Empedocles Redivivus: Poetry and Analogy in Lucretius

Introduction 15
flammarum . . . iras, / . . . flammai fulgura → B115.10–11 δ’ ἐς αὐγὰς /
ἠελίου φαέθοντος; air: 1.725 caelum → B115.11 ὁ δ’ αἰθέρος). 64 In the
pages to follow we will come across many other instances illustrating Lucretius’
integration of Empedocles’ four-element theory and consider how he
applies unified figurative language in his description of atoms and roots. 65
Last but not least, Furley explains Lucretius’ lengthy praise of Empedocles
in terms of the latter’s physical theory about the random development
of living forms. We know from Aëtius (Aët. 5.19.5 = A72) that Empedocles
distinguished four stages in the emergence of animal life. Although Empedocles’
zoogonical account will be discussed below in more detail, 66 it would
be useful to make here a few preliminary remarks. According to this theory
creatures were first created by the accidental combination of disparate limbs
and organs that at an even earlier stage had sprung up and wandered about
on their own, without the intervention of any divine power; if the correct
“limbs” combine, then the creature will survive and go on to found a species,
but if the wrong combination occurs then the creature will instantly perish. 67
Lucretius actually puts forward a theory very similar to Empedocles’,
namely that originally a set of randomly composed monsters sprang up, of
which only the fittest survived (5.837–877). It is true that there are clear
differences between the two zoogonical accounts. Whereas in the very beginning
Empedocles describes isolated limbs (B57), Lucretius describes whole
organisms with congenital defects. Besides, as Campbell remarks, Lucretius’
system is different in that his maladapted creatures are formed at the atomic
level rather than at the macroscopic level of whole limbs. 68 More importantly,
in Lucretius there is no inter-species mingling of limbs, as happens
in Empedocles (B61). That is why, as we know from Plutarch (Adv. Col.
28.1123B), the Epicureans mocked Empedocles’ monsters some of which
were described “roll-walking creatures with hands not properly articulated
or distinguishable” and as “ox-headed man-creatures” (εἰλίποδ’ ἀκριτόχειρα
καὶ βουγενῆ ἀνδρόπρῳρα, B60; cf. B61.2).
At this point, one could claim that Lucretius’ primary source for this
theory might have been Epicurus’ On Nature (Books 11 and 12), 69 which
in turn interacts with and argues against Plato’s Timaeus, since the latter
text appropriates and subverts the Empedoclean and Democritean zoogonical
doctrines. 70 However, we should not deny the fact that the whole Lucretian
passage indisputably echoes Empedocles in terms of both theory and
language. 71 That is why, after making such an intensive use of Empedocles’
poem and attacking the compound creatures of myth, Lucretius also argues
that the compound creatures of Empedocles never existed at any given
time; he thus makes sure that he keeps his distance from his predecessor