Lucretius and His Sources : A Study of Lucretius, 'De Rerum Natura' I 635-920

This book discusses Lucretiusâ?? refutation of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other, unnamed thinkers in De Rerum Natura 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 Epicurusâ?? On Nature were not Lucretiusâ?? source-text. Chapter 3 discusses how lines 635-920 fit in the structure of book 1 and whether Lucretiusâ?? source is more likely to have been Epicurus himself or a neo-Epicurean. Chapter 4 focuses on Lucretiusâ?? 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 â??purple passagesâ?? 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. 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’ Περὶ φύσεως 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 ΠΦ XIV 90 2.1.3 Epicurus did not refute Empedocles’ theory in ΠΦ 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 ΠΦ XIV and XV depend on Theophrastus’ Φυσικαὶ δόξαι? 143 2.3.1 Was Plato the last of the limited pluralists in Theophrastus’ Φυσικαὶ δόξαι? 149 2.3.2 The detail of the arguments against Plato and air monism 150 2.3.3 The dating of ΠΦ XIV and of Theophrastus’ Φυσικαὶ δόξαι 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 ΠΦ? 295 Abbreviations 301 Bibliography 303

This book discusses Lucretius’ refutation of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other, unnamed thinkers in De Rerum Natura 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’ On Nature 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.

"This book discusses Lucretius' refutation of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other, unnamed thinkers in De Rerum Natura 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' On Nature 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."--Résumé de l'éditeur "This book discusses Lucretius' refutation of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other, unnamed thinkers in De Rerum Natura 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' On Nature 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."--Publisher's website This study is an original contribution to the discussion of Lucretius' use of sources and his relationship to Epicurus; furthermore, it provides a new edition of fragments of books 14 and 15 of Epicurus' On Nature. It focuses on understanding how Lucretius' sources presented the Presocratics and assesses his literary achievement on that basis. This book will interest anyone studying the way in which Lucretius, and more generally Roman authors, adapted Greek literature and philosophy as well as those with an interest in Hellenistic philosophy and in the reconstruction of Epicurus' treatise On Na Biographical note: Francesco Montarese, Mander Portman Woodward Colleges, London, UK