Bibliography

Michael Pope

doi:10.1017/9781009242349.007

Adams, J. N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore, MD.CrossRef Google Scholar

Adkins, A. W. H. 1977. “Lucretius 1.136–39 and the Problems of Writing versus Latini.” Phoenix 31: 145–58.Google Scholar

Aicher, P. J. 1992. “Lucretian Revisions of Homer.” CJ 87: 139–58.Google Scholar

Akbar Khan, H. 1967. “Catullus 99 and the Other Kiss-Poems.” Latomus 26: 609–18.Google Scholar

Algra, K. 1995. Concepts of Space in Greek Thought. Leiden.Google Scholar

Algra, K. 1997. “Lucretius and the Epicurean Other: On the Philosophical Background of DRN V.1011–1027.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 141–50.Google Scholar

Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. 1999. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. 1997. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Allen, A. 1991. “Climactic Delay in Lucretius.” Phoenix 45: 63–65.Google Scholar

Allen Jr., W. 1938. “On the Friendship of Lucretius with Memmius.” CPh 33: 167–81.Google Scholar

Anderson, W. S. 1960. “Discontinuity in Lucretian Symbolism.” TAPhA 91: 1–29.Google Scholar

Annas, J. 1992. Hellenistic Philosophy of the Mind. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Arkins, B. 1984. “Epicurus and Lucretius on Sex, Love, and Marriage.” Apeiron 18: 141–43.CrossRef Google Scholar

Armstrong, J. M. 1997. “Epicurean Justice.” Phronesis 42: 324–34.Google Scholar

Aronoff, P. 1997. “Lucretius and the Fears of Death.” PhD Dissertation. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1970. “The Epicurean Theory of Free Will and Its Origins in Aristotle.” PhD Dissertation. Haven CT.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1982. “Lucretius’ Venus and Stoic Zeus.” Hermes 110: 458–70.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1984. Epicurus’ Scientific Method. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1991. “Philodemus’s Poetic Theory and On the Good King According to Homer.” ClAnt 10: 1–45.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1995. “Epicurean Poetics.” In Obbink, D., ed. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford. 15–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1996. “Lucretius on the Growth of Ideas.” In Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M., eds. Epicureismo Greco e romano: Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Napoli 1–26 maggio 1993. Naples. 763–78.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 2008. “Lucretius’ New World Order: Making a Pact with Nature.” CQ 58: 141–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 2009. “Epicurean Empiricism.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 84–104.CrossRef Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 2020. “Psychology.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 189–220.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 2022. “Love It or Leave It: Nature’s Ultimatum in Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things (3.931–962).” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 111–28.Google Scholar

Atkins, J. W. 2018. Roman Political Thought. Cambridge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Austin, E. 2012. “Epicurus and the Politics of Fearing Death.” Apeiron 45: 109–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Auvray-Assayas, C. 2003. “Lucrèce et Cicéron sur la poétique de la traduction: note au De rerum natura I, 116–145/I, 921–950.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 165–69.Google Scholar

Bailey, C. 1928. The Greek Atomists and Epicurus: A Study. Oxford.Google Scholar

Bailey, C. 1940. “The Mind of Lucretius.” AJPh 61: 278–91.Google Scholar

Bailey, C. 1947. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura: Edited, with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and Commentary. 3 vols. Oxford.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. 1989. “The Size of the Sun in Antiquity.” ACD 25: 29–41.Google Scholar

Barra, G. 1964. “Fatis avolsa voluptas (De rer. nat. II, 257).” RAAN 39: 149–65.Google Scholar

Bartman, E. 2002. “Eros’s Flame: Images of Sexy Boys in Roman Ideal Sculpture.” In Gazda, E. K., ed. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor, MI. 249–71.Google Scholar

Barton, C. A. 1993. The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Barton, C. A. 2001. Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Barton, C. A. 2002. “Being in the Eyes: Shame and Sight in Ancient Rome.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 216–35.Google Scholar

Bartsch, S. 2006. The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Bataille, G. 1970. Oeuvres complètes, I. Premiers Écrits 1922–1940. Paris.Google Scholar

Beacham, R. C. 1999. Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar

Beekes, R. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. Leiden.Google Scholar

Bergren, A. L. T. 1983. “Language and the Female in Early Greek Thought.” Arethusa 16: 69–95.Google Scholar

Berryman, S. 2002. “Democritus and the Explanatory Power of the Void.” In Caston, V. and Graham, D., eds. Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos. London. 183–91.Google Scholar

Betensky, A. 1980. “Lucretius and Love.” CW 73: 291–99.Google Scholar

Bettenworth, A. 2012. “Phaeacians at the Birthday Party: A. P. 11.44 (Philodemus) and Its Epic Background.” Aitia 2:1–11. http://journals.openedition.org/fitia/380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/fitia.380.Google Scholar

Beye, C. R. 1963. “Lucretius and Progress.” CJ 58: 160–69.Google Scholar

Blayney, J. 1986. “Theories of Conception in the Ancient Roman World.” In Rawson, B. ed. The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives. Sydney. 230–36.Google Scholar

Blickman, D. R. 1989. “Lucretius, Epicurus, and Prehistory.” HSPh 92: 157–91.Google Scholar

Blundell, S. 1986. The Origins of Civilization in Greek and Roman Thought. London.Google Scholar

Bockemüller, F., ed. 1873. De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. 2 vols. Stade.Google Scholar

Boyancé, P. 1963. Lucrèce et l’épicurisme. Paris.Google Scholar

Boylan, M. 1984. “The Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle’s Conception Theory.” JBH 17: 83–112.Google Scholar

Boylan, M. 1986. “Galen’s Conception Theory.” JBH 19: 47–77.Google Scholar

Brachet, J. 1968. Chemical Embryology. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Braund, D. 1996. “The Politics of Catullus 10: Memmius, Caesar, and the Bithynians.” Hermathena 160: 45–57.Google Scholar

Brennan, T. 1996. “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children.” CPh 91: 346–52.Google Scholar

Bright, D. F. 1971. “The Plague and the Structure of De rerum natura.” Latomus 30: 607–32.Google Scholar PubMed

Brown, R. D. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030–1287 with Prolegomena, Text, and Translation. Leiden.Google Scholar

Brown, R. D. 2017. “Lucretius’ Malodorous Mistress (De Rerum Natura 4.1175).” CJ 113: 26–43.Google Scholar

Buchheit, V. 1984. “Lukrez über den Ursprung von Musik und Dichtung.” RhM 127: 141–58.Google Scholar

Butterfield, D. 2014. “Lucretius Auctus? The Question of Interpolation in De Rerum Natura.” In Martínez, J., ed. Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature: Ergo decipiatur! Leiden. 15–42.CrossRef Google Scholar

Butterfield, D. 2020. “Critical Responses to the Most Difficult Textual Problem in Lucretius.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 19–39.Google Scholar

Cabisius, G. 1979. “Lucretius’ Statement of Poetic Intent.” In Deroux, C., ed. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. Brussels. 1: 239–48.Google Scholar

Cabisius, G. 1984–85. “Social Metaphor and the Atomic Cycle in Lucretius.” CJ 80: 109–20.Google Scholar

Campbell, G. 1999. Review of Sedley 1998. BMCR 10.29. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999.10.29/Google Scholar

Campbell, G. 2002. “Lucretius 5.1011–27: The Origins of Justice and the Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Leeds International Classical Studies 1: 1–12.Google Scholar

Campbell, G. 2003. Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura Book Five, Lines 722–1004. Oxford.Google Scholar

Campbell, G. 2008. “‘And Bright was the Flame of their Friendship’ (Empedocles B130): Humans, Animals, Justice, and Friendship, in Lucretius and Empedocles.” Leeds International Classical Studies 7: 1–23.Google Scholar

Carson, A. 1990. “Putting Her in Her Place: Woman, Dirt, and Desire.” In Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I., eds. 1990. Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton, NJ. 135–69.Google Scholar

Case, S. J. 1915. “The Religion of Lucretius.” American Journal of Theology 19: 92–107.Google Scholar

Caston, R. R. 2006. “Love as Illness: Poets and Philosophers on Romantic Love.” CJ 101: 271–98.Google Scholar

Catto, B. A. 1988–89. “Venus and Natura in Lucretius: De Rerum Natura 1. 1–23 and 2.167–74.” CJ 84: 97–104.Google Scholar

Charlier, P. 2008. “Review of Hillman 2008.” BMCR 12.29. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2008/2008.12.29/.Google Scholar

Chilton, C. W. 1960. “Did Epicurus Approve of Marriage? A Study of Diogenes Laertius X, 119.” Phronesis 5: 71–74.Google Scholar

Chilton, C. W. 1980. “Lucretius De Rerum Natura 5.849–854.” CQ 30: 378–80.Google Scholar

Cilliers, L. 2004. “Vindicianus’ Gynaecia and Theories on Generation and Embryology from the Babylonians up to Graeco-Roman Times.” In Horstmanshoff, M. and Stol, M., eds. Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Leiden. 344–67.Google Scholar

Císař, K. 2001. Epicurean Epistemology in Lucretius’ “De rerum natura” IV 1–822. LF 124: 1–54.Google Scholar

Clarke, J. R. 2002 “Look Who’s Laughing at Sex: Men and Women Viewers at the Apodyterium of the Suburban Baths at Pompeii.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 149–82.Google Scholar

Clarke, M. T. 2014. “Doing Violence to the Roman Idea of Liberty? Freedom as Bodily Integrity in Roman Political Thought.” HPTh 35: 211–33.Google Scholar

Classen, C. J. 1968. “Poetry and Rhetoric in Lucretius.” TAPhA 99: 77–118.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 1969. “De Rerum Natura: Greek Physis and Epicurean Physiologia (Lucretius 1.1–148). TAPhA 100: 31–47.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 1976. “The Sources of Lucretius’ Inspiration.” In Bollack, J. and Laks, A., eds. Études sur l’épicurisme antique. Lille. 204–27.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 1996. “An Anatomy of Lucretian Metaphor.” In Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M., eds. Epicureismo Greco e Romano: Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Napoli, 19–26 Maggia 1993. Naples. 779–93.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 1997. “Lucretius’ Gigantomachy.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 187–92.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 2003. “Lucretius’ Honeyed Muse: The History and Meaning of a Simile.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 183–96.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 2009. “The Athenian Garden.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 9–29.Google Scholar

Clay, D. 2011. “Lucretius, Venus, Cybele, Love, the Gods.” Prometheus 37: 153–62.Google Scholar

Clayton, B. 1999. “Lucretius’ Erotic Mother: Maternity as a Poetic Construct in De Rerum Natura.” Helios 26: 69–84.Google Scholar

Cole, T. 1998. “Venus and Mars (De Rerum Natura 1.31–40).” In Knox, P. and Foss, C., eds. Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart. 3–15.Google Scholar

Colish, M. L. 1990. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: I. Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature. Leiden.Google Scholar

Colman, J. 2012. Lucretius As Theorist of Political Life. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Commager, H. S. 1957. “Lucretius’ Interpretation of the Plague.” HSPh 62: 105–18.Google Scholar

Connell, S. M. 2000. “Aristotle and Galen on Sex Difference and Reproduction: A New Approach to an Ancient Rivalry.” SHPS 31: 405–27.Google Scholar

Copley, F. O. 1956. Exclusus Amator: A Study in Latin Love Poetry. Philological Monographs 17. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar

Corbeill, A. 1996. Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Corbeill, A. 2015. Sexing the World: Grammatical Gender and Biological Sex in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Costa, C. D. N. 1984. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura V. Oxford.Google Scholar

Courtney, E. 2006. “Lucretius and Others on Animals in Warfare.” MH 63: 152–53.Google Scholar

Cowan, R. 2013. “Fear and Loathing in Lucretius: Latent Tragedy and Anti-Allusion in DRN 3.” In Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J., and Frangoulidis, S., eds. Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature: Encounters, Interactions and Transformations. Berlin. 113–33.Google Scholar

Crowther, N. B. 1979. “Water and Wine As Symbols of Inspiration.” Mnemosyne 32: 1–11.Google Scholar

Cullingford, E. B. 1996. “British Romans and Irish Carthaginians: Anticolonial Metaphor in Heaney, Friel, and McGuinness.” PMLA 111: 222–39.Google Scholar

Dalzell, A. 1987. “Language and Atomic Theory in Lucretius.” Hermathena 143: 19–28.Google Scholar

Dalzell, A. 1996. The Criticism of Didactic Poetry: Essays on Lucretius, Virgil, and Ovid. Toronto.Google Scholar

Davies, H. S. 1986. “Notes on Lucretius.” In Classen, C. J., ed. Probleme der Lukrezforschung. Hildesheim. 25–42.Google Scholar

de Lacy, P. 1939. “The Epicurean Analysis of Language.” AJPh 60: 85–92.Google Scholar

de Lacy, P. 1941. “Cicero’s Invective against Piso.” TAPhA 72: 49–58.Google Scholar

de Lacy, P. 1948. “Lucretius and the History of Epicureanism.” TAPhA 79: 12–23.Google Scholar

de Lacy, P. 1957. “Process and Value: An Epicurean Dilemma.” TAPhA 88: 114–26.Google Scholar

de Lacy, P. 1964. “Distant Views: The Imagery of Lucretius 2.” CJ 60: 49–55.Google Scholar

Desmouliez, A. 1958. “Cupidité, ambition et crainte de la chez de la mort Lucrèce (de R. N. III, 59–93).” Latomus 17: 317–23.Google Scholar

Deufert, M., ed. 2019. Titus Lucretius Carus De Rerum Natura Libri VI. Berlin.Google Scholar

Deutsch, R. E. 1978. The Pattern of Sound in Lucretius. New York, NY.Google Scholar

DeWitt, N. W. 1954. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar

Dionigi, I. 1988. Lucrezio: Le parole e le cose. Bologna.Google Scholar

Dionigi, I. 2003. “Lucrezio ovvero la grammatical del cosmo.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 227–32.Google Scholar

Doherty, L. E. 1995. Siren Songs: Gender, Audiences, and Narrators in the Odyssey. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Donahue, H. 1993. The Song of the Swan: Lucretius and the Influence of Callimachus. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Dressler, A. 2016. Personification and the Feminine in Roman Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Duban, J. M. 1982. “Venus, Epicurus, and Naturae Species Ratioque.” TAPhA 103: 165–77.Google Scholar

duBois, P. 1988. Sowing the Body: Psychoanalysis and Ancient Representations of Women. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Dudley, D. R., ed. 1965. Lucretius. London.Google Scholar

Edelstein, L. 1940. “Primum Graius Homo (Lucretius 1.66).” TAPhA 71: 78–90.Google Scholar

Edmunds, L. 2002. “Mars As Hellenistic Lover: Lucretius, ‘De rerum natura’ 1. 29–40 and Its Subtexts.” IJCT 8: 343–58.Google Scholar

Edwards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Edwards, M. J. 1989. “Lucretius, Empedocles, and Epicurean Polemics.” A&A 35: 104–15.Google Scholar

Edwards, M. J. 1993. “‘Aeternus Lepos’: Venus, Lucretius, and the Fear of Death.” G&R 40: 68–78.Google Scholar

Elder, J. P. 1954. “Lucretius 1.1–49.” TAPhA 85: 88–120.Google Scholar

Englert, W. 2020. “Voluntary Action and Responsibility.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 221–49.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 1997. “Physics and Therapy: Meditative Elements in Lucretius’ De rerum natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 79–92.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 1999. “Epicurean Ethics.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge. 642–74.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 2011. “Autodidact and Student: On the Relationship of Authority and Autonomy in Epicurus and the Epicurean tradition.” In Fish, J. and Sanders, K. R., eds. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge. 9–28.Google Scholar

Ernout, A. 1916. Lucrèce De la nature. Paris.Google Scholar

Ernout, A. and Robin, L., eds. 1962. Lucrèce, De Rervm Natvra: Commentaire exégétique et critique, précédé d’une introduction sur l’art de Lucrèce et d’une traduction des lettres et pensées d’Épicure. 3 vols. Paris.Google Scholar

Esolen, A. M., ed. and trans. 1995. Lucretius: On the Nature of Things: De Rerum Natura. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar

Evans, M. 2004. “Can Epicureans Be Friends?” AncPhil 24: 407–24.Google Scholar

Everson, S. 1990. “Epicurus on the Truth of the Senses.” In Everson, S., ed. Epistemology. Cambridge. 161–83.Google Scholar

Fantham, E. 1972. Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery. Toronto.Google Scholar

Fanti, G. 2017. “The Failure of Memmius in Lucretius’ DRN.” Latomus 76: 58–79.Google Scholar

Farrell, J. 1988. “Lucretius, DRN 5.44 Insinuandum.” CQ 38: 179–88.Google Scholar

Farrell, J. 1994. “The Structure of Lucretius’ ‘Anthropology.’” MD 33: 81–95.Google Scholar

Farrell, J. 2001. Latin Language and Latin Culture from Ancient to Modern Times. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Farrell, J. 2022. “Was Memmius a Good King?” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 219–40.Google Scholar

Farrington, B. 1939. Science and Politics in the Ancient World. London.Google Scholar

Farrington, B. 1952. “The Meanings of Voluptas in Lucretius.” Hermathena 80: 26–31.Google Scholar

Feeney, D. C. 1978. “Wild Beasts in the De Rerum Natura.” Prudentia 10: 15–22.Google Scholar

Fish, J. 2011. “Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus: What Roman Epicureans Were Taught about Politics.” In Fish, J. and Sanders, K. R., eds. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge. 72–104.Google Scholar

Fish, J. and Sanders, K. R., eds. 2011. Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, W. 1984. “Lucretius’ Cure for Love in the De Rerum Natura.” CW 78: 73–86.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, W. 1995. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Fletcher, J. 2008. “Women’s Space and Wingless Words in the Odyssey.” Phoenix 62: 77–91.Google Scholar

Fögen, T. 2009. “Sermo corporis: Ancient Reflections on gestus, vultus and vox.” In Thorsten Fögen, T. and Lee, M. M., eds. Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Berlin. 15–43.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. P. 1983. “Lucretius on the Clinamen and ‘Free Will’ (II 251–93.” In Συζήτησις: studi sull’epicureismo greco e romano offerti a Marcello Gigante. 2 vols. Naples. 1.329–52.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. P. 1989. “Lucretius and Politics.” In Griffin, M. and Barnes, J., eds. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford. 120–50.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. P. 1996. “The Feminine Principal: Gender in the De Rerum Natura.” In Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M., eds. Epicureismo Greco e romano: Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Napoli 1–26 maggio 1993. Naples. 813–22.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. P. 2000a. “The Didactic Plot.” In Depew, M. and Obbink, D., eds. Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA. 205–19.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. P. 2000b. “Philosophy and Literature in Lucretian Intertextuality.” In Fowler, D. P., ed. Roman Constructions: Readings in Postmodern Latin. Oxford. 138–55.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. P. 2002a. Lucretius on Atomic Motion: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura Book Two, Lines 1–332. Oxford.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. P. 2002b. “Masculinity under Threat? The Poetics and Politics of Inspiration in Latin Poetry.” In Spentzou, E. and Fowler, D., eds. Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature. Oxford. 141–59.Google Scholar

Fowler, P. G. 1997. “Lucretian Conclusions.” In Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M., and Fowler, D. P., eds. Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature. Princeton, NJ. 112–38.Google Scholar

Fratantuono, L. 2015. A Reading of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Frede, M. 2011. A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Fredrick, D. 2002a. “Introduction: Invisible Rome.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 1–30.Google Scholar

Fredrick, D. 2002b. “Mapping Penetrability in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 236–64.Google Scholar

Fredrick, D., ed. 2002c. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar

Friedländer, P. 1941. “Pattern of Sound and Atomistic Theory in Lucretius.” AJPh 62: 16–34.Google Scholar

Frischer, B. 1982. The Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1967. Two Studies in the Greek Atomists. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1971. “Knowledge of Atoms and Void in Epicureanism.” In Anton, J. P. and Kustas, G. L., eds. Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Albany, NY. 607–19.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1978. “Lucretius the Epicurean: On the History of Man.” In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 1–27.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1986. “Nothing to Us?” In Schofield, M. and Striker, G., eds. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge. 75–91.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1993. “Democritus and Epicurus on Sensible Qualities.” In Passions and Perceptions. 72–94.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1999. “Cosmology.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. 412–51.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 1991. “Man and Beast in Lucretius and the Georgics.” CQ 41: 414–26.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 1994a. “Lucretius 4. 1–25 and the Proems of the De Rerum Natura. PCPhS 40: 1–17.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 1994b. Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2001. Lucretius and the Didactic Epic. London.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2007a. “Lucretius and Previous Poetic Traditions.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 59–75.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2007b., ed. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius. Oxford.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2009. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura V. Oxford.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2013. “Piety, Labour, and Justice in Lucretius and Hesiod.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 25–50.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2018. “Contemplating Violence: Lucretius’ De rerum natura.” In Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds. Texts and Violence in the Roman World. Cambridge. 63–86.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2020. “Lucretius.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 430–55.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2022. “Otium and Voluptas: Catullus and Roman Epicureanism.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 87–108.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds. 2018. Texts and Violence in the Roman World. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Galzerano, M. 2017. “Ending with World Destruction: A Closural Device in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and Its Influence on Later Latin Poetry.” Graeco-Latina Brunensi 22: 43–55.Google Scholar

Ganson, T. S. 2005. “The Platonic Approach to Sense-Perception.” HPhQ 22: 1–15.Google Scholar

Garani, M. 2007. Empedocles Redivivus: Poetry and Analogy in Lucretius. London.Google Scholar

Gardner, H. H. 2019. Pestilence and the Body Politic in Latin Literature. Oxford.Google Scholar

Gee, E. 2020. “The Rising and Setting Soul in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 3.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 195–215.Google Scholar

Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2018. “Lucretius’ Personified Natura Rerum, Satire, and Ennius’ Saturae.” Phoenix 72: 143–60.Google Scholar

Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2020. Laughing Atoms, Laughing Matter: Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and Satire. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Gellar-Goad, T. H. M. 2022. “Lucretius on the Size of the Sun.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 168–85.Google Scholar

Gigandet, A. 1996. “Natura gubernans (Lucrèce, V, 77).” In Lévy, C., ed. Le Concept de nature à Rome: la physique. Paris. 213–25.Google Scholar

Gigandet, A. 1997. “L’interprétation des mythes comme lieu et enjeu de la polémique philosophique dans le De rerum natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H. eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 209–13.Google Scholar

Gigandet, A. 1999. “De l’amour: Vénus de Lucrèce & Érôs platonicien.” In Présence de Lucrèce. 77–85.Google Scholar

Gigon, O., ed. 1978. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva.Google Scholar

Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gillis, D. J. 1967. “Pastoral Poetry in Lucretius.” Latomus 26: 339–62.Google Scholar

Giussani, C. 1896–98. T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex. 4 vols. Turin.Google Scholar

Gladman, K. R. and Mitsis, P. 1997. “Lucretius and the Unconscious.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H. eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 215–24.Google Scholar

Gleason, M. W. 1995. Making Men: Sophist and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Glidden, D. K. 1979a. “Sensus and Sense Perception in the De Rerum natura.” ClAnt 12: 155–81.Google Scholar

Glidden, D. K. 1979b. “Epicurus on Self-Perception.” APhQ 16: 287–306.Google Scholar

Godwin, J. 1986. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura IV. Warminster.Google Scholar

Godwin, J. 2004. Lucretius. London.Google Scholar

Goldhill, S. 2002. “The Erotic Experience of Looking: Cultural Conflict and the Gaze in Empire Culture.” In Nussbaum, M. C. and Sihvola, J., eds. The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Rome and Greece. Chicago, IL. 374–99.Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, N. 2020. “Reading the ‘Implied Author’ in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 43–58.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. 1996. Epicurus in Lycia: The Second-Century World of Diogenes of Oinoanda. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. 2002. “Some Unseen Monster: Rereading Lucretius on Sex.” In Fredrick, D., ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, MD. 86–109.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. 2012. The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. 2022. “Kitsch, Death and the Epicurean.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 129–46.Google Scholar

Görler, W. 1997. “Storing Up Past Pleasures: The Soul-Vessel-Metaphor in Lucretius and his Greek Models.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 193–207.Google Scholar

Graver, M. 1990. “The Eye of the Beholder: Perceptual Relativity in Lucretius.” Apeiron 23: 91–116.Google Scholar

Green, W. M. 1942. “The Dying World of Lucretius.” AJPh 63: 51–60.Google Scholar

Greenblatt, S. 2011. The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. and Barnes, J., eds. 1989a. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. T. 1989b. “Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome.” In Griffin, M. and Barnes, J., eds. Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society. Oxford. 1–37.Google Scholar

Grimal, P. 1978. “La poème de Lucrèce en son temps.” In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 233–62.Google Scholar

Gruber, G. M. 2009. “Medium and Message in Lucretius’ ‘Honey’ Analogy.” PhD Dissertation. University of Iowa.Google Scholar

Gunderson, E. 2000. Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Guy-Bray, S. 2006. Loving in Verse: Poetic Influence as Erotic. Toronto.Google Scholar

Hahm, D. E. 1977. The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Hallett, J. P. and Skinner, M. B., eds. 1997. Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Halliwell, S. 2009. “Odysseus’s Request and the Need for Song.” Anais de Filosofia Clássica 3: 1–14.Google Scholar

Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I., eds. 1990. Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Hanchey, D. 2013. “Cicero, Exchange, and the Epicureans.” Phoenix 67: 119–34.Google Scholar

Hanchey, D. 2022. “Cicero’s Rhetoric of Anti-Epicureanism: Anonymity as Critique.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 37–54.Google Scholar

Hankinson, R. J. 1999 “Explanation and Causation.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. 479–512.Google Scholar

Hankinson, R. J. 2001. Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought. Oxford.Google Scholar

Hanses, M. 2022. “Page, Stage, Image: Confronting Ennius with Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 147–67.Google Scholar

Hanson, A. E. 1990. “The Medical Writers’ Woman.” In Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I., eds. 1990. Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Princeton, NJ. 309–38.Google Scholar

Hardie, P. R. 2008. “Lucretian Multiple Explanations and their Reception in Latin Didactic and Epic.” In Beretta, M. and Citti, F., eds. Lucrezio, la natura e la scienza. Florence. 69–96.Google Scholar

Harrison, S. J. 1990. “Lucretius, Euripides and the Philosophers: De Rerum Natura 5.13–21.” CQ 40: 195–98.Google Scholar

Herchenroeder, L. 2008. “Τί γὰρ τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν λόγον; Plutarch’s Gryllus and the So-Called Grylloi.” AJPh 129: 347–79.Google Scholar

Hill, T. 2004. Ambitiosa Mors: Suicide and Self in Roman Thought and Literature. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Hillman, D. C. A. 2008. The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Hinds, S. 1987. “Language at the Breaking Point: Lucretius 1.452.” CQ 37: 450–53.Google Scholar

Holm, S. 2013. “The Specter of Tantalus: Didactic Latency in De Rerum Natura. TAPhA 143: 385–403.Google Scholar

Holmes, B. 2005a. Review of Campbell 2003. Aestimatio 2: 142–62.Google Scholar

Holmes, B. 2005b. “Daedala Lingua: Crafted Speech in De Rerum Natura.” AJPh 126: 527–85.Google Scholar

Holmes, B. 2013. “The Poetic Logic of Negative Exceptionalism in Lucretius, Book Five.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 153–91.Google Scholar

Holmes, B. 2014. “The Poetics of Anthropogony: Men, Women, and Children in Lucretius Book Five.’ EuGeSta 4: 135–74.Google Scholar

Holtsmark, E. B. 1967. “On Lucretius 2.1–19.” TAPhA 98: 193–204.Google Scholar

van Hoorn, W. 1972. As Images Unwind: Ancient and Modern Theories of Visual Perception. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Howe, H. M. 1951. “Amafinus, Lucretius, and Cicero.” AJPh 72: 57–62.Google Scholar

Howe, H. M. 1957. “The Religio of Lucretius.” CJ 52: 329–33.Google Scholar

Humphries, R. 1968. Lucretius: The Way Things Are: The De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius Carus. Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar

Hutchinson, G. O. 2001. “The Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 51: 150–62.Google Scholar

Ingalls, W. B. 1971. “Repetition in Lucretius.” Phoenix 25: 227–36.Google Scholar

Inwood, B. 1981. “The Origin of Epicurus’ Concept of Void.” CPh 76: 273–285.Google Scholar

Jacobson, H. 1990. “Lucretius 4.1192–96.” Phoenix 44: 82–83.Google Scholar

Johncock, M. S. P. 2016. “Metaphor and Argumentation in Lucretius.” PhD Dissertation. Royal Holloway, University of London.Google Scholar

Johnson, W. R. 2006. Lucretius in the Modern World. London.Google Scholar

Jope, J. 1985. “Lucretius, Cybele, and Religion.” Phoenix 39: 250–62.Google Scholar

Kany-Turpin, J. 1997. “Cosmos ouvert et épidémies mortelles dans le De rerum natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 179–85.Google Scholar

Kaster, R. A. 1997. “The Shame of the Romans.” TAPhA 127: 1–19.Google Scholar

Kato, S. 1991. “The Apology: The Beginning of Plato’s own Philosophy.” CQ 41: 356–64.Google Scholar

Keen, R. 1985. “Lucretius and his Reader.” Apeiron 19: 1–10.Google Scholar

Keith, A. M. 2000. Engendering Rome: Women in Latin Epic. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Kelly, S. T. 1980. “The Last Line of the De Rerum Natura.” Latomus 39: 95–97.Google Scholar

Keller, A. C. 1951. “Lucretius and the Idea of Progress.” CJ 46: 185–88.Google Scholar

Kennedy, D. F. 2002. Rethinking Reality: Lucretius and the Textualization of Nature. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Kennedy, D. 2006. “Atoms, Individuals, and Myths.” In Zajko, V. and Leonard, M., eds. Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought. Oxford. 233–52.Google Scholar

Kennedy, D. 2013. “The Political Epistemology of Infinity.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 51–67.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. 1970. “Doctus Lucretius.” Mnemosyne 23: 366–92.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. 1972. “The Historical Imagination of Lucretius.” G&R 19: 12–24.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. 1974. “Vivida vis: Polemic and Pathos in Lucretius 1.62–101.” In Woodman, T. and West, D. eds. Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry. Cambridge. 18–30.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. 2007. “Lucretian Texture: Style, Metre and Rhetoric in the De Rerum Natura.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 92–110.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J., ed. 2014. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura Book III. 2nd ed. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Kleve, K. 1978. “The Philosophical Polemics in Lucretius: A Study in the History of Epicurean Criticism.” In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 39–71.Google Scholar

Kleve, K. 1979. “What Kind of Work Did Lucretius Write?” SO 54: 81–85.Google Scholar

Koenen, M. H. 1997. “Lucretius’ Olfactory Theory in ‘De rerum natura’ IV.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 163–77.Google Scholar

Koenen, M. H. 1999. “Lucretius’ Explanation of Hearing in “De rerum natura” IV 524–562.” Mnemosyne 52: 434–63.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 1973. Some Aspects of Epicurean Psychology. Leiden.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 2010–11. “A Pig Convicts Itself of Unreason: The Implicit Argument of Plutarch’s Gryllus.” Hyperboreus 16–17: 371–85.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 2012. “Epicurean Happiness: A Pig’s Life?” Journal of Ancient Philosophy 6: 1–24.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 2020. “Atomism.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 59–80.Google Scholar

Kyriakidis, S. 2004. “Middles in Lucretius’ DRN: The Poet and His Work.” In Kyriakidis, S. and de Martino, F., eds. Middles in Latin Poetry. Bari. 27–49.Google Scholar

Landolfi, L. 2006. “Patologia dell’eros e metaforesi in Lucrezio De rer. Nat. 4, 1058–1090.” PP 46: 87–109.Google Scholar

Langlands, R. 2006. Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Langlands, R. 2018. Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Lee, E. N. 1978. “The Sense of an Object: Epicurus on Seeing and Hearing.” In Machamer, P. K. and Turnbull, R. G., eds. Studies in Perception: Interrelations in the History of Philosophy and Science. Columbus, OH. 27–59.Google Scholar

Lehoux, D. 2013. “Seeing and Unseeing, Seen and Unseen.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford. 131–51.Google Scholar

Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A., eds. 2013. Lucretius: Poetry, Philosophy, Science. Oxford.Google Scholar

Lenaghan, L. 1967. “Lucretius 1.921–50.” TAPhA 98: 221–51.Google Scholar

Lenz, J. R. 2011. “How Epicurean Science Saves Humanity in Lucretius.” In Suits, D. B. and Madigan, T. J., eds. Lucretius: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance. Rochester, NY. 89–106.Google Scholar

Leonard, W. E. and Smith, S. B., eds. 1942. Lucretius, “De Rerum Natura” libri sex. Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar

Litchfield, H. W. 1913. “Cicero’s Judgment on Lucretius.” HSPh 24: 147–59.Google Scholar

Long., A. A. 1977. “Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism.” Phronesis 22: 63–88.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 1986a. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics Epicureans, Sceptics. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 1986b. “Pleasure and Social Utility: The Virtues of Being Epicurean.” In Flashar, H. and Gigon, O., eds. Aspects de la Philosophie Hellénistique. Geneva. 283–316.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 1997. “Lucretius on Nature and the Epicurean Self.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 128–32.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 1999. “The Socratic Legacy.” In Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., and Schofield, M., eds. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. 617–41.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 2006. From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. 2008. “The Concept of the Cosmopolitan in Greek and Roman Thought.” Daedalus 137: 50–58.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N., eds. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Lonie, I. M. 1981. The Hippocratic Treatises, “On Generation,” “On the Nature of the Child,” “Diseases IV.” Berlin.Google Scholar

Lowe, D. 2016. “Suspending Disbelief: Magnetic and Miraculous Levitation from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” ClAnt 35: 247–78.Google Scholar

Luciani, S. 1999. “Philosophie et Esthétique du Mouvement dans le De Rerum Natura.” In Poignault, R., ed. Présence de Lucrèce: Actes du colloque tenu à Tours (3–5 décembre 1998). Tours. 65–76.Google Scholar

Ludwig, P. 2018. “Lucretius on Rebelling Against the ‘Laws’ of Nature.” In Minkov, S. Y. and Trout, B. L., eds. Mastery of Nature: Promises and Prospects. Philadelphia, PA. 122–34.Google Scholar

Luper-Foy, S. 1987. “Annihilation.” PhilosQ 37: 233–52.Google Scholar

Mac Góráin, F. 2018. “Untitled\Arma Virumque.” CPh 113: 423–48.Google Scholar

Maguinness, W. S. 1965. “The Language of Lucretius.” In Dudley, D. R., ed. Lucretius. London. 69–93.Google Scholar

Marković, D. 2008. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Leiden.Google Scholar

Marković, D. 2010–11. “Lucretius 3.978–1023 and the Hellenistic Philosophical Polemics against the Grammarians.” ICS 35–36: 143–53.Google Scholar

Massaro, A. 2014. “The Living in Lucretius’ De rerum natura: Animals’ ataraxia and Humans’ Distress.” Relations: Beyond Anthropocentrism 2: 45–58.Google Scholar

Masterson, M., Rabinowitz, N. S., and Robson, J., eds. 2014. Sex in Antiquity: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World. London.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. 1990. “The Epic of Lucretius.” Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6: 35–43.Google Scholar

McConnell, S. 2012. “Lucretius and Civil Strife.” Phoenix 66: 97–121.Google Scholar

McConnell, S. 2015. “Epicurean Education and the Rhetoric of Concern.” AClass 58: 111–45.Google Scholar

McDonnell, M. 2006. Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. Cambridge.Google Scholar

McOsker, M. 2020. “Poetics.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 347–76.Google Scholar

Meijer, P. A. 2007. Stoic Theology: Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and the Traditional Gods: Including a Commentary on Cleanthes’ Hymn on Zeus. Delft.Google Scholar

Merlan, P. 1950. “Lucretius – Primitivist or Progressivist?” JHI 11: 354–68.Google Scholar

Merrill, W. A. 1891. “The Signification and Use of the Word Natura by Lucretius.” TAPhA 22: xxxii–xxxv.Google Scholar

Michels, A. K. 1955. “Death and Two Poets.” TAPha 86: 160–79.Google Scholar

Miller, W. I. 1997. The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Minaedo, R. 1965. “The Formal Design of De Rerum Natura.” Arion 4: 444–61.Google Scholar

Minyard, J. D. 1985. Lucretius and the Late Republic: An Essay in Roman Intellectual History. Leiden.Google Scholar

Mitsis, P. 1988. Epicurus’ Ethical Theory: The Pleasures of Invulnerability. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Mitsis, P. 1993. “Committing Philosophy on the Reader: Didactic Coercion and Reader Autonomy in De Rerum Natura.” MD 31: 111–28.Google Scholar

Mitsis, P., ed. 2020a. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford.Google Scholar

Mitsis, P. 2020b. “Friendship.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 250–83.Google Scholar

Mitsis, P. 2021. “Did Ancient Greek Philosophers Have a Concept of Free Will? (and Other Improper Questions).” In Mitsis, P. and Reid, H. L., eds. The Poetry of Philosophy. Sioux City, IA. 243–82.Google Scholar

Monet, A., ed. 2003. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille.Google Scholar

Montarese, F. 2012. Lucretius and His Sources: A Study of Lucretius, “De rerum natura” I 635–920. Berlin.Google Scholar

Monti, R. C. 1981. “Lucretius on Greed, Political Ambition and Society: de rer. Nat. 3. 69–86.” Latomus 40: 48–66.Google Scholar

Morrison, A. D. 2020. “Arguing over Text(s): Master-Texts vs. Intertexts in the Criticism of Lucretius.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 157–76.Google Scholar

Müller, G. 1978. Die Finalia der sechs Bücher des Lucrez. In Gigon, O., ed. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussion. Geneva. 197–221.Google Scholar

Müller, K. 1974. Review of Lucretius, “De Rerum Natura Book” III, by E. J. Kenney. Gnomon 46: 756–64.Google Scholar

Mulroy, D. 1977. “An Interpretation of Catullus 11.” CW 71: 237–47.Google Scholar

Munro, H. A. J. 1864–66. T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Murley, C. 1928. “Cicero’s Attitude toward Lucretius.” CPh 23: 289–91.Google Scholar

Murley, C. 1947. “Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Viewed As Epic.” TAPhA 78: 336–46.Google Scholar

Nagel, T. 1979. Mortal Questions. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Nagler, M. N. 1996. “Dread Goddess Revisited.” In Schein, S. L., ed. Reading the Odyssey: Selected Interpretive Essays. Princeton, NJ. 140–61.Google Scholar

Nethercut, J. S. 2017. “Empedocles’ ‘Roots’ in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” AJPh 138: 85–105.Google Scholar

Nethercut, J. S. 2018. “Provisional Argumentation and Lucretius’ Honeyed Cup.” CQ 68: 523–33.Google Scholar

Nicgorski, W. 2002. “Cicero, Citizenship, and the Epicurean Temptation.” In Allman, D. D. and Beaty, M. D., eds. Cultivating Citizens: Soulcraft and Citizenship in Contemporary America. Oxford. 3–28.Google Scholar

Nichols, J. H. 1976. Epicurean Political Philosophy: The De rerum natura of Lucretius. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Nightingale, A. 2007. “Night-Vision: Epicurean Eschatology.” Arion 14: 61–98.Google Scholar

Nugent, B. P. 2008. “The Sounds of Sirens; Odyssey 12.184–91.” College Literature 35: 45–54.Google Scholar

Nugent, S. G. 1994. “Mater Matters: The Female in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” ColbyQ 30: 179–205.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. 1986. “Therapeutic Arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle.” In Schofield, M. and Striker, G., eds. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge. 31–74.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. 1989a. “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature.” Ph&PhenR 1: 303–51.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. 1989b. “Beyond Obsession and Disgust: Lucretius’ Genealogy of Love.” Apeiron 22: 1–59.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. 1990. “By Words Not Arms: Lucretius on Gentleness in an Unsafe World.” Apeiron 23: 41–90.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. 1994. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. 2002. “Erōs and Ethical Norms: Philosophers Respond to a Cultural Dilemma.” In Nussbaum, M. C. and Sihvola, J., eds. The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Rome and Greece. Chicago, IL. 55–94.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. and Sihvola, J., eds. 2002. The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Rome and Greece. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Obbink, D., ed. 1995. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford.Google Scholar

O’Hara, J. 2007. Inconsistency in Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan. Cambridge.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, T. 1997. “The Ontological Status of Sensible Qualities for Democritus and Epicurus.” AncPhil 17: 119–34.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, T. 2001. “Is Epicurean Friendship Altruistic?” Apeiron 34: 269–305.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, T. 2003. “Lucretius on the Cycle of Life and the Fear of Death.” Apeiron 36: 43–65.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, T. 2020. “Lucretius and the Philosophical Use of Literary Persuasion.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 177–94.Google Scholar

Oliensis, E. 1997. “The Erotics of Amicitia: Readings in Tibullus, Propertius, and Horace.” In Hallett, J. P. and Skinner, M. B., eds. Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ. 151–71.Google Scholar

Olson, K. 2014. “Masculinity, Appearance, and Sexuality: Dandies in Roman Antiquity.” JHSex 23: 182–205.Google Scholar

Olson, K. 2017. Masculinity and Dress in Roman Antiquity. London.Google Scholar

O’Rourke, D. 2014. “Lovers in Arms: Empedoclean Love and Strife in Lucretius and the Elegists.” Dictynna 11: 1–21.Google Scholar

O’Rourke, D. 2018. “Make War Not Love: Militia amoris and Domestic Violence in Roman Elegy.” In Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds. Texts and Violence in the Roman World. Cambridge. 110–39.Google Scholar

O’Rourke, D., ed. 2020a. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge.Google Scholar

O’Rourke, D. 2020b. “Infinity, Enclosure and False Closure in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 103–23.Google Scholar

Owen, W. H. 1969a. “Structural Patterns in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CW 62: 121–27.Google Scholar

Owen, W. H. 1969b. “Structural Patterns in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (Continued).” CW 62: 166–72.Google Scholar

Packman, Z. M. 1976. “Ethics and Allegory in the Proem of the Fifth Book of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. CJ 71: 206–212.Google Scholar

Pantelia, M. C. 1993. “Spinning and Weaving: Ideas of Domestic Order in Homer.” AJPh 114: 493–501.Google Scholar

Park, D. 1997. The Fire within the Eye: A Historical Essay on the Nature and Meaning of Light. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Parry, M. 1933. “The Traditional Metaphor in Homer.” CPh 28: 30–43.Google Scholar

Pentassuglio, F. 2018. “Socrates Erotikos: Mutuality, Role Reversal, and Erotic Paideia in Xenophon’s and Plato’s Symposia.” In Danzig, G., Johnson, D., and Morrison, D., eds. Plato and Xenophon: Comparative Studies. Leiden. 365–90.Google Scholar

Penwill, J. L. 1994. “Image, Ideology and Action in Cicero and Lucretius.” Ramus 23: 68–91.Google Scholar

Penwill, J. L. 1996. “The Ending of Sense: Death as Closure in Lucretius Book 6.” Ramus 25: 146–69.Google Scholar

Piergiacomi, E. 2020. “Language.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 308–32.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2016. “Sweating with Blood and Civil Conflict in De Rerum Natura.” CJ 112: 41–55.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2018a. “Ocular Penetration, Grammatical Objectivity, and an Indecent Proposal in De Rerum Natura. CPh 113: 206–12.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2018b. “Seminal Verse: Atomic Orality and Aurality in De Rerum Natura.” Eugesta 8: 108–30.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2019. “Embryology, Female Semina and Male Vincibility in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.” CQ 69: 229–45.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2020. “Bodies Piled High: Lucretius, Lucan, and the Un/Natural Costs of Civil War.” CPh 115: 209–26.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2022a. “A Brief Note on religio and the Ending of De Rerum Natura.” Philologus 166: 150–55.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2022b. “Revisiting Baratre in DRN 3.955.” CJ 117: 476–85.Google Scholar

Porter, J. I. 1995. “Content and Form in Philodemus: The History of an Evasion.” In Obbink, D., ed. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford. 97–147.Google Scholar

Porter, J. I. 2003. “Lucretius and the Poetics of Void.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 197–226.Google Scholar

Porter, J. I. 2007. “Lucretius and the Sublime.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 167–84.Google Scholar

Porter, J. I. 2011. “Making and Unmaking: The Achaean Wall and the Limits of Fictionality in Homeric Criticism.” TAPhA 141: 1–36.Google Scholar

Preus, A. 1977. “Galen’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Conception Theory.” JHB 10: 65–85.Google Scholar

Pucci, P. 1979. “The Song of the Sirens.” Arethusa 12: 121–32.Google Scholar

Purinton, J. 1993. “Epicurus on the Telos.” Phronesis 38: 281–320.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, T. 2002. “The Speech of Nature in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura 3.931–71.” CQ 52: 291–304.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, T. 2004. “Readers in the Underworld, De Rerum Natura 3.912–1075.” JRS 94: 27–46.Google Scholar

Renehan, R. 1980. “On the Greek Origins of the Concepts Incorporeality and Immateriality.” GRBS 21: 105–38.Google Scholar

Reydams-Schils, G. 2005. The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Richlin, A. 1981. “The Meaning of irrumare in Catullus and Martial.” CPh 76: 40–46.Google Scholar

Richlin, A. 1984. “Invective against Women in Roman Satire.” Arethusa 17: 67–80.Google Scholar

Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. Rev. ed. Oxford.Google Scholar

Richlin, A. 1993. “Not Before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love between Men.” JHSex 3: 522–73.Google Scholar

Rider, B. 2014. “Epicurus on the Fear of Death and the Relative Value of Lives.” Apeiron 47: 461–84.Google Scholar

Roller, D. W. 1970. “Gaius Memmius: Patron of Lucretius.” CPh 65: 246–48.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, S. 1986. “How to Be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus.” APhQ 23: 217–25.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, S. 1989a. “Epicurus and Annihilation.” PhilosQ 39: 81–90.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, S. 1989b. “The Symmetry Argument: Lucretius Against the Fear of Death.” Ph&PhenR 50: 353–73.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, S. 2020. “Death.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 118–40.Google Scholar

Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1996. “Sensation and Taste in Lucretius.” SCI 15: 135–51.Google Scholar

Rosivach, V. J. 1980. “Lucretius 4.1123–40.” AJPh 101: 401–3.Google Scholar

Roskam, G. 2007a. A Commentary on Plutarch’s De Latenter Vivendo. Leuven.Google Scholar

Roskam, G. 2007b. Live Unnoticed (Λάθε βιώσας): On the Vicissitudes of an Epicurean Doctrine. Leiden.Google Scholar

Roskam, G. 2020. “Politics and Society.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 284–307.Google Scholar

Roskam, G. 2022. “Sint Ista Graecorum: How to be an Epicurean in Late Republican Rome – Evidence from Cicero’s On Ends 1–2.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 11–36.Google Scholar

Rouse, W. H. D. and Smith, M. F., eds. 1992. Lucretius, “De Rerum Natura.” Rev. ed. Loeb 181. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Roy, S. 2013. “Homeric Concerns: A Metapoetic Reading of Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 2.1–19.” CQ 63: 780–84.Google Scholar

Rundin, J. 2003. “The Epicurean Morality of Vergil’s Bucolics.” CW 96: 159–76.Google Scholar

Russell, D. A. and Konstan, D. 2005. Heraclitus: Homeric Problems. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Sandbach, F. H. 1940. “Lucreti Poemata and the Poet’s Death.” CR 54: 72–77.Google Scholar

Santoro L’hoir, F. 1992. The Rhetoric of Gender Terms: “Man”, “Woman”, and the Portrayal of Character in Latin Prose. Leiden.Google Scholar

Santos, G. H. 2000. “Chest Trauma during the Battle of Troy: Ancient Warfare and Chest Trauma.” Annals of Thoracic Surgery 69: 1285–87.Google Scholar

Scarborough, J. 1991. “The Pharmacology of Sacred Plants, Herbs, and Roots.” In Faraone, C. A. and Obbink, D., eds. Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Oxford. 138–74.Google Scholar

Schiesaro, A. 1989. “A Note on Lucretius 4.1046.” CQ 39: 555–57.Google Scholar

Schiesaro, A. 1994. “The Palingenesis of De Rerum Natura.” PCPhS 40: 81–107.Google Scholar

Schiesaro, A. 2003. “Rhétorique, Politique et Didaxis chez Lucrèce.” In Monet, A., ed. Le jardin romain, épicurisme et poésie à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Mayotte Bollack. Lille. 57–75.Google Scholar

Schiesaro, A. 2007a. “Lucretius and Roman Politics and History.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 41–58.Google Scholar

Schiesaro, A. 2007b. “Didaxis, Rhetoric, and the Law in Lucretius.” In Heyworth, S. J., Fowler, P. G., and Harrison, S. J., eds. Classical Constructions: Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist and Epicurean. Oxford. 63–90.Google Scholar

Schoenheim, U. 1966. “The Place of ‘Tactus’ in Lucretius.” Philologus 110: 71–87.Google Scholar

Schofield, M. and Striker, G., eds. 1986. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge.Google Scholar

van Schoor, D. 2011. “Nec me mea fallit imago: Ovid’s Poetics of Irony and Reflections of Lucretius and Pythagoras in the Metamorphoses.” AClass 54: 125–47.Google Scholar

Schrijvers, P. H. 1970. Horror ac Divina Voluptas: Études sur la poésie de Lucrèce. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Schrijvers, P. H. 1996. “Lucretius on the Origin and Development of Political Life (De Rerum Natura 5.1105–1160).” In Algra, K. A., van der Horst, P. W., and Runia, D. T., eds. Polyhistor: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy: Presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his Sixtieth Birthday. Leiden. 220–30.Google Scholar

Schrijvers, P. H. 1997. “L’homme et l’animal dans le De rerum natura: Lucrèce et la science de la vie.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 151–61.Google Scholar

Schrijvers, P. H. 2007a. “Seeing the Invisible: A Study of Lucretius’ Use of Analogy in the De rerum natura.” In Gale, M. R., ed. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius. Oxford. 255–88.Google Scholar

Schrijvers, P. H. 2007b. “Propagandistic Strategies in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In Harder, A., MacDonald, A. A., and Reinink, G. J., eds. Calliope’s Classroom: Studies in Didactic Poetry from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Leuven. 49–70.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1982. “Two Conceptions of Vacuum.” Phronesis 27: 175–93.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1988. “Epicurean Anti-reductionism.” In Barnes, J. and Mignucci, M., eds. Matter and Metaphysics. Naples. 295–327.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1989. “Epicurus on the Common Sensibles.” In Huby, P. and Neal, G., eds. The Criterion of Truth: Essays Written in Honour of George Kerferd, Together with a Text and Translation (with Annotations) of Ptolemy’s On the Kriterion and Hegemonikon. Liverpool. 123–136.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1997. “How Lucretius Composed the De Rerum Natura.” In Algra, K. A., Koenen, M. H., and Schrijvers, P. H., eds. Lucretius and His Intellectual Background. Amsterdam. 1–19.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1998. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1999. “Lucretius’ Use and Avoidance of Greek.” PBA 93: 227–46.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 2003. “Lucretius and the New Empedocles.” Leeds International Classical Studies 2: 1–12.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 2007. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 2009. “Epicureanism in the Roman Republic.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 29–45.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 2018. “Epicurean Theories of Knowledge from Hermarchus to Lucretius and Philodemus.” Lexicon Philosophicum: International Journal for the History of Texts and Ideas 6: 106–21.Google Scholar

Segal, C. 1970. “Delubra Decora: Lucretius II. 352–66.” Latomus 29: 104–18.Google Scholar

Segal, C. 1983. Kleos and Its Ironies in the Odyssey. AC 52: 22–47.Google Scholar

Segal, C. 1989. “Poetic Immortality and the Fear of Death: The Second Proem of the De Rerum Natura.” HSPh 92: 193–212.Google Scholar

Segal, C. 1990. Lucretius on Death and Anxiety: Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum Natura. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Sharples, R. W. 1980. “Lucretius’ Account of the Composition of the Soul (3.231ff.).” LCM 5: 117–20.Google Scholar

Sharrock, A. 2006. “The Philosopher and the Mother Cow: Towards a Gendered Reading of Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.” In Zajko, V. and Leonard, M., eds. Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought. Oxford. 253–74.Google Scholar

Shearin, W. H. 2015. The Language of the Atoms: Performativity and Politics in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Oxford.Google Scholar

Shearin, W. H. 2020. “Saussure’s cahiers and Lucretius’ elementa: A Reconsideration of the Letters-Atoms Analogy.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 140–53.Google Scholar

Shelton, J.-A. 1995. “Contracts with Animals: Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.” Between the Species 11:115–21.Google Scholar

Shildrick, M. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)Ethics. London.Google Scholar

Sider, D. 1995. “Epicurean Poetics: Response and Dialogue.” In Obbink, D., ed. Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. Oxford. 35–41.Google Scholar

Sider, D. 1997. The Epigrams of Philodemos: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar

Sikes, E. E. 1971. Lucretius: Poet and Philosopher. New York, NY.Google Scholar

Sinisgalli, R. 2012. Perspective in the Visual Culture of Classical Antiquity. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Sissa, G. 2008. Sex and Sensuality in the Ancient World. New Haven, CT.Google Scholar

Skinner, M. B. 2014. Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar

Smith, M. F. 1966. “Some Lucretius Thought Processes.” Hermathena 102: 73–83.Google Scholar

Smith, M. F. 1985. “Notes on Lucretius.” Sileno 11: 219–25.Google Scholar

Smith, M. F. 2000. “Lucretius 3.955.” Prometheus 26: 35–40.Google Scholar

Smith, W. S. 2005. “The Cold Cares of Venus: Lucretius and Anti-marriage Literature.” In Smith, W. S., ed. Satiric Advice on Women and Marriage: From Plautus to Chaucer. Ann Arbor, MI. 71–91.Google Scholar

Snyder, J. M. 1976. “Lucretius and the Status of Women.” CB 53: 17–19.Google Scholar

Snyder, J. M. 1980. Puns and Poetry in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Snyder, J. M. 1981. “The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric Poets.” CJ 76: 193–96.Google Scholar

Snyder, J. M. 1983. “The Warp and the Woof of the Universe in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” ICS 8: 37–43.Google Scholar

Solmsen, F. 1963. “Nature as Craftsman in Greek Thought.” JHI 24: 473–96.Google Scholar

Solmsen, F. 1977. “Epicurus on Void, Matter and Genesis: Some Historical Observations.” Phronesis 22: 263–81.Google Scholar

Solmsen, F. 1988. “Lucretius’ Strategy in De Rerum Natura I.” RhM 131: 315–23.Google Scholar

Solomon, D. 2004. “Lucretius’ Progressive Revelation of Nature in DRN 1.149–502.” Phoenix 58: 260–83.Google Scholar

Stearns, J. B. 1936. “Epicurus and Lucretius on Love.” CJ 31: 343–51.Google Scholar

Stewart, D. J. 1970. “The Silence of Magna Mater.” HSPh 74: 75–84.Google Scholar

Stoddard, K. 1996. “Thucydides, Lucretius, and the End of the De Rerum Natura.” Maia 48: 107–28.Google Scholar

Stokes, M. C. 1995. “Cicero on Epicurean Pleasures.” In Powell, J. G. F. ed. Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers. Oxford. 145–70.Google Scholar

Striker, G. 1993. “Epicurean Hedonism.” In Brunschwig, J. and Nussbaum, M. C., eds. Passions and Perceptions: Studies in Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium Hellenisticum. Cambridge. 3–17.Google Scholar

Striker, G. 1996. “Epicurus on the Truth of the Sense Perceptions.” In Striker, G., ed. Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics. Cambridge. 77–91.Google Scholar

Struck, P. T. 2004. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Summers, K. 1995. “Lucretius and the Epicurean Tradition of Piety.” CPh 90: 32–57.Google Scholar

Sweeney, R. D. 1969. Prolegomena to an Edition of the Scholia of Statius. Leiden.Google Scholar

Syme, R. 1964. Sallust. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Taylor, B. 2016. “Rationalism and the Theatre in Lucretius.” CQ 66: 140–54.Google Scholar

Taylor, B. 2020a. Lucretius and the Language of Nature. Oxford.Google Scholar

Taylor, B. 2020b. “Common Ground in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” In O’Rourke, D., ed. Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De Natura Deorum. Cambridge. 59–79.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. C. W. 1980. “‘All Perceptions Are True.’” In Schofield, M., Burnyeat, M., and Barnes, J., eds. Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford. 105–24.Google Scholar

Taylor, M. 1947. “Progress and Primitivism in Lucretius.” AJPh 68: 180–94.Google Scholar

Testard, R. P. M. 1976. “Les idées religieuses de Lucrèce.” BAGB 3: 249–72.Google Scholar

Thong, Denise. 2017. “Minimalism – The Long Forgotten Virtue of Temperance.” Medium, September 18. https://medium.com/@denisethong/minimalism-the-long-forgotten-virtue-of-temperance-67c3ecca5add.Google Scholar

Thury, E. M. 1987. “Lucretius’ Poem as a Simulacrum of the Rerum Natura.” AJPh 108: 270–94.Google Scholar

Townend, G. B. 1979. “The Original Plan of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CQ 29: 101–11.Google Scholar

Tsouna, V. 2009. “Epicurean Therapeutic Strategies.” In Warren, J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge. 249–65.Google Scholar

Tsouna, V. 2020. “Hedonism.” In Mitsis, P., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford. 141–88.Google Scholar

Usener, H. 1902. “Milch und Honig.” RhM 57: 177–95.Google Scholar

de Vaan, M. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden.Google Scholar

Veyne, P. 1982. “L’homosexualité à Rome.” Communications 35: 26–33.Google Scholar

Vieron, M. P. 2013. “Poetic Voice and Readership in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” PhD Dissertation. University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar

Volk, K. 2002. The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius. Oxford.Google Scholar

Volk, K. 2010. “Lucretius’ Prayer for Peace and the Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 60: 127–31.Google Scholar

Volk, K. 2022. “Caesar the Epicurean? A Matter of Life and Death.” In Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge. 72–86.Google Scholar

Wainwright, E. M. 2006. Women Healing/Healing Women: The Genderization of Healing in Early Christianity. London.Google Scholar

Wakefield, G. 1813. T. Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libri sex. 4 vols. Glasgow.Google Scholar

Wallace, R. 1996. “‘Amaze Your Friends!’ Lucretius on Magnets.” G&R 43: 178–87.Google Scholar

Wallach, B. P. 1976. Lucretius and the Diatribe against the Fear of Death: De Rerum Natura III 830–1094. Leiden.Google Scholar

Walters, J. 1997. “Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability in Roman Thought.” In Hallett, J. P. and Skinner, M. B., eds. Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ. 29–43.Google Scholar

Wardy, R. 1988. “Lucretius on What Atoms Are Not.” CPh 83: 112–28.Google Scholar

Warren, J. 2001. “Lucretian Palingenesis Recycled.” CQ 51: 499–508.Google Scholar

Warren, J. 2004. Facing Death: Epicurus and His Critics. Oxford.Google Scholar

Warren, J. 2007. “Lucretius and Greek Philosophy.” In Gillespie, S. and Hardie, P., eds. The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. Cambridge. 19–32.Google Scholar

Warren, J., ed. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Warren, J. 2019. “Epicurus on the False Belief That Sense-Impressions Conflict.” Philosophie antique 19: 7–28.Google Scholar

Waszink, J. H. 1954. “Lucretius and Poetry.” Mededelingen der koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde 17: 243–57.Google Scholar

West, D. 1969. The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius. Edinburgh.Google Scholar

West, G. S. 1982. “Are Lucretius’ Danaids Beautiful?” CPh 77: 144–48.Google Scholar

Whitlatch, L. 2014. “Empiricist Dogs and the Superiority of Philosophy in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CW 108: 45–66.Google Scholar

Wider, K. 1986. “Women Philosophers in the Ancient Greek World: Donning the Mantle.” Hypatia 1: 21–62.Google Scholar

Williams, C. A. 1998. Review of Roman Sexualities. BMCR. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1998/1998.10.16/.Google Scholar

Williams, C. A. 2010. Roman Homosexuality. 2nd ed. Oxford.Google Scholar

Wilson, B. E. 2015. Unmanly Men: Refigurations of Masculinity in Luke-Acts. Oxford.Google Scholar

Winterbottom, M. 2000. “Lucretius 5.845–54.” Hermes 128: 505–6.Google Scholar

Wiseman, T. P. 1974. “The Two Worlds of Titus Lucretius.” In Wiseman, T. P., ed. Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays. Leicester. 11–43.Google Scholar

Wohl, V. J. 1993. “Standing by Stathmos: The Creation of Sexual Ideology in the Odyssey.” Arethusa 26: 19–50.Google Scholar

Woolerton, E. 2010. “The Roots of Lucretius’ Tree-Men, De Rerum Natura 2.701–3.” CQ 60: 255–57.Google Scholar

Wormell, D. E. W. 1965. “The Personal World of Lucretius.” In Dudley, D. R., ed. Lucretius. London. 35–67.Google Scholar

Wray, D. 2001. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Wyke, M. 1994. “Woman in the Mirror: The Rhetoric of Adornment in the Roman World.” In Archer, L. J., Fishler, S., and Wyke, M., eds. Women in Ancient Societies: An Illusion of Night. London.Google Scholar

Yona, S. and Davis, G., eds. 2022. Epicurus in Rome: Philosophical Perspectives in the Ciceronian Age. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Zajko, V. and Leonard, M., eds. 2006. Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought. Oxford.Google Scholar

Zetzel, J. E. G. 1998. “De re publica and De rerum natura.” In Knox, P. and Foss, C., eds. Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart. 230–47.Google Scholar

Ziolkowski, J. 1985. Alan of Lille’s Grammar of Sex: The Meaning of Grammar to a Twelfth-Century Intellectual. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive