Lucretius's Of the Nature of Things: Atoms and the Void
This post is an introduction to the Roman poet Lucretius’s De rerum natura, which I feel will help prepare the discussion in my next post, which will present the atomism in Galileo’s Two New Sciences.
If we look for the earliest writings on atomism in ancient Greece, we will not find them. Of the writings of Leucippus (480–420 BCE?) and Democritus (460–370 BCE?), only fragments remain, typically quotes recorded in the writings of other authors, such as Aristotle (384-322 BCE). And the writings of Epicurus (341–270 BCE) are mostly lost as well. So the first complete text from the ancient world vaunting atomism is the De rerum natura (Of the Nature of Things1), a long poem by the Roman Titus Lucretius Carus (99-55 BCE?), which has been translated into English numerous times. I will be quoting below from William Ellery Leonard’s version, first published in 1912.
The poetic approach to the presentation does take some getting used to. In some cases, the flowery language does not help with comprehension. On the other hand, poetry better supports redundancy, and it is possible for Lucretius to repeat the same thing several times, which ultimately helps with the message.
Of course, different translations will give very different impressions. For example, I picked up in the streets of Bogotá a recent Spanish-language translation2 of De rerum natura, and I find the language to be much more direct than in Leonard’s English-language translation. At times I have read these two versions simultaneously.
The De rerum natura is composed of six books. In this post, I will focus on the first book, in which he puts forward his understanding of the composition of the Universe. In each quoted passage below, I have highlighted some lines that I consider to be key.
The first book begins with a proem [preface], in which Lucretius states that all of Nature is ultimately made up of atoms, also called primal bodies or primordial germs:
And for the rest, summon to judgments true, Unbusied ears and singleness of mind Withdrawn from cares; lest these my gifts, arranged For thee with eager service, thou disdain Before thou comprehendest: since for thee I prove the súpreme law of Gods and sky, And the primordial germs of things unfold, Whence Nature all creates, and multiplies And fosters all, and whither she resolves Each in the end when each is overthrown. This ultimate stock we have devised to name Procreant atoms, matter, seeds of things, Or primal bodies, as primal to the world. [pp.5-6, my emphasis]
In the next section, entitled “Substance is Eternal”, he insists that no thing, in its creation, ever arises from nothing. We can consider this statement to be a precursor of the law of conservation of mass.
Nothing from nothing ever yet was born. [p.8, my emphasis]
Else would ye mark, without all toil of ours, Spontaneous generations, fairer forms. Confess then, naught from nothing can become, Since all must have their seeds, wherefrom to grow, Wherefrom to reach the gentle fields of air. [p.10, my emphasis]
In turn, upon its destruction, no thing returns to nothing:
Nothing returns to naught; but all return At their collapse to primal forms of stuff. [p.11, my emphasis]
It follows that the atoms must be invisible to our eyes:
And now, since I have taught that things cannot Be born from nothing, nor the same, when born, To nothing be recalled, doubt not my words, Because our eyes no primal germs perceive; For mark those bodies which, though known to be In this our world, are yet invisible [p.12, my emphasis]
Thus nature ever by unseen bodies works. [p.14, my emphasis]
In the next section, entitled “The Void”, Lucretius insists that the void [vacuum] exists, and that without this void, motion would not be possible. This is a direct rebuttal to Aristotle, who claimed that the void could not exist, as motion therein would be infinitely fast.
But yet creation’s neither crammed nor blocked About by body: there’s in things a void— Which to have known will serve thee many a turn, Nor will not leave thee wandering in doubt, Forever searching in the sum of all, And losing faith in these pronouncements mine. There’s place intangible, a void and room. For were it not, things could in nowise move; Since body’s property to block and check Would work on all and at all times the same. Thus naught could evermore push forth and go, Since naught elsewhere would yield a starting place. But now through oceans, lands, and heights of heaven, By divers causes and in divers modes, Before our eyes we mark how much may move, Which, finding not a void, would fail deprived Of stir and motion; nay, would then have been Nowise begot at all, since matter, then, Had staid at rest, its parts together crammed. Then too, however solid objects seem, They yet are formed of matter mixed with void [p.14, my emphasis]
Which but for voids for bodies to go through 'Tis clear could happen in nowise at all. [p.15, my emphasis]
The void is also necessary to provide space for bodies to come apart and for new bodies to come together. Furthermore, when two bodies are separated, first the void is created, then the air rushes in to fill the void.
Lastly, where after impact two broad bodies Suddenly spring apart, the air must crowd The whole new void between those bodies formed; But air, however it stream with hastening gusts, Can yet not fill the gap at once—for first It makes for one place, ere diffused through ail. And then, if haply any think this comes, When bodies spring apart, because the air Somehow condenses, wander they from truth: For then a void is formed, where none before; And, too, a void is filled which was before. Nor can air be condensed in such a wise; Nor, granting it could, without a void, I hold, It still could not contract upon itself And draw its parts together into one. Wherefore, despite demur and counter-speech, Confess thou must there is a void in things. [p.16, my emphasis]
The title of the next section is self-explanatory: “Nothing exists per se except Atoms and the Void”:
But, now again to weave the tale begun, All nature, then, as self-sustained, consists Of twain of things: of bodies and of void In which they’re set, and where they’re moved around. For common instinct of our race declares That body of itself exists: unless This primal faith, deep-founded, fail us not, Naught will there be whereunto to appeal On things occult when seeking aught to prove By reasonings of mind. Again, without That place and room, which we do call the inane, Nowhere could bodies then be set, nor go Hither or thither at all—as shown before. Besides, there’s naught of which thou canst declare It lives disjoined from body, shut from void— A kind of third in nature. [p.17, my emphasis]
Again, whate’er exists, as of itself, Must either act or suffer action on it, Or else be that wherein things move and be Naught, saving body, acts, is acted on; Naught but the inane can furnish room. And thus, Beside the inane and bodies, is no third Nature amid the number of all things— Remainder none to fall at any time Under our senses, nor be seized and seen By any man through reasonings of mind. [pp.17-18, my emphasis]
The last section of our concern, entitled “Character of the Atoms”, explains that there is void between the atoms of complex bodies:
First since we know a twofold nature exists, Of things, both twain and utterly unlike— Body, and place in which all things go on— Then each must be both for and through itself, And all unmixed: where’er be empty space, There body’s not; and so where body bides, There not at all exists the void inane. Thus primal bodies are solid, without a void. But since there’s void in all begotten things, All solid matter must be round the same; Nor, by true reason canst thou prove aught hides And holds a void within its body, unless Thou grant what holds it be a solid. Know, That which can hold a void of things within Can be naught else than matter in union knit. [p.20, my emphasis]
In conclusion, Lucretius views that Nature is the interplay of body and void.
Again, were naught of empty and inane, The world were then a solid; as, without Some certain bodies to fill the places held, The world that is were but a vacant void. And so, infallibly, alternate-wise Body and void are still distinguishèd, Since nature knows no wholly full nor void. [pp.20-21, my emphasis]
In the next post, I will endeavor to show that some passages of Galileo’s Two New Sciences recall Lucretius’s De rerum natura.
If you wish to donate to support my work, please use the Buy Me a Coffee app.
T. Lucretius Carus. Of the Nature of Things. A Metrical Translation by William Ellery Leonard. Everyman’s Library. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1921.
Lucrecio. De la naturaleza de las cosas. Translated by Abate Marchena. Ediciones Altaya, 1995. First published by Ediciones Cátedra, 1990.
On page 17-18, Lucretius says ‘and thus, beside the inane and bodies, is no third nature amid the number of things’, because ‘nothing exists per se except atoms and the void’, that there can’t be a third thing between matter and the void; but then, on page 20-21, he says that ‘nature knows no wholly full nor void’, as if he is thinking more like Heraclitus, that there is a only this sort of interplay between matter and void.
Perhaps the reason that no writings of Democritus exist, is because Plato vowed to burn any of Democritus’s books that he could find. I guess he did a good job of that.
Looking forward to your next post.