CHAPTER THREE LUCRETIUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE John L. Penwill The most disturbing problem of all is our failure, our refusal to even rec- ognize that the pursuit of affl uence and growth is a terrible mistake.1 Composed in a time of major political upheaval, in which the Roman res publica had effectively come under the control of the gang of three that we have come to know as the fi rst triumvirate, Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura presents an account of the world and humanity’s place within it that is totally at variance with the values of those in power and their agents and supporters. That in itself is enough to brand it as a political text.2 Add the fact that it is addressed to one of the prominent players in the contemporary political game (C. Memmius: tribune 66, praetor 58, would-be consul 53),3 the fact that it deliberately takes issue with one of 1 Ted Trainer, ‘Ockham’s Razor’, ABC Radio National, 27 November 2005. 2 The four relatively recent works that examine the ways in which the De Rerum Natura engages with the political situation of its time are Grimal (1978) 233–70; Minyard (1985); Fowler (1989) 120–50; and Cole (1998) 3–15. Of these, Minyard is the most wide-ranging; as its sub-title implies, it seeks to locate the poem in a context wider than the political, although the focus is very much on political ideas and, in Caesar’s case, action. Minyard sees the poem as offering a radical redefi nition of the values enshrined in the mos maiorum; it is part of what he terms “the intellectual crisis of the Late Republic” (35), the recognition that “the inherited system was corrupt and mean- ingless” (22). Catullus and Caesar are also engaged in this process of redefi nition, but in very different ways. Grimal likewise seeks to place Lucretius in a wider context; on the political side he would have Lucretius alluding to the fears engendered in Rome by the defeat of Crassus at Carrhae and the revolts of Ambiorix and others in Gaul in 53. Fowler discusses ways in which Lucretius alludes to contemporary Roman politics in somewhat general terms, focusing particularly on the pursuit of offi ce via the cursus honorum. In this context he adduces Lucretius’ allegorization of the Sisyphus myth at 3.995–1002, which he claims as the poem’s “most direct reference to contemporary political life” (140). Nowhere is any of the triumvirs mentioned. Cole also argues alle- gorically, suggesting that Venus and Mars in the prologue stand for Julia and Pompey, Julia as descendant (via her father) of Venus and Pompey as the Roman Mars. Nichols (1976), despite its title and its acknowledgement of the importance of the Memmius address at 1.41–5, has virtually nothing specifi c to say about Lucretius’ relation to the contemporary political scene and so does not really merit inclusion in this list. The godfather of these studies is of course Farrington (1939) 172–216, who concentrates on the issue of religio as a means of social control. 3 The most detailed account of Memmius’ career is Münzer (1931) 609–19. That this is the Memmius to whom Lucretius’ poem is addressed is almost universally accepted. 64 john l. penwill the leading conservative political theorists of the day,4 and the fact that embedded within this text are clearly discernible allusions to the ways in which the triumvirs promoted their image to the Roman populace, and we see that its engagement with the politics of its time is not just deep but fundamental. Its espousal and advocacy of Epicureanism is not as many have seen it an impassioned statement of personal belief,5 but a carefully crafted work of art that sets up an ideology antitheti- cal to that of the heroic value system of Homer and his self-professed acolyte, Ennius,6 which in Lucretius’ world manifested itself in the “great man” view of history and the doctrine of ever-expanding impe- rium. Well before the establishment of what we know as the principate, Rome was already imperial, and there was no shortage of individuals vying for recognition as princeps, “number one man”. The poets of the 50s, Lucretius and Catullus, both have plenty to say about and to such people and about the way things are in such a world. That Lucretius is to be regarded as a poet of the 50s I take as axiomatic.7 It seems to me that Memmius’ trial and conviction for bribery in late 54 has to be the terminus ante quem for the completion of the poem as we have it; while Lucretius may be consciously ironic in his choice of addressee (picking one whose observed behavior is quite antithetical to the lifestyle the poem appears to be advocating), it is highly improbable that he would be attributing that quintessentially political undertaking to “be there for the common good” (nec . communi desse saluti, 1.42–3) to someone whose political ambition was already dead in the water.8 Cicero’s letter to his brother Quintus of February 54, in which he speaks of them both having read Lucreti poemata (Cic. 4 For the relationship between the DRN and Cicero’s De Re Publica, see Penwill (1995) 68–91. 5 See, e.g., Kenney (1971) 1; Smith (1982) xlv. 6 On Ennius and Homer cf. Dominik (1993) 37–58, esp. 38–44. 7 Needless to say, I am not convinced by the argument of Hutchinson (2001) 150–62 (following Canfora [1993]) that the DRN was a product of the early 40s (specifi cally the period between March 49 and August 48). I do not have space to engage in a detailed refutation here; suffi ce it to say that one of Hutchinson’s chief points, that the phrase patriai tempore iniquo (“the troubled time of our fatherland,” 1.41) could only refer to the situation after the outbreak of civil war rather than before it, lacks conviction; there were many events in Roman political life of the early to mid-50s which might occa- sion such a description (see, e.g., the comment of Cicero on the violence employed by Pompey and Crassus to “dissuade” Domitius from standing in the consular elections of 56 [Att. 4.8b.2]). It also creates major problems with Lucretius’ use of Memmius as addressee, which require some creative biographical speculation to overcome. 8 Hence I cannot accept Grimal’s thesis either ([1978] 234–46); 53 is too late..