| 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 |
|---|
