Lucretius' Use of Myth Beyond "The Honey on the Cup"

Lucretius’ Use of Myth Beyond “The Honey on the Cup” BRYANT RAISCH University of Chicago, Class of 2020 Literary Analysis !2 One of the most perplexing questions of the De Rerum Natura is the reasoning behind Lucretius’ use of both poetry and myth. Lucretius himself offers an explanation when he describes himself as “Turning the taste of honey into sound/ As musical, as golden, so that I/ May hold your mind with poetry, while you/ Are learning all about that form, that pattern, And see its usefulness” (Humphries, 119). This quote explains the famous honey-on-the-rim of wormwood analogy that Lucretius describes previously in which the honey represents the poetry, and the wormwood the healing philosophy of Epicureanism. Lucretius explains that in order to make his writing more convincing and more palatable, he adorns his Epicurean philosophy with poetry. While in and of itself a complex topic, there does seem to be a certain logic to that decision. However, Lucretius’ use of myth specifically remains somewhat of a mystery. What does myth uniquely offer that mere verse or poetic and imagistic passages cannot? Since myth and poetry share a bond in Classical literature and since the most fundamental sources for myth both for us and Lucretius were written in poetry, to a certain extent Lucretius’ explanation of why he uses poetry can extend to why he uses myth. However, Lucretius’ hostility towards religion complicates this matter, because just as myth and poetry share a bond, so does myth and religion. This bond creates an interesting problem which many philosophers and writers before Lucretius dealt with in their own way. In her book, Myth and Poetry In Lucretius, Monica Gale neatly recounts the critical tradition of myth that Lucretius inherits. She frames this tradition by dividing the criticisms against myth into two categories: impiety and irrationality. The first kinds of objections to Homeric and Hesiodic uses of myth were based on immoral attributions of ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !3 negative human qualities to the gods by Pre-Socratics like Xenophanes, and Diogenes Laertius (10). Lucretius engages in this kind of criticism to a certain extent, because he wants to impress on the readers that an kind of human or anthropomorphic quality attributed to gods is impious, but in the case of the PreSocratics the charge regards negative human qualities not human qualities in themselves. Gale goes on to mention that Plato references the Pre-Socratic critique in the Republic, but adds that myth plays an important role in education (11). Gale also mentions that “Amongst Lucretius’ contemporaries and nearcontemporaries, the idea that poetry is (or should be) educational remains common” (12). This would seem to fit in with the whole didactic scheme of De Rerum Natura, since Lucretius aims to educate and persuade his audience as effectively as possible. However, the criticism of myth as irrational would also trouble Lucretius’ Epicurean sensibilities. Gale continues her outline of myth and its criticism by describing the charge of irrationality brought against myth by writers like Plato, Thucydides, and Herodotus (11). These criticisms mainly revolve around the fact that many myths involve fantastical events or creatures that seem clearly to be false. The contrast between "ῦθος and λόγος plays an important role here. The myths represent the opposite of reason, and so for any philosophy which values truth and reason, especially one like Epicureanism myths become problematic. However, all these criticisms did not lack response. One way of reconciling the irrationality of myths was the Palaephatist criticism which sought to uncover some underlying truth in the myth (Gale, 13). Furthermore, Gale explains that Epicurus himself was quite hostile to myth, believing that they were “Irrational explanations for physical phenomena” (14). This presents a problem for ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !4 Lucretius’ since as an Epicurean, he bases his philosophical outlook upon Epicurus’ philosophy, and throughout the poem sings Epicurus’ praises. However, this does not bind Lucretius to each and every opinion Epicurus has, and some differences in their philosophies ought to be expected. There are more ways of solving both the impiety and irrationality of myth, namely, allegory and allegorical exegesis. While literature developed onward from Homer, one of the developments that came about was the emergence of allegory. Along with this development, allegorical exegesis became a way to interpret myths so as to avoid criticisms of impiety or irrationality by explaining that a hidden meaning in writers like Homer, demonstrated the intended truth of the poem. In fact, some of the first examples of allegorical exegeses were attempts to defend Homer from criticisms of impiety (Gale, 22). Various philosophical schools like the Sophists and Cynics made use of allegory (23), and even the Stoics used it to reconcile their beliefs with the authority of the poets, just like the Sophists and Cynics (25). Thus, Gale makes it clear that allegorical exegesis happens on the terms of the doctrines of the philosophical schools interpreting the text, in an attempt to legitimize their beliefs by identifying a confluence between their ideas and those of the traditional poets. Lucretius engages with all these traditions to a certain extent, but also brings a unique perspective and use of myth in De Rerum Natura, many times his portrayal of myth responds to its traditional use, or his use of allegory mimics conventional ways of allegorizing myth. Since, myth and religion share such an intimate bond in the ancient world, one passage that seems to shed light on Lucretius’ own views on myth and its purpose is 5. 1161-1193 of De Rerum ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !5 Natura. This section, entitled “Quomodo Hominibus Innata Sit Deorum Opinio” by subsequent manuscript editors, describes how religion took its hold over men. Lucretius begins by rather obscurely referencing “men wide awake/ [who] Saw the distinguished presences of gods/ With glorious appearance” (Humphries, 193). This seems to be a reference to some kind of perception, and he further explains that these images appear more impressively during dreams. His use of words like “facies,” and “sensum” ground these images in some kind of perception, like the various simulacra that he describes float around the world (5.1170,1172). Lucretius then claims that from what they perceived men then made assumptions that the gods are immortal, and have various anthropomorphic qualities. He then claims that they “Watched how the season’s variable rounds/ Followed an order they could not discern…They gave them homes in heaven/ Since that was where night and the moon and the sun….All had their residence” (Humphries, 193). Here, the associations that they ascribed to the gods stem from a means of explaining natural phenomena. Gale points out that unlike previous conceptions of myth, Lucretius’ origin explains that myths came about through collective misunderstanding, rather than through the invention of the poets (130). Gale also emphasizes that the myths come about through a misunderstanding of correct sensory evidence, which puts ignorance at the heart of their conception (131). She argues that they contain some truth, and provided assumptions in order to answer genuine questions about the world (132). Thus, if the truth of the question which the myths attempt to answer is placed alongside the re-telling of a myth, then this removes the danger of religious belief (133). ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !6 Gale also provides another passage important to Lucretius’ view on the origin of myth in which Lucretius describes the origin of the myths that came about in order to explain echoes. Gale claims that here Lucretius demonstrates that myth fulfills an inherent human “desire to tell stories and hold an audience” (135). This point references the unique quality of narrative that myth adds which mere poetry by itself does not hold. Furthermore, there seems to be an implication that men have an inherent way of understanding the world through narrative. They answer their questions regarding the universe by creating a narrative. Beyond just a desire for narrative, this passage seems to imply that narrative holds a fundamental power as a means through which the universe can be understood. Lucretius further demonstrates myth’s narrative quality acting as a means through which men understand the universe, especially as it relates to anxieties about the universe. In Book III, lines 978-1023, Lucretius presents the various mythological figures that men imagine dwell in Tartarus and whose punishments serves as warnings that whoever commits such acts will likely suffer similar punishments for eternity. He allegorizes each of these figures though not in the traditional way in order to defend the poets, but so as to illustrate how they represent real mental phenomena in our lives, implying that like he describes in his origin of myth, these stories arose out of misplaced assumption or error in order to explain these phenomena. Gale explains that the figures Lucretius allegorizes in this passage were all traditionally allegorized figures, and that Lucretius here creates his own allegory in order to explain that these myths arose out of projected fears (37-8). Furthermore, Gale explains that a series of puns help to reinforce Lucretius’ allegorical exegesis (38). Lucretius describes the figures of ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !7 Tantalus, Tityos, Sisyphus, and the Danaids, and he identifies a real-world psychological correspondence to each of them. Tantalus represents “our panic dread of accident” (Humphries, 114); Tityos represents humans “in love/ Torn and consumed by our anxieties (Humphries, 115); Sisyphus represents “the man/ Bent upon power and office, who come back/ Gloomy and beaten after every vote” (115); and the Danaids represent “A mind whose nature seems unsatisfied,/ Never content,” (115). As Gale explained, the allegory here also uses puns to reinforce the connection. These puns use similar words in order to connect the ideas within the allegories more concretely with the images themselves. In The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius, David West goes into detail about how these puns help to create Lucretius’ overall allegorical explanation of the stories regarding punishments in Tartarus. West points out that in creating the parallel between Tantalus and contemporary humans’ fear of the gods he uses parallel words like cassa and inanis which emphasize Lucretius’ conviction that both fears are useless (98). Furthermore, West points out that the use of the word casum to describe what the people fear connects back to Tantalus as well. While both deal with chance, the literal “fall” of chance that the people fear mirrors the fall of the rock upon Tantalus’ head, and he muses that casum may also be a pun on cassum (98-99). This reveals a close connection between the uselessness of fear and the potential of future misfortune that people fear. The fears are useless because they chance i.e. beyond the control of those fearing it. Lucretius makes Sisyphus’ analogy more concrete than the others by explicitly referring to recognizable politics. As West points out, both petere and recedere were used specifically for standing for election and resigning respectively (100). Furthermore, West argues that plani ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !8 petit aequora campi refers specifically to the practice of going down to the Campus Martius to stand for election (102). Thus, the image of Sisyphus as a politician more pointedly demonstrates the futility of the endless cycle of political elections. West ends his analysis by claiming that “The Stoics are thus saving the myths…Lucretius is rejecting them..arguing that men conceive all manner of false fears” (103). However, I think it should be said that Lucretius rejects the myth in so far as they are literally true, and his own allegorical exegesis shows through wordplay, personification, and associations, how mythic narratives can provide a medium through which one can educate in a more subtle and complex way. The subtle connections implicit in the narrative between ideas like fear, chance, and the future provide a unique way of viewing the Epicurean relationship between all three, and Lucretius presents them quite densely. Lucretius’ uses myth in conjunction with his own allegorical exegesis as an instructive tool for displaying multiple Epicurean concepts in one intertwined context. However, despite his use of allegorical exegesis here, Lucretius take a more complex view of the practice as a whole. While Lucretius used allegorical exegesis in the previous passage to demonstrate not only the origin of those myths but also the way in which Epicurean concepts can be derived from them, in his passage on the Magna Mater he interestingly moves between his own portrayal of the cult of Cybele, and his portrayal of other’s allegorical explanations for it. From lines 2.598-645, Lucretius details the various allegorical explanations given by the veteres Graium poetae for the rites and myths behind Cybele, or the Magna Mater. His frequent use of verbs like dant, edunt, and atribuunt, place the veters Graium poetae as the subjects of all those verbs, and reinforce the fact that Lucretius here explains the ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !9 allegorical exegeses of other writers not of himself. Gale points out that Lucretius uses both moral and physical interpretations of Cybele (28). This refers to the alternation between Cybele as representing physical phenomena and Cybele as representing moral edicts. While “she comes/ Riding in state, driving her lionteam/ Wherefrom we learn the great world hangs in air” (Humphries, 68), Lucretius also says that “The lions/In harness prove parental gentleness/Can tame the wildest creatures” (68). Gale describes Lucretius as trying “to harmonize the various style of exegesis…[and] to emphasize the less pleasant aspects of the rite” (29). Lucretius thus criticizes the way in which allegorical exegesis has been and can be used in order to justify continued religious practices. Lucretius ends this entire passage by dismissing all that the poets say about Cybele as longe a vera ratione repulse. Gale explains that for Lucretius allegory is only acceptable when the truth of the matter is also clearly explained (31). Thus, Lucretius uses myth here to illustrate a point about allegorical exegesis as well as to portray the negative aspects of religion in his description of the terrible sounds and weapons brandished by the Corybantes. Like Gale, West believes that Lucretius in no way endorses the allegorical exegesis that her portrays throughout this passage (104). Instead West suggests that Lucretius merely imitates the ingenious wordplay that such allegorical exegeses entail (104). This provides an interesting explanation for this strange passage, but does not seem wholly adequate. West continues to explain that Lucretius’ purpose is to “contrast the mythological account of Mother Earth and its allegories with the Epicurean truth” (111). To a certain extent Lucretius clearly intends to do this by metaphorically calling the earth a mother in the previous passage, and then quickly explaining that the history behind that practice does ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !10 not fall in line with Epicurean thought. When Lucretius begins to describe the procession of Cybele, accompanied by eunuchs and the Corybantes, West describes that the music of the procession contrasts with the muta and tacita in the line 625 (113). West describes this as “contrasting the public hocus-pocus with the private blessing of communion” (113), since the silent blessing of Cybele matches Epicurean ideas of tranquil deities. However, it seems just as likely that the line “she is borne, all silent, through great towns,/ Bestowing her unspoken blessing there” (Humphries, 69), merely serves to prove that the great raucous serves no real purpose and that the blessing of Cybele is in fact no real blessing at all since she does not exist. James Jope offers another perspective on this passage in his article “Lucretius, Cybele, and Religion”. He echoes Gale by explaining that traditional allegory attempts to lend credence to the author’s viewpoint by identifying commonalities between it and the traditional poetic authority figures (252). Furthermore, Jope touches on an interesting change in tone throughout in the passage which Gale and West do not seem to mention. While the beginning clearly outlines the various aspects of Cybele’s image, and the corresponding traditional way in which they are explained through allegory, in line 608 “there is an abrupt change of scene. The poet shifts from past to present and begins what seems to be an eye-witness account of the ritual” (254). However, this shift does not end the poet’s engagement with myth, instead he changes the way in which he uses allegory to explain it. Rather, Lucretius shifts from explaining the ways in which Cybele has been allegorized to creating his own allegory which he posits as an explanation for the rites of the worshippers themselves, similarly to his allegorical exegesis of the various myths of punishment in Tartarus. The theme ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !11 that Jope explicitly describes here which constitutes the core aspect of the passage is fear (254). Hope neatly explains that Lucretius “relates all of these [symbols] to the use of fear to enforce pietas (254). Jope describes that the galli, the music and ritual weapons, and the flowers and offerings are all these symbols. The eunuchs are an implicit symbol of revenge for ungrateful children (257), and the music and weapons are the threat that makes the crowds strew offering and flowers in Cybele’s path (258). However, Jope claims that the pun on fruges and Phyrgia does not fit with the theme of fear (257). Yet, the fact that Lucretius points out that the goddess Cybele had an inherent connection to grain for their worshippers shows that they attribute a control over nutrients and sustenance to her. The implication being that without worshipping her, they believe that they risk being unable to grow grain or in some way offending the deity that controls their food. This allegory forms a neat continuity with the brief description of the traditional allegorical interpretation of Cybele. Lucretius contrasts the difference between the two allegories: the first clearly attempts to show that Cybele’s mythic background contains implicit truth, whereas Lucretius’ allegory exposes the implicit connection between force and pietas within the worship and rite of Cybele itself. Again, through allegory, Lucretius uses myth as an instructional tool to complexly expose the oppression that he believes to be inherent in religion. Furthermore, this passage contains important implications for the narrative aspect of myth. While this passage tends to focus more on a figure and the mythic rites that surround that figure, an interesting narrative figures in this passage. By creating an allegory of fear and pietas Lucretius creates his own narrative about the interaction between the goddess and her believes. ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !12 Furthermore, in comparing the differences between traditional allegory and his own form of allegory, Lucretius creates a kind of narrative of mythical interpretation. However, one of the most interesting parts of the passage comes when Lucretius digresses to discuss how the Curetes of Cybele-though he clearly means to refer to the Corybantes-bear similarities to the actual Curetes which protected Jove from Saturn by hiding his crying in their noise. Lucretius seems to make this connection quite unconnectedly. As West points out, there is a connection between the Curetes and the Greek kouroi, and that this also connects to the pueri circum puerum pernice chorea (108). The more abstract connection being the childishness and deceit that Lucretius wishes to elucidate by referencing the Dictaean Curetes. Like the Curetes that hid Jove’s screaming by their own screaming, the Curetes of Cybele are also childlike and use their raucous to cover up to distract from the clear demonstration of fear and intimidation that the ritual entails. Lucretius finds myth helpful in making rather complex connections and there lies his primary use for it and for allegorical exegesis. The final passage that presents an interesting use of myth by Lucretius, is the passage of Phaethon. In Book 5.392-415, Lucretius uses the story of Phaethon to complement his description of the war between the element that keep the world from being destroyed but will one day lead to the ultimate destruction of the world. Gale analyses this passage in much the same way that she did the Magna Mater passage. She claims that Lucretius uses the story of Phaeton to illustrate his point about the war of the elements, but rejects the literal truth of the story, and explains the truth that the story attempts to answer because Lucretius frames the story as an attempt to explain some natural phenomenon (33-34). While certainly Lucretius tries to connect the myth of Phaethon with his ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !13 previous discussion of the battle between the elements, the exact connections between the two are not apparent. The myth does not really resemble a battle between elements, instead the emphasis here seems to be on balance. In a sense both passages imply balances, since Lucretius sees the war of the elements as evenly matched at the present time, and Zeus strikes Phaethon for not holding the reins of the sun evenly. West provides a similar analysis as Gale’s though he focuses on some wordplay, like how the heat flowing around the whole earth occurs while in the reins are in the hands of Phaethon and when they are reclaimed by the sun god (51-2). However, problematically when Lucretius begins his typical dismissal of the literal truth of the episode he makes the following statement that “Fire can win only when motes of fire/ Attain to almost infinite multitude/ Beyond all normal count” (Humphries, 171). While this seems to imply that the entire myth illustrates something which Lucretius considers extremely unlikely for some observable phenomenon to have inspired it, Lucretius seems mainly to prove that the myth attempts to explain some phenomenon which people may have interpreted as the victory or supremacy of fire, but which cannot actually be so according to Epicurean physics. The main thrust of this allegory seems to unite the ideas of the war of the elements with the idea of balance that Phaethon must have to drive the chariot. Again, Lucretius finds that by tapping into the reserves of the mythological tradition subtle connections within Epicurean philosophy can be exposed. While atoms fly around the universe randomly, and elements constantly attempt to overtake one another, the force of atoms sticking together or the opposing forces of the elements provide the balance necessary for the universe to exist. While this balance may only be temporary, its existence provides a nice connection to the overall Epicurean idea of aequo animo, an undisturbed mind. Juxtaposing myth ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !14 alongside philosophical explanation creates its own sense of balance too which creates an important pedagogical tool for illustrating Epicurean philosophy beyond the surface level of each allegory. Lucretius can pack meaning into narrative more densely than in pure exposition, but the pure exposition supplies the means by which a reader can find these meanings. While Lucretius certainly uses myth in order to illustrate his philosophical ideas, and to make examples of religion and poor allegorical exegesis, it also provides a unique role for Lucretius. Since Lucretius believe that narrative serves as a means by which people turn in order to answer their questions, he does not rely solely on narrative. Instead, he explains phenomena with more typical exposition which in conjunction with myth reveal key insights through his use of allegory the wordplay that supports it. Lucretius’ criticisms of allegory are not universal: as long as a poet makes allegory serve the right philosophical ends, it can be an excellent way to connect exposition and myth to both satisfy the innate desires men have for stories and to provide a unique space in which Lucretius can safely exploit the natural recourse men have to myth when encountering phenomena they cannot explain. Not only does Lucretius attack the traditional mode of allegorical exegesis but in doing so, he strips authority away from myth in and of itself and uses it as tool through which he can aid his exposition of Epicurean philosophy. While myth certainly makes his poem more attractive and more persuasive because of its attractiveness, Lucretius’ use of myth plays a role beyond simple ornamentation and proves to be an important part of the actual methodology of Lucretius’ exposition of Epicureanism. ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019 !15 Works Cited Gale, Monica. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. 1994. Humphries, Rolfe. Trans. The Way Things Are: The De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius Carus. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1968. Jope, James. “Lucretius, Cybele, and Religion.” Phoenix vol. 35 no. 3 (1985). pp. 250-62 Leonard, William Ellery and Stanley Barney Smith. De Rerum Natura: The Latin Text of Lucretius. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. 1942. West, D.A. The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius. Edinburg: University of Edinburg Press, 1969. ——————————————————————————————————————— The Foundationalist Volume II, Issue I, 2019