维纳斯是伊壁鸠鲁的自然

Chris Eckerman
{"title":"维纳斯是伊壁鸠鲁的自然","authors":"Chris Eckerman","doi":"10.33063/er.v113i.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have long recognized that Lucretius alludes to Empedocles’ four-root theory at DRN 1.1–5 and 1.6–9. And they have suggested that he, in doing so, shows respect for Empedocles, either as a philosophical predecessor, as a literary predecessor, or as both. I argue that Lucretius, in alluding to Empedocles’ four-root theory, deprecates Empedocles’ four-root theory. I suggest that Lucretius, employing polemical allusion, makes the argument that Epicurean physical theory gets the constituents of nature correct and that four-root theory does not (1–5) and that Epicurean atomic theory worsts four-root theory as a philosophical competitor (6–9). Thus, Lucretius opens his poem with a fervent endorsement of Epicurean physiologia. Lucretius’ attack against four-root theory may be read not only as an attack against Empedocles but also as an attack against several prominent philosophical schools that promoted four-root theory. ","PeriodicalId":160536,"journal":{"name":"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venus as Epicurean Nature\",\"authors\":\"Chris Eckerman\",\"doi\":\"10.33063/er.v113i.207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars have long recognized that Lucretius alludes to Empedocles’ four-root theory at DRN 1.1–5 and 1.6–9. And they have suggested that he, in doing so, shows respect for Empedocles, either as a philosophical predecessor, as a literary predecessor, or as both. I argue that Lucretius, in alluding to Empedocles’ four-root theory, deprecates Empedocles’ four-root theory. I suggest that Lucretius, employing polemical allusion, makes the argument that Epicurean physical theory gets the constituents of nature correct and that four-root theory does not (1–5) and that Epicurean atomic theory worsts four-root theory as a philosophical competitor (6–9). Thus, Lucretius opens his poem with a fervent endorsement of Epicurean physiologia. Lucretius’ attack against four-root theory may be read not only as an attack against Empedocles but also as an attack against several prominent philosophical schools that promoted four-root theory. \",\"PeriodicalId\":160536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33063/er.v113i.207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33063/er.v113i.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者们早就认识到卢克莱修在DRN 1.1-5和1.6-9中暗示了恩培多克勒斯的四根理论。他们认为,他这样做,是对恩培多克勒的尊重,或者是对他的哲学前辈,或者是对他的文学前辈,或者两者兼而有之。我认为卢克莱修在暗指恩培多克勒斯的四根理论时,贬低了恩培多克勒斯的四根理论。我认为卢克莱修采用了争议性的暗示,认为伊壁鸠鲁的物理理论正确地解释了自然的组成部分,而四根理论却没有(1-5),而且伊壁鸠鲁的原子理论在哲学上比四根理论差(6-9)。因此,卢克莱修以对伊壁鸠鲁生理学的热烈支持来开启他的诗。卢克莱修对四根理论的攻击不仅可以被解读为对恩培多克勒斯的攻击,也可以被解读为对几家提倡四根理论的著名哲学学派的攻击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Venus as Epicurean Nature
Scholars have long recognized that Lucretius alludes to Empedocles’ four-root theory at DRN 1.1–5 and 1.6–9. And they have suggested that he, in doing so, shows respect for Empedocles, either as a philosophical predecessor, as a literary predecessor, or as both. I argue that Lucretius, in alluding to Empedocles’ four-root theory, deprecates Empedocles’ four-root theory. I suggest that Lucretius, employing polemical allusion, makes the argument that Epicurean physical theory gets the constituents of nature correct and that four-root theory does not (1–5) and that Epicurean atomic theory worsts four-root theory as a philosophical competitor (6–9). Thus, Lucretius opens his poem with a fervent endorsement of Epicurean physiologia. Lucretius’ attack against four-root theory may be read not only as an attack against Empedocles but also as an attack against several prominent philosophical schools that promoted four-root theory. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信