Lucretius and His Sources: A Study of Lucretius, "De rerum natura" I 635-920

328 Pages·2012·1.234 MB·English

by  Francesco Montarese

Francesco Montarese
Lucretius and His Sources
Sozomena
Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts
Edited
on behalf of the Herculaneum Society
by
Alessandro Barchiesi, Robert Fowler,
Dirk Obbink and Nigel Wilson
Vol.12
De Gruyter
Francesco Montarese
Lucretius and His Sources
A Study of Lucretius,
(cid:2)
De rerum natura I 635 920
De Gruyter
ISBN 978-3-11-019452-4
e-ISBN 978-3-11-021881-7
ISSN 1869-6368
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
ACIPcatalogrecordforthisbookhasbeenappliedforattheLibraryofCongress.
BibliographicinformationpublishedbytheDeutscheNationalbibliothek
TheDeutscheNationalbibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutsche
Nationalbibliografie;detailedbibliographicdataareavailableintheInternet
athttp://dnb.dnb.de.
©2012WalterdeGruyterGmbH&Co.KG,Berlin/Boston
Printing:Hubert&Co.GmbH&Co.KG,Göttingen
(cid:3)Printedonacid-freepaper
PrintedinGermany
www.degruyter.com
V
For Linda
VI
VII
Foreword
I have been helped by many people while preparing this book and the
PhD thesis on which it is based. My greatest debt is to my former super-
visor, Bob Sharples. Many ideas presented here are the result of conver-
sations that I had with him. Alessandro Schiesaro also made suggestions
that I have incorporated into the present volume. Richard Janko intro-
duced me to the study of the Herculaneum papyri. Cornelia Römer helped
me establish a better text of Epicurus as found in the papyri. I am indebted
to David Sedley for comments regarding the restoration and interpre-
tation of some fragments. My mother, Francesca Bugliani, Clover Peake,
Dilwyn Knox, Martin Davies, Michael Wigodsky and Tom Preece-Smith
commented on various parts of the work. The hours I spent in Naples’
Officina were fewer than I would have ideally liked, but the experience of
studying these papyri was as inspiring as it was brief. For their help and
courtesy while I was in Naples I would like to thank Agnese Travaglione,
Francesca Longo Auricchio, Giuliana Leone, Gianluca del Mastro and
Jeff Fish. For advice on the problems relating to the presence– or other-
wise– ofDRN in Herculaneum I wish to thank Mario Capasso and Dirk
Obbink. For help with editorial matters I am grateful to Sabine Vogt. I
should also like to thank the University College London Graduate School
for the award of a three-year research degree scholarship.
VIII
Table of contents IX
Table of contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter1
Lucretius drew the Critique from an earlier Epicurean polemic . . 11
1.1 Lucretius’ information is second-hand . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.2 Lucretius’ source was an Epicurean text . . . . . . . . . 35
1.2.1 Lucretius’ use ofhomoeomeria . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.2.2 The choice of Heraclitus as representative monist . 40
1.2.2.1 The Stoics as fire monists? . . . . . . . . 43
1.2.2.2 The Stoic denial of void in the world? . . . 44
1.2.3 Lucretius’ arguments against the limited
pluralists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.2.3.1 Lines 753–781 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.2.3.2 Lines 782–802 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.2.4 The Epicurean angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Chapter2
Books XIV and XV of Epicurus’P(cid:2)(cid:3)λ φ(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)« . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.1 The content of books XIV and XV . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.1.1 Book XIV was not dedicated to polemic . . . . . . 59
2.1.1.1 Evidence from the format ofPHerc. 1148 . 59
2.1.1.2 Columns I–XXII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.1.1.3 Columns XXIII and XXIV . . . . . . . . . 63
2.1.1.4 Evidence from thesezioni . . . . . . . . . 66
2.1.2 Epicurus did not discuss Heraclitus’ theory
P(cid:9) XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.1.3 Epicurus did not refute Empedocles’ theory
inP(cid:9) XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.1.4 Book XV was not dedicated to criticism of
Anaxagoras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.1.4.1 Cornice 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.1.4.2 Cornice 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2.1.4.3 Cornice 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
X Table of contents
2.1.4.4 Cornice 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
2.1.4.5 Cornici 6 and 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
2.1.4.6 Cornice 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
2.2 Other considerations intrinsic to Epicurus’ work . . . . . 128
2.3 DoP(cid:9) XIV and XV depend on Theophrastus’
(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)λ (cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:11)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
2.3.1 Was Plato the last of the limited pluralists
in Theophrastus’(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)λ (cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:11)? . . . . . . . . . 137
2.3.2 The detail of the arguments against Plato
and air monism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2.3.3 The dating ofP(cid:9) XIV and of Theophrastus’
(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)λ (cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Chapter3
Lucretius’ use of sources inDRN I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.1 The source ofDRN I.156–598 and 951–1107 . . . . . . . 147
3.2 Did Lucretius change source after line 598 ofDRN I? . . 152
3.3 The Critique does not derive from the same source
as 155ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.4 The connection between lines 634 and 635 . . . . . . . . 160
3.5 Why did Lucretius have the Critique at the centre
of book I? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3.6 Was Epicurus the source of the Critique? . . . . . . . . . 168
3.7 Did Lucretius use a later Epicurean source? . . . . . . . 171
3.7.1 The choice of Heraclitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.7.2 Lucretius’ use ofhomoeomeria . . . . . . . . . . 179
3.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Chapter4
Lucretius in the Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.1 Heraclitus as a general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.2 Heraclitus’ army. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.2.1 Stolidi andinanes Graii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.2.2 Sound and truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.2.3 Inversis sub verbis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4.3 The theme of the path and the search for truth . . . . . . 208
4.3.1 Lines 657–59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
4.3.2 Lines 690–700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.4 Empedocles and Sicily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212