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-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:43:31.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2023

Margaret Graver
Margaret Graver
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Seneca
The Literary Philosopher
 , pp. 284 - 299
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

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

References

Abel, K. (1981) “Das Problem der Faktizität der senecanischen Korrespondenz.” Hermes 109.4: 472–99.Google Scholar
Accardi, A. (2015) Teoria e prassi del beneficium da Cicerone a Seneca. Palermo.Google Scholar
Alesse, F. (2008) Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. Leiden.Google Scholar
Alexander, W. H. (1941) “Seneca’s Epistulae Morales: The text emended and explained (XCIII–CXXIV).” University of California Publications in Classical Philology 12.8: 135–64.Google Scholar
Alexander, W. H. (1952) “The interpretation of Seneca EM 46.1,” in White, M. E. (ed.) Studies in Honor of Gilbert Norwood. Toronto: 214–17.Google Scholar
Algra, K. (2003) “Stoic theology,” in Inwood, B. (ed.) Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: 153–78.Google Scholar
Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfield, J., and Schofield, M. et al. (eds.) (1999) Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Altman, J. (1982) Epistolarity: Approaches to a Form. Columbus.Google Scholar
André, J. M. (1962a) Recherches sur l’otium romain. Paris.Google Scholar
André, J. M.(1962b) “Otium et vie contemplative dans les Lettres à Lucilius.” Revue des Études Latines 40: 125–28.Google Scholar
André, J. M.(1966) L’otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine: Des origines à l’époque augustéenne. Paris.Google Scholar
André, J. M.(1967) Mécène: Essai de biographie spirituelle. Paris.Google Scholar
André, J. M.(1970) “Sénèque et l’Epicurisme: Ultime position,” in Actes du VIIIe Congrès de l’Association Guillaume Budé, 469–80. Paris.Google Scholar
André, J. M.(1983) “Mécène écrivain (avec, en appendice, les fragments de Mécène).” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 11.30.3: 1765–87.Google Scholar
Annas, J. (1992) Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, J.(1993) Morality of Happiness. Oxford.Google Scholar
Armisen-Marchetti, M. (1989) Sapientiae facies: Étude sur les images de Sénèque. Paris.Google Scholar
Armisen-Marchetti, M. (2004a) “La signification de l’humour dans les Lettres à Lucilius de Sénèque,” in Nadjo, L. and Gavoille, E. (eds.) Epistulae Antiquae III: 311–22.Google Scholar
Armisen-Marchetti, M.(2004b) “Mémoire et oubli dans la théorie des bienfaits selon Sénèque.” Paideia 59: 7–23.Google Scholar
Armisen-Marchetti, M. (2008) “Imagination and Meditation in Seneca: The Example of Praemeditatio,” in Fitch, J. (ed.) Seneca. Oxford: 102–13. Previously published as “Imagination et meditation chez Sénèque: L’exemple de la praemeditatio,” Revue des études latines 64: 185–95 (1986).Google Scholar
Asmis, E. (1984) Epicurus’ Scientific Method. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Atherton, C. (2009) “Epicurean philosophy of language,” in Warren, J. (ed.) Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge: 197–215.Google Scholar
Axelson, B. (1939) Neue Senecastudien. Lund.Google Scholar
Bardon, H. (1956) La littérature latine inconnue, 2 vols. Paris.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1997a) Logic and the Imperial Stoa. Leiden.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1997b) “Roman Aristotle,” in Barnes, J. and Griffin, M. (eds.) Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome. Oxford: 1–69.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S., and Schiesaro, A. (eds.) (2015) The Cambridge Companion to Seneca. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S., and Wray, D. (eds.) (2009) Seneca and the Self. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Basore, J. (trans.) (1935) Seneca: Moral Essays Volume III. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Becker, L. (1998) A New Stoicism. Princeton.Google Scholar
Becker, L. (2004) “Stoic emotion,” in Strange, S. K. and Zupko, J. (eds.) Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. Cambridge: 250–75.Google Scholar
Beltrami, A. (ed.) (1937) L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium epistulae morales, 2 vols. Rome.Google Scholar
Bénatouïl, T. (2007) “Le débat entre platonisme et stoïcisme sur la vie scolastique: Chrysippe, la Nouvelle Académie et Antiochus,” in Bonazzi and Helmig (eds.) (2007): 1–21.Google Scholar
Bénatouïl, T. (2009) “Θεωρία et vie contemplative du stoïcisme au platonisme: Chrysippe, Panétius, Antiochus, et Alcinoos,” in Bonazzi, M. and Opsomer, J. (eds.) The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the Early Empire and Their Philosophical Contexts. Leuven: 3–31.Google Scholar
Bénatouïl, T., and Bonazzi, M. (eds.) (2012) Theoria, Praxis, and the Contemplative Life after Plato and Aristotle. Leiden.Google Scholar
Bernauer, J., and Mahon, M. (1994) “The ethics of Michel Foucault,” in Gutting, G. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge: 141–58.Google Scholar
Berno, F. (2020) “The importance of collecting shells: Intertextuality in Seneca’s Epistle 49,” in Garani, Michalopoulos, and Papaioannou (eds.) (2020): 142–60.Google Scholar
Berno, F.(2021) “Ferarum minus taetra facies est quam hominis ira flagrantis (ira 3, 4, 3),” in Laurand, Malaspina, and Prost (eds.) (2021): 251–65.Google Scholar
Berti, E. (2018) Lo stile e l’uomo. Quattro epistole letterarie di Seneca (epist. 114; 40; 100; 84). Pisa.Google Scholar
Bobzien, S. (1998) Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Bobzien, S.(2021) Determinism, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M., and Helmig, C. (eds.) (2007) Platonic Stoicism, Stoic Platonism: The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity. Leuven.Google Scholar
Boswell, J. (1979) Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago.Google Scholar
Botros, S. (1985) “Freedom, causality, fatalism and early Stoic philosophy.” Phronesis 30: 274–304.Google Scholar
Bourgery, A. (ed./trans.) (1922) Sénèque: Dialogues I: De ira. Paris.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. R. (2008) “Seneca and slavery,” in Fitch, J. (ed.) Seneca. Oxford: 335–47.Google Scholar
Braicovich, R. (2015) “Estrategias terapéuticas e intelectualismo en el De ira de Séneca.” Ideas y Valores 64: 85–105.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. (1998) “The old Stoic theory of emotions,” in Sihvola and Engberg-Pedersen (eds.) (1998): 21–70.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. (2003) “Stoic moral psychology,” in Inwood, B. (ed.) Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: 257–94.Google Scholar
Brennan, T.(2005) The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. Oxford.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. (2013) Studies in Stoicism, ed. Griffin, M. and Samuels, A.. Oxford.Google Scholar
Cambron-Goulet, M. (2014) “Orality in philosophical epistles,” in Scodel, R. (ed.) Between Orality and Literacy: Communication and Adaptation in Antiquity. Leiden: 148–74.Google Scholar
Cancik, H. (1967) Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae Morales. Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Chaumartin, F.-R. (1985) Le De beneficiis de Sénèque: Sa signification philosophique, politique, et sociale. Paris.Google Scholar
Cizek, E. (1972) L’époque de Néron et ses controverses idéologiques. Leiden.Google Scholar
Clay, D. (1983) Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Clay, D.(1998) Paradosis and Survival: Three Chapters in the History of Epicurean Philosophy. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Collette, B. (2022) The Stoic Doctrine of Providence: A Study of Its Development and of Some of Its Major Issues. Abingdon and New York.Google Scholar
Conradie, I. (2010) Seneca in His Cultural and Literary Context: Selected Moral Letters on the Body. Utrecht.Google Scholar
Conradie, I.(2004) Knowledge, Nature, and the Good: Essays on Ancient Philosophy. Princeton.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. (2005) “The emotional life of the wise.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 43.Supplement: 176–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J.(2006) “Seneca on moral theory and moral improvement,” in Volk and Williams (eds.) (2006): 43–56.Google Scholar
Cooper, J., and Procope, J. (ed./trans.) (1995) Seneca: Moral and Political Essays. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Corbeill, A. (1996) Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton.Google Scholar
Costa, C. D. N. (1988) Seneca: 17 Letters. Warminster.Google Scholar
Costa, C. D. N(1994) Seneca: Four Dialogues. Warminster.Google Scholar
Courtil, J.-C. (2015) Sapientia contemptrix doloris: Le corps souffrant dans l’œuvre philosophique de Sénèque. Brussels.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. (1993) The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford.Google Scholar
Cupaiuolo, G. (1975) Introduzione al De ira di Seneca. Naples.Google Scholar
Damschen, G. and Heil, A. (eds.) (2014) Brill’s Companion to Seneca: Philosopher and Dramatist. Leiden.Google Scholar
Davidson, A. (1994) “Ethics as ascetics,” in Gutting, G. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge: 115–40.Google Scholar
Davidson, A. (1997) “Structures and strategies of discourse: Remarks towards a history of Foucault’s philosophy of language,” in Davidson, A. (ed.) Foucault and His Interlocutors. Chicago: 1–17.Google Scholar
Degand, M. (2015). Sénèque au risque du don: Une éthique oblative à la croisée des disciplines. Turnhout.Google Scholar
De Lacy, P. (ed.) (1978) Galen: On the doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato (= Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, vol. 5, no. 4.1.2). Berlin.Google Scholar
De Rentiis, D. (1998) “Der Beitrag der Bienen: Überlegungen zum Bienengleichnis bei Seneca und Macrobius.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 141: 30–44.Google Scholar
Dietsche, U. (2014) Strategie und Philosophie bei Seneca: Untersuchungen zur therapeutischen Technik in den Epistulae morales. Berlin.Google Scholar
Dihle, A. (1982) The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dillon, J. (1983) “Metriopatheia and apatheia. Some reflections on a controversy in later Greek ethics,” in Anton, J. and Preus, A. (eds.) Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Albany: vol. 2, 508–17. Reprinted in Dillon, J. (1990) The Golden Chain: Studies in the Development of Platonism and Christianity. Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
Dillon, J.(1996) The Middle Platonists. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Dillon, J., and Long, A. A., (eds.) (1988) The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dionigi, P. (ed.) (1983) L. Anneo Seneca: De Otio (dial. VIII). Brescia.Google Scholar
Dobbin, R. (1991) “Προαίρεσις in Epictetus.” Ancient Philosophy 11: 111–35.Google Scholar
Dobbin, R.(1998) Epictetus: Discourses Book 1. Oxford.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (1982) Le scuole, l’anima, l’impero. La filosofia antica da Antioco a Plotino. Turin.Google Scholar
Donini, P.(1995) “Pathos nello Stoicismo Romano. ” Elenchos 16: 195–216.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (2011) “The history of the concept of eclecticism,” in Bonazzi, M. (ed.) Commentary and Tradition: Aristotelianism, Platonism, and Post-Hellenistic Philosophy. Berlin: 197–210. Previously published in Dillon and Long (eds.) (1988) 15–33.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (1974) Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dragona-Monachou, M. (1976) The Stoic Arguments for the Existence and the Providence of the Gods. Athens.Google Scholar
Dragona-Monachou, M.(1994) “Divine providence in the philosophy of the Empire.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.36.7: 4417–90.Google Scholar
Dross, J. (2021) Le philosophe dans la cité: Sénèque et l’otium philosophique. Paris.Google Scholar
Edelstein, L., and Kidd, I. G (eds.) (1989) Posidonius: The Fragments. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. (1993) The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Edwards, C.(2015) “Absent presence in Seneca’s Epistles: Philosophy and friendship,” in Bartsch and Schiesaro (eds) (2015) 41–53.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. (2018) “Conversing with the absent, corresponding with the dead: Friendship and philosophical community in Seneca’s letters,” in Ceccarelli, P., Doering, L., Fögen, T., and Gildenhard, I. (eds.) Letters and Communities: Studies in the Socio-Political Dimensions of Ancient Epistolography. Oxford: 325–51.Google Scholar
Evans, E. C. (1969) Physiognomics in the Ancient World [=Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 59, part 5]. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. (2019) “Empedocles the sorcerer and his hexametrical pharmaka.” Antichthon 53: 14–32.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J. (1990) “Epicureanism under the Roman Empire.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.36.4: 2257–2327.Google Scholar
Fillion-Lahille, J. (1984) Le De ira de Sénèque et la philosophie stoïcienne des passions. Paris.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. E. (2014) “Systematic connections between Seneca’s philosophical works and tragedies,” in Damschen and Heil (eds.) (2014) 745–68.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. (ed.) (2009) Tears in the Graeco-Roman World. Berlin.Google Scholar
Ford, A. (2009) “The beginnings of dialogue: Socratic discourses and fourth-century prose,” in Goldhill, S. (ed.) The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge: 29–44.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1983) “L’écriture de soi.” Corps écrit 5: 3–23.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1984) Histoire de la sexualité. Vol. 3: Le souci de soi. Paris.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1994) Dits et écrits, 1954–1988. 4 vols. Paris.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (2001) L’herméneutique du sujet: Cours au Collège de France (1981–1982). Paris.Google Scholar
Früchtel, L., Stählin, O., and Treu, U. (1960) Clemens Alexandrinus. Vol. 2 (Stromata). Berlin.Google Scholar
Gambet, D. (1970) “Cicero in the works of Seneca Philosophus.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 101: 171–83.Google Scholar
Garani, M., Michalopoulos, A. N., and Papaioannou, S. (eds.) (2020) Intertextuality in Seneca’s Philosophical Writings. Abingdon and New York.Google Scholar
Garbarino, G. (2003) Philosophorum Romanorum fragmenta usque ad L. Annaei Senecae aetatem collegit I. Garbarino. Bologna.Google Scholar
Gartner, C. (2015) “The possibility of psychic conflict in Seneca’s De Ira.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23.2: 213–33.Google Scholar
Gazzarri, T. (2014a) “Gender-based differential morbidity and moral teaching in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales,” in Wildberger and Colish (eds.) (2014) 209–28.Google Scholar
Gazzarri, T. (2014b) The Stylus and the Scalpel: Theory and Practice of Metaphors in Seneca’s Prose. Berlin.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1994) “Peace of mind and being yourself: Panaetius to Plutarch.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.36.7: 4599–4640.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1996) “Mind and madness in Greek tragedy.” Apeiron 29.3: 249–67.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (2005) “Competing readings of Stoic emotions,” in Salles (ed.) (2005) 445–70.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (2009) “Seneca and selfhood: Integration and disintegration,” in Bartsch and Wray (eds.) (2009) 65–83.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (2012) “The transformation of Aristotle’s Ethics in Roman Philosophy,” in Miller, J. (ed.) The Reception of Aristotle’s Ethics. Cambridge: 31–52.Google Scholar
Glare, P. G. W., and Stray, C. (eds.) (2012) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gleason, M. (1995) Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton.Google Scholar
Gloyn, L. (2017) The Ethics of the Family in Seneca. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (2012) The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Görgemanns, H. (2006) “Epistolography,” in Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.) Brill’s New Pauly. Leiden: 1144–48.Google Scholar
Gottschalk, H. B. (1987) “Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.36.2: 1079–1174.Google Scholar
Goux, J. (2002) “Seneca against Derrida: Gift and alterity,” in Wyschogrod, E., Goux, J., and Boynton, E. (eds.) The Enigma of Gift and Sacrifice. New York: 148–60.Google Scholar
Grant, M. (2000) “Humor in Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius.” Ancient Society 30: 319–29.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (1996) Therapeutic Reading and Senecas Moral Epistles. Diss. Brown University.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (1999a) “Philo of Alexandria and the origins of the Stoic προπάθεια.” Phronesis 44: 300–25. Reprinted in Alesse (ed.) (2008) 197–222.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (1999b) “Commentary on Inwood, ‘God and human knowledge in Seneca’s Natural Questions’.” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 15: 44–54.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2002a) Cicero on the Emotions. Tusculan Disputations 3–4, Chicago.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2002b) “Managing mental pain: Epicurus vs. Aristippus on the pre-rehearsal of future ills.” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 17: 155–77, 183–84.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2002c) “Review of Emotion and Peace of Mind by Richard Sorabji.” Ancient Philosophy 22: 225–34.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2003) “Not even Zeus: A discussion of A. A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 25: 345–61.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2007) Stoicism and Emotion. Chicago.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2015) “The emotional intelligence of Epicureans: Doctrinalism and adaptation in Seneca’s Epistles,” in Williams and Volk (eds.) (2015) 192–212.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2016) “Seneca the Younger’s philosophical works,” in Clayman, D. (ed.) Oxford Bibliographies in the Classics. New York. URL = www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0224.xmlGoogle Scholar
Graver, M. (2017a) “Ethical psychology in the Hellenistic Stoa,” in Bobonich, C. (ed.) Cambridge Companion to Ancient Ethics. Cambridge: 200–17.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2017b) “Pre-emotions and reader emotions in Seneca,” in Nelis, D. and Cairns, D. (eds.) Seneca’s Tragic Passions: Philosophical and Literary Perspectives (= Maia 69). Brescia: 281–96.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (2018) “Seneca’s Peripatetics: Epistulae Morales 92 and Stobaean Doxography ‘C’,” in Fortenbaugh, W. (ed.) Arius Didymus on Peripatetic Ethics: Text, Translation and Discussion. New York: 309–42.Google Scholar
Graver, M.(2021) “Le De Ira de Sénèque et les Tusculanes de Cicéron,” in Laurand, Malaspina, and Prost (eds.) (2021) 333–38.Google Scholar
Graver, M. (forthcoming) “Cynic ἀπάθεια at Rome: Notes on the afterlife of Stilpo of Megara,” in Guérin, C., Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., and Pià-Columella, J. (eds.) Le cynisme dans le monde romain. Paris.Google Scholar
Graver, M., and Long, A. A (ed./trans.) (2015) Seneca: Letters on Ethics. Chicago.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. (1976) Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. Expanded reprint 1992. Oxford.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. (2007) “Seneca’s pedagogic strategy: Letters and De beneficiis,” in Sorabji and Sharples (eds.) (2007) 89–114.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. (2013) Seneca on Society: A Guide to De Beneficiis. Oxford.Google Scholar
Griffin, M., and Inwood, B. (ed./trans.) (2011) Seneca: On Benefits. Chicago.Google Scholar
Grilli, A. (1953) Vita contemplativa: Il problema della vita contemplativa nel mondo greco-romano. Expanded reprint (2002). Brescia.Google Scholar
Grilli, A. (ed.) (1962) M. Tulli Ciceronis Hortensius. Milan.Google Scholar
Grimal, P. (1978) Sénèque ou la conscience de l’Empire. Paris.Google Scholar
Gummere, R. M. (ed./trans.) (1917) Seneca: Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gunderson, E. (2015) The Sublime Seneca: Ethics, Literature, Metaphysics. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. N. (1992) “Seneca on the beginnings of wisdom,” in Dunn, F. M. and Cole, T. (eds.) Beginnings in Classical Literature. Cambridge: 187–203.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. N. (2000) “Seneca’s renown: Gloria, claritudo, and the replication of the Roman elite.” Classical Antiquity 19.2: 264–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hachmann, E. (1995) Die Führung des Lesers in Senecas Epistulae Morales. Münster.Google Scholar
Hadot, I. (1969) Seneca und die griechisch-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hadot, I. (2014) Sénèque: Direction spirituelle et pratique de la philosophie, Paris.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1981) Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique. Paris.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1989) “Réflexions sur la notion de ‘culture de soi’,” in Michel Foucault philosophe: Rencontre internationale, Paris 9, 10, 11 janvier 1988. Paris: 261–70.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1990) “Forms of life and forms of discourse in ancient philosophy”, trans. A. I. Davidson and P. Wissing. Critical Inquiry 16.3: 483–505.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1993) Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique. 2nd ed. Paris.Google Scholar
Hadot, P. (1995) Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Malden.Google Scholar
Hahm, D. (2007) “Critolaus and late Hellenistic Peripatetic philosophy,” in Ioppolo, A. M and Sed0ley, D. (eds.) Pyrrhonists, Patricians, Platonizers: Hellenistic Philosophy in the Period 155–86 BC. Naples: 47–101.Google Scholar
Harris, W. V. (2001) Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (2004) Morals and Villas in Seneca’s Letters. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hense, O. (ed.) (1914) L. Annaei Senecae Epistularum Moralium Qvae Supersunt. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Heyd, D. (2019) “Supererogation,” in E. N. Zalta (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/supererogation/.Google Scholar
Hijmans, B. L. (1959) AΣΚΗΣΙΣ: Notes on Epictetus’ educational system. Assen.Google Scholar
Hine, H. M. (ed.) (1996) L. Annaei Senecae Naturalium quaestionum libros. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Hine, H. M. (2010) “Philosophy and philosophi from Cicero to Apuleius,” in Williams and Volk (eds.) (2015) 13–29. (ed./trans.) (2010) Lucius Annaeus Seneca: Natural Questions. Chicago.Google Scholar
Holler, E. (1934) Seneca und die Seelenteilungslehre und Affektpsychologie der Mittelstoa. Kallmünz.Google Scholar
Hosius, C. (ed.) (1914) Seneca, Lucius Annaeus: Opera quae supersunt. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Huber, R. (1973) Senecas Schrift De Ira: Untersuchungen zum Aufbau und zu den Quellen. Munich.Google Scholar
Huby, P. (1983) “Peripatetic definitions of happiness,” in Fortenbaugh, W. and White, S. (eds.) On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus. New Brunswick: 121–34.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (1985) Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2002) “Comment on Stephen White, ‘Happiness in the Hellenistic Lyceum’”. Apeiron Supplements 35, 95–102.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2005) Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy in Rome. Oxford.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2007a) Seneca: Selected Letters. New York.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2007b) “The importance of form in Seneca’s philosophical letters,” in Morello, R. and Morrison, A.D. (eds.) Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography. New York: 133–48.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2007c) “Seneca, Plato and Platonism: The case of letter 65,” in Bonazzi and Helmig (eds.) (2007) 149–68.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2009) “Seneca and self-assertion,” in Bartsch and Wray (eds.) (2009) 39–64.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2014) Ethics After Aristotle. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2015) “The voice of Nature,” in Annas, J. and Betegh, G. (eds.) Cicero’s De Finibus: Philosophical Approaches. Cambridge: 147–66.Google Scholar
Inwood, B., and Donini, P. (1999) “Stoic ethics,” in Algra et. al. (eds.) (1999) 675–758.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (1987) Il monismo psicologico degli Stoici antichi. Elenchos 8: 449–66.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. H. (1998) “Stoic inhumanity,” in Sihvola and Engberg-Pedersen (eds.) (1998) 219–42.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. H (trans.) (1985) Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Johann, H. T. (1968) Trauer und Trost. Eine quellen- und strukturanalytische Untersuchung der philosophischen Trostschriften. Munich.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. (1988) “Discovering the will,” in Dillon and Long, (eds.) (1988) 234–59.Google Scholar
Kamtekar, R. (1998) “Αἰδώς in Epictetus.” Classical Philology 93.2: 136–60.Google Scholar
Kappelmacher, A. (1930) “C. Maecenas,” in Pauly, A. and Wissowa, G. (eds.) Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: XIV 214–15.Google Scholar
Kassel, R. (1958) Untersuchungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Konsolationsliteratur. Munich.Google Scholar
Kaster, R., and Nussbaum, M. C (ed./trans.) (2010) Seneca: Anger, Mercy, Revenge. Chicago.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. H. (2014) “Seneca on the analysis and therapy of occurrent emotions,” in Wildberger and Colish (eds.) (2014) 111–33.Google Scholar
Ker, J. (2006) “Seneca, man of many genres,” in Volk and Williams (eds.) (2006) 19–41.Google Scholar
Kerferd, G. B. (1981) The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kidd, I. G. (1986) “Posidonian methodology and the self-sufficiency of virtue,” in Kidd, I.G, Flashar, H., and Gigon, O. (eds.) Aspects de la philosophie hellénistique: Neuf, exposés suivis de discussions. Vandœuvres-Geneva: 1–21.Google Scholar
Kidd, I. G. (1988) Posidonius II: The Commentary. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kohn, T. (2003) “Who wrote Seneca’s plays?” Classical World 96.3: 271–80.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (2006) The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature. Toronto.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (2009) “Meleager’s sweet tears. Observations on weeping and pleasure,” in Fögen (ed.) (2009) 311–34.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (2011) “Epicurus on the gods,” in Fish, J. and Sanders, K. R. (eds.) Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge: 53–71.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (2014) “The joy of giving: Seneca De beneficiis 1.6.1,” in Emilsson, E., Maravela, A., and Skoie, M. (eds.) Paradeigmata: Studies in Honor of Øivind Andersen. Athens: 171–76.Google Scholar
Kühn, W. (2011) “L’attachement au soi et aux autres,” in Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. (eds.) Études sur la théorie stoïcienne de l’action. Paris: 237–366.Google Scholar
L’Hoir, F. S. (1992) The Rhetoric of Gender Terms. Leiden.Google Scholar
Laín Entralgo, P. (1970) The Therapy of the Word in Classical Antiquity. New Haven.Google Scholar
Lana, I. (1991) “Le ‘Lettere a Lucilio’ nella letteratura epistolare”, in Grimal, P. (ed.) Sénèque et la prose Latine. Geneva: 253–89.Google Scholar
Laurand, V., Malaspina, E., and Prost, F. (eds.) (2021) Lectures plurielles du De ira de Sénèque: Interprétations, contextes, enjeux. Berlin.Google Scholar
Laurenti, R. (1979) “Aristotele e il De ira di Seneca.” Studi Filosofici 2: 61–91.Google Scholar
Leeman, A. D. (1953) “Seneca’s plans for a work ‘Moralis Philosophia’ and their influence on his later epistles.” Mnemosyne 6.1: 307–13.Google Scholar
Leeman, A. D. (1954) “Posidonius the dialectician in Seneca’s letters.” Mnemosyne 7.3: 233–40.Google Scholar
Leeman, A. D. (1965) Orationis Ratio. 2 vols. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lentano, M. (2009) “La gratitudine e la memoria: Una lettura del De Beneficiis.” Bollettino di Studi Latini 39.1: 1–28.Google Scholar
Lentano, M. (2014) “De Beneficiis,” in Damschen and Heil (eds.) (2014) 200–6.Google Scholar
Liddell, H. J., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S.; (eds.) (1940) A Greek–English Lexicon, 9th edition. Oxford.Google Scholar
Lindheim, S. (2003) Mail and Female: Epistolary Narrative and Desire in Ovid’s Heroides. Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Lipsius, J. (ed.) (1632) L. Annaei Seneca Philosophi Opera Quae Exstant Omnia. Antwerp.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1979) Magic, Reason and Experience. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1971 “Freedom and determinism in the Stoic theory of human action,” in Long, A.A. (ed.) Problems in Stoicism. London: 173–99.Google Scholar
Long, A. A (1986) Hellenistic Philosophy. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, A. A (1996) Stoic Studies. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Long, A. A (1999) “Stoic psychology,” in Algra et. al. (eds.) (1999) 560–84.Google Scholar
Long, A. A (2002) Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford.Google Scholar
Long, A. A (2006) From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Long, A. A (2009) “Seneca on the self: Why now?” in Bartsch and Wray (eds.) (2009) 20–37.Google Scholar
Long, A. A., and Sedley, D. N (eds.) (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lowenstam, S. (1998) “Seneca’s ‘Epistle Sixty-Five’”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 43: 63–78.Google Scholar
MacKendrick, P. (1989) The Philosophical Books of Cicero. London.Google Scholar
Malaspina, E. (2020) “Se soigner soi-même et vaincre la colère. Une nouvelle exégèse de Sen., De ira 3,13,1.” Museum Helveticum 77.1: 59–73.Google Scholar
Malaspina, E. (2021) “De ira 3,10–24 Une transition faible: De la prophylaxie au traitement et des precepts aux exempla,” in Laurand, Malaspina, and Prost (eds.) (2021) 173–200.Google Scholar
Malchow, R. (1986) Kommentar zum zweiten und dritten Buch von Senecas Schrift “de ira” (= dial. 4 und 5) I–II. Diss. Erlangen-Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Malherbe, A. (1988) Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Atlanta.Google Scholar
Manning, C. E. (1974) “The consolatory tradition and Seneca’s attitude to the emotions.” Greece & Rome 21.1: 71–81.Google Scholar
Manning, C. E. (1981) On Seneca’s “Ad Marciam”. Leiden.Google Scholar
Maso, S. (1999) Lo sguardo della verità: Cinque studi su Seneca. Padua.Google Scholar
Maurach, G. (1970) Der Bau von Senecas Epistulae Morales. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Maurach, G. (2000) Seneca: Leben und Werk. Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Mazzoli, G. (1989) “Le ‘Epistulae morales ad Lucilium’ di Seneca: Valore letterario e filosofico.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.36.3: 1923–77.Google Scholar
Menn, S. (1999) “The Stoic theory of categories.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 17: 215–47.Google Scholar
Merrill, A. D. (ed.) (1893) Catullus. London.Google Scholar
Moraux, P. (1973) Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen: von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Berlin.Google Scholar
Motto, A. L. (1970) Seneca Sourcebook: Guide to the Thought of Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Motto, A. L. (1985) Seneca, Moral Epistles. Chico.Google Scholar
Motto, A. L., and Clark, J.. (1968) “Paradoxum Senecae: The Epicurean Stoic.” Classical World 62.2: 37–42.Google Scholar
Mutschmann, H. (1915) “Seneca und Epikur.” Hermes 50.3: 321–56.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (1994) Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2004) “Emotions as judgments of value and importance,” in Solomon, R.C. (ed.) Thinking About Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotions. Oxford: 183–99.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2009) “Stoic laughter: A reading of Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis,” in Bartsch and Wray (eds.) (2009) 84–112.Google Scholar
Obbink, D. (1989) “The atheism of Epicurus.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 30.2: 187–223.Google Scholar
Oliensis, E. (1998) Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Plaza, M. (2006) The Function of Humour in Roman Verse Satire: Laughing and Lying. New York.Google Scholar
Pohlenz, M. (1948–1949) Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Poster, C. (2007) “A conversation halved: Epistolary theory and Greco-Roman antiquity,” in Poster and Mitchell (eds.) (2007) 21–51.Google Scholar
Poster, C., and Mitchell, L. (eds.) (2007) Letter-writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present: Historical and Bibliographic Studies. Columbia.Google Scholar
Poulakos, J. (1983) “Gorgias’ Encomium to Helen and the defense of rhetoric.” Rhetorica 1.2: 1–16.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. (2015) “On the threshold of rhetoric: Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen.” Classical Antiquity 34.1: 163–82.Google Scholar
Préchac, F. (ed.) (1945–64) Sénèque: Lettres à Lucilius, 5 vols. Paris.Google Scholar
Price, A. (2005) “Were Zeno and Chrysippus at odds in analyzing emotion?” in Salles (ed.) (2005) 471–88.Google Scholar
Rabbow, P. (1914) Antike Schriften über Seelenheilung und Seelenleitung auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Raccanelli, R. (2010) Esercizi di dono: pragmatica e paradossi delle relazioni nel “de beneficiis” di Seneca. Palermo.Google Scholar
Ramondetti, P. (1996) Struttura di Seneca, De Ira, II–III: Una proposta d’interpretazione. Bologna.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. (2005) The Roman Stoics. Self, Responsibility, and Affection. Chicago.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. (2011) “Authority and agency in Stoicism.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 51.2: 296–322.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. (2017) “‘Becoming like God’ in Platonism and Stoicism,” in Engberg-Pedersen, T. (ed.) From Stoicism to Platonism: The Development of Philosophy, 100 BCE–100 CE. Cambridge: 142–58.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. (2019) “How to Become Like God and Remain Oneself,” in Niehoff, M. and Levinson, J. (eds.) Self, Self-Fashioning and Individuality in Late Antiquity. Tübingen: 89–104.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D. (ed.) (1977) Seneca: Dialogi. Oxford.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D (ed.) (1965) L. Annaei Senecae Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. 2 vols. Oxford.Google Scholar
Richardson-Hay, C. (2006) First Lessons: Book 1 of Seneca’s Epistulae Morales – A Commentary. Bern.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (1992) The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. New York.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (1996) “Producing manhood in the schools,” in Dominik, W. (ed.) Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature. London: 90–110.Google Scholar
Rist, J. (1969) Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rist, J. (1989) “Seneca and Stoic orthodoxy.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.36.3: 1993–2012.Google Scholar
Roller, M. (2015) “The dialogue in Seneca’s Dialogues (and other Moral Essays)” in Bartsch and Schiesaro (eds.) (2015) 62–75.Google Scholar
Rosati, G. (1981) “Seneca sulla lettera filosofica: Un genere letterario nel cammino verso la saggenze.” Maia 33: 3–15.Google Scholar
Rosenmeyer, P. A. (2001) Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rosenmeyer, T. G. (1989) Senecan Drama and Cosmology. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Röttig, S. (2022) Affekt und Wille: Senecas Ethik und ihre handlungspsychologische Fundierung. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Runia, D. (2008) “Philo and Hellenistic doxography,” in Alesse (ed.) (2008) 13–54.Google Scholar
Russell, D. C. (2004) “Virtue as ‘likeness to god’ in Plato and Seneca.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 42.3: 241–60.Google Scholar
Salles, R. (2005) The Stoics on Determinism and Compatibilism. Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
Salles, R. (ed.) (2005) Metaphysics, Soul and Ethics. Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji. Oxford.Google Scholar
Sampino, F. (2008) “‘Beneficium’, società e potere: Una lettura del De Beneficiis di Seneca,” in Picone, G. (ed.) Clementia Caesaris: modelli etici, parenesi e retorica dell’esilio. Palermo: 281–300.Google Scholar
Scarpat, G. (1965) La Lettera 65 di Seneca. Brescia.Google Scholar
Schafer, J. (2009) Ars didactica: Seneca’s 94th and 95th letters. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Schafer, J. (2011) “Seneca’s Epistulae Morales as dramatized education.” Classical Philology 106.1: 32–52.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. (2015) “Seneca and Epicurus: The allure of the other,” in Bartsch and Schiesaro (eds.) (2015) 239–51.Google Scholar
Schmid, W. (1984) “Eine falsche Epikurdeutung Senecas und seine Praxis der erbauenden Lesung (Epic. Gnom. Vat. 60)” in Ausgewählte philologische Schriften, ed. Erbse, H and Küppers, J.. Berlin: 151–266.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. (1983) “The syllogisms of Zeno of Citium.” Phronesis 23.1: 31–58.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. (1991) The Stoic Idea of the City. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schönegg, B. (1999) Senecas Epistulae morales als philosophisches Kunstwerk. Bern.Google Scholar
Schoonhoven, H. (1980) Elegiae in Maecenatem: Prolegomena, Text, and Commentary. Groningen.Google Scholar
Schöpsdau, K. (2005) “Seneca über den rechten Umgang mit Büchern.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 148.1: 94–102.Google Scholar
Schorn, S. (2009) “Tears of the bereaved: Plutarch’s Consolatio ad uxorem in context,” in Fögen (ed.) (2009) 335–65.Google Scholar
Schottländer, R. (1955) “Epikureisches bei Seneca.” Philologus 99: 133–48.Google Scholar
Scourfield, J. H. D. (1993) Consoling Heliodorus: A Commentary on Jerome, Letter 60. Oxford.Google Scholar
Seal, C. (2021) Philosophy and Community in Seneca’s Prose. Oxford.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (1989) “Philosophical allegiance in the Greco-Roman world,” in Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. (eds.) Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford: 97–119.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (1998) Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (1999) “Hellenistic physics and metaphysics,” in Algra et. al. (eds.) (1999) 355–411.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. N. (2005) “Stoic metaphysics at Rome,” in Salles (ed.) (2005) 117–42.Google Scholar
Segal, C. P. (1962) “Gorgias and the psychology of the logos.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 66: 99–155.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (1988) Seneca e i greci: Citazioni e traduzioni nelle opere filosofiche. Bologna.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2000) Facundus Seneca. Aspetti della lingua e dell’ideologia senecana. Bologna.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2003) “Seneca e Cicerone,” in Narducci, E. (ed.) Aspetti della fortuna di Cicerone nella cultura latina. Atti del III Symposium Ciceronianum Arpinas. Florence: 55–77.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2007) “Seneca and the divine: Stoic tradition and personal developments.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 13.3: 333–68.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2009) “A recent book on Seneca and his conception of the self,” Ancient History Bulletin 23: 70–84.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2014a) “Epistulae Morales” in Damschen and Heil (eds.) (2014) 191–200.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2014b) “Ethics I: Therapy, self-transformation, ‘Lebensform’,” in Damschen and Heil (eds.) (2014) 239–56.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2014b) “Ethics III: Free will and autonomy” in Damschen and Heil (eds.) (2014) 277–99.Google Scholar
Setaioli, A. (2021) “De ira 2,18–36 De la prophylaxie au contrôle de la colère,” in Laurand, Malaspina, and Prost (eds.) (2021) 119–49.Google Scholar
Sharples, R. W. (2007) “Peripatetics on happiness,” in Sorabji and Sharples (eds.) (2007) 627–37.Google Scholar
Sharples, R. W. (ed.) (2010) Peripatetic Philosophy, 200 BC to AD 200: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sihvola, J., and Engberg-Pedersen, T. (eds.) (1998) The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Smith, R. S. (2004) ‘Review of Die Vorstellung vom Willen in der Morallehre Senecas by Rainer Zöller. Bryn Mawr Classical Reviews.Google Scholar
Smith, R. S. (2014a) “De Otio,” in Damschen and Heil (eds.) (2014) 147–52.Google Scholar
Smith, R. S. (2014b) “Physics I: Body and soul,” in Damschen and Heil (eds.) (2014) 343–62.Google Scholar
Smith, R. S. (2020) “Myth, poetry and Homer in Seneca Philosophus,” in Garani, Michalopoulos, and Papaioannou (eds.) (2020) 50–80.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. (2000) Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation. Oxford.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R., and Sharples, R. W. (eds.) (2007) Greek and Roman Philosophy, 100 BC – 200 AD (BICS suppl. 94). London.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. (2000) “Preliminary impulse in Stoic psychology.” Ancient Philosophy 20.1: 139–68.Google Scholar
Striker, G. (1991) “Following nature: A study in Stoic ethics.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 9: 1–73.Google Scholar
Strozier, R. (2002) Foucault, Subjectivity, and Identity: Historical Constructions of Subject and Self. Detroit.Google Scholar
Sullivan, R. G. (2007) “Classical epistolary theory and the letters of Isocrates,” in Poster and Mitchell (eds.) (2007) 7–20.Google Scholar
Summers, W. C. (ed.) (1910) Select Letters of Seneca: Edited with Introduction and Explanatory Notes. London.Google Scholar
Sykutris, J. (1931) “Epistolographie,” in Pauly, A., Wissowa, G., and Kroll, W. (eds.) Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. 5. Stuttgart: 185–220.Google Scholar
Takaki, K. (2014) “Benefits and communication: Semiotics in Seneca’s De beneficiis.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 31.4: 293–316.Google Scholar
Thraede, K. (1970) Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik. Munich.Google Scholar
Tieleman, T. (2003) Chrysippus’ On Affections: Reconstruction and interpretation. Leiden.Google Scholar
Tieleman, T. (2007) “Onomastic reference in Seneca: The case of Plato and the Platonists,” in Bonazzi and Helmig (eds.) (2007) 133–48.Google Scholar
Tieleman, T. (2021) “Sénèque et les pré-passions,” in Laurand, Malaspina, and Prost (eds.) (2021) 266–76.Google Scholar
Traina, A. (1974) Lo stile drammatico del filosofo Seneca. Bologna.Google Scholar
Trapp, M. (2007) Philosophy in the Roman Empire. Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
Tsouna, V. (2009) “Epicurean therapeutic strategies,” in Warren, J. (ed.) Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge: 249–65.Google Scholar
Tsouni, G. (2017) “Didymus’ epitome of Peripatetic ethics, household management, and politics: An edition with translation,” in Fortenbaugh, W. (ed.) Arius Didymus on Peripatetic Ethics, Household Management, and Politics. New York: 1–68Google Scholar
Usener, H. (1887) Epicurea. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Van Wassenhove, B. (2021) “Moral sententiae and progressor emotions in Seneca’s philosophical works” Classical Philology 116.4: 613–23.Google Scholar
Veillard, C. (2022) (ed.) Hécaton de Rhodes et la transformation de l’éthique stoïcienne: Les fragments. Paris.Google Scholar
Veyne, P. (1993) “The final Foucault and his ethics,” trans. C. Porter and A. Davidson. Critical Inquiry 20: 1–9 Reprinted in Davidson, A. (ed.) Foucault and His Interlocutors. Chicago, 1997: 225–33.Google Scholar
Voelke, A.-J. (1973) L’idée de volonté dans le Stoicisme. Paris.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. (2006) “Anger, present injustice and future revenge in Seneca’s De Ira,” in Volk and Williams (eds.) (2006) 57–74.Google Scholar
Vogt, K. (2020) “Seneca,” in E. N. Zalta (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/seneca/.Google Scholar
Volk, K., and Williams, G. (eds.) (2006) Seeing Seneca Whole: Perspectives on Philosophy, Poetry and Politics. Leiden.Google Scholar
von Arnim, H. (ed.) (1921–24) Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. 4 vols. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Vottero, D. (ed.) (1998) Lucio Anneo Seneca: I frammenti. Bologna.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C. (ed.) (1884–1912) Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium. 4 vols. Berlin.Google Scholar
Wagoner, R. (2014) “Seneca on moral theory and moral improvement.” Classical Philology 109.3: 241–62.Google Scholar
Wardy, R. (1996) The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato, and Their Successors. London.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (2004) Facing Death: Epicurus and His Critics. Oxford.Google Scholar
Watson, P., and Watson, L. (2009) “Seneca and Felicio: Imagery and purpose.” Classical Quarterly 59.1: 212–25.Google Scholar
White, S. (2002) “Happiness in the Hellenistic Lyceum.” Apeiron Supplement 35, 69–93.Google Scholar
White, S. (2004) “Lyco and Hieronymus on the good life,” in Fortenbaugh, W. and White, S. (eds.) Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes. New Brunswick: 389–409.Google Scholar
Wilcox, A. (2012) The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome: Friendship in Cicero’s Ad Familiares and Seneca’s Moral Epistles. Madison.Google Scholar
Wilcox, A. (2020) “Seneca on Augustus and Roman fatherhood,” in Garani, Michalopoulos, and Papaioannou (eds.) (2020) 23–49.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. (2005) “Seneca and the Stoic theory of cognition: Some preliminary remarks,” in Volk and Williams (eds.) (2006) 75–102.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. (2006) Seneca und die Stoa: der Platz des Menschen in der Welt. 2 vols. Berlin.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. (2014) “The Epicurus trope and the construction of a ‘letter writer’ in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales,” in Wildberger and Colish (eds.) (2014) 431–65.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. (2017) “Amicitia and Eros: Seneca’s adaptation of a Stoic concept of friendship for Roman men in progress,” in Zini, F. and Müller, G. (eds.) Philosophie in Rom - Römische Philosophie?: Kultur-, Literatur- und Philosophiegeschichtliche Perspektiven. Berlin: 387–425.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. (2021) “De ira 1,5–21 La raison et la colère: La réfutation de la métriopathie dans le De ira,” in Laurand, Malaspina, and Prost (eds.) (2021) 56–82.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J. (ed./trans.) (2007) Seneca, De ira—Über die Wut: Lateinisch/Deutsch. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Wildberger, J., and Colish, M. L (eds.) (2014) Seneca Philosophus. Berlin.Google Scholar
Williams, G. D. (2012) The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca’s Natural Questions. Oxford.Google Scholar
Williams, G. D. (2014) “Double vision and cross-reading in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales and Naturales Quaestiones,” in Wildberger and Colish (eds.) (2014) 135–66.Google Scholar
Williams, G. D. (ed.) (2003) Seneca: De Otio; De Brevitate Vitae. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Williams, G. D., and Volk, K. (eds.) (2015) Roman Reflections: Essays on Latin Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (ed.) (1970) Macrobius: Saturnalia. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (1987) “Seneca’s epistles to Lucilius: A revaluation.” Ramus 16: 102–21.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (1997) “The subjugation of grief in Seneca’s ‘Epistles’,” in Braund, S. and Gill, C. (eds.) The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. Cambridge: 48–67.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2001). “Seneca’s Epistles reclassified,” in Harrison, S. J. (ed.) Texts, Ideas, and the Classics. Oxford: 164–87.Google Scholar
Winston, D. (2008) “Philo of Alexandria on the rational and irrational emotions,” in Alesse (ed.) (2008) 201–20.Google Scholar
Wolkenhauer, J. (2014) Senecas Schrift “De beneficiis” und der Wandel im römischen Benefizienwesen. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Wray, D. (2009) “Seneca and tragedy’s reason,” in Bartsch and Wray (eds.) (2009) 237–54.Google Scholar
Zöller, R. (2003) Die Vorstellung vom Willen in der Morallehre Senecas. Munich.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
  • Margaret Graver, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
  • Book: Seneca
  • Online publication: 23 March 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316683125.019
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
  • Margaret Graver, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
  • Book: Seneca
  • Online publication: 23 March 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316683125.019
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
  • Margaret Graver, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
  • Book: Seneca
  • Online publication: 23 March 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316683125.019
Available formats
×