hadzssits g. d. - lucretius as a student of roman religion

7/28/2019 Hadzssits G. D. - Lucretius as a Student of Roman Religion

1/17

Lucretius as a Student of Roman Religion

Author(s): George Depue HadzsitsSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 49 (1918),pp. 145-160Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283000 .

Accessed: 28/05/2013 16:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 93.38.142.82 on Tue, 28 May 2013 16:12:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283000?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283000?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/17

Vol.xlix] Lucretius s a StudentfRomanReligion I45

X. - Lucretiuss a Student fRomanReligionBYPROFESSOR GEORGE DEPUE HADZSITSUNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

LUCRETIUS, s a protestant against religiousand ethicalconditions in Rome, espoused a system of religious andethical philosophy n which he doubtless thought there re-sided a universalvalidity. Preaching this philosophy withthe earnest zeal of an evangelist,the dissenterbelieved thatadoption of his highest deals ofworship nd conductwouldaccomplisha revolution n religious thoughtand a reforma-tion n politicaland social life.Yet while the de RerumNatura abounds in evidences ofreaction to the poet's physical and ethical environment-evidencesfound n theinnumerable llustrations hat illuminea natural philosophyand exalt an ethical aspiration stillin mattersof religionthe Lucretian exposition manifestshaughty scorn of the phenomenology f Roman life.2 No

I E.g. I 40-3, 103-45, 159-214, 255, 28I, 306, 312, 315, 3I6, 347, 360, 405,455, 464, 494, 7i6, 739, 805, 896, 920, 935, 970, 985; II, i-6i, 80-14I, I84-215,263, 37, 323, 349, 38I-97, 398-407, 408-43, 444-77, 478-52I, 522-68, 66i,757, 766, 795, 825, 870, 927, 1030, 1150 f.; II, 48-93, 148, I52-60, I65-75,i9i, I96, 38I f., 384, 445-58, 459-525, 598, 685, 7I3-40, 776-829, 832, 870,894, 912, 930, 978 f.,1024, 1053, 1077 f.; IV, 75 f., IO-28, 176 f., 8o, 387, 391,400, 404, 414, 420, 426, 443, 468, 514, 524, 577, 584, 683, 722 f.,777-8I7, 926-I038, 1121-40; V, 35, 43 f.,104-9, 208, 252, 282, 305, 311, 326, 397, 460, 478,507, 5I6, 521, 6o8, 622, 656, 663, 669, 68i, 727, 737, 804, 849, 862, 877 f.,900,999 f., oo8,I 063, 107I, 1073, io8o, 1105 f., i60 f., 1241, 128I f., 302, 1339,I398, 1408, I410, 1423; VI, I09, 469, 470-8, 6oo, 617, 626, 639, 7I2, 738, 750,848, 86o, 906, 936-58, IOIl, I044, IIOO. Many of these ilustrations weredoubtlessemployed n Lucretius' literary ources; manyon the otherhandclearly eem to reflect personalexperience; theydeserve pecial studywhichmight hrow ighton Lucretius' ife.

2I, 1-43, 54, 69, IOO, I02, ii6, 120, 173, 199, 228, 250, 739, 925, 932, 946,970; II, 352, 417, 439, 472, 58i-66o (637, 652), 705, 991, 998, 1iioi II17, 1154,ii68; III, 25, 37, 22I, 327, 432, 628, 978 f.; IV, I, 7, 21, 38, I70, 58o f.,731 f;,1007, I037 f., 236; V, I4, 73, II2, II4, I17, 259, 308, 400, 52I, 655, 737, 793,878, 897, 915, 949, 962, 980, 996, 1091, 1126, I156, ii6o f., 1362, I402; VI, 75,86, 94, 154, 251, 293, 38I, 387, 40I, 417, 4I9, 750, 752, 759, 762, 764, 1076,

This content downloaded from 93.38.142.82 on Tue, 28 May 2013 16:12:44 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

I46 George epueHadzsits [i9i8exposition f the Epicurean theory f thenatureof the gods,no Epicurean refutationof a supposedly false theologicalinterpretationof nature, no definitionof the Epicureanconceptions fworship nd prayerwereunderany obligationto dwellupon thefacts of orthodoxRoman beliefsand prac-tices in these directions. But an undue concentrationofmind upon Greek literarysources of inspiration preventedan adequate appreciation,on Lucretius' part, of the Romanreligion fhis ownday.

Lucretius'descriptions fthe true nature of the gods restabsolutelyupon his Greek originals,whomhe followedwithexact fidelity. We are in a genuine Greek literaryatmos-phere throughout hesenumerouspassages. There is (prob-ably) not a quality attributed o the gods for which he didnot findfull authority n Epicurus' own compositionsor inother Epicurean sources. The Lucretian account corre-sponds, point forpoint, with all knowngenuineEpicureantheology. Lucretius' detachment fromthe Roman religiousenvironment s almost complete. There is scarcely anyrecognition f the many noble attributeswhichin timehadbecome associated with the Roman Pantheon and whichwerefullyrecognizedn Roman cult and ceremony.4 Jupiterfigures n two passages; but these are passages of intense,bitter rony,revealinga god of mightand terror, uiltyofcowardice,folly,and crime,blind to justice, and the irra-1272, 1276. I have includedhere,forcompleteness, eferenceso Greekre-ligion lso; thesignificancef thesepassagesis discussed ater.

3 I, 1-43, 8o-ioi, IOI5; II, 434, 646-51, I090-II04; III, I8-25, 978 f.; iv,580-94, 73 f-; v, -54, 82-90, 146-55, i65, I68, 172, 178, 195-234, 309-IO,878 f., I6l-1240, 1387; VI, 56, 64, 69, 7I-4, 77, 379-422. Cf. Diog. L. x,123 (Usener,picurea,pp. 59-60), passim; Diog. L. x, 39 (K6pLacA6atu,);Philodemus, repl o-ej#eias, omperz (i866), pp. 85, 88, 122, I23, I27, I28,136, I45; Usener,Ep. (I887), pp. 232-244; Liv. xxviii, ii; Cic. Div. ii, i9,45; Sen. N.Q. II, 46,Lact. Inst. ii, 17, 8; Cic. N.D. i, 8, i8-i, 20, 56. In thesepassages Lucretius' opinionas to the natureof the gods is expressedeitherdirectly rby implicationnd contrast.

4 The Venus invocation ffords notableexception; yet evenherethere sno suggestion fRomanvs. Greekelements.



4/17

Vol.xlix] Luc.vetiuss a Student fRomanReligion I47tional destroyer f his own holy temples a partial presen-tation of the case, surely,which did not later escape theironicalobservationofLactantius.The numerouseloquentpassages that vehementlydeny adivine creation,condition, nd control of the universe aredirect ssaultsupon someoftheveryfundamentals fRomanreligiousbelief and organization,which needs must havepassed away with the surrenderof an ancient theologicalinterpretation f nature. Without minimizing the impor-tance, to the advance of science,of the couragewith whichLucretiusreleasesnature fromthe controlof divinepowers,it nonetheless is true thatLucretius' exposition s grounded,firstand last, upon Greeksources, Epicurean, Stoic, andPeripatetic. It is not only from these that he derivedhisinspiration,but it is also to these that he virtually imitedhis attention. Lucretius' presentationof Epicurean argu-ments can be paralleled either n fragments f Epicurus orin Stoic-Epicurean controversy. I do not find a singleoriginal idea, unless Lucretius employs a novel one in thepicture of the baby's utter helplessnessat birth as proofthat the world was so full of fault that thoughtof divineprotectionwas excluded as utterlyncredibile.Epicurus was unalterably opposed to divination ; Lu-cretius' mention of the Roman augural college is purelyincidental.7 Mention of the Tuscan rolls merely betraysLucretius' failureas a real student of Roman religiousor-ganization. Lucretius' referenceto the Fetial priests is

5 I, I-43 (prayerand symbolism), 46-58; II, I67-83, 58I-660, I090-1104,II48-74; IV, 580-94, 731 f., 823-57, 1223-80; V, 55-90, 110-45, 146-94,I95-234, 878 f., II6I-1240; VI, 43-95, 379-422, 750 f. Cf. Diog. L. x, I42(K6pLaL A6bu,XI, XII, xiii), passim; Usener,Ep., pp. 245-257; Diog. L. X, 76(Usener,pp. 27-28), x, 96 (Usener,pp. 41-42); Cic. Acad. II, 38, 120 (withnote in Reid's ed.); Plut. Mor. 923 A; Verg.Aen. iv, 205 f.; Sen. N.Q. II,42. See G. F. Sch6mann,Opusculaacademica "De Epicuritheologia"), 871;Fr.Picavet,De Epicuro,novae eligionisuctorei888); P. Decharme, a critiquedes traditions eligieusesI904); H. Schmidt,Veteres hilosophi uomodoudi.caverinteprecibusI907).6Usener,Ep., pp. 261-262. 7 vi, 86. 8VI, 38I. 9 I, 968 f.



5/17

I48 George epue Hadzsits [I9I8veiled in a poetic passage of great beauty. Pontiffsandharuspices, Vestal virgins and all the elaborate Romanmachinery fworshipmight,for all of the Lucretian verses,never have existed. Festivals, too, are ignored unless onepassage 10conveys a concealed allusion to the Vinalia. Al-thoughthis striking voidance of application of Epicureantheoryto Roman cults, which to the minds of Cicero1] andVarro seemedcentraland of supreme mportance n Romanreligion,may have in part been dictated by discretion, twas, I believe, n largepart due to a zealous exploitation ofGreek heory. Lucretius' claim to originalityn this respectseems as slightas that of the Epicurean Torquatus.'2 Lu-cretiuswas obviously contentwith the iconoclast's greaterprize of destroyingbelief in a Providentiaupon which thewhole systemof ius divinumwas built. Altars and altarfires, roves, acrificesnd gifts, emples,shrines, nd imagesof gods,all figuren thepoem,but appear as a poor symbol-ism,all too feeble nd frail o expressdivine mmortality.The only gods appearingunder Roman names 13 are Venus,Neptune, Ceres, Liber, Summanus, Flora, Volturnus, Sa-turnus,Matuta, Faunus, and Iupiter. On the other hand,the GreekAcherusianquarters,the Pythia,Phoebus, Pallas,Bacchus, Magna Mater, the Nymphs, Satyrs, and Pan,Calliope, Greek myths of the Chimaera, Scylla, the Cen-taurs, Cerberus,the Giants, the Golden Age, and Phaethonplaya farmore mportant art nexplanation ftheEpicureansystem.14 Besides, it is not the Italian Venus at all but theGreekAphroditewho appears resplendentn the invocation,

10 II6 II6o f.; cf.Ov. Fast. IV, 877 f. on the Vinalia, and goi f.on the Robi-galia.11N.D. I, 2, 3 f.; I, 44, 122 f.12 Cic. Fin. I, 14, I6, 45, 6I, 64, 65, 7I, and especially 8.3 I, 1-43, 173, 228; II, 439, 472, 637, 652; III, 221; IV, 580 f.,737; V, 14,52I, 655, 739 f.,897, 962; VI, 387, 40I, I076.14 I, II5, I20, 200, 739, 925, 946; ii, 6oo f., 05, II54; III, 25, 22I, 624-34,978 f.; IV, I, 2I, 138, I70, 58o f., 3I f.; V, I-40, II2, II7, 400, 793-82I, 878 f.,

912, 915, 949, 996, I09I(?), II26; VI, 94, I54, 25I, 292(?), 750, 762, 764.



6/17

Vol. xlix] Lucretius s a Student fRomanReligion I49despite the Roman touch of Aeneadum genetrix. It is notthe Roman Saturnus but the Greek Cronoswhom Lucretius,despite theLatin name,had in mind. It is a Graeco-Romanpantheon that Lucretius recognizedas regnant in Rome.Epicurus is the peer ofCeres, Liber, and Hercules; likewise,Neptune, Ceres, and Bacchus are associated without dis-crimination, s also Faunus with Greekgoat-footedSatyrs,Nymphs,and Pan, quite in the best fashionof Ovid or ofNigidius Figulus.'5 It is toward a Greek religiousworldthat Lucretius,under the compelling pell of Epicurus,wasturned,'6 nd it is slight wonder that he made no specificstudy of Roman religious conditions. Admiration for Epi-curus resulted n adorationand deification; ardentproclama-tionofEpicurus' divinity 7 introduced notherGreek factor,namely,that of apotheosis, nto the religiousworld n whichLucretius ivedand thought. It isAthens,rather han Rome,thatprovoked. panegyric s the worthyhome of Epicurus,"8the true savior of suffering umanity. Lucretius' belief inEpicurus mounted into the realm of faith, and his unques-tioning evotiontoEpicurus resulted, ven, n someerroneousconclusions bout Roman religion.The brief Lucretian discussion of the origins of false

15Cf. also Verg. Aen., and Nep. Hann. II: 'Pater meus,' inquit, Hamilcar. . . Carthagine ovi optimo maximohostias mmolavit.'16 I, ii8, 124, 464 f.; IV, 548, 903, II64, ii66; V, 326, 507, 6I5, 662, 866;VI, 298, 424, 6o6, 750, 786, 908, iii6. The followingre fromGreek iterarysources cf. notes nMunro,Merrill, nd Giussani): I, I-43, 6ii, 635 f.,705 f.,830 f.; II, 6oo, 629, 635, 99I; III, I8-24, 44, 45, 37I, 629; iv, 823-57, I223-62;V, 226, 405, 622, 878-9I4, II94, I204; VI, I7, 26, 93, 392, 399, 754. Thesepassages, n additionto thosegiven n n. I4, on Greekgodsand myths, learlyshow how greattheGreek nfluences ere: LucretiusknewHomer,Heraclitus,Empedocles, Anaxagoras,Aristotle, lato, Hippocrates, Euripides, the Stoics,and Thucydides, t least; Democritus nd Epicuruswerenot his sole sources.Cf. J. Woltjer,Lucretiiphilosophia umfontibus omparata I877); this bookoughtto be rewritten.

17 III, I-30 (I5); V, I-54 (6, 8, I3, I9, 5I); VI, I-42 (6, 8). Cf. , 729-33,736-39; II, 99I f.; m, I44, 307-22, 37I; v, 622; also praise of Epicurus,I, 62 f., II, I042.18VI, init.



7/17

I50 George epue Uadzsits [I9I8religiousbeliefsfollowsthe text of Epicuruswithout dissent,for Epicurus had discussed the importantpart played bydreams in the genesis of religiousevolution19and doubtlesshad also recognizedthe significance f awe-inspiring aturalphenomena. Lucretius truly follows n the footstepsof hismaster,even in the enumeration f such phenomena as theregular succession of night and day, the wonders of the sunand moon, of meteors, louds, rain, snow, hail, thunder, ndlightning. His dependenceupon hispredecessor s complete,but, morethanthat,theexplanationas applied to theoriginsof Roman religion is, in part at least, incorrect. As allstudentsof Roman religion know, the numina were in themain suggestedby, associated with,and located near notheavenly portentsat all - but those loci of home and fieldthat were of most immediate importanceto domestic andcountry ife. The absence of further iscussionon the partof Lucretius is all the more remarkable, n view of the factthat the Epicurean Philodemus and Velleius were aware of

19V, II6I-I240. Cf.Sext. adv. Math. IX, 25 f.,E7rKOVpOS eKTWY KaTa 7ovsv7rvovs OavTcaLwz' or'erua ToVS adv0pC6VrovS 'VOLav eaO7raKevaL 0eoi. Wya'XWv -yapeCowV,, 0-0, Kal adv9pw7rop6pqv, KaTa Tobs o-rvoUspO7rLrT6VTwv 'rA\aovKai racs aX79eIaLS v&7r6apXeLvLVas TOLO0TOVS OeoisavOpwroL6poovs. fVLOL U e' TrVa7rcp3acroV Kal evJraKTOV TCV oOpcLJJL KaV10V rapaoyvoyevo bao T'V 7p7v7ats TWV Oez' &7-LvolaLS h7r aTr7s 7ye-yovgvaL prpTov; Cic. N.D. I, I4, 36, Cum

vero Hesiodi Oeo-yoviav,d est originemdeorum, Zeno) interpretatur,ollitomninousitatasperceptasquecognitiones eorum; neque enimJovemnequeJunonem eque Vestamneque quemquam,qui ita appelletur,ndeorumhabetnumero,edrebus nanimis tquemutisperquandamsignificationemaec docettributa nomina; Sextus, ib. 24, 'p.vTEs -yIp, q577ot [,A77A6KpL7OS], TJ eV TOLSA7eTe(poLS 7raO'/7aT ol raXaLoL TrV VOpUS7rVW, KaOd7rep apOVT-S KcL dorpa7r&scepcwVO's Te Kal o7TpwV oVV65ovs 'XOV 7Te Kal TeX'vfS eKhXetie 56L1IaaToUvro,Oeobs ol'6teVOL roi5rwv alTrovs eTvaL ; Diog. L. x, 76, Ka'l XvbKav T'V>(V Oi7/ieTe($bpoLS /Opa'V Kal TpO7r'V Kal E'KXeLl/LV Kat dVacTO7vXV Kai 5OLV KaiL Ta 0V'LTTOLXXa7o1TOVOLS 7'Te XELTOvpyoVVTos T7LVOS VOtdeCLV oe -yevegoOac Kal 5Lardrrovros X 6LCaT-CavroS Kal &/Ca r' v raiav /aKapL6rT7Ta fXOVTOs /eTr& doftap0ias; X, 97, ETL TE

TcrdLS repLMov, KacOd rep fVLCa Kal raap' 'LV VUXvVTX6vV -yVvTrat, Xatq3cavgo-OwKal i Odea e60S 7rpos TcaVTa Atq5aA,) rpoaazy0W,cXX' aXenroip'y'qoS onar'peioOIcal {V T&arV /laKapt6T'7TL. 's el 7oiro A' rpaXO'eTacL, &7 a 1 TC /eTeLp'VaclTLOXo'yca AaraTa C -raL, KaOd rrep rV XOv 9'y9vero oU Ovarov Tp67rov 0a4/a-tgvots. Epicurus doubtless supposed that the theory f divinecontrolhadfrom he beginning aused falsenotions fGod.



8/17


9/17

I52 George epueHadzsits [I9I8which recognizedthe universal elementof the religious n-stinctin all mankind 3; but thisLucretius,gnored n favorof the two more special and particularexplanations, atisfiedwith these because they bore the stamp of his great prede-cessor's approval.As Plutarchpointed out,24 he supreme end of Epicurus'argumentation bout religionwas to dispel the fear whichhe evidentlyregardedas a veritablelacerating rony nnatein orthodox religion'sbrutal fact. The same passion pos-sessed Lucretius,whose keen insightcut through ham andconventionality. The theme is one that recurs constantlyin all Epicurean literature. No exposition fEpicurus madea moreprofound ppeal to the sensitivemind ofLucretius.25It was fear that begot religion, nd fearpervaded the wholehistoryof cults, ritual,ceremonies, nd prayers. Fear thatthe gods possessed infinite ower,fear of theircrueltyandvengefulwrath,continuedfearof an omnipresentnd ubiqui-tous exercise f their ontrol ver all the forces f naturehadprimumesse deos,quod in omniumanimiseorumnotionemmpressissetpsanatura. quae est enimgens aut quod genus hominum,uod non habeat sinedoctrina anticipationemuandamdeorum?quam appellat7rp6Xo/aEpicurus,id est anteceptamanimo rei quandam informationem,ine qua nec intellegiquicquamnecquaerinec disputari otest. cuiusrationis im atque utilitatemex illo caelestiEpicuride regulaet iudiciovolumine ccepimus.

23 ucretiusmayhaveplannedto elaborateon this s wellas onother hemes(V, 55). But Stoicsalso heldtheviewthatuniversalbeliefwas thestrongestproof ftheexistence f gods; cf.note in Mayor's ed. ofCic. N.D. I, i6, 43,and passagesquoted there; also N.D. II, 5, I2.24Mor. 092 B: erel U T7-OS zv ToOVwepl Oe6iVX67ov ['ErLKoVPY] TOr #

/oo3eZoOaL o6Pv dXXI& ra6oaoOaL TraparTTOIdVOvsi, 3e/367epov ollauL 73O0' Vi7rdpXCeVTOLS 5XWS ' vOOOOVLO VOLP VOEVP17 3XabrrovTpra /Le/LacO7K6oCV. Ib. I09I E:o0vo e1 TO dX7yev KaL fooeZfOat r& Oea Kal rapdirreofat ro?s epVAtoV KaK6V, 77TO6TwVd7rof5v7' /laK&pLOV KacL 7Xwr-6V.25 I, 52-3, 62-79, 8o-ioi, I02-35, I46-58, 932, 945; II, 44, 59, 58i-660,I040, I090-II04, II50-74; III, I-30, 3I-93, 622-34, 978-I023; IV, I9-20,33-4I, 365, 734, 73I f. (760), I223-80; V, 55-90, IIO-45, I95-234, 878 f.,II6I-I240; VI, 43-95, 379-422, 750 f., 2I2. Cf. the passages on thetruenatureofthegods,withthe mplied nd explicit reedom rom ear. Cf.also Cic. N.D. I, 20, 54, Acad. II, 38, I2I, T.D. I, 48,Fin. I, 5, I4; Liv. XXI, 4,9 (on Hannibal); Liv. I, I9, 5 and Ov. Fast. III, 278 (on Numa); Diog. L. x,I42 (K6ptat A6at), 78-79-



10/17

vol. xlix] Lucretius as a Studentof Roman Religion I53crushed mankind to a conditionof intolerableservitudeandof base humility. Constant fear of punishmentskept thegods in power as harsh taskmasterstowardwhom the onlyrecognizedsentimentwas that of dread. This fear of thegods - the themeofwonderful oetry,chargedwithdeepestLucretian passion - represents,however,an elaborationofthe thesis of Epicurus, of whom Cotta said 26 that he knewno one who himself howeda greaterdread of death and ofthe gods. Howeverthatmay be, itwas our emotions owarddeath and the gods which Epicureanismparticularlymain-tained must be freeof fear. ThseLucretian developmentofthe themefar exceeds the original n violence,but is writtenwithoutdue recognition f the truth of religiousconditionsin Rome in the first entury .C. Lucretius' explanation ofconventionalRoman pietas 7 is quite correct n its insistenceupon proper performance f details of cult. A real Romanbackground,28 olitical and religious, incidentally appearsthrough he veil of his fierce irades,as allusions to groves,shrines, estivals, he veiled head of the priest,vows, Romanconsuls, egions,fasces,and referenceso numina and auguraldivisions show; but these are all of minor importance andquite negligible in a picture of a terror-ridden eligiouscommunity.

Lucretius did notdistinguish, s did Cicero,betweenreligioand superstitio9; to the latter of these concepts there con-26 Cic. N.D. I, 3I, 86: Ille vero deos esse putat, nec quemquamvidi, quimagisea, quae timenda esse negaret, imeret,mortemdico et deos. quibusmediocreshominesnon ita valde moventur, is ille clamatomniummortaliummentes sse perterritas.27V, II98-I 203.28 See referencesn n. 2 (on Romanbackground).29Cic. N.D. I, I 7, 45: Si nihil liud quaereremus, isiut deos pie coleremuset ut superstitioneiberaremur,atis erat dictum(speechofVelleius). lb. 1,

20, 55: Sequitur aUUTLCrK vestra,quae Latine divinatiodicitur, ua tanta im-bueremur uperstitione,i vos audirevellemus, tharuspices, ugures,harioli,vates, conjectoresnobis essent colendi (Velleius). Cf. ib. I, 42, II7: Namsuperstitione, uod gloriarisoletis,facileest liberari, um sustuleris mnemvimdeorum Cotta's reply); ib. II, 28, 71, Cultus autemdeorumest optimus



11/17

I54 GeorgeDepue Hadzsits [1918tinued to cling all the evil associations of a remote past,whicheven an enlightened nd sophisticatedcivilizationdidnot whollydiscard. But while religio, s Petronius correctlythought,30 riginated n fear, the long historyof organizedRoman religionhad determined he relations between godsand men by means of which each was reasonably secure. Itwas not only the Epicurean gods who were withoutanger, twas not only the Epicurean worshiperwho obtained highrewards of peace.3" Lucretius evoked the powers of evilexisting n superstitio nd dormant n the sub-consciousnessof Roman society where, doubtless, there continuedto sur-vive the hobgoblins f an ancient instinct nd the spectreoffear.32But not the slightest uggestionof the affection nd lovethatmany a cult and festival called forth, ppears in thedeRerum Natura.33 The Lares and Penates, the Genius, theVesta worshipof home and state are not so much as men-tioned; the cult ofgods such as Saturn, Castor, and JupiterOptimus Maximus,ofgoddessessuch as Minerva and Diana,festivals ike the Terminalia,the Parilia, the Saturnalia, areabsolutely ignored, although the finerand more inspiringidemque castissimus tque sanctissimus lenissimusque ietatis,ut cos semperpura, integra, ncorrupta t mente et voce veneremur. non enimphilosophisolum,verum tiammajoresnostri uperstitionem religione eparaverunt,tc.30 Fr. 27 Buecheler:

Primus n orbe deos fecit imor, rdua caeloFulmina,cum caderentdiscussaque moenia flammisAtque ictus flagraret thos....Profecit itium amque errorussit nanisAgricolas rimosCereridaremessishonores,PalmitibusplenisBacchum vincire, alemquePastorumgauderemanu.

Cf. .g.Liv. , I9, 5; Ov.Fast. II, 278; Verg.Aen.VIII,347f. andServ.).31See the fine hapters n Plut. Mor. iioi C ff., n joy in worship; cf. thecase ofScipio (Fowler, ReligiousExperience ftheRomanPeople,240).32The Lemuria, .g., llustrate his.33The Venus invocationremains heexception.



12/17

Vol.xlix] Luoretius s a Student fRomanReligion I55aspects of these cults and festivals entered into the life ofthepeople inmanya way to windeep regard nd esteem.34To be sure the divination dea penetrated the whole fabricof the Roman state and society,and crises in the nationallife broughtto the surfaceevidencesofreligious larm. But"in the fashionableand artificial ife of Rome of the firstcentury .C. disbeliefwas natural" 35 nd the ancient disasterthat had befallen M. Claudius Marcellus36 was not creditedby the thinkingRoman to offendedgods. Lucretius doesnot condemn priesthoods that were corrupt, for their cor-ruption37; neglect of many Roman deities and festivalsisnot mentioned with approval or rejoicing; the neglect ofprodigies, auspices, and priesthoods is not recordedwithsatisfaction. The glimpse we have of a flourishing tatereligion 8 is not in accord with our knowledgeof crumblingtemples and abandoned sacrifices. It is just in a period ofdecline,when Varro feared hat the gods mightperishthrough

34Lares and Penates: Fest. p. 253, Cic. Leg. II, 27, A. De Marchi, I cultoprivatodi Roma antica, , 27 f. and 55 f. Genius: Censor. 3, i-S, Serv. adGeor.II, 4I 7, Hor.Epist. I, I, I44, II, 2, I87 f.,De Marchi, p.cit. , 69 f.Vesta: Fowler,op. cit.92, Ov. Fast. vi (on the Vestalia),etc. Saturnand theSaturnalia: Macr. Sat. I, 7, 26, I, IO, i8; Liv. xxii, I, I9; Mart. XIV, 70, I;Plin. Ep. II, I7, 24. Castor,patronof theequites: Helbig,Herm.XL, IOI f.,Dion. H. VI, I3,4. Jupiter ptimusMaximusand the Ludi Romani,triumphi,thetogavirilisceremony:Ov. Trist. , 3, 29 f. Minerva: Ov. Fast. III, 82I f.,Fest. p. 333. Diana: Varro,L.L. v, 43, Hor. C.S. Terminalia: Ov. Fast. ii,639 f. (Fowler, Roman Festivals). Parilia: Ov. Fast. IV, 720 f. (Fowvler,op. cit.). See Wissowa,Rel. u. Kult. derRdmer I9I2), p. 57, on therelationoftemples o thepeople and their rganizations:Ceres,Liber,andLibera,andtheplebs; theAventineMinerva and the artifices;theAventineDiana andslaves; the Dioscuri and the equites; Mercuryand the mercatores;Jupiter,Juno,Minerva,and thewholepeople.35 Jno.Masson, Lucretius, picureanand Poet I907), 40I.36V, I233 and Munro's note.37Fowler,Rel. Exp. oftheRom.People, ch. xv and xvI, Wissowa,op. cit.pp. 70-72,Carter,TheReligion fNuma (I906), ch. iv. Cf. e.g.Dio, LIV, 36,!; Tac. Ann. III, 58; Suet. Aug. 3I (flamen); Cic. Div. I, 25 (auspicia),N.D. II, 3, 9; Liv. XLIII, I3, I; Cic. Leg. I, I2, 29 (pontifices);Varro,L.L.V, 84, VI, I9 (Falacer and Furrina); Hor. Carm. III, 6, I-4 (templa); Cic.Mur. 7, Leg. I, 46 f. sacraprivata).38V, ii6o f. 308 is an interestingontrast).



13/17

I56 George epueHadzsits [I9I8man's indifference,39hat the voice of the ndignant rotestantwas raised againsta fancied frightfulpectreof religio ower-ing with dreadfulmien from above upon mortals below.40If Lucretiush.ad ived duringthe Augustanrevival,his dog-matic indictmentof an institution to his mind whollywrong would seem to us more reasonable. Howsoevervaluable a clear enunciationof natural laws may be at anytime against a false theology, to a contemporaryducatedRoman the exalted praise of Epicurus for his conquest overreligiomusthave seemedsomewhatbelated, to say theleast,and appeared somewhatout of harmonywith the tendenciesof theage.Lucretius' paradoxicallyexquisite account of the sacrificeof lphigenia,4'by which he undoubtedly meant to satirizethe religion fhis own day, is as eloquenta passage as is tobe found n the entirede RerumNatura, closingwitha linethat expressesburning ndignation nd contempt. Yet ifwereflect hat human sacrificen the name of religionwas un-knownunderthe ancientRoman religiousor civil law,42 hesting s somehowtaken out of a passage of ntensebitterness.It was not untilGreek nfluences rought boutmanyanothertransformationnd degradationof Roman religious nstitu-tions that human sacrificeswere allowed under the Romanius divinum. Under the stressof the Punic wars43thismostun-Romanritewas carried ut. That thepractice astedintotheEmpire s sufficientlyttested,44ut the rareand sporadicinstanceswere not sufficiento call forth uch an extremecondemnation fRomanreligion s wouldhave befitted rac-

39Aug. Civ.Dei, VI, 2: (Varro) dicit se timerene pereant di) non incursuhostili ed civiumneglegentia.40 I, 62 f.41 i, 8o-ioi. Cf. Jno. Masson, op. cit.434 f.,for differentersion f theIphigeniaepisode.42 owler,op. cit.pp. 33, 44, n. 28, pp. 107, 112, n. 30 (exceptionmadeofacriminalwhowas sacerto a god),n. 31; Wissowa,op. cit.p. 420 f.43Liv. xxII, 57, 6;- Cic. Font.31.44Fowler,op. cit. 320. Cf. Dio, XLIII, 24, 4; Plin.N.H. xxvin, 12-13;Plut. Marcell.3; Plin. N.H. xxx, I2.



14/17

Vol.xlixj Lucretiuss a Student fRomanReligion 157tices among the Taurians, the Britons, the Gauls, or theCarthaginians. Howsoever cruel thepracticeinherentlywasand howsoeverrepellantto an Epicurean,whose gods underno circumstancescould condone such an act, Lucretiuswas,I believe,more nfluenced y literarymodels thanbyreligiouspractice. Greektragedyfurnished imthetheme,45fhe didnot findthe suggestion n Epicurus. The latter we cannotprove, thoughwe may surmise t. There is 'deep irony' inthe use of the Roman formula elix austusque,46but thiswasnot sufficiento make the mythof past ages applicable inany real sense or degree to the present. If Lucretius hadbeen a real studentof Roman religion,per e,we mighthaveexpected allusion at least to the ceremony fdevotio,o thefestival of the sacrariaArgeorum,r to Aricia. I doubtwhether he religiousrealitiesof his ownday came sufficientlyunder his observationto provoke this satireof unparalleledfierceness.47 t is a literarytourde force hat was quiteharmless with all of its lack of moderation. It provokedno knownresponse.The surprisinghoice of the cult ofMagna Mater to serveas the basis of an analysis fordemonstratinghe essentiallyerroneousnatureofRoman cultsand theology 8 also seemstoillustrateLucretius' dependenceupon Epicurus and his lackof a' thorough acquaintance with Roman religion. Whyavoid the whole body of genuine Roman cults and cere-monies, fLucretiuswas interestedn disproving hevalidityofthe religion fhis own day? Such an avoidance is, to saythe least, striking; the seemingconsistencyof such a pro-ceduregives weight to the belief that it was intentional. IfLucretius thought of the Magna Mater cult as typical ofRome, he was extraordinarilywide of the mark. We need45Eur. I.A. iIoO f.,Aesch.Ag. I98 f. See also Merrill'snote on Lucr. i, 84fordiscussion fpaintings cf.Lucr. III, 629, on paintings).46Cic. Div. I,'45, 102; Liv. x, 8, 12; Ov. Fast. II, 27.47 It is to be takenas evidenceno morethan suchpassagesas Ov. Fast. m,342, 857.48 II, 58I-660.



15/17

I58 GeorgeDepue Hadzsits [I9I8not attribute uch a gross blunderto him; but other reasonsare deducible which may explain his choice of the Cybelecult. Lucretius accepted the Graeco-Romanreligionof hisday as the established religionof Rome, and made no effortto distinguish the genuine Roman element. It was theGraeco-Roman haracterover against which he set the wholesystem f his Epicureanphilosophy f religion. The Romanstook particularcare to keep up the foreign haracterof thiscult.49 Lucretius probably had personal knowledgeof theMegalesia,50and he acknowledgeshis Greek sources of in-formation or explanationof all of the details of worship.5""In Greece she (Cybele) early became all but completelyblended with Rhea, and is not clearly distinguishablefromthe GreekMother exceptwhensheis designatedbyan Asiaticname or mentioned n connectionwithAttis." 52That there should appear, in the de RerumNatura, anatomic explanationof the Earth as the mother of humanand animal life,as the source of all vegetation,was almostinevitable.53 In religion,the goddess Magna Mater repre-sented,betterthanany otherdivinity, he false deification fthe Earth as the source of manifold bounteous products.Magna Mater's cult, togetherwith that of the god of theheavens and lightnings,was the most complete illustrationof a false theological doctrine. But the Great Mother'sidentificationwith Aphroditewas a furtherGreek recom-mendation,while herkinshipwiththe Roman Ceres,Tellus,and Ops 54 indicates the opportunities hat existed forLu-cretius o make another hoice,whichhe sedulously voided.Even so, the orgiastic haracter f the cultmusthave been

49Fowler, oman estivalsI908), 70.50 I.e., ifhe livedin Rome (cf.Duff,Literary istory fRome 1909], 279).51U, 6oo; cf.Ellis on Cat. 63 (also Merrill's dition).52 Showerman, heGreatMother ftheGods 1901), 297.63 , 250, 629; II, 991 f.,1117 (naturacreatrix); V, 259-60, 795-6,821, 1362,

1402 (terrammatrem). These passages clearlyshow how strong hold theideahadonLucretius'magination;eealso , 21, 328, V, 77, 107, VI, 31.54 Showerman, p. cit. 97.



16/17


17/17

hadzssits g. d. - lucretius as a student of roman religion

Documents