bal, which informs us that he was a contemporary of
Theodosius (probably Theodosius I., A.D. 379-395). That the work
cannot be by him is shown by the political references, which suit only
the beginning of the empire, by the mention of Atticus in the preface,
and by the correspondence in style between the book and the lives of
Atticus and Cato, admittedly the work of Nepos; also by the fact that
L. Ampelius, who probably wrote before the time of Diocletian, used
the work in his _Liber Memorialis_.

LUCRETIUS.

Our information about Lucretius' life is very scanty. Jerome yr. Abr.
1922 = B.C. 95, 'T. Lucretius poeta nascitur, qui postea amatorio
poculo in furorem versus, cum aliquot libros per intervalla insaniae
conscripsisset, quos postea Cicero emendavit, propria se manu
interfecit anno aetatis xliiii.' (B.C. 52 or 51).

Donatus, _vit. Verg._ 2, 'Initia aetatis Cremonae egit [Vergilius]
usque ad virilem togam, quam xv. anno natali suo accepit isdem illis
consulibus iterum duobus quibus erat natus, evenitque ut eo ipso die
Lucretius poeta decederet' (October 15).

Teuffel thinks xliiii. is wrong, and would read xlii., thus giving the
dates as B.C. 96-55, as he thinks that Jerome has fixed the date of
birth one year too late. Munro (vol. ii. p. 1) accepts xliiii., but
thinks that Jerome (as elsewhere) is a few years wrong in the date of
Lucretius' birth, and gives the dates as B.C. 99-55. It is impossible
to decide as to the date of birth, but most authorities agree on B.C.
55 as the date of death, a view which is supported by the only
contemporary reference to the poet: Cic. _ad Q.F._ ii. 11, 4 (written
in February, B.C. 54), 'Lucreti poemata, ut scribis, ita sunt: multis
luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis; sed cum veneris. Virum te
putabo, si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo.'

The above extract is given in the reading of the MSS. Some editors
read _non_ before _multis_, others _non_ before _multae_, but it is
best to follow the MSS. (with Tyrrell), translating "But when you come
(we shall talk about it). I shall consider you a hero, if you read
Sallust's _Empedoclea_; I shall not consider you a human being."

As regards Lucretius' madness, there is no absolute impossibility in
the story. Munro (vol. ii. pp. 2, 3) accepts Jerome's account of
Cicero's editorship; others, less probably, believe that Q. Cicero was
editor. The first view is rendered probable by the high opinion
Lucretius had of