Abstract
The aim of this dissertation is to give an account of how Lucretius understands
environmental decline in his didactic poem, De Rerum Natura (DRN). Written
around the middle of the first century B.C., Lucretius attempts to explain the
nature of things from reality itself (logos) without reference to supernatural beings
(mythos). All things originated from certain primary particles which entered into
various types of combinations. This causes them to ultimately die again.
His didactic aim is to endow his reader with moral teachings, leading to a
tranquillity of mind to face life through an understanding of the nature of things.
The DRN is divided into six books. At the end of his second book (DRN
2.1150-1174) Lucretius comments about a declining environment and the end of
the earth. According to these remarks, the earth is already in a state of depletion.
He refers to the observations of a farmer and a vine stock planter lamenting their
present lack of agricultural success compared to that of their ancestors. They
explain it as divine punishment for moral decline (mythos). Lucretius contradicts
this viewpoint by stating that the decline of the earth is part of natural processes
(logos).
The question is whether this environmental degeneration is totally determined
by the nature of things, or whether human intervention could prevent or even
slow it down.
To answer this problem, a detailed rhetorical analysis of DRN 2.1150-1174 is
done. Firstly, the genre of his work is explored. Then the intratextual context, that
is, how this passage fits in within the broader framework of Lucretius’ atomic
theory, is specified. The extratextual context is also reviewed, that is, how
Lucretius’ viewpoints relate to Greco-Roman writers on the environment
preceding him, as well as his contemporaries (Hesiod, Empedocles, Epicurus,
Cato the Censor, Varro, and Columella). The views of modern writers are also
compared with those of Lucretius (e.g. Hughes [1996], Thommen [2012], Harper
[2017], the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and Plimer [2009]). Finally, the way
vi
in which Lucretius attempts to persuade his readers is specified (pragmatic
analysis).
In engaging his contemporaries and predecessors, Lucretius is adamant that
nature should be explained from itself, and that supernatural beings have no
influence whatsoever on the natural course of events. In this he differs from
Hesiod, Cato the Censor, Varro, and Columella. He is also critical of the Roman
writers because of their view that agriculture is a duty towards the Roman state.
Columella, especially, thought that the environment is divine and everlasting.
Lucretius endorses and develops the ideas of Empedocles and Epicurus in their
understanding that the environment is destined to deteriorate just like a human
being growing old.
This research concludes that Lucretius regards environmental degradation as
unavoidable and irreversible. However, he implicitly encourages human beings to
care for the environment in the following ways: (a) to limit the destruction caused
by war, mining, devastating fires, deforestation, and hunting. (b) to replace
destroyed vegetation by tilling the soil and creating a love for one’s own piece of
land; and (c) to live a simple life by avoiding the evils of greed and ambition. The
overarching philosophy of life that would bring these about, is that of
Epicureanism. It helps one to accept that a decaying world is natural and
inevitable.
In his perspective, Lucretius comes close to modern writers. Plimer argues
that the earth goes through cycles of growth and decline. Ultimately, human
beings are not able to make a difference to a changing climate. The Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists makes much of human responsibility, echoing some of the
ideas of Lucretius. Harper states that the environmental situation of the Roman
Empire was a result of its uncontrolled expansion. In this, he echoes Lucretius’
view of the dangers of greed and ambition. Hughes and Thommen attempt to
describe the environmental situation in the Classical Era and draw some lessons
for moderns: conservation of the soil, addressing pollution, and being aware of
the devastation of wars on the environment.
vii
Finally, in order to persuade his readers, Lucretius makes abundant use of
figurative language, and different literary genres like epic, fables and satire. His
most important analogy is that of birth and burial. The earth was not created by
the gods, and is therefore not indestructible; it was born and, like all humans,
destined to die and “go to the grave.”
His most important use of a literary genre comes in Book Two, just before
he discusses the end of the earth. He poignantly interprets the myth of Cybele,
the Great Mother of the gods, the animals, and the creator of our bodies. Her
priests, the Galli, castrated themselves in order to take care of her. Similarly, we
as human beings should take care of the earth in a dedicated way. Those who
don’t do it, are not worthy to have children.