You're right, Cassius , that is a good line!

FYI: I noticed in the Perseus Latin edition, it's line 78-79.

I fully agree with your take on religion vs superstition.

Those translations of various permutations of "we are raised to heaven by victory" or, worse, "His conquest makes us equal to the Gods" bother me. It smacks of the supernatural. Lucretius's "caelo" is just the dative of caelum which is the "the sky, heaven, the heavens, the vault of heaven (in Lucr alone more than 150 times)."

I don't think it can be anything to do with the Gods because the Epicurean gods "reside" in the Intermundia, not the heavens. They are beyond the "vault of the heavens." The "vault of heaven" is just the sphere/bowl that surrounds/covers the Earth that has the stars, planets, etc.

Leonard's translation at Perseus reads:

Wherefore Religion now is under foot,

And us his victory now exalts to heaven.

If you exalt someone to "high heaven" it's just a metaphor for "raising the roof" as it were. Those translation seem to imply a supernatural connotation. I think Lucretius is just saying "Let the bells rings out and the banners fly! Woohoo!! We are victorious! Religion has no power over us!!"

vicissim seems to be just "on that other hand, in turn, etc" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…:entry=vicissim

opteritur appears to be "wear away, to tread upon, etc." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Aentry%3Dtero

I see no terror or fear in those specific lines. That seems to be editorializing. Understandable editorializing, but not in the Latin.

Quote from Cassius

As for the line numbers i will probably go to my grave never being happy with a numbering system. I've taken lately to using the Loeb numbers and I kept all this designated at under line 62 because Loeb doesn't give another line number until 80.

I hear you! And I didn't mean to be pedantic Just in case someone was looking at their own copy and thinking "Hmm, why don't I see that on line 62???"

Cassius , are you certain you have the translation right?

I just received a copy of the Humphries translation in the mail this week, and my version has it;

Quote

Religion, so, is trampled underfoot,

And by his victory we reach the stars.

I remember the audible version vividly enough to know it is the same there. And I would have remembered it anyway, as his is my favored translation of this passage!

nos exaequat victoria caelo.

Exaequat is an interesting verb and had some intriguing connotations.

Perseus parses it as a "verb 3rd sg pres ind act" which would be "it X's"

Nos can be nominative (subject) or accusative (direct object), so we or us. Since the verb is 3rd person singular, it almost has to be "us" here, doesn't it? Wouldn't "we are raised/equal" be "nos exaequamus"?

The verb had the basic definition of "To make even or level or equal with any thing"

So, I'm getting (with my literal rudimentary Latin):

"By (the) victory, it makes us level to/with the sky." ?

Aequo = level, equal

PS:

If my parsing is right, I'm slightly annoyed by translators changing the active to a passive construction. It seems to take the importance or agency away from the victory of trampling religion underfoot. Consider the different feeling of:

It makes us equal...

We are made equal...

The second takes the emphasis away from the trampling; however, should the emphasis be on the trampling (it) or on the beneficiary of the trampling (us)? Maybe it's just poetic license as to what the translator wants to highlight? Does it make a significant difference in interpretation in English?

Quote

Aequo = level, equal

And also "plane" or "plain". In the Hymn to Venus "Aequora Ponti" is usually translated "waves [i.e. surface] of the sea". In English another word for this would be "reach", as a noun. "Sailing over a broad reach", and so forth.

Perhaps "reach the stars" is not so far out of place?

And since Lucretius puts nos first, maybe the emphasis should be on us, accusative or not. My understanding is that the first word is used to denote emphasis.

Quote

As I write this I can't remember if I had a source for that particular version or just mashed them together in a way that seemed logical at the time

I suspect it was this! When I searched for the exact wording of the quote the only two results are this thread and NewEpicurean.

Quote

1. compare

2. equal

3. level, make even/straight

4. reach as high or deep as

Don Latin-Dictionary.net has these four variants under aequo. The poet in me rather likes number 4, for the 'reach' double-entendre I mentioned above.

Edit;

I had a long-suffering English professor in college who I think grew somewhat tired of my etymological leaps (reaches? ); but even he was impressed when he put me on the spot in a close reading of Milton's Paradise Lost, and I was able to furnish a connection extemporaneously between "malice" and "apple" in the scene in the Garden of Eden.

Malus is the Latin word, and still the scientific name for the "malicious" fruit.

Quote from JJElbert

In the Hymn to Venus "Aequora Ponti" is usually translated "waves [i.e. surface] of the sea

That looks to be a separate but related word: aequor http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…Aentry%3Daequor

Quote

Esp., the even surface of the sea in its quiet state, the calm. smooth sea (“aequor mare appellatum, quod aequatum, cum commotum vento non est,” Varr. L. L. 7, § 23 Müll.: quid tam planum videtur quam mare? ex quo etiam aequor illud poëtae vocant, Cic. Ac. Fragm. ap. Non. 65, 2 (cf. πόντου πλάξ, Pind. P. 1, 24).— Also, in gen., the sea, even when agitated by storms, Lucr. 1, 719: “turbantibus aequora ventis,”

Quote

That looks to be a separate but related word: aequor

Aequor would be a noun adapted by metonymy from the adjective aequus, no? And aequo the same word as a verb.

This would be sort of like the word "level" in English:

Noun; "a smooth, even surface"

Verb; "level the playing field"

Adjective; "a level, easy stroll"

Quote from JJElbert

Quote

That looks to be a separate but related word: aequor

Aequor would be a noun adapted by metonymy from the adjective aequus, no? And aequo the same word as a verb.

That's my take. All related but distinct words with their own connotations. Sorry. I love digging in the weeds of language!