Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2023
Summary
A summary is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Epicurus in RomePhilosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age, pp. 186 - 203Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
- Creative Commons
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/
References
Alberti, A. 1995. “The Epicurean Theory of Law and Justice,” in Laks and Schofield: 1995, 161–190.Google Scholar
Algra, K. 2000. “The Treatise of Cleomedes and its Critique of Epicurean Cosmology,” in Erler: 2000: 164–189.Google Scholar
Algra, K. 2001. Epicurus en de zon. Wiskunde en fysica bij een Hellenistisch filosoof. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Algra, K. et al. (eds.) 1999. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allman, D. and Beaty, M. (eds.) 2002. Cultivating Citizens: Soulcraft and Citizenship in Contemporary America. Oxford.Google Scholar
Allroggen-Bedel, A. 1974. Maskendarstellungen in der römisch-kampanischen Wandmalerei. Munich.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. S. 1992. “Horace’s Different Recommenders of ‘Carpe diem’ in C. 1.4, 7, 9, 11.” CJ 88: 115–122.Google Scholar
Angeli, A. 1988. (ed.) Filodemo. Agli amici di scuola (PHerc. 1005). Edizione, traduzione e commento. Naples.Google Scholar
Annas, J. and Betegh, G. (eds.) 2016. Cicero’s De finibus. Philosophical Approaches. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. 2003. “Philodemus, the Herculaneum Papyri, and the Therapy of Fear,” in Gordon and Suits: 2003, 17–43.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. 2004. “All Things to All Men: Philodemus’ Model of Therapy and the Audience of De Morte,” in Fitzgerald, Obbink and Holland: 2004, 15–54.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. 2008. “‘Be Angry and Sin Not’: Philodemus versus the Stoics on Natural Bites and Natural Emotions,” in Fitzgerald: 2008, 79–121.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. 2011. “Epicurean Virtues, Epicurean Friendship: Cicero vs the Herculaneum Papyri,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 105–128.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. 1973. Epicuro, Opere. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note. Turin.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1990. “Philodemus’ Epicureanism.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 36.4: 2369–2406.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1991. “Philodemus’s Poetic Theory and On the Good King According to Homer.” CA 10: 1–45.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 2004. “Epicurean Economics,” in Fitzgerald, Obbink and Holland: 2004, 133–176.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 2008. “Lucretius’ New World Order: Making a Pact with Nature.” CQ 58: 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmis, E. 2011. “The Necessity of Anger in Philodemus’ On Anger,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 152–182.Google Scholar
Auvray-Assayas, C. and Delattre, D. (eds.) 2001. Cicéron et Philodème: la polémique en philosophie. Paris.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. 1947. Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. Edited with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and Commentary. 3 vols. Oxford.Google Scholar
Baily, F. 1836. “On a Remarkable Phenomenon that Occurs in Total and Annular Eclipses of the Sun.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 4.2: 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, F. 2016. Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benferhat, Y. 2001. “Cum Scriberem contra Epicureos: Cicéron et l’épicurisme dans les Tusculanes I–II.” VL 164: 21–35.Google Scholar
Benferhat, Y. 2005a. Ciues Epicurei: les épicuriens et l’idée de monarchie à Rome et en Italie de Sylla à Octave. Brussels.Google Scholar
Benferhat, Y. 2005b. “Catulle et les affrontements politico-littéraires à Rome à la fin de la République,” in Poignault: 2005, 131–148.Google Scholar
Berry, D. H. and Erskine, A. (eds.) 2010. Form and Function in Roman Oratory. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Beretta, M. 2015. La rivoluzione culturale di Lucrezio. Filosofia e scienza nell’antica Roma. Rome.Google Scholar
Bergsma, A., Poot, G. and Liefbroer, A. C.. 2008. “Happiness in the Garden of Epicurus.” Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielskis, A. 2018. “On the Genealogy of Kitsch and the Critique of Ideology: A Reflection on Method.” Genealogy 2.1.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biondi, G. G. 2003. “Lucrezio e Catullo: osservazioni su una vexata quaestio (con note sulla interpretazione e la cronologia di Catull. 64 e 68).” Paideia 58: 207–234.Google Scholar
Boyle, R. 2017. 18 August. “Earth Has the Solar System’s Best Eclipses.” FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/earth-has-the-solar-systems-best-eclipses/.Google Scholar
Brandt, E. et al. 1968. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen, vol 2: Staatliche Münzsammlung. Munich.Google Scholar
Braund, D. and Gill, C. (eds.) 2003. Myth, History and Culture in Republican Rome: Studies in Honour of T.P. Wiseman. Exeter.Google Scholar
Braund, D. C. 1996. “The Politics of Catullus 10: Memmius, Caesar and the Bithynians.” Hermathena 160: 45–57.Google Scholar
Bringmann, K. 2012. “Cicero über seine Philosophica: Zu Überlieferung und Interpretation einer umstrittenen Selbstaussage in Att. 12, 52, 3.” Hermes 140: 25–36.Google Scholar
Brinton, A. 1988. “Cicero’s Use of Historical Examples in Moral Argument.” Ph&Rh 21: 169–184.Google Scholar
Brittain, C. 2016. “Cicero’s Sceptical Methods: The Example of De finibus,” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 12–40.Google Scholar
Brown, E. 2002. “Epicurus on the Value of Friendship (Sententia Vaticana 23).” CPh: 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. D. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030–1287. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1989. “Philosophy and Religion in the Late Republic,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 174–198.Google Scholar
Cairns, F. 2003. “Catullus in and about Bithynia: Poems 68, 10, 28 and 47,” in Braund and Gill: 2003, 165–190.Google Scholar
Cappello, O. 2016. “Everything You Wanted to Know About Atticus (but Were Afraid to Ask Cicero): Looking for Atticus in Cicero’s ad Atticum.” Arethusa 49: 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappello, O. 2019. The School of Doubt: Skepticism, History, and Politics in Cicero’s Academica. Leiden.Google Scholar
Castagnoli, L. 2013. “Democritus and Epicurus on Sensible Qualities in Plutarch’s Against Colotes 3–9.” Aetia 3.Google Scholar
Castner, C. J. 1988. Prosopography of Roman Epicureans from the Second Century B.C. to the Second Century A.D. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Chandler, C. 2017. Philodemus: On Rhetoric, Books 1 and 2: Translation and Exegetical Essays. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J. 2010. “Teaching Philosophy, a Form or Function of Roman Oratory: Velleius’ Speech in Cicero’s ‘De natura deorum,’” in Berry and Erskine: 2010, 195–207.Google Scholar
Clay, D. 1998. Paradosis and Survival: Three Chapters in the History of Epicurean Philosophy. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Cleary, J. J. and Shartin, D. C. (eds.) 1989. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Cleary, J. J. and Wians, W. (eds.) 1994. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 10. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Cosenza, P. 1996. “La dimostrazione della non eleggibilità dell’ingiustizia nella Rata Sententia XXXIV di Epicuro,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 361–376.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. 2013. “Fear and Loathing in Lucretius: Latent Tragedy and Anti-Allusion in DRN 3,” in Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis: 2013, 113–133.Google Scholar
Croisille, J.-M. 1963. “Le sacrifice d’Iphigénie dans l’art romain et la littérature latine.” Latomus 22: 209–225.Google Scholar
Dalfen, J. (ed.) 1980. Symmicta philologica Salisburgensia Georgio Pfligersdorffer sexagenario oblata. Rome.Google Scholar
Damon, C. 1997. The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Davis, G. 1991. Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Diano, C. 1940. “La Psicologia d’Epicuro e la teoria della passioni. Part I (section 2).” Giornale critico della Filosofia Italiana, 2nd ser. vol. 8: 151–165.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.) 2010. Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, J. and Long, T. (eds.) 1988. The Question of Eclecticism: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy. Berkeley, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobesch, G. 1985. “Politische Bemerkungen zu Ciceros Rede Pro Marcello,” in Weber and Dobesch: 1985, 153–231.Google Scholar
Donini, P. 1988. “The History of the Concept of Eclecticism,” in Dillon and Long: 1988, 15–33.Google Scholar
Dueck, D. 2009. “Poetic Quotations in Latin Prose Works of Philosophy.” Hermes 137: 314–334.Google Scholar
Englert, W. 1994. “Stoics and Epicureans on the Nature of Suicide,” in Cleary and Wians: 1994, 67–96.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 1992a. “Orthodoxie und Anpassung. Philodem, ein Panaitios des Kepos?” MH 49: 171–200.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 2001. “Response to Voula Tsouna,” in Auvray-Assayas and Delattre: 2001, 173–78.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 2011. “Autodidact and Student: On the Relationship of Authority and Autonomy in Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 9–28.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 2016. “The Closing Columns of Philodemus’ On the Good King According to Homer, PHerc. 1507 Cols. 95–98 (= Cols. 40–43 Dorandi).” CronErcol 46: 55–81.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 2020. Epicurus: An Introduction to His Practical Ethics and Politics. Basel.Google Scholar
Erler, M. (ed.) 2000. Epikureismus in der späten Republik und der Kaiserzeit. Akten der 2. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 30. September–3. Oktober 1998 in Würzburg. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Essler, H. 2011. “Cicero’s Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 129–151.Google Scholar
Fabrizi, V. 2012. Mores veteresque novosque: rappresentazioni del passato e del presente di Roma negli Annales di Ennio. Pisa.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 2006. “‘Dic si quid potes de Sexto Annali’: The Literary Legacy of Ennius’ Pyrrhic War.” Arethusa 39: 549–568.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 2009. “Caesar as an Intellectual,” in Griffin, M. T. (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar. Malden, MA, 141–156.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2008. “The Six Books of Lucretius’ De rerum natura: Antecedents and Influence.” Dictynna 5: 1–21.Google Scholar
Fish, J. 1998. “Is Death Nothing to Horace? A Brief Comparison with Philodemus and Lucretius.” CronErcol 28: 99–104.Google Scholar
Fish, J. 2011. “Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus: What Roman Epicureans Were Taught about Politics,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 72–104.Google Scholar
Fish, J. 2016. “The Closing Columns of Philodemus’ On the Good King According to Homer, PHerc. 1507 Cols. 95–98 (= Cols. 40–43 Dorandi).” CronErcol 46: 55–81.Google Scholar
Fish, J. and Sanders, K. (eds.) 2011. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. (ed.) 2008. Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. London.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. T., Obbink, D. and Holland, G. S. (eds.) 2004. Philodemus and the New Testament World. Leiden.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. 1995. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA and London.Google Scholar
Flashar, H. (ed.) 1994. Die Philosophie der Antike, Band 4: Die Hellenistische Philosophie I. Basel.Google Scholar
Föllinger, S and Müller, G. M. (eds.) 2013. Der Dialog in der Antike: Formen und Funktionen einer literarischen Gattung zwischen Philosophie, Wissensvermittlung und dramatischer Inszenierung. Berlin and Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. 1989. “Lucretius and Politics,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 120–50. Reprinted in M. R. Gale (ed.), Lucretius. Oxford, 2007, 397–431.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. 2002. Lucretius on Atomic Motion. A Commentary on De rerum natura 2.1, 332. Oxford.Google Scholar
Frede, D. 2016. “Epicurus on the Importance of Friendship in the Good Life (De Finibus 1.65–70,” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 96–117.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K. 2010. “Horatius anceps: Persona and Self-Revelation in Satire and Song,” in Davis: 2010, 271–290.Google Scholar
Friedländer, P. 1941. “Pattern of Sound and Atomic Theory in Lucretius.” AJP 62: 16–34.Google Scholar
Frischer, B. 1982. The Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Fuhrer, T. 2012. “Philosophische Schulen und ihre Kommunikationsräume im spätrepublikanischen und kaiserzeitlichen Rom,” in Mundt: 2021, 241–252.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1970. “Variations on Themes from Empedocles in Lucretius’ Proem.” BICS 17: 55–64.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. 1996. “The Earth in Epicureanism and Contemporary Astronomy,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 119–125.Google Scholar
Gaisser, J. H. 1995. “Threads in the Labyrinth: Competing Views and Voices in Catullus 64.” AJP 11: 579–616.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2001. “Etymological Wordplay and Poetic Succession in Lucretius.” CP 96: 168–172.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2007. “Lucretius and Previous Poetic Traditions,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 59–75.Google Scholar
Garbarino, G. 2010. “Cesare e la cultura filosofica del suo tempo,” in Urso: 2010, 207–221.Google Scholar
Gatzemeier, S. 2013. Ut ait Lucretius. Die Lukrezrezeption in der lateinischen Prosa bis Laktanz. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2020. Laughing Atoms, Laughing Matter: Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and Satire. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M. (eds.) 1996. Epicureismo greco e romano. Atti del congresso internazionale, Napoli 19–26, maggio 1993, vol. 1. Naples.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. and Whitton, C. (eds.) Forthcoming. Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Studies. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Giesecke, A. L. 2000. Atoms, Ataraxy, and Allusion: Cross-Generic Imitation of the De Rerum Natura in Early Augustan Poetry. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. 2019. “Lucius Saufeius and His Lost Prehistory of Rome: Intellectual Culture in the Late Republic.” CP 114.1: 25–46.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N., Graver, M. and McConnell, S. (eds.) Forthcoming. Power and Persuasion in Cicero’s Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gildenhard, I. 2013. “Cicero’s Dialogues: Historiography Manqué and the Evidence of Fiction,” in Föllinger and Müller: 2013, 235–274.Google Scholar
Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P. (eds.) 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Giuffrida, P. 1950. L’epicureismo nella letteratura latina nel I sec. av. Cristo II: Lucrezio e Catullo. Turin.Google Scholar
Glucker, J. 1988. “Cicero’s Philosophical Affiliations,” in Dillon and Long: 1988, 34–69.Google Scholar
Glucker, J. 2012. “Cicero’s Remarks on Translating Philosophical Terms – Some General Problems,” in Glucker and Burnett: 2012, 37–96.Google Scholar
Glucker, J. and Burnett, C. (eds.) 2012. Greek into Latin from Antiquity until the Nineteenth Century. London and Turin.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. and Manuwald, G.. 2018. Fragmentary Republican Latin: Ennius. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R. and Suits, D. B. (eds.) 2003. Epicurus: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance. New York.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. 2004. “Remembering the Garden: The Trouble with Women in the School of Epicurus,” in Fitzgerald, Obbink and Holland: 2004, 221–243.Google Scholar
Görler, W. 1995. “Silencing the Troublemaker: De Legibus I.39 and the Continuity of Cicero‘s Scepticism,” in Powell: 1995b, 85–113.Google Scholar
Gowers, E. 1993. The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granarolo, J. 1967. L’oeuvre de Catulle: Aspects religieux, éthiques et stylistiques. Paris.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. 1989. “Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 1–37.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. 1995. “Philosophical Badinage in Cicero’s Letters to His Friends,” in Powell: 1995b, 325–346.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. 1997. “The Composition of the Academica: Motives and versions,” in Inwood and Mansfeld: 1997, 1–35.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. 2001. “Piso, Cicero and Their Audience,” in Auvray-Assayas and Delattre: 2001, 85–99.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. (eds.) 1989. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. 1997. Philosophia Togata. II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. 1995. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Trans. M. Chase. Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1996. “Social Evasion and Aristocratic Manners in Cicero’s De Oratore.” AJP 117: 96–118.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. 1978. “Divine Unction: Some Further Thoughts on Catullus 13.” Latomus 37: 747–748.Google Scholar
Hanchey, D. 2013a. “Rhetoric and the Immortal Soul in Tusculan Disputation 1.” SyllClass 24: 77–103.Google Scholar
Hanchey, D. 2014. “Days of Future Passed: Fiction Forming Fact in Cicero’s Dialogues.” CJ 110: 61–77.Google Scholar
Hanchey, D. 2015. “Conflicting Models of Exchange in Cicero’s Brutus.” Latomus 74: 112–129.Google Scholar
Hankinson, R. J. 2013. “Lucretius, Epicurus, and the Logic of Multiple Explanations,” in Lehoux, Morrison and Sharrock: 2013, 69–98.Google Scholar
Hanses, M. 2020. The Life of Comedy after the Death of Plautus and Terence. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. 2007. “Lucretius and Later Latin Literature in Antiquity,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 111–130.Google Scholar
Hanslik, R., Lesky, A. and Schwabl, H. (eds.) 1972. Antidosis: Festschrift für W. Kraus zum 70. Geburtstag. Vienna.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. 2002. “Ennius and the Prologue to Lucretius DRN 1 (1.1–148).” LICS 1: 1–13.Google Scholar
Hatzimichali, M. 2011. Potamo of Alexandria and the Emergence of Eclecticism. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Heinze, R. (ed.) 1897. T. Lucretius Carus: De Rerum Natura Buch III. With Commentary. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Henry, W. B. (ed.) 2009. Philodemus, On Death. With Translation and Notes. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Hessler, J. E. 2012 . Epikur. Brief an Menoikeus. Edition, Übersetzung, Einleitung, und Kommentar. Basel.Google Scholar
Hiltbrünner, O. 1972. “Einladung zum epikureischen Freundesmal,” in Hanslik, Lesky and Schwabl: 1972, 168–182.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hine, H. 2016. “Philosophi and Philosophy: From Cicero to Apuleius,” in Williams and Volk: 2016, 13–29.Google Scholar
Hirzel, R. 1882. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften II. De finibus. De officiis. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. 1990. “Rhetorica Disputatio: The Strategy of de Finibus II.” Apeiron 23.4: 143–164.Google Scholar
International Occultation Timing Association 2017. “Observing the August 21, 2017 Total Solar Eclipse to Measure the Size of the Sun.” 20 August 2017. http://occultations.org/eclipse2017/.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. and Mansfeld, J. (eds.) 1997. Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero's Academic Books. Leiden.Google Scholar
Irby, G. L. (ed.) 2016. A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome. Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1967. The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments. With an Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kechagia, E. 2011. Plutarch against Colotes; A Lesson in History of Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. 1970. “Doctus Lucretius.” Mnemosyne 23.4: 366–392. Reprinted in M. R. Gale (ed.), Lucretius. Oxford, 2007, 300–327.Google Scholar
Knox, P. and Foss, C. (eds.) 1998. Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
König, J. and Woolf, G. (eds.) 2017. Authority and Expertise in Ancient Scientific Culture. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 1977. Catullus’ Indictment of Rome: The Meaning of Catullus 64. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Konstan, D., Clay, D., Glad, C. E., Thom, J. C. and Ware, J. (eds.) 1998. Philodemus: On Frank Criticism. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Krebs, C. B. 2013. “Caesar, Lucretius and the Dates of De rerum natura and the Commentarii.” CQ 63: 772–779.Google Scholar
Laks, A. and Schofield, M. (eds.) 1995. Justice and Generosity. Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Landolfi, L. 1982. “Tracce Filodemee di estetica e di epigrammatica simpotica in Catullo.” CronErcol 12: 137–143.Google Scholar
Leeman, A. D., Pinkster, H. and Wisse, J. (eds.) 1996. Marcus Tullius Cicero: De Oratore Libri III. Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern Band IV. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D. and Sharrock, A. (eds.) 2013. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford.Google Scholar
Leslie, R. J. 1950. “The Epicureanism of Titus Pomponius Atticus.” Diss. Columbia. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Lévy, C. 1984. “La dialectique de Cicéron dans les livres II et IV du De finibus.” REL 62: 111–127.Google Scholar
Lévy, C. 1992. Cicero Academicus. Recherches sur les Académiques et sur la philosophie cicéronienne. Rome.Google Scholar
Lezra, J. and Blake, L. (eds.) 2016. Lucretius and Modernity: Epicurean Encounters Across Time and Disciplines. New York.Google Scholar
Lieberg, G. 1962. Puella divina: Die Gestalt der göttlichen Geliebten bei Catull im Zusammenhang der antiken Dichtung. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lindsay, H. 1998. “The Biography of Atticus: Cornelius Nepos on the Philosophical and Ethical Background of Pomponius Atticus.” Latomus 57: 324–336.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1987. The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. (eds.) 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lorca, A. M. 1996. “Lucrecio: una critica ilustrada a la religion popular,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 851–864.Google Scholar
Luciani, S. 2005. “Amour sacré et amour profane chez Catulle et Lucrèce,” in Poignault: 2005, 151–166.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. (ed.) 2000. Identität und Alterität in der frührömischen Tragödie. Würzburg.Google Scholar
Masi, F. and Maso, S. (eds.) 2013. Fate, Chance and Fortune in Ancient Thought. Amsterdam.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 and London.Google Scholar
Mitsis, P. 1989. “Epicurus on Death and the Duration of Life,” in Cleary and Shartin: 1989, 303–322.Google Scholar
Momigliano, A. 1941. Review of B. Farrington, Science and Politics in the Ancient World. JRS 31: 149–157.Google Scholar
Morel, P.-M. 2013. “Epicuro e la desacralizzazione della necessità,” in Masi and Maso: 2013, 159–175.Google Scholar
Morel, P.-M. 2016. “Cicero and Epicurean Virtues (De Finibus 1–2),” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 77–95.Google Scholar
Morford, M. 2002. The Roman Philosophers from the Time of Cato the Censor to the Death of Marcus Aurelius. London and New York.Google Scholar
Mundt, F. (ed.) 2012. Kommunikationsräume im kaiserzeitlichen Rom. Berlin and Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2012. “Provisional Poetics in Lucretius’ De rerum natura.” Diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2014. “Ennius and the Revaluation of Traditional Historiography in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura,” in Pieper and Ker: 2014, 435–461.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2018. “The Alexandrian Footnote in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” Mnemosyne 71: 75–99.Google Scholar
Nicgorski, W. 2002. “Cicero, Citizenship, and the Epicurean Temptation,” in Allman and Beaty: 2002, 3–28.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. 2015. “Sight and the Philosophy of Vision in Classical Greece: Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle,” in Squire: 2015, 54–67.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 1994. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Obbink, D. (ed.) 1995. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York and Oxford.Google Scholar
O’Connor, D. K. 1989. “The Invulnerable Pleasures of Epicurean Friendship.” GRBS 30: 165–186.Google Scholar
Panoussi, V. 2009. Greek Tragedy in Vergil’s “Aeneid”: Ritual, Empire, and Intertext. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J. and Frangoulidis, S. (eds.) 2013. Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature: Encounters, Interactions and Transformations. Berlin.Google Scholar
Perlwitz, O. 1992. Titus Pomponius Atticus: Untersuchungen zur Person eines einflussreichen Ritters in der ausgehenden römischen Republik. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Philippson, R. 1939. “M. Tullius Cicero: Die philosophischen Schriften.” RE VIIa1: 1104–1192.Google Scholar
Pieper, C. and Ker, J. (eds.) 2014. Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII. Leiden.Google Scholar
Poignault, R. (ed.) 2005. Présence de Catulle et des élégiaques latins: actes du colloque tenu à Tours (28–30 novembre 2003). Clermont-Ferrand.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2018a. “Ocular Penetration, Grammatical Objectivity, and an Indecent Proposal in De Rerum Natura.” CP 113.2: 206–212.Google Scholar
Pope, M. 2018b. “Seminal Verse: Atomic Orality and Aurality in De Rerum Natura.” Eugesta 8: 108–130.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. (ed.) 1990. Cicero: On Friendship and the Dream of Scipio. Warminster.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. 1995a. “Introduction: Cicero’s Philosophical Works and their Background,” in Powell: 1995b, 1–35.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. 1995c. “Cicero’s Translations from Greek,” in Powell: 1995b, 273–300.Google Scholar
Rambaud, M. 1969. “César et l'Épicurisme d'apres les Commentaires,” in Actes du VIIIe Congrès de l'Association Guillaume Budé. Paris, 411–435.Google Scholar
Rambaud, M. 1984. “Le Pro Marcello et l'insinuation politique,” in Chevallier: 1984, 43–56.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. 2005. “The Language of Epicureanism in Cicero: The Case of Atomism,” in Reinhardt, Lapidge and Adams: 2005, 151–177.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. and Adams, J. N. (eds.) 2005. Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose. Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Richter, G. 1971. Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans, Part II. London.Google Scholar
Romeo, C. 1979. “Demetrio Lacone sulla grandezza del sole (PHerc 1013).” CronErcol 9: 11–35.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, S. E. 1986. “How to Be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus.” AphQ 23: 217–225.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, S. E. 1989b. “The Symmetry Argument: Lucretius against the Fear of Death.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50: 353–373.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2007a. Live Unnoticed (Λάθε βιώσας): On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine. Leiden and Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2012. “Will the Epicurean Sage Break the Law If He Is Perfectly Sure that He Will Escape Detection? A Difficult Problem Revisited.” TAPA 142: 23–40.Google Scholar
Roskam, G. 2019. “Cicero against Cassius on Pleasure and Virtue. A Complicated Passage from De finibus (1,25).” CQ 69: 725–733.Google Scholar
Rouse, W. H. D. 1975. Lucretius: On the Nature of Things. Revised by M. F. Smith. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rudolph, K. 2015. “Sight and the Presocratics: Approaches to Visual Perception in Early Greek Philosophy,” in Squire: 2015, 36–53.Google Scholar
Sanders, K. R. 2011. “Philodemus and the Fear of Premature Death,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 211–234.Google Scholar
Schefold, K. 1957. Die Waende Pompejis: Topographisches Verzeichnis der Bildmotive. Berlin.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 1990. Simulacrum et imago: gli argomenti analogici nel De rerum natura. Pisa.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. 2007. “Lucretius and Roman Politics and History,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 41–58.Google Scholar
Schilling, R. 1954. La religion romaine de Vénus depuis les origines jusqu’au temps d’Auguste. Paris.Google Scholar
Schmid, W. 1971. “Philodem als Dichter und als Philosoph: uber eine Athetese Kaibels in AP 9.570,” in Acta Conventus XI Eirene, Warsaw, 201–207.Google Scholar
Schofield, M., Burnyeat, M. and Barnes, J. (eds.). 1980. Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1989. “Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 97–119.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1996. “The Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 313–339.Google Scholar
Seel, G. 1996. “Farà il saggio qualcosa che le leggi vietano, sapendo che non sarà scoperto?,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 341–360.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. O. 2014. “Socration or Philodemus? Catullus 47 and Prosopographical Excess.” CJ 109: 385–405.Google Scholar
Shearin, W. 2012. “Haunting Nepos: Atticus and the Performance of Roman Epicurean Death,” in Holmes and Shearin: 2012, 30–51.Google Scholar
Sider, D. 1995. “The Epicurean Philosopher as Hellenistic Poet,” in Obbink: 1995, 42–57.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. B. 1976. “Iphigenia and Polyxena: A Lucretian Allusion in Catullus.” Pacific Coast Philology 11: 52–61.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. B. 1979. “Parasites and Strange Bedfellows: A Study in Catullus’ Political Imagery.” Ramus 8: 137–152.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. B. 1989. “Ut decuit cinaediorem: Power, Gender and Urbanity in Catullus 10.” Helios 16: 7–23.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. B. 2003. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Skutsch, O. 1985. The Annals of Q. Ennius: Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Covino, R. (eds.) 2011. Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric. Swansea.Google Scholar
Steel, C. E. W. 2005. Reading Cicero. Genre and Performance in Late Republican Rome. London.Google Scholar
Steel, C. E. W. 2013. “Structure, Meaning and Authority in Cicero’s Dialogues,” in Föllinger and Müller: 2013, 221–234.Google Scholar
Striker, G. 1989. “Commentary on Mitsis: Epicurus on Death and the Duration of Life,” in Cleary and Sharkin: 1989, 323–328.Google Scholar
Striker, G. (ed.) 1996. Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics. Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
Stroup, S. C. 2010. Catullus, Cicero, and a Society of Patrons: The Generation of the Text. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Suerbaum, W. 1995. “Der Pyrrhos-Krieg in Ennius’ Annales VI im Lichte der ersten Ennius-Papyri aus Herculaneum.” ZPE 106: 31–52.Google Scholar
Tait, J. I. M. 1941. “Philodemus’ Influence on the Latin Poets.” Dissertation: Bryn Mawr College.Google Scholar
Taormina, D. 2016. “‘What Is Known through Sense Perception Is an Image.’ Plotinus’ tr. 32 (Enn. V 5) 1.12–19: An Anti-Epicurean Argument?,” in Taormina and Longo: 2016, 113–310.Google Scholar
Taormina, D. P. and Longo, A. (eds.) 2016. Plotinus and Epicurus: Matter, Perception, Pleasure. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. C. W. 1980. “All Perceptions Are True,” in Schofield, Burnyeat and Barnes: 1980, 105–124.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. 2016. “Ancient Optics: Theories and Problems of Vision,” in Irby: 2016, 130–144.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. 2017. “Putting a Ring on It: 2017 Total Solar Eclipse,” NASA AFRC2017–0233-009. www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/2017_total_solar_eclipse/AFRC2017-0233-009.html.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1994. “This Little Piggy Had Roast Beef (Catullus 47).” Prudentia 26: 147–152.Google Scholar
Trapp, M. B. 2007. Philosophy in the Roman Empire: Ethics, Politics and Society. Aldershot.Google Scholar
Trapp, M. B. 2017. “Philosophical Authority in the Imperial Period,” in König and Woolf:2017, 27–57.Google Scholar
Tsouna, V. 2001. “Cicéron et Philodème: quelques considérations sur l’éthique,” in Auvray-Assayas and Delattre: 2001, 159–172.Google Scholar
Tutrone, F. 2017. “Granting Epicurean Wisdom at Rome: Exchange and Reciprocity in Lucretius’ Didactic (DRN 1.921–950).” HSCPh 109: 275–337.Google Scholar
Valachova, C. 2018. “The Garden and the Forum: Epicurean Adherence and Political Affiliation in the Late Republic,” in van der Blom, Gray and Steel: 2018, 147–164.Google Scholar
van der Blom, H., Gray, C. and Steel, C. (eds.) 2018. Institutions and Ideology in Republican Rome: Speech, Audience, and Decision. Cambridge.Google Scholar
van den Steen, T. 2009. “Injustice: An Epicurean Guarantee for Justice.” QUCC NS 93: 137–150.Google Scholar
Verde, F. 2016. “Epicuro e la grandezza del sole: sul testo di Pyth. 91.” Méthexis 28: 104–110.Google Scholar
Verde, F. 2017. Review of F. A. Bakker, Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization. BMCR 2017.06.38.Google Scholar
Vessey, D. W. T. C. 1971. “Thoughts on Two Poems of Catullus: 13 and 30.” Latomus 30: 45–55.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. M. 2016. “All Sense-Perceptions Are True: Epicurean Responses to Skepticism and Relativism,” in Lerza and Blake: 2016, 145–159.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2010. “Lucretius’ Prayer for Peace and the Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 60: 127–131.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2021. The Roman Republic of Letters: Scholarship, Philosophy, and Politics in the Age of Cicero and Caesar. Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volk, K. Forthcoming a. “Philosophy,” in Gibson and Whitton.Google Scholar
Volk, K. Forthcoming b. “Towards a Definition of sapientia: Philosophy in Cicero's Pro Marcello,” in Gilbert, Graver and McConnell.Google Scholar
Wallach, B. P. 1976. Lucretius and the Diatribe against the Fear of Death: De Rerum Natura III, 830–1094. Leiden.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2002. Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2007. “Lucretius and Greek Philosophy,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 19–32.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2014. “The Symmetry Problem,” in Luper, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Life and Death. Cambridge, 165–180.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2016. “Epicurean Pleasure in Cicero’s De Finibus,” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 41–76.Google Scholar
Weber, E. and Dobesch, G. (eds.) 1985. Römische Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik: Festschrift für Artur Betz zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres. Vienna.Google Scholar
Welch, K. E. 1996. “T. Pomponius Atticus: A Banker in Politics?” Historia 45: 450–471.Google Scholar
Westman, R. 1955. Plutarch gegen Kolotes. Seine Schrift “Adversus Colotem” als philosophiegeschichtliche Quelle. Helsingfors.Google Scholar
White, P. 2010. Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic. New York.Google Scholar
Whitlatch, L. 2014. “Empiricist Dogs and the Superiority of Philosophy in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CW 108.1: 45–66.Google Scholar
Willi, A. 2010. “Campaigning for Utilitas: Style, Grammar, and Philosophy in C. Iulius Caesar,” in Dickey and Chahoud: 2010, 229–242.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1973. “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality,” in Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers 1956–1972. Cambridge, 82–100.Google Scholar
Williams, D. G. and Volk, K. (eds.) 2016. Roman Reflections: Studies in Latin Philosophy. New York.Google Scholar
Wirth, J. M. 2015. Commiserating with Devastated Things: Milan Kundera and the Entitlements of Thinking. Oxford.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2015. The Roman Audience: Classical Literature as Social History. Oxford.Google Scholar
Woltjer, J. 1877. Lucretii philosophia cum fontibus comparata: specimen litterarium, quo inquiritur quatenus Epicuri philosophiam tradiderit Lucretius. Groningen.Google Scholar
Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: the Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access