Is Capaneus an Epicurean? A case study in epic and philosophy (original) (raw)
Related papers
in 'A Companion to Latin Epic: 14-96 CE' edd. L. Fratantuono and C Stark
This chapter addresses the fact that scholars are increasingly detecting a range of non-epic intertexts in Statius’ Thebaid, although this work is widely accepted to be within the martial epic tradition. It considers the gap between epic theory, which prescribes a lofty tone and military matter, and practice. Considering the hexameter subgenres of pastoral, didactic and mock-epic, it suggests that, although the Thebaid frequently diverges into non-epic mode, it repeatedly makes manifest its return to a more traditional conception of epic: for instance, by adapting model passages in line with epic decorum and by staging a narrative build up over Books 4 to 7 to more serious, more epic-indebted material.
Part IV continues with Monica Gale on Lucretius' De rerum natura, Michael Putnam on Virgil's Aeneid, Carole Newlands on Ovid's Metamorphoses, Shadi Bartsch on Lucan's Pharsalia or Bellum civile, Andrew Zissos on Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica, William Dominik on Statius' Thebaid and fragmentary Achilleid, Raymond Marks on Silius Italicus' Punica, Michael Barnes on Claudian's De Bello Gildonico, and Dennis Trout on Latin Christan epics of late antiquity. . . .
Part IV continues with Monica Gale on Lucretius' De rerum natura, Michael Putnam on Virgil's Aeneid, Carole Newlands on Ovid's Metamorphoses, Shadi Bartsch on Lucan's Pharsalia or Bellum civile, Andrew Zissos on Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica, William Dominik on Statius' Thebaid and fragmentary Achilleid, Raymond Marks on Silius Italicus' Punica, Michael Barnes on Claudian's De Bello Gildonico, and Dennis Trout on Latin Christan epics of late antiquity. . . .
The Oxford Handbook of Roman Philosophy, 2023
What is distinctive about Lucretius’s version of Epicureanism? The answer might appear to be “nothing,” for two reasons. First, Epicureanism in general is doctrinally conservative, with followers of Epicurus claiming to follow his authority. Second, Lucretius claims to be merely transmitting the arguments of his beloved master Epicurus in a pleasing manner. I argue that these considerations do not prevent De Rerum Natura from presenting a distinct version of Epicureanism. Its arguments in physics are almost certainly drawn from Epicurus himself. But in the examples Lucretius uses to illustrate these arguments, as well as in his descriptions of things like the fear of death and the formation of society, Lucretius delivers unexpected insights into human psychology, ones not clearly present in the other sources we have on Epicureanism. Furthermore, the way in which Lucretius presents his arguments can rightly be considered original philosophically and not just poetically.
Robert F. Dobbin, Epictetus: Discourses. Book 1. Translation and commentary.
Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 1999
Dobbin’s main contention is that while Adolph Bonhöffer’s two books “continue to be valuable, because his method was mainly sound” (xiv), Bonhöffer went too far in trying to make Epictetus’s thought conform in all respects to that of Zeno and Chrysippus. Epictetus’s teacher Musonius Rufus, Cynicism, and Panaetius’s emphasis on social roles also shaped Epictetus’s philosophy, Dobbin contends, but not as pervasively as Plato and Socrates. Dobbin also sees Epictetus attacking both Skeptics and neo-Aristotelians by appropriating concepts from their philosophies and putting them to use in his own polemics. The commentary is generally excellent. But despite the dust jacket’s claim to the contrary, it frequently assumes knowledge of Greek and Latin (and sometimes French) and would be difficult for the average undergraduate to use. Both novice readers and scholars of Epictetus will welcome this volume. They can hope, perhaps, that eventually commentaries of comparable quality will be written on the other three books of the Discourses.
Epictetus: Discourses, Fragments, Handbook, newly translated by Robin Hard and commented by Christopher Gill, is the newest English rendering of the famous Stoic. This Oxford World's Classic version is based on the 1925 Oldfather Loeb Greek text and not a revision of any English edition. Overall, Oxford World's Classics' recent English offering of Epictetus' corpus is a tastefully thorough rendition of the Imperial Roman philosopher's contribution to classical culture. This book could appropriately find itself into an undergraduate survey of ancient philosophy, a Roman culture course, or even onto an aspiring graduate student's bookshelf as an introduction to one of the big names of antiquity.