De Rerum Natura
Lucretius
Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. William Ellery Leonard. E. P. Dutton. 1916.
- Again, if bounds have not been set against
- The breaking down of this corporeal world,
- Yet must all bodies of whatever things
- Have still endured from everlasting time
- Unto this present, as not yet assailed
- By shocks of peril. But because the same
- Are, to thy thinking, of a nature frail,
- It ill accords that thus they could remain
- (As thus they do) through everlasting time,
- Vexed through the ages (as indeed they are)
- By the innumerable blows of chance.
- So in our programme of creation, mark
- How 'tis that, though the bodies of all stuff
- Are solid to the core, we yet explain
- The ways whereby some things are fashioned soft-
- Air, water, earth, and fiery exhalations-
- And by what force they function and go on:
- The fact is founded in the void of things.
- But if the primal germs themselves be soft,
- Reason cannot be brought to bear to show
- The ways whereby may be created these
- Great crags of basalt and the during iron;
- For their whole nature will profoundly lack
- The first foundations of a solid frame.
- But powerful in old simplicity,
- Abide the solid, the primeval germs;
- And by their combinations more condensed,
- All objects can be tightly knit and bound
- And made to show unconquerable strength.
- Again, since all things kind by kind obtain
- Fixed bounds of growing and conserving life;
- Since Nature hath inviolably decreed
- What each can do, what each can never do;
- Since naught is changed, but all things so abide
- That ever the variegated birds reveal
- The spots or stripes peculiar to their kind,
- Spring after spring: thus surely all that is
- Must be composed of matter immutable.
- For if the primal germs in any wise
- Were open to conquest and to change, 'twould be
- Uncertain also what could come to birth
- And what could not, and by what law to each
- Its scope prescribed, its boundary stone that clings
- So deep in Time. Nor could the generations
- Kind after kind so often reproduce
- The nature, habits, motions, ways of life,
- Of their progenitors.
- And then again,
- Since there is ever an extreme bounding point
- . . . . . .
- Of that first body which our senses now
- Cannot perceive: That bounding point indeed
- Exists without all parts, a minimum
- Of nature, nor was e'er a thing apart,
- As of itself,- nor shall hereafter be,
- Since 'tis itself still parcel of another,
- A first and single part, whence other parts
- And others similar in order lie
- In a packed phalanx, filling to the full
- The nature of first body: being thus
- Not self-existent, they must cleave to that
- From which in nowise they can sundered be.
- So primal germs have solid singleness,
- Which tightly packed and closely joined cohere
- By virtue of their minim particles-
- No compound by mere union of the same;
- But strong in their eternal singleness,
- Nature, reserving them as seeds for things,
- Permitteth naught of rupture or decrease.
- Moreover, were there not a minimum,
- The smallest bodies would have infinites,
- Since then a half-of-half could still be halved,
- With limitless division less and less.
- Then what the difference 'twixt the sum and least?
- None: for however infinite the sum,
- Yet even the smallest would consist the same
- Of infinite parts. But since true reason here
- Protests, denying that the mind can think it,
- Convinced thou must confess such things there are
- As have no parts, the minimums of nature.
- And since these are, likewise confess thou must
- That primal bodies are solid and eterne.
- Again, if Nature, creatress of all things,
- Were wont to force all things to be resolved
- Unto least parts, then would she not avail
- To reproduce from out them anything;
- Because whate'er is not endowed with parts
- Cannot possess those properties required
- Of generative stuff- divers connections,
- Weights, blows, encounters, motions, whereby things
- Forevermore have being and go on.