(4) However, the argument that the writer shows Epicurean views, and that Lucilius was an Epicurean, has little weight. (a) There are Stoical doctrines in the poem. Cf. ll. 33-5, 68-70, on the divinity of the stars; ll. 173-4, which maintain that the world would come back to its former state; ll. 536-9, where Heraclitus’ doctrine of fire is recommended. (b) The Epistulae Morales only show that Lucilius had a leaning to Epicureanism, not that he was an Epicurean. Cf. Ep. 23, 9, ‘Vocem tibi Epicuri tui reddere,’ and other playful references.
(5) The views on natural science given in the poem are sometimes the same as those in Sen. N.Q. This would fix the date of the poem between 65 and 79 A.D. Cf. Aetna, 123,
‘Flumina quin etiam latis currentia rivis
occasus habuere suos: aut illa vorago
derepta in praeceps fatali condidit ore
aut occulta fluunt tectis adoperta cavernis
atque inopinatos referunt procul edita cursus’;
and Sen. N.Q. iii. 26, 3, ‘Quaedam flumina palam in aliquem specum decidunt et sic ex oculis auferuntur, quaedam consumuntur paulatim et intercidunt. Eadem ex intervallo revertuntur recipiuntque et nomen et cursum.’ Cf. also Aetna, 96,
‘Defit namque omnis hiatu,
secta est omnis humus penitusque cavata latebris
exiles suspensa vias agit’;
and Sen. N.Q. v. 14, 1, ‘Non tota solido contextu terra in imum usque fundatur, sed multis partibus cava et caecis suspensa latebris.’ So the story of the Catanian brothers (ll. 624-45) is told by Sen. De Benef. iii. 37, 2-3.
Imitations of Lucretius abound. Cf. ll. 219 sqq.,
‘Nunc quoniam in promptu est operis natura solique,
unde ipsi venti, quae res incendia pascit,’ etc.
For the author’s attacks on superstition, cf. ll. 91-3,
‘Debita carminibus libertas ista; sed omnis
in vero mihi cura: canam quo fervida motu
aestuet Aetna novosque rapax sibi congerat ignes.’