A recent piece in this journal by Morgan and Taylor made the case that C. Memmius is not to be seen as an active prosecutor of Epicureanism but rather as an Epicurean himself, who merely has disagreed with the grimly orthodox Epicurean sect in Athens.Footnote ¹ As such, Memmius’ building intentions for Epicurus’ home could have been to create an honorary monument or possibly even construct a grander locus for pilgrimage and the practice of Epicureanism.Footnote ² This note adds to their findings by considering allusions to De Rerum Natura found in Fam. 13.1 and the implications of Cicero speaking to Memmius in Lucretius’ striking language. Cicero expresses his judgement on De Rerum Natura, famously, at QFr. 2.10.3, Lucreti poemata ut scribis ita sunt, multis luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis. sed cum ueneris, uirum te putabo si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo,Footnote ³ and Memmius, of course, is the addressee of De Rerum Natura. This Lucretian language, unremarked on by previous scholars, points to the shared literary culture of Cicero and Memmius as well as Memmius’ own ability to recollect and contextualize the references.Footnote ⁴ By echoing Lucretius in this letter, Cicero hints at Memmius’ sophistication and learning (Cic. Brut. 247), underscores Lucretius’ own fervent devotion to Epicurus’ strictures, and suggests the need for Memmius to achieve ataraxia, at the very least, in regards to his building plans and the furore it is causing in Athens.

Morgan and Taylor persuasively trace how Cicero's letter presumes that Memmius practises an urbane ‘Roman’ Epicureanism and that Memmius not only is aware of fundamental Epicurean tenets but also would acknowledge and enjoy the more allusive and jocular Epicurean undertones of the letter (for example the mention of uoluptas, sapientia and molestia in the opening lines).Footnote ⁵ Specific references to De Rerum Natura are found throughout the letter,Footnote ⁶ but most clearly at the moment when Cicero writes to Memmius about Patro, the current head of the Epicurean school in Athens (Fam. 13.1.4):

This passage recalls the direct address to Memmius at the opening of the fifth book: dicendum est, deus ille fuit, deus, inclute Memmi, | qui princeps uitae rationem inuenit eam quae | nunc appellatur sapientia (5.8–10). Passages such as deus ille fuit, deus were subsequently drawn upon by Virgil and must have made an impression on Lucretius’ first readers, but Memmius would surely remember this passage as the Epicurean wisdom handed down explicitly to Memmius himself. Patro certainly seems to be living according to the strictures espoused by Epicurus, as the echo of Lucretian language would indicate (uitam rationemque ~ uitae rationem). This obvious recollection, taken from a direct address to Memmius, signposts the larger intertext to Lucretius’ work in this section. While Cicero's use of uestigia indicates the ruined walls of Epicurus’ home,Footnote ⁷ it is marked in Lucretius as a metaphor for the learning process that Memmius must pursue (1.398–417),Footnote ⁸ and it also appears famously when Lucretius describes his devotion for Epicurus in the programmatic statement opening Book 3: te sequor, O Graiae gentis, decus, inque tuis nunc | ficta pedum pono pressis uestigia signis (3.3–4). Lucretius follows Epicurus and places his own uestigia in the footprints of the master, keeping his distance while imitating his life and pursuing his philosophy. While the metaphor of the trace, uestigium, is important in De Rerum Natura as a whole, Cicero is here applying it in a novel manner to Memmius’ material situation and to the remains of the house, which Patro asserts must be protected.Footnote ⁹ Cicero alludes to Lucretian passages which mention Memmius by name or are programmatic for De Rerum Natura as a whole, and these would have been recognized by an astute reader, especially Memmius himself.Footnote ¹⁰ Cicero uses this language to describe Patro's devotion to Epicurus and his philosophical expression of Epicureanism, which may be laughable (derideamus) to Memmius and Cicero, but was also prominently espoused by Lucretius. The allusion to Lucretius would hammer home one strand of devout Epicureanism, which Memmius should take into consideration when contemplating his plans for Epicurus’ home.Footnote ¹¹

There may be a subtle jab at Lucretius’ own fervour and a sense that it is over the top for this period, or particularly out of step with the more cultured devotion of other Roman Epicureans. This depiction can be contrasted with Atticus’ manner of Epicureanism, and here too Cicero finds a way to incorporate a Lucretian allusion. Atticus’ learning separates him from the Epicurean gens in Athens, est enim omni liberali doctrina politissimus (Fam. 13.1.5). This sort of erudition and education makes Atticus Cicero's ideal friend and practitioner of Epicurean humanism (homo minime ambitiosus, minime in rogando molestus), but it also activates an intertext with Lucretius who describes the inherent qualities (fear, laxity, anger) hidden in the hearts of men: quamuis doctrina politos | constituat pariter quosdam, tamen illa relinquit | naturae cuiusque animi uestigia prima (3.307–9).Footnote ¹² The superlative (politissimus) and his passion for the liberal arts (including, I would imagine, reading Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura) would make Atticus an especially strong example of Roman Epicureanism, yet it also draws an active distinction between his way of living and the way of living of the Greek Epicureans. That being said, Atticus has come to understand and even appreciate the Epicureans of Athens (ualde diligit Patronem, ualde Phaedrum amauit, 13.1.5), an exemplum that the learned Memmius may want to follow.

What, then, do these Lucretian echoes add to Cicero's letter and to our understanding of his epistolary communication with Memmius? Cicero can assume that Memmius is familiar with Lucretius’ work (as is Atticus, who also was provided a copy of this letter; cf. Att. 5.11.6) and that Lucretius’ Epicurean views could be seen as rather fanatical. He clearly thinks, however, that Lucretius’ poetry possesses that special blend of genius and ars which would appeal to his learned readers. These intertextual connections are evoked not only to flatter the erudition of his reader (Memmius, Atticus) and to point to a worthy contemporary poetic expression of Epicureanism. In making them, Cicero expects Memmius to be aware of De Rerum Natura as a whole—its motifs, teachings, themes and diction—and to recognize how Lucretius’ work speaks to the matters at hand: namely the devotion of Patro, the polish of Atticus, and the remains of Epicurus’ home. While Lucretius, in his zeal, may be considered to be a devotee somewhat like Patro, whose type of Epicureanism might be difficult for Memmius to swallow, Cicero evokes his language to indicate how these honeyed words might make their position more palatable (Lucr. 1.931–50, 4.8–25). Cicero speaks to Memmius in the words of one of his formative Epicurean predecessors, Lucretius, to hint at the proper perspective he should have on this frustrating situation. These intertexts suggest that Memmius should acquiesce to the demands of the Athenian Epicureans, for the sake of his own ataraxia and in deference to Lucretius’ view of Epicurus, even if their ‘centralized authoritarian strictures’ are at odds with his own personal expression of Epicureanism.Footnote ¹³