Posts by Cassius

Probably worth restating that these two aren't inconsistent from my personal point of view:

1 - From my point of view, everyone has a right to make up their minds and do whatever they want to do, and I think in general we want maximum freedom of expression and action in the world. I know that I want that for myself, and so I don't think it's a good idea to do anything to deny it to others.

2 - On the other hand, from my point of view as well, every "group project" in life requires some degree of agreement among the members of the group on what he project is and how to attain it. This website is all "I" (our core people) can really speak for, and we have a right and obligation to set out clearly what we're doing so that people who invest their time and effort in it will know the ground rules before they start making that investment -- so that they can count on their investment meaning something as they themselves set out to contribute.

We'll do our best here at the forum to balance both those considerations, but (2) is going to take priority over (1) because we're just one website, one location, and it's easy for alternative views to coalesce elsewhere.

Now having repeated that again about what "WE're" doing, there is still a "philosophical" issue with questions such as Eoghan raised in terms of:

1 - When we say "eclectic" and "eclecticism" what do we really mean? In my view what we're really talking about is a semi-philosophical position that "consistency' is not important or that it is secondary to a particular result. In a sense we all agree, after concluding that pleasure/happiness is the goal, that "whatever works in our case" is actually the right way to look at things. However from the Epicurean viewpoint there are in fact unchanging and unchangeable aspects of the universe that derive from the atoms that we can't change no matter how much we mix and match ideas. It's at that level I think that it's most worthwhile to talk about "eclecticism" as a controversial viewpoint.

2 - That still leaves huge variety of alternative choices in how one lives an Epicurean life, and I think most all of us encourage experimentation and variety, but it's not experimentation or variety for the sake of experimentation or variety, it's calibration of alternatives in the pursuit of pleasure, within boundaries that we agree on such as no supernatural gods and no life after death and the primary role of the senses over abstract propositional logic -- things like that which serve as boundaries that we can all know about and understand through reading Epicurus.

Probably worth restating that these two aren't inconsistent from my personal point of view:

1 - From my point of view, everyone has a right to make up their minds and do whatever they want to do, and I think in general we want maximum freedom of expression and action in the world. I know that I want that for myself, and so I don't think it's a good idea to do anything to deny it to others.

2 - On the other hand, from my point of view as well, every "group project" in life requires some degree of agreement among the members of the group on what he project is and how to attain it. This website is all "I" (our core people) can really speak for, and we have a right and obligation to set out clearly what we're doing so that people who invest their time and effort in it will know the ground rules before they start making that investment -- so that they can count on their investment meaning something as they themselves set out to contribute.

We'll do our best here at the forum to balance both those considerations, but (2) is going to take priority over (1) because we're just one website, one location, and it's easy for alternative views to coalesce elsewhere.

Now having repeated that again about what "WE're" doing, there is still a "philosophical" issue with questions such as Eoghan raised in terms of:

1 - When we say "eclectic" and "eclecticism" what do we really mean? In my view what we're really talking about is a semi-philosophical position that "consistency' is not important or that it is secondary to a particular result. In a sense we all agree, after concluding that pleasure/happiness is the goal, that "whatever works in our case" is actually the right way to look at things. However from the Epicurean viewpoint there are in fact unchanging and unchangeable aspects of the universe that derive from the atoms that we can't change no matter how much we mix and match ideas. It's at that level I think that it's most worthwhile to talk about "eclecticism" as a controversial viewpoint.

2 - That still leaves huge variety of alternative choices in how one lives an Epicurean life, and I think most all of us encourage experimentation and variety, but it's not experimentation or variety for the sake of experimentation or variety, it's calibration of alternatives in the pursuit of pleasure, within boundaries that we agree on such as no supernatural gods and no life after death and the primary role of the senses over abstract propositional logic -- things like that which serve as boundaries that we can all know about and understand through reading Epicurus.

Great thread starter Eoghan!

One aspect of this that should be said is that according to our forum rules and reason for the forums existence, we're not going to promote a general eclectic approach here as that is inconsistent with our reason for being here.

But having said that, there is a general issue that everyone faces of putting together one's own life from whatever elements are available, and it's great to discuss in general how to go about thinking of the meaning of consistency and when fo deviate from it.

Certainly Epicurus iris himself was a strong deviator from the consensus that existed when he started!

So this issue touches on questions of skepticism and "waiting" and when and how to make course corrections.

Great thread starter Eoghan!

One aspect of this that should be said is that according to our forum rules and reason for the forums existence, we're not going to promote a general eclectic approach here as that is inconsistent with our reason for being here.

But having said that, there is a general issue that everyone faces of putting together one's own life from whatever elements are available, and it's great to discuss in general how to go about thinking of the meaning of consistency and when fo deviate from it.

Certainly Epicurus iris himself was a strong deviator from the consensus that existed when he started!

So this issue touches on questions of skepticism and "waiting" and when and how to make course corrections.

Yes it is worthy of discussion! Would you be willing to do the honor and start the thread?

The forum was down for over an hour this morning due to problems with our hosting provider. As in all cases where we become aware of a problem, we posted an update to cassiusamicus.com. You can also attempt to reach us during down times in the Epicurean Philosophy group on Facebook or our Twitter profile as below. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Log into Facebook

Cassius Amicus@EpicureanFriends (@NewEpicurean) on X

Join us for discussion of Epicurus and Epicurean Philosophy at https://t.co/FpRnOvqn1v. Nothing can be created from nothing! Also https://t.co/7wq76qpu6d

twitter.com

In this episode our podcasters had apparently been away from the intermundia for too long, and so they had to express some doubt -- not about Epicurus, but about what Cicero was arguing in his animality objection.

As discussed in the episode we particularly invite comment on this one to help us unwind some of the subtlety of Cicero's objection to Epicurus' looking to the young for the best mirror of nature and therefore source for the ultimate good.

The citations in post 3 above should help in untangling some of this.

Happy Thanksgiving, and let us know your thoughts!

In the end I think this unwinds quite neatly. Working through it isn't obvious on first glance, but once it begins to dawn how Epicurus is folding *every non-painful experience in life" under the umbrella of pleasure, a lot of clarity begins to dawn on the subject.

Quote from Joshua

When Antony was slain and with him her last hope for her people's freedom and security, she died, a martyr in Chaucer's words, at her own hand.

I've traditionally also held Antony in low repute but I can't remember if it was the Boeri book or another that made the point that Antony himself had some Epicurean characteristics, so maybe the jury should continue to deliberate on Antony as well.

Episode 202 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is Now Available!

Yes, 1 is unlikely, 2 is more likely, and 3 is desirable and sort of where we currently are. (At least we're still online right now!)

Luckily I think the things we need to do under scenario 2 or 3 are about the same.

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

Can't wait to get to the arguments for friendship, my translation says the Wiseman should love friends as himself (paraphrasing) interesting to hear the discussion.

Eoghan I wonder if you are referring to the Torquatus section in Book 1 where we got into the main discussion of friendship.

If so, that was perhaps Episode 109?

Thread

Episode One Hundred Nine - The Epicurean View of Friendship

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Nine of Lucretius Today.

This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself,…

Cassius

February 11, 2022 at 7:45 PM

Something else that will play into this episode is that Cicero introduces Carneades as having a significant position on the relationship of pleasure and virtue.

Carneades' name has been mentioned here on the forum superficially for a long time, because Boris Nikolsky argues that Carneades' division of types of pleasure likely influenced Cicero's argument. We don't get into it too far here, but Cicero mentions that Carneades opposed the Stoics. Here Cicero seems to say that Carneades argued in favor of a dual good of both pleasure and virtue, but when you read the Wikipedia article and see how much of a skeptic Carneades was, it seems unlikely that he ultimately took a position on anything. If we can presume that Cicero was taking cues from Carneades, and it seems so after comparing this Wikipedia article to what Cicero says his own position is, then this is additional reason to go back and pick up Nikolsky's commentary on exactly what Cicero might have picked up.

For the moment I will just cite the Wikipedia article but if anyone has any insight into Carneades that might be helpful for us unwinding some of the material in this episode.

Carneades - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Carneades (/kɑːrˈniːədiːz/; Greek: Καρνεάδης, Karneadēs, "of Carnea"; 214/3–129/8 BC[2]) was a Greek philosopher,[3] perhaps the most prominent head of the Skeptical Academy in ancient Greece.[3] He was born in Cyrene.[4] By the year 159 BC,[citation needed] he had begun to attack many previous dogmatic doctrines, especially Stoicism and even the Epicureans,[5] whom previous skeptics had spared.[citation needed]

As scholarch (leader) of the Academy, he was one of three philosophers sent to Rome in 155 BC where his lectures on the uncertainty of justice caused consternation among leading politicians.[6][7][8] He left no writings.[9] Many of his opinions are known only via his successor Clitomachus. [10] He seems to have doubted the ability not just of the senses but of reason too in acquiring truth. His skepticism was, however, moderated by the belief that we can, nevertheless, ascertain probabilities (not in the sense of statistical probability, but in the sense of persuasiveness)[11] of truth, to enable us to act.[12]

Carneades, the son of Epicomus or Philokomus, was born at Cyrene, North Africa in 214/213 BC. He migrated early to Athens. There he attended the lectures of the Stoics, learning their logic from Diogenes of Babylon and studying the works of Chrysippus. He subsequently focused his efforts on refuting the Stoics, attaching himself to the Platonic Academy, which had suffered from the attacks of the Stoics. On the death of Hegesinus of Pergamon, he was chosen scholarch (head) of the Academy. His great eloquence and skill in argument revived the glories of the Academic Skeptics. He asserted nothing (not even that nothing can be asserted), and carried on a vigorous argument against every dogma maintained by other sects.

In the year 155 BC, when he was fifty-eight years old, he was chosen with the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon and the Peripatetic Critolaus to go as ambassadors to Rome to deprecate the fine of 500 talents which had been imposed on the Athenians for the destruction of Oropus. During his stay at Rome, he attracted great notice from his eloquent speeches on philosophical subjects. It was here that, in the presence of Cato the Elder, he delivered his several orations on justice. The first oration was in commendation of the virtue of Roman justice. The next day he delivered the second oration, in which he refuted all the arguments he had made the day before. He persuasively attempted to prove that justice was inevitably problematic, and not a given when it came to virtue, but merely a compact device deemed necessary for the maintenance of a well-ordered society. This oration shocked Cato. Recognizing the potential danger of Carneades' arguments, Cato moved the Roman Senate to send Carneades back to Athens to prevent Roman youth from being exposed to a re-examining of Roman doctrines. Carneades lived twenty-seven years after this at Athens.

Carneades is known as an Academic Skeptic. Academic Skeptics (so called because this was the type of skepticism taught in Plato's Academy in Athens) hold that all knowledge is impossible, except for the knowledge that all other knowledge is impossible.

Carneades left no writings, and all that is known of his lectures is derived from his intimate friend and pupil, Clitomachus; but so true was he to his own principles of withholding assent, that Clitomachus confesses he never could ascertain what his master really thought on any subject.[citation needed] In ethics, which more particularly were the subject of his long and laborious study, he seems to have denied the conformity of the moral ideas with nature. This he particularly insisted on in the second oration on Justice, in which he manifestly wished to convey his own notions on the subject; and he there maintains that ideas of justice are not derived from nature, but that they are purely artificial for purposes of expediency.[citation needed]

All this, however, was nothing but the special application of his general theory, that people did not possess, and never could possess, any criterion of truth.

Carneades argued that, if there were a criterion, it must exist either in reason (logos), or sensation (aisthêsis), or conception (phantasia). But then reason itself depends on conception, and this again on sensation; and we have no means of judging whether our sensations are true or false, whether they correspond to the objects that produce them, or carry wrong impressions to the mind, producing false conceptions and ideas, and leading reason also into error. Therefore, sensation, conception, and reason, are alike disqualified for being the criterion of truth.[citation needed]

But after all, people must live and act, and must have some rule of practical life; therefore, although it is impossible to pronounce anything as absolutely true, we may yet establish probabilities of various degrees. For, although we cannot say that any given conception or sensation is in itself true, yet some sensations appear to us more true than others, and we must be guided by that which seems the most true. Again, sensations are not single, but generally combined with others, which either confirm or contradict them; and the greater this combination the greater is the probability of that being true which the rest combine to confirm; and the case in which the greatest number of conceptions, each in themselves apparently most true, should combine to affirm that which also in itself appears most true, would present to Carneades the highest probability, and his nearest approach to truth.[17]

Quote from Don

Could it be:

Given that bio sounds almost certain! Thanks Don.

Leonteus of Lampsacus - Wikipedia

Leonteus of Lampsacus (Greek: Λεοντεύς) was a pupil of Epicurus early in the 3rd century BCE. He was the husband of Themista, who also attended Epicurus' school.[1] Such was the esteem in which they held Epicurus that they named their son after him.[1]

Leonteus is described by Strabo, as one of "the ablest men in the city" of Lampsacus, along with Idomeneus.[2] Plutarch describes a letter, written by Leonteus, in which Leonteus describes how Democritus was honoured by Epicurus "for having anticipated him in getting hold of correct knowledge," and how Epicurus originally proclaimed himself a "Democritean."[3]

Themista of Lampsacus - Wikipedia

Themista of Lampsacus (Greek: Θεμίστη), the wife of Leonteus, was a student of Epicurus, early in the 3rd century BC.[1] Epicurus' school was unusual in the 3rd century, in that it allowed women to attend, and we also hear of Leontion attending Epicurus' school around the same time. Cicero ridicules Epicurus for writing "countless volumes in praise of Themista," instead of more worthy men such as Miltiades, Themistocles or Epaminondas.[2] Themista and Leonteus named their son Epicurus.[3]

Pompeia Plotina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pompeia PlotinaAugusta

Bust of Plotina, exhibited in the Vatican Museums.

Roman empressTenure98 – 117

BornTejada la Vieja, Hispania
Died121/122
SpouseTrajan
Regnal namePompeia Plotina Augusta

DynastyNerva–Antonine
FatherLucius Pompeius
Pompeia Plotina (died 121/122) was Roman empress from 98 to 117 as the wife of Trajan. She was renowned for her interest in philosophy, and her virtue, dignity and simplicity. She was particularly devoted to the Epicurean philosophical school in Athens, Greece.[1] She is often viewed as having provided Romans with fairer taxation, improved education, assisted the poor, and created tolerance in Roman society.

Early life[edit]

Plotina was raised in Tejada la Vieja (Escacena del Campo) in the province of Hispania. She was possibly born in Nemausus (Nîmes) during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (r. 54–68), however she could have been born in the 70s. She was the daughter of Lucius Pompeius. Another woman from Nemausus named Pompeia L. f. Marullina may have been her relative;[2] historian Christian Settipani proposed that they may have been sisters.[3] Based on her cognomen Plotina her mother may have been named Plotia or similar.[4] In Pompeii an inscription names an Ulpia Plotina,[a] leading to the idea that Pompeia Plotina and Trajan were related. Little is known about Plotina's early life.

Marriage and life as Empress[edit]

Pompeia Plotina coin, celebrating the Fides on the reverse.Trajan married Plotina before he became emperor, and their marriage was happy; they had no known children, probably due to the fact that Trajan himself was primarily interested in males.

Upon entering the imperial palace following Trajan's ascension, Plotina is said to have turned to those watching her and carefully announced, "I enter here the kind of woman I would like to be when I depart."[6] She sought to dispel the memories of the domestic strife that had plagued the reign of Domitian and the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Plotina behaved in the manner of a traditional Roman matron, and she was associated with chaste goddesses such as Vesta (the guardian of Rome's sacred fire) and Minerva (goddess of war and wisdom).[7] In 100, Trajan awarded her with the title of Augusta, but she did not accept the title until 105. Plotina did not appear on coinage until 112.[1]

When the future emperor Hadrian and his sister were 10 or 11 years old, they lost their parents. Trajan and the Roman officer Publius Acilius Attianus became the children's guardians. Hadrian was a first cousin-once-removed to Trajan (Trajan's father and Hadrian's paternal grandmother were siblings). Plotina matched Hadrian with his future wife Vibia Sabina.[8]

Death of Trajan and accession of Hadrian[edit]

In 117, Trajan was on his deathbed at Selinus in Cilicia, where he was said to have written a letter in which he personally adopted Hadrian as successor to the Empire. The letter had been signed by the Empress Plotina, and when it arrived in Rome, it was suspect. Rumour named Attianus and Plotina as lovers—the two were very close to their ward Hadrian and the two had been present at Trajan's death—and they were rumoured to have forged Trajan's will to secure Hadrian's succession.[1][9]

Annelise Freisenbruch dismisses this accusation: "Plotina, the silent spouse of the second century, thus joined Livia, Agrippina the Younger, and Domitia in the gallery of Roman imperial women accused of covering up or conspiring in their husband's deaths." Freisenbruch notes that there are many plausible explanations why Plotina's signature might legitimately be on this declaration: Trajan may have simply been too weak to sign the letter himself. Freisenbruch also notes these kinds of accusations have dogged the spouses of rulers through the centuries.[10]

Along with Attianus and Matidia, the grieving widow Plotina accompanied Trajan's body to Seleucia and his ashes to Rome.[9]

Later years[edit]

While Plotina was a widow, her best-documented act took place. During the year 121, while the emperor Hadrian was inspecting the provinces, Plotina engaged him in a series of letters to discuss who should be the new head of the Epicurean school of philosophy in Athens. She petitioned for a change in the law, so that Popillius Theotimus, the acting head of the school, could become the official head; in response, Hadrian agreed with her argument, and the relevant letters were preserved in a series of inscriptions. Freisenbruch notes, "In stark contrast to her passive anonymity in the literary record, this inscription from Athens recasts Plotina as a highly educated woman, active on behalf of causes close to her heart and with the kind of access to the emperor once enjoyed by Livia."[11]

Plotina died of illness, and was deified. Her ashes joined Trajan's in the base of Trajan's Column. In 123, Hadrian built a basilica in her honor at Nîmes, in Provence.[12]

Demetrius Lacon - Wikipedia

Demetrius Lacon or Demetrius of Laconia (Greek: Δημήτριος; fl. late 2nd century BC) was an Epicurean philosopher, and a disciple of Protarchus.[1] He was an older contemporary of Zeno of Sidon and a teacher of Philodemus. Sextus Empiricus quotes part of a commentary by Demetrius on Epicurus, where Demetrius interprets Epicurus' statement that "time is an accident of accidents."[2]

Papyrus scrolls containing portions of the works of Demetrius were discovered at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. The major works partially preserved are:[3]

Quaestiones convivales (PHerc. 1006)
On the Puzzles of Polyaenus (PHerc. 1083, 1258, 1429, 1642, 1647, 1822)
On Geometry (PHerc. 1061)
On Poems (PHerc. 188, 1014)[4]
two untitled works (PHerc. 1786, 124)
In addition, he is the probable author of the following works:

On the Size of the Sun (PHerc. 1013)
On Fickleness (PHerc. 831)
an untitled work on textual criticism of Epicurus' writings (PHerc. 1012)[5]
an untitled theological work (PHerc. 1055)[6]
an untitled rhetorical work (PHerc. 128)
References[edit]

^ Diogenes Laertius, x. 26; Strabo, xiv. 2. 20
^ Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors, 10.219-27
^ John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, Glenn Stanfield Holland, (2004), Philodemus and the New Testament World, page 10. BRILL.
^ Demetrius Lacon, La poesia: (PHerc. 188 e 1014), ed. Costantina Romeo. Naples 1988.
^ Demetrius Lacon, Aporie testuali ed esegetiche in Epicuro (PHerc. 1012), ed. Enzo Puglia. Naples 1988.
^ Demetrius, Lacon, La forma del Dio: PHerc. 1055, ed. Mariacarolina Santoro. Naples 2000.

There does not appear to be a wikipedia entry on Velleius, and little if anything anywhere else.

Until then, here is the entry for "On The Nature of the Gods" where he appears:

De Natura Deorum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Catius - Wikipedia

Catius (fl. c. 50s–40s BC) was an Epicurean philosopher, identified ethnically as an Insubrian Celt from Gallia Transpadana. Epicurean works by Amafinius, Rabirius, and Catius were the earliest philosophical treatises written in Latin.[1] Catius composed a treatise in four books on the physical world and on the highest good (De rerum natura et de summo bono). Cicero credits him, along with the lesser prose stylist Amafinius, with writing accessible texts that popularized Epicurean philosophy among the plebs, or common people.[2]

Sources[edit]

In a letter dated January 45 BC, Cicero speaks of Catius as having died recently.[3] The letter is addressed to Cassius Longinus, one of the future assassins of Julius Caesar and a recent convert to Epicureanism.[4] Cicero prods Cassius about his new philosophy, and jokes about spectra Catiana ("Catian apparitions"), that is, the εἴδωλα or material images which were supposed by the Epicureans to present themselves to the mind and to call up the idea of absent objects:

For somehow it makes you seem almost present when I write anything to you, and that not 'by way of phantoms of images,' as your new friends express it, who hold that 'mental pictures' are caused by what Catius called 'spectres' — for I must remind you that Catius Insuber the Epicurean, lately dead, calls 'spectres' what the famous Gargettius,[5] and before him Democritus, used to call 'images.' Well, even if my eyes were capable of being struck by these 'spectres,' because they spontaneously run in upon them at your will, I do not see how the mind can be struck. You will be obliged to explain it to me, when you return safe and sound, whether the 'spectre' of you is at my command, so as to occur to me as soon as I have taken the fancy to think about you; and not only about you, who are in my heart's core, but supposing I begin thinking about the island of Britain — will its image fly at once into my mind? But of this later on. I am just sounding you now to see how you take it.[6]

Although Cicero's purpose is ridicule, the passage is an important source for understanding the Epicurean theory of vision.[7] Catius's spectrum is equivalent to simulacrum in Lucretius,[8] but the term spectrum does not appear again in Latin until the 17th century and must represent Catius's attempt to create a specialized vocabulary.[9]

Quintilian characterizes Catius briefly:

Among the Epicureans Catius is agreeable to read, though lacking in weight."[10]

Early commentators on Horace assert that the philosopher should be identified with the Catius addressed in the fourth satire of the poet's second book. This Catius is introduced as delivering a grave and sententious lecture on various topics connected with the pleasures of the table. It appears from the words of Cicero, however, that the satire in question could not have been written until several years after the death of Catius. Horace may have intended to designate some gourmand of the court under a recognizably Epicurean nickname; given the poet's own Epicurean leanings, the passage should probably be read as a parody of the kind of false Epicureanism that disguised mere hedonism.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabirius_(Epicurean)

Rabirius was a 1st-century BC Epicurean associated with Amafinius and Catius as one of the early popularizers of the philosophy in Italy. Their works on Epicureanism were the earliest philosophical treatises written in Latin.[1] Other than Lucretius, Amafinius and Rabirius are the only Roman Epicurean writers named by Cicero.[2]

In his Academica, Cicero criticizes Amafinius and Rabirius from an elitist perspective for their unsophisticated prose style, and says that in their efforts to introduce philosophy to common people they end up saying nothing. He concludes indignantly: "they think there is no art of speechmaking or composition."[3] Although Cicero in his writings is mostly hostile toward Epicureanism, his dear friend Atticus was an Epicurean, and this remark, occurring within a dialogue, is attributed to the interlocutor Varro, not framed as Cicero's own view.[4]

Lucretius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Virtually nothing is known about the life of Lucretius, and there is insufficient basis for a confident assertion of the dates of Lucretius's birth or death in other sources. Another, yet briefer, note is found in the Chronicon of Donatus's pupil, Jerome. Writing four centuries after Lucretius's death, he enters under the 171st Olympiad: "Titus Lucretius the poet is born."[6] If Jerome is accurate about Lucretius's age (43) when Lucretius died (discussed below), then it may be concluded he was born in 99 or 98 BC.[7][8] Less specific estimates place the birth of Lucretius in the 90s BC and his death in the 50s BC,[9][10] in agreement with the poem's many allusions to the tumultuous state of political affairs in Rome and its civil strife.

Start of late 15th-century illuminated manuscript of De rerum naturaLucretius probably was a member of the aristocratic gens Lucretia, and his work shows an intimate knowledge of the luxurious lifestyle in Rome.[11] Lucretius's love of the countryside invites speculation that he inhabited family-owned rural estates, as did many wealthy Roman families, and he certainly was expensively educated with a mastery of Latin, Greek, literature, and philosophy.[11]

A brief biographical note is found in Aelius Donatus's Life of Virgil, which seems to be derived from an earlier work by Suetonius.[12] The note reads: "The first years of his life Virgil spent in Cremona until the assumption of his toga virilis on his 17th birthday (when the same two men held the consulate as when he was born), and it so happened that on the very same day Lucretius the poet passed away." However, although Lucretius certainly lived and died around the time that Virgil and Cicero flourished, the information in this particular testimony is internally inconsistent: if Virgil was born in 70 BC, his 17th birthday would be in 53. The two consuls of 70 BC, Pompey and Crassus, stood together as consuls again in 55, not 53.

Another note regarding Lucretius's biography is found in Jerome's Chronicon, where he contends that Lucretius "was driven mad by a love potion, and when, during the intervals of his insanity, he had written a number of books, which were later emended by Cicero, he killed himself by his own hand in the 44th year of his life."[6] The claim that he was driven mad by a love potion, although defended by such scholars as Reale and Catan,[13] is often dismissed as the result of historical confusion,[2] or anti-Epicurean bias.[14] In some accounts the administration of the toxic aphrodisiac is attributed to his wife Lucilia. Regardless, Jerome's image of Lucretius as a lovesick, mad poet continued to have significant influence on modern scholarship until quite recently, although it now is accepted that such a report is inaccurate.