Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:04:18.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2023

Michael Pope
Michael Pope
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University, Utah
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Lucretius and the End of Masculinity , pp. 194 - 216
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore, MD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adkins, A. W. H. 1977. “Lucretius 1.136–39 and the Problems of Writing versus Latini.” Phoenix 31: 145–58.Google Scholar
Aicher, P. J. 1992. “Lucretian Revisions of Homer.” CJ 87: 139–58.Google Scholar
Akbar Khan, H. 1967. “Catullus 99 and the Other Kiss-Poems.” Latomus 26: 609–18.Google Scholar
Algra, K. 1995. Concepts of Space in Greek Thought. Leiden.Google Scholar
Algra, K. 1997. “Lucretius and the Epicurean Other: On the Philosophical Background of DRN V.1011–1027.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 141–50.Google Scholar
Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. 1999. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. 1997. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Allen, A. 1991. “Climactic Delay in Lucretius.” Phoenix 45: 63–65.Google Scholar
Allen Jr., W. 1938. “On the Friendship of Lucretius with Memmius.” CPh 33: 167–81.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. S. 1960. “Discontinuity in Lucretian Symbolism.” TAPhA 91: 1–29.Google Scholar
Annas, J. 1992. Hellenistic Philosophy of the Mind. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Arkins, B. 1984. “Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love, and Marriage.” Apeiron 18: 141–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, J. M. 1997. “Epicurean Justice.” Phronesis 42: 324–34.Google Scholar
Aronoff, P. 1997. “Lucretius and the Fears of Death.” PhD Dissertation. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1970. “The Epicurean Theory of Free Will and Its Origins in Aristotle.” PhD Dissertation. Haven CT.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1982. “Lucretius’ Venus and Stoic Zeus.” Hermes 110: 458–70.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1984. Epicurus’ Scientific Method. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1991. “Philodemus’s Poetic Theory and On the Good King According to Homer.” ClAnt 10: 1–45.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1995. “Epicurean Poetics.” In Obbink, D., ed. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford. 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. 1996. “Lucretius on the Growth of Ideas.” In Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M., eds. Epicureismo Greco e romano: Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Napoli 1–26 maggio 1993. Naples. 763–78.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 2008. “Lucretius’ New World Order: Making a Pact with Nature.” CQ 58: 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. 2009. “Epicurean Empiricism.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 84–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. 2020. “Psychology.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 189–220.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 2022. “Love It or Leave It: Nature’s Ultimatum in Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things (3.931–962).” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 111–28.Google Scholar
Atkins, J. W. 2018. Roman Political Thought. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, E. 2012. “Epicurus and the Politics of Fearing Death.” Apeiron 45: 109–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auvray-Assayas, C. 2003. “Lucrèce et Cicéron sur la poétique de la traduction: note au De rerum natura I, 116–145/I, 921–950.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 165–69.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. 1928. The Greek Atomists and Epicurus: A Study. Oxford.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. 1940. “The Mind of Lucretius.” AJPh 61: 278–91.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. 1947. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura: Edited, with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and Commentary. 3 vols. Oxford.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1989. “The Size of the Sun in Antiquity.” ACD 25: 29–41.Google Scholar
Barra, G. 1964. “Fatis avolsa voluptas (De rer. nat. II, 257).” RAAN 39: 149–65.Google Scholar
Bartman, E. 2002. “Eros’s Flame: Images of Sexy Boys in Roman Ideal Sculpture.” In Gazda, E. K., ed. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor, MI. 249–71.Google Scholar
Barton, C. A. 1993. The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Barton, C. A. 2001. Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Barton, C. A. 2002. “Being in the Eyes: Shame and Sight in Ancient Rome.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 216–35.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. 2006. The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Bataille, G. 1970. Oeuvres complètes, I. Premiers Écrits 1922–1940. Paris.Google Scholar
Beacham, R. C. 1999. Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Beekes, R. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. Leiden.Google Scholar
Bergren, A. L. T. 1983. “Language and the Female in Early Greek Thought.” Arethusa 16: 69–95.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. 2002. “Democritus and the Explanatory Power of the Void.” In Caston, V. and Graham, D., eds. Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos. London. 183–91.Google Scholar
Betensky, A. 1980. “Lucretius and Love.” CW 73: 291–99.Google Scholar
Bettenworth, A. 2012. “Phaeacians at the Birthday Party: A. P. 11.44 (Philodemus) and Its Epic Background.” Aitia 2:1–11. http://journals.openedition.org/fitia/380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/fitia.380.Google Scholar
Beye, C. R. 1963. “Lucretius and Progress.” CJ 58: 160–69.Google Scholar
Blayney, J. 1986. “Theories of Conception in the Ancient Roman World.” In Rawson, B. ed. The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Sydney. 230–36.Google Scholar
Blickman, D. R. 1989. “Lucretius, Epicurus, and Prehistory.” HSPh 92: 157–91.Google Scholar
Blundell, S. 1986. The Origins of Civilization in Greek and Roman Thought. London.Google Scholar
Bockemüller, F., ed. 1873. De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. 2 vols. Stade.Google Scholar
Boyancé, P. 1963. Lucrèce et l’épicurisme. Paris.Google Scholar
Boylan, M. 1984. “The Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle’s Conception Theory.” JBH 17: 83–112.Google Scholar
Boylan, M. 1986. “Galen’s Conception Theory.” JBH 19: 47–77.Google Scholar
Brachet, J. 1968. Chemical Embryology. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Braund, D. 1996. “The Politics of Catullus 10: Memmius, Caesar, and the Bithynians.” Hermathena 160: 45–57.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. 1996. “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children.” CPh 91: 346–52.Google Scholar
Bright, D. F. 1971. “The Plague and the Structure of De rerum natura.” Latomus 30: 607–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. D. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030–1287 with Prolegomena, Text, and Translation. Leiden.Google Scholar
Brown, R. D. 2017. “Lucretius’ Malodorous Mistress (De Rerum Natura 4.1175).” CJ 113: 26–43.Google Scholar
Buchheit, V. 1984. “Lukrez über den Ursprung von Musik und Dichtung.” RhM 127: 141–58.Google Scholar
Butterfield, D. 2014. “Lucretius Auctus? The Question of Interpolation in De Rerum Natura.” In Martínez, J., ed. Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature: Ergo decipiatur! Leiden. 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, D. 2020. “Critical Responses to the Most Difficult Textual Problem in Lucretius.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 19–39.Google Scholar
Cabisius, G. 1979. “Lucretius’ Statement of Poetic Intent.” In Deroux, C., ed. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. Brussels. 1: 239–48.Google Scholar
Cabisius, G. 1984–85. “Social Metaphor and the Atomic Cycle in Lucretius.” CJ 80: 109–20.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. 1999. Review of Sedley 1998. BMCR 10.29. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999.10.29/Google Scholar
Campbell, G. 2002. “Lucretius 5.1011–27: The Origins of Justice and the Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Leeds International Classical Studies 1: 1–12.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. 2003. Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura Book Five, Lines 722–1004. Oxford.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. 2008. “‘And Bright was the Flame of their Friendship’ (Empedocles B130): Humans, Animals, Justice, and Friendship, in Lucretius and Empedocles.” Leeds International Classical Studies 7: 1–23.Google Scholar
Carson, A. 1990. “Putting Her in Her Place: Woman, Dirt, and Desire.” In Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I., eds. 1990. Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton, NJ. 135–69.Google Scholar
Case, S. J. 1915. “The Religion of Lucretius.” American Journal of Theology 19: 92–107.Google Scholar
Caston, R. R. 2006. “Love as Illness: Poets and Philosophers on Romantic Love.” CJ 101: 271–98.Google Scholar
Catto, B. A. 1988–89. “Venus and Natura in Lucretius: De Rerum Natura 1. 1–23 and 2.167–74.” CJ 84: 97–104.Google Scholar
Charlier, P. 2008. “Review of Hillman 2008.” BMCR 12.29. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2008/2008.12.29/.Google Scholar
Chilton, C. W. 1960. “Did Epicurus Approve of Marriage? A Study of Diogenes Laertius X, 119.” Phronesis 5: 71–74.Google Scholar
Chilton, C. W. 1980. “Lucretius De Rerum Natura 5.849–854.” CQ 30: 378–80.Google Scholar
Cilliers, L. 2004. “Vindicianus’ Gynaecia and Theories on Generation and Embryology from the Babylonians up to Graeco-Roman Times.” In Horstmanshoff, M. and Stol, M., eds. Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Leiden. 344–67.Google Scholar
Císař, K. 2001. Epicurean Epistemology in Lucretius’ “De rerum natura” IV 1–822. LF 124: 1–54.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. R. 2002 “Look Who’s Laughing at Sex: Men and Women Viewers at the Apodyterium of the Suburban Baths at Pompeii.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 149–82.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. T. 2014. “Doing Violence to the Roman Idea of Liberty? Freedom as Bodily Integrity in Roman Political Thought.” HPTh 35: 211–33.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J. 1968. “Poetry and Rhetoric in Lucretius.” TAPhA 99: 77–118.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1969. “De Rerum Natura: Greek Physis and Epicurean Physiologia (Lucretius 1.1–148). TAPhA 100: 31–47.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1976. “The Sources of Lucretius’ Inspiration.” In Bollack, J. and Laks, A., eds. Études sur l’épicurisme antique. Lille. 204–27.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1996. “An Anatomy of Lucretian Metaphor.” In Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M., eds. Epicureismo Greco e Romano: Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Napoli, 19–26 Maggia 1993. Naples. 779–93.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1997. “Lucretius’ Gigantomachy.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 187–92.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 2003. “Lucretius’ Honeyed Muse: The History and Meaning of a Simile.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 183–96.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 2009. “The Athenian Garden.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 9–29.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 2011. “Lucretius, Venus, Cybele, Love, the Gods.” Prometheus 37: 153–62.Google Scholar
Clayton, B. 1999. “Lucretius’ Erotic Mother: Maternity as a Poetic Construct in De Rerum Natura.” Helios 26: 69–84.Google Scholar
Cole, T. 1998. “Venus and Mars (De Rerum Natura 1.31–40).” In Knox, P. and Foss, C., eds. Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart. 3–15.Google Scholar
Colish, M. L. 1990. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: I. Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature. Leiden.Google Scholar
Colman, J. 2012. Lucretius As Theorist of Political Life. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Commager, H. S. 1957. “Lucretius’ Interpretation of the Plague.” HSPh 62: 105–18.Google Scholar
Connell, S. M. 2000. “Aristotle and Galen on Sex Difference and Reproduction: A New Approach to an Ancient Rivalry.” SHPS 31: 405–27.Google Scholar
Copley, F. O. 1956. Exclusus Amator: A Study in Latin Love Poetry. Philological Monographs 17. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Corbeill, A. 1996. Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Corbeill, A. 2015. Sexing the World: Grammatical Gender and Biological Sex in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Costa, C. D. N. 1984. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura V. Oxford.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. 2006. “Lucretius and Others on Animals in Warfare.” MH 63: 152–53.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. 2013. “Fear and Loathing in Lucretius: Latent Tragedy and Anti-Allusion in DRN 3.” In Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J., and Frangoulidis, S., eds. Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature: Encounters, Interactions and Transformations. Berlin. 113–33.Google Scholar
Crowther, N. B. 1979. “Water and Wine As Symbols of Inspiration.” Mnemosyne 32: 1–11.Google Scholar
Cullingford, E. B. 1996. “British Romans and Irish Carthaginians: Anticolonial Metaphor in Heaney, Friel, and McGuinness.” PMLA 111: 222–39.Google Scholar
Dalzell, A. 1987. “Language and Atomic Theory in Lucretius.” Hermathena 143: 19–28.Google Scholar
Dalzell, A. 1996. The Criticism of Didactic Poetry: Essays on Lucretius, Virgil, and Ovid. Toronto.Google Scholar
Davies, H. S. 1986. “Notes on Lucretius.” In Classen, C. J., ed. Probleme der Lukrezforschung. Hildesheim. 25–42.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. 1939. “The Epicurean Analysis of Language.” AJPh 60: 85–92.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. 1941. “Cicero’s Invective against Piso.” TAPhA 72: 49–58.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. 1948. “Lucretius and the History of Epicureanism.” TAPhA 79: 12–23.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. 1957. “Process and Value: An Epicurean Dilemma.” TAPhA 88: 114–26.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. 1964. “Distant Views: The Imagery of Lucretius 2.” CJ 60: 49–55.Google Scholar
Desmouliez, A. 1958. “Cupidité, ambition et crainte de la chez de la mort Lucrèce (de R. N. III, 59–93).” Latomus 17: 317–23.Google Scholar
Deufert, M., ed. 2019. Titus Lucretius Carus De Rerum Natura Libri VI. Berlin.Google Scholar
Deutsch, R. E. 1978. The Pattern of Sound in Lucretius. New York, NY.Google Scholar
DeWitt, N. W. 1954. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Dionigi, I. 1988. Lucrezio: Le parole e le cose. Bologna.Google Scholar
Dionigi, I. 2003. “Lucrezio ovvero la grammatical del cosmo.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 227–32.Google Scholar
Doherty, L. E. 1995. Siren Songs: Gender, Audiences, and Narrators in the Odyssey. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Donahue, H. 1993. The Song of the Swan: Lucretius and the Influence of Callimachus. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Dressler, A. 2016. Personification and the Feminine in Roman Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Duban, J. M. 1982. “Venus, Epicurus, and Naturae Species Ratioque.” TAPhA 103: 165–77.Google Scholar
duBois, P. 1988. Sowing the Body: Psychoanalysis and Ancient Representations of Women. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Dudley, D. R., ed. 1965. Lucretius. London.Google Scholar
Edelstein, L. 1940. “Primum Graius Homo (Lucretius 1.66).” TAPhA 71: 78–90.Google Scholar
Edmunds, L. 2002. “Mars As Hellenistic Lover: Lucretius, ‘De rerum natura’ 1. 29–40 and Its Subtexts.” IJCT 8: 343–58.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. J. 1989. “Lucretius, Empedocles, and Epicurean Polemics.” A&A 35: 104–15.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. J. 1993. “‘Aeternus Lepos’: Venus, Lucretius, and the Fear of Death.” G&R 40: 68–78.Google Scholar
Elder, J. P. 1954. “Lucretius 1.1–49.” TAPhA 85: 88–120.Google Scholar
Englert, W. 2020. “Voluntary Action and Responsibility.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 221–49.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 1997. “Physics and Therapy: Meditative Elements in Lucretius’ De rerum natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 79–92.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 1999. “Epicurean Ethics.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge. 642–74.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 2011. “Autodidact and Student: On the Relationship of Authority and Autonomy in Epicurus and the Epicurean tradition.” In Fish, J. and Sanders, K. R., eds. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge. 9–28.Google Scholar
Ernout, A. 1916. Lucrèce De la nature. Paris.Google Scholar
Ernout, A. and Robin, L., eds. 1962. Lucrèce, De Rervm Natvra: Commentaire exégétique et critique, précédé d’une introduction sur l’art de Lucrèce et d’une traduction des lettres et pensées d’Épicure. 3 vols. Paris.Google Scholar
Esolen, A. M., ed. and trans. 1995. Lucretius: On the Nature of Things: De Rerum Natura. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Evans, M. 2004. “Can Epicureans Be Friends?” AncPhil 24: 407–24.Google Scholar
Everson, S. 1990. “Epicurus on the Truth of the Senses.” In Everson, S., ed. Epistemology. Cambridge. 161–83.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 1972. Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery. Toronto.Google Scholar
Fanti, G. 2017. “The Failure of Memmius in Lucretius’ DRN.” Latomus 76: 58–79.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 1988. “Lucretius, DRN 5.44 Insinuandum.” CQ 38: 179–88.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 1994. “The Structure of Lucretius’ ‘Anthropology.’” MD 33: 81–95.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2001. Latin Language and Latin Culture from Ancient to Modern Times. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2022. “Was Memmius a Good King?” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 219–40.Google Scholar
Farrington, B. 1939. Science and Politics in the Ancient World. London.Google Scholar
Farrington, B. 1952. “The Meanings of Voluptas in Lucretius.” Hermathena 80: 26–31.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 1978. “Wild Beasts in the De Rerum Natura.” Prudentia 10: 15–22.Google Scholar
Fish, J. 2011. “Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus: What Roman Epicureans Were Taught about Politics.” In Fish, J. and Sanders, K. R., eds. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge. 72–104.Google Scholar
Fish, J. and Sanders, K. R., eds. 2011. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. 1984. “Lucretius’ Cure for Love in the De Rerum Natura.” CW 78: 73–86.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. 1995. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. 2008. “Women’s Space and Wingless Words in the Odyssey.” Phoenix 62: 77–91.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. 2009. “Sermo corporis: Ancient Reflections on gestus, vultus and vox.” In Thorsten Fögen, T. and Lee, M. M., eds. Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Berlin. 15–43.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 1983. “Lucretius on the Clinamen and ‘Free Will’ (II 251–93.” In Συζήτησις: studi sull’epicureismo greco e romano offerti a Marcello Gigante. 2 vols. Naples. 1.329–52.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 1989. “Lucretius and Politics.” In Griffin, M. and Barnes, J., eds. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford. 120–50.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 1996. “The Feminine Principal: Gender in the De Rerum Natura.” In Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M., eds. Epicureismo Greco e romano: Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Napoli 1–26 maggio 1993. Naples. 813–22.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 2000a. “The Didactic Plot.” In Depew, M. and Obbink, D., eds. Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA. 205–19.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 2000b. “Philosophy and Literature in Lucretian Intertextuality.” In Fowler, D. P., ed. Roman Constructions: Readings in Postmodern Latin. Oxford. 138–55.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 2002a. Lucretius on Atomic Motion: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura Book Two, Lines 1–332. Oxford.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. 2002b. “Masculinity under Threat? The Poetics and Politics of Inspiration in Latin Poetry.” In Spentzou, E. and Fowler, D., eds. Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature. Oxford. 141–59.Google Scholar
Fowler, P. G. 1997. “Lucretian Conclusions.” In Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M., and Fowler, D. P., eds. Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature. Princeton, NJ. 112–38.Google Scholar
Fratantuono, L. 2015. A Reading of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Frede, M. 2011. A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Fredrick, D. 2002a. “Introduction: Invisible Rome.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 1–30.Google Scholar
Fredrick, D. 2002b. “Mapping Penetrability in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 236–64.Google Scholar
Fredrick, D., ed. 2002c. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Friedländer, P. 1941. “Pattern of Sound and Atomistic Theory in Lucretius.” AJPh 62: 16–34.Google Scholar
Frischer, B. 1982. The Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1967. Two Studies in the Greek Atomists. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1971. “Knowledge of Atoms and Void in Epicureanism.” In Anton, J. P. and Kustas, G. L., eds. Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Albany, NY. 607–19.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1978. “Lucretius the Epicurean: On the History of Man.” In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 1–27.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1986. “Nothing to Us?” In Schofield, M. and Striker, G., eds. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge. 75–91.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1993. “Democritus and Epicurus on Sensible Qualities.” In Passions and Perceptions. 72–94.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1999. “Cosmology.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. 412–51.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 1991. “Man and Beast in Lucretius and the Georgics.” CQ 41: 414–26.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 1994a. “Lucretius 4. 1–25 and the Proems of the De Rerum Natura. PCPhS 40: 1–17.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 1994b. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2001. Lucretius and the Didactic Epic. London.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2007a. “Lucretius and Previous Poetic Traditions.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 59–75.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2007b., ed. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2009. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura V. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2013. “Piety, Labour, and Justice in Lucretius and Hesiod.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 25–50.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2018. “Contemplating Violence: Lucretius’ De rerum natura.” In Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds. Texts and Violence in the Roman World. Cambridge. 63–86.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2020. “Lucretius.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 430–55.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2022. “Otium and Voluptas: Catullus and Roman Epicureanism.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 87–108.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds. 2018. Texts and Violence in the Roman World. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Galzerano, M. 2017. “Ending with World Destruction: A Closural Device in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and Its Influence on Later Latin Poetry.” Graeco-Latina Brunensi 22: 43–55.Google Scholar
Ganson, T. S. 2005. “The Platonic Approach to Sense-Perception.” HPhQ 22: 1–15.Google Scholar
Garani, M. 2007. Empedocles Redivivus: Poetry and Analogy in Lucretius. London.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. H. 2019. Pestilence and the Body Politic in Latin Literature. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gee, E. 2020. “The Rising and Setting Soul in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 3.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 195–215.Google Scholar
Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2018. “Lucretius’ Personified Natura Rerum, Satire, and Ennius’ Saturae.” Phoenix 72: 143–60.Google Scholar
Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2020. Laughing Atoms, Laughing Matter: Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and Satire. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2022. “Lucretius on the Size of the Sun.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 168–85.Google Scholar
Gigandet, A. 1996. “Natura gubernans (Lucrèce, V, 77).” In Lévy, C., ed. Le Concept de nature à Rome: la physique. Paris. 213–25.Google Scholar
Gigandet, A. 1997. “L’interprétation des mythes comme lieu et enjeu de la polémique philosophique dans le De rerum natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H. eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 209–13.Google Scholar
Gigandet, A. 1999. “De l’amour: Vénus de Lucrèce & Érôs platonicien.” In Présence de Lucrèce. 77–85.Google Scholar
Gigon, O., ed. 1978. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva.Google Scholar
Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gillis, D. J. 1967. “Pastoral Poetry in Lucretius.” Latomus 26: 339–62.Google Scholar
Giussani, C. 1896–98. T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex. 4 vols. Turin.Google Scholar
Gladman, K. R. and Mitsis, P. 1997. “Lucretius and the Unconscious.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H. eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 215–24.Google Scholar
Gleason, M. W. 1995. Making Men: Sophist and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Glidden, D. K. 1979a. “Sensus and Sense Perception in the De Rerum natura.” ClAnt 12: 155–81.Google Scholar
Glidden, D. K. 1979b. “Epicurus on Self-Perception.” APhQ 16: 287–306.Google Scholar
Godwin, J. 1986. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura IV. Warminster.Google Scholar
Godwin, J. 2004. Lucretius. London.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. 2002. “The Erotic Experience of Looking: Cultural Conflict and the Gaze in Empire Culture.” In Nussbaum, M. C. and Sihvola, J., eds. The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Rome and Greece. Chicago, IL. 374–99.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. 2020. “Reading the ‘Implied Author’ in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 43–58.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. 1996. Epicurus in Lycia: The Second-Century World of Diogenes of Oinoanda. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. 2002. “Some Unseen Monster: Rereading Lucretius on Sex.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 86–109.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. 2012. The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. 2022. “Kitsch, Death and the Epicurean.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 129–46.Google Scholar
Görler, W. 1997. “Storing Up Past Pleasures: The Soul-Vessel-Metaphor in Lucretius and his Greek Models.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 193–207.Google Scholar
Graver, M. 1990. “The Eye of the Beholder: Perceptual Relativity in Lucretius.” Apeiron 23: 91–116.Google Scholar
Green, W. M. 1942. “The Dying World of Lucretius.” AJPh 63: 51–60.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, S. 2011. The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. and Barnes, J., eds. 1989a. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. T. 1989b. “Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome.” In Griffin, M. and Barnes, J., eds. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford. 1–37.Google Scholar
Grimal, P. 1978. “La poème de Lucrèce en son temps.” In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 233–62.Google Scholar
Gruber, G. M. 2009. “Medium and Message in Lucretius’ ‘Honey’ Analogy.” PhD Dissertation. University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Gunderson, E. 2000. Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Guy-Bray, S. 2006. Loving in Verse: Poetic Influence as Erotic. Toronto.Google Scholar
Hahm, D. E. 1977. The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. and Skinner, M. B., eds. 1997. Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2009. “Odysseus’s Request and the Need for Song.” Anais de Filosofia Clássica 3: 1–14.Google Scholar
Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I., eds. 1990. Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Hanchey, D. 2013. “Cicero, Exchange, and the Epicureans.” Phoenix 67: 119–34.Google Scholar
Hanchey, D. 2022. “Cicero’s Rhetoric of Anti-Epicureanism: Anonymity as Critique.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 37–54.Google Scholar
Hankinson, R. J. 1999 “Explanation and Causation.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. 479–512.Google Scholar
Hankinson, R. J. 2001. Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hanses, M. 2022. “Page, Stage, Image: Confronting Ennius with Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 147–67.Google Scholar
Hanson, A. E. 1990. “The Medical Writers’ Woman.” In Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I., eds. 1990. Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton, NJ. 309–38.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. 2008. “Lucretian Multiple Explanations and their Reception in Latin Didactic and Epic.” In Beretta, M. and Citti, F., eds. Lucrezio, la natura e la scienza. Florence. 69–96.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. 1990. “Lucretius, Euripides and the Philosophers: De Rerum Natura 5.13–21.” CQ 40: 195–98.Google Scholar
Herchenroeder, L. 2008. “Τί γὰρ τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν λόγον; Plutarch’s Gryllus and the So-Called Grylloi.” AJPh 129: 347–79.Google Scholar
Hill, T. 2004. Ambitiosa Mors: Suicide and Self in Roman Thought and Literature. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hillman, D. C. A. 2008. The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 1987. “Language at the Breaking Point: Lucretius 1.452.” CQ 37: 450–53.Google Scholar
Holm, S. 2013. “The Specter of Tantalus: Didactic Latency in De Rerum Natura. TAPhA 143: 385–403.Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2005a. Review of Campbell 2003. Aestimatio 2: 142–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2005b. “Daedala Lingua: Crafted Speech in De Rerum Natura.” AJPh 126: 527–85.Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2013. “The Poetic Logic of Negative Exceptionalism in Lucretius, Book Five.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 153–91.Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2014. “The Poetics of Anthropogony: Men, Women, and Children in Lucretius Book Five.’ EuGeSta 4: 135–74.Google Scholar
Holtsmark, E. B. 1967. “On Lucretius 2.1–19.” TAPhA 98: 193–204.Google Scholar
van Hoorn, W. 1972. As Images Unwind: Ancient and Modern Theories of Visual Perception. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Howe, H. M. 1951. “Amafinus, Lucretius, and Cicero.” AJPh 72: 57–62.Google Scholar
Howe, H. M. 1957. “The Religio of Lucretius.” CJ 52: 329–33.Google Scholar
Humphries, R. 1968. Lucretius: The Way Things Are: The De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius Carus. Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2001. “The Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 51: 150–62.Google Scholar
Ingalls, W. B. 1971. “Repetition in Lucretius.” Phoenix 25: 227–36.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. 1981. “The Origin of Epicurus’ Concept of Void.” CPh 76: 273–285.Google Scholar
Jacobson, H. 1990. “Lucretius 4.1192–96.” Phoenix 44: 82–83.Google Scholar
Johncock, M. S. P. 2016. “Metaphor and Argumentation in Lucretius.” PhD Dissertation. Royal Holloway, University of London.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. R. 2006. Lucretius in the Modern World. London.Google Scholar
Jope, J. 1985. “Lucretius, Cybele, and Religion.” Phoenix 39: 250–62.Google Scholar
Kany-Turpin, J. 1997. “Cosmos ouvert et épidémies mortelles dans le De rerum natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 179–85.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. 1997. “The Shame of the Romans.” TAPhA 127: 1–19.Google Scholar
Kato, S. 1991. “The Apology: The Beginning of Plato’s own Philosophy.” CQ 41: 356–64.Google Scholar
Keen, R. 1985. “Lucretius and his Reader.” Apeiron 19: 1–10.Google Scholar
Keith, A. M. 2000. Engendering Rome: Women in Latin Epic. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. T. 1980. “The Last Line of the De Rerum Natura.” Latomus 39: 95–97.Google Scholar
Keller, A. C. 1951. “Lucretius and the Idea of Progress.” CJ 46: 185–88.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. F. 2002. Rethinking Reality: Lucretius and the Textualization of Nature. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. 2006. “Atoms, Individuals, and Myths.” In Zajko, V. and Leonard, M., eds. Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought. Oxford. 233–52.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. 2013. “The Political Epistemology of Infinity.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 51–67.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 1970. “Doctus Lucretius.” Mnemosyne 23: 366–92.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 1972. “The Historical Imagination of Lucretius.” G&R 19: 12–24.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 1974. “Vivida vis: Polemic and Pathos in Lucretius 1.62–101.” In Woodman, T. and West, D. eds. Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry. Cambridge. 18–30.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 2007. “Lucretian Texture: Style, Metre and Rhetoric in the De Rerum Natura.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 92–110.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J., ed. 2014. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura Book III. 2nd ed. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kleve, K. 1978. “The Philosophical Polemics in Lucretius: A Study in the History of Epicurean Criticism.” In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 39–71.Google Scholar
Kleve, K. 1979. “What Kind of Work Did Lucretius Write?” SO 54: 81–85.Google Scholar
Koenen, M. H. 1997. “Lucretius’ Olfactory Theory in ‘De rerum natura’ IV.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 163–77.Google Scholar
Koenen, M. H. 1999. “Lucretius’ Explanation of Hearing in “De rerum natura” IV 524–562.” Mnemosyne 52: 434–63.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 1973. Some Aspects of Epicurean Psychology. Leiden.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 2010–11. “A Pig Convicts Itself of Unreason: The Implicit Argument of Plutarch’s Gryllus.” Hyperboreus 16–17: 371–85.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 2012. “Epicurean Happiness: A Pig’s Life?” Journal of Ancient Philosophy 6: 1–24.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 2020. “Atomism.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 59–80.Google Scholar
Kyriakidis, S. 2004. “Middles in Lucretius’ DRN: The Poet and His Work.” In Kyriakidis, S. and de Martino, F., eds. Middles in Latin Poetry. Bari. 27–49.Google Scholar
Landolfi, L. 2006. “Patologia dell’eros e metaforesi in Lucrezio De rer. Nat. 4, 1058–1090.” PP 46: 87–109.Google Scholar
Langlands, R. 2006. Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Langlands, R. 2018. Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lee, E. N. 1978. “The Sense of an Object: Epicurus on Seeing and Hearing.” In Machamer, P. K. and Turnbull, R. G., eds. Studies in Perception: Interrelations in the History of Philosophy and Science. Columbus, OH. 27–59.Google Scholar
Lehoux, D. 2013. “Seeing and Unseeing, Seen and Unseen.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 131–51.Google Scholar
Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. 2013. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford.Google Scholar
Lenaghan, L. 1967. “Lucretius 1.921–50.” TAPhA 98: 221–51.Google Scholar
Lenz, J. R. 2011. “How Epicurean Science Saves Humanity in Lucretius.” In Suits, D. B. and Madigan, T. J., eds. Lucretius: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance. Rochester, NY. 89–106.Google Scholar
Leonard, W. E. and Smith, S. B., eds. 1942. Lucretius, “De Rerum Natura” libri sex. Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
Litchfield, H. W. 1913. “Cicero’s Judgment on Lucretius.” HSPh 24: 147–59.Google Scholar
Long., A. A. 1977. “Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism.” Phronesis 22: 63–88.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 1986a. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics Epicureans, Sceptics. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 1986b. “Pleasure and Social Utility: The Virtues of Being Epicurean.” In Flashar, H. and Gigon, O., eds. Aspects de la Philosophie Hellénistique. Geneva. 283–316.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 1997. “Lucretius on Nature and the Epicurean Self.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 128–32.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 1999. “The Socratic Legacy.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. 617–41.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 2006. From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 2008. “The Concept of the Cosmopolitan in Greek and Roman Thought.” Daedalus 137: 50–58.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N., eds. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lonie, I. M. 1981. The Hippocratic Treatises, “On Generation,” “On the Nature of the Child,” “Diseases IV.” Berlin.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. 2016. “Suspending Disbelief: Magnetic and Miraculous Levitation from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” ClAnt 35: 247–78.Google Scholar
Luciani, S. 1999. “Philosophie et Esthétique du Mouvement dans le De Rerum Natura.” In Poignault, R., ed. Présence de Lucrèce: Actes du colloque tenu à Tours (3–5 décembre 1998). Tours. 65–76.Google Scholar
Ludwig, P. 2018. “Lucretius on Rebelling Against the ‘Laws’ of Nature.” In Minkov, S. Y. and Trout, B. L., eds. Mastery of Nature: Promises and Prospects. Philadelphia, PA. 122–34.Google Scholar
Luper-Foy, S. 1987. “Annihilation.” PhilosQ 37: 233–52.Google Scholar
Mac Góráin, F. 2018. “Untitled\Arma Virumque.” CPh 113: 423–48.Google Scholar
Maguinness, W. S. 1965. “The Language of Lucretius.” In Dudley, D. R., ed. Lucretius. London. 69–93.Google Scholar
Marković, D. 2008. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Leiden.Google Scholar
Marković, D. 2010–11. “Lucretius 3.978–1023 and the Hellenistic Philosophical Polemics against the Grammarians.” ICS 35–36: 143–53.Google Scholar
Massaro, A. 2014. “The Living in Lucretius’ De rerum natura: Animals’ ataraxia and Humans’ Distress.” Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism 2: 45–58.Google Scholar
Masterson, M., Rabinowitz, N. S., and Robson, J., eds. 2014. Sex in Antiquity: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World. London.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. 1990. “The Epic of Lucretius.” Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6: 35–43.Google Scholar
McConnell, S. 2012. “Lucretius and Civil Strife.” Phoenix 66: 97–121.Google Scholar
McConnell, S. 2015. “Epicurean Education and the Rhetoric of Concern.” AClass 58: 111–45.Google Scholar
McDonnell, M. 2006. Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. Cambridge.Google Scholar
McOsker, M. 2020. “Poetics.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 347–76.Google Scholar
Meijer, P. A. 2007. Stoic Theology: Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and the Traditional Gods: Including a Commentary on Cleanthes’ Hymn on Zeus. Delft.Google Scholar
Merlan, P. 1950. “Lucretius – Primitivist or Progressivist?” JHI 11: 354–68.Google Scholar
Merrill, W. A. 1891. “The Signification and Use of the Word Natura by Lucretius.” TAPhA 22: xxxii–xxxv.Google Scholar
Michels, A. K. 1955. “Death and Two Poets.” TAPha 86: 160–79.Google Scholar
Miller, W. I. 1997. The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Minaedo, R. 1965. “The Formal Design of De Rerum Natura.” Arion 4: 444–61.Google Scholar
Minyard, J. D. 1985. Lucretius and the Late Republic: An Essay in Roman Intellectual History. Leiden.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P. 1988. Epicurus’ Ethical Theory: The Pleasures of Invulnerability. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P. 1993. “Committing Philosophy on the Reader: Didactic Coercion and Reader Autonomy in De Rerum Natura.” MD 31: 111–28.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P., ed. 2020a. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P. 2020b. “Friendship.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 250–83.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P. 2021. “Did Ancient Greek Philosophers Have a Concept of Free Will? (and Other Improper Questions).” In Mitsis, P. and Reid, H. L., eds. The Poetry of Philosophy. Sioux City, IA. 243–82.Google Scholar
Monet, A., ed. 2003. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille.Google Scholar
Montarese, F. 2012. Lucretius and His Sources: A Study of Lucretius, “De rerum natura” I 635–920. Berlin.Google Scholar
Monti, R. C. 1981. “Lucretius on Greed, Political Ambition and Society: de rer. Nat. 3. 69–86.” Latomus 40: 48–66.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. D. 2020. “Arguing over Text(s): Master-Texts vs. Intertexts in the Criticism of Lucretius.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 157–76.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1978. Die Finalia der sechs Bücher des Lucrez. In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 197–221.Google Scholar
Müller, K. 1974. Review of Lucretius, “De Rerum Natura Book” III, by E. J. Kenney. Gnomon 46: 756–64.Google Scholar
Mulroy, D. 1977. “An Interpretation of Catullus 11.” CW 71: 237–47.Google Scholar
Munro, H. A. J. 1864–66. T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Murley, C. 1928. “Cicero’s Attitude toward Lucretius.” CPh 23: 289–91.Google Scholar
Murley, C. 1947. “Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Viewed As Epic.” TAPhA 78: 336–46.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1979. Mortal Questions. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nagler, M. N. 1996. “Dread Goddess Revisited.” In Schein, S. L., ed. Reading the Odyssey: Selected Interpretive Essays. Princeton, NJ. 140–61.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2017. “Empedocles’ ‘Roots’ in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” AJPh 138: 85–105.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2018. “Provisional Argumentation and Lucretius’ Honeyed Cup.” CQ 68: 523–33.Google Scholar
Nicgorski, W. 2002. “Cicero, Citizenship, and the Epicurean Temptation.” In Allman, D. D. and Beaty, M. D., eds. Cultivating Citizens: Soulcraft and Citizenship in Contemporary America. Oxford. 3–28.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. H. 1976. Epicurean Political Philosophy: The De rerum natura of Lucretius. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. 2007. “Night-Vision: Epicurean Eschatology.” Arion 14: 61–98.Google Scholar
Nugent, B. P. 2008. “The Sounds of Sirens; Odyssey 12.184–91.” College Literature 35: 45–54.Google Scholar
Nugent, S. G. 1994. “Mater Matters: The Female in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” ColbyQ 30: 179–205.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1986. “Therapeutic Arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle.” In Schofield, M. and Striker, G., eds. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge. 31–74.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1989a. “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature.” Ph&PhenR 1: 303–51.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1989b. “Beyond Obsession and Disgust: Lucretius’ Genealogy of Love.” Apeiron 22: 1–59.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1990. “By Words Not Arms: Lucretius on Gentleness in an Unsafe World.” Apeiron 23: 41–90.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1994. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2002. “Erōs and Ethical Norms: Philosophers Respond to a Cultural Dilemma.” In Nussbaum, M. C. and Sihvola, J., eds. The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Rome and Greece. Chicago, IL. 55–94.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. and Sihvola, J., eds. 2002. The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Rome and Greece. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Obbink, D., ed. 1995. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford.Google Scholar
O’Hara, J. 2007. Inconsistency in Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan. Cambridge.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, T. 1997. “The Ontological Status of Sensible Qualities for Democritus and Epicurus.” AncPhil 17: 119–34.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, T. 2001. “Is Epicurean Friendship Altruistic?” Apeiron 34: 269–305.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, T. 2003. “Lucretius on the Cycle of Life and the Fear of Death.” Apeiron 36: 43–65.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, T. 2020. “Lucretius and the Philosophical Use of Literary Persuasion.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 177–94.Google Scholar
Oliensis, E. 1997. “The Erotics of Amicitia: Readings in Tibullus, Propertius, and Horace.” In Hallett, J. P. and Skinner, M. B., eds. Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ. 151–71.Google Scholar
Olson, K. 2014. “Masculinity, Appearance, and Sexuality: Dandies in Roman Antiquity.” JHSex 23: 182–205.Google Scholar
Olson, K. 2017. Masculinity and Dress in Roman Antiquity. London.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2014. “Lovers in Arms: Empedoclean Love and Strife in Lucretius and the Elegists.” Dictynna 11: 1–21.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2018. “Make War Not Love: Militia amoris and Domestic Violence in Roman Elegy.” In Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds. Texts and Violence in the Roman World. Cambridge. 110–39.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D., ed. 2020a. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. 2020b. “Infinity, Enclosure and False Closure in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 103–23.Google Scholar
Owen, W. H. 1969a. “Structural Patterns in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CW 62: 121–27.Google Scholar
Owen, W. H. 1969b. “Structural Patterns in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (Continued).” CW 62: 166–72.Google Scholar
Packman, Z. M. 1976. “Ethics and Allegory in the Proem of the Fifth Book of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. CJ 71: 206–212.Google Scholar
Pantelia, M. C. 1993. “Spinning and Weaving: Ideas of Domestic Order in Homer.” AJPh 114: 493–501.Google Scholar
Park, D. 1997. The Fire within the Eye: A Historical Essay on the Nature and Meaning of Light. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Parry, M. 1933. “The Traditional Metaphor in Homer.” CPh 28: 30–43.Google Scholar
Pentassuglio, F. 2018. “Socrates Erotikos: Mutuality, Role Reversal, and Erotic Paideia in Xenophon’s and Plato’s Symposia.” In Danzig, G., Johnson, D., and Morrison, D., eds. Plato and Xenophon: Comparative Studies. Leiden. 365–90.Google Scholar
Penwill, J. L. 1994. “Image, Ideology and Action in Cicero and Lucretius.” Ramus 23: 68–91.Google Scholar
Penwill, J. L. 1996. “The Ending of Sense: Death as Closure in Lucretius Book 6.” Ramus 25: 146–69.Google Scholar
Piergiacomi, E. 2020. “Language.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 308–32.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2016. “Sweating with Blood and Civil Conflict in De Rerum Natura.” CJ 112: 41–55.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2018a. “Ocular Penetration, Grammatical Objectivity, and an Indecent Proposal in De Rerum Natura. CPh 113: 206–12.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2018b. “Seminal Verse: Atomic Orality and Aurality in De Rerum Natura.” Eugesta 8: 108–30.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2019. “Embryology, Female Semina and Male Vincibility in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.” CQ 69: 229–45.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2020. “Bodies Piled High: Lucretius, Lucan, and the Un/Natural Costs of Civil War.” CPh 115: 209–26.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2022a. “A Brief Note on religio and the Ending of De Rerum Natura.” Philologus 166: 150–55.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2022b. “Revisiting Baratre in DRN 3.955.” CJ 117: 476–85.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 1995. “Content and Form in Philodemus: The History of an Evasion.” In Obbink, D., ed. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford. 97–147.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2003. “Lucretius and the Poetics of Void.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 197–226.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2007. “Lucretius and the Sublime.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 167–84.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. 2011. “Making and Unmaking: The Achaean Wall and the Limits of Fictionality in Homeric Criticism.” TAPhA 141: 1–36.Google Scholar
Preus, A. 1977. “Galen’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Conception Theory.” JHB 10: 65–85.Google Scholar
Pucci, P. 1979. “The Song of the Sirens.” Arethusa 12: 121–32.Google Scholar
Purinton, J. 1993. “Epicurus on the Telos.” Phronesis 38: 281–320.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, T. 2002. “The Speech of Nature in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura 3.931–71.” CQ 52: 291–304.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, T. 2004. “Readers in the Underworld, De Rerum Natura 3.912–1075.” JRS 94: 27–46.Google Scholar
Renehan, R. 1980. “On the Greek Origins of the Concepts Incorporeality and Immateriality.” GRBS 21: 105–38.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. 2005. The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 1981. “The Meaning of irrumare in Catullus and Martial.” CPh 76: 40–46.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 1984. “Invective against Women in Roman Satire.” Arethusa 17: 67–80.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. Rev. ed. Oxford.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 1993. “Not Before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love between Men.” JHSex 3: 522–73.Google Scholar
Rider, B. 2014. “Epicurus on the Fear of Death and the Relative Value of Lives.” Apeiron 47: 461–84.Google Scholar
Roller, D. W. 1970. “Gaius Memmius: Patron of Lucretius.” CPh 65: 246–48.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, S. 1986. “How to Be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus.” APhQ 23: 217–25.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, S. 1989a. “Epicurus and Annihilation.” PhilosQ 39: 81–90.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, S. 1989b. “The Symmetry Argument: Lucretius Against the Fear of Death.” Ph&PhenR 50: 353–73.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, S. 2020. “Death.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 118–40.Google Scholar
Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1996. “Sensation and Taste in Lucretius.” SCI 15: 135–51.Google Scholar
Rosivach, V. J. 1980. “Lucretius 4.1123–40.” AJPh 101: 401–3.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2007a. A Commentary on Plutarch’s De Latenter Vivendo. Leuven.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2007b. Live Unnoticed (Λάθε βιώσας): On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine. Leiden.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2020. “Politics and Society.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 284–307.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2022. “Sint Ista Graecorum: How to be an Epicurean in Late Republican Rome – Evidence from Cicero’s On Ends 1–2.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 11–36.Google Scholar
Rouse, W. H. D. and Smith, M. F., eds. 1992. Lucretius, “De Rerum Natura.” Rev. ed. Loeb 181. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Roy, S. 2013. “Homeric Concerns: A Metapoetic Reading of Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 2.1–19.” CQ 63: 780–84.Google Scholar
Rundin, J. 2003. “The Epicurean Morality of Vergil’s Bucolics.” CW 96: 159–76.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. and Konstan, D. 2005. Heraclitus: Homeric Problems. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Sandbach, F. H. 1940. “Lucreti Poemata and the Poet’s Death.” CR 54: 72–77.Google Scholar
Santoro L’hoir, F. 1992. The Rhetoric of Gender Terms: “Man”, “Woman”, and the Portrayal of Character in Latin Prose. Leiden.Google Scholar
Santos, G. H. 2000. “Chest Trauma during the Battle of Troy: Ancient Warfare and Chest Trauma.” Annals of Thoracic Surgery 69: 1285–87.Google Scholar
Scarborough, J. 1991. “The Pharmacology of Sacred Plants, Herbs, and Roots.” In Faraone, C. A. and Obbink, D., eds. Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Oxford. 138–74.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 1989. “A Note on Lucretius 4.1046.” CQ 39: 555–57.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 1994. “The Palingenesis of De Rerum Natura.” PCPhS 40: 81–107.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 2003. “Rhétorique, Politique et Didaxis chez Lucrèce.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 57–75.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 2007a. “Lucretius and Roman Politics and History.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 41–58.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 2007b. “Didaxis, Rhetoric, and the Law in Lucretius.” In Heyworth, S. J., Fowler, P. G., and Harrison, S. J., eds. Classical Constructions: Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist and Epicurean. Oxford. 63–90.Google Scholar
Schoenheim, U. 1966. “The Place of ‘Tactus’ in Lucretius.” Philologus 110: 71–87.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. and Striker, G., eds. 1986. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge.Google Scholar
van Schoor, D. 2011. “Nec me mea fallit imago: Ovid’s Poetics of Irony and Reflections of Lucretius and Pythagoras in the Metamorphoses.” AClass 54: 125–47.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. H. 1970. Horror ac Divina Voluptas: Études sur la poésie de Lucrèce. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. H. 1996. “Lucretius on the Origin and Development of Political Life (De Rerum Natura 5.1105–1160).” In Algra, K. A., van der Horst, P. W., and Runia, D. T., eds. Polyhistor: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy: Presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his Sixtieth Birthday. Leiden. 220–30.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. H. 1997. “L’homme et l’animal dans le De rerum natura: Lucrèce et la science de la vie.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 151–61.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. H. 2007a. “Seeing the Invisible: A Study of Lucretius’ Use of Analogy in the De rerum natura.” In Gale, M. R., ed. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius. Oxford. 255–88.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. H. 2007b. “Propagandistic Strategies in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In Harder, A., MacDonald, A. A., and Reinink, G. J., eds. Calliope’s Classroom: Studies in Didactic Poetry from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Leuven. 49–70.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1982. “Two Conceptions of Vacuum.” Phronesis 27: 175–93.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1988. “Epicurean Anti-reductionism.” In Barnes, J. and Mignucci, M., eds. Matter and Metaphysics. Naples. 295–327.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1989. “Epicurus on the Common Sensibles.” In Huby, P. and Neal, G., eds. The Criterion of Truth: Essays Written in Honour of George Kerferd, Together with a Text and Translation (with Annotations) of Ptolemy’s On the Kriterion and Hegemonikon. Liverpool. 123–136.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1997. “How Lucretius Composed the De Rerum Natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 1–19.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1998. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1999. “Lucretius’ Use and Avoidance of Greek.” PBA 93: 227–46.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 2003. “Lucretius and the New Empedocles.” Leeds International Classical Studies 2: 1–12.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 2007. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 2009. “Epicureanism in the Roman Republic.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 29–45.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 2018. “Epicurean Theories of Knowledge from Hermarchus to Lucretius and Philodemus.” Lexicon Philosophicum: International Journal for the History of Texts and Ideas 6: 106–21.Google Scholar
Segal, C. 1970. “Delubra Decora: Lucretius II. 352–66.” Latomus 29: 104–18.Google Scholar
Segal, C. 1983. Kleos and Its Ironies in the Odyssey. AC 52: 22–47.Google Scholar
Segal, C. 1989. “Poetic Immortality and the Fear of Death: The Second Proem of the De Rerum Natura.” HSPh 92: 193–212.Google Scholar
Segal, C. 1990. Lucretius on Death and Anxiety: Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum Natura. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Sharples, R. W. 1980. “Lucretius’ Account of the Composition of the Soul (3.231ff.).” LCM 5: 117–20.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. 2006. “The Philosopher and the Mother Cow: Towards a Gendered Reading of Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.” In Zajko, V. and Leonard, M., eds. Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought. Oxford. 253–74.Google Scholar
Shearin, W. H. 2015. The Language of the Atoms: Performativity and Politics in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Oxford.Google Scholar
Shearin, W. H. 2020. “Saussure’s cahiers and Lucretius’ elementa: A Reconsideration of the Letters-Atoms Analogy.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 140–53.Google Scholar
Shelton, J.-A. 1995. “Contracts with Animals: Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.” Between the Species 11:115–21.Google Scholar
Shildrick, M. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)Ethics. London.Google Scholar
Sider, D. 1995. “Epicurean Poetics: Response and Dialogue.” In Obbink, D., ed. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford. 35–41.Google Scholar
Sider, D. 1997. The Epigrams of Philodemos: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar
Sikes, E. E. 1971. Lucretius: Poet and Philosopher. New York, NY.Google Scholar
Sinisgalli, R. 2012. Perspective in the Visual Culture of Classical Antiquity. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sissa, G. 2008. Sex and Sensuality in the Ancient World. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. B. 2014. Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
Smith, M. F. 1966. “Some Lucretius Thought Processes.” Hermathena 102: 73–83.Google Scholar
Smith, M. F. 1985. “Notes on Lucretius.” Sileno 11: 219–25.Google Scholar
Smith, M. F. 2000. “Lucretius 3.955.” Prometheus 26: 35–40.Google Scholar
Smith, W. S. 2005. “The Cold Cares of Venus: Lucretius and Anti-marriage Literature.” In Smith, W. S., ed. Satiric Advice on Women and Marriage: From Plautus to Chaucer. Ann Arbor, MI. 71–91.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. M. 1976. “Lucretius and the Status of Women.” CB 53: 17–19.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. M. 1980. Puns and Poetry in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. M. 1981. “The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric Poets.” CJ 76: 193–96.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. M. 1983. “The Warp and the Woof of the Universe in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” ICS 8: 37–43.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. 1963. “Nature as Craftsman in Greek Thought.” JHI 24: 473–96.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. 1977. “Epicurus on Void, Matter and Genesis: Some Historical Observations.” Phronesis 22: 263–81.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. 1988. “Lucretius’ Strategy in De Rerum Natura I.” RhM 131: 315–23.Google Scholar
Solomon, D. 2004. “Lucretius’ Progressive Revelation of Nature in DRN 1.149–502.” Phoenix 58: 260–83.Google Scholar
Stearns, J. B. 1936. “Epicurus and Lucretius on Love.” CJ 31: 343–51.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. J. 1970. “The Silence of Magna Mater.” HSPh 74: 75–84.Google Scholar
Stoddard, K. 1996. “Thucydides, Lucretius, and the End of the De Rerum Natura.” Maia 48: 107–28.Google Scholar
Stokes, M. C. 1995. “Cicero on Epicurean Pleasures.” In Powell, J. G. F. ed. Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers. Oxford. 145–70.Google Scholar
Striker, G. 1993. “Epicurean Hedonism.” In Brunschwig, J. and Nussbaum, M. C., eds. Passions and Perceptions: Studies in Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium Hellenisticum. Cambridge. 3–17.Google Scholar
Striker, G. 1996. “Epicurus on the Truth of the Sense Perceptions.” In Striker, G., ed. Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics. Cambridge. 77–91.Google Scholar
Struck, P. T. 2004. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Summers, K. 1995. “Lucretius and the Epicurean Tradition of Piety.” CPh 90: 32–57.Google Scholar
Sweeney, R. D. 1969. Prolegomena to an Edition of the Scholia of Statius. Leiden.Google Scholar
Syme, R. 1964. Sallust. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. 2016. “Rationalism and the Theatre in Lucretius.” CQ 66: 140–54.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. 2020a. Lucretius and the Language of Nature. Oxford.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. 2020b. “Common Ground in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 59–79.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. C. W. 1980. “‘All Perceptions Are True.’” In Schofield, M., Burnyeat, M., and Barnes, J., eds. Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford. 105–24.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. 1947. “Progress and Primitivism in Lucretius.” AJPh 68: 180–94.Google Scholar
Testard, R. P. M. 1976. “Les idées religieuses de Lucrèce.” BAGB 3: 249–72.Google Scholar
Thong, Denise. 2017. “Minimalism – The Long Forgotten Virtue of Temperance.” Medium, September 18. https://medium.com/@denisethong/minimalism-the-long-forgotten-virtue-of-temperance-67c3ecca5add.Google Scholar
Thury, E. M. 1987. “Lucretius’ Poem as a Simulacrum of the Rerum Natura.” AJPh 108: 270–94.Google Scholar
Townend, G. B. 1979. “The Original Plan of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CQ 29: 101–11.Google Scholar
Tsouna, V. 2009. “Epicurean Therapeutic Strategies.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 249–65.Google Scholar
Tsouna, V. 2020. “Hedonism.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 141–88.Google Scholar
Usener, H. 1902. “Milch und Honig.” RhM 57: 177–95.Google Scholar
de Vaan, M. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden.Google Scholar
Veyne, P. 1982. “L’homosexualité à Rome.” Communications 35: 26–33.Google Scholar
Vieron, M. P. 2013. “Poetic Voice and Readership in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” PhD Dissertation. University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2002. The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius. Oxford.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2010. “Lucretius’ Prayer for Peace and the Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 60: 127–31.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2022. “Caesar the Epicurean? A Matter of Life and Death.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 72–86.Google Scholar
Wainwright, E. M. 2006. Women Healing/Healing Women: The Genderization of Healing in Early Christianity. London.Google Scholar
Wakefield, G. 1813. T. Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libri sex. 4 vols. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. 1996. “‘Amaze Your Friends!’ Lucretius on Magnets.” G&R 43: 178–87.Google Scholar
Wallach, B. P. 1976. Lucretius and the Diatribe against the Fear of Death: De Rerum Natura III 830–1094. Leiden.Google Scholar
Walters, J. 1997. “Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability in Roman Thought.” In Hallett, J. P. and Skinner, M. B., eds. Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ. 29–43.Google Scholar
Wardy, R. 1988. “Lucretius on What Atoms Are Not.” CPh 83: 112–28.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2001. “Lucretian Palingenesis Recycled.” CQ 51: 499–508.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2004. Facing Death: Epicurus and His Critics. Oxford.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2007. “Lucretius and Greek Philosophy.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 19–32.Google Scholar
Warren, J., ed. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2019. “Epicurus on the False Belief That Sense-Impressions Conflict.” Philosophie antique 19: 7–28.Google Scholar
Waszink, J. H. 1954. “Lucretius and Poetry.” Mededelingen der koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde 17: 243–57.Google Scholar
West, D. 1969. The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
West, G. S. 1982. “Are Lucretius’ Danaids Beautiful?” CPh 77: 144–48.Google Scholar
Whitlatch, L. 2014. “Empiricist Dogs and the Superiority of Philosophy in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CW 108: 45–66.Google Scholar
Wider, K. 1986. “Women Philosophers in the Ancient Greek World: Donning the Mantle.” Hypatia 1: 21–62.Google Scholar
Williams, C. A. 1998. Review of Roman Sexualities. BMCR. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1998/1998.10.16/.Google Scholar
Williams, C. A. 2010. Roman Homosexuality. 2nd ed. Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. E. 2015. Unmanly Men: Refigurations of Masculinity in Luke-Acts. Oxford.Google Scholar
Winterbottom, M. 2000. “Lucretius 5.845–54.” Hermes 128: 505–6.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 1974. “The Two Worlds of Titus Lucretius.” In Wiseman, T. P., ed. Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays. Leicester. 11–43.Google Scholar
Wohl, V. J. 1993. “Standing by Stathmos: The Creation of Sexual Ideology in the Odyssey.” Arethusa 26: 19–50.Google Scholar
Woolerton, E. 2010. “The Roots of Lucretius’ Tree-Men, De Rerum Natura 2.701–3.” CQ 60: 255–57.Google Scholar
Wormell, D. E. W. 1965. “The Personal World of Lucretius.” In Dudley, D. R., ed. Lucretius. London. 35–67.Google Scholar
Wray, D. 2001. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wyke, M. 1994. “Woman in the Mirror: The Rhetoric of Adornment in the Roman World.” In Archer, L. J., Fishler, S., and Wyke, M., eds. Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of Night. London.Google Scholar
Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. 2022. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Zajko, V. and Leonard, M., eds. 2006. Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought. Oxford.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 1998. “De re publica and De rerum natura.” In Knox, P. and Foss, C., eds. Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart. 230–47.Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, J. 1985. Alan of Lille’s Grammar of Sex: The Meaning of Grammar to a Twelfth-Century Intellectual. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Michael Pope, Brigham Young University, Utah
  • Book: Lucretius and the End of Masculinity
  • Online publication: 11 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009242349.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Michael Pope, Brigham Young University, Utah
  • Book: Lucretius and the End of Masculinity
  • Online publication: 11 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009242349.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Michael Pope, Brigham Young University, Utah
  • Book: Lucretius and the End of Masculinity
  • Online publication: 11 May 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009242349.007
Available formats
×