Epicurus' advice to his young friend Pythocles to ‘flee all education, raising up the top sail’ (παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, ϕεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος, Diog.Laert. 10.6 = Epicurus fr. 163 Us.) contains an allusion to Circe's advice to Odysseus in Odyssey 12.37–58.Footnote ² For much of the Greek (and Roman) world, education was based on the Homeric epics, and thus Epicurus' statement represents a complicated position towards Homer in particular and poetry in general. Epicurean philosophy rejects poetry because it is misleading about the gods and the nature of the soul,Footnote ³ but Epicurus and his followers, most notably Philodemus and Lucretius, engage in poetic allusion and even the composition of poetry. Much work has been done on allusions to poetry in all three writers, but I hope here to bring out a heretofore unnoticed poetic allusion at the start of De rerum natura Book 2, in which Lucretius makes a programmatic statement about not only his philosophy, but also his poetry and its place in the poetic tradition.

Lucretius justifies his use of poetry by referring to it as the ‘honey on the cup’ (1.935–50), that is, as the best way to impart hard philosophical truths to a less than willing audience. He makes a conscious choice of poetry as his medium; and not simply poetry, but poetry in the epic metre in the tradition of Homer, Hesiod, Ennius and others.Footnote ⁴ Recent discussions of early portions of the De rerum natura have shown that Lucretius makes several programmatic statements which are often full of poetic allusions to his epic and didactic predecessors.Footnote ⁵ Gale argues that ‘Epic was regarded in the ancient world as the highest form of poetry, and Lucretius characterizes his poem as the ultimate epic – a non-mythological epic, which tells the truth without the need for allegorical interpretation’.Footnote ⁶ I show that, in the proem to Book 2, Lucretius claims that his epic surpasses Homer's works. Book 2's proem is another programmatic statement in which Lucretius allies himself with epic while separating himself from its originator Homer by thematically alluding to the Odyssey and the Iliad in ways that commentators have, I believe, not yet noticed.Footnote ⁷

Lucretius structures lines 2.1–13 in the form of a priamel: he presents three terms, the last of which reveals the poet's preference.Footnote ⁸ The first element of the priamel, lines 1–2, describes how it is pleasant (suave) to watch a man struggle at sea while safe on land. The second element, lines 5–6, states that it is pleasant (suave) to watch the contests of war arrayed across the plain when one is removed from the danger. These two elements of the priamel emphasize the distance of the viewer from the action; in the first, one watches from land (e terra, 2.2), in the second, the viewer has no part in the danger of the battle (tua sine parte pericli 2.5)Footnote ⁹ – he is at such a distance as to be able to see the whole battle.

In the final element of the priamel, lines 7–8, Lucretius writes that nothing is more pleasing (dulcius) than to hold lofty and serene sanctuaries fortified with the teachings of wise men. The focus of the priamel has changed slightly. In the first two elements, the emphasis is on what is being watched. Lucretius' placement of the viewer at a distance from the events he observes enhances this feeling of observation. In the third element, the position of the viewer himself is emphasized, followed by a description of what he now looks down upon and sees (despicere, videre, 9). The final element is described as more pleasing (dulcius), a comparative adjective with a slightly different meaning from suave. Suavis is a more colloquial term (it drops out of poetry and most prose soon after Virgil), which refers to the sense perceptions and how they delight the perceiver. That is, it is used to describe the effect of the thing perceived, but not inherently the thing itself. Dulcis, however, is a much broader term than suavis, and carries a connotation of being not only sweet to perceive, but also inherently sweet and good.Footnote ¹⁰

By using suavis in the first two clauses, Lucretius signals that their content is meant to be read as primarily sensual and poetic; that is, they are to be read in terms of how they delight the perceiver. He is not saying that storms and battles are inherently good things. By using dulcis in the third element of the priamel, Lucretius implies not only that this position is sweet to the one who inhabits and experiences the citadel of philosophy, but that it is also good in and of itself for that lofty sanctuary to exist.

It has been noted that the three elements of the priamel represent essentially the same idea.Footnote ¹¹ The assumption is that the final element explains the first two further, thus making is more preferable because it is the most clearly understood. I suggest that the third element does indeed explain the first two elements further, but it describes an activity quite different from the first two. The third element illustrates the gaze of an Epicurean, whereas the first two elements portray the gaze of the everyday man. What the Epicurean wise man looks upon and understands from the lofty citadel are the same things described in the first two elements of the priamel. The third element incorporates and reinterprets the preceding two.Footnote ¹² Lucretius demonstrates here how an Epicurean sees the events described in the first two elements of the priamel as he transforms them from events (a storm at sea and a battle on the plain) to interpretations of the human psyche (men competing with their wits and in defence of their honour).Footnote ¹³

Having set the stage for how the priamel may function as a transformational unit, I would like to turn to the language of the proem and, most importantly, its epic flavour, in order to show how this transformation from event to interpretation of the event works.Footnote ¹⁴ In line 1, mari magno is a common epic phrase for the sea.Footnote ¹⁵ Also, in the poetic tradition epic is often described or referred to as a large body of water,Footnote ¹⁶ so Lucretius may be tapping into this tradition to signal the epic or even Homeric implications of these lines. The use of the phrase magnum … laborem (2.2) and the repetition of the adjective magnum from line 1 affirm the greatness of the theme and contributes to the epic tone. Belli certamina (2.5) also suggests epic, for Lucretius uses the phrase at 1.475 to describe the Trojan War.Footnote ¹⁷ The phrase may be Ennian, which would also contribute to the epic feel of the passage.Footnote ¹⁸ So why would Lucretius mark his proem as epic and Homeric?

The experience of storms at sea and battles was not unfamiliar to Romans of the first century B.C.E., and indeed Lucretius will modify lines 2.9–13 and reuse them in the proem to Book 3 (59–64).Footnote ¹⁹ The events described are typical of Lucretian imagery, but they may have been intended to be read metapoetically, in a way that illuminates Lucretius as a learned poet. The proem to Book 2 defines the point of view of the philosopher in contrast to that of ordinary men, but also contains programmatic allusions to the Odyssey and the Iliad. In addition to enjoining his reader to seek out Epicurean philosophy, Lucretius claims that it is indeed pleasing to read the Odyssey (the man struggling at sea), element one of his priamel, and it is pleasing to read the Iliad (the army on the plain), element two of the priamel, but it is most pleasing to read his own poem and thus hold the lofty and serene sanctuaries fortified with the teaching of wise men – the third element of the priamel and by association also epic.Footnote ²⁰ By reading and learning from the De rerum natura, the reader of epic poetry not only observes the actions of other men, he learns to become a philosopher and understand the actions he observes.

After his description of the lofty sanctuary of philosophy, Lucretius presents the Odyssey and the Iliad now focalized through the eyes of an Epicurean. He shows his readers the correct way to engage in poetry through details which can be seen as allusions to Homer's two poems. The philosopher is able to look down upon (despicere, 2.9) and see (videre, 2.9) the actions of other men as they contend in wit (certare ingenio, 2.11) – which is reminiscent of the Odyssey, the poem of the hero of μῆτις (cunning, wisdom)Footnote ²¹ – and fight for nobility (contendere nobilitate, 2.11) – which can be read as referring to the Iliad, the poem about the best of the Achaeans.Footnote ²² The philosopher takes events such as struggling at sea and battle and transforms them into an understanding of humanity and human emotion.

Once he has transformed these specific actions into the universal condition of mankind, the philosopher exclaims: ‘O wretched minds of men, o blind hearts!’ (o miseras hominum mentes, o pectora caeca, 2.14). This exclamation shows his pity not only for the heroes of the epics who spend their lives in darkness and great dangers (15–16) but also for the readers of the epics described in the first two elements of the priamel: readers who do not yet understand that their enjoyment of the Odyssey and the Iliad would be enhanced by their understanding of the subject of Lucretius' own epic. Those readers hold distant positions, as observers, but they do not hold the defined and important position of philosophy that would allow them to understand what they see.Footnote ²³ Here he appeals to his readers to understand the epics as an Epicurean would see them, and at the same time he claims a pre-eminent position within the epic tradition for his own poem.