Charlotte asked:

I am currently studying Lucretius' De rerum natura for A-Level. For the exam I am expected to know
the main aspects of Epicurean philosophy: is this just what Lucretius wrote about or are there any
major differences between the two men's ideas? Also I am slightly confused about Lucretius' belief in
the infinite universe not having a centre: can anyone help to explain it?

============

I may not be the best-qualified person to enlighten you on the philosophies of Epicurus and Lucretius,
respectively, so take the following as an opinion and judge it against other opinions. I happen to be of
the view that the philosophy of Epicurus, whose authentic writings have shrivelled down to mere
scraps in the course of 'all-devouring time', was largely rescued for us by the writings of his Roman
adept; but when one engages closely with the latter's reasoning process and tries to reconstruct what
genuine epicurean elements may be found therein, surprisingly little is left that can confidently be
attributed to the Greek.

In case this sounds confusing, let me rephrase it as follows: Lucretius had a philosophy of his own,
culled mostly from the presocratic philosophers, though taking cognisance of later thinkers (e.g.
Aristotle). But what he was groping for, and did not find among these forebears, was a philosophical
principle or idea which suited his own, namely that the gods do not and cannot interfere in the human
realm; they're a different species and occupy a different habitat. He also wanted to combat the fear of
death, and like many a modern proselytiser taught that this fear is irrational because we are all, in the
end, just bits of matter somehow enlivened: hence his vast materialistic canvas. Eventually he
discovered Epicurus, whose teachings revolved around just these ideas and who had adopted and
adapted the corpuscular theories of Democritus; and in his exaltation at this discovery began rewriting
his poem to make room for the required reorientation. This is the reason for, firstly, the abrupt
transitions in some passages (he apparently died before this revision was completed) and secondly,
the almost hysterical paeans in praise of Epicurus, which sound very strange to a cool observer who
notes his lordly dealings with other philosophers, most of them of superior in calibre to Epicurus.

In short, the problem we face here is that beyond the few authentic statements from the pen of
Epicurus himself, which would barely fill a 20-page leaflet, Lucretius represents for us the largest
coherent text on that philosophy. However, it is one thing to acknowledge his indebtedness, quite
another to then go ahead and surmise how much of Lucretius should actually be attributed to
Epicurus. There is a case for saying 'nothing', if only to counter the blithe dismissals of Lucretius' own
philosophy, as if no such thing existed. My argument therefore boils down to an opinionbased on
what little survives of Epicurus (including the doxography) and comparing this with the poet's own
utterances, which seem to me to be far more original than anything that can sanely be attributed to
the Greek just for one argument, he seems to be much better informed than Epicurus about the
scientific details of his theories and indeed shows a considerable advance. Some of E's
pronouncements on scientific matters must have sounded as ludicrous to his contemporaries as they
sound to us; but much in Lucretius is apt to astonish us even today with its prophetic vision.

For example, your second question. Try finding such a statement in anyGreek philosopher. You
won't find one, for the simple reason that the Greeks did not acknowledge such a concept of infinity
into their philosophical canons and had no term in their vocabulary to cover it. And this bears on the
explanation I'm about to give you: Draw a circle and mark the centre with a point. Now construct a
spherical shell around that point (or just imagine a football, which must have a central point). Now
imagine an infinitevolume. How? There is only one way: take away the shell. It stands to reason that
an infinite volume cannot have a shell. So what happens to the point? Well, you must take this away
too. If you've got no shell, then you can't have a point. Right?

Now if you were to suggest this experiment to Aristotle, he might quietly point a finger at his temples
and rotate it on a little circle (or whatever gesture they used to indicate a 'luny'). This is one example
of many why I find originality in Lucretius that cannot be exported back into Epicurus.

I don't know if this is going to help you; but it might at least serve for discussion. Break a lance for
Lucretius if you can!

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney