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-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:30:22.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2023

Edited by
Sergio Yona  and
Gregson Davis
Sergio Yona
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia
Gregson Davis
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina

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 Rome
Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age
 , pp. 186 - 203
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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
Albrecht, M. von 2003. Cicero’s Style. Leiden.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. 1982. Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, NJ.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. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford.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
Armstrong, D. and McOsker, M. (eds.) 2020. Philodemus: On Anger. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. M. 1997. “Epicurean Justice.” Phronesis 42: 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrighetti, G. 1973. Epicuro, Opere. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note. Turin.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1984. Epicurus’ Scientific Method. Ithaca, NY.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. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford.Google Scholar
Asmis, E. 1995. “Epicurean Poetics,” in Obbink: 1995, 15–34.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. 2009. “Epicurean Empiricism,” in Warren: 2009, 84–104.Google 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
Baier, T. 2010. “Das Irrationale bei Lukrez.” WJA 34: 97–114.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. 1922. Lucreti De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, 2nd ed. Oxford.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. 1926. Epicurus: The Extant Remains. Oxford.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
Baraz, Y. 2012. A Written Republic: Cicero’s Philosophical Politics. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1989. “The Size of the Sun in Antiquity.” ACD 225: 29–41.Google Scholar
Bees, R. 2004. Die Oikeiosislehre der Stoa. Würzburg.Google Scholar
Belliotti, R. 2009. Roman Philosophy and the Good Life. Lanham, MD.Google 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. 2002. “Plaidoyer pour une victime de Cicéron: Pison.” REL 80: 55–77.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
Bernstein, W. H. 1985. “A Sense of Taste: Catullus 13.” CJ 80: 127–130.Google Scholar
Bibauw, J. (ed.) 1969. Hommages à Marcel Renard II. Brussels.Google 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
Blyth, D. 2010/11. “Cicero and Philosophy as Text.” CJ 106: 71–98.Google Scholar
Boissier, G. 1897. Cicero and His Friends. New York.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. F. 1977. Education in Ancient Rome. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Bourne, F. C. 1977. “Caesar the Epicurean.” CW 70: 417–432.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
Bragantini, I. and Sampaolo, V.. 2013. La pittura Pompeiana. Naples.Google Scholar
Bramble, J. C. 1970. “Structure and Ambiguity in Catullus LXIV.” PCPhS 16: 22–41.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
Broch, H. 1933. “Das Böse im Wertsystem der Kunst.” Die neue Rundschau 44.2: 157–191.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. 1975. “Stoicism and the Principate.” PBSR 43: 7–35.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1986. “Cicero’s Officium in the Civil War.” JRS 76: 12–32.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1989. “Philosophy and Religion in the Late Republic,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 174–198.Google Scholar
Buchheit, V. 1971. “Epikurs Triumph des Geistes.” Hermes 99: 303–323.Google Scholar
Buffière, F. 1956. Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque. Paris.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
Carilli, M. 1975. “Le nugae di Catullo e l’epigramma greco.” ASNP 5: 925–953.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
Chevallier, R. (ed.) 1984. Présence de Cicéron. Paris.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. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca, NY.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
Crönert, W. 1907. “Die Epikureer in Syrien.” JÖAI 10: 145–152.Google Scholar
Curran, L .C. 1969. “Catullus 64 and the Heroic Age.” YCS 21: 169–192.Google Scholar
D’Anna, G. 1965. Alcuni aspetti della polemica antiepicurea di Cicerone. Rome.Google Scholar
Dale, F. R. 1958. “Caesar and Lucretius.” G&R 5: 181–182.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
Davis, G. (ed.) 2010. A Companion to Horace. Malden, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Lacy, P. 1941. “Cicero’s Invective against Piso.” TAPA 72: 49–58.Google Scholar
Delattre, D. 1984. “Philodème dans la ‘Correspondance’ de Cicéron.” BAGB: 27–39.Google Scholar
Delattre, D. and Pigeaud, J. (eds.) 2010. Les Épicuriens. Paris.Google Scholar
Dettmer, H. 1986. “Meros amores: A Note on Catullus 13.9.” QUCC 23: 87–91.Google Scholar
Dettmer, H. 1989. “Catullus 13: A Nose Is a Nose Is a Nose.” SyllClass 1: 75–85.Google Scholar
DeWitt, N. W. 1954. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN.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
Diels, H. 1879. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin.Google 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
Donini, P. and Inwood, B. 1999. “Stoic Ethics,” in Algra et al: 1999, 675–738.Google Scholar
Dueck, D. 2009. “Poetic Quotations in Latin Prose Works of Philosophy.” Hermes 137: 314–334.Google Scholar
Dyck, A. 2004. A Commentary on Cicero, De Legibus. Ann Arbor, MI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. 2013. Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales. New York.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. 1992b. “Cicero und ‘unorthodoxer’ Epikureismus.” Anregung 38: 307–322.Google Scholar
Erler, M. 1994. “Die Schule Epikurs,” in Flashar: 1994, 203–380.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
Evans, M. 2004. “Can Epicureans Be Friends?” AncPhil 24: 407–424.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
Feeney, D. C. 1978. “Wild Beasts in the De rerum natura.” Prudentia 10: 15–22.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
Fordyce, C. J. 1961. Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford.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. 2000. Roman Constructions: Readings in Postmodern Latin. Oxford.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. (ed.) 2005. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. Cambridge.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
Friedrich, G. 1908. Catullus Veronensis liber. Leipzig and Berlin.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
Furley, D. J. 1999. “Cosmology,” in Algra et al.: 1999: 412–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussl, M. 1980. “Epikureismus im Umkreis Caesars,” in Dalfern: 1980, 61–80.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. 1994. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge.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
Gale, M. R. 2009. Lucretius: De rerum natura V. Warminster.Google Scholar
Garani, M. 2007. Empedocles Redivivus: Poetry and Analogy in Lucretius. New York.Google Scholar
Garani, M. and Konstan, D. (eds.) 2014. The Philosophizing Muse. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Garbarino, G. 2010. “Cesare e la cultura filosofica del suo tempo,” in Urso: 2010, 207–221.Google Scholar
Garcea, A. 2012. Caesar's De analogia. Oxford.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
Gigante, M. 1995. Philodemus in Italy. Trans. Dirk Obbink. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Gigon, O. (ed.) 1978. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussions. Geneva.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. 2015. “Among Friends: Cicero and the Epicureans.” Diss. Toronto.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. 2007. Paideia Romana. 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. 1995. Epic in Republican Rome. New York.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2000. “Cicero and the Work of Tragedy,” in Manuwald: 2000, 49–59.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. and Manuwald, G.. 2018. Fragmentary Republican Latin: Ennius. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (ed.) 2008. The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. 2013. Shaggy Crowns: Ennius’ Annales and Vergil’s Aeneid. Oxford.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, V. 1977. La doctrine d’Épicure et le droit. Paris.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
Gordon, P. 2012. The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Görler, W. 1974. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros Philosophie. Heidelberg.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
Gorman, R. 2005. The Socratic Method in the Dialogues of Cicero. Stuttgart.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. 1986. “Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide.” G&R 33: 64–77; 192–202.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
Griffin, M. T. (ed.) 2009. A Companion to Julius Caesar. Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Grimal, P. 1978. “La poème de Lucrèce en son temps,” in Gigon: 1978, 233–270.Google Scholar
Gruen, E. 1992. Culture and National Identify in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Gurd, S. 2007. “Cicero and Revision, 61–46 BCE.” CA 26: 49–80.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
Hammer, D. 2014. Roman Political Thought from Cicero to Augustine. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hanchey, D. 2013a. “Rhetoric and the Immortal Soul in Tusculan Disputation 1.” SyllClass 24: 77–103.Google Scholar
Hanchey, D. 2013b. “Cicero, Exchange, and the Epicureans.” Phoenix 67: 119–134.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
Hariman, R. 1995. Political Style. Chicago, IL.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
Herrmann, L. 1956. “Catulle et Lucrèce.” Latomus 15: 465–480.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
Holmes, B. and Shearin, W. H. (eds.) 2012. Dynamic Reading. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hope, V. M. 2009. Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. 1989. Cornelius Nepos: A Selection. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hourticq, L. 1946. L’art et la littérature. Paris.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. 2001. “The Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 51: 150–162.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
Kajanto, I. 1969. “Balnea vina venus,” in Bibauw: 1969, 357–367.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
Kenney, E. J. (ed.) 1971. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura Book III. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. (ed.) 2014. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura Book III. 2nd ed. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Knox, P. E. 2007. “Catullus and Callimachus,” in Skinner: 2007, 151–171.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. 2007. “The Contemporary Political Context,” in Skinner: 2007, 72–91.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 2020. “Epicurean Phantasia.” Πηγή/Fons 5: 1–18.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
Kulka, T. 1996. Kitsch and Art. University Park, PA.Google Scholar
Kundera, M. 1984. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Trans. Michael Heim. New York.Google Scholar
Kundera, M. 2006. The Curtain: An Essay in Seven Parts. Trans. Linda Asher. New York.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
Lattimore, R. 1942. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Lee, G. 2008. Catullus: The Complete Poems. Oxford.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
Littman, R. J. 1977. “The Unguent of Venus: Catullus 13.” Latomus 36: 123–128.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. G. 2019. Death and Immortality in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge.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
Luper-Foy, S. 1987. “Annihilation.” PhilosQ 37.148: 233–252.Google Scholar
McConnell, S. 2012. “Lucretius and Civil Strife.” Phoenix 66: 97–121.Google Scholar
McConnell, S. 2014. Philosophical Life in Cicero’s Letters. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. 1993. “Aspects of Epicurean Theology.” Mnemosyne 46: 172–210.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. (ed.) 2000. Identität und Alterität in der frührömischen Tragödie. Würzburg.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. 2011. Roman Republican Theatre. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. 2012. Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, Vol. II: Ennius. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Marcović, D. 2008. “Lucretius 1.471–7: Tragic Flames in DRN.” Mnemosyne 61: 647–650.Google Scholar
Marcovich, M. 1982. “Catullus 13 and Philodemus 23.” QUCC 11: 131–138.Google Scholar
Martha, C. 1896. Le poème de Lucrèce. Paris.Google Scholar
Masi, F. and Maso, S. (eds.) 2013. Fate, Chance and Fortune in Ancient Thought. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Maslowski, T. 1974. “The Chronology of Cicero’s Anti-Epicureanism.” Eos 62: 55–78.Google Scholar
Maso, S. 2008. Capire e dissentire. Cicerone e la filosofia di Epicuro. Naples.Google Scholar
Maurach, G. 1989. Geschichte der römischen Philosophie. Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Merlan, P. 1967. “Aristoteles’ und Epikurs müssige Götter.” ZPhF 4: 485–498.Google Scholar
Millar, F. 1988. “Cornelius Nepos, Atticus and the Roman Revolution.” G&R 35: 40–55.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
Mitsis, P. 2020. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford.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. 2000. Atome et Nécessité. Démocrite, Epicure, Lucrèce. Paris.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
Morisi, L. 2002. “Ifigenia e Polissena (Lucrezio in Catullo).” MD 49: 177–190.Google Scholar
Morisset, R. and Thévenot, G.. 1950. Les lettres latines. Paris.Google Scholar
Mulgan, R. G. 1979. “Was Caesar an Epicurean?” CW 72: 337–339.Google Scholar
Mundt, F. (ed.) 2012. Kommunikationsräume im kaiserzeitlichen Rom. Berlin and Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Mynors, R. A. B. 1958. C. Valerii Catulli Carmina. Oxford.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1970. “Death.” Nous 4.1: 73–80. Reprinted in Nagel: 1979, 1–10.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1979. Mortal Questions. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford.Google Scholar
Nappa, C. 2001. Aspects of Catullus’ Social Fiction. Frankfurt am Main.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
Nisbet, R. G. M. 1961. In L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio. Oxford.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
O’Keefe, T. 2001. “Is Epicurean Friendship Altruistic?” Apeiron 34: 269–305.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
Paratore, E. 1973. “La problematica sull'epicureismo a Roma.” ANRW 1.4: 116–204.Google Scholar
Perlwitz, O. 1992. Titus Pomponius Atticus: Untersuchungen zur Person eines einflussreichen Ritters in der ausgehenden römischen Republik. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Perutelli, A. 1996. “Iphigenia in Lucrezio.” SCO 46: 193–207.Google Scholar
Peters, W. T. 1963. Landscape in Romano-Campanian Mural Paintings. Assen.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
Pizzani, U. 1993. “La cultura filosofica di Cesare,” in Poli: 1993, 163–189.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
Poli, D. (ed.) 1993. La cultura in Cesare, Vol. 1. Rome.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. 1995b. (ed.) Cicero the Philosopher.Twelve Papers. Oxford.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. 1995c. “Cicero’s Translations from Greek,” in Powell: 1995b, 273–300.Google Scholar
Prinzen, H. 1998. Ennius im Urteil der Antike. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Pucci, G. C. 1966. “Echi lucreziani in Cicerone.” SIFC 38: 70–132.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
Raubitschek, A. E. 1949. “Phaidros and His Roman Pupils.” Hesperia 18: 96–103.Google Scholar
Rawson, E. 1985. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. Baltimore, MD.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
Richlin, A. 1988. “Systems of Food Imagery in Catullus.” CW 81: 355–363.Google Scholar
Richter, G. 1965. The Portraits of the Greeks. London.Google Scholar
Richter, G. 1971. Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans, Part II. London.Google Scholar
Rigsby, K. 2008. “Hauranus the Epicurean.” CJ 104: 19–22.Google Scholar
Rist, J. M. 1972. Epicurus: An Introduction. Cambridge.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. 1989a. “Epicurus and Annihilation.” PhilosQ 39: 81–90.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. 2007b. A Commentary on Plutarch’s De latenter vivendo. Leuven.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
Ross, D. O. 1969. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rouse, W. H. D. 1975. Lucretius: On the Nature of Things. Revised by M. F. Smith. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rudolph, K. 2011. “Democritus’ Perspectival Theory of Vision.” JHS 131: 67–83.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
Schmid, W. 1984. Ausgewählte philologische Schriften. Berlin and New York.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. 2008. “Ciceronian Dialogue,” in Goldhill: 2008, 63–84.Google Scholar
Schofield, M., Burnyeat, M. and Barnes, J. (eds.). 1980. Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. 1980. The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Seager, R. 2011. “Cicero and the ‘False Dilemma,’” in Smith and Covino: 2011, 99–109.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1976. “Epicurus and the Mathematicians of Cyzicus.” CronErcol 6: 23–54.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
Sedley, D. 1997. “The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius.” JRS 87: 41–53.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1998. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge.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
Seel, O. 1967. Caesar-Studien. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1965–70. Cicero's Letters to Atticus. 7 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1977. Cicero's Epistulae ad familiares. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1980. Cicero: Select Letters. Cambridge.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. 1987. “The Love Poetry of Philodemus.” AJP 108: 310–324.Google Scholar
Sider, D. 1995. “The Epicurean Philosopher as Hellenistic Poet,” in Obbink: 1995, 42–57.Google Scholar
Sider, D. 1997. The Epigrams of Philodemos. New York and Oxford.Google Scholar
Silverstein, H. S. 1980. “The Evil of Death.” JPh 77.7: 401–424.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. 2001. “Among Those Present: Catullus 44 and 10.” Helios 28: 57–73.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. B. 2003. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. B. (ed.) 2007. A Companion to Catullus. Malden, MA and Oxford.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
Snyder, J. M. 1980. Puns and Poetry in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Squire, M. (ed.) 2015. Sight and the Ancient Senses. London.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
Stem, R. 2012. The Political Biographies of Cornelius Nepos. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Stokes, M. 1995. “Cicero on Epicurean Pleasures,” in Powell: 1995b, 145–170.Google Scholar
Striker, G. 1977. “Epicurus on the Truth of Sense Impressions.” AGPh 59.2: 125–142.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. 1995. “Cicero and Greek Philosophy.” HSCPh 97: 53–61.Google Scholar
Striker, G. 1996. “Epicurean Hedonism,” in Striker: 1996, 196–208.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
Suerbaum, W. 2002. Die archaische Literatur: Von den Anfängen bis Sullas Tod. Munich.Google Scholar
Syme, R. 1956. “Piso and Veranius in Catullus.” C&M 17: 129–134.Google Scholar
Tait, J. I. M. 1941. “Philodemus’ Influence on the Latin Poets.” Dissertation: Bryn Mawr College.Google Scholar
Tamás, A. 2016. “Erroneous Gazes: Lucretian Poetics in Catullus 64.” JRS 106: 1–20.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, B. 2016. “Rationalism and the Theatre in Lucretius.” CQ 66: 140–154.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
Titchener, F. 2003. “Cornelius Nepos and the Biographical Tradition.” G&R 35: 40–55.Google Scholar
Torres, M. 2018. Epicuro, epicúreos y el epicureísmo en Roma. Madrid.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
Trappes-Lomax, J. M. 2007. Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal. Swansea.Google Scholar
Tsouna, V. 2001. “Cicéron et Philodème: quelques considérations sur l’éthique,” in Auvray-Assayas and Delattre: 2001, 159–172.Google Scholar
Tsouna, V. 2007. The Ethics of Philodemus. Oxford.Google Scholar
Tsouna, V. 2012. Philodemus: On Household Management. Atlanta, GA.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
Urso, G (ed.) 2010. Cesare: precursore o visionario? Pisa.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
Vander Waerdt, P. A. 1987. “The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man.” CQNS 37: 402–422.Google Scholar
Verde, F. 2013. “ΤΥΧΗ e ΛΟΓΙΣΜΟΣ nell’epicureismo,” in Masi and Maso: 2013, 177–197.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
Wardle, D. 2009. “Caesar and Religion,” in Griffin: 2009, 100–111.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2002. Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2004. Facing Death: Epicurus and His Critics. Oxford.Google Scholar
Warren, J. 2007. “Lucretius and Greek Philosophy,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 19–32.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (ed.) 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge.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
West, D. A. 1969. The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius. Edinburgh.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. 1969. Catullan Questions. Leicester.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2015. The Roman Audience: Classical Literature as Social History. Oxford.Google Scholar
Wolfsdorf, D. 2013. Pleasure in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Woltjer, J. 1877. Lucretii philosophia cum fontibus comparata: specimen litterarium, quo inquiritur quatenus Epicuri philosophiam tradiderit Lucretius. Groningen.Google Scholar
Woolf, R. 2015. Cicero. The Philosophy of a Roman Sceptic. London and New York.Google Scholar
Wray, D. 2001. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Yona, S. 2018. Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of Satire. Oxford.Google Scholar
Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: the Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. 1998. “De Republica and De Rerum Natura,” in Knox and Foss: 1998, 230–247.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
  • Edited by Sergio Yona, University of Missouri, Columbia, Gregson Davis, Duke University, North Carolina
  • Book: Epicurus in Rome
  • Online publication: 13 January 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009281416.013
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
  • Edited by Sergio Yona, University of Missouri, Columbia, Gregson Davis, Duke University, North Carolina
  • Book: Epicurus in Rome
  • Online publication: 13 January 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009281416.013
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
  • Edited by Sergio Yona, University of Missouri, Columbia, Gregson Davis, Duke University, North Carolina
  • Book: Epicurus in Rome
  • Online publication: 13 January 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009281416.013
Available formats
×