Montarese Lucretius and His Sources

A Study of Lucretius, "De rerum natura" I 635-920
1. Auflage 2012
ISBN: 978-3-11-021881-7
Verlag: De Gruyter
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band 12, 326 Seiten

Reihe: SozomenaISSN

This book discusses Lucretius’ refutation of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other, unnamed thinkers in 1, 635-920. Chapter 1 argues that in DRN I 635-920 Lucretius was following an Epicurean source, which in turn depended on Theophrastean doxography. Chapter 2 shows that books 14 and 15 of Epicurus’ were not Lucretius’ source-text. Chapter 3 discusses how lines 635-920 fit in the structure of book 1 and whether Lucretius’ source is more likely to have been Epicurus himself or a neo-Epicurean. Chapter 4 focuses on Lucretius’ own additions to the material he derived from his sources and on his poetical and rhetorical contributions, which were extensive. Lucretius shows an understanding of philosophical points by adapting his poetical devices to the philosophical arguments. Chapter 4 also argues that Lucretius anticipates philosophical points in what have often been regarded as the ‘purple passages’ of his poem - e.g. the invocation of Venus in the proem, and the description of Sicily and Aetna - so that he could take them up later on in his narrative and provide an adequate explanation of reality.

Zielgruppe

Academics, Institutes, Libraries

Autoren/Hrsg.

Montarese, Francesco

Fachgebiete

• Geisteswissenschaften Philosophie Geschichte der Westlichen Philosophie Antike Philosophie
• Geisteswissenschaften Literaturwissenschaft Literatur: Editionen, Kritische Editionen
• Geisteswissenschaften Literaturwissenschaft Klassische Literaturwissenschaft Klassische Lateinische Literatur

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Introduction;13
2;Chapter 1. Lucretius drew the Critique from an earlier Epicurean polemic;23
2.1;1.1 Lucretius’ information is second-hand;32
2.2;1.2 Lucretius’ source was an Epicurean text;47
2.2.1;1.2.1 Lucretius’ use of homoeomeria;48
2.2.2;1.2.2 The choice of Heraclitus as representative monist;52
2.2.2.1;1.2.2.1 The Stoics as fire monists?;55
2.2.2.2;1.2.2.2 The Stoic denial of void in the world?;56
2.2.3;1.2.3 Lucretius’ arguments against the limited pluralists;58
2.2.3.1;1.2.3.1 Lines 753–781;58
2.2.3.2;1.2.3.2 Lines 782–802;59
2.2.4;1.2.4 The Epicurean angle;62
2.3;1.3 Conclusion;68
3;Chapter 2. Books XIV and XV of Epicurus’ .e.. f.se..;70
3.1;2.1 The content of books XIV and XV;70
3.1.1;2.1.1 Book XIV was not dedicated to polemic;71
3.1.1.1;2.1.1.1 Evidence from the format of PHerc. 1148;71
3.1.1.2;2.1.1.2 Columns I–XXII;72
3.1.1.3;2.1.1.3 Columns XXIII and XXIV;75
3.1.1.4;2.1.1.4 Evidence from the sezioni;78
3.1.2;2.1.2 Epicurus did not discuss Heraclitus’ theory .F XIV;90
3.1.3;2.1.3 Epicurus did not refute Empedocles’ theory in .F XIV;91
3.1.4;2.1.4 Book XV was not dedicated to criticism of Anaxagoras;96
3.1.4.1;2.1.4.1 Cornice 2;98
3.1.4.2;2.1.4.2 Cornice 3;117
3.1.4.3;2.1.4.3 Cornice 4;122
3.1.4.4;2.1.4.4 Cornice 5;128
3.1.4.5;2.1.4.5 Cornici 6 and 7;134
3.1.4.6;2.1.4.6 Cornice 8;137
3.2;2.2 Other considerations intrinsic to Epicurus’ work;140
3.3;2.3 Do .F XIV and XV depend on Theophrastus’ F.s..a. d..a.?;143
3.3.1;2.3.1 Was Plato the last of the limited pluralists in Theophrastus’ F.s..a. d..a.?;149
3.3.2;2.3.2 The detail of the arguments against Plato and air monism;150
3.3.3;2.3.3 The dating of .F XIV and of Theophrastus’ F.s..a. d..a.;155
3.4;2.4 Conclusion;157
4;Chapter 3. Lucretius’ use of sources in DRN I;159
4.1;3.1 The source of DRN I.156–598 and 951–1107;159
4.2;3.2 Did Lucretius change source after line 598 of DRN I?;164
4.3;3.3 The Critique does not derive from the same source as 155 ff;170
4.4;3.4 The connection between lines 634 and 635;172
4.5;3.5 Why did Lucretius have the Critique at the centre of book I?;175
4.6;3.6 Was Epicurus the source of the Critique?;180
4.7;3.7 Did Lucretius use a later Epicurean source?;183
4.7.1;3.7.1 The choice of Heraclitus;189
4.7.2;3.7.2 Lucretius’ use of homoeomeria;191
4.8;3.8 Conclusion;193
5;Chapter 4. Lucretius in the Critique;194
5.1;4.1 Heraclitus as a general;194
5.2;4.2 Heraclitus’ army;197
5.2.1;4.2.1 Stolidi and inanes Graii;198
5.2.2;4.2.2 Sound and truth;202
5.2.3;4.2.3 Inversis sub verbis;211
5.3;4.3 The theme of the path and the search for truth;220
5.3.1;4.3.1 Lines 657–59;221
5.3.2;4.3.2 Lines 690–700;223
5.4;4.4 Empedocles and Sicily;224
5.4.1;4.4.1 Empedocles’ language: poetry as revelation;225
5.4.2;4.4.2 Lucretius’ praise;228
5.4.3;4.4.3 Etna;235
5.4.4;4.4.4 Lucretius’ endorsement of Empedocles’ discoveries;236
5.4.5;4.4.5 The four elements: Empedocles’ disastrous fall;243
5.5;4.5 Lucretius’ presentation of Anaxagoras’ theory;247
5.5.1;4.5.1 Lucretius’ transliteration homoeomeria;248
5.5.2;4.5.2 Parody of Anaxagoras;250
5.6;4.6 The mortality of Anaxagoras’ primordia;251
5.7;4.7 Lucretius’ strategy in lines 859–74;255
5.8;4.8 The analogy of letters and atoms;257
5.8.1;4.8.1 Lines 823–29;259
5.8.2;4.8.2 Intertextuality;262
5.8.3;4.8.3 Lines 906–14;263
5.9;4.9 Formularity;265
5.10;4.10 The parallelism between lines 803–29 and 897–920;267
5.11;4.11 The Critique as ‘dialogue’;269
5.12;4.12 Conclusion;276
6;Appendix (A) Two stages of composition?;279
7;Appendix (B) The format of PHerc. 1148 and PHerc. 1151;285
8;Appendix (C) Do Epicurus’ Ad Herodotum and Ad Pythoclem reflect continuous books of .F?;295
9;Abbreviations;301
10;Bibliography;303

Über Autor(innen)

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