Talk:Lucretius

Philtre

He claims that Lucretius was driven mad by a love-philtre and that the work was written during the intervals of his insanity, before he killed himself. Philtre links to some band, which I'm guessing is not the meaning used here. Perhaps the meaning of the word should be explained? --Arbiter125

• Good eye! I changed it for you. --Rednblu 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed "love philter" to "love potion" because (a) this is more readily understandable, (b) "love philter" is a pleonasm, as "philter" alone is already "love potion" (see Potion), and (c) the word "philter" (Gr. φίλτρον, La. philtrum) isn't even in the Latin original, which has "amatorio poculo". --Fabullus 11:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Lucretius actually free men's minds of superstition?

Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99 - 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher, whose contribution was to free men's minds of superstition and fear of death.

That sounds like he actually did it too. And impossible task. -FredrikM

---

• What do you propose as an improvement and replacement sentence? What have scholars said about Lucretius in regard to "freeing men's minds of superstition and fear of death"? What did Lucretius say about "freeing men's minds of superstition and fear of death." ---Rednblu 21:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I don't know how the sentence should be revised, but in addition to previous comments, it sounds a little grammatically ambiguous Euphoria 16:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Where could we look to get an idea of how to fix what troubles you in that sentence? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Life/Death of Lucretius; Jerome

I fixed up the balderdash that was placed as Jerome's account of L's live. Here's the Latin, taken from E. J. Kenney's edition of De Rerum Natura III (cited in main article):

Titus Lucretius poeta nascitur, qui postea amatorio poculo in furorem versus, cum aliquot libros per intervalla insaniae conscripsisset quos postea Cicero emendavit, propria se manu interfecit anno aetatis XLIIII.

When I get around to it I'll put in something about Cicero's emending the text. Existent80 July 7, 2005 00:13 (UTC)

Comment cut to here for discussion

Although the poem De Rerum Natura is Epicurean in nature, the really interesting question to think on is whether Lucretius himself was indeed and Epicurean. This question presents a problem only intended for philosophical thinkers due to the nature of it. And when I speak of the nature of this problem, it is only to point out the complexity of dealing with ancient authors and their respective writings.

I cut the above editorial comment here for discussion. Is there a published scholar who says this? We would need a citation, please. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

R.E. Latham translated "religio" as "superstition." It clearly seems to me that it should have been translated as "religion." English readers have no idea that Lucretius used "religio" as his original word. This makes a great difference in the understanding of his writing.

---

Montaigne was fascinated by Lucretius. In his "Apology for Raymond Sebond," Montaigne was supposed to be writing an essay in support of Christianity. But, his frequent quotations from Lucretius tend to convince the reader that Christian dogma is not credible. 64.12.117.8 22:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington

---

Re: "religio", Lucretius seems to say that all religion is suspect because it has such power to make people commit horrible and evil deeds in its name. Lucretius would give no pass to the millions of people who throughout history have committed horrors because they thought the needs or wants of their god justified them. No member of any religion practiced today, western or otherwise, can hide behind the notion that it is only shallow superstition that Lucretius rails against. It is your religion, and mine, also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidrpstl (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed?

The poet/philosopher Lucretius is the most famous member of the ancient clan of Lucratii. Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page for other Lucratii? There is also a Lucius Lucratius and a Gnaeus Lucratius. 220.15.200.33 02:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC) MGA

Indeed. In addition to Titus Lucretius Carus there are Gnaeus Lucretius Trio and Lucius Lucretius Trio as you have said. Also Sp. Lucretius Triciptinus, T. Lucretius T. p. Triciptinus, a Lucretius (Triciptinus), L. Lucretius T. f. T. n. Triciptinus, Hostus Lucretius L. f. T. n. Triciptinus, P. Lucretius Hosti f. Triciptinus, L. Lucretius Flavus Triciptinus, Lucretius Vespillo, two by the name of Q. Lucretius Vespillo and of course the famous Lucretia. Most of these can be dealt with as a short note on a disambig. page, but not all. Whogue 09:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, "the gens Lucretia", not "the clan". Rome was not in Scotland. --Sk (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization

With all due respect, the points mentioned below are all of minor import. The first thing that is needed to make this article work, is organization and structure. First of all the text should be divided into chapters. I propose the following chapters:

• Introduction
• Life
• Work
• Philosophy
• Poetry

The second thing would be to divide the existing text over the above headings. I urgently invite others to contribute their views, for I can't do it alone. Fabullus 20:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice ideas. I suggest we would select a model Wikipedia page--just for comparison. What is the best Wikipedia page on a philosopher, poet, or poet-philosopher to serve as a model for this page? What is next do you think? Might we move this discussion to the bottom of this page so that the time sequence on this page is preserved? --Just an idea. --Rednblu 06:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! (I have followed your suggestion to move the discussion). Lucretius' case is pretty unique - in a number of ways: he is about the only poet-philosopher who needs to be discussed both as a poet and a philosopher, and he is also about the only poet-philosopher whose complete work survives, and yet we know next to nothing about the man. I am afraid there is no page that can serve as a model all the way. I have noticed, however, that the corresponding German, Dutch, French and Italian articles are much better by way of organization (even though I disagree with some of their factual content). How do you think we could attract other people's interest to this discussion? Fabullus 08:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. You looked for editors that had showed an interest in this page. A lot of people have this page on their WatchList. So if you start making improvements, they will watch over what we do here--even if they only correct our typos. What should be done first? --Rednblu 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have carried out a major re-organization of the article, without, however, deleting or adding anything of importance. See how you like it. Fabullus 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Too bad we don't have more details of this man's life! Wouldn't you like to know how he kept himself writing day after day in such a hostile environment? --Rednblu 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would, but I am very skeptical about all but the most general claims made about his life on the basis of either Jerome's testimony (see also the discussion above) or passages in his own work, which have led some to believe he was a Celtic freedman and others that the was a Campanian farmer. As soon as I find some time I will try to rewrite the section on his life in a more conservative vein. Fabullus 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What balance of sources do you think you will use? --Rednblu 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See for yourself. I have revised the section on Lucretius' life as far as the years of his birth and death are concerned. --Fabullus 09:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

It is nice to have a picture of someone we know so little about! Does anyone know where the picture comes from? --Fabullus 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is interesting, as is, of course, the philosopher himself and his work. Practically the same engraving (though photographed under what is apparently different lighting) is listed in Britannica on-line [1] and subtitled "engraving of a bust" (which might easily compete for the most unhelpful caption ever).. Porfyrios 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a guy with a beard and the thing looks old. Good enough for Wikipedia. 109.58.143.202 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Now it's a "modern bust of Lucretius". A carefully researched rendering of his appearance, using the best ancient sources. Or perhaps just some guy with a beard?193.182.242.2 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

bias

I find it odd that the epicurean philosophy of reason and discouraging romantic entanglements trumps the christian philosophy of honesty. where is the proof that the epicureans dedication to their ideals are greater than the christians. it seems that the only way one would accept that this is "not generally now believed" hangs on the assumption that the epicureans are generally more trustworthy than christians. also if one is to rely on the argument that "it is likely" that jerome "as one of the early church fathers" (i wouldn't call him early) was merely trying to "defame" lucretius by claiming he was mad, then more evidence than jerome or christian writers in general used "ad hominen attacks imputing immorality, the use of witchcraft and insanity to the poet" is needed because ad hominen attacks imputing the immorality, the use of witchcraft, etc seems to me to have been an acceptable practice among the pagan latins as well (cicero comes to mind). furthermore, merely assuming that it is improbable to compose a "sustained poetic masterpiece" falls short as well, because, a) it assumes that the ancient mind works exactly the same as the modern mind, and since we have no examples of modern "madmen" writing such a poetic masterpiece then lucretius would be no different. b) madness often come in bouts. the poet cowper wrote "the ballad of john gilpin" (if memory of "engl. 127: survey of british literature" holds true) during periods of lucidness. i have read the introduction to the loeb DRN and it seems to me that the final judgement as to lucretius' madness, and the one with which i find the most valid, is that the poem itself shows no signs of a mind prone to morbidity. this of course is no ironclad defense of lucretius' sanity, as we are unsure of how the ancient mind worked and whether or not we would recognize the signs of morbidity in the mind of an ancient. it seems that we are saying: jerome--unreliable because he is a christian, and any argument, however tenuous, for lucretius' sanity must be given more weight than the assertions of someone who lived much closer to the time of lucretius. 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Doubting Jerome's account simply because he was a christian will not do. If you feel up to it, you might rewrite the corresponding passage of the article yourself. Otherwise I will give it a try, whenever I find the time. --Fabullus (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vita section does seem to be more an attack on Jerome than a description of Lucretius. The whole section needs to be much shorter. It needs to state more forcefully that we know almost nothing about Lucretius. It needs to state up front what little is known. Then Jerome's short comment can be presented in toto along with the proviso that it is impossible to judge the reliability of Jerome's description since nothing is known of his sources. Rwflammang (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've done the deed, and re-reading it I have to wonder whether I was too zealous with the meat-cleaver. I like the fact that it is much shorter. But I wonder whether I should restore a sentence saying, The text of his poem shows no sign of being written by a madman or of having been edited by Cicero. The only problem is I don't have a reference for this statement, other than the earlier version of this article.

I also see that I cut out a valid reference, which I think I shall restore, Virgil writes in the second book of his Georgics, clearly referencing Lucretius, "Happy is he who has discovered the causes of things and has cast beneath his feet all fears, unavoidable fate, and the din of the devouring Underworld." Rwflammang (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You did a good job, the biography is much more readable now. The earlier version of this page, was, I think, derived from Martin Ferguson Smith; he's fairly scathing of the Jerome story, I believe, although he in no way suggests that Jerome invented the story, but just that Jerome (quite plausibly) drew on some an anti-Epicurean source. I googled up a few references concerning different views on the love potion story, and on the question of whether Cicero edited the text. Singinglemon (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sound bytes?

HEY EDITORS---INCLUDING ROBOTS!!!! IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN GET SOME SOUND BYTES ON HERE SAYING SOME LUCRETIUS OUT LOUD?!?! --152.1.72.156 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(cut from the article and pasted here by Fabullus (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Life of Vergil

Suetonius's Life of Vergil is known via the writings of Donatus, who included it in his own Life of Vergil.

So, what we have is Donatus's Life of Virgil, and the extent to which this derives from Suetonius's now lost Life of Virgil is a matter of speculation, well worth exploring, but not in an article on Lucretius. I propose, therefore, henceforth to refer to the text as 'Donatus's Life of Virgil.' --Fabullus (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. I'm sure we can effect a reading which everybody can agree on. If scholarly opinion broadly accepts that Donatus Life is derived from Suetonius, then there is probably no harm in mentioning this. There is some value in knowing that Suetonius is the probable source for the comments. Singinglemon (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A good job, as always! --Fabullus (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Textual Transmission

I have a problem with the wording of the 'Textual Transmission' section. First of all there is no evidence of 'hostility' from the 'Catholic Church' toward Lucretius or his poem. In fact, had there been hostility toward the poem then the poem would most likely have been burned, as the poems of Sapho. The fact that the poem survives shows that we owe a great debt to the Christians who preserved the manuscript, and not the modern readers. There is a great explication of the textual transmission in the introduction of the W.E. Leonard, S.B. Smith edition of the Latin text of De Rerum Natura. I do not have time this moment to rewrite the section, but I propose it be deleted until the author can provide citations. 63.230.81.246 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 11:15, 13 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.81.246 (talk)

Here is the section I cut out:

Transmission of the text

The textual survival of the poem is remarkable considering the hostility of the Catholic Church (the main transmission channel for Latin writings) towards Lucretius and Epicurean ideas. The surviving manuscript tradition (accounts will be found in the references given below) is often mangled, with numerous, significant lacunae. A great debt is owed by modern readers to the ingenious work of generations of scholars to produce a faithful, coherent, and readable text. 63.230.81.246 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Other Lost Works?

Are there any (lost) works referenced by the ancient commentators, apart from "The Nature of Things"? Is he known to have produced anything else? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as we know, "The Nature of Things" was his sole work. --Fabullus (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Swerve

I'm new to wiki editing. I was wondering what others think of adding Stephen Greenblatt's The Swerve: How the World Became Modern? It was winner of the National Book Award and discusses the early modern rediscovery of De rerum natura but it more popular than the scholarly books in the bibliography.

File:Lucretius.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lucretius.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 13 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lucretius.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Influences need reliable substantiation

It is not good enough to use arbitrary opinion and/or original research to add names to the fields 'Influences' and 'Influenced' in the Philosopher (or any other) infobox. The MoS requires "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." Bjenks (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucretius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126015734/http://bsa.biblio.univ-lille3.fr/lucretius.htm to http://bsa.biblio.univ-lille3.fr/lucretius.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sentence from November 2018 removed

Removed text: The use of inane is often overlooked, but it contributes depths to the work that reach far beyond not only De Rerum Natura, but into the rest of Roman philosophy as well. - it has makes no reference to anything else in the page, it doesn't look like a quote, it has no source. Perhaps the anonymous contributor could reconsider how best to state his case. JohnHarris (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me I'm wrong...

Description from the file page: The beginning of a manuscript of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, currently in the collection of the Cambridge University Library. This is not one of the manuscripts with independent authority for the transmission of the text of Lucretius. This manuscript was created in 1563 in Paris.

I have a problem with the image of the De rerum natura manuscript, and I would like to ask for a second opinion.

The source given on the file page is this link to the Cambridge University Digital Library, together with the statement from the uploader that they took this photograph while examining several manuscripts in the Cambridge University Library. However, upon checking the digitized version, I am unable to locate the section that is said to have been photographed. The image description says that this photo shows the beginning of the manuscript, but just to be sure, I looked through all 600+ pages, without finding it. Most of the book is printed (not a manuscript) anyway. This image was added eight years ago, but I cannot find any mention on the file page or elsewhere that it was suspicious.

The trouble is, I wanted to contact the creator of the photo, User:LegesRomanorum, to ask if they may have linked to the wrong CUDL source. I found out on their user talk page that they have been blocked indefinitely in August 2023, for the creation of an elaborate hoax article that had just been discovered after surviving on Wikipedia for multiple years (that prank was created in 2020).

I do not think we can trust the user that the image is genuine. Moreover, if this turns out to be another hoax (and I surely hope it doesn't), that would turn what may have been a singular incident into a habit of bad-faith editing. The account was created in 2009 and has about 1,400 edits, many in their apparent "field of expertise" (ancient history).

Since this page is part of Vital Articles (Level 4), I'm going to also notify all the relevant WikiProjects. The best possible outcome is that I am making a fool of myself. Renerpho (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work trying to trace the actual source. For now, I think it makes sense to immediately remove the image and only add it back later if its actual existence can be verified. Tkbrett (✉) 19:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This image is of an illuminated manuscript, the 1563 version from the Cambridge University Library is a printed edition. This image clearly isn't of that copy. I don't know enough about the manuscript tradition of Lucretius to be sure, but I would expect that if CUL owned a manuscript of Lucretius then they would list it on their online collection as an important object in their collection; the fact that I can find no evidence of it makes me very suspicious. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about the last point. It's pretty clearly 15th-century Italian from after the "rediscovery" in 1417, and those aren't exceptionally rare. It's an odd sort of hoax, since the MS appears to a genuine one. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is a fake then there are three main possibilities: Either the entire manuscript is a forgery (very difficult to do); or it's real but they never owned the rights to the image (a copyright violation); or they genuinely created the image, but with a made-up background story (easy to do). To me, the made-up background story sounds most plausible. Would that be an odd sort of hoax? I don't know. The background story is part of the "bundle", and it has made its way beyond Wikipedia.[2]

I don't think LegesRomanorum have ever commented on why they faked Philodoppides, and their motives are unknown. The manuscript photo was uploaded about five years before their first proven hoax, so it may have been a test: Can they get away with a bogus story? If they had been caught, it would have looked like an honest mistake. I mean, we still can't rule out that it was an honest mistake! It depends on whether the manuscript is actually part of the CUL collection.

The image is featured on their user page, on this Lucretius article, but nowhere else on Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC) -- At the time the image was uploaded, LegesRomanorum were a self-described undergraduate Classics student, working towards a BA degree, and their academic interests included Ancient Greek and Latin language, literature and linguistics, esp. Greek epic and tragedy.[3] Renerpho (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a genuine page from an illuminated manuscript; there's no reason to suspect that it's a forgery other than that it's been misattributed, and the author once wrote a hoax article about a completely different subject, although otherwise he seems to have been a productive contributor to Wikipedia for a number of years. I'm inclined to regard the hoax article as a one-off, and the attribution as a careless mistake—although unless someone contacts the Cambridge University Library and asks about the image, it's possible that it is from a manuscript in their collection—just not one that's been included in their online and publicly-accessible digital holdings.

I don't believe that copyright is likely to be an issue here: the text is in the public domain; the version of the book it's from is in the public domain; and there's no evidence that someone other than the uploader took the photograph, which in any case displays originality only to the extent that it frames only a portion of the page, being otherwise an apparently faithful reproduction of a public domain original. The person we believe to be the author claims no copyright in that. So unless some other facts turn up suggesting that the photograph was a forgery, or that someone else has copyright in the picture—and not the thing it's a photo of—I think it's safe to keep it.

But it would still be prudent to check with Cambridge and ask whether they can verify or refute that this is a photo from a manuscript of Lucretius in their collection. Merely failing to find this page in their online digital library doesn't satisfy that inquiry, IMO, because it's quite possible—perhaps probable—that they have many items that aren't digitized and posted online where anyone can view them. It would be better to establish whether this photograph depicts what it appears to and is in the public domain, than to make no effort and delete it without knowing whether we can keep it legitimately. P Aculeius (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it might be a photograph of a photograph or other reproduction. This indicates that there are colour plates of the first page of the Codex Oblongus (it's not that), the Codex Quadratus and the Schedae Gottorpienses between page 196 and 197 of The Early Textual History of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura (David Butterfield, Cambridge University Press, 2013 (two years before the upload), 978-1-107-03745-8) (the later softcover edition may only have them in black-and-white). Does anyone have access to that? NebY (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not the first page from "the scans of G available through the Codices Haunienses resource online" (Butterfield, p. x) - that's here. NebY (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I am contacting CUL, to check whether they can identify it. Renerpho (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I found it: it is in the CUL and its catalogue number is Nn.2.40. There's a b/w image of the page in Western Illuminated Manuscripts: A Catalogue of the Collection in Cambridge University Library by Binski & Zutshi (p.427). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

446 Nn.2.40, f.1 -- Great find, thanks Caeciliusinhorto! I'll update the file page accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) I see that's already done. :) Renerpho (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's gone from the article, & I've added a similar (but rather classier) MS page, so I'm not sure we need to worry about it too much. The article text seems rather patchy to me.... Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering the manuscript has been found and identified, I think we can accept this as an honest mistake. When the copyright of the image was questioned a few weeks after it was originally uploaded,[4] LegesRomanorum added the link to the CUDL, and I guess they just mixed up the several manuscripts they had looked at. Case closed, I guess. I'm glad we can keep the file, now with the correct information. I feel like I have only made half of a fool of myself. Thanks everyone for your help! Renerpho (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a fool: there were legitimate reasons for doubting the legitimacy of the file, given that it didn't match the linked document, and the uploader was banned for a hoax article. Although I think he was probably a good editor who made up a silly article as a lark and got slapped down hard for it when someone flagged it years later—that's beside the point. It was a legitimate inquiry, and I think we can all be pleased that the subject has been identified and the attribution corrected. It'd be a shame to lose such an attractive bit of illumination! Thanks to everyone who commented on and helped solve this, especially Caecilus in the Garden! P Aculeius (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)