I answered Humphries because to me I think it is good combination of literal and poetic sounding, but it depends on the purpose.
For most up to date I would say MFSmith.
For most up to date public domain I would say Bailey.
For most insightful on difficult issues I always like to check Brown.
For perhaps most literal I check Munro.
I answered Melville, but I also like Humphries and Stallings. I tend to prefer the verse versions.
I wish I could downvote Leonard 
Just got into an exchange with Kalosyni this afternoon about a very important passage in Lucretius where Leonard seems to have deviated strongly from the consensus.
Here in the first "nothing from nothing" sequence in Book 1 Leonard translates:
This terror, then, this darkness of the mind,
Not sunrise with its flaring spokes of light,
Nor glittering arrows of morning can disperse,
But only Nature's aspect and her law,
Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.
While virtually every other translator makes notse that it's not just "nothing from nothing ever yet was born, but that:
Munro: [146] This terror then and darkness of mind must be dispelled not by the rays of the sun and glittering shafts of day, but by the aspect and the law of nature; the warp of whose design we shall begin with this first principle, nothing is ever gotten out of nothing by divine power.
Martin Ferguson Smith: This terrifying darkness that enshrouds the mind must be dispelled not by the sun’s rays and the dazzling darts of day, but by study of the superficial aspect and underlying principle of nature.22
The first stage of this study will have this rule as its basis: nothing ever \[150\] springs miraculously out of nothing.
Brown: [146] These terrors of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun’s beams, nor the bright rays of day, can ever dispel, but Nature’s light and reason, whose first of principles shall be my guide: Nothing was by the Gods of nothing made.
ETC Most everyone else (I wish i had time to check them all to see if anyone else does this but I don't) makes some reference to by the gods or divinely, because the Latin is:
Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet,
nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam. 150
quippe ita formido mortalis continet omnis,
quod multa in terris fieri caeloque tuentur,
quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre
possunt ac fieri divino numine rentur.
I mean, I know the general rule is that nothing comes from nothing FOR ANY REASON, and that in fact that's the way that Epicurus says it in Herodotus (if I recall correctly) -- no direct linking to "the will of the gods." But Lucretius here is in the middle of a long argument against divine supernatural influence, so it should have been left in by Leonard here IMHO.
If someone can show me that I am libeling Leonard without justification, I will gladly withdraw this comment. But for the time being I can't resist the suspicion that Leonard is not to be trusted on key passages -- and yet his version is almost everywhere on the internet!
Don, especially given your interest in the translation details -- am I missing something here in Leonard vs the others? And Leonard is the one Perseus uses too, if I recall correctly.
Cassius most importantly that the whole thing began with the Humphries translation. As I was listening to an audio recording of Humphries translation book 1 today, I was shocked by it when it seemed to say: by the will of God, nothing comes from nothing. (book 1 passage 146)
Also starting in passage 102, it says "we do not know the nature of the soul" implying skeptism. The "we" is totally incorrect because it is talking about the misleading nature of others. And I see in other translations it uses "they".
I don't have a printed copy available to show the actual words of those two passages. Does anyone have that?
My current advice is to not trust Humphries translation.
Ha well I have to slightly disagree with your analysis of Humphrey on that point, but I am glad you said this because it points out how hard it is to be precise. On this point I think Humphreys (and Charlton Griffin, in the way he read it, probably got it right. The problem is that the issue is new to us and the way it reads it isn't immediately clear where the "at the will of the gods" fits in. I think you're interpreting it as meaning that the gods ordered that nothing come from nothing. I don't think it really comes out that way when you hear it a few times. Let me get the audio and let's check. -- Will Update....
I wish I could downvote Leonard
LOL! I hear you. His language is stilted and Victorian at best.
Don, especially given your interest in the translation details -- am I missing something here in Leonard vs the others? And Leonard is the one Perseus uses too, if I recall correctly.
Correct. Perseus uses Leonard:
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK I, line 1
Should you be looking a little further down for that Latin to correspond?
Fear holds dominion over mortality
Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.
Also starting in passage 102, it says "we do not know the nature of the soul" implying skeptism. The "we" is totally incorrect because it is talking about the misleading nature of others. And I see in other translations it uses "they".
I agree with Kalosyni that the difference between "we" and "they" is significant!
ignoratur enim quae sit natura animai, (1.112)
ignoratur is verb 3rd sg pres ind pass, i.e., 3rd person singular would be "he" (or "they" if used in the singular sense) not "we" (1st person plural).
If Humphries is using "we"... that's an issue.
I'm partial to Stallings primarily since that's the first translation I read front to back 
Humphries:
"Our starting-point shall be this principle:
Nothing at all is never born from nothing
By the gods' will. Ah, but men's minds are frightened
Because they see, on earth and in the heaven,
Many events whose causes are to them
Impossible to fix; so, they suppose,
The gods'will is the reason. As for us,
Once we have seen that Nothing comes from nothing,
We shall perceive with greater clarity
What we are looking for, whence each thing comes,
How things are caused, and no "gods' will" about it.
Let's see if this works. Here's the section. Someone who is unfamiliar with the material might well be confused, but when you know what to expect his point to be, it probably makes sense. He's not saying that "the gods ordered that nothing be created from nothing. He's saying "Nothing is ever created from nothing by the gods will (with the implication of... or by any other means either.) What do you guys think? Kalosyni's reaction is very very understandable, and this just reminds me of how important it is to educate new readers to the subtleties or else they will tend to interpret things in our modern paradigm rather than from the Epicurean perspective. And it might be especially confusing to hear that if they think that Epicurus was an atheist. Knowing that Epicurus was NOT an atheist, it's easy to put this in perspective. "The gods" do exist, but neither they nor anybody or anything else creates things from nothing.
Thanks for the new poll, but am I overlooking it or did you leave out the Brown 1783 version? We don't know the translator's name, but I actually consider that one of my favorites due to the rendering of several important passages - one that stands out to me is his use of "events" rather than exclusively "accidents" in describing emergent properties.
Thanks for the new poll, but am I overlooking it or did you leave out the Brown 1783 version? We don't know the translator's name, but I actually consider that one of my favorites due to the rendering of several important passages - one that stands out to me is his use of "events" rather than exclusively "accidents" in describing emergent properties.
I've added him to both.
Humphries does use "we" at line 112 (not 102). That doesn't bother me, though. It's in the midst of describing erroneous views of religion, and leading into the exposition on "nothing comes from nothing", where it's eventually made quite clear that everything is atoms and void.
I initially had some misgivings about Smith's translation using 'miraculously,' since the more literal translation is definitely something like 'by divine hand,' but using 'miraculously' manages to express what is only suggested/entailed in the other translations. As Cassius put it, most translations imply the 'or by any other means.' But 'miraculously' might better capture both a divine and non-divine hand.
What irritates me most about the Leonard passage, actually, is the 'yet.' (Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.) Like, what, but it might start happening soon?
What irritates me most about the Leonard passage, actually, is the 'yet.' (Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.) Like, what, but it might start happening soon?
I can't believe that I missed that! You are right! The "yet" GUTS the whole meaning of the passage, and in fact I would say the whole meaning of the canonics and the philosophy itself! Yes i understand that it's a deep issue as to how many times we have to see the same thing over and over without exception, and when we are justified in claiming that we "know" something, but that question is exactly what Epicurus is wrestling with, and Leonard totally pulls the rug out from under it before Book One is even getting started!
You've managed to multiply my sourness toward Leonard, but this is now a great illustration of one of how to go wrong on one of the biggest issues in the philosophy. Even Bailey - who I distrust too - doesn't go nearly so far!
I have, before, come across the suggestion that repetition found throughout Lucretius' verse lends credence to the proposition that we are only reading a draft of De Rerum Natura and not its author's anticipated final form.
Yes I have seen that stated many times too, but the task of getting a grip on the big picture of what is going on in De Rerum Natura has been such a hurdle for me that in my case I've never had time to absorb these points either.
Thanks for pointing these out because once the haze begins to clear and you see what Lucretius is doing with the poem as a whole, it's much easier to appreciate textual issues like this and think about what they might mean.
Seems to me it's clear that DRN was not left to us in what was intended to be a final form, and that plays into Emily Austin's suggestion about the probably intended ending for Book Six, not to mention how Lucretius he apparently intended to go further into the nature of the Epicurean gods before he got finished. And it calls to mind that mysterious later reference about Cicero "emending" the text.
It seems to me that it is possible that (1) it wasn't finished, but also (2) some of the most controversial material (about the gods) was intentionally deleted by critics, or (3) some combination of the two.
(unless there was a trend ancient poets adopted of heavily employing repetition as a rhetorical technique)
This is what I'm curious about, but totally ignorant. Any thoughts Joshua ?
(unless there was a trend ancient poets adopted of heavily employing repetition as a rhetorical technique
In her translator’s notes, Stallings mentions the repetition:
“Writing in the epic tradition of Homer, Lucretius occasionally repeats phrases, lines and even passages verbatim. Within the constraints of a rhymed translation, this effect was not always possible to replicate, and so I sometimes make use of variation where Lucretius uses repetition.”
Lucretius. The Nature of Things (Penguin Classics) (p. 238). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
So, she seems to think it was a poetic device in the Homerian epic tradition ...
