Lucretius’ De rerum natura (DRN) is the only comprehensive philosophical tract from antiquity covering Epicurean physics, ethics and epistemology. A long didactic poem and rhetorical tour de force, it can also be described as, at times, satirical. G.-G.'s engagingly written analysis of DRN's satirical aspects and its influence on subsequent Roman satire is both illuminating and convincing, as is his analysis of satire itself and of the interaction between satire and philosophy.
In the introduction G.-G. discusses what kind of poem DRN is in the context of didactic poetry, the audience it was written for and the role of the authorial persona (with reference to persona theory, especially via R. Rosen, Making Mockery [2007]), before setting out his aim: ‘to track De Rerum Natura along two paths of satire. One is the broad boulevard of satiric literature from the beginnings of Greek poetry to the plays, essays, and broadcast media of the modern world. The other is the narrower lane of Roman verse satire’ (p. 3). In keeping with this aim, in Chapter 1 G.-G. makes a distinction between ‘genre’ and ‘mode’, where ‘genre’ refers to Roman satura (pp. 17–22) and ‘mode’ to what can be regarded as satirical, as adopting traits of style, irony and humour also found in the literary genre (pp. 26–35). In so doing, G.-G. delineates the somewhat elastic notion of satire with perceptive and, for the purposes of this study in particular, useful guiding principles. Genre as defined by Roman satura includes Varro's prosimetric Menippean Satires but mainly concerns the ‘generic subcategory of Roman verse satire’ (p. 21), the notable feature of which, other than its metrical form, being the role of the satirist's persona in first-person narrated literature, a feature shared with Lucretius’ DRN (pp. 31–2).
Chapters 2 and 3, dealing with the relationship between Lucretius and earlier Roman satire, and Lucretius’ influence on later Roman satire respectively, constitute the heart of the monograph. Lucilius, the largest source given the fragmentary remains of all pre-Lucretian satire, takes the lion's share of Chapter 2, but G.-G. thoroughly considers any possible connections (not just intertextual) with Varro and Ennius – notably the philosophical content in Varronian satire, and Ennius’ authority and probable influence. G.-G. unwraps the layers of intertextual references to Ennius, Lucilius and Empedocles in (for example) the Lucretian phrase luminis oras (‘shores of light’, e.g. 2.577) (p. 55). Not only does G.-G. find a great deal of philosophy in Lucilius but a great deal in common between Lucilius and Lucretius both philosophically (notably on ambition vs philosophy, and love and sex) and literarily (pp. 59–63). This is perhaps not surprising, considering – as G.-G. convincingly points out – the appeal of Epicureanism at the time of Lucilius (p. 61). The correlation of the theme of love and sex in Lucilius and Lucretius is dealt with separately (pp. 63–8) to show how much Lucilius was a forerunner on this particular subject.
Going on to discuss Lucretius’ influence on later Roman satire (Horace, Persius and Juvenal) G.-G. summarises Horace as mainly Epicurean, Persius Stoic, and Juvenal's position as taking the form of an ‘eclectic consideration and rejection … of the value of formal philosophy’ (p. 81). Analysing the Lucretian flavour of Horace S. 1.1–3 in insightful detail (pp. 87–92), G.-G. notes that allusions to Lucretius in subsequent satire and adoptions of Lucretian linguistic tics can lend satire a didactic aspect. While Lucretius’ influence is clearly G.-G.'s main focus, perhaps something could have been said about other philosophical influences to enable a more rounded understanding of the extent of this Lucretian influence, of how it is accommodated and adopted. G.-G.'s observation regarding the centrality of friendship in Horace's Satires and in Epicureanism is well made, though it may have been helpful to acknowledge and contextualise Aristotelian views on φιλία as well and – in the context of S. 1.1–3 – Aristotle's doctrine of the mean when exploring Epicurean (Lucretian) moderation. Notable is G.-G.'s discussion of a likely allusion to Lucretius in Persius, the line in Lucretius being part of the suaue mari magno proem in Book 2, which is echoed by Horace and Juvenal in an anti-ambition/greed context (pp. 107–16).
Looking at satirical aspects in Lucretius in Chapter 4, G.-G. discusses Lucretius’ comic use of reductio ad absurdum to infantilise misguided philosophers, and convincingly argues for Lucretius’ deliberate awfulness of what D. Sedley (‘Lucretius’ Use and Avoidance of Greek’, in J. Adams and R. Mayer [edd.], Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry [1999], p. 237) has regarded as a ‘leading contender for the title of Lucretius’ worst line’ (1.830) to send up Anaxagoras’ theory of homoeomeria (ὁμοιομέρεια) (p. 130). The satirical side of DRN 4, on love and sex, is well illustrated, as are the overlaps of the narrative persona of didactic poet and satirist (e.g. the indignation of the didactic narrator of DRN and Juvenal). Indeed, G.-G. brings out the complexities and ambiguities of the ‘Lucretius-ego’ (the authorial persona of DRN) with skill and insight, showing how these qualities chime with the satirists.
The tension between didactic and satiric is discussed in Chapter 5, where G.-G. notes that ‘satire frequently misrepresents its targets in order to compel the audience to admit the satire's version of reality as the only acceptable account’ (p. 172). Such misrepresentation is potentially problematic when making a serious philosophical argument, and success in judging how far to go, how to balance the satiric with the didactic, is key to Lucretius’ skill as poet/philosopher/satirist. Another source of tension is the persona of the satirist-didact, particularly the satirist as abject underdog: although this can encourage a reader's ‘collusive allegiance’, this debased persona can lead to the satirist-didact's authority also being debased (p. 174). I would be tempted to suggest that, in fact, this itself can lend satire a kind of authority (provided it is properly understood), where the satirist's hypocrisy is an ironic case in point, and the narrator is speaking from personal experience.
Another important correlation between satire and DRN is their relationship with the city, their ‘civic’ discourse: criticising social and political mores, institutions and figures. It is, G.-G. argues, in such discourse where Lucretius best demonstrates the satiric feature of spoudaiogeloion (σπουδαιογέλοιον), the mixture of the funny and the serious; it is also a discourse that ties in with Epicurean principles that denounce ambition, monetary greed and general one-upmanship. The discussion of spoudaiogeloion itself is important given the extent to which the concept of ‘the funny and serious’ relates to satire (cf. Horace S. 1.1.24–5: quamquam ridentem dicere verum / quid vetat, ‘what is there to prevent anyone telling the truth with a laugh’) and Lucretius, though its relevance here seems to be argued in a way that suggests that this particularly satirical aspect of Lucretius is … particularly satirical (or maybe that's the point?).
G.-G.'s interpretation of DRN encompasses an awareness of how it might be received by different readers, and so in a sense it is a full, overarching interpretation, taking on board the poem's ambiguities – ambiguity also being a hallmark of satire. As a result of such ambiguity, the audiences of satire and DRN can be divided into what G.-G. describes as sheep and wolves. The wolves understand and delight in the ambiguities and ironies, the sheep do not (pp. 34–5, 158–62, 215–19). G.-G. ends his book (pp. 215–19) by looking at the relationship between the satirist (Lucretius as satirist) and his audience to highlight the sheep/wolves dichotomy. Making a comparison with contemporary satire in the shape of Stephen Colbert's keynote address at the White House correspondents’ dinner in 2006, G.-G. shows the layers of ambiguity and the getting it/not getting it splits in the audience. One cannot help feeling G.-G. is nudging the reader to ask him/herself whether he/she (in response to Laughing Atoms) belongs in the sheep or wolf category. Recognition of the freshness of G.-G.'s appraisal of satire, and of the way in which he shows DRN can be seen to operate satirically and to inform subsequent Roman satire does, I think, put this reader in the ‘wolf’ category. Above all, it is fair to say that G.-G.'s statement in his conclusion, ‘This study has demonstrated how important satire is to Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, and how important De Rerum Natura is to satire’ (p. 211), does hold true.
