Lucretius - "On the Nature of Things"

Reflections on the first modern philosopher

The man himself

Last month, I finished On the Nature of Things by Lucretius.¹ While one of my teachers assigned it as background reading in school, I never read it. It’s been on my list since then and I bumped it up the queue at the suggestion of a friend.

Lucretius was a contemporary of Cicero, working in the middle of the first century BC. Written in dactylic hexameter — the same meter as the Iliad and the Odyssey — On the Nature of Things is worth reading (or at least worth knowing about) for a number of reasons.²

Lucretius was a follower of the Greek philosopher Epicurus. Epicurus founded the eponymous Epicurean school in Athens, about 250 years before Lucretius wrote his poem. Because not much of Epicurus’s writings survive, On the Nature of Things is the most complete extant work of Epicurean thought.³ This is important because Epicurus had many interesting ideas. Mostly (and somewhat wrongly) remembered today for his promotion of physical pleasure,⁴ Epicurus also developed a complex form of atomic theory and refutation of the classical view of the gods.⁵ Lucretius relays these ideas in the poem, while also providing beautiful descriptions of nature, animals, and natural phenomena.

Epicurus.

The beauty of Lucretius’s writing — which can be appreciated without agreeing with Epicurean thought — influenced a variety of writers. Cicero read and reviewed (after a fashion) On the Nature of Things, and Virgil’s celebration of rural life and landscapes in the Georgics bear a resemblance to some of Lucretius’s passages on nature. Wordsworth and Byron also reference the poem in their own poetry. Knowledge of Lucretius’s work can thus deepen appreciation for the writings of these other authors.

Lucretius is also an antecedent — at a very early date — to modern political philosophy. In Book V of the poem, he advances an innovative timeline of human development. (Note that the below headings are terms that I made up or imported from other philosophers; Lucretius doesn’t use them.)

1. The state of nature, in which men wander the world alone as they seek food and shelter:

During many lusters of the sun revolving through the sky they lived random-roving lives like wild beasts.⁶

. . . .

They were unable to look to the common interest and had no knowledge of the mutual benefits of any customs or laws. Individuals instinctively seized whatever prize fortune had offered to them, trained as they were to live and use their strength for themselves alone.⁷

2. Primitive society, where men form polities based on kinship groups, pursuant to a social contract:

It was then, too, that neighbors, in their eagerness neither to harm nor be harmed, began to form mutual pacts of friendship, and claimed protection for their children and womenfolk, indicating by means of inarticulate cries and gestures that everyone ought to have compassion on the weak. Although it was not possible for concord to be achieved universally, the great majority kept their compacts loyally. Otherwise the human race would have been entirely extinguished at that early stage and could not have propagated and preserved itself to the present day.⁸

. . . .

And more and more every day those endowed with exceptional talents and mental power showed the others how to exchange their former way of life for new practices and, in particular, for the use of fire. Kings began to build cities, and to choose sites for citadels to be strongholds and places of refuge for themselves; and they distributed gifts of flocks and fields to individuals according to their beauty, strength, and intellect; for beauty was highly esteemed, and strength was held in honor. Later wealth was invented and gold discovered, and this easily robbed the strong and handsome of their prestige; for, as a general rule, no matter how much physical strength and beauty people possess, they follow in the train of the rich.⁹

3. Anarchy, caused by the introduction of wealth into primitive society, and the ambition of men to acquire it (and the status associated therewith):

So it is far better to live peacefully as a subject than to desire the dominion of states and the control of kingdoms. Let them, then, sweat out their blood and weary themselves in vain, struggling along the narrow path of ambition, since their wisdom is derived from the mouths of others and their aims are determined by hearsay rather than by their own sensations; and such folly does not succeed today and will not succeed tomorrow any more than it succeeded yesterday.

So the kings were slain, the time-honored majesty of thrones and proud scepters tumbled down in the dust, and the glorious crown that adorned the sovereign head, now blood-bespattered beneath the feet of the rabble, mourned the loss of its high perogative; for people eagerly trample on what once they intensely feared. Thus the situation sank to the lowest dregs of anarchy, with all seeking sovereignty and supremacy for themselves. At length some of them taught the others to create magistracies and established laws, to induce them to obey ordinances.¹⁰

4. Civilization, which arises from a more advanced form of social contract theory — embodied by the law — to which people agree so they may escape the harsh conditions of anarchic existence:

Thus the situation sank to the lowest dregs of anarchy, with all seeking sovereignty and supremacy for themselves. At length some of them taught the others to create magistracies and established laws, to induce them to obey ordinances. The human race, utterly weary as it was of leading of life of violence and worn out with feuds, was the more ready to submit voluntarily to the restraint of ordinances and stringent laws. . . . Ever since that time fear of punishment has poisoned the blessings of life.¹¹

I found this analysis interesting for three reasons.

Lucretius as the first modern philosopher.

While he never mentions him by name, Lucretius’s theory of political development is in serious disagreement with that of Aristotle. Using the rubric described above, Aristotle believed that human existence began in primitive society. This was because man was naturally social. Accordingly, Aristotle couldn’t and didn’t conceive of a time in which man lived alone, outside of any social group.

The extension of man’s timeline — to posit that man once lived by himself in a harsh environment, and the corollary to that thought, that man is not naturally social — is usually ascribed to Hobbes, who, after Machiavelli, is considered the first “modern” political philosopher for this major break with Aristotelian thinking. In On the Nature of Things, however, Lucretius develops this theory (albeit in rudimentary form) fifteen hundred years before Hobbes.

Relationship with Nietzsche.

In primitive society, Lucretius says that man values beauty, strength, and intellect, as these are the qualities for which the first kings reward their subjects. The fact that they did so at this early stage of human life suggests that veneration of them is NATURAL. Beauty, strength, and intellect, however, lose importance with the development of wealth, which Lucretius sees as artificial.

This approach sounds somewhat like Nietzsche, who lauded the ancient Greeks and Romans for their drive toward beauty and strength (though perhaps not intellect). But Nietzsche would take great issue with Lucretius’s disdain for ambition — which, after all, is simply a negative way of describing the drive for excellence:

And so human beings never cease to labor vainly and fruitlessly, consuming their lives in groundless cares, evidently because they have not learned the proper limit to possession, and the extent to which real pleasure can increase.¹²

For Lucretius, “real pleasure” was mental and physical pleasure unburdened by the constant desire to acquire status, wealth, or glory — and the accordant fear of loss that accompanies all those who reach the heights.

Relationship with Rousseau.

Lucretius’s theory on human development is suspiciously similar to the one advanced by Rousseau in his Discourses, Social Contract, and Emile. While I’m not aware of Rousseau ever crediting Lucretius as an inspiration for his ideas, it is hard to believe that Rousseau did not read On the Nature of Things and derive some of his arguments from Lucretius. There are two elements of Rousseau’s philosophy that seemingly have roots in Lucretius’s thinking.

Stages of human development.

Rousseau, taking his cues from Hobbes, rejected Aristotle’s conception of man as a social animal, who began existence in primitive society. While Hobbes believed that man progressed from the wild state of nature to civilization in one leap, Rousseau posited two additional stages between them. Man left the state of nature because of the power of women. Women, weaker than men and burdened by the dangers of childbirth, used guile and beauty to convince men to remain with them after fulfillment of natural passion. In so doing, they created primitive society, based on kinship groups and with an economy of simple exchange amongst those in such groups.

According to Rousseau, this primitive form of social organization — which Rousseau believed could last forever without disturbance, based on the existence of Indian tribes who (in Rousseau’s imagination) matched his description of this early society — was destroyed by the introduction of private property:

The first man who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared by someone who, uprooting the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to all and the earth to no one.¹³

Thereafter, anarchy reigned, until a new society, based on man’s surrender of his natural free will to a powerful sovereign in exchange for safety and protection of his property rights, enabled man to progress (or, in Rousseau’s mind, degenerate) to the next stage of development: civilization.

In his time, and today, Rousseau is credited as a great innovator in political philosophy for introducing these two separate stages of human development — primitive society and the anarchy that follows its collapse. And he deserves that credit, because there is truth in his analysis. But to readers of Lucretius, Rousseau’s way of thinking sounds very familiar.

Nostalgia for a time before society.

Rousseau famously begins On The Social Contract with the fabulous line: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” The notion is that, in the state of nature, man was truly free — of any obligation to other people, institutions, or social convention. In the state of nature, a man looks at his reflection in the water and sees himself. In civilization, a man looks at his reflection in the mirror and sees what others think of him.

Lucretius has a similar (and possibly foolish) longing for this earlier stage of human life. His comment on the development of laws — that ever since their creation “fear of punishment has poisoned the blessings of life” — indicates that, in a time before laws existed, man had a freer existence, able to experience all forms of pleasure without worry of consequences that may result from indulgence in the same. In addition, like Rousseau, he argues that civilization corrupts man from a more pure existence:

Moreover, whereas in those times [before civilization] it was lack of food that consigned people’s languid limbs to death, nowadays it is surfeit to which they succumb; and whereas in those times they often served poison to themselves unwittingly, nowadays they make away with themselves more expertly.¹⁴

Final Thoughts

On the Nature of Things is an overlooked gem. If you have an interest in classics, science, or political philosophy, check it out! Please educate me in the comments if my analysis is lacking, and share this post if you enjoyed it. I’ll leave you with this wonderful passage from the poem on mortality and the harmony of life:

Nothing remains constant: everything is in flux; everything is altered by nature and compelled to change. As one thing decays and declines and droops with age, another arises and emerges from obscurity. In this way, then, time alters the nature of the entire world, and the earth passes on from one stage to another, so that what she once bore she can bear no longer, while she can bear what she did not bear before.¹⁵

[Ed. — I revised this piece from its original version to include the third section on Rousseau and the conclusion. Hope that you enjoy!]

1. I read the translation by Martin Ferguson Smith, published by Hackett Publishing Company in 2001. All line references are to this edition.

2. Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Lucretius for additional information about his life: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lucretius/

3. There is accordingly an interesting similarity between Epicurus and Socrates — they are each remembered today through the writings (and possibly independent interpretations) of their students.

4. The “wrongly” here is because, contra Epicurus’s popular conception as a hedonist, he did not promote unlimited and constant physical pleasure. While not quite suggesting moderation ala Aristotle, Epicurus encouraged his followers to keep things on an even keel. Overindulgence in physical pleasure may lead to pain at a later date: getting drunk may be fun, but the hangover won’t be. By the same token, working out may be temporarily painful, but produces aesthetic and health benefits that will lead to greater pleasure.

5. While Epicurus believed that gods existed — they were immortal because, unlike men, they constantly absorbed atoms and did not decay — he thought they did not have human emotions, much less any interest in human affairs. This conception is in stark contrast to the gods portrayed in the Iliad or classical Greek mythology, who are subject to the same emotional swings as we are and constantly interfering in human life.

6. Book V, 932.

7. Book V, 959 - 962.

8. Book V, 1019 – 1027.

9. Book V, 1106 – 1117.

10. Book V, 1129 - 1141.

11. Book V, 1141 – 1152.

12. Book V, 1430 – 1433.

13. Jean Jacques Rousseau, The First and Second Discourses, trans. Roger D. and Judith R. Masters, p 141 - 142 (New York: St. Martins, 1964).

14. Book V, 1008 - 1012.

15. Book V, 830 – 836.