BMCR 2008.12.41, David R. Slavitt, Lucretius. De rerum natura

David R. Slavitt (trans.), Lucretius. De rerum natura = The Nature of
Things: A Poetic Translation. The Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical
Literature.  Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2008.  Pp. xiv,
301.  ISBN 9780520255937.  $14.95 (pb).

Reviewed by Lee Fratantuono, Ohio Wesleyan University ([email protected])
Word count:  2749 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-12-41.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/12/20081241.html
-------------------------------

The Slavitt Lucretius (emphasis mine) follows on the heels of A.E.
Stallings's recent Penguin Lucretius as another choice for Latin-less
anglophone readers of the enigmatic Epicurean.[[1]] Unlike Stallings's
admirable Penguin, Slavitt's translation cannot be recommended for any
would-be reader of the De Rerum Natura, except those interested in a
tedious lesson on how not to render Latin verse into English.

Slavitt does not disclose the Latin text he purports to translate. He
mentions Bailey's magisterial edition of 1947 (actually revised in
1949) and no other, so I presume throughout this review that he used
Bailey's 1947/1949 text (itself significantly revised from his Roaring
Twenties (second edition) OCT.[[2]] The translation is not complete;
Slavitt notes that he has omitted some ten percent of the text where he
feels Lucretius is "repetitive" in his examples (nowhere does he alert
the reader to where he is making cuts, and only once does he explicitly
note a probable lacuna in the original--often ellipses are misleadingly
used). As if this were not sufficient to raise eyebrows among those who
want to read something as closely approximating Lucretius' original as
possible, Slavitt further reveals that not only was it a matter of
removing "repetitive" examples, but also sparing the presumably fragile
ego of the long dead Lucretius by eliminating repetitive examples that
are "embarrassing" in the light of "modern science". In point of fact,
much of what Slavitt omits seems inexplicable, and rarely something at
which modern science might scoff.

Lucretius is a difficult poet, and any translator of the De Rerum
Natura needs to provide something in the way of introduction to the
challenges that await the neophyte reader. Slavitt offers two
paragraphs, including an excerpt from the close of Bailey's Lucretius
article in the 1949 OCD (the only work of scholarship that is cited;
Slavitt provides no bibliography). From Slavitt we learn that
"[Lucretius'] belief is that pleasure is the object of life." We learn
that Memmius, the alleged "embodiment of all evil" for Catullus, was
governor of "Bythnia."

Slavitt expresses the fear that someone might use Bailey's prose
translation ("and others by other translators") without having the
Latin at hand, something he concludes "contorts and betrays the
encounter." Are we to assume Slavitt intends his Lucretius to be read
only by those who have the Latin at hand and can read it with
proficiency? In what remains of a muddled foreword, Slavitt announces
that he is an impersonator of Lucretius, a director "making a few cuts
here and there for dramatic purposes." Slavitt declares that he intends
to "restore" the "poetry" to Lucretius, repeatedly aiming his barbs at
prose translations (really only one, Bailey's, since he mentions not a
single other translator of Lucretius anywhere in his book). No
indication is given of how his version might be better than Stallings'
Penguin, or the Oxford verse translation of Melville, another
formidable competitor Slavitt does not equal.[[3]] It does not seem to
have occurred to Slavitt that someone taking his implicit advice to
have the Latin at hand might profitably use Bailey's text and
translation or the quite serviceable Loeb.[[4]]

I sample only some of the numerous problems. In general, the greatest
deficiency in the translation (besides its omissions) is failure to
capture Lucretius' style: archaism and indeed repetition are part of
what makes Lucretius Lucretius (and not Slavitt).

I, 21) "I seek, therefore, your blessing and help in writing these
verses" (te sociam studeo scribendis versibus esse). Lucretius would
not approve of making his divine ally into a giver of blessing.

23) Lucretius does not call (the son of) Memmius (Slavitt does not like
patronymics) his "friend," a misleading term to use in the Roman
patron-client relationship.

47-51) Lucretius tried to make clear what Slavitt seriously muddles by
not providing an accurate distinction between materiem, genitalia
corpora, semina rerum, and corpora prima. Slavitt's capitalization of
Matter is deeply misguided, especially before he (correctly)
capitalizes the Nature (59) he did not capitalize previously (e.g.,
49).

119 ff.) Slavitt's mistranslation has Lucretius imply that he will go
beyond what the Greeks discovered.

124-125) Slavitt is often unnecessarily obscure where Lucretius is not;
here the translation could give the impression that Lucretius is
speculating on whether or not he will enjoy being friends with Memmius.

138) We are not "obliged to look further" past the first of Lucretius'
principles to find another foundation for the argument.

145) "Meadowlands" and "deserts" for culta and deserta rather misses
the point.

154-155) Slavitt has "It cannot happen that things can arise and be
begotten from anything else" for atque hac re nequeunt ex omnibus omnia
gigni. And yet it happens every day.

185) Slavitt introduces a misleading duality of "flesh" and "matter"
foreign to Lucretius.

232-233) There are no children playing in the streets or birds raising
chicks in Lucretius
259) "Gently purling brooks" is a lovely phrase of which Slavitt is
fond (cf. II, 31), but not an accurate translation here.

297) Our sight is not "crude" but rather begrudges us the chance to
perceive the atoms. Slavitt warned us he would omit repetitive examples
from Lucretius' text; he does not note that he also adds examples: the
plant of 299 ff. is his invention.
320) Slavitt neglects to translate Lucretius' important point that
without void there could be no birth, let alone movement.

391-392) Another mistranslated un-Lucretian statement: "Whatever there
is must possess physical properties our senses can report." What about
the void, which has just been discussed?

451 ff.) Slavitt omits the important point that there must be solid
first bodies (i.e., atoms) without void.

468) Lucretius' "penetrating fire" penetralem ignem is stronger than
Slavitt's "heat."

485) Slavitt twice omits mention of the concept of fixed seasons for
growth.

498) Not "matter," but (literally) the "most solid bodies of matter,"
i.e., the atoms. So again at 506 Slavitt gives the false impression
that Lucretius is talking about two things (solids and single atoms).

522) Slavitt paraphrases rather than translates the Latin, thereby
missing the important concept of the "boundary stone" (terminus).

567) Slavitt omits translating Lucretius' reference to Heraclitus'
obscure language, and gives the impression that Lucretius is accusing
all Greeks of "silliness."

752) Lucretius does not express the hope that the "meanings" of his
words "are clear." Likewise Lucretius' atoms do not merely copy what
letters do, but do more than the elements of words.

837 ff. In Lucretius the atoms laugh, which is more clever than having
the hapless reader laugh.

893) "And the flight of the weapon can never escape into even more
distant space." Slavitt gives us the opposite of what Lucretius
actually argues.

II, 7 ff. Slavitt unnecessarily introduces the concept of
"philosophical battles," while failing to translate the crucial nil
dulcius. Similarly at 18 Slavitt omits translating nil aliud.

23-24) Latin epulis does not = "grand salons," and Lucretius' language
is not recherche/ enough to warrant "gewgaws" and "garnitures."

52) As elsewhere, the important mention of species with ratio is
conflated.

72) "Different and yet the same" is not in the Latin and decidely
un-Lucretian. At 77 "inertia" (also not in the Latin) adds needless
complications for the scientifically educated reader (as does 334
"photons"). Nor does the Latin restrict atomic clashes to encounters
between two bodies only.

174 ff. Slavitt leaves the beams and rafters out of the water, which
leads to the rather amusing image of people trying to push down water
itself.

188 ff. Slavitt removes Lucretius' first person introduction to the
clinamen atomorum, becomes perhaps the first person in English poetry
to define the swerve as the atoms' "wiggle," and omits the key detail
that the "wiggle" occurs at undetermined times and locations.

274) There is no "veranda" in Lucretius to make sheep-gazing a more
comfortable prospect, nor a "pastoral mural."

315) Petulci does not = "wobbly."

342) Lucretius' centaury is wild, not red. His saffron is from Cilicia,
not Corcyra (416), though in any case Slavitt should prefer Corfu to
Corcyra since elsewhere he makes Acragas Agrigento. We find Etna but
also Aetna.

468 ff. Slavitt omits the specific mention of India/ivory and
Lucretius' description of how the elephants keep its interior
inaccessible.

525) Lucretius does not use the name Cybele, and Slavitt misses the
point that grain first appeared in Phrygia. In Lucretius the crowds are
ungrateful and "unfilial" (Bailey); in Lucretius coins are not softer
than roses.

592) Some words do have the same letters (but in different
arrangements). Slavitt regularly mistranslates or confuses Lucretius'
non quo constructions.

624) There is pleasure in Lucretius, but no pain. Slavitt omits some of
Lucretius' discourse on the colorless nature of the atoms. A note would
be helpful to assist the reader with the highly condensed section on
the (non-possibility of) white crows and black swans, one of the more
challenging passages in Book II.

III, 9) In Lucretius the followers of Epicurus are the bees, not E.
himself.

23 ff.) Lucretius says that there are no realms of Acheron; he does not
say that the gods think Acheron an "unlikely story" or that the gods
look down on earth.

81) Slavitt omits Lucretius' mention of suicide.

84 ff. Slavitt omits mention of the Greeks and inserts the misleading
concept of the "aura."

122) Lucretius does not say that the mind "alone is the locus of
sense."

275) Slavitt omits translating Lucretius' important point that he
cannot set forth the secret causes for the differences in temperament.
"There must be a physical basis for these differences in behavior" is
not in the Latin.

311) At death the body loses the soul that was "not its own," rather
than "an essential part of itself."

695) An odd misreading of III, 793: Lucretius' point is that even in
such bizarre circumstances as the mind arising in the foot, at least it
would still appear in the same man.

771) Lucretius does not say that the Hyrcanians (or anyone else) feed
people to wild beasts.

801) Lucretius does not say that the dead have a better lot than the
living.

805) The unwary reader might be led to believe that the phrase tempus
fugit originated with Lucretius

808) There are no canape/s or bowls of fruit in Lucretius

821) The Danaids are not mentioned in Lucretius, and Slavitt gets the
sense reversed.

900) Lucretius does not mention Homer here or the death of Patroclus.

IV, 1ff. The breathless imagery Slavitt introduces is not in Lucretius,
but there is a spring of venerable poetic history Slavitt omits.

90 ff. Slavitt does not note a lacuna of probably considerable extent;
Slavitt mistranslates Lucretius' IV, 127-128.

329) The distance is great between the sun and the mountain, not the
mountain and us.

370) There is no dreaming eloquent orator in Lucretius.

418) "Sigodlin" is rather pompous for obstipa, even if the word is
rare.

476) Lucretius does not compare echoes to "trained falcons."

480-481) Pan and his entourage do not have "fairy pipes" and "violins,"
but Pan does have a piny covering for his head.

627) The mind is not itself said to be delicate, but rather the idols.

819) Lucretius mentions the starting gate, not the finish line. Slavitt
also omits Lucretius' point that the zeal one brings to an activity
excites dreams (IV, 984).

852) Lucretius' account of nocturnal emissions is very much in the high
style; Slavitt's "sweetest tits" gives exactly the wrong impression
(and there are no breasts in Lucretius).

872) Lucretius' boy has girlish limbs, not a pout.

878) Lucretius speaks of "chilly care" (frigida cura), not madness.

883) "Shoot your wad elsewhere" is un-Lucretian and fails to catch the
elevated style.

966) Lucretius' vocabulary to describe terms of endearment for less
than desirable women deserves less bland adjectives; Slavitt's one
attempt to match Lucretius' descriptions, "humongous Winnebagoes," is
questionable for tumida ... mammosa.

989) The "reek" is not necessarily "floral."

1009-1011) "thrust against the penis of the mounting..." is perhaps
borrowed from Smith's revision of Rouse's Loeb, where it is no better a
translation of Lucretius' coyly subtle Latin. Lucretius' subare
deserves a better translation to convey its porcine connotations.

1076-1077) "Blow jobs or taking it up the ass" are not in Lucretius

V, 9) Not "close to a god" but a "god, a god" was Epicurus (and cf. 26
and 51 for the same problem).

20) Lucretius does not mention the Germans.

41) Lucretius does not joke about the eastern home of the Hesperides
because he knew they were in the west.

53) Slavitt seems determined to avoid translating or mistranslate what
Lucretius says about Epicurus and the gods.

59-60) Lucretius says nothing about time.

79 ff. Lucretius' point is that the progress of the sun does impact the
growth of crops, but the sun does not know that.

104) Lucretius says that perhaps only actual earthquakes will cause
belief in his doctrines.

253-254) The earth is the common tomb for all things, not just human
beings.
355) "Infinite" refers here to space, not bodies.

385) Lucretius does not mention the aetiology of African deserts, nor
does he make explicit reference to the deluge.

458) "Part" should be "parts."

474) Slavitt obscures Lucretius' two explanations for the existence of
air currents.

516 ff. Lucretius notes how a thin body can have great power.

618 ff. Slavitt omits the key mention of the "mid-course" of the winds,
admittedly the main problem in a difficult section that demands notes.
Slavitt omits note of a probable lacuna at 631.

758) Slavitt abbreviates the section on the disappearance of monsters.

845) "For which she would give him a tumble" is another of Slavitt's
frequent sexual colloquialisms that are foreign to Lucretius

862) Slavitt misses Lucretius' vivid image of the living flesh becoming
a living tomb.

885) Slavitt expands the section on the enervating effects of sex but
removes Lucretius' note about children cajoling parents.

919) "Teaching is hard enough when students are eager" is not in the
Latin.
1101) The fences are dogs are for hunting, not guarding cattle.

1139) Slavitt omits Lucretius' mention of scythe chariots. Lucretius'
boars stain the half-weapons left in them with blood, but his fallen
horses do not crush riders.

1219) Lucretius does not say that the invention of music led (perhaps)
to the first hint of happiness.

1236) Lucretius says the enjoyment of modern watchmen in their songs is
no greater than among the ancients, which leads to his discussion of
how the pursuit of novelty goads humans ever forward.

1246) No togas in Lucretius

1280) Slavitt misses the point that we have reached the summit (summum
cacumen) of human evolution.

VI, 39) Some mention of the serious corruption in the text here would
be useful.
79) Lucretius does not mention the Etruscans.

84) Calliope is callida; she is also the muse of epic, not history.
Further, it is C. who is rest for men and delight for gods, not
Lucretius

241) Lucretius does not personify his storm's lightning with "demoniac
glee" or elsewise.

309) Lucretius says that lightning passes harmlessly through some
things, not all, and he does not mention ground strikes.

359) Jupiter does not "keep a book and wait for cloudy weather," but
rides the clouds.

398) The mountains most likely prevent waterspouts from being seen, not
from occurring.

574) Lucretius says the sky is actually smaller in ratio to the whole
universe than a single man is to the world.

630) It is redundant to say that the "etesian" winds blow "every year."

636) The blacks of Ethiopia are not called "tribesmen" in Lucretius
Further, the sea drives the sand, not the Nile.

661) Cecrops did not disobey Athena, but rather his daughters.

671) The deer draws snakes, not insects.

832) Slavitt misses the interesting image of the "breastplate of the
sky" (caeli lorica).

930) Lucretius does not mention borax, which Lucretius probably did not
have in mind.

958) Slavitt omits Lucretius' mention of the Ethiopians.

987) Catervatim does not imply a military metaphor.

1070) "In agony but in no way without honor" is not in the Latin.

Slavitt's volume enters a crowded field where there are praiseworthy
translations of Lucretius in both prose and poetry. There was no need
for yet another English version of the De Rerum Natura, and Slavitt's
attempt to compete with the likes of the venerable Bailey, the reliable
Melville and the often sublime Stallings should serve as an impetus for
those interested in Lucretius to learn Latin, or at least to use a
translation that is more Lucretius and less David Slavitt.


------------------
Notes:


1.   A.E. Stallings, Lucretius: The Nature of Things. London: Penguin
Group Ltd., 2007. On matters metrical relevant to the translation of
classical verse into English, Stallings' "note on the text and
translation" is a model of clarity.

2.   Cyril Bailey, Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, edited
with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation, and Commentary.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947. (As for the two editions of his OCT,
Bailey himself seems not to have been sure when they were published, as
Holford-Strevens and Smith have shown). At 801 ff. Slavitt notes B.'s
solution to a locus desperationis, but omits mention of the probable
lacuna.

3.   Ronald Melville, Lucretius On the Nature of the Universe. Oxford,
1997. Also Anthony M. Esolen, Lucretius On the Nature of Things.
Baltimore, 1995.

4.   M.F. Smith, Lucretius De Rerum Natura (revision of Rouse).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975 (reprinted
with revisions, 1997).