REFERENCE ONLY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THESIS Degree pWo Year 'Loo'S' j Name of Author F COPYRIGHT This is a thesis accepted for a Higher Degree of the University of London. It is an unpublished typescript and the copyright is held by the author. All persons consulting the thesis must read and abide by the Copyright Declaration below. COPYRIGHT DECLARATION I recognise that the copyright of the above-described thesis rests with the author and that no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. LOANS Theses may not be lent to individuals, but the Senate House Library may lend a copy to approved libraries within the United Kingdom, for consultation solely on the premises of those libraries. Application should be made to: Inter-Library Loans, Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. REPRODUCTION University of London theses may not be reproduced without explicit written permission from the Senate House Library. Enquiries should be addressed to the Theses Section of the Library. Regulations concerning reproduction vary according to the date of acceptance of the thesis and are listed below as guidelines. A. Before 1962. Permission granted only upon the prior written consent of the author. (The Senate House Library will provide addresses where possible). B. 1962 - 1974. In many cases the author has agreed to permit copying upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. C. 1975 - 1988. Most theses may be copied upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. D. 1989 onwards. Most theses may be copied. This thesis comes within category D. □ This copy has been deposited in the Library of This copy has been deposited in the Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. A study of Lucretius, De rerum natura 1 635-920: Lucretius and his sources Francesco Montarese University College London Ph.D. Classics UMI Number: U592815 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U592815 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract My thesis is a study of lines 635-920 o f DR N I , Lucretius’ refutation of the theories about the fundamental nature of matter elaborated by Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other unnamed thinkers. My main concern is establishing what source Lucretius used in these lines and how he used it. In chapter 1 I give my reasons for believing that Lucretius, in DRN I 635-920, was following an Epicurean source, which in turn derived its information from Theophrastean doxography. In chapter 2 1 argue that books XIV and XV of the IIO were not Lucretius’ source-text for Lucretius’ refutation of earlier thinkers. In chapter 3 1 discuss how lines 635-920 fit in the structure of the first book of Lucretius’ poem, whether the critique was an addition from a later stage in composition, and whether the source is more likely to be Epicurus himself or a later Epicurean author. In chapter 4 1 focus on Lucretius’ own additions to the material he found in his source and his poetical and rhetorical contributions. Lucretius contributed extensively himself to this section as a finished poetic product. It will appear that even if the philosophy comes from the source, Lucretius shows understanding of the points in the way he adapts his poetical devices to the philosophical arguments. It will also appear that Lucretius foreshadows philosophical points in what have often been thought the ‘poetical sections’ or ‘purple passages’ of his poem (e.g. the invocation of Venus in the proem, and the description of Sicily and Aetna in DRN I 716-733), so that he could take them up later on in his narrative and provide an adequate explanation of reality. 2 Table of contents Introduction p. 8 Chapter 1. Lucretius drew the critique from an Epicurean polemical text 20 1.1 Lucretius’ information is ‘second-hand’ 32 1.2 Lucretius’ source was an Epicurean text 54 1.2.1 Lucretius’ use of homoeomeria 55 1.2 .2 The choice of Heraclitus as representative monist 62 1.2.2.1 The Stoics as fire monists? 66 1.2.2.2 The Stoic denial of void in the world? 68 1.2.3 Lucretius’ arguments against the limited pluralists 71 1.2.3.1 Lines 753-781 71 I.2.3.2. Lines 782-802 73 1.2.4 The Epicurean angle 77 1.3 Conclusion 85 Chapter 2. Books XIV and XV of Epicurus’ IIO 88 2.1 The content of books XIV and XV 89 2.1.1 Book XIV was not dedicated to polemic 90 3 2.1.11 Evidence from the format of PHerc. 1148 90 2.1.1.2 Columns I-XXII 92 2.1.1.3 Columns XXIII and XXTV 95 2.1.1.4 Evidence from the sezioni 101 2.1.2 Epicurus did not discuss Heraclitus’ theory IIO XTV 119 2.1.3 Epicurus did not confute Empedocles’ theory in IIO XIV 120 2.1.4. Book XV was not dedicated to criticism of Anaxagoras 128 2.1.4.1 Comice 2 130 2.1.4.2 Cornice 3 158 2.1.4.3 Comice 4 166 2.1.4.4 Cornice 5 174 2.1.4.5 Comici 6 and 7 183 2.1.4.6 Comice 8 187 2.2 Other considerations intrinsic to Epicurus’ work 192 2.3 Are IIO XTV and XV dependent on Theophrastus’ OA? 197 2.3.1 Was Plato the last of the limited pluralists in OA? 205 2.3.2 The detail of the arguments against Plato and air-monism 208 2.3 .3 The dating of IIO XIV and of Theophrastus’ OA 215 2.4 Conclusion 218 4 Chapter 3. Lucretius’ use of sources in DRN I 220 3.1 The source o fD R N l 156-598 and 951-1107 220 3.2 Did Lucretius change source after line 598 of DRN I? 228 3.3 The critique does not derive from the same source as 15 5 ff. 235 3.4 The connection between lines 634 and 635 239 3.5 Why did Lucretius have the critique at the centre of book I? 243 3.6 Was Epicurus the source of the critique? 250 3.7 Did Lucretius use a later Epicurean source? 255 3.7.1 The choice of Heraclitus 264 3.7.2 Lucretius’ use of homoeomeria 266 3.8 Conclusion 269 Chapter 4. Lucretius in the critique 270 4.1 Heraclitus as a general 270 4.2 Heraclitus’ army 274 4.2.1 Stolidi and inanes Graii 275 4.2.2 Sound and truth 282 4.2.3 Inversis sub verbis 295 4.3 The theme of the path, and the search for truth 308 4.3.1 Lines 657-659 309 4.3.2 Lines 690-700 311 4.4 Empedocles and Sicily 313 5 4.4.1 Empedoclean style and language 314 4.4.2 Lucretius’ praise 319 4.4.3 Aetna 329 4.4.4 Praise of Empedocles’ theories? 331 4.4.5 The four elements 337 4.5 Lucretius’ presentation of Anaxagoras’ theory 340 4.5.1 Lucretius’ transliteration homoeomeria 343 4.5.2 Parody of Anaxagoras 345 4.6 The mortality of Anaxagoras’ primordia 346 4.7 Lucretius’ strategy in 859-874 351 4.8 The analogy of letters and atoms 355 4.8.1 Lines 823-829 357 4.8.2 Intertextuality 361 4.8.3 Lines 906-914 364 4.9 Repetitions 367 4.10 The parallelism between lines 803-829 and 897-920 370 4.11 The critique as ‘dialogue’ 373 4.12 Conclusion 3 83 Appendix (a). Two stages of composition? 384 Appendix (b). The format of PHerc. 1148 and PHerc. 1151 392 6 Appendix (c). Do Epicurus’ AdHerodotum and AdPythoclem reflect continuous books of IK>? 405 Abbreviations 411 Bibliography 412 Plate 447 7 Introduction Lucretius’ criticism of the theories of matter of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and other unnamed thinkers in lines 635-920 o f DRNI, which I shall henceforth refer to as the critique, is a unique piece of literature as it presents criticism of the views of earlier philosophers in poetry. Understanding how Lucretius used his sources is important forjudging his achievement. Although enquiries into the problem of how Latin authors used their Greek sources have now become somewhat unfashionable, studying Lucretius’ philosophical poem from this viewpoint still has much to teach us. As a Roman poet Lucretius would have considered it natural to reproduce Greek models, and would have been expected to do so. Livius Andronicus ‘translated’ the Odyssey into Satumian verses in the third century B.C. Ennius’ (239- 169 B.C.) introduction of the hexameter into Latin literature, with his 18 books of Armales , meant that the relationship between Latin texts and their Greek counterparts gained a further aspect. The style of the works of Roman literature could be directly compared to the Greek original they derived from.1 Indeed Ennius claimed that the spirit of Homer had been reincarnated in him. It may also be that, where the early books of the Annales are concerned, Ennius took over, not only the 1 Lucretius himself highlights the importance of Ennius’ import of the hexameter to Latin literature: detulit ex Helicone perermi fronde coronam (DRN 1 118).