The author of this comprehensive volume classifies his work as an ‘idiosyncratic introduction to a difficult epic’. It proceeds line by line through Lucretius' poem, offering ‘explication de texte’ (p. ix) at every step. F.'s intended audience is broad (p. x); there is no provision of a new full translation since – as F. rightly states – there are many excellent ones readily available. As an introduction to Lucretius, the volume is valuable and, as F. claims of De Rerum Natura, is most profitably read from start to finish.
The book is divided into six chapters: one for each book of the DRN. In line with his aims, F. provides a kind of extended running commentary. But a notable difference between what F. has produced and existing commentaries is that F. is, on the whole, firmly focused on clarification of Lucretius' argumentation, rather than on provision of broader analysis, including linguistic features or points of textual criticism. That said, some textual matters are briefly covered; F. occasionally considers Lucretius' source material, and he is clearly interested in the reception of Lucretius in antiquity, especially in Virgil's Aeneid (see pp. 25, 376–7, 442–3). Extensive paraphrase of Lucretius' text is provided, and occasionally crucial or problematic verses of Lucretius' text are given. But perhaps the most striking feature of F.'s work is its richness with interpretation: F. truly does give us his own reading of DRN. It is as if we read Lucretius' poem in conversation or in class with the author.
F. provides his reader with numerous fruitful observations or suggestions for reading and understanding DRN. It would be impossible to mention them all; among the most intriguing are F.'s assertions, in many cases original, of Lucretius' predominant self-conscious literary and metapoetical concerns (as at, e.g., pp. 37, 63, 116–17). F. convincingly proposes for Lucretius a recurring interest in the notion of poetic immortality (which F. claims for an Epicurean is a sadly impossible concept) (pp. 175, 241). F.'s suggestions of Lucretius' subtle allusion to broader literary concerns concerning intertextuality (his own and others) (e.g. p. 332) are also thought-provoking. Another distinctive aspect of F.'s text is his emphasis on Lucretius' intention to show death and destruction ‘looming’ throughout DRN (e.g. pp. 91, 276–7, 300–1, 383–4). For F., in DRN, death is always lurking quietly, inevitable and ever-present.
At times F. is perhaps guilty of over-interpretation (e.g. the less than convincing suggestion, p. 31, that the corpora caeca, described as aemula, have not learned Epicureanism [1.295–6]). But in such cases one should arguably recall the words of P. Friedländer, AJPh 62 (1941), 16–34 (at 29): ‘modern readers may fail to perceive it or even sometimes dislike it … But the danger of seeing too little is much greater’.
Conversely, the reader may occasionally wish that F. went further in his analysis, particularly when covering the major issues of Lucretian scholarship: in the discussion of the question of the (in)completion of the poem (p. 323), no decisive stance is taken in the main text, while in the associated note (n. 42) there is a disappointingly brief remark that ‘on the whole the stronger argument seems to be to consider the poem to be more or less complete as is (leaving aside lacunas, etc.)’. Very occasionally F.'s train of thought is unclear and could benefit from expansion (e.g. p. 24: ‘Lucretius had mused that Memmius was needed for the common good [1.43]; now the poet notes that it was of no avail to the maiden that she had been the first to use the appellation “father” in addressing Agamemnon’), though such instances are rare and not detrimental in any case to the overall picture one gains of Lucretius' poem from F.'s elucidation.
The choice to organise material in the way laid out in the volume is in some respects a curious one. As noted above, the volume generally reads like a commentary with a focus on elucidation of Lucretius' arguments, yet it is surely disadvantageous to the reader that there are no lemmas as are standard in critical commentaries. One presumes that F.'s reasoning is that, as he puts it, ‘epics are meant to be read from start to finish’ (p. ix). This is perhaps convincing enough for an audience not particularly familiar with Lucretius. The format becomes less helpful to the more advanced scholar of Lucretius, who may wish to cherry-pick from the volume. That said, for one who knows DRN well, it would not be very difficult to find the passage one seeks relatively quickly. A more pressing concern is that such a demarcated structure of the volume (which is not, strictly speaking, a commentary) in a sense inherently denies the interdependent nature of arguments in DRN to which F. evidently subscribes (as shown by his emphasis on Lucretius' recapitulation or anticipation of a given argument [pp. 426–7, 470]). Still, one sometimes feels that this sense of the poem is not brought out strongly enough, particularly in the earlier chapters of the book: at the discussion, p. 29, of the principle that nothing comes from nothing, there is no hint of the fundamental nature of this statement and that it will recur in many different forms throughout DRN.
Textual matters are more often mentioned than analysed in-depth: presumably this is a choice by F. to give his reader (who will more often than not be the elementary student of DRN) a sense of the textual issues without getting in too deep. I found 38 places where F. remarks on textual matters, including lacunas but excluding repetitions. F. is heavily reliant on the views of C. Bailey (ed.), Titi Lucreti Cari De rerum Natura libri sex (1947) and M.F. Smith (ed.), Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. With an English Translation by W.H.D. Rouse (19922). This is arguably not unwise, especially given the overtly introductory aims of the volume, but readers with particular interests in textual criticism may find themselves frustrated at what might appear to be a frequent bowing out of the debate. At times where F. does not defer to Bailey or Smith, it can be difficult to discern his own view.
I found a number of typographical errors in the main text, a handful of formatting inconsistencies, and likewise a handful of errors in the bibliography and notes. On occasion certain bibliographical items are surprisingly omitted (e.g. T. Reinhardt, CQ 52 [2002], 291–304 on the discussion of the speech of Nature at pp. 212–15; G.B. Conte, YCS 29 [1992], 147–59 on proems in the middle at pp. 235–6).
F.'s volume will be a useful resource for the student who is relatively new to Lucretius. His work draws attention to many of the major issues facing Lucretian scholarship as well as highlighting parts of the text which are problematic or even hopelessly corrupt. F.'s explanations of Lucretius' argument are frequently extremely helpful (see e.g. pp. 249–52). Advanced scholars of Lucretius will likely use the volume more selectively, but will also find much of interest, especially where F. provides thought-provoking analysis (e.g. p. 394 on the significance of cacumen at the close of DRN 5). There is much that is not new in the volume, but in a way this is its strength: it provides a detailed introduction to Lucretius' complex poem, firmly grounded in explaining Lucretius' arguments and drawing attention to what F. views as the major issues of interpretation. These choices make the volume an important addition to any undergraduate reading list. F. paints his own picture of Lucretius' DRN, and it is a picture well worth seeing.
