Lucretius and His Sources (eBook)

lt;!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">

Francesco Montarese, Mander Portman Woodward Colleges, London, UK.

Introduction 13
Chapter 1. Lucretius drew the Critique from an earlier Epicurean polemic 23
1.1 Lucretius’ information is second-hand 32
1.2 Lucretius’ source was an Epicurean text 47
1.2.1 Lucretius’ use of homoeomeria 48
1.2.2 The choice of Heraclitus as representative monist 52
1.2.2.1 The Stoics as fire monists? 55
1.2.2.2 The Stoic denial of void in the world? 56
1.2.3 Lucretius’ arguments against the limited pluralists 58
1.2.3.1 Lines 753–781 58
1.2.3.2 Lines 782–802 59
1.2.4 The Epicurean angle 62
1.3 Conclusion 68
Chapter 2. Books XIV and XV of Epicurus’ .e.. f.se.. 70
2.1 The content of books XIV and XV 70
2.1.1 Book XIV was not dedicated to polemic 71
2.1.1.1 Evidence from the format of PHerc. 1148 71
2.1.1.2 Columns I–XXII 72
2.1.1.3 Columns XXIII and XXIV 75
2.1.1.4 Evidence from the sezioni 78
2.1.2 Epicurus did not discuss Heraclitus’ theory .F XIV 90
2.1.3 Epicurus did not refute Empedocles’ theory in .F XIV 91
2.1.4 Book XV was not dedicated to criticism of Anaxagoras 96
2.1.4.1 Cornice 2 98
2.1.4.2 Cornice 3 117
2.1.4.3 Cornice 4 122
2.1.4.4 Cornice 5 128
2.1.4.5 Cornici 6 and 7 134
2.1.4.6 Cornice 8 137
2.2 Other considerations intrinsic to Epicurus’ work 140
2.3 Do .F XIV and XV depend on Theophrastus’ F.s..a. d..a.? 143
2.3.1 Was Plato the last of the limited pluralists in Theophrastus’ F.s..a. d..a.? 149
2.3.2 The detail of the arguments against Plato and air monism 150
2.3.3 The dating of .F XIV and of Theophrastus’ F.s..a. d..a. 155
2.4 Conclusion 157
Chapter 3. Lucretius’ use of sources in DRN I 159
3.1 The source of DRN I.156–598 and 951–1107 159
3.2 Did Lucretius change source after line 598 of DRN I? 164
3.3 The Critique does not derive from the same source as 155 ff 170
3.4 The connection between lines 634 and 635 172
3.5 Why did Lucretius have the Critique at the centre of book I? 175
3.6 Was Epicurus the source of the Critique? 180
3.7 Did Lucretius use a later Epicurean source? 183
3.7.1 The choice of Heraclitus 189
3.7.2 Lucretius’ use of homoeomeria 191
3.8 Conclusion 193
Chapter 4. Lucretius in the Critique 194
4.1 Heraclitus as a general 194
4.2 Heraclitus’ army 197
4.2.1 Stolidi and inanes Graii 198
4.2.2 Sound and truth 202
4.2.3 Inversis sub verbis 211
4.3 The theme of the path and the search for truth 220
4.3.1 Lines 657–59 221
4.3.2 Lines 690–700 223
4.4 Empedocles and Sicily 224
4.4.1 Empedocles’ language: poetry as revelation 225
4.4.2 Lucretius’ praise 228
4.4.3 Etna 235
4.4.4 Lucretius’ endorsement of Empedocles’ discoveries 236
4.4.5 The four elements: Empedocles’ disastrous fall 243
4.5 Lucretius’ presentation of Anaxagoras’ theory 247
4.5.1 Lucretius’ transliteration homoeomeria 248
4.5.2 Parody of Anaxagoras 250
4.6 The mortality of Anaxagoras’ primordia 251
4.7 Lucretius’ strategy in lines 859–74 255
4.8 The analogy of letters and atoms 257
4.8.1 Lines 823–29 259
4.8.2 Intertextuality 262
4.8.3 Lines 906–14 263
4.9 Formularity 265
4.10 The parallelism between lines 803–29 and 897–920 267
4.11 The Critique as ‘dialogue’ 269
4.12 Conclusion 276
Appendix (A) Two stages of composition? 279
Appendix (B) The format of PHerc. 1148 and PHerc. 1151 285
Appendix (C) Do Epicurus’ Ad Herodotum and Ad Pythoclem reflect continuous books of .F? 295
Abbreviations 301
Bibliography 303