Political Echoes in the Proem to Lucretius' De Rerum Natura

Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 brill.com/mnem Roman Agamemnon Political Echoes in the Proem to Lucretius’ De rerum natura Stefano Rebeggiani University of Southern California, Dept. of Classics [email protected] Received November 2018 | Accepted February 2019 Abstract This article examines three sections of the proem to Lucretius’ De rerum natura: the so-called hymn to Venus (Lucr. 1.1-43), the praise of Epicurus (1.62-79), and the Iphigenia passage (1.80-101). The article’s goal is to show that distinct, interconnected political echoes are perceptible in these three sections of Lucretius’ proem, and that Lucretius intertwines his philosophical teaching with Roman political culture in such a way as to make his Epicurean message more acceptable to Roman audiences. The article demonstrates Lucretius’ interaction with the use of myth in political language in Rome in the 60s and 50s bce. It analyzes the relevance of the Mithridatic wars to Roman discussions of imperialism and Lucretius’ exploitation of this conflict’s iconic status. This article suggests that Memmius’ political action in the 60s may have made him a particularly suitable addressee for Lucretius’ poem. It also explores the implications of this new reading of the proem for the date of Lucretius’ De rerum natura. Keywords Lucretius – Epicureanism – Memmius – politics – Lucullus – Pompey Lucretius introduces his readers to the subject matter of De rerum natura (henceforth DRN) through a complex proem. It opens with an address to Venus, identified as the ancestor of all Romans and the source of life and union among mortals (Lucr. 1.1-27). Lucretius beseeches Venus to put an end to Roman wars, or else Lucretius’ addressee, the Roman politician Memmius, will not be able to give his attention to Lucretius’ teaching, and Lucretius will © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 2 Rebeggiani be unable to tend to his poetry with a calm mind (1.28-43). The hymn to Venus is followed by a brief request for Memmius’ attention and a (partial) syllabus of the instruction provided in the poem (1.50-61), after which comes a section in praise of Epicurus (1.62-79). At this point, Lucretius turns to the evil effects of religio; to exemplify this, he narrates the story of Iphigenia’s sacrifice (1.80-101). In this article, I provide a new reading of three sections of Lucretius’ proem (the hymn to Venus, the praise of Epicurus, and the Iphigenia episode) by bringing Lucretius into closer dialogue with his Roman contemporaries. Scholarship on the proem has, rightly, concentrated on this text’s textual and philosophical problems, its rich literary texture, and Lucretius’ Greek philosophical sources.1 Much however can be gained by considering Lucretius’ interaction with the political culture in Rome at the end of the Republic.2 My goal is to show that distinct, interconnected political echoes are perceptible in the three main parts of Lucretius’ proem, and that Lucretius intertwines his philosophical teaching with Roman political culture in such a way as to make his extraordinary Epicurean message more acceptable to Roman audiences. I also aim to discuss a recent attempt at lowering the date of Lucretius’ poem to the early 40s, advanced by Hutchinson in a stimulating and influential article.3 The argument proposed in this article strengthens the case for retaining the traditional date (before 54 bce) and, most importantly, contributes to refuting one of the implications of Hutchinson’s article, namely that Lucretius’ pacifistic argument in the proem is intended to decry the horrors of civil war. My analysis helps to fully appreciate the radical (and quite upsetting for Roman audiences) political message expressed by Lucretius, which entails a rejection of war per se. In what follows, I start with a close reading of the Iphigenia scene (section 1), in which I consider Lucretius’ models and investigate Lucretius’ engagement with the language of political propaganda in Rome in the 60s and 50s bce. I then move backwards to look at the other two pieces of Lucretius’ prologue, the praise of Epicurus (2) and the hymn to Venus (3). I show that the hymn to Venus and the praise of Epicurus articulate political views that are in line with my reading of the contemporary implications of the Iphigenia passage. I then examine the role of Memmius in the political scene at Rome in the late 60s 1 The bibliography on the proem is extensive. Some important works: Giancotti 1959; Kleve 1966; Kenney 1977, 13-17; Clay 1983, 82-110; Gale 1994, 208-223. More references in my discussion below. 2 On Lucretius’ proem and contemporary Roman politics, see Harrison 2016, to whose analysis I am deeply indebted. On Lucretius’ political thinking, see Fowler 2007; Schiesaro 2007; Nichols 1976, 17-20; Minyard 1985, 33-70. 3 Hutchinson 2001. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 3 and reflect on the role of the Mithridatic wars within discussions of Roman imperialism (4). In conclusion, I outline the implications of my reading for the date of Lucretius’ proem and discuss in more detail the argument advanced by Hutchinson (5). 1 Agamemnon in Rome I begin with the Iphigenia excursus (1.87-91). This passage is meant to prevent a reader’s objection. Memmius may feel that Lucretius is leading him on the path of impiety, but real impiety is to attribute to the gods the desire to be worshipped through wicked deeds. In Epicurean doctrine the gods do not interact with humans, nor do they demand anything of them.4 Lucretius’ exemplum of impiety prompted by religious belief is taken from the world of Greek myth, yet the Iphigenia scene combines Roman and Greek elements. A first indicator is the use of the word civis (‘citizens’, 1.91) for what is in fact an assembly of warriors from a variety of Greek kingdoms. The ritual is given some Roman traits, the most important of which is the use of a formula which Roman readers would have recognized: quod bonum faustum felixque sit (1.100).5 This is a prayer formula typically pronounced by officials as a divine blessing on acts about to be undertaken. It is the customary formula one would expect a Roman official to utter in connection with the sacrifices preceding a Roman military expedition. If Lucretius wanted to make a philosophical point about religion using an example from Greek myth, there was no need to add this Roman coloring to the scene. But this is exactly the point: Lucretius is not purely making a philosophical point about religion. He deliberately chooses a story in which religious practice is connected with politics, and he describes that event in language that is reminiscent of Roman realities.6 Important details about the political dimension of the Iphigenia episode can be gathered by examining Lucretius’ interaction with earlier versions of the Iphigenia story. The myth of Iphigenia’s sacrifice had been adapted for the stage by Ennius, and a number of Ennian echoes make it likely that Lucretius engaged with Ennius’ play.7 However, Lucretius rejects the patriotic interpretation of Iphigenia proposed by Ennius.8 Not only did the maiden survive in 4 See Bailey 1947, 213; cf. Epicur. Ep. 123. 5 Roman details in the ritual: Lucr. 1.87 with Bailey 1947, 614. Prayer formula: see TLL 6.1.389.13-25; Pease 1920-1923, 282 on Cic. Div. 1.102; Harrison 2016, 37-38; Schiesaro 2007, 52 n. 54. 6 Harrison 2016, 37-38. 7 See Harrison 2002, 4-6. Contra Perutelli 1996, 196; Prinzen 1998, 49-50. 8 Gale 1994, 96. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 4 Rebeggiani Ennius (his play was modeled on Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulide),9 but Iphigenia approached her death knowingly and willingly, and went so far as characterizing her death as a sacrifice in exchange for the defeat of the enemy, a conceptualization that recalls the practice of deuotio, the heroic self-sacrifice of eminent Romans to grant victory to their troops.10 For his pessimistic rereading of Iphigenia, Lucretius is largely dependent on another tragic work, namely Aeschylus’ Agamemnon. The detail of the girl’s inability to speak (in Aeschylus she is gagged), her being lifted up by the priests onto the altar, the contamination of the language of ritual sacrifice with the language of marriage rites, and some verbal echoes are directly reminiscent of Aeschylus’ play.11 In general, Lucretius is indebted to Aeschylus’ presentation of the sacrifice in a negative light, as a transgression destined to bring ruin upon Agamemnon. One might think that Lucretius’ recasting of the sacrifice in Aeschylean fashion moves away from Ennius’ politically loaded reading, but the issue is more complicated than this, for Aeschylus’ play is not deprived of political implications. In the aftermath of the Persian wars, the Greek expedition against Troy was often used as a symbol of Greece’s fight with the barbarians, especially on the tragic stage.12 This perspective is certainly relevant to Aeschylus’ play. While the play resists allegorical readings, it does invite readers to reflect on the condition of Athens in the aftermath of its victories over the Persians.13 Thus Lucretius’ engagement with Aeschylus directs his Roman readers to a text in which the expedition against Troy is projected onto the historical background of the fights against Easterners, and in which the political implications of the use of Trojan myth are exploited in order to reflect on the risks connected with military success. As I will show later in this section, politicized receptions of the Trojan war are popular in Rome in the late Republic, and they go hand in hand with a more general tendency to use mythological figures for political propaganda. The relevance of this broader cultural background to Lucretius’ poem has not to date been explored. Important scholarly work has alerted us to the appropriation of 9 10 11 12 13 Jocelyn 1967, 318-324. For Ennius’ possible contamination of more than one play in his Iphigenia, see Harrison 2002, 13; Aretz 1999, 240-242. See fr. xciv Jocelyn (= Cic. Tusc. 1.116). It seems likely (Jocelyn 1967, 320-321) that Cicero partly reproduced Iphigenia’s speech in Ennius here, in which the maiden says that she is to be sacrificed so that ‘her blood might cause the enemy blood to flow’. Also relevant is Enn. fr. xcvii Jocelyn (Iphigenia is aware that she will be sacrificed). On deuotio, see Versnel 1976. Cf. A. Ag. 228-247. Bailey 1947, 615 compares Lucr. 1.95 and A. Ag. 234. For the contamination of sacrificial language and marriage ritual, see Lucr. 1.97-100 with Bailey 1947, 615. See Hall 1989, 101-102, 120, 127-129, 131-132, 154-157. See e.g. Rosenbloom 1995; Dover 1987, 155-160. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 5 mythological figures for political propaganda in the years of the civil war and in the Augustan period. This, in turn, has enabled scholars to unpack the political and ideological relevance of the uses of Greek myth in Roman literature. The practice of appropriating myth for political self-promotion, however, does not begin with Augustus nor with the civil war period, but is already active in the Republic. In fact, while mythological role-play goes back to Hellenistic culture, its relevance to our understanding of aristocratic competition in the first half of the first century bce has not been thoroughly explored.14 The time seems ripe for bringing these advances to bear on readings of mythological references in Lucretius. The Roman implications of Lucretius’ Iphigenia scene become more evident if we consider the use of myth within political propaganda in the 60s and 50s bce. We can start from a passage in Cicero, dating from 60 bce.15 In this piece of contemporary gossip, we learn from Cicero that Lucretius’ addressee Memmius, whom Cicero jokingly identifies with Paris, had committed adultery with the wives of both the Luculli brothers, M. Terentius Varro Lucullus and L. Licinius Lucullus, who are in turn compared with Menelaus and Agamemnon. The scandal was made more painful by the fact that Memmius was a longstanding enemy of the Luculli: a few years earlier he had prosecuted M. Lucullus (that is ‘Menelaus’) and sought to deny the triumph to L. Lucullus (‘Agamemnon’) after the latter’s return from the Mithridatic wars.16 One might be tempted to attribute the mythical identifications on which the joke relies (Memmius as Paris, Lucullus as Agamemnon) to Cicero’s wit, but this is not the case. Both the Licinii Luculli and the Memmii had used those mythical comparisons to aggrandize their public personas long before Cicero wrote. The Memmii claimed descent from Aeneas’ comrade Mnestheus, himself a descendant of Assaracus, Anchises’ grandfather. They were thus particularly close to Aeneas’ mother Venus—this ancestry is very much on Lucretius’ mind in his hymn to Venus in DRN and is implied by the use of Venus on family coins of the Memmii from the late second century bce.17 Lucullus’ equation with 14 15 16 17 Much important work for the Augustan age is available in the wake of Zanker 1988; for the confusion between life and poetry, and the Roman tendency to blend Greek myth and Roman history, some useful observations in Griffin 1985, especially 208-210. On Augustus’ exploitation of mythological figures (Achilles) in his early years see now Galinsky 2013. For mythological role-play in the first half of the first century bce, see the pioneering work by Champlin 2003. Cic. Att. 1.18.3. Plu. Luc. 37; CAH2 IX 341-342; RE 15.611-612. Weinstock 1972, 23 nn. 2, 3; RE 15.613-614. Coins of the Memmii: RRC n. 313 pp. 320-321 (106 bce); n. 349 pp. 363-364 (87 bce). Mnestheus as descendant of Assaracus: Verg. A. 12.127; Mnestheus as progenitor of the Memmii: Verg. A. 5.117; Serv. A. 5.117. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 6 Rebeggiani Agamemnon too was long established.18 We can trace it back to another friend of Cicero, the poet Archias, who wrote a poem to celebrate the campaign of his patron and ex-master Lucius Licinius Lucullus against Mithridates in the 60s bce. Although available in 61 bce, the poem was probably published in time for Lucullus’ triumph of 63 bce. The poem does not survive, yet its influence is visible on Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus, one of the main sources for Lucullus’ war in the East. Plutarch may even have preserved one line from Archias’ poem, and it provides an important hint: “Why do you slumber, greathearted lion? The fawns are nigh”.19 Champlin has demonstrated that this fragment implies Lucullus’ identification with Agamemnon, for, while lion similes are frequent in the Homeric poems, the only instance when a lion is said to attack fawns is from a simile applied to Agamemnon. The line is spoken in the context of a divine epiphany occurring, appropriately, at Troy.20 The Homeric tendencies of Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus could be pursued even further, but it is sufficient for us to establish that the identification with Agamemnon must have been employed somewhat extensively within Archias’ poem, and, through this and other texts produced by panegyrists of Lucullus, it had acquired currency and was still very much on people’s minds when Cicero uttered his joke. Unlike Memmius’ claim of Trojan ancestry, however, the equation with Agamemnon did not stem from genealogical connections on the part of the Licinii Luculli, but rather was attached to the command of the war against Mithridates. It is not difficult to see why Agamemnon, the Greek hero who triumphed over an eastern kingdom, provided a suitable mythological model for a military leader active in the East, especially in light of the ideological relevance attached to the Trojan War in fifth-century Athenian culture, in which the Greek victory became a symbol of Greek triumphs over barbarians. Claiming to be the new Agamemnon meant positioning Rome as heir (and defender) of Greek civilization and casting Mithridates into the role of the threatening barbarian. The Agamemnon comparison was essential for the Mithridatic expedition, to the extent that, when the command was stripped from Lucullus and passed to Pompey, the latter transferred equation with Agamemnon to himself. Pompey seems to have alluded to his identification with Agamemnon 18 19 20 On Agamemnon and Lucullus see Champlin 2003, 300-303. Plu. Luc. 12.1. The verse is attributed to Archias by Reinach 1890, 52; 1895, 443; Wiseman 1987, 268. Champlin 2003, 301-302. On the influence of Archias on Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus, see Wiseman 1987, 268; Reinach 1890, 49-54; 1895, 442-443. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 7 when he complained, at his return from the East, that Caesar had acted as his Aegisthus.21 The identification with Agamemnon was prominently staged at the games which accompanied the inauguration of the magnificent complex erected by Pompey to celebrate his victory, the Porticus Pompei. This complex comprised a large theatre, whose cavea was surmounted by a temple to Venus Victrix.22 The theatre was inaugurated with a production of two plays on Trojan subjects, Accius’ Clytaemnestra and a Trojan Horse, possibly by Naevius. In Accius’ play, the return of Agamemnon from Troy was represented through an onstage triumphal procession (involving as many as six hundred mules) in which the trophies from Pompey’s eastern campaigns were displayed, making the identification of Pompey with Agamemnon clear.23 In addition, Cicero alluded to Pompey’s identification with Agamemnon in a letter to Atticus written at the eve of the civil war between Pompey and Caesar.24 Critics of Pompey during the civil war are credited with attacking him with the title ‘Agamemnon’ and ‘King of kings’.25 A later source reports that Pompey never set out on an expedition without reading book 11 of the Iliad, in which Agamemnon’s aristeia is narrated.26 This context of politicized appropriations of Greek myth, and specifically of the figure of Agamemnon, adds a new perspective to our reading of Lucretius’ Iphigenia passage. Both Lucullus’ and Pompey’s expeditions in the East, through which they claimed the title of Roman Agamemnon, had been preceded by sacrifices in which the officials are likely to have pronounced the words exitus ut felix faustusque daretur. Lucretius engages the Greek model (Aeschylus’ Agamemnon) of the play staged by Pompey for the inauguration of his theatre (Accius’ Clytaemnestra). In short, the Iphigenia episode allows Lucretius to interact with the system of mythological identification promoted by Roman generals at war in the East. The primary goal of Lucretius’ passage is to demonstrate that religious beliefs lead to impiety; but Lucretius chooses not only to reflect on the connection between religion and politics, but to do 21 22 23 24 25 26 There were indeed rumors that Pompey’s sudden divorce from his wife was motivated by her adultery with Caesar: Suet. Jul. 50.1; Champlin 2003, 299. On Pompey’s Porticus and the temple of Venus Victrix see LTUR V 35-38 s.v. “Theatrum Pompei” (P. Gros); LTUR IV 148-9 s.v. “Porticus Pompei” (P. Gros); LTUR V 120-121 s.v. “Venus Victrix Aedes” (P. Gros). Cic. Fam. 7.1.2. See Champlin 2003, 297-299; Beacham 1999, 65. See Cic. Att. 7.3.5 with Champlin 2003, 297. Plu. Pomp. 67.3; Caes. 41.2; App. BC 2.67. Ptolemaeus Hephaestion in Nova Historia (a rather untrustworthy source): Photius Bibliotheca n. 190, 151a; see Champlin 2003, 299. On Agamemnon and Pompey see also D.C. 42.5.5. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 8 Rebeggiani so in a mythological context that is highly reminiscent of recent Roman imperial exploits. If we connect the Iphigenia passage with the hymn to Venus, we envision a system of correspondences that looks like a panegyrical version of Cicero’s joke: just as Venus’ ideology of peace has its contemporary proxy in Trojan Memmius, so also are there Roman equivalents (Lucullus and Pompey) for the impious misuse of religion in political contexts displayed by Agamemnon in the Iphigenia episode. This reading of the political undertones in Lucretius’ choice of Agamemnon and of his interaction with Roman realities is strengthened by the echoes of contemporary political language in the other two pieces of Lucretius’ prologue, namely the praise of Epicurus and the hymn to Venus, to which I presently turn. 2 Epicurus and the Roman Alexander In analyzing the praise of Epicurus (1.62-79), it is important to pay close attention to the imagery and the mythical allusions employed by Lucretius. Vinzenz Buchheit has argued convincingly that, whereas Epicurus’ victory is clearly styled as a military achievement, it is the stereotypical description of Alexander’s triumphs that the Roman author wishes to evoke.27 The key concept here is the idea of a journey which transgresses the boundaries of the universe. Panegyrists of Alexander made the point that he had conquered the whole oikoumene from east to west, as far as the path of the sun reaches. Exaggeration led to the suggestion that he went even further, crossing the boundaries of the world.28 It seems evident that this is the imagery Lucretius is interacting with here (see in particular 1.72-75). Epicurus’ triumph of the mind replicates Alexander’s cosmic victories on a different plane. Epicurus does not conquer with the sword but through his mind, his figurative triumph is in reality a peaceful undertaking.29 One might think that Lucretius is purely exploiting a significant piece of Greece’s cultural history to make a philosophical point, namely that Epicurus’ achievements and gifts to humanity are greater than Alexander’s, but, once again, there are significant Roman implications to evoking the model of Alexander. Alexander was always attractive for Roman generals, yet his figure was never harnessed so insistently and in such a systematic way as in the context 27 28 29 Buchheit 1971, 309-315. See, e.g., Sen. Ep. 94.63. More materials collected by Buchheit 1971, 309-315. Cf. Lucr. 5.22-36, 49-54 in which Epicurus, conquering through dicta and not arma, surpasses Hercules, a mythical figure closely associated with Alexander. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 9 of Roman expansion in Asia in the 60s, when once again Alexander was chosen as a model first by Lucullus and then by Pompey.30 For the evidence, we need to go back once again to Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus. Several episodes in this work betray the influence of accounts of Alexander’s exploits in the East.31 There is no space here to look at these episodes in detail; one example will suffice. In Plutarch, Lucullus’ impressive string of victories against Mithridates begins with a success on the banks of the river Granicus.32 The analogy with Alexander is evident: the battle of the Granicus was the first great victory achieved by Alexander against the Persians. Except that Lucullus’ battle did not really take place at the Granicus; other sources are unanimous in placing the fight between Lucullus and Mithridates on the banks of a nearby stream, the much less famous Aesepos.33 It seems clear that the battle was moved to the Granicus in order to accentuate the correspondences with Alexander, and it is likely that the change goes back to Lucullus’ panegyrists, among whom, once again, Archias is the prime suspect.34 Be that as it may, the fact that an equation with Alexander based on the victory at the river Granicus was central to Lucullus’ propaganda is proven by the extraordinary archaeological evidence of the temple of Juno Sospita at Lanuvium, which was restored by Licinius Murena to celebrate Lucullus’ victory over Mithridates. Murena, also a member of the gens Licinia and a relative of Lucullus, had acted as legate to Lucullus during the Mithridatic wars.35 The Lanuvium temple was lavishly decorated with a copy of Lisippus’ famous statuary group of Alexander at Granicus. But in the Lanuvium version, the statue of Alexander had been replaced by a portrait of Lucullus, with Murena in the role of one of Alexander’s hetairoi.36 As for Pompey, his harnessing of Alexander is well known and hardly needs to be documented. Pompey had sought to imitate Alexander, whom he was believed to resemble, since his youth.37 The alleged resemblance found its way into the iconographical record, where Pompey inherits Alexander’s fa30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 On the cultural legacy and imitation of Alexander at Rome see Spencer 2002. For Pompey and Alexander, see ibid. 17-19; 168-170; 189-190. Coarelli 1981, 254-255; van Ooteghem 1959, 112-115. Plu. Luc. 11. App. Mithr. 76; FrGrH 434.28.4; Coarelli 1981, 256 n. 129. Coarelli 1981, 256-257. On the temple of Juno Sospita, the date of its restoration, the role played by Licinius Murena, and the temple’s connection with the celebration of Lucullus’ victories, see Coarelli 1981. On the role of Murena as legate of Lucullus in his eastern campaigns see Coarelli 1981, 252-253; Gruen 1974, 129-130. Coarelli 1981, 232-254, 257. Plu. Pomp. 2.1-2. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 10 Rebeggiani mous upward wave hairstyle and intense expression.38 Pompey’s nickname Magnus established a further connection with Alexander. A painting of Alexander was conveniently placed in Pompey’s Porticus to remind viewers of the identification.39 Like Alexander, Pompey was praised as conqueror of the whole oikoumene.40 On the day of his triumph, Pompey allegedly wore the cloak of Alexander, which he had taken from Mithridates.41 Lucretius’ playing down of Alexander in favor of Epicurus has a political edge, appearing at a time when Roman politicians were actively fighting for Alexander’s mantle. By evoking Alexander, Lucretius is opposing Epicurus’ triumph of the mind to the successes of the Roman pseudo-Alexanders of his time, namely Lucullus and Pompey. And Lucretius is not the only one who adds a contemporary political dimension to his articulation of the ‘mind vs. arms’ dichotomy. When Cicero seeks to demonstrate the preeminence of intellect over arms, he remarks his difference from Pompey, whom he characterizes, significantly, as a second Alexander.42 In conclusion, Lucretius’ praise of Epicurus has important political implications in light of the centrality of the Alexander image to the political propaganda of the 60s, and these implications are in line with Lucretius’ use of Agamemnon in the Iphigenia passage. 3 Venus and the Ideology of Peace Let us take a third and final step to consider the hymn to Venus, the first section of Lucretius’ prologue. In this section not only does Lucretius characterize Venus as the principle of life (1.1-20); he also styles her as a goddess of peace. She is peace incarnate, so much so that she is the only one who can have an influence on Mars, her polar opposite, and convince him to put an end to war (1.29-40). There is an important philosophical dimension to this construction of Venus as the principle of life and union, which is in turn related to one of the proem’s most difficult questions, namely how to make sense of an invocation to a divinity in a poem that is meant to deny the gods’ intervention in human affairs.43 One approach to this problem consists in understanding 38 39 40 41 42 43 Zanker 1988, 10; Poulsen 1973, no. 1. Plin. Nat. 35.132. D.C. 37.21; Plu. Pomp. 45.5. App. Mith. 117. See Buchheit 1969, esp. 241-246; Cic. Cat. 3.26; 4.21. Cf. Lucr. 1.44-49 (=2.646-651); for discussion of this passage, considered by many scholars to be an interpolation originating in a marginal note, see Bailey 1947, 601-603; Gale 1994, 215-216. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 11 Venus as a symbol or an allegory for something else, be that the creative power of nature, Epicurean pleasure, or Epicurean doctrine.44 Allegorical approaches are complicated and reinforced by the documented influence of Empedocles on Lucretius’ proem. Empedocles’ poem On Nature may have started with a hymn to Aphrodite who, in Empedocles’ philosophical system, embodies the principle of Love, the source of unity and creation (whereas Ares embodies the divisive principle of Strife).45 What matters for us is that the Empedoclean background for the characterization of Venus has repercussions on the presentation of Memmius, who is said to be adorned with all the gifts of Venus (1.27). Given Venus’ characterization, these are hardly the virtues of a general. The idea of a deep correspondence between Venus and her protégé Memmius is made stronger by the Empedoclean context in which it is formulated. In Empedocles the idea that worshippers resemble the divinities they associate with (if you are a peaceful person, you worship Aphrodite) is foregrounded. Empedocles envisions the Golden Age as a reign of Aphrodite, in which not even the killing of animals is admitted.46 This characterization of Venus as goddess of peace has political implications in the cultural life of Rome at Lucretius’ time. Venus was central to the propaganda strategies of Roman warlords in the first half of the first century bce. They, however, were not interested in Venus as a goddess of peace. Sulla attributed his successes to Venus after his victory against Marius’ supporters at Porta Collina.47 Pompey built his celebratory complex around a temple of Venus Victrix. Represented with a globe in her hands, Venus was envisioned as the divine power behind Pompey’s world dominion.48 The Forum Iulium, 44 45 46 47 48 For a survey of symbolic and allegorical approaches to Lucretius’ Venus, see Gale 1994, 219-223. Some influential interpretations are listed as follows. Venus as nature: Clay 1983, 82-110; Epicurean pleasure: Bignone 1945, 437-444; the aggregative movements of atoms: Giancotti 1959, 201-217; Epicurean philosophy and its effect on humans: Fowler 2007, 406; spring: Gale 1994, 217-218. For the influence of Empedocles on Lucretius, see Furley 1970; Kranz 1944; Gale 1994, 59-75. With particular reference to the proem: Clay 1983, 22-23, 49ff., 82-110, 253-257; Sedley 1998, 1-34; Gale 1994, 40-42, 67-72. Sedley 1998, 26. In Empedocles’ view, human souls may reincarnate into animals. Thus, killing animals is tantamount to murdering humans. It goes without saying that war is an ethical impossibility in Empedocles’ system, and is irreconcilable with the reign of Aphrodite/Love. The battle of Porta Collina was fought near the temple of Venus Erycina, and Sulla, who took the name Epaphroditus after his victory, seems to have deliberately connected the celebration of his success with the cult of the goddess. See App. BC 1.93, 97; Plu. Sull. 34; LTUR V 114-6 s.v. Venus Erucina, Aedes (ad portam Collinam) (F. Coarelli). On the temple of Venus Victrix in the Porticus of Pompey see above n. 22. Venus’ cult statue: Sauron 1994, 253-254. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 12 Rebeggiani the celebratory complex built by Caesar after Pharsalus, was meant, among other things, as a response to Pompey’s propaganda. Caesar’s Forum was dominated by a temple to Venus Genetrix, the ancestor of Caesar’s family, in front of which stood an equestrian statue of Alexander, whose head had been re-carved into a portrait of Caesar.49 Memmius’ own family members had made use of their proximity to Venus in a way that is utterly irreconcilable with Lucretius’ characterization of the goddess in the proem.50 On the contrary, Lucretius first styles Venus as genetically incompatible with war and then closely associates Memmius with the goddess, thus deliberately subverting the appropriation of Venus by coeval Roman politicians.51 Both Caesar and Pompey brought Venus in connection with war, foreign conquest, and Alexander. In Lucretius, the praise of Venus is associated with an ideology of peace and precedes a section in which the achievements of Alexander and his Roman imitators are played down in favor of the much more significant conquests of Epicurus. On the other hand, the hymn to Venus and the Iphigenia passage build up a neat opposition between mythic personae: Trojan Memmius, associated with peace and genealogically linked to Venus, is naturally the polar opposite of Greek Agamemnon and his Roman counterparts Lucullus and Pompey. 4 Epicureanism, Roman Culture and the Problem of Imperialism I hope that the extraordinary nature of this text has so far emerged: while addressed to a Roman politician, Lucretius’ proem undermines the very foundation of political careers in Rome—that is, the military—and turns a critical eye to Rome’s imperialist policies. The proem sets Epicurus’ philosophical teachings in a Roman political context. Lucretius’ goal is to guide his readers progressively toward Epicurean doctrine by steering them away from a lifestyle that is incompatible with that doctrine. This is, of course, no easy task. Epicureanism threatens the core values of Roman society. Epicurus rejected active participation in politics, a crucial component of the life of the Roman elite.52 Epicurus’ position on war, especially wars of invasion, can easily be 49 50 51 52 Weinstock 1972, 86-87; Stat. Silv. 1.1.84; LTUR II 299-306 s.v. Forum Iulium (C. Morselli); LTUR II 306-307 s.v. Forum Iulium: Venus Genetrix, Aedes (P. Gros). See RRC n. 313 p. 320-321, n. 349 pp. 363-364. Pace Grimal 1978, 239-240 who suggests that Lucretius’ address to Venus as genetrix is an homage to Caesar. See Epicur. fr. 8 Usener (= D.L. 10.119); fr. 551 Usener. For a survey of Epicurean views of politics, with further references, see Fowler 2007, 400-412. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 13 inferred: war is madness, for no conquest can cure mankind’s fear of death, and, on the contrary, greater power reduces one’s security.53 Lucretius’ greatest problem in DRN is how to square Epicurean doctrine with the cultural mindset of his Roman readership. As we shall see, the political debates at Rome in the 60s, and the role played by Memmius, offered an invaluable occasion for presenting Epicurean doctrine on war in a way that would not alienate Roman audiences. Let us consider the context of Memmius’ attack against Lucullus.54 The 60s bce were a decade dominated by Rome’s exploits in the East, with Pompey finding Asia at the periphery of the Roman Empire and leaving it at the center. But this was also a decade marked by a major backlash against the arrogance of the aristocracy encroaching on the privileges established by Sulla.55 Sulla had removed the tribunes’ right to prosecute political criminals before the people and to carry out the people’s will by legislation. Those rights were restored in 70 bce, giving way to a reaction against the aristocracy, especially those with connections with Sulla. Men like L. Licinius Lucullus—a henchman of Sulla whose immense wealth and ostentatious display of luxury were very much in the public eye—fell immediately under fire. The province of Asia was removed from Lucullus’ command by popular vote in 69 bce.56 In 68 bce the tribune L. Quinctius harangued the populace on Lucullus’ protraction of the war to fill his own coffers, while Gabinius, another tribune, proposed that Lucullus be stripped of his command by exhibiting a painting of Lucullus’ luxurious villa.57 These were the events leading to the election of C. Memmius, Lucretius’ patron, as a tribune of the plebs for 65 bce.58 It is thus no surprise that Memmius immediately continued the action of his predecessors by prosecuting the younger Lucullus and by persuading the popular assembly to deny L. Lucullus’ triumph over Mithridates.59 It does not matter, from my perspective, that the actions led by the tribunes who attacked Lucullus’ protraction of the war eventually resulted in an even larger command being granted to 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Cf. Lucr. 2.7-13; 3.59-86; Fowler 2007, 412-421. See above, n. 16. CAH2 IX 229-238. D.C. 36.2.2; FrGrH 257.12-13. Cic. Sest. 93; Plu. Luc. 33; CAH2 IX 332-333. The exact date of Memmius’ tribunate is uncertain. It is assumed that Memmius tried to deny Lucullus’ triumph as tribune, hence the tribunate is placed in the year of Lucullus’ return from the East: 66 or 65 bce (see RE 15.611; CAH2 IX 338). Bellemore 1996 dates Memmius’ tribunate to 64 bce. Plu. Cat. Mi. 29.5 suggests that Memmius acted on behalf of Pompey. This cannot be proved. Even if this was the case, the real motivation is irrelevant from Lucretius’ point of view (see below). Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 14 Rebeggiani Pompey, and that those same assemblies which condemned the continuation of the Mithridatic campaigns as unnecessary and motivated by greed were later swept in the opposite direction. First, doubts about the campaigns remained even in regard to Pompey’s command. In Pro Lege Manilia, Cicero’s emphasis on the immense danger posed by Mithridates suggests that opponents at the time did claim that the threat was being exaggerated, both to justify the granting of extraordinary powers to Pompey and to secure the profits from the war.60 Second, what matters for my argument is that contemporary attitudes to the Mithridatic wars were far from unanimous. While some Romans may have accepted the portrayal of Mithridates as a monster threatening to destroy Rome, others were prepared to question the integrity of Roman aristocrats involved in the war and to recognize greed as an important motivation in the conflict. The controversial nature of the Mithridatic wars is confirmed by an extraordinary, though little-studied document, the Epistula Mithridatis. In this fictional letter, a fragment from Sallust’s lost Histories, Sallust has Mithridates request Parthian aid against Lucullus and his troops, most likely shortly after the Battle of Tigranocerta in 69 bce. After a propitiatory address, the letter begins by emphatically laying out what Mithridates sees as the only real motivation for every war waged by Rome: the love of power and riches.61 Mithridates then substantiates his claim by surveying the whole history of Rome’s relationship with the East, showing that all wars from the Roman conquest of Greece in the second century bce to the Mithridatic wars in the first were fought without just cause.62 He argues that the Romans use pretexts, lies and forgeries to attack allies, and that they are led by love of riches and prepared to pervert pietas in order to achieve what they want. He concludes with inflammatory statements to indict Roman rapacity and lack of scruples, characterizing the Romans as deceitful and rapacious from the beginning of their history. Nothing good can come to the Parthian king from the like of these: ‘The Romans turn their weapons against everyone, most fiercely against those whose defeat means the greatest spoils. They have become great by daring and deception, and by sowing war upon war. Following this custom, they will destroy everything or they will die’ (Sal. Hist. 4.69.20-21). It would be easy to dismiss Mithridates’ arguments as Sallust’s reconstruction of an entirely biased, anti-Roman point of view. Mithridates’ account is certainly one-sided, yet it is likely that some of his arguments were meant to 60 61 62 Cic. Man. 4-26 (especially 22-6); CAH2 IX 251. Sal. Hist. 4.69.5. Sal. Hist. 4.69.5-9. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 15 strike a chord with Roman readers. Mithridates’ arguments grow particularly strong when he reviews his own dealings with Rome, showing that Rome’s invasion of his territory was arbitrary and unmotivated.63 In highlighting greed and thirst for power as a main motivator for Lucullus’ wars Mithridates touches on a familiar topos of (biased) anti-Roman propaganda (cf. e.g. Just. 38.4-7; Caes. Gal. 7.77), yet this is the very argument that found a sympathetic audience in the popular assemblies rallied by Memmius against Lucullus in Rome. It seems clear that, although Sallust does not expect his readers to side with Mithridates, he is using Mithridates’ point of view to highlight the controversial nature of the conflict: Mithridates may have been cruel and wicked, but his Roman opponents were not purely motivated by love of the state. In other words, Mithridates’ speech performs a function not unlike the words of Catiline in Cat. 20, 58. Sallust is not a supporter of Catiline, yet there is little doubt that he does not regards as absurd what Catiline has to say about the corruption of the Roman aristocracy. The same applies to Mithridates: Sallust does not support Mithridates, yet Mithridates’ voice allows him to complicate our views of this war by pointing out the corruption of Roman aristocrats. In short, for Sallust, writing between 40 and 35 bce and looking back at the history of Rome, the Mithridatic wars lent themselves to being presented as a controversial conflict, one in which the wickedness and cruelty of the Pontic king was, at least partly, counterbalanced by the corruption of Roman aristocrats. In his letter, Mithridates does not make distinctions between Roman classes, but from other parts of Sallust’s oeuvre we gather that this is the typical accusation leveled at the Roman nobility from a popular standpoint. The Epistula Mithridatis echoes sections of Sallust’s earlier works, such as the famous speech of Memmius to the plebs in the Bellum Iugurthinum.64 The idea that Romans subvert pietas in order to launch military expeditions is found in this passage too, and this is very close to the type of sentiments evoked by Lucretius in the Iphigenia passage. The speaker of the Bellum Iugurthinum passage is one of Memmius’ ancestors (his grandfather); he finds himself in the same position as Lucretius’ patron, and in his harping on about the rapacity of the aristocracy he is using the same arguments used by the younger Memmius against Lucullus. Ronald Syme maintained that Memmius’ harangue is largely Sallust’s invention—Cicero (Brut. 127) refers to the older Memmius as a mediocre orator—and noticed that Sallust was personally acquainted with 63 64 Sal. Hist. 4.69.10-15; Adler 2011, 23-28. Sal. Jug. 31; cf. in part. Jug. 31.12 and Hist. 4.69.5, 4.69.20-21; see Syme 1964, 156, 166-167. Cf. also Jug. 81.1. For echoes of the Epistula Mithridatis in Sallust’s oeuvre, see Adler 2011, 28-31. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 16 Rebeggiani the younger Memmius.65 It is possible that Sallust transferred traits of the younger Memmius to the older Memmius. Be that as it may, what matters for my argument (and for Lucretius) is that the Memmii had a family tradition of fighting the aristocracy on the topic of mishandled foreign campaigns. Lucretius’ use of Agamemnon’s expedition and his subversion of the imagery related to Alexander’s triumph allow him to evoke the Mithridatic wars by conjuring up the two contemporary Romans who had most eloquently been identified with Agamemnon and Alexander. Evoking the atmosphere surrounding the Mithridatic wars in the 60s was expedient for Lucretius’ argument. It conjured up a context in which Rome’s policy in the East and its motivation were questioned, a time when Memmius had been a protagonist in popular attempts against the power of Roman warlords. This context provided an invaluable opportunity for Lucretius to advance his ideology of peace and construct Memmius as an embodiment of this ideology. In the second half of the 60s bce Memmius could be credibly associated with the anti-war sentiments that Lucretius expresses in his prologue. The Mithridatic wars offered an extraordinary occasion for the emergence of an audience in Rome which was prepared to indict Rome’s expansion in the East as motivated by the aristocracy’s greed. By pointing the reader’s attention to that historical context Lucretius could introduce Epicurean arguments in a way that was more acceptable to Roman audiences, bringing water to his Epicurean mill at the same time as he exalted his patron. In conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that a political subtext runs through the three initial sections of Lucretius’ proem, the hymn to Venus, the praise of Epicurus, and the Iphigenia episode. The hymn to Venus invokes the end of Roman wars, advances an ideology of peace and identifies Memmius as its harbinger. The praise of Epicurus exalts the value of Epicurean doctrine while playing down the military achievements of Rome’s self-styled Alexanders. And the Iphigenia scene condemns impious acts suggested by religion at the same time that it indicts the behavior of Roman followers of Agamemnon. Just as the praise of Epicurus subverts a political model (Alexander) with an eye on contemporary Roman politics, so the Agamemnon passage is not purely a demonstration of the impiety of religion, but is also an implicit attack on Rome’s aggressive policy in the East and the exploits of the soi-disants Agamemnons of Lucretius’ day. Through his references to Agamemnon, Lucretius is able to connect his attack on religion to his own critical position on imperialism, and he does so by directing the audience’s attention to a particularly controversial war, one that many of Lucretius’ contemporaries were prepared to regard as unjust. 65 Syme 1964, 156. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 5 17 The Date In this concluding section, I would like to consider the implications of the argument advanced in this article for the discussion of a heavily debated question, namely the date of Lucretius’ poem. I tackle in particular the argument for a later date (49-48 bce) of Lucretius’ DRN advanced by Gregory Hutchinson in 2001. First, my goal is to show that the case for a later date has not been sufficiently established. I also point out that the argument propounded in these pages is incompatible with one of the implications of Hutchinson’s re-dating of Lucretius’ poem, the idea that Lucretius’ anti-war arguments are meant to decry the horrors of civil war. Not only does my reading of political imagery in the proem point in the opposite direction, but I submit that my interpretation helps us better appreciate the originality of Lucretius’ anti-war ideology. Secondly, in the second part of this section, I discuss the extent to which the argument proposed in this article can be used to date Lucretius’ poem. I show that my reading of Lucretius’ proem does not rely on a specific date and that this article offers no secure elements for dating Lucretius’ poem. I limit myself to proposing that upon closer analysis of Memmius’ political career the suggestions advanced in Section 4—namely that Memmius’ political role in the 60s made him a more suitable recipient of Lucretius’ instruction—makes more sense if indeed the proem was conceived before 58 bce. There are three external pieces of evidence for the date of Lucretius’ DRN. The first is the letter by Cicero to his brother Quintus (Q. fr. 2.10.3, dated to 54 bce), in which he praises Lucreti poemata for possessing many flashes of talent, but also much art. Cicero’s reference is consistent with the dates for Lucretius’ death as reported by Jerome (51-50 bce) and Donatus (55 bce), although of course they cannot be both right.66 Given the widely accepted identification of Lucretius’ addressee with C. Memmius L.f., praetor of 58 bce, dates for the proem have tended to cluster around the peak of Memmius’ political career, his praetorship in 58 bce, or the years immediately preceding Cicero’s reference, on the assumption that Cicero refers here to a work recently published. Alternatively, attempts to date the proem and/or the poem have sought to connect Lucretius’ references to dangerous times for the Roman state in 1.41-43 to specific events in Roman history.67 66 67 Jerome Chron. Ol. 171.3, p. 149 Helm; Donatus Vit. Verg. 6. Some dating hypotheses: Giancotti 1959, 145-148 (62 bce); Leonard and Smith 1942, 203 (63 or 60 bce, but 58 bce on p. 204); Munro 1886, 30 (59 bce); Sandbach 1940, 77 (55/54 bce); Fowler 2007, 398 (55 or early 54 bce); Canfora 1993, 49-51 (54 bce); Grimal 1978, 237-240 (54/53 bce). More hypotheses in Paratore and Pizzani 1960, 143. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 18 Rebeggiani In his 2001 article, Hutchinson maintains that Lucretius’ main reference in 1.41-43 is to the civil war of Pompey and Caesar in 49-48 bce.68 To support this dating of the proem, Hutchinson questions the reliability of Jerome’s and Donatus’ testimony, and takes Cicero’s mention of Lucreti poemata as a reference to otherwise unknown poems by Lucretius published before DRN.69 Hutchinson also identifies the addressee of DRN with C. Memmius C.f., tribune of the plebs in 54 bce, not C. Memmius L.f., praetor of 58 bce.70 Hutchinson’s dating has not found unanimous support, and has been subject to close scrutiny in more recent contributions. Christopher Krebs has argued that Caesar’s De bello Gallico (completed, at the latest, by early 51 bce) was indebted to Lucretius’ DRN, hence ruling out the possibility of publication in 49-48 bce.71 Similar conclusions have been reached by Katharina Volk, who has drawn attention to the fact that Lucretius makes his ability to compose DRN contingent upon Venus’ granting of peace. Since the poem is in fact composed, we are to assume that the prayer is heeded. It would be awkward for Lucretius to frame his prayer in such a way if the proem appeared at a time in which civil war was raging.72 The strongest argument against Hutchinson’s hypothesis, however, is the fact that nothing in the language of Lucr. 1.41-43 unambiguously refers to civil war. As remarked by Leonard and Smith, a phrase such as tempore iniquo “would fairly describe the condition of Roman society at almost any time from the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. to the establishment of the principate by Augustus in 27 B.C.”.73 Communi deesse saluti (1.43) is a stock phrase of the Roman political lexicon.74 It does not indicate an immediate threat to the safety of Rome.75 Talibus in rebus (1.43) looks back to 1.29-30 ( fera moenera militiai | per maria ac terras), which do not necessarily imply a threat to Rome, 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Hutchinson 2001, 150-153. Hutchinson 2001, 153-156. That the plural poemata can refer to one large poem such as DRN seems guaranteed by Ennius Ann. 12 Skutsch: res atque poemata nostra (most likely a reference to the Annales; see Skutsch 1985, 168). Hutchinson’s view that Cicero refers to poems of Epicurean subject written before DRN makes Lucretius’ claim of priority (e.g. Lucr. 1.926-950) slightly odd (Harrison 2016, 30 n. 2). As far as we know, C. Memmius L.f. was a disgraced exile in 49-48 bce (the date of Lucretius’ proem according to Hutchinson 2001). Although Hutchinson does not see this as an unsurmountable obstacle, he still regards C. Memmius L.f. as an unsuitable recipient of Lucretius’ poem: Hutchinson 2001, 158-159. Krebs 2013, 778-779. Volk 2010, 127-130. Leonard and Smith 1942, 203. Fowler 2007, 408 n. 37: “fail to devote himself to the common good”, see TLL iii.1970.76 ff. Cf. also Paratore and Pizzani 1960, 99, 143. Pace Hutchinson 2001, 150-151. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 19 nor specifically refer to civil war: the sentence is general enough that it encompasses any type of war. As for a date around 55 bce, this claim rests on the unprovable assumption that Cicero is referring to a recently published work. Cicero simply does not say as much, and there is no reason why he and his brother may not be commenting on a work written a few years before. And even if the poem was completed around 55 bce, its proem may have been created earlier and reflect an earlier political debate. It is particularly unsafe to assume that Lucretius published DRN in one block and that all of its parts were updated to the time of final publication, especially since the poem shows signs of lack of a final revision. The argument expounded in the above sections does not rest on a specific date. As Sallust proves, the Mithridatic wars could be construed as a particularly suitable episode for scrutinizing the connection between Roman imperialism and the corruption of the aristocracy until much later. The idea that Agamemnon’s campaigns could be used as a mythical equivalent of Rome’s wars against Mithridates remained active for several years: Cicero based a joke on it in 60 bce, Pompey and his entourage implied the identification with Agamemnon for the opening ceremony of Pompey’s portico in 55 bce, and the equation of Agamemnon and Pompey is still clearly implied in Seneca’s Agamemnon, about a century after the events.76 The only (by no means decisive) suggestion for the date of the proem can be gathered by considering the argument advanced in Section 4 in connection with Memmius’ political career.77 After his tribunate in 65 bce, Memmius’ next major political accomplishment was his election as praetor for 58 bce, which granted him a post as governor of Bithynia the following year. During his tenure in Bithynia, he achieved military victories and received the title imperator.78 At his return from Bithynia, Memmius had his eyes on the consulship, which he attempted to achieve at the first possible occasion (in 54 bce).79 He involved himself in the elite’s immoral and reckless struggle for power that Lucretius so powerfully decries. In his attempt to secure a nomination, he was involved in a major corruption scandal, went into exile and, to the best of our 76 77 78 79 Berno 2004, 80-82. On Memmius’ life and career, see RE 15.610-616. Coins of 56 bce celebrate Memmius’ successes with images of captives kneeling down in front of a trophy: RRC n. 427 p. 451. By law, the earliest he could have run for the consulship was 56 bce (for 55 bce). But the triumvirs Pompey and Crassus reserved the position for themselves in 55 bce; in 54 bce it went to Appius Claudius Pulcher, a relative of Pompey, and Domitius Ahenobarbus: see RE 15.614. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 20 Rebeggiani knowledge, never came back.80 While an exile in Greece, he went so far as to attempt to pull down Epicurus’ house in Athens, clashing with the local Epicurean community.81 Scholars often remark about the mismatch between addressee and poem, drawing attention to Memmius’ involvement in politics and disregard of Epicurean doctrine. I agree with Fowler that arguments about the mismatch between poem and addressee will only worry those with a narrow view of the patron/poet relationship. After all, Lucretius’ goal is to convert Romans to Epicureanism: he therefore needs to select a recipient who is not converted. It is in this context that Memmius made particular sense. He was an active politician, as might be expected of an elite Roman who did not (yet) subscribe to Epicurus’ teachings, but one whose actions in the 60s were (or could be construed as) somehow more compatible with Lucretius’ anti-war ideology. This potential of Memmius as a particularly suitable addressee diminishes substantially with the progression of his political career. It is less appealing later, when the memory of Memmius’ opposition to the Mithridatic expedition must have faded, and when Memmius’ direct involvement in military expeditions and his own reckless pursuit of power must have made Lucretius’ attempt to construct him as an embodiment of his anti-war ideology much less credible.82 Accepting the idea of a pre-58 bce date for the proem does not necessarily imply that the whole of Lucretius’ poem was published before 58 bce. The proem could reflect a position held by Lucretius when he composed it at some point between the late 60s and early 50s bce. As Lucretius continued to work on DRN, Memmius proved a less and less suitable recipient of his instruction.83 Whatever the exact date of the proem, I hope that the argument proposed in this article has enough weight to dismiss Hutchinson’s idea that Lucretius’ anti-war argument in the hymn to Venus is primarily intended to decry the horrors of civil war. This conclusion deprives Lucretius’ proem of much of his power and originality. To be outraged at civil war is not an unusual position and is acceptable to every Roman regardless of political inclinations. While making Lucretius proto-Virgilian, Hutchinson brings him back to the ideological 80 81 82 83 On the events of 54 bce see Sumner 1982. Cic. Fam. 13.1.3-4. That Lucretius’ polemic target is Roman wars of expansion is argued persuasively by Harrison 2016. Harrison differs from my position in so far as he suggests the campaigns by Crassus and Caesar in the mid-50s as Lucretius’ primary polemic target (Harrison does not discuss the role of Memmius in the 60s and the political implications of the Agamemnon comparison). See Townend 1978. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 21 mainstream of Roman literature and aligns him with the position of the Roman elite. But in his proem Lucretius lends his voice to the Epicurean doctrine that wars of expansion are no less irrational and no less impious than civil wars. This is an extraordinary position, virtually unparalleled in the whole of Roman literature. To make this extraordinary ideology acceptable to his fellow Romans, Lucretius deploys a complex strategy which combines a semi-allegorical reading of Venus with a shrewd exploitation of the political sloganeering in the late 60s and of the system of mythological identifications attached to that season. Bibliography CAH2 IX: J.A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson, eds. FrGrH: F. Jacoby, ed. LTUR: E.M. Steinby, ed. RRC: M.H. Crawford Adler, E. (2011). Valorizing the Barbarians. Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography. Austin, TX. Aretz, S. (1999). Die Opferung der Iphigenia in Aulis. Stuttgart. Bailey, C., ed. (1947). Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. (3 vols). Oxford. Beacham, R. (1999). Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome. New Haven, CT. Bellemore, J. (1996). The Quaestorship of Cato and the Tribunate of Memmius. Historia 45, pp. 504-508. Berno, F.R. (2004). Un truncus, molti re. Priamo, Agamennone, Pompeo (Virgilio, Seneca, Lucano). Maia 56, pp. 79-84. Bignone, E. (1945). Storia della letteratura latina. (2 vols). Florence. Buchheit, V. (1969). Ciceros Triumph des Geistes. Gymnasium 76, pp. 232-253. Buchheit, V. (1971). Epikurs Triumph des Geistes. Hermes 99, pp. 303-323. Canfora, L. (1993). Vita di Lucrezio. Palermo. Champlin, E. (2003). Agamemnon at Rome. Roman Dynasts and Greek Heroes. In: D. Braund and C. Gill, eds., Myth, History and Culture at Rome. Studies in Honour of T.P. Wiseman, Exeter, pp. 295-319. Clay, D. (1983). Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca/London. Coarelli, F. (1981). Alessandro, i Licinii e Lanuvio. In: AA.VV., L’Art décoratif à Rome à la fin de la République et au début du Principat, Rome, pp. 229-284. Crawford, M.H. (1974). Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge. Crook, J.A., Lintott, A., and Rawson, E., eds. (1999). The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C. 2nd edition. Cambridge. Dover, K.J. (1987). The Red Fabric in the Agamemnon. In: K.J. Dover, Greek and the Greeks. Collected Papers, Vol. 1: Language, Poetry, Drama, Oxford, pp. 151-160. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California 22 Rebeggiani Fowler, D.P. (2007). Lucretius and Politics. In: M.R. Gale, ed., Oxford Readings in Lucretius, Oxford, pp. 397-431 [originally published in: J. Barnes and M. Griffin eds. (1989). Philosophia Togata. Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society, Oxford, pp. 120-150]. Furley, D.J. (1970). Variations on Themes from Empedocles in Lucretius’ Proem. BICS 17, pp. 55-64. Gale, M.R. (1994). Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge. Galinsky, K. (2013). La costruzione del mito augusteo. Some construction elements. In: M. Labate and G. Rosati, eds., La costruzione del mito augusteo, Heidelberg, pp. 29-48. Giancotti, F. (1959). Il preludio di Lucrezio. Messina/Florence. Griffin, J. (1985). Latin Poets and Roman Life. Chapel Hill. Grimal, P. (1978). Le poème de Lucrèce en son temps. In: O. Gigon, ed., Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt, Vol. 24: Lucrèce, Geneva/Vandœuvres, pp. 233-270. Gruen, E.S. (1974). The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London. Hall, E. (1989). Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford. Harrison, S.J. (2002). Ennius and the Prologue to Lucretius, DRN 1.1-148. Leeds International Classical Studies 1.4, pp. 1-13. https://web.archive.org/web/20141130003109/; http://lics.leeds.ac.uk/2002/200204.pdf. Harrison, S.J. (2016). Epicurean Subversion? Lucretius’s First Proem and Contemporary Roman Culture. In: D. Norbrook, S. Harrison, and P. Hardie, eds., Lucretius and the Early Modern, Oxford, pp. 29-43. Hutchinson, G.O. (2001). The Date of De Rerum Natura. CQ 51, pp. 150-162. Jacoby, F., ed. (1927-1958), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin. Jocelyn, H.D., ed. (1967). The Tragedies of Ennius. Cambridge. Kenney, E.J. (1977). Lucretius. Oxford. Kleve, K. (1966). Lukrez und Venus (De rerum natura 1.1-49). SO 41, pp. 86-94. Kranz, W. (1944). Lukrez und Empedokles. Philologus 96, pp. 68-107. Krebs, C.B. (2013). Caesar, Lucretius and the Dates of De Rerum Natura and the Commentarii. CQ 63, pp. 772-779. Leonard, W.E., and Smith, S.B., eds. (1942). De Rerum Natura. The Latin Text of Lucretius. Madison, MA. Minyard, J.D. (1985). Lucretius and the Late Republic. Leiden. Munro, H.A.J., ed. (1886). T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. Cambridge/London. Nichols, J.H. (1976). Epicurean Political Philosophy. The De Rerum Natura of Lucretius. Ithaca/London. Paratore, E., and Pizzani, U., eds. (1960). Lucreti De Rerum Natura. Locos praecipue notabiles collegit et illustravit Hector Paratore, commentariolo instruxit Hucbaldus Pizzani. Rome. 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 |Downloaded Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California Roman Agamemnon 23 Pease, A.S., ed. (1920-1923). M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione. (2 vols). Urbana, IL. Perutelli, A. (1996). Ifigenia in Lucrezio. SCO 46, pp. 193-207. Poulsen, V. (1973). Les portraits romains, Vol. 1. Copenhagen. Prinzen, H. (1998). Ennius im Urteil der Antike. Stuttgart. Reinach, T. (1890). De Archia poeta. Paris. Reinach, T. (1895). Mithridates Eupator. König von Pontos. Leipzig. Rosenbloom, D. (1995). Myth, History, and Hegemony in Aeschylus. In: B. Goff, ed., History, Tragedy, Theory. Dialogues on Athenian Drama, Austin, TX, pp. 91-130. Sandbach, F.H. (1940). Lucreti poemata and the Poet’s Death. CR 54, pp. 72-77. Sauron, G. (1994). Quis deum? L’expression plastique des idéologies politiques et religieuses à Rome à la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Rome. Schiesaro, A. (2007). Lucretius and Roman Politics and History. In: S. Gillespie and P. Hardie, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, Cambridge, pp. 41-58. Sedley, D.N. (1998). Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge. Skutsch, O., ed. (1985). The Annals of Q. Ennius. Oxford. Spencer, D. (2002). The Roman Alexander. Reading a Cultural Myth. Exeter. Steinby, E.M., ed. (1993-2000). Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Rome. Sumner, G.V. (1982). The Coitio of 54 BC, or Waiting for Caesar. HSCPh 86, pp. 133-139. Syme, R. (1964). Sallust. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Townend, G.B. (1978). The Fading of Memmius. CQ 28, pp. 267-283. van Ooteghem, J. (1959). Lucius Licinius Lucullus. Brussels. Versnel, H.S. (1976). Two Types of Roman Devotio. Mnemosyne 29, pp. 365-410. Volk, K. (2010). Lucretius’ Prayer for Peace and the Date of De Rerum Natura. CQ 60, pp. 127-131. Weinstock, S. (1972). Divus Julius. Oxford. Wiseman, T.P. (1987). Roman Studies, Literary and Historical. Liverpool. Zanker, P. (1988). The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor [English translation of: Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, Munich 1987]. Mnemosyne (2019) 1-23 | 10.1163/1568525X-12342673 Downloaded from Brill.com12/13/2019 07:14:46PM via University of Southern California