Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

LUCRETIUS
3. THE POEM
Structure
Like Virgil's Aeneid, the De rerum natura never received its final revision. But
although unrevised, it is not substantially incomplete and there is no compelling
reason to believe that Lucretius would have continued beyond the present
ending except perhaps to add some identifying lines such as Virgil appended to
the Georgia. We have the poet's own statement (6.92—5) that Book 6 was
designed to conclude the work and its impressive final section on the Athenian
plague is the longest descriptive passage in the poem and must surely have
been written for its present climactic position. As it stands, the poem has
a rational and satisfying structure. It is divided into three parts, each consisting
of two books. The first and third parts deal with physical doctrine, the microcosm
of the atom in Books 1 and 2 and the macrocosm of the universe in Books
5 and 6. Between these two outer panels the central section describes the
Epicurean doctrine of the soul, the senses, the mind and the will. Each of the
six books begins with a formal prologue and ends with an extended passage of
particular interest or striking poetry. The first book in each pair is more systematic
in argument, the second is generally more relaxed and discursive. Each
book has a number of clearly articulated sections and within each section there
is usually a neat pointing of the argument. This ' klare, harmonische Gliederung
der Form' is considered by Biichner an archaic feature of Lucretius' style; 1 and
undoubtedly the effect would be monotonous if there was not a considerable
variety in the length and tone of the different sections. By means of this careful
articulation of the argument, Lucretius creates an impression of logical exactness
and sweeps the reader on with an imposing array of balanced proofs. To some
extent this impression of a systematic progression is misleading: for if we
attempt to follow the argument closely, we soon discover a number of passages
where the logical connexion is elusive, and not all of these can be blamed on
the inadequacies of the textual tradition or the incompleteness of the poem.
But in spite of these difficulties the general impression which the work creates
is of great structural simplicity and strength.
So far as we can tell, the broad plan of the De rerum natura is the poet's own.
No known work of Epicurus appears to be exactly parallel to Lucretius' poem
in the order in which the subject matter is presented. The capacity to organize
material in a logical and coherent fashion was not one of Epicurus' strong
points and critics in antiquity found fault with the looseness and repetitiveness
of his most important work (Diog. Laert. 10.7). It is not likely, therefore, that
anything which he produced would have anticipated the balanced structure of
the De rerum natura. It may be, of course, that Lucretius' immediate source
1 Biichner (1936) 15.
217
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008