At Book 5.324–37, the DRN’s narrator says that the world is young, claims that the nature of the world has been understood only recently (with the advent of Epicureanism), and asserts that he is either the ‘very first’/‘most pre-eminent’ or, as I suggest here, ‘among the first’/‘among the most pre-eminent’ to turn (vertere) Greek Epicureanism into Latin. It is the last of these three claims that concerns us:
Commentators and translators persistently interpret the phrase primus cum primis at line 336 to mean ‘the very first’, taking cum primis as an intensifier of primus and providing primus with a temporal denotation.Footnote 2 A comment by Reid is typical: ‘The phrase cum primis, as used by [Lucretius], has lost its literal sense, and means “particularly”, “especially”’.Footnote 3 It is not immediately clear, however, whether one should choose the temporal (‘first’) or qualitative (‘pre-eminent’) denotation for primus or whether one should allow ambiguity and grant that some readers may interpret the adjective temporally while others may interpret it qualitatively.Footnote 4 I suggest that the passage primus cum primis ipse repertus | nunc ego sum in patrias qui possim vertere voces means ‘I myself have now been discovered to be a pre-eminent person, among pre-eminent people, of the type who is able to turn this (i.e. the ratio mentioned in the previous line) into our native tongue’.Footnote 5Cum primis should be understood literally, following standard Latin grammar, as an ablative construed with cum denoting accompaniment rather than as an intensifier. While Leonard and Smith suggest that ‘the phrase cum primis … seems to have originated in the idea of accompaniment and implicit comparison’,Footnote 6 here I show that the prepositional phrase cum primis retains its original meaning of accompaniment in Lucretius.Footnote 7 As I shall argue, we should be sceptical of commentators who exhort us to interpret cum primis at 5.336 as an intensifier, since the phrase makes good sense, following standard Latin grammar, as an ablative of accompaniment, and Lucretius’ use of the phrase cum primis elsewhere is always qualitative, never temporal. Moreover, several scholars have used 5.336 to date early Italian Epicureans, including C. Amafinius, and the interpretation of 5.336, accordingly, affects Lucretius’ temporal position, as well as, perhaps, his intellectual engagement in relation to Italian Epicureans. There is, then, much at stake in the interpretation of 5.336, since the narrator may be found to be either honest or not (depending on how one interprets 5.336), when he positions Lucretius in relation to the translation of Epicureanism into Latin.
COMPARANDA
Comparandum 1
In Book 1, Lucretius provides a ‘second syllabus’ to his content.Footnote 8 He says that he intends not only (cum, 127) to discuss things celestial and terrestrial (127–130) but also (tum, 130) to inquire into the nature of the soul, the mind and visions of the dead.
Lucretius, accordingly, separates his investigation into two parts: the nature of the physical world (127–30) and man's place within that world (131–5). I suggest that the celestial and terrestrial investigations mentioned in 127–30 are the prima (the ‘fundamentals’ of nature), which are the focus in the study of natural philosophy. Lucretius stresses the importance of the study of nature, therefore, when he uses cum primis at line 130. In addition to addressing the ‘fundamentals’ of nature, Lucretius will also address (tum; i.e. in addition to the prima) the nature of the mind, soul and visions of the dead (i.e. man's place in the world, including metaphysics). Analogous to his use of cum primis here, Lucretius uses the prim- root in primordia and corpora prima, two of his seven terms for atoms, for the ‘fundamental constituents’ in the study of nature at the micro level.Footnote 9 As Sedley remarks, all Lucretius’ terms for atoms ‘concentrate not on the smallness of atoms but on their role as the primitive starting-points from which other entities are built up’.Footnote 10 The prima here in cum primis refers to the study of nature at the macro level, then, as the fundamental investigation that is to be undertaken in addition to the study of human concerns. Once the workings of nature, the fundamentals, have been discerned, man's place within the world can be rationally explained.
The cum primis phrase, then, is tautologous here. The cum … tum construction would have adequately expressed the two separate realms of investigation, since Lucretius explains what he has in mind in the study of the natural world in the immediately preceding lines 127–30. Such tautology, however, is common in the cum … tum construction, with words such as etiam regularly following tum (cf. OLD s.v. tum 12), as cum primis does here. Accordingly, the addition of cum primis after tum emphasizes the importance of studying the natural world. This is unsurprising since, as Warren notes, ‘Lucretius follows the tradition of works On Nature and, most importantly, the scope of Epicurus’ work by that name, in concentrating his attention on Epicurean natural philosophy to the comparative exclusion of other areas of Epicurean interest’.Footnote 11
Lucretius focusses on the ‘fundamentals’ in three lines (128–30), addressing both the heavens (superis de rebus, 127) and earth (in terris, 130) and devotes thereafter five lines (131–5) to corporeal and metaphysical concerns: inquiry into the nature of the soul (anima, 131), the mind (animi natura, 131) and ghosts. Since Lucretius elsewhere explicitly declares his purpose to be the expulsion of fear of death, here he focusses on the importance of understanding the fundamentals of the universe, which understanding will release us from fear of gods, who may otherwise be granted agency in the workings of nature. Lucretius, then, emphatically delineates two areas of inquiry and, accordingly, I read cum primis in this passage differently from previous scholars, believing the phrase to be a reference to the first category, natural philosophy, and to be misconstrued when construed as an adverbial, intensifying phrase, which disregards the importance of the semantics of prima as well as Lucretius’ use of prima in a cum clause.Footnote 12
Comparandum 2
Toward the end of Book 1 (705–15), Lucretius critiques the thought of Presocratic philosophers, and Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras are singled out as, respectively, representatives of monism, pluralism and the theory of infinite divisibility. As Sedley notes, ‘Lucretius is not, in effect, singling out Empedocles as a uniquely important authority but is expressing an Epicurean's qualified respect for the work of the Presocratic natural philosophers in general’.Footnote 13 At 716 Lucretius modifies a nominative noun, Empedocles, with cum primis, analogous to the phrase primus cum primis at 5.336.
As Tatum observes, ‘The objections against Heraclitus and Empedocles attempt to discredit all forms of monism and the four-element theory’,Footnote 14 and Lucretius, accordingly, positions Empedocles (716) ‘amongst the most prominent’ (cum primis) as a figurehead of pluralism generally and the four-element theory specifically. Elsewhere, Lucretius stresses Empedocles’ pre-eminence not antecedence,Footnote 15 and the qualitative, not temporal, denotation of primus is primary here.Footnote 16 Moreover, as many scholars recognize, quorum is dependent on cum primis, and cum primis cannot therefore be an adverbial intensifier, but must refer to pre-eminent exponents of pluralism.Footnote 17As Giussani comments, ‘Infatti questa specie di classificazione fondamentale della sostanza nei quattro elementi non l'ha inventata Empedocle, ma ere già diffusa e tradizionale’.Footnote 18Cum primis, then, is neither adverbial nor temporal in this critical doxography, and Lucretius expects the reader to provide an appropriate noun with primis in its cum clause denoting accompaniment.
Comparandum 3
In Book 2, Lucretius uses cum primis while discussing the principle of ‘equilibrium’ (ἰσονομία) and arguing that there are an infinite number of atoms in an infinite amount of void; if there is less of one thing in one location, then elsewhere this thing will be found in relative abundance.Footnote 19 Lucretius uses exempla frequently to support his arguments and here he employs the elephant, non-existent in Greece and Rome, but abundant in India, as an exemplum to support his principle:
Line 536–8 may be translated, ‘just as we see in the race of quadrupeds that the snake-headed elephants are among the most prominent (cum primis), from the many thousands of which India is fortified with an ivory palisade’. It is not immediately clear what Lucretius here has in mind. Does he think of the elephant as being numerically ‘among the most prominent animals’ in India (which would explain why India is able to be so fortified) or does he think of the elephant as among the most prominent examples of the principle of ἰσονομία? Either way, given that Lucretius here is discussing the principal of ἰσονομία (and the abundance of elephants in India relative to other places in the world), the point of the passage is that elephants are so numerous in this region of the world that India is able to be fortified by the large amount of ivory provided by its numerous elephants. Lucretius may want his reader here to provide a word such as exemplis with cum primis and understand the elephant as one of the best examples of ἰσονομία. The use of exempla in reference to the number of elephants in 540 may also encourage the reader to take the passage thus. Regardless, cum primis is an ablative of accompaniment and it cannot be used as an adverbial intensifier here.
Comparandum 4
In Book 2, Lucretius argues that atoms do not have secondary qualities, such as colour, temperature, moisture or smell, and he uses scentless olive oil, a fundamental constituent for perfumes, as an analogue to an atom. Just as the olive oil serves as a base for the perfume, to which other ingredients are added to provide scents, so too atoms are fundamental units that acquire secondary qualities.Footnote 20 The fundamental problem with Lucretius’ analogy is that he is arguing that atoms are fundamental units that do not contain secondary qualities, such as colour, but that secondary characteristics develop from the arrangement of atoms. With perfumes, however, olive oil is not ontologically prior to the other ingredients used to form a perfume, but rather serves as the base ingredient for the perfume to which other ingredients of equal ontological status will be added in order to provide scent.Footnote 21 Lucretius’ analogy, then, is not without its problems, but the reader understands the point that Lucretius is trying to make.
Here Lucretius provides a list of ingredients for a perfume, and the phrase cum primis is used to mean ‘among the first ingredients’. Lucretius thinks of olive oil, the base of the perfume, as a fundamental ingredient, which takes its place among other fundamental ingredients that will provide the particular odours for the desired scent of the perfume. In his gloss on this passage, C. Giussani refers to olive oil as the materia prima of the perfume, and his choice of the phrase materia prima derives from understanding cum primis as referring to the ‘fundamental ingredients’, of which olive oil takes pride of place.Footnote 22 Lucretius’ use of the phrase cum primis, where primis refers to the fundamental ingredients of the perfume, then, encourages Giussani to choose primis’ etymologically related adjective prima when he refers to olive oil as the fundamental ingredient of a perfume. Here cum primis is a prepositional phrase construed with the ablative, has a qualitative denotation, and cannot be construed adverbially.
Comparandum 5
In Book 5, Lucretius discusses the difficulty of understanding some astronomical phenomena and notes that there are competing explanations for the orbits of the sun and moon:
Lucretius concedes that there is no easy (simplex, 614) answer to these astronomical phenomena and, accordingly, he wants his reader to keep an open mind concerning the multiple possible causes of the sun's and moon's orbits. Using the principle of multiple explanations,Footnote 23 then, Lucretius considers several possible causes for the astronomical phenomena under consideration. At 621, he says that among the most prominent (cum primis) of these explanations is that offered by Democritus. Lucretius expects his reader to supply causis with cum primis from causa in the preceding line (620), as Costa's translation of the phrase vel cum primis directs us: ‘perhaps among the most likely causes’.Footnote 24 The passage is somewhat confused because Lucretius does not distinguish between the actual cause and Democritus’ explanation of the cause, expecting his reader to be able to note the difference. Regardless, an adverbial, intensifying translation such as ‘especially’ for cum primis is impossible, because Lucretius is contextualizing Democritus’ ‘whirl’ (δῖνος) theory among other prominent (cum primis) theories for the movement of the sun and moon.Footnote 25 With this example too, then, Lucretius uses cum primis qualitatively and expects his reader to supply a noun with primis.
Comparandum 6
The last two examples occur in passages of Book 6 where Lucretius discusses the nature of the thunderbolt (κεραυνός, fulmen). Syntactically, the first example is notably different from the preceding comparanda because cum primis modifies a noun, while the second example is notably different because Lucretius moves toward using cum primis as an adverbial intensifier. In the passage immediately preceding the first example (219–24), Lucretius is advising his reader that thunderbolts are made of fire, as substantiated by the marks of fire and the odours of sulphur that thunderbolts leave, as well as by the fires they cause. Therefore, Lucretius notes that there is something peculiar to the fire of thunderbolts relative to the fire in other igneous phenomena:
Leonard and Smith translate the passage as ‘Nature, I tell you, has fashioned this fire <so as to be> subtle along with the first [i.e. most subtle] fires’ and, as Godwin notes, their translation particularly hits the mark.Footnote 26 Leonard and Smith gloss their translation with the parenthetical explanation ‘most subtle’, thereby stressing that Lucretius uses cum primis here qualitatively, as I argue is his practice elsewhere in DRN. Since the denotation of cum primis ignibus is not immediately clear, Lucretius introduces the following ablatives of material, minutis mobilibusque (226), which modify the emphatically enjambed corporibus (227), and he thereby explains in what respect primis ignibus are ‘first fires’. Primis, then, is not temporal, so a translation with a qualitative denotation, such as that of Leonard and Smith, is required. ‘Fundamental fires’ may hit the mark best since, as I argued above in relation to natural phenomena (comparandum 1), Lucretius uses the adjectival root prim- both in relation to primary constituents of matter (primordia, corpora prima) and in relation to the fundamental research of natural philosophy, and Lucretius’ fundamental fires develop out of the fine fire atoms (semina) of lightning and thunderbolts that gather in storm clouds (cf. 6.204–10, 271–3). As Leonard and Smith stress by glossing primis ignibus with ‘subtle’, and Lucretius stresses by explaining that these fires are constructed of tiny (minutis) and mobile (mobilibus) atoms,Footnote 27 the minute matter in the fires of thunderbolts allows thunderbolts to pass through the walls of houses, to penetrate materials as hard as stone and bronze, and to evaporate liquids from vessels because of their particularly fine atomic structure (228–35). As Leonard and Smith remark, the phrase cum primis ignibus is ‘important stylistically because it presents the expanded form of the common idiom cum (or in) primis’. By ‘expanded’ they mean that Lucretius here uses the adjective primis with the noun ignibus, whereas in all the examples discussed above, he expects the reader to supply an appropriate noun from the context.Footnote 28 For the purpose of this essay, the comparandum is important because cum primis is used as an ablative of accompaniment, has a qualitative denotation and is not an adverbial intensifier.
Comparandum 7
In the last use of cum primis in the DRN (6.260), Lucretius discusses the causes of the thunderbolt, and he stresses that thunderbolts come from thickly packed clouds, whereas lightning arises in a sky with only light cloud cover (cf. 6.214–18). He uses cum primis with ignibus ac ventis to describe the fullness of a storm cloud that emits thunderbolts:
Lucretius describes the nature of storm clouds, which are full of fire and winds, and the abundance of fire and wind atoms affects the nature of the intense storm (cf. the emphasis on weight in 259: fulminibus gravidam tempestatem atque procellis). This passage is a tour de force of Lucretian composition, and the intensifying cum primis adds to the enargeia that pervades the description. Based on the comparanda discussed above, I would argue that this is the only use of adverbial cum primis in the DRN. None the less, Lucretius uses cum primis here with programmatic purpose since, as noted in the preceding comparandum, ignes primi are fire atoms that are associated with thunderbolts. As Lucretius describes here the storm clouds that produce thunderbolts, the technical role of ignes primi will be recollected in the collocation ignibus ac ventis cum primis. In this last example, then, we recognize the Latin idiomatic adverbial cum primis but the phrase is not divorced from its broader thematic context.Footnote 29
INTERPRETING THE COMPARANDA
There are three conclusions that can be drawn from this survey of comparanda. First, Lucretius generally has a noun either modify the phrase cum primis or be easily understood with it, and the phrase has not ossified into an intensifying, adverbial idiom. If we are, then, to supply a noun with cum primis at 5.336, a noun for ‘men’ would be appropriate, and primis functions as a standard substantival adjective. Second, these examples show that Lucretius uses cum primis when he wants to specify one thing/person ‘among’ (cum) other principal things/people. Cum primis, accordingly, is most likely used as an ablative of accompaniment at 5.336. Third, Lucretius uses the phrase cum primis qualitatively (never of time) and primus most likely means ‘pre-eminent’, ‘distinguished’ at 5.336 (cf. e.g. Cic. Brut. 151, in secunda arte primus). Based on the comparanda, then, Lucretius seems to position himself at 5.336 relative to other leading Roman intellectuals who are translating Epicureanism into Latin.
Although cum primis and in primis develop adverbial idioms in Republican Latin (e.g. Cic. Quinct. 24; 58; Verr. 2.2.69, 2.3.68), the phrases are also used literally (in addition to the examples in Lucretius focussed on here) in both prose and poetry. Cornelius Nepos, for example, uses the phrase cum primis in his Iphicrates, where primis is qualitative and substantival (fuit enim talis dux, ut non solum aetatis suae cum primis compararetur, sed ne de maioribus natu quidem quisquam anteponeretur, Iph. 1). When discussing the character of Jugurtha as a child, Sallust refers to Jugurtha as either primus or in primis at striking blows on animals (leonem atque alias feras primus aut in primis ferire, Iug. 6.1). Since being the ‘best’ at hunting regularly means that one strikes or kills one's prey ‘first’, the temporal and qualitative denotations of primus overlap here. Regardless, in primis is used substantively and as a separate class from primus. In the Satires, Lucilius uses in primis substantively, qualitatively, and with a dependent genitive (multa homines portenta in Homeri uersibus ficta | monstra putant; quorum in primis Polyphemus ducentos | Cyclops longus pedes: et porro huic maius bacillum | quam malus naui in corbita maximus ullast (XV, 480–3 Marx). Lucretius’ use of cum primis with qualitative and substantival force, as argued here, fits comfortably, then, with the stylistic practice of Republican authors of both poetic and prose texts.
PRAGMATICS
How might Lucretius’ intended Roman audience have made sense of 5.336 in its context? The audience develops a sense of the achievements of previous groups of people in the immediately preceding lines, where Lucretius notes the accomplishments over time of poets, the improvements to shipbuilding (which implies generations of people working on ships), and the accomplishments of musicians (326–35). Lucretius creates, then, an idea of progress through the discoveries and developments of multiple people. This too suggests, via analogy, when Lucretius turns immediately thereafter to discuss rendering Epicureanism into Latin, that he envisions himself as a member of a group similar to the groups of poets, shipbuilders and musicians mentioned immediately above. His new group, then, is that of translators of Greek Epicureanism into Latin.
There are, furthermore, other textual phenomena that should be taken into consideration. The audience may expect Lucretius to use the ‘primus motif’ at 5.336 and say that Epicurus was the first person to find the ratio mentioned in line 335, but, after the caesura, the audience hears cum primis and makes it an ablative of accompaniment (nuper, et hanc primus cum primis ipse repertus). They may be somewhat confused as to what Lucretius is doing, positioning primus with other primi, and that will be answered as the information unit and metrical unit are completed with ipse repertus, when the audience aligns cum primis with repertus. Footnote 30 The echoing cum primis after primus thus seems to preclude the notion that cum primis ‘has lost its literal sense’; rather, the repetition exhorts us to consider the relationship between primus and cum primis. Moreover, as an intensifier, ipse separates Lucretius from others, and there would be no need for ipse if Lucretius were not referring with cum primis to other people. Lucretius includes ipse, however, because he needs to stress his agency relative to that of his company (cum primis). He unsurprisingly emphasizes his own importance within this group by placing himself in the nominative as the subject of repertus … sum (nuper, et hanc primus cum primis ipse repertus | nunc ego sum in patrias qui possim vertere voces, 336–7) and by highlighting his own significance in the qui-clause (337). Emphatically enjambed at the beginning of 337 nunc and ego are sandwiched between repertus and sum, which together form the periphrastic perfect passive indicative. The position of nunc and ego, between participle and sum, stresses that Lucretius sees himself as ‘now too’ being found as one who is able to translate Epicureanism into Latin. Interestingly, it is not clear why Lucretius chooses the passive repertus sum. Who found him? He does not tell, but he may envision himself here as one found by the Muses or as one, capable of performing the task at hand, found among Roman society.Footnote 31 There are thus several other grammatical and contextual phenomena that corroborate the revisionist interpretation put forth above in response to the comparanda. These include analogical thinking based on the preceding section of text, a cognitive desire to align cum primis as an ablative of accompaniment (and not as an idiom) when syntax allows, as well as an explanation for what is otherwise a superfluous use of the intensifiers ipse, nunc and ego.
THE PRIMUS MOTIF
The primus motif occurs frequently in Latin poetry, since Roman poets often boast of their primacy in translating Greek genres into Latin. In the preface to the third book of the Georgics (10–11), Virgil says, primus ego in patriam mecum, modo vita supersit,| Aonio rediens deducam vertice Musas. As Thomas notes, Virgil claims to be the first ‘to bring to Italy the Hesiodic muses as transformed by Callimachus’.Footnote 32 As Thomas's statement exemplifies, Virgil does not make a claim to antecedence for any simple genre, but his use of the primus motif harkens back to its use by Lucretius, discussed below. Similarly, in Odes 3.30.13–14 Horace boasts of his primacy (princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos | deduxisse modos), stressing his role in first bringing Greek lyric poetry into Latin,Footnote 33 and, in Epistles 1.19.23–5, he asserts that Parios ego primus iambos | ostendi Latio, numeros animusque secutus | Archilochi, thereby stressing his importance in bringing the tone and metres of Archilochean iambus to Italian soil.Footnote 34
For most modern readers, as made clear from the translations and the commentaries, it seems highly plausible that Lucretius wanted his audience to conjoin primus with cum primis, blur the temporal and qualitative distinctions of primus, and place him at the beginning of the tradition of translating Epicureanism into Latin. This is an intriguing hypothesis, which should be considered seriously, given the importance of the primus motif in Greco-Roman literature generally, in Lucretius specifically, and also given the long history of interpreting 5.336 in just this way.Footnote 35 Lucretius’ use of the primus motif throughout the poem, however, provides corroborative evidence to suggest that he is not using the primus motif at 5.336. When he uses the primus motif, he does something different syntactically, and I turn now to those passages to see how they differ from 5.336.
In Book 1 (117–19), Lucretius praises Ennius for being the first to bring the crown of the muses from Greece to Rome:
Lucretius’ praise of Ennius includes Ennius’ introduction of the Greek hexameter into LatinFootnote 36 and, as Brown notes, Lucretius here ‘indirectly acknowledges at the beginning of the poem his debt to Ennius as his main literary model in Latin’.Footnote 37 With this primus motif, Lucretius uses three notable phenomena: 1) a qui-clause; 2) the adjective primus alone; 3) a finite verb in the perfect active indicative, which thereby stresses the agency of the prôtos heuretês. These three phenomena repeatedly mark Lucretius’ primus motifs. Ennius’ action in the past was a simple event (detulit, 118) that has momentous repercussions for the present and, as Volk notes, ‘the poet here … claims to be the first to have attempted a certain type of poetry, the implication being that he is the first Roman to practice a genre already extant in Greek literature (just as, on this model, Ennius was the first Latin poet to write epic in hexameters, a type of poetry previously composed only by Greeks, most notably Homer)’.Footnote 38
Similarly when Lucretius praises Epicurus in Book 1 for being the first to fight superstitio, he says:
As Minadeo notes: ‘If, on the side of form, there are any key words in this passage, they are primum (66), primusque (67), and, again, the repeated primus (71). These are equivalent to establishing Epicurus … as inventor rerum and (in the same line) as pater.’Footnote 39 In this passage Lucretius stresses several times how Epicurus is first, and the simplicity with which he does so is notable. Again, he uses primus (or adverbial primum, 66) and finite active indicative verbs, emphasizing with clear accidence and syntax Epicurus’ primacy and agency.
In his encomium of Epicurus at the beginning of Book 3, Lucretius says:
Again, Lucretius stresses his point with clear syntax: qui, primus, and finite verb in the perfect active indicative (potuisti, 2); similarly in Book 5 Lucretius says (7–12):
Again, qui, princeps and verbs in the perfect active indicative (invenit, 9; locavit, 12) are used in the primus motif.Footnote 40
When we compare these uses of the primus motif with 5.336, there are two notable differences. First, when Lucretius uses the primus motif he uses primus (or princeps) by itself to stress ‘firstness’, and he does not modify primus with another phrase such as cum primis. Second, Lucretius’ use of the perfect active indicative with qui in these primus-motif passages stresses the agency of the prôtos heuretês. The use of the perfect passive indicative at 5.336 removes agency from Lucretius and bestows it on the Muses or others. The primus-motif passages also differ syntactically since they do not include the qui-clause with a characteristic or generic subjunctive that Lucretius uses at 5.336 (in patrias qui possim vertere voces). For, as Allen and Greenough note, ‘A relative clause in the indicative merely states something as a fact which is true of the antecedent; a characteristic clause in the subjunctive defines the antecedent as a person or thing of such a character that the statement made is true of him or it and of all others belonging to the same class’.Footnote 41 The use of the qui-clause with the subjunctive suggests, then, that Lucretius has others in mind with whom he is able to compare himself, which thereby allows him to be able to make the claim that he is ‘pre-eminent.’ If Lucretius wished to say that he was the first person to turn Epicureanism into Latin, he would probably have chosen the simple indicative with qui to stress the reality of the accomplishment, as he does elsewhere. The qui-clause of characteristic, the passive indicative (which removes agency from the prôtos heuretês) and cum primis with primus are all notable peculiarities relative to Lucretius’ primus clauses, and these peculiarities provide corroborative evidence to assert that Lucretius is doing something markedly different than constructing a primus-motif clause at 5.336.
PROGRAMMATIC STATEMENTS
In his programmatic statements made elsewhere, Lucretius does not claim to be the first to compose on Epicureanism in Latin.Footnote 42 Rather, he stresses his accomplishments as a poet and follower of the Muses, and asserts that he is the first to render Epicurean philosophy into Latin poetry (1.926–30 = 4.1–5):
As Minadeo notes, these five verses ‘immediately establish a correlation … with the primus motif in the Epicurean proems. No less than four times does the notion arise: avia … loca nullius ante trita solo; integros fontis; novos flores and unde prius nulli velarint tempora musae’.Footnote 43 Here Lucretius revels in being the first to compose Epicurean poetry in Latin, and these four circumlocutions on the primus motif exhibit Lucretius’ superb poetic abilities.
In another programmatic passage in Book 1, Lucretius stresses the difficulties of his poetic task:
Lucretius emphasizes two difficulties he faces: his need to compose Latin hexameters (Latinis versibus, 137) out of foreign Greek material and his need to construct new terminology (novis verbis, 138) for Greek philosophical concepts. As Tatum notes, ‘Lucretius, like his contemporary Cicero, was preoccupied with the task of presenting Greek philosophy in Latin’,Footnote 44 and, in these two programmatic passages, Lucretius artfully stresses (four times) that he is the first to compose in poetry and he emphasizes the intellectual difficulties that his undertaking places before him. He does not, however, claim to be the first to write on Epicureanism in Latin.
Lucretius may have chosen the infinitive vertere in 5.336 for a programmatic reason. As the examples in the OLD show (s.v. verto 24), vertere is used to express translation without clarifying whether the translation will be done in poetry or prose. However, vertere has the derivative versus which denotes ‘verses’, and when Lucretius uses vertere he may expect his reader to recognize the etymology and notice that he is turning (vertere) Epicureanism into Latin verses (versus).Footnote 45
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
There are, then, semantic, syntactical and pragmatic reasons for not following the traditional interpretation of 5.336, but there is also a socio-historical reason for rethinking the phrase. The standard interpretation of the phrase primus cum primis at 5.336 has led to considerable consternation for historical reasons.Footnote 46 For example, M.F. Smith, in his revision to Rouse's Loeb translation, comments as follows: ‘It is usually thought that C. Amafinius, whom Cicero mentions [Tusc. 4. 5–7, see below] as having achieved great success with his books, had expounded Epicureanism in Latin before Lucretius. Although Howe has followed G. Della Valle in maintaining that Amafinius and Lucretius were contemporaries, his arguments, though important, are not entirely convincing. But if indeed Amafinius had written earlier than Lucretius why does Lucretius ignore him? The answer may be that Amafinius’ works were brief and dealt mainly with ethical doctrine, and that Lucretius was the first Latin writer to give a detailed account of Epicurean physics.’Footnote 47 As Smith shows, there is something that remains unsatisfying, and even deeply unsettling, with Della Valle's and Howe's deductions from 5.336, and this dissatisfaction leads Smith to speculation as he tries to make sense of the problem.Footnote 48
The interpretation of 5.336, accordingly, has strongly affected the dating of C. Amafinius.Footnote 49 Shackleton Bailey states, ‘Amafinius was probably the first to write on Epicureanism in Latin and his work brought the system into fashion in Italy’, while Rawson asserts that Amafinius was ‘clearly the earliest’ of the Epicureans.Footnote 50 These statements are based on the relative chronology of Cicero, who places Amafinius unproblematically at the beginning of the Epicurean tradition.Footnote 51 Yet, as Beard points out, ‘No precise date is given for Amafinius, but the implication is that these Epicureans had chronological priority over the early Stoics’.Footnote 52 It is widely assumed, then, that Amafinius worked a generation or so before Lucretius.Footnote 53
Following Cicero, Amafinius predates Lucretius, but if 5.336 means that Lucretius is the first to compose on Epicureanism in Latin, there are two conclusions that may be drawn: 1) Lucretius tells the truth, and Amafinius must be down-dated to a period contemporary with or following Lucretius (Lucretius is traditionally dated c. 97–c. 55 b.c.); 2) Lucretius lies (or is unaware of Amafinius), and this does not affect the fact that Amafinius lived before Lucretius. Della Valle and Howe choose the first interpretation, while most scholars choose the latter and assume that Lucretius either ignores Amafinius to bolster his own importance or does not know that Amafinius existed. It is hard to believe that Lucretius would not know of Amafinius, had Amafinius lived before Lucretius, and it is hard to explain how Cicero would have made such a gross error, had Lucretius preceded Amafinius. Accordingly, most scholars suggest that Amafinius and other early Italian Epicureans are left unmentioned so that Lucretius, using the primus motif, can place himself first in the tradition of composing on Epicureanism in Latin. This, however, leaves Lucretius open to attack for ignorance or, worse yet, for wilful disregard of forerunners, for the sake of self-flattery. Yet, Cicero clearly knew the work of both Amafinius and Lucretius,Footnote 54 and there is no obvious reason to suppose such a glaring error on his part, which would leave him too open to ridicule if Lucretius preceded Amafinius. The interpretation put forth in this paper, accordingly, vindicates Lucretius and Cicero against claims of deceptive self-flattery, ignorance and the wilful deceit of their audiences. If 5.336 is not a claim to temporal primacy, then Cicero's claim that Amafinius was first in a tradition of composing Epicureanism is unproblematic, and Amafinius sits chronologically before Lucretius. It is pure speculation to wonder among whom Lucretius positions himself when he says that he is primus cum primis but, in addition to Amafinius, he may also have the early Epicureans Rabirius and Catius in mind.Footnote 55
Assuming the phrase primus cum primis means ‘pre-eminent among other pre-eminent people’, it may offer some statement of Lucretius’ relationship to the work of contemporary Epicureans, and we may wonder, then, whether the phrase affects the question of Lucretius being a philosophical ‘fundamentalist’, as Sedley has argued, or whether Lucretius claims to engage with the work of other philosophers. Lucretius, of course, was never actively ‘doing’ Epicurean philosophy in Italy in the manner that some of his fellow Epicureans (e.g. Philodemus) were, but we might expect him to have had links with Philodemus’ Epicurean school, which was at its zenith in the mid first century b.c. when Lucretius was composing. For example, Cicero refers to Piso and Philodemus as familiares on whom he could rely if he needed help with Epicurean doctrine.Footnote 56 Although the phrase primus cum primis explicitly acknowledges Lucretius’ awareness of others translating Epicureanism into Latin, it does not provide any evidence that Lucretius was engaging intellectually with the works of his fellow translators or was in any way dependent on them when writing the DRN. If the narrator wants his audience to assume that he was ‘found’ (repertus) by the Muses, then he constructs Lucretius as a vessel that is able to emit true doctrine and, as a disciple of Epicurus, Lucretius exposes and explains the work of his master, while claiming, at 5.336, a position among translators, such as Amafinius, of Epicureanism into Latin. The phrase primus cum primis, then, sits comfortably with those scholars who view Lucretius as a fundamentalist, since Lucretius does not claim to engage with the texts or ideas of other Italian Epicureans. Lucretius does, however, hold his fellow translators in some esteem, or else he would not refer to them qualitatively as primi.
CONCLUSION
At 5.336, Lucretius positions himself among a broader intellectual milieu and, as Cabisius remarks, ‘In statements about his own purpose and in statements of praise for his predecessors, the poet clearly intends to define his own place in the philosophic and poetic traditions’.Footnote 57 The interpretation presented here fits squarely with Lucretius’ language used elsewhere in the poem, with Lucretius’ programmatic claims made elsewhere in the poem, as well as with our knowledge of Epicureanism in Italy. Lucretius, then, is a leading man, among leading men, who is able to turn Greek Epicureanism into Latin.Footnote 58
