuit ut facerent’ is – as Housman acknowledges – Lucretian).Footnote 33 More recently, M. Deufert has argued, following Neumann, that lines 1341–9 are a later interpolation.Footnote 34 To my knowledge, no one has observed this ‘curiously close parallel’ between (Ps.-)Lucretius' animo praesentire atque videre and Caesar's animo providere et praesentire. This parallel is the more striking for the fact that TLL, listing words found in juxtaposition with praesentire, notes only these two instances under ‘(pro)videre’.Footnote 35 It also seems relevant that both expressions are employed in contexts of war. Given the other parallels between Lucretius' and Caesar's works, this one would seem to suggest that the doubted Lucretian verses were part of the poem that Caesar read.
One final observation. Battling over Gergovia, Caesar tried to take advantage of an opportune moment. His plan miscarried. Caesar, cum iniquo loco pugnari hostiumque augeri copias videret, praemetuenssuis ad Titum Sextium legatum, quem minoribus castris praesidio reliquerat, misit, ut … (BGall. 7.49.1). The compound verb is extremely rare in Latin literature with a total of eight instances, of which only four are Classical.Footnote 36 Lucretius employs it in his rationalizing reinterpretation of mythical punishments suffered in the underworld:
A fearful mind, anticipating punishment, is its own punishment. Commentators have debated whether sibi depends upon praemetuens (cf. n. 37). Regardless, there clearly is not an accusative object (as in Virgil and Phaedrus, cf. n. 36), nor is there in Caesar (who indubitably has a dative object). A reader of Lucretius might have been the more prone to remember praemetuens for the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον praemetuenter, employed elsewhere in the poem (Lucr. 4.823).Footnote 38
A number of expressions in BGall. 5 (7.3, 13.1, 33.2 and 33.6), 6 (14.6) and 7 (1.2, 16.3, 30.2 and 49.1) are noticeably close to Lucretian wordings (6.135, 1.717, 1.42, and 5.226; 1.25; 5.165, 2.218–19, 5.1343 and 3.1019); many of the Caesarean instances also share contextual features with the Lucretian passages (e.g. both authors use addere et adfingere contemptuously with regard to rumours and notions that are better disregarded). These parallels do not constitute Caesarean allusions to certain passages in De rerum natura, the recall of which would enrich a reader's appreciation of the Commentarii; they merely bespeak, I propose, Caesar's familiarity with Lucretius' work.
THE DATING OF DE RERUM NATURA AND THE PRODUCTION OF THE COMMENTARII
The final passage of Cicero's missive in February 54 (quoted above, p. 772), seemingly corroborated by late antique testimonies to Lucretius' death, has generally served critics to date De rerum natura, even though F.H. Sandbach had already raised a number of critical concerns in 1940.Footnote 39 But while he dismissed the testimonies of St Jerome and Donatus, he still read Cicero's Lucreti poemata as a reference to (parts of) De rerum natura and advanced 55/4 as a plausible date for its ‘publication’.Footnote 40 More recently, however, Gregory Hutchinson has proposed the year 49 (or later) as the time when De rerum natura was (still) being written; he also suggested that Cicero's Lucreti poemata refer to ‘Epicurean poems written by Lucretius before D.R.N.’.Footnote 41
The parallels between Caesar and Lucretius discussed above seem too frequent and close to be merely coincidental. An evaluation of their implication for the dating of De rerum natura is unfortunately compromised by the (still ultimately unanswered) question of ‘C. Iulius Caesar quo tempore commentarios rerum suarum composuerit’ (in the words of Karl Nipperdey in 1847).Footnote 42 There are those who believe that they were published annually; others argue that they were published in one go late in 52 or early in 51.Footnote 43 But even if we believe that Caesar wrote all seven Commentarii de bello Gallico as late as 51, it would still be too early for Hutchinson's date.Footnote 44
Given the evidence, however, the following scenario appears more likely: (i) Lucretius' De rerum natura was in substantial parts available in 54; (ii) Caesar gained access to the poem in the same year, possibly through his contacts with Quintus and Marcus Cicero; (iii) in writing his account of the events in Gaul and Britain in 54 he employed Lucretian turns of phrases and vocabulary for the first time; (iv) when accounting for events in 53 and 52, his familiarity with De rerum natura is evinced again.
I have not come across any distinct Lucretian echoes in BGall. 1–4; this might be indicative of the process of composition of the books of the Commentarii. For if, indeed, the parallels discussed above convince and no such parallels can be adduced from earlier Commentarii, the most plausible scenario would appear to be that the individual Commentarii were, at least in significant parts, written annually.
