{"title":"Lucretius’ prolepsis","authors":"Chiara Rover","doi":"10.1515/elen-2022-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper aims to investigate the equivalent of Epicurus’ πρόληψις, the second criterion of the Epicurean Canonic (DL X 31 = fr. 35 Usener), in Lucretius’ De rerum natura (DRN). Taking stock of the several occurrences of the Latin terms notitia and notities in the six books of the poem, I show that Lucretius’ view about preconception remains faithful to Epicurus’ πρόληψις, and that the poet does not endorse a less empiricist position than his Master because of some influence of the Stoic ἔννοια. To this end, I will also briefly address an important case in which πρόληψις, albeit not clearly mentioned, plays an essential role, namely the prolepsis of the deity (DRN V 1169–1182). Finally, I explain how Lucretius can be of some help in grasping the controversial relationship between the criterion of πρόληψις and that of ἐπιβολὴ τῆς διανοίας (animi inectus/iactus), showing in which way the poet seems to consider the latter as a criterion of truth in its own right.","PeriodicalId":38726,"journal":{"name":"Elenchos","volume":"43 1","pages":"279 - 314"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Elenchos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/elen-2022-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract This paper aims to investigate the equivalent of Epicurus’ πρόληψις, the second criterion of the Epicurean Canonic (DL X 31 = fr. 35 Usener), in Lucretius’ De rerum natura (DRN). Taking stock of the several occurrences of the Latin terms notitia and notities in the six books of the poem, I show that Lucretius’ view about preconception remains faithful to Epicurus’ πρόληψις, and that the poet does not endorse a less empiricist position than his Master because of some influence of the Stoic ἔννοια. To this end, I will also briefly address an important case in which πρόληψις, albeit not clearly mentioned, plays an essential role, namely the prolepsis of the deity (DRN V 1169–1182). Finally, I explain how Lucretius can be of some help in grasping the controversial relationship between the criterion of πρόληψις and that of ἐπιβολὴ τῆς διανοίας (animi inectus/iactus), showing in which way the poet seems to consider the latter as a criterion of truth in its own right.
摘要本文旨在研究伊壁鸠鲁经典(DL X 31=fr.35 Usener)的第二个标准——πρίληψις在Lucretius’De rerum natura(DRN)中的等价性。通过对这首诗的六本书中拉丁语名词notitia和notities的几次出现的评估,我表明卢克莱修关于先入为主的观点仍然忠实于伊壁鸠鲁的πρίληψις,并且诗人并不因为斯多葛学派的一些影响而赞同比他的大师更少的经验主义立场ἔμα。为此,我还将简要介绍一个重要的案例,在这个案例中,πρίληψις,尽管没有明确提及,但发挥着重要作用,即神的普罗列普西斯(DRN V 1169-1182)。最后,我解释了Lucretius如何帮助我们理解πρίληψις标准与ἐπιβιλὴ τῆς(animi inectus/iatus),表明诗人似乎以何种方式将后者视为真理的标准。