Page, Stage, Image: Confronting Ennius with
Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things
Mathias Hanses
Introduction
Manuscripts containing the works of Quintus Ennius (– BC)
appear not to have survived much beyond the fourth century AD, so
scholars interested in the disiecti membra poetae (“limbs of a scattered
poet,” Hor. Sat. ..) have long been focusing on later authors who
engaged with his oeuvre. That group includes the late-Republican writer
Lucretius, whose Epicurean poem On the Nature of Things is steeped in
archaic language and metrical constructions reminiscent of Ennian poetry.
It also contains a prominent reference to the earlier poet’s views on the
afterlife (.–). In revisiting the intertextual connection between the
two authors in this paper, I do not seek to contest the typical conclusion
that Ennius ranked next to Homer and Empedocles among those literary
predecessors whom Lucretius revered but with whose worldview he often
disagreed. Rather, I will reassess a number of familiar points of contact
between the two writers in Book of On the Nature of Things – which is
where Lucretius first sets up his poem’s sustained allusive conversation
with Ennius – in pursuit of a twofold thesis.
Throughout, I cite the fragments of Ennius from Goldberg and Manuwald: . I also follow their
editorial practice of using the numbering of Skutsch: when referring to the Annals and
Manuwald: for the tragedies. Quotations from Lucretius are based on the OCT edition. For
all other authors, I follow the Teubner. Translations from the Latin and Greek are my own. My sincere
thanks go to Erin M. Hanses and Jason Nethercut for their helpful suggestions and bibliographical
assistance, to Katharina Volk for commenting on a much earlier version of this paper and to Sergio
Yona and Gregson Davis for including my contribution in this volume.
See Suerbaum: , –, for a survey of the evidence.
See, e.g., Kenney: , ; Harrison: , ; Gale: , . Taylor: is more nuanced,
noting that when it comes to tragic (i.e., mythological) material, Lucretius does not in fact discard
the content of Ennius’ poetry entirely. Rather, he tends to play competing versions of a story against
each other. A particularly thorough discussion of Ennian allusion in Lucretius is Nethercut: .
See also Nethercut: and , esp. –. For tragedy in Lucretius, see also Schiesaro: ,
–; Fowler: : –; Marcović: ; and Cowan: .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
First, I posit that in those passages where Lucretius is known to engage
with Ennius – not just in the discussion of life after death, but also in the
encomium of Epicurus (.–), the sacrifice of Iphigenia (.–)
and the brief narration of the Trojan War (.–) – the Epicurean
poet repeats more key terminology from his Ennian source passages than
has previously been recognized. The depth and number of these references
to Ennius suggest that throughout Book , Lucretius tends to contest not
just common worldviews in a general sense, but common worldviews as
expressed – more specifically – by Ennius. This thorough engagement with
Rome’s first “national” poet shows that Ennius’ compositions provided
more than engaging accounts of classical mythology and vivid narrations of
historical events on which to hinge Roman identity. Rather, the cosmology
of his poetry could count as religion or even philosophy.
Second, I posit that Lucretius’ need to refute Ennius is so urgent
because the earlier poet’s works continued to be included at the Roman
ludi and hence contributed to the spectators’ mass-indoctrination in
what, to an Epicurean, would constitute a harmful ideology. In an
attempt to counter this potentially detrimental effect, Lucretius alludes
specifically to those parts of Ennius’ epic and dramatic output that, as
writers from Cicero to Aulus Gellius consistently report, remained popular in recitations and revival performances. What is more, where
Lucretius describes mythological events in particularly Ennian language
and imagery, his versions correspond closely to the same stories’ portrayal
in the visual arts. This phenomenon hints at a rich cross-pollination
between stagings of Ennius’ works and depictions of classical myth in
Roman painting. In engaging with both at the same time, Lucretius
provides his readers with a guidebook on how to deconstruct commonly
held misconceptions wherever they encounter them, be it in their studies
of classical literature, while attending Ennian performances in the theater
or while glancing at pictorial representations of mythological scenes on
the walls of Roman houses.
Pyrrhus and Epicurus
Lucretius’ engagement with Ennius begins well before he actually mentions the older poet in Book (at line ). After the opening hymn to
Venus (.–) and an initial explication of the vocabulary he will be
applying to atoms (.–), Lucretius introduces the reader to his idol,
Epicurus (.–). The philosopher remains unnamed, but it is commonly understood that he is the Greek man who, back “when life lay
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
foully on the earth, oppressed by heavy superstition” (foede cum vita iaceret |
in terris oppressa gravi sub religione, .–), first dared to look up at the
sky (primum Graius homo mortalis tollere contra | est oculos ausus, .–)
and challenged the reign of religio. His intellect “proceeded far beyond the
burning walls of the world” (extra | processit longe flammantia moenia
mundi, .–) and brought back actual knowledge of what can and
cannot happen, and thereby dispelled irrational fears of the gods and
brought us closer to ἀταραξία.
In this context, the phrase Graius homo – used to describe Epicurus at
. – connects back to, and establishes a firm intertextual connection
with, Ennius’ Annals. The sixth book of this epic narrated Pyrrhus’
campaign against Rome, and it seems to have made its author’s admiration
for the Hellenistic king readily apparent. Ennius describes the Epirote
invader as “from the highest stock” (a stirpe supremo, fr. Sk) and as
“a vigorous man . . ., a Greek man with a Greek father, a king” (navos
repertus homo, Graio patre, Graius homo, rex, fr. Sk). Throughout the
rest of the book, which foregrounded its martial interests from its very
first lines, Ennius explored what such terms as virtus (“manly valor”), vis
(“force”) and vincere (“to be victorious”) come to mean when they are
applied to a general who famously won every battle but at such a cost that
he might as well have lost. It is this key vocabulary that, I posit, was of
particular interest to Lucretius. In Ennius, Pyrrhus is said, for example,
to have dedicated an inscription in the temple of Jupiter in Tarentum,
which noted that “men who previously were undefeated, best father of
Olympus, I have defeated with force in battle and I have, in turn, been
defeated by the same men” (qui antehac | invicti fuere viri, pater optume
Bailey: , . notes the phrase’s Ennian origin but does not explore this observation further.
Gale: , – posits a different intertext, suggesting that primum Graius homo reflects
Empedocles’ description of Pythagoras (fr. .). For Empedocles in Lucretius, see more
generally Sedley: , – and Garani: . Harrison: , – explores similarities
between Epicurus and Pyrrhus as contemporaries and fellow “invaders” of Italy. Nethercut:
adds that in putting Ennian language to “un-Ennian” uses, Lucretius might be making
Epicurus resemble an epic hero like Hector, Achilles or Odysseus (, and –).
Additional allusions to Book of Ennius’ Annals feature in Lucretius’ fifth book, on which see
Gale: , and Nethercut: , –.
For Book of the Annals and its function as a Pyrrhus encomium, see, e.g., Suerbaum: ;
Fantham: ; and Fabrizi: , –. Goldberg: , –; Elliott: , –;
and N. Goldschmidt: , –, discuss the book’s afterlife in Vergil. Goldberg and
Manuwald: , .– collect and contextualize the fragments.
A fragment from Annals notes the composition’s intent “to unfurl the edges of vast war” (ingentis
oras evolvere belli, fr. Sk). For its placement at the start of the book, see Skutsch: , –.
Farrell: , n. remains skeptical.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Olympi, | hos ego vi pugna vici victusque sum ab isdem, fr. – Sk).
Words derived from vincere (in-victi . . . vici victusque) here alternate and
alliterate with forms of vir (“man,” hence virtus) and vis in an evaluation
of the paradox that is a Pyrrhic victory. The source that contains the
fragment (Oros. Hist. ..) goes on to say that, when asked “why he
called himself defeated although he had won” (cur se victum diceret qui
vicisset), Pyrrhus responded “truly, if I win another time in this same
manner, I will return without a single soldier to Epirus” (ne ego si iterum
eodem modo vicero sine ullo milite Epirum revertar). Presuming this
wording echoes the king’s presentation in the Annals, it seems that
vocabulary derived from vincere (victum . . . vicisset . . . vicero) predominated not just in the fragment itself, but also in its immediate
surroundings.
As far as Ennius’ use of the term virtus is concerned, it also stands at the
center of Pyrrhus’ assertion that he has no interest in riches but wants to
challenge the Romans in the area of “manly valor” (virtute experiamur,
fr. Sk.). Those who retain their virtus will be spared, even if they end
up captured (quorum virtuti belli fortuna pepercit | eorundem me libertati
parcere certum est, fr. – Sk.). The sentiment serves not only to
praise the king’s own manliness, but also to declare his martial virtus more
important than the decisive kind of victory that so famously eluded him.
In repeating the epithet Graius homo, then, from Ennius’ depiction of
Pyrrhus, Lucretius evokes memories of the earlier poem but proceeds to
paint an altogether different picture of what constitutes a Greek hero. In
particular, he employs the same key vocabulary that Ennius had used in
the Annals but re-purposes it for a celebration of the human mind. The
world’s depressing state awakens Epicurus’ virtus, but, in notable contrast
to Ennius’ Pyrrhus, his is a virtus of the intellect (acrem | irritat animi
virtutem, .–). Similarly, the phrase “the vigorous force of [Epicurus’]
mind prevails” (vivida vis animi pervicit, .) is as alliterative as the
Ennian source passage it recalls, and it relies on the same terminology
(vis . . . per-vicit). Yet the philosopher’s victory, unlike Pyrrhus’, is never in
For the complicated history of this fragment’s attribution to Ennius, see Skutsch: , –
and Fantham: , .
In addition to the examples adduced here, fr. Sk. likewise centers on the verb vincere.
Compare, e.g., Suerbaum: , , who calls this fragment “programmatisch.”
Cf., e.g., West: , – and Buchheit: , who examine the passage’s triumphal language.
Gale: , – considers Lucretius’ militaristic similes and metaphors borrowings from
Homeric and Ennian epic.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
doubt. Indeed, his victoria raises all of us up to the sky (nos exaequat
victoria caelo, .).
Lucretius thus issues a challenge to traditional conceptions of heroism as
propagated, in particular, in the sixth book of Ennius’ Annals. Since Cicero
refers to the Ennian Pyrrhus’ aforementioned speech on the subject of
virtus as “those famous [words]” (illa praeclara, Off. .), it seems that
access to the text would have been readily available to Lucretius’ readers.
Yet that is not to say that they would have necessarily studied the poem in
a scroll. After all, Latin epics were also recited at the Roman ludi in the first
century BC, and Aulus Gellius still witnessed a public reading from
Book of the Annals as late as the second century AD. The event
occurred when “there was rest on a certain day at Rome in the forum
from business” (otium erat quodam die Romae in foro a negotiis) amid a
“certain happy celebration of a festival” (laeta quaedam celebritas feriarum,
Gell. ..). It seems likely, therefore, that Lucretius’ readers would
have encountered Ennius’ views on virtus, vis and vincere at official
celebrations of city-wide holidays. On these occasions, anyone steeped in
On the Nature of Things would have been ready to critique the Annals’ use
of the relevant terms, and to advance the counter-model provided
by Epicurean philosophy. This multi-mediality of Ennian reception –
occurring, as I contend it would have, both through reading and
through performance – is particularly relevant to the next section, where
I discuss an intertextual connection that relies even more directly on nonwritten media.
Iphigenia
Having completed the encomium of Epicurus, Lucretius segues into his
famous description of the sacrifice of Iphianassa/Iphigenia. The account of
Agamemnon’s ritual murder of his daughter on what she thought was to be
At Sil. Pun. ., the god Apollo remarks that Ennius “will raise leaders up to the sky”
(attollet . . . duces caelo). If that line is based on Ennius’ own poetry, then Lucretius’ nos exaequat
victoria caelo might constitute another reversal of Ennian language (and priorities) in the younger
poet’s description of Epicurus.
Cf. Elliott: , –.
For Ennius’ role in Roman education, see Bonner: , , and ; N. Goldschmidt: ,
–.
For early public performances of Ennian epic at the ludi Romani, see Wiseman: , –. For
similar recitations of the works of Vergil in the theater, see Tac. Dial. .; Donat. Vit. Verg. ;
Serv. Ecl. ..
For the placement of the relevant fragment in Book of the Annals, see most recently Goldberg and
Manuwald: , .–.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
her wedding day – meant to ensure the Greek fleet’s passage out of the Bay
of Aulis – constitutes a prime example of Lucretius’ thesis that superstition
in the guise of reverence will sway people toward terrible deeds (tantum
religio potuit suadere malorum, .– at ). The passage has also long
been recognized as richly intertextual. Depending on their respective
backgrounds and interests, different modern critics have foregrounded
certain allusions at the expense of others, as would no doubt have been
the case among the varied readership(s) of the Roman Republic. There are,
for example, clear echoes of the parodos of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon in
Lucretius’ focus on the pollution incurred through human sacrifice, the
theme of a wedding perverted into a funeral and in the fact that, as in the
Oresteia, Iphigenia has to be carried to the altar and actually dies (rather
than being replaced with a deer and spirited away by Diana at the very last
second). In particular, Aeschylus’ Agamemnon notes the horror of “soiling
a father’s hands with streams of a young woman’s blood right by the altar”
(μιαίνων παρθενοσφάγοισιν | ῥείθροις πατρώιους χέρας | πέλας βωμοῦ,
Aesch. Ag. –). Similar language recurs in Lucretius’ lament that “at
Aulis, the leaders of the Greeks, the first among the men, foully soiled the
altar of Diana with the blood of a young woman, Iphigenia” (Aulide . . .
Triviai virginis aram | Iphianassai turparunt sanguine foede | ductores
Danaum delecti, prima virorum, .–).
To these Aeschylean resonances has been added the observation that in
Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis, the young woman “was first to call
[Agamemnon] father” and to “attach [her] body to [his] knees” (πρώτη
σ᾽ ἐκάλεσα πατέρα . . . | πρώτη δὲ γόνασι σοῖσι σῶμα δοῦσ᾽ ἐμὸν, Eur. IA
–). In Lucretius, Iphigenia is “silent with fear” and, “having
fallen to her knees, she sought the ground. And it did not help the
miserable woman at such a time that she had been first to bestow the
name of father on the king” (muta metu terram genibus summissa petebat. |
nec miserae prodesse in tali tempore quibat | quod patrio princeps donarat
nomine regem, .–). Based on the similarities between these passages, Barnaby Taylor (, –) has argued that Lucretius alludes
to competing dramatic versions of the myth, including some where
In addition to what I adduce below, Furley: , and Gale: , discuss echoes of
Empedocles’ fr. , which describes a father sacrificing an animal that – due to metempsychosis
– used to be his son. Cf. also Gale: , and .
For Lucretius’ varied allusions to the Agamemnon, see Perutelli: ; Harrison: , ; Panoussi:
, –; Nethercut: , ; and Taylor: , .
See Bailey: , .–; Nethercut: , –; and Taylor: , –, for this and
potential further echoes of Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
Iphigenia is saved (as, apparently, she was in Euripides’ IA) and others
where she is not (e.g., Aeschylus’ Agamemnon). In doing so, Lucretius
endorses the latter in an attempt to “correct” or rationalize the former and
underlines the true horror of the event.
This argument is convincing, but it is nevertheless necessary to account
more fully than Taylor does for Stephen Harrison’s (, –) observation that the passage’s entire style is markedly Ennian, even and especially
at the start (the episode’s first lines, .–, are quoted above). This
suggests that the main – though certainly not the only – author whose
work Lucretius employs to exemplify the noxious beliefs on display in
many tragedies is Ennius. Harrison himself points to the use of indugredi
at . as reminiscent of Ennius’ favored term induperator; to the archaic
genitives Triviai (.; the noun also occurs in Ennius’ fr. M.) and
Iphianassai (.); to Ennius’ phrases duxit delectos (fr. Sk.) and delecti
viri (fr. . M.), which fuse into Lucretius’ ductores . . . delecti (.); and
to the fact that the construction prima virorum (.) in its combination of
a neuter plural with a genitive is recognizably Ennian as well. To these
linguistic echoes, I would add that Iphigenia wears an infula at .–.
This noun describes the headband of a priestess, particularly a Vestal
Virgin, which reinforces the passage’s specifically Roman ring. In turn,
the phrase muta metu at . is not attested in Ennius, but its alliteration
does contribute to the passage’s archaizing tone and recalls the earlier
author’s penchant for this stylistic feature. Most importantly, the phrase
used to describe Iphigenia’s murder (aram . . . turparunt sanguine,
.–) is lifted directly out of Ennius’ Andromacha, where – looking
back to the night she was captured – the titular character uses the same
words to describe the slaughter of Priam at the altar of Jupiter (aram
sanguine turpari, fr. . M). Occurring as it does at the outset of the
Lucretian episode, and providing a summary of it, the quote sets an
emphatically Ennian tone for Lucretius’ entire narration of the sacrifice.
Other intertexts are certainly active as well, but the reader has to pass
through Ennian Latin, as it were, in order to reach them.
A further example of this latter phenomenon is provided by an additional echo of Ennius’ tragedies that has, to my knowledge, not previously
been discussed. As the sacrifice begins, Lucretius’ Agamemnon stands
Compare fr. Sk. (infera noctis) and fr. Sk. (caeli vasta). Pace Taylor: , with n. ,
who finds that the construction mirrors Greek syntax.
Cf. Bailey: , ..
For this observation, see also Jocelyn: , ; Harrison: , ; Goldberg: , –;
Panoussi: , –; Nethercut: , – and Taylor: , –.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
motionless at the altar and is despondent (maestum . . . ante aras adstare
parentem, .), but he does not cry. By contrast, “the citizens shed tears at
the sight of [Iphigenia]” (aspectu . . . suo lacrimas effundere civis, .).
Ennius points to this difference between rulers and their subjects in fr.
M., likely from his Iphigenia: “The plebs in this regard is preferable to the
king: The plebs is allowed to cry, the king is not allowed to do so
honorably” (plebes in hoc regi antestat loco: licet | lacrimare plebi, regi honeste
non licet). Lucretius echoes this Ennian passage in both sentiment and
wording (note the correspondence between lacrimas effundere and lacrimare, adstare and antestat). At one step’s further remove, one also notices
similar lines in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis, where Agamemnon complains
that those of low birth “are allowed to cry readily” (δακρῦσαι ῥαιδίως
αὐτοῖς ἔχει, ) while “to a high-born man these things are wretched”
(τῶι δὲ γενναίωι φύσιν | ἄνολβα ταῦτα, –). This similarity
between Euripides’ and Ennius’ lines has given rise to the suspicion that
the Roman tragedian’s Iphigenia may have been based at least in part on
the Greek Iphigenia at Aulis. Yet while the additional, Euripidean intertext
would have been readily detectable to the learned, the road there leads
through Ennius’ Iphigenia.
In alluding to this particular Latin play, and to Ennius more broadly,
Lucretius notably does not attack the earlier poet outright. It is apparent
from the fragments of the plays as much as from the Ennian language
preserved in On the Nature of Things that the relevant tragedies would have
been critical of Iphigenia’s murder as well. Lucretius may – I submit –
even be appropriating a voice from within Ennius’ own oeuvre. In one
fragment from the Iphigenia, Achilles complains that “nobody looks at
what is in front of their feet, instead they study the expanses of the sky”
(quod est ante pedes nemo spectat, caeli scrutantur plagas, fr. . M.). This
condemnation of astrological superstition is compatible with Lucretius’
depiction of Iphigenia’s sacrifice, where excessive contemplation of the
supernatural leads to a horrible atrocity. Perhaps, then, the play contained
a scene where Achilles rejected his bride-to-be’s murder in almost protoLucretian terms. Either way, Lucretius uses some of tragedy’s own insights
against itself. He activates vivid reminiscences of Ennius’ plays and uses
That Ennius’ Iphigenia is the main model for Lucretius’ account of the sacrifice is the thesis of
Harrison: , –, but he does not point out these particular parallels.
See, e.g., Jocelyn: , , who discusses the Andromacha’s focus on the polluting effect of
human sacrifice.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
them to undermine the religious beliefs that motivate many of the genre’s
most memorable characters.
This observation brings us back to the question of how Lucretius’
readership would have become familiar with the relevant intertexts. The
Iphigenia passage’s most overt allusion to Ennian drama occurs in the
aforementioned quotation from the Andromacha (aram . . . turparunt
sanguine, Lucr. .– ~ aram sanguine turpari, Ennius fr. . M.).
Like Ennius’ other works, this play would have been available for perusal
in written form, but the tragedies of the Middle Republic also continued
to be re-performed with great frequency. In the repertoire of dramatic
classics, the Andromacha featured prominently. At Acad. ., Cicero
observes that many are able to recognize this tragedy as soon as the
accompanying piper plays his first notes. At Att. .., he mentions a
specific revival of the play at the ludi Apollinares of BC. Cicero thus
delivers firm evidence that the Andromacha was staged in the very decade
of the original publication of On the Nature of Things, perhaps routinely
so. This provides further support for the thesis that, as I posited was the
case with Lucretius’ earlier reliance on Book of the Annals, the Epicurean
poet preferred to employ those parts of Ennius’ oeuvre that were most
readily recognizable from performances at Roman festivals. Elsewhere in
On the Nature of Things, Lucretius imagines his fellow Romans assembled
in a theater and bathed in the varied colors cast off by the awnings that
protect the spectators against the sun (.–). He notes that after
attending such ludi, spectators for days “seem to perceive . . . the glitter
of the varied marvels of the stage” (videantur | cernere . . . | scaenai . . . varios
splendere decores, .–). In picking his Ennian quotations,
Lucretius relies on these lasting memories of dramatic festivals, but he
deconstructs the value systems that underlie the shows and provides his
readers with a toolkit for confronting the plots the next time they encounter them at the ludi scaenici.
To a reader, then, whose first language was Latin, who was well-versed
in the Roman classics and/or who attended the ludi, Lucretius’
Goldberg: and Manuwald: , – collect a plethora of evidence.
Cf. also the performances described at Cic. Sest. –, where a tragic actor inserts lines from
Ennius’ Andromacha into Accius’ Eurysaces to make a contemporary point.
Cicero’s famous letter about the Lucreti poemata (QFr. ..) likewise dates to BC, so perhaps it
was even in the very year of this revival that On the Nature of Things saw publication.
For further references to the realities of the Roman theater, see .–, ., .– and
.–.
See now also Hanses: , –, – for similar deliberations regarding Lucretius’
engagement with comic performances.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
condemnation of the sacrifice of Iphigenia would have conjured especially
strong reminiscences of Ennius’ Trojan plays (including the Iphigenia and
Andromacha), familiar as they continued to be from the stage. Yet I submit
that there would have been a further, non-textual component to a laterepublican reader’s understanding of Lucretius’ Iphigenia passage that
likewise relates to the reception of Ennius. It has long been noted that
the relevant lines of On the Nature of Things correspond closely to the
sacrifice’s depiction in a fresco from the House of the Tragic Poet in
Pompeii (Figure .). In Lucretius, Iphigenia “perceived that her father
was standing despondent by the altars and that the servants were hiding
the iron on his account” (et maestum . . . ante aras adstare parentem | sensit
et hunc propter ferrum celare ministros, .–). In the image,
Agamemnon likewise sorrowfully veils his head on the left while his
daughter looks at him, and a priest conceals a dagger on the right.
Furthermore, the young woman’s lips are closed in the fresco, which
suggests that she is “silent with fear” (muta metu, .), and in both
painting and poem, “she was lifted up by the hands of men and, shivering,
she was brought to the altars” (nam sublata virum manibus tremibundaque
ad aras | deductast, .–).
The Pompeian fresco likely stems from the Neronian era, and it
therefore postdates Lucretius’ poem by about a century. Yet the motif
itself harks back to a painting by the fourth-century BC artist
Timanthes, variations of which were popular already in the Roman
Republic. It strikes me as significant that Lucretius’ description of the
sacrifice of Iphigenia is simultaneously so rich in Ennian language and so
similar to the story’s typical depiction in the visual arts. The resemblances
suggest that tragic actors could have taken cues from images portraying the
sacrifice of Iphigenia. In turn, the myth’s visualizations on the walls of
Roman houses could themselves be partially informed by dramatic (re-)
performances of classic plays, including those of Ennius. We may imagine,
for example, that his Iphigenia contained a scene where the young woman
is carried off stage to be sacrificed while Agamemnon veils his head, or that
a different play, like the Andromacha, narrated the event (as we know it did
the sacrifice of Priam). Witnessing such a moment in the theater could
For the fresco, its date, its similarity to Lucretius’ description of the sacrifice and its place in the
history of the Iphigenia motif, see Hourticq: , ; Morisset and Thévenot: , ;
Schefold: , ; Croisille: , esp. –; Peters: , ; and Bragantini and
Sampaolo: , no. .
See previous note.
Described at Cic. Orat. and Plin. HN ..
See in detail Croisille: .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
Figure . Sacrifice of Iphigenia, Pompeii, House of the Tragic Poet (VI..), Museo
Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, inv. . Photo credit: Scala / Art Resource, NY
have influenced a painter, even if he was also imitating Timanthes. Cicero,
for one, hints at such mutual cross-pollinations at Orat. , where he notes
that in portraying the sacrifice of Iphigenia (immolanda Iphigenia), a
painter (pictor ille) will portray varied characters in different gradations of
sadness, culminating in Agamemnon with his head veiled (obvolvendum
caput Agamemnonis esse) as in the Pompeian fresco, and that similar
observations apply to an “actor” (histrio).
On this reading, Lucretius would be using specifically Ennian language
to activate memories of the tale’s portrayal on the Roman stage and in the
visual arts, that is, in different media that exerted a noticeable influence on
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
each other. For a full appreciation of this triangular relationship, it is
significant that the fresco includes Diana on the top right and Iphigenia
with a deer on the upper left. The painter has emphasized that the young
woman escaped her painful death through the goddess’ intervention, as she
likely did in Ennius’ plays as well, considering his Iphigenia was based in
part on Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis. In alluding only to the painting’s
lower register and ignoring the top, Lucretius urges his readers to assume
the same kind of “selective ambivalence” (Taylor: , – and )
toward the visual arts that they are to bring to bear on tragedy. They are to
accept certain parts of the story (i.e., condemnations of the violence
inherent in Iphigenia’s sacrifice) but reject any supernatural components,
because the gods do not in fact meddle in human affairs.
Pergama partu
For a further example of Lucretius’ multi-medial intertextuality, we now
jump ahead a few hundred lines in Book of On the Nature of Things.
Moving beyond the prologue and into a more thorough discussion of
Epicurean physics, Lucretius first establishes the duality between atoms
and void. The next step is to distinguish between coniuncta and eventa.
According to .–, coniuncta are concrete, palpable properties that
are inseparably tied to the objects that display them. Stones have weight,
fire has heat and water is a liquid because of these elements’ specific atomic
structures. Everything else is an eventum, a mere accident, including
“slavery . . . poverty and riches, freedom, war, concord, everything else
by whose arrival and departure Nature herself remains unimpaired”
(servitium . . . paupertas divitiaeque, | libertas bellum concordia, cetera quorum | adventu manet incolumis natura abituque, .–). Even time
does not exist independently (.) but only in the observation of
physical objects. This juxtaposition between coniuncta and eventa contains
an overt value judgment. As Monica Gale (, –) has argued,
Lucretius declares his own subject matter, natura, more lasting and significant than the transitory topics that concern other writers, especially those
who focus on epic, tragedy or history. It makes sense, therefore, that he
would employ the language of earlier authors in providing an example of
one such “insignificant” eventum, namely, the Trojan War (.–):
For Lucretius’ understanding of epic as history, see Nethercut: .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
denique Tyndaridem raptam belloque subactas
Troiugenas gentis cum dicunt esse, videndumst
ne forte haec per se cogant nos esse fateri,
quando ea saecla hominum, quorum haec eventa fuerunt,
irrevocabilis abstulerit iam praeterita aetas.
...
denique materies si rerum nulla fuisset
nec locus ac spatium, res in quo quaeque geruntur,
numquam Tyndaridis forma conflatus amoris
ignis, Alexandri Phrygio sub pectore gliscens,
clara accendisset saevi certamina belli,
nec clam durateus Troianis Pergama partu
inflammasset equus nocturno Graiugenarum.
Finally, when they say that the daughter of Tyndareus (Helen) was really
taken and the Trojan peoples were subdued by war, we have to see to it that
they do not by chance make us grant that these things actually exist, since
the irrevocable past has taken away those ages of men to which these events
belong . . . What is more, if there had been no matter, nor space and place,
in which each deed is done, never would the fire of love, fanned by the
beauty of Tyndareus’ daughter, blazing up in the Phrygian chest of
Alexander (Paris), have kindled the brilliant struggles of savage war, nor
would the wooden horse, unbeknownst to the Trojans, have set Pergamon
(the citadel of Troy) on fire with its nocturnal birthing of Greeks.
Lucretius here flags the presence of various intertexts in the background of
his own composition. After all, the verb dicunt (.) provides a prime
example of an Alexandrian footnote; that is, it constitutes a self-reflexive
marker of allusivity that encourages the reader to contemplate which
earlier writers may have spoken about Troy. One obvious answer is
Homer, and the adjective durateus (“wooden,” ., transliterated from
the Greek δουράτεος) indeed underlines Lucretius’ debts to this earlier
poet, who had likewise applied the word to the Trojan Horse in his
account of the city’s sack (Od. . and .). As far as the metaphor
of the horse’s pregnancy is concerned, it also features in Aeschylus’
Agamemnon (ἵππου νεοσσός, “the offspring of the horse,” ) and
Euripides’ Trojan Women (ἐγκύμον᾽ ἵππον τευχέων, “the horse pregnant
with weapons,” ). These varied Greek intertexts would all have been
readily detectable to the more learned members of Lucretius’ readership.
The most influential discussion of Alexandrian footnotes is Hinds: , –. For their presence
here and elsewhere in Lucretius, see Nethercut: .
See Nethercut: , .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Nevertheless, as was the case in Lucretius’ description of the sacrifice of
Iphigenia, the passage is again especially rich in the language of Ennian
drama. Prior studies have noted the presence of the archaizing noun
Tyndaris (. and .) to describe Helen, of Troiugenae (.) to
refer to the Trojans and of Graiugenae (.) to describe the Greeks.
Even more notable, because demonstrably based in Roman tragedy, is
Lucretius’ observation that the Trojan horse “set Pergamon (Pergama) on
fire with its nocturnal birthing (partu) of Greeks” (.–). The words
Pergama and partu are lifted directly out of Ennius’ Alexander, a play
dealing with young Paris’ expulsion from Troy and his eventual rediscovery.
According to this tragedy “the horse pregnant with armed men has jumped
over (the walls) with a huge leap to destroy harsh Pergamon with its birthing” (nam maximo saltu superavit gravidus armatis equus | qui suo partu ardua
perdat Pergama, fr. M.). This Latin expression of the pregnant-horse
motif would likely have been most easily detectable to Roman readers, while
its Aeschylean and Euripidean versions would have required a bit of extra
intellectual effort. I would add that the above quotation from Ennius’
Alexander has to be part of a prophecy, since the play was set before the
destruction of Priam’s kingdom. Accordingly, the relevant lines must
belong to Cassandra, who in this same play prophesies the fall of Troy
and exclaims with reference to her brother that “the torch is here, is here,
covered in blood and fire” (adest, adest fax obvoluta sanguine atque incendio,
fr. a M.). Ennius’ Hecuba is similarly said to have envisioned “that she
was birthing a firebrand, and then she produced Paris, who was the cause of
the conflagration” (haec se facem parere vidit et Parin creavit, qui causa fuit
incendii, fr. M.). In a context already rich in allusions to Ennius,
Lucretius is picking up on this fire imagery as well, and his reference to
the fire “blazing up in the Phrygian chest of Alexander” (.) echoes the
Alexander’s depiction of Paris as a torch that will destroy the city.
It turns out, then, that we are dealing with a passage that is remarkably
similar to the two we have already examined. Lucretius’ Iliupersis engages
with a variety of different intertexts, but Ennian language is especially
conspicuous. As before, the lines even contain one clear instance of direct
citation (Pergama partu, .; compare Graius homo at . and aram . . .
turparunt sanguine at .–). It also seems, yet again, that Lucretius has
See, e.g., Bailey: , .–; Nethercut: , .
See Bailey: , ..
For this latter fragment’s ascription to the Alexander, see Jocelyn: , –.
Compare Bailey: , . and Marcović: . For similar fire imagery in Euripides’ Trojan
Trilogy, on which Ennius’ Alexander was partially based, see Scodel: , .
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
Figure . Trojan Horse, Pompeii, House of Cipius Pamphilus (VII..), Museo
Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, inv. . Photo credit: Mathias Hanses
picked a motif that was popular with theatrical audiences. We admittedly
do not have any direct attestations for performances of the Alexander in the
s BC, but we do know from a letter of Cicero’s (Fam. .) that a
luxurious revival of an Equus Troianus tragedy was put on at the spectacular inauguration of the Theater of Pompey in BC. The show was a
great success with the people (Fam. ..), though the orator himself
disapproved, and it occurred only briefly before the aforementioned staging of the Andromacha in BC. In alluding to the Alexander’s narration
of the fall of Troy and the Trojan Horse, Lucretius is thus gesturing
toward a moment that his readers would have experienced in one form
or another at the late Republic’s increasingly sensational ludi scaenici,
perhaps even on multiple occasions.
The visual record likewise provides parallels to my prior discussion, in
that rediscovered Roman houses on the Bay of Naples have yielded
multiple depictions of the Trojan Horse. Like Ennius’ plays, these images
foreground the prophecies of Cassandra, who stands apart on the bottom
left (Figure .) and top left (Figure .) of two early-Imperial Pompeian
frescos, predicting the city’s downfall as it is about to occur. In a third,
For these frescos and their interpretation, see Schefold: , ; Peters: , and ;
Bragantini and Sampaolo: , nos. , and b.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Figure .
Iliupersis, Pompeii, House IX.., Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli,
inv.. Photo credit: Mathias Hanses
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
now badly damaged, from the Villa Arianna in Stabiae, the artist emphasized the horse’s “birthing” of enemy combatants through the prominent
inclusion of a ladder. Given the aforementioned consistency in the visual
record from the Republic to the Empire, the frescos – though later than
the works of Ennius and Lucretius – could provide further support for a
triangular connection of reciprocal inspiration between On the Nature of
Things on the one hand and memorable portrayals of mythological events
in paintings and in tragedy on the other. In alluding to multiple media at
the same time – which would, in turn, have influenced each other –
Lucretius is instructing his readers on how to respond if they are wowed
by impressive displays related to the Trojan War, be it at the opening of
the city’s first permanent theater or in their studies or while glancing at
frescos on a dining-room wall. In the end, the plots portrayed are only
eventa. They are long gone, and they could never have happened in
the first place if it were not for the rerum natura. What counts, therefore,
is the philosophical instruction provided by a poem like Lucretius’, which
will teach the reader about the far more significant coniuncta of
Epicurean physics.
Ennius noster
There is one final way in which Lucretius’ Trojan-War episode highlights
its engagement with Ennius, and that is in its use of the archaic verb cluere
(“to be said to be,” “to be reckoned as existing”; cf. OLD s.v. clueo). Two
occurrences of the word bookend the relevant lines in On the Nature of
Things. At the start, Lucretius uses it in his definition of eventa and
coniuncta (nam quaecumque cluent, aut his coniuncta duabus | rebus ea
invenies aut horum eventa videbis, “for all things that are reckoned to exist,
you will either find them to be properties of these two [i.e., of atoms and
void] or you will see that they are accidents that result from them,”
.–). At the end, cluere recurs in Lucretius’ assertion that eventa
do not exist in the same manner as atoms and void (nec ratione cluere eadem
qua constet inane, .). I would suggest that in repeatedly employing
cluere to deny that mere “accidents” such as the Trojan War maintain an
independent presence in the universe, Lucretius inverts Ennius’ own use of
the same verb in expressing the hope that his “subject matter and poems
will be reckoned famous broadly among the peoples” (latos <per> populos
Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, inv. . See Allroggen-Bedel: , –,
for discussion.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
res atque poemata nostra | <. . . clara> cluebunt, fr. – Sk.). Lucretius
paraphrases these same lines of the Annals in his rejection of Ennius’ views
on metempsychosis, which I mentioned briefly at the outset of this
chapter. Here, he refers to Ennius noster as “the one who first brought a
crown of perennial foliage down from delightful Mt. Helicon for it to be
reckoned famous throughout the Italic tribes of men” (Ennius ut noster
cecinit qui primus amoeno | detulit ex Helicone perenni fronde coronam, | per
gentis Italas hominum quae clara clueret, .–). The fact that
Lucretius’ clara clueret echoes the Annals’ cluebunt is often adduced in
tentative reconstructions of the Ennian source passage but has not been
factored into interpretations of On the Nature of Things. I submit that
Lucretius intended the verb to have an Ennian ring, both here and in its
recurrence in the Trojan-War episode, thereby undermining the earlier
poet through the use of his own vocabulary.
Since I have now mentioned Lucretius’ explicit naming of Ennius at
., the surrounding lines can lend themselves to some concluding
reflections on the role the earlier poet plays in On the Nature of Things.
At .–, Lucretius targets Ennius’ eschatological views and, as in the
other passages I have examined, uses Ennius’ own words against him. For
example, Ennius had dismissively referred to a preceding generation of
poets (and especially to Naevius) as “fauns and soothsayers” (fauni vatesque, fr. Sk.). Lucretius now lumps Ennius himself in with the vates,
whose “fearmongering words” (vatum | terriloquis . . . dictis, .–),
“superstitions and threats” (religionibus atque minis . . . vatum, .) will
cause people to stray from their commitment to Epicurean philosophy and
hence to lose their peace of mind. In particular, Ennius propagates
misleading but long-lived (Ennius aeternis exponit versibus edens, .)
views about the nature of the soul. As a result, there is widespread
“ignorance” (ignoratur enim, .) as to whether the “soul” (anima) is
born with the body or, on the contrary, inserted into the body at the
moment of birth, whether it perishes together with us at death or “sees
the darkness of Orcus and the vast emptinesses” or, finally, whether it
“inserts itself in a divine manner into other animals, as our Ennius sang”
For example, Gale: focuses rather on allusion to Empedocles, noting that like clara clueret, the
poet’s name means “eternally renowned.”
Cf. Kenney: , .
For the related pun on Ennius and perennis at .–, see Friedländer: , ; Snyder: ,
and ; Gale: .
Bailey: , . prefers the translation “beasts other than men,” thereby excluding humans from
the animal kingdom.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
(an tenebras Orci visat vastasque lacunas, | an pecudes alias divinitus insinuet
se, | Ennius ut noster cecinit, .–). The latter claim about the
transmigration of souls is puzzling even to Lucretius, especially in light
of Ennius’ own view that “there do in fact exist Acherusian expanses . . .
where neither our souls abide nor our bodies, but certain images pale in
wondrous ways” (etsi praeterea tamen esse Acherusia templa | . . . | quo neque
permaneant animae neque corpora nostra | sed quaedam simulacra modis
pallentia miris, .–). Lucretius dismisses this tripartite division –
soul, body and a pallid ghost-like image – as distracting from Epicurus’
calming insight that our existence ceases with death.
I have been making a case throughout that Lucretius’ need to deconstruct Ennius’ harmful perceptions arose specifically from the continued
inclusion of the latter’s works at the Roman ludi (shows that, in turn, had
an impact on contemporary painting, and vice versa). This argument is
also borne out by the passage quoted immediately above. It has not, to my
knowledge, been previously emphasized that Lucretius’ description of
misconstrued ideas about the underworld once again reflects key lines of
the popular Andromacha. In fr. M., one of this play’s characters,
perhaps Andromache herself, greets “the Acherusian expanses and the vast
depths of Orcus” (Acherusia templa alta Orci salvete infera). The fragment
is preserved in Varro’s On the Latin Language (.), but Cicero quotes
what may be a longer version of the same passage (omitting salvete) at Tusc.
.: Acheru[n]sia templa alta Orci, pallida leti, nubila tenebris loca (“the
deep Acherusian fields of Orcus, pale places of death clouded in darkness”). At .–, Lucretius is thus reusing at least three (Acherusia
templa . . . Orci) and possibly five words (tenebris/tenebras . . . pallida/
pallentia) from the Andromacha’s address to the Acherusian realm of
Orcus. It seems, therefore, that the responsibility Lucretius ascribes to
Ennius’ works for perpetuating harmful ideas about the afterlife connects
directly, here as elsewhere, to plays we know to have been frequently
performed at Roman festivals. In other words, Lucretius addresses a threat
that emanates from the ludi, where a dangerous ideology undermines the
ἀταραξία of Roman audiences. Lucretius is warning his readers against
these perilous beliefs and tells them how to respond the next time they
encounter them in their reading or in the theater.
Jocelyn: , notes the recurrence of Acherusia templa in both passages but does not posit a
connection. Prinzen: , – at – mentions the parallel briefly. Goldberg and Manuwald:
, .– speak only of “similar phrasing.”
Jocelyn: , – rejects this suggestion.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Similar observations apply to Lucretius’ paraphrase of Ennius’ views on
the transmigration of souls. When he ascribes to his predecessor the
statement that the soul “inserts itself in a divine manner into other
animals” ([anima] pecudes alias divinitus insinuet se, ., see above), he
is basing this claim on the first book of the Annals, where Ennius maintained that “the race adorned with feathers is in the habit of producing
eggs, not a soul . . . the soul itself comes afterwards from there (i.e., the
sky) in a divine manner to the chicks” (ova parire solet genus pennis
condecoratum, | non animam . . . post inde venit divinitus pullis | ipsa anima,
fr. – Sk). We can note here both the overlap in content and the
recurrence of anima and divinitus, a parallel that has not been previously
observed. Furthermore, Lucretius’ dismissal of Ennius’ claim that the soul
of Homer came to live in him after a chain of Pythagorean transmigrations, and that the Greek poet’s ghost-like simulacrum visited him in a
dream to explain this development (.–), is well known likewise to
be based on Book of the Annals (e.g., visus Homerus adesse poeta, “the
poet Homer appeared to be present,” fr. Sk.). The same is true of
Lucretius’ reference, at .–, to Ennius’ hope that his “subject
matter and poems will be reckoned famous broadly among the peoples”
(fr. – Sk.), with which I started this section. All of these paraphrases
and quotations engage with the same part of Ennius’ epic. Of course, we
do not in this case have any evidence testifying to later recitations of the
book in question. Yet the plethora of fragments that survive from Book
of the Annals show beyond a doubt that it too was among the bestknown parts of Ennius’ works, even though we can no longer tell if it
was familiar through public recitations or private reading (or both).
Lucretius thus engages yet again with a part of Ennius’ oeuvre that
would have been of central importance to the literary, dramatic and artistic
scene of late-Republican Rome. The Trojan tragedies (certainly the
Andromacha, and possibly the Iphigenia and the Alexander as well) were a
staple at the ludi’s increasingly impressive shows, which evidenced some
cross-contamination with the visual arts. In turn, the Annals’ book on
Pyrrhus would have been comparably well known from public recitations
at the same events. Whatever the preferred medium may have been for the
distribution of Book , it too exerted a formative influence on many
Romans’ (faulty) understanding of the workings of the cosmos. Lucretius
For a recent critical assessment of the fragments relating to the proem of the Annals, see Elliott:
, – and –. Goldberg and Manuwald: , .– provide ample evidence
for the “powerful impression” that Ennius’ dream of Homer made on later Roman authors.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011
Page, Stage, Image
engages with these Ennian compositions in greater detail than has been
previously shown and confronts them specifically in their capacity as works
that communicate ideas of a philosophical, religious and even scientific
nature to large audiences. He makes the latter element clear by noting
that in Ennius’ dream, Homer’s ghost proceeded “to expound upon the
nature of things” (rerum naturam expandere dictis, .). Ennius continued to pass this information on to Lucretius’ contemporaries even and
especially in the first century BC. This made Ennius an adversary to be
reckoned with and a direct competitor in asserting a hold on the understanding of the rerum natura. Accordingly, Lucretius equips his readers
with the necessary gear to confront Ennius’ supposedly harmful ideas
wherever they next encounter them, be it in a well-stocked library, at a
literary recitation, on the walls of a domus or at the late-Republican ludi’s
exceptionally lavish revivals of classic tragedies.
For Epicurean views of scientific or natural phenomena such as the sun, see Gellar-Goad’s
chapter () in this volume.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Pennsylvania State University, on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:17:16, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954402.011