Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
$GD3DOPHU
Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 73, Number 3, July 2012, pp.
395-416 (Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI3HQQV\OYDQLD3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/jhi.2012.0023
Ada Palmer
Atomism, the theory that matter consists of tiny, indivisible atoms whose
varied combinations form the different substances around us, existed in
Europe for more than two thousand years before its modern popularity.
Equally ancient are the scientific theories of vacuum, of multiple Earth-like
worlds, and of creation from chaos, the theory that in the beginning atoms
floating in the void clumped together randomly to form substances. On the
Nature of Things (De Rerum Natura) by Titus Lucretius Carus (9455/51
bce) is the most complete surviving record of these ancient atomic theories,
and even tells us that Earth originally produced a wide variety of creatures,
but that only those suited to their environments survived to the present.1
These doctrines were all taught by Epicurus (341270 bce), and if his theories sound suspiciously like those of the twentieth century ce, one critical
question is how these ideas were preserved and transmitted over the long
period before their broad modern acceptance, particularly in the Renaissance.
Few of Epicuruss writings survive,2 but in the late first century bce a
I am greatly indebted in this project to the guidance of James Hankins, the aid of Ann
Blair, Alison Brown, Brian Copenhaver, Craig Kallendorf, Stephen Greenblatt, and
Michael Reeve, and the support of the Villa I Tatti Harvard University Center for Italian
Renaissance Studies, the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research at Texas
A & M University, and the Fulbright Program. A monographic version of this study is
forthcoming.
1
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 5.837877.
2
James Hankins and Ada Palmer, The Recovery of Classical Philosophy in the Renais-
Copyright by Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 73, Number 3 (July 2012)
395
................. 18260$
PAGE 395
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:44
PS
Roman follower, Lucretius, laid out his key doctrines in Latin verse in the
six-book didactic poem De Rerum Natura. The poem, and the bulk of
classical atomism with it, disappeared after the ninth century, but was rediscovered in 1417 by the Renaissance book-hunter Poggio Bracciolini (1380
1459). Humanists produced more than fifty manuscripts within a century
and thirty print editions by 1600.3 Lucretius was taught in schools in France
and Italy in the early sixteenth century, frequently enough for the Florentine
regional Church council to ban teaching him in 1517,4 and for Petrus
Nannius (15001557) at Louvain to complain of the absence of a suitable
classroom edition in 1543.5 Despite this extensive circulation, and the comparatively broad appearance of Lucretian poetic themes in art and literature
of the sixteenth century, atomism remained extremely rare in scientific
circles until the seventeenth century, when Pierre Gassendi (15921655)
hybridized Epicureanism, Skepticism, and Christianity.6 The question is
how and why the text was used and multiplied so broadly while its core
doctrines remained conspicuously absent from scientific discourse. I have
approached this question through a systematic examination of marginalia
in surviving Renaissance copies of the De Rerum Natura, a new technique
which exposes how the reading practices of Renaissance humanists affected
the transmission of ideas.
The scholars we call humanists worked to restore classical civilization
in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by creating a new educational system
founded on the study of classical texts. Humanism was supposed to produce virtuous men, who would imbibe in childhood the loyalty, nobility,
courage, and patriotism which made ancient Rome strong, and without
which the modern world was wracked by corruption, petty ambition, and
cowardly self-interest. The beauty of ancient rhetoric was supposed to arm
authors and orators to inspire virtue in others, especially princes. This
humanism did not value learning only for learnings sake but had a very
sance, a Brief Guide (Florence: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 2008),
6263.
3
Cosmo Gordon, A Bibliography of Lucretius (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1962).
4
J. D. Mansi ed., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissa collectio (Paris: H. Welter,
19011927), 35: 270.
5
Dirk Sacre, Nanniuss Somnia, in La satire humaniste: Actes du Colloque international des 31 mars, 1er et 2 avril 1993, ed. Rudolf De Smet (Louvain: Peeters Press,
1994), 7793.
6
The persecution of Giordano Bruno testifies to atomisms hostile reception, see Paul
Henri Michel, The Cosmology of Giordano Bruno (Ithaca, N.Y.: 1973); Hilary Gatti,
Giordano Bruno and Renaissance Science (Ithaca, N.Y.: 2002), especially ch. 8, and
Essays on Giordano Bruno (Princeton: 2011), ch. 3.
396
................. 18260$
PAGE 396
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:44
PS
397
................. 18260$
PAGE 397
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:45
PS
the creation of the world from chance associations of atoms eliminates the
Prime Mover, again reducing the necessity of the divine; this makes atomism critically different from the Aristotelian and Platonic systems which
both posit a central creative force which Christians could equate with God.
Finally, Epicuruss denial of the afterlife, which he intended to free men
from fear of imagined torments after death, was associated in the Renaissance with a long-standing European paranoia that atheists, without fear
of divine punishment, would have no reason to refrain from rape, murder,
and other crimes, making it impossible for them to be good citizens.10 Thus,
while Lucretius is not an atheist in the modern sense, his materialism and
denial of the soul provide arguments which will prove essential to the later
growth of atheism, as well as deism, skepticism and other radical heterodoxies. For this group of radical Lucretian concepts, those associated, in
the Renaissance and now, with atheism, but which do not themselves attack
the existence of the divine, I shall employ the label proto-atheism.
Renaissance heresy-hunters drew no such subtle distinction between potential and actuality. Epicurean denial of the afterlife was infamous in the
medieval world; indeed, well before 1517, Dante used Epicurean as the
general label for those who believe the soul is mortal, who are punished in
the sixth circle of Hell by being sealed forever in coffinsjust as they
expected to bebut on fire.11 Such doctrines would not, like Platos and
Ciceros, rear virtuous men. Or so humanists thought.
While these doctrines explain the Renaissance association of atomism
with atheism, use of the term Epicureanism in discourse on heresy rarely
had anything to do with doctrine. Catholics called Martin Luther an Epicurean, and allies refuted the charge in pamphlets which use the term constantly yet are practically without reference to Epicurean theory.12 Erasmus
was called an atheist and Epicurean by his enemies,13 while at the siege of
Bourges in 1562 pastors encouraged the Huguenots to call their Catholic
Kors, Atheism in France, 48, 24144, 25761; Paul Oskar Kristeller, The Myth of
Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free Thought, Journal of the History
of Philosophy 6 (1968): 24042.
11
Inferno 10.1315.
12
See Albert Hungers Orationes Duae, una, de Fide ac Religione Magni Illius Athanasii
Alexandrini . . . altera de Homologia sive Consensu Concentuque Theologiae Lutheri
cum Philosophia Epicuri . . . (Ingolstadt, 1582), and the opposing pamphlet Oratio de
Vocatione et Doctrina Martini Lutheri . . . & Opposita Epicureae Prationi Alberti Hungeri . . . de homologia, sive consensu doctrinae Lutheri cum Philosophia Epicuri (Ingolstadt, 1583).
13
Brian Copenhaver and Charles B. Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1992), 242.
10
398
................. 18260$
PAGE 398
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:46
PS
attackers epicoriens.14 The Protestant propaganda piece Le ReveilleMatin des Francois describes the favorites who traveled with the kings
brothers as including Catholic lords, courtesans, atheists, Epicureans, blasphemers, and sodomites,15 while Nicholas Davidson has cited the sixteenthcentury case of a group of friars in Verona accused of living as sons of
iniquity . . . as Epicureans and Lutherans.16 Here Epicureanism functions
as a generic term of abuse, interchangeable with atheism, blasphemy, even
sodomy. The Florentine edict banning Lucretius from the classroom targeted lascivious and impious works, perpetuating this association of Epicureanism, and heresy in general, with wantonness, since flagrant sinners
must not fear God.17 If in the sixteenth century Lucretiuss presence in classrooms and printing houses neither injected atomism into scientific circles
nor reduced the use of Epicureanism as a generic synonym for heresy, the
question becomes what circles Lucretius did penetrate, and how the thousands who did read him used the text.
Formal writings like essays and commentaries show us only the polished reactions of early modern authors, written after they have evaluated
ancient texts and often self-censored in anticipation of the censor and the
Inquisition.18 Marginalia are not the only indicator of Epicurean interest
we may seek, but they are particularly useful because they make it possible
to directly compare the reactions of readers who did and who did not move
on to use Epicureanism in their own works. Marginalia record the real
moment of first contact between a Christian reader and pagan thought.19
Such a moment is recorded in the Neapolitanus, annotated by the distinMonica Barsi ed., LEnigme de la Chronique de Pierre Belon (Milan: LED, 2001), 264.
Nicolas Barnaud, Le Reveille-matin des Francois, et de leurs voisins (Edimbourg: De
limprimerie de Iaques Iames Barnaud, 1574), 130.
16
Davidson, Atheism in Italy 15001700, 57.
17
Kors, Atheism in France, 28.
18
Commentaries, such as those of Francus (1504), Pius (1511), Capece (1535), Lambin
(1563), Gifanius (15656), Palmerius (1580), Frachetta (1589), and the youthful work
Ficino burnt, if indeed it was a commentary, will be treated in a forthcoming fuller version
of this study.
19
On marginalia, see Craig Kallendorf, Marginalia and the Rise of Early Modern Subjectivity, in On Renaissance Commentaries, ed. Marianne Pade (Hildesheim; New York:
Olms, 2005), 11128; William H. Sherman, What did Renaissance Readers Write in
their Books? in Books and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies, ed.
Jennifer Anderson and Elizabeth Saure (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2002), 11937; Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities:
Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986); Vincenzo Fera, Giacomo Ferrau` and Silvia Rizzo
eds., Talking to the Text: Marginalia from Papyri to Print: proceedings of a conference
held at Erice (Messina, 2002).
14
15
399
................. 18260$
PAGE 399
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:46
PS
400
................. 18260$
PAGE 400
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:47
PS
401
................. 18260$
PAGE 401
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:47
PS
generally more extensive in paper copies than in the more expensive vellum
copies, and all those which lack any annotation are vellum, indicating copies produced for collectors libraries, rarely touched by scholars. Some copies, which bear extensive philological annotation, clearly served projects to
correct the text, and early editions derive from some of them. Repeated
patterns in annotation produced in multiple copies in the same city and
period might provide evidence for classroom use, but no such patterns
appear in the manuscripts, nor in the one hundred and seventy-two printed
examples I have examined. The majority of annotations are single words,
brief marginal comments or pen strokes bringing attention to particular
lines. It is common for notes to be duplicated, with some modification,
from copy to copy when new manuscripts are made from annotated originals.
Comparison reveals seven recurring subjects of annotation, each representing a distinct type of reader interest. These are: philological corrections;
notes about vocabulary; notes on poetry or referencing other poets; notabilia marking elements of Roman history and culture; notes of interest to
scientific specialties, such as natural history, geology, or medicine; notes on
atomism, physics, metaphysics, theology, or soul theory; and finally notes
on Epicurean moral philosophy. Most manuscripts have multiple types of
marginalia. Twenty-nine percent have more extensive annotation in one
section of the book than the rest, another indication of specific interests.
The most common notes in all Renaissance manuscripts of the classics
are corrections, the residue of pioneering philologists who labored to undo
the mutilation classics suffered during manuscript transmission.25 Ninety
percent of Lucretius manuscripts contain corrections, and those which do
not are those few with practically no notes. Thus, in most readers hands,
the poem saw precisely the same use as less controversial classics. Every
scholar who annotated Lucretius in the manuscript period did so in part to
repair the text, and some left no evidence of any other use of it.
The second most common category is notes recording unusual vocabulary, often by copying words into the margin. Some annotators copy a few
words, others dozens or hundreds. Often the same words appear in multiple
independent copies, revealing words most scholars had not met before they
read Lucretius. For example, the rare verb cluere (to be named or esteemed)
is marked in 27 percent of manuscripts and many print copies.26 Only rarely
See Avanciuss introduction to the 1500 Aldine Lucretius f. 3v.
Cluere at 1.119, marked in Ambrosiana P.19 sup.; f. 4v; BM Harleian 2554, f. 3v;
Cambridge Univ. Nn.2.40, f. 2v; Laur. 35.25, f. 3r, 35.31, f. 4r, and 35.32, f. 3r; Naples
Naz. IV E 51, f. 11v and in the index of vocabulary on 5r; Rome Nat. O.85, f. 3r; Munich
C1816a, f. 3r.
25
26
402
................. 18260$
PAGE 402
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:48
PS
does a commentator add a definition or synonym. The aim of these annotations is not to define words but to draw attention to new terms to be memorized. The Neapolitanus even includes a handwritten list of vocabulary
organized by page number for quick reference.27 Forty-four percent of the
manuscripts mark Latin vocabulary, while 31 percent explore Greek, since
Lucretius frequently employs transliterated Greek, and annotators supply
the original in the margin.
In the third category, poetic comments, the passages marked are those
similar to, or imitated by, other classical poets. Brackets, pointing hands,
or the names Virg or Ovid appear beside passages imitated by these
authors.28 The Madrid manuscript follows the poem with a concordance of
Lucretian lines in Virgil, Ennius,29 and others.30 Many readers also mark
lines with defective scansion.31 In sum, twenty-seven manuscripts, 52 percent, have poetic notes, of which fifteen explicitly mention Virgil, Ovid,
Catullus, or Horace.32
The fourth category is notabilia, historical and cultural information
about antiquity. Frequently annotators copy proper names into the margin,
such as Iphianassa, Homer, Mount Etna, or the Phoeban Pythia.33 Sixteen
manuscripts mark a section in Book III in which Lucretius gives a Whos
Who of the underworld, listing famous sinners: Tantalus, Tytius, Sisyphus;
and great men of the past: Xerxes, Scipio, Homer, and Epicurus himself.34
In sum, twenty-six manuscripts mark notabilia, so 50 percent of readers,
more than marked vocabulary or poetry, used Lucretius in part as a sourcebook of general information about the classical world.
Naples Naz. IV E 51, inner flyleaf f. 5r.
On Virgil and Lucretius see Sacre, Nanniuss Somnia, 8084; Joseph Farrell, Vergils
Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991);
Richard Jenkyns, Virgils Experience: Nature and History, Times, Names, and Places
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), especially chs. 5 and 6.
29
See Skutschs commentary in The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 12
and 14757.
30
Madrid Naz. 2995 ff. 154163.
31
See, for example, BM Harleian 2554 f. 34v (II 921).
32
On Virgil in humanist education see Craig Kallendorf, The Virgilian Tradition: Book
History and the History of Reading in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot: Ashgate/Variorum, 2007) and A Bibliography of Renaissance Italian Translations of Virgil (Florence:
L.S. Olschki, 1994); David Scott Wilson-Okamura, Virgil in the Renaissance (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010).
33
Iphianassa (1.85), Homer (1.124), Mount Etna (1.722), the Pythia (1.739).
34
3.9781045 noted in Cambridge Univ. Nn.11.40 ff. 48v49v, Laur. 35.28 ff. 62v63r,
BAV Lat. 3276 f. 94v, Pius IIs copy Amb. E 125 Sup (120122), Amb P.19 ff. 70v71v,
Padua BC C.75, Rome Nat. O.85 ff. 51r52r, Bodleian Can. Lat. 32 ff. 48v49v, Naples
Nn.2.40 ff. 78r79r, Marciana Cl. XII cod. 69, f. 49v and Munich Cl. 816a, ff. 68v69v.
27
28
403
................. 18260$
PAGE 403
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:49
PS
The final three categories of annotation examine the poems philosophical and scientific content. I treat as one category notes on geology, physics,
medicine, or natural philosophy, because they do not reflect interest in Epicureanism as a functional system, nor in the proto-atheist aspects of Epicureanism. For example, four notes on storms in the Cambridge manuscript
demonstrate an idiosyncratic interest in weather on the part of a reader
who did not mark any other atomistic discussions.35 Other readers mark
the sections on magnets,36 wind and waves,37 property and accident,38 or
simulacra,39 but nothing on the basic properties of atoms. Medical issues
are frequently marked, including the plague, the effects of alcohol,40 epilepsy,41 and how disease seems to gradually erode the soul, which Lucretius
offers as proof of the souls materiality and destructibility. In the last passage, the lines which address disease are marked twice as often as the
accompanying claim that the soul is mortal. A collection of medical manuscripts belonging to Galileos mentor Gian Vincenzo Pinelli (15351601)
excerpts the sections from Book VI on the Athenian plague, discarding the
non-medical sections of the poem.42 In sum, twenty-nine manuscripts, 58
percent, mark non-atomistic natural philosophy, nineteen medical topics.
Of course, for Lucretius, natural philosophy and medicine are not
divorced from atomism or proto-atheist questions, since it was by explaining lightning or magnets mechanistically that Epicurus strove to free men
from fear of oppressive gods. Yet it was possible, in fact easy, for those
readers who picked through the De Rerum Natura looking for treatments
of specific physical questions, intending to compare Lucretius to authors
already in their repertoire, to skim the poem without seriously considering
the atomist theory, or the notion of a materialist Nature empty of divine
Cambridge Univ. Nn.2.40 marks 1.489497 f. 8r, 6.195203 f. 93v, 6.239245 f. 94v
and 6.5946 f. 99v.
36
Laur. 35.28, 6.909 and 911 f. 136r; Munich Cl. 816a f. 139v; Pierpont Morgan Ms.
482 f. 130r 6.90912; Cambridge Univ. Nn.2.40 f. 104r 6.916; also Machiavellis BAV
Ross. lat. 884 f. 127r though he marks vocabulary, not magnets themselves.
37
Munich Cl. 618a writes VENTI by 1.271 and AQUAE by 1.281 f. 6rv.
38
Marciana Cl. XII cod. 166 brackets I 4514 10v.
39
Rome Nat. O.85, 2.112 f. 19v. Ambros. P.19. sup. f. 89r contrasts Aristotle and Epicurus on vision at 4.823 f. 89r.
40
3.476486: marked in BAV Urb. Lat. 640 f. 51r; BAV Ott. lat. 1954, 1 f. 60r; Vittorio
Emanuelle O85 f. 43r; Naples Naz. IV E 51 ff. 67r9r; Madrid Naz. 2885 f. 57v. The
preceding discussion of disease is labeled morbus leti fabricator by 3.472 in Munich
Cl. 816a f. 55r.
41
3.487494: marked in Piacenza Land. Cod. 33 71r; BAV Ott. lat. 1954, 1 60r; Padova,
Bib. Cap. C 75; Naples Naz. IV E 51 ff. 68r9v.
42
Ambrosiana G.67. inf.
35
404
................. 18260$
PAGE 404
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:50
PS
action. For example, none of Lucretiuss three suggestions for why the
lengths of day and night vary actually mention atoms, merely the thickness
of air or the actions of the winds, which in these few lines could as easily
be gods as streams of matter.43 Excerpted, such a passage does not introduce the student of weather and astronomy to any radical Epicurean concepts. The strongest evidence of this tendency of readers to segregate
smaller questions from the Epicurean system is provided by the manuscript
at Piacenza, which demonstrates extraordinary scientific interest by illustrating geometric, geographic, and astronomical discussions. Yet the illustrations do not actually reflect the text.44 Beside Lucretiuss discussions of
day and night, the illustrators diagram demonstrates the traditional
Christian-Aristotelian model of the Earth and spheres, copied from Isidore
of Seville (ca. 560636), with the elemental spheres of earth, water, air, and
fire, a system which bears no relation to Lucretiuss atomism and, in fact,
directly contradicts it. Even a reader concerned with science did not consider Epicureanism as a system. Picking selectively through Lucretius to
focus on those scientific discussions to which Epicurean physics is not actually essential is not interest in atomism.
What moderns think of as the most essential elements of Epicurean
philosophy are very rarely marked. The few notes present in the portions
of books II, III, and V where Lucretius explains atomistic physics are almost
always corrections, vocabulary or notabilia. Fourteen manuscripts, 27 percent of the total, have notes on atomism, but half of these contain only one
or two brief notes on tangential subjects, such as vacuum, perishability, or
the names of Democritus and Heraclitus marked as notabilia. Iterations of
Epicuruss claim that the universe existed from eternity, opposing the Christian doctrine of creation in time, are marked in five manuscripts, less than
half the number which marked the famous men in Tartarus.45 As for Epicurean denial of the afterlifethe definition of Epicureanism for critics from
Dante to Lutheronly Pomponio Letos copy and three copied from it
marked the opinio non Christiana.46 In fact, attention to atomism in
manuscripts is so rare that the three manuscripts which do treat it more
extensively, discussed individually below, are extremely conspicuous. There
DRN V.680704.
Piacenza, Cod. 33; 1507. Reeve (1980): 31; Barbara Obrist, Wind Diagrams and
Medieval Cosmology, Speculum 72 (1997): 3384.
45
1.159204, marked in BAV Ott.lat.1954, BAV Ott.lat.2834 (1.159204, f. 3v, 4v),
Ambros. E.125 Sup. (1.46, p. 2), Laur. 35.32 marks (1.159, 4r), Naples Naz. IV E 51
f. 10r.
46
Naples Naz. IV E 51; Bodleian Can. Lat. 32, Basel F.VIII.14 and Berlin Lat. Fol. 544.
43
44
405
................. 18260$
PAGE 405
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:50
PS
is not space here for a thorough treatment of the incunables, which were
produced and used in the same years as the manuscripts, but in these too
the few with atomist annotation stand out conspicuously against many
dominated by the other categories of marginalia.47
While notes on atomism or pseudo-atheist doctrines are rare in manuscripts, notes on Epicurean moral philosophy are common. The most frequently marked passage in the text is a description in Book IV of how to
avoid the snares of love, marked in 30 percent of manuscripts. The stated
goal of Epicureanism is to help adherents achieve pleasure and escape pain,
and this passage explains one of its key tools, the rejection of romantic love
in favor of temperate, reasoned relations between lovers. Elsewhere in the
text, similar passages of moral philosophy are marked more than twice as
often as passages of natural philosophy. In sum, 56 percent of readers
marked at least one passage of Epicurean moral advice, more than any
other topic except for non-atomist natural philosophy. Most readers saw
Epicurean moral advice, more than Epicurean science, as the philosophical
core of the text.
This moral focus is not exclusive to Lucretius, nor are these larger categories such as philological notes and notabilia. Craig Kallendorf in his work
on classroom notes in early editions of Virgil was struck by the frequency
of notes on the poems moral character, which he too saw as conspicuously
different from other common notes which focused, as they do in Lucretius,
on vocabulary, grammar, mythology, and poetic questions.48 However
much both poets might praise the happiness which comes from knowledge
of nature, these annotators clearly read both Lucretius and Virgil for moral
philosophy, literary and historical information, more often than for science
or religion.49
Alison Brown and others have highlighted the importance of Lucretiuss discussion of primitive man, and its influence on theories of primitivism
Girolamo Borgias transcription of Pontanos notes in BL IA.23564; Ambros. INC.186
(1495); Marciana Incun. Ven.702 (1495); BL IB.30763 (1486); Bodl. Auct. 2 R 4.50
(1500), whose annotations Michael Reeve has helped me identify, on the basis of provenance, as likely the work of Donato Giannotti; and Paris M YC 397, V95 (1495) pointed
out to me by Alison Brown, see The Return of Lucretius to Renaissance Florence (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010), 118.
48
Kallendorf, Marginalia and the Rise of Early Modern Subjectivity, 114; see also
Craig Kallendorf, Virgil and the Myth of Venice: Books and Readers in the Italian Renaissance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 3190.
49
Georgics II 490492, often cited by Renaissance Lucreziani to emphasize Virgils debt
to Lucretius.
47
406
................. 18260$
PAGE 406
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:50
PS
407
................. 18260$
PAGE 407
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:51
PS
stocked the libraries of later generations with heterodox ideas well before
interest in their heterodox potential became widespread.
Of course, moderate humanists were aware of the danger that Lucretius and other classics might spread unorthodoxy. Lucretius himself
occupies a key position in the history of censorship, specifically in the
Renaissance debate over whether the beautiful language of the pagan classics can spread heresy. This issue, recently addressed by Valentina Prosperi,54 centers on Lucretiuss statement that he chose to explicate Epicurean
philosophy in verse to make it more palatable, as a doctor smears honey
around the rim of a cup of bitter wormwood to trick a child into drinking
it.55 Recall that Petrarch, one of the founders of humanism, claimed that
classical rhetoric, the words that sting and bite in Plato, Cicero, and others, drive men toward virtue.56 His successors believed that a classical education would make men better Christians as well as better citizens. As
Victoria Kahn has pointed out, Petrarchs claim is founded on the argument, from Aristotle and Cicero, that eloquence is inherently tied to virtue,
because only truth and virtue can make words persuasive.57 If rhetoric is
only powerful when combined with truth, then a Christian scholar can
safely circulate Lucretius without fear of weakening Christianity, since the
heretical parts will be inherently unconvincing. Petrarch would expect the
reader to take away from Lucretius only true ideas and the beautiful language, useful for promoting Christian values. Lucretius himself disagrees,
and by so doing threatens to strengthen opposition to the study of pagan
classics. Lucretiuss is hardly the only classical claim that rhetoric can
strengthen otherwise-unconvincing argumentsCicero and the sophists
treat the question oftenbut discussions of the moral character of a true
orator in Cicero and Quintilian made it easy to place unscrupulous oratorsfor-hire in a separate category. Ficino did this when he argued that Plato
uses rhetorical ornament only to lure men toward Truth (i.e. doctrines compatible with Christianity). The wormwood simile, on the other hand,
implies that not just sophists but philosophers and poets employed decepValentina Prosperi, Di soavi licor gli orli del vaso: la fortuna di Lucrezio dallUmanesimo alla Controriforma, (Turin: N. Aragno, 2004); also Lucretius in the Italian Renaissance, in The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007), 21426. See also Charlotte Goddard, Epicureanism and the Poetry of
Lucretius in the Renaissance, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge,
1991).
55
1.935950.
56
De Ignorantia 22.
57
Rhetoric, Prudence and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1985), 2935.
54
408
................. 18260$
PAGE 408
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:51
PS
tive rhetoric, and, worse, that Lucretiuss imitator Virgil, whose central
position in the humanist curriculum required that he remain unimpeachable, might be similarly deceptive. Lucretiuss wormwood simile is marked
in ten manuscripts.58 Literary elements account for some of the interest,
since a similar image appears in Plato, Horace, and Ausonius,59 but it was
still marked by more readers than any other single poetic image.
In view of the manuscript marginalia, Lucretiuss hopes that the persuasive power of language will perpetuate his work have certainly come
true. At the same time, the notes suggest that the lure of poetry did not
succeed so well in directing scholarly energy into the avenues Lucretius
hoped. Annotation on the systematic, atomist, proto-atheist, and materialist core of Epicureanism remains a miniscule minority throughout the
manuscript period. This pattern holds even for important scholars; Niccolo`
Niccolis notes are exclusively philological,60 and Polizianos almost exclusively so, though he marks some notabilia and vocabulary.61 The Vatican
copy with the notes of Antonio Panormita (13941471), whose Epicurean
interests were sufficient for Valla to cast him as the Epicurean interlocutor
for his De Voluptate (1431/1433), contains corrections, vocabulary, and
notabilia but nothing on philosophy.62 This does not in any sense prove
that these scholars and their many anonymous peers did not examine the
content at all, merely that, during the first contact recorded in this annotation, even someone as engaged with Epicureanism as Panormita poured ten
times as much energy into understanding Lucretiuss language as he did
into understanding his materialist theory. Lucretiuss impact and readers
interest were predominantly literary and moral. Fifty-one percent of our
readers demonstrate interest in Epicurean moral precepts, but forty-six
manuscripts together have among them fewer than a dozen notes on atomism and religion.
I say forty-six because there are six exceptions: Pomponio Letos Neapolitanus and its three derivatives at Oxford, Basel, and Berlin, one Laurentianus with notes associated with Marcello Adriani, and a delicate little
paper volume at the Vatican which contains the entire poem transcribed by
Cambridge Univ. Nn.2.40 f. 14v, Naples Naz. IV E 51 f. 28v, Padua BC C.75, Bodleian,
Can. lat. 32 f. 19r, BAV Ottob. Lat. 2834 f. 17r, BAV Ottob. Lat. 1954 f. 20r, BAV Ross.
lat. 884 17v. On rhetorical ornament in Plato and Origen see James Hankins, Plato in the
Italian Renaissance (New York: Brill, 1991), 1: 33738.
59
Plato, Laws, 2.659, Horace Satires, 1.1.25, Ausonius, Epistles 17.407.2.
60
Laur. 35.30.
61
Laur. 35.29; cf. Reeve (1980), 3940.
62
BAV Vat. Lat. 3276, dated 1442.
58
409
................. 18260$
PAGE 409
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:52
PS
410
................. 18260$
PAGE 410
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:52
PS
411
................. 18260$
PAGE 411
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:53
PS
As for Adrianis colleague and possible pupil Machiavelli, his notes are
even more distinctive.71 His manuscript, likely completed before 1500 and
certainly before 1512,72 has very few poetic notes, no notabilia, and no
corrections because he corrected as he copied, though the debate over his
sources is ongoing.73 His annotation, which is limited, is concentrated in
Book II, in which he adds roughly twenty summary headings, some based
on the medieval ones and some original, pointing out the passages which
explain how an atomistic universe would function.74 Machiavellis are thus
the only annotations in which the question of the validity of atomism as a
physical theory stand out as the primary subject. He left few marks in any
other part of the book, except for a textual variant in the section of book
VI on magnets, and duplicating the common interest in the honey and
wormwood simile.75 Though his note Comp for comparatio is a common
way of marking a beautiful poetic simile, used at this point by several other
annotators, the wormwood passage is particularly Machiavellian in its
assertion that one can do good through careful administration of constructive harm, and in the subtle distinction it draws in saying that the child is
deceived but not betrayed. It is striking too that the only poetic passage
Machiavelli chose to mark was this, whose statement that rhetoric can be
used to trick people into accepting unorthodoxy was so problematic for
those defenders of the classics who liked to claim that the ancients could
never threaten Christianity.
Machiavelli is famous for his radical contributions to moral philosophy, yet the sections on Epicurean moral philosophy, which fifty-nine percent of readers marked, he leaves blank. He is not particularly interested in
the Epicurean views on love, virtue and vice, which are, though radical by
Christian standards, considerably less radical than the consequentialist ethics which Machiavelli is in the process of developing. Yet Machiavelli the
radical moral philosopher is present in these notes in his exceptional interSergio Bertelli Noterelle machiavelliane: un codice di Lucrezio e di Terenzio, Rivista
Storica Italiana 28 (1954): 1020; W. A. Merrill, The Italian Manuscripts of Lucretius,
Philology 9 (Berkeley: 19261929): 347; C. E. Finch, Machiavellis Copy of Lucretius,
The Classical Journal 56 (196061): 2932.
72
Brown (2010), 58.
73
On Machiavellis sources in preparing the manuscript see Brown (2010), Appendix,
11322.
74
Vat. Ross. Lat. 840 ff. 20v32r. Since we retain several sources clearly close to those
used by Machiavelli which contain no comparable marginal labels, I do not find it plausible that these labels are copied from a lost intermediary source; see Brown (2010) 745
and n. 15.
75
ibid. On Magnets 127r128v, on the wormwood simile f. 17v.
71
412
................. 18260$
PAGE 412
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:53
PS
413
................. 18260$
PAGE 413
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:54
PS
ancient world, a disinterested eye might skip anything which seemed confused or wrong, an action which the authors of introductions to sixteenthcentury Lucretius editions overtly encouraged readers to do.78 Those whose
attention did linger on atomist questions formed a tiny, though extremely
important, minority of Lucretiuss readership. If only three annotators out
of more than fifty commented on the poems atomist core, it is not unreasonable to estimate that, for each of the Renaissance radicals historians
have identified who detectibly used core elements of Epicureanism in their
own works, there were twenty more scholars who read Lucretius but
absorbed and used only his orthodox content.
Thus Lucretius was read, repaired and copied by the energies of a comparatively orthodox humanist community largely divorced from the far
smaller radical subsection of humanists who were at the same time interested in the poems core doctrines. The same energies printed him. Thirty
editions of the De Rerum Natura appeared between 1473 and 1600, ranging from three massive commentaries to ten cheap pocket editions.79 The
editors who framed the text for mass-production focus in their paratexts
on the same three goals humanists had long read for: eloquent language,
general information about the ancient world, and moral content. Apologetic biographies, frequently inserted as front matter, generally portray a
Lucretius who is divorced from Epicurus, and sounds as close as possible
to his more palatable Stoic and Neoplatonic peers.80 Thus, throughout the
sixteenth century, paratexts repeated overtly the patterns of interest which
had privately dominated Lucretiuss readers throughout the manuscript
period. In the eyes of book-buyer, teacher and censor, the reasons to read
Lucretius were wholly orthodox. Many moderns would suspect these editors of practicing innocent dissimulation, using these justifications to conceal a more radical agenda, but that interpretation is far from necessary.
These editors presented in their paratexts precisely the motives for reading
Lucretius which did indeed dominate among their peers.
The marginalia in print editions show when those motives changed.
There is not room here to fully examine print marginalia, but my statistical
See, for example, Nicolaus Beraldus letter in Pius annotated edition of 1511, which
calls atoms and vacuum foolish dreams, and recommends the poem for its ability to
inspire virtue (Paris, 1514), f. Aiv.
79
Gordon (1962) provides a list, though the supposed 1596 edition is a ghost; on a possible thirty-first edition see Martin Ferguson Smith and David Butterfield, Not a Ghost:
the 1496 Brescia Edition of Lucretius, Aevum 84 (Milan: 2010), 68393.
80
All eight humanist biographies of Lucretius are printed in Giuseppe Solaro, Lucrezio:
Biografie umanistiche (Bari: Dedalo, 2000).
78
414
................. 18260$
PAGE 414
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:54
PS
415
................. 18260$
PAGE 415
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:54
PS
84
416
................. 18260$
PAGE 416
$CH3
06-29-12 11:40:55
PS