Alberti, A. 1995. “The Epicurean Theory of Law and Justice,” in Laks and Schofield: 1995, 161–190.Google Scholar

Albrecht, M. von 2003. Cicero’s Style. Leiden.Google Scholar

Algra, K. 2000. “The Treatise of Cleomedes and its Critique of Epicurean Cosmology,” in Erler: 2000: 164–189.Google Scholar

Algra, K. 2001. Epicurus en de zon. Wiskunde en fysica bij een Hellenistisch filosoof. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Algra, K. et al. (eds.) 1999. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allman, D. and Beaty, M. (eds.) 2002. Cultivating Citizens: Soulcraft and Citizenship in Contemporary America. Oxford.Google Scholar

Allroggen-Bedel, A. 1974. Maskendarstellungen in der römisch-kampanischen Wandmalerei. Munich.Google Scholar

Anderson, W. S. 1982. Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Anderson, W. S. 1992. “Horace’s Different Recommenders of ‘Carpe diem’ in C. 1.4, 7, 9, 11.” CJ 88: 115–122.Google Scholar

Angeli, A. 1988. (ed.) Filodemo. Agli amici di scuola (PHerc. 1005). Edizione, traduzione e commento. Naples.Google Scholar

Annas, J. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford.Google Scholar

Annas, J. and Betegh, G. (eds.) 2016. Cicero’s De finibus. Philosophical Approaches. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 2003. “Philodemus, the Herculaneum Papyri, and the Therapy of Fear,” in Gordon and Suits: 2003, 17–43.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 2004. “All Things to All Men: Philodemus’ Model of Therapy and the Audience of De Morte,” in Fitzgerald, Obbink and Holland: 2004, 15–54.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 2008. “‘Be Angry and Sin Not’: Philodemus versus the Stoics on Natural Bites and Natural Emotions,” in Fitzgerald: 2008, 79–121.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. 2011. “Epicurean Virtues, Epicurean Friendship: Cicero vs the Herculaneum Papyri,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 105–128.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. and McOsker, M. (eds.) 2020. Philodemus: On Anger. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Armstrong, J. M. 1997. “Epicurean Justice.” Phronesis 42: 324–334.Google Scholar

Arrighetti, G. 1973. Epicuro, Opere. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note. Turin.Google Scholar

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

Asmis, E. 1990. “Philodemus’ Epicureanism.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 36.4: 2369–2406.Google Scholar

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

Asmis, E. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 1995. “Epicurean Poetics,” in Obbink: 1995, 15–34.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 2004. “Epicurean Economics,” in Fitzgerald, Obbink and Holland: 2004, 133–176.Google Scholar

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

Asmis, E. 2009. “Epicurean Empiricism,” in Warren: 2009, 84–104.Google Scholar

Asmis, E. 2011. “The Necessity of Anger in Philodemus’ On Anger,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 152–182.Google Scholar

Auvray-Assayas, C. and Delattre, D. (eds.) 2001. Cicéron et Philodème: la polémique en philosophie. Paris.Google Scholar

Baier, T. 2010. “Das Irrationale bei Lukrez.” WJA 34: 97–114.Google Scholar

Bailey, C. 1922. Lucreti De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, 2nd ed. Oxford.Google Scholar

Bailey, C. 1926. Epicurus: The Extant Remains. Oxford.Google Scholar

Bailey, C. 1947. Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. Edited with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and Commentary. 3 vols. Oxford.Google Scholar

Baily, F. 1836. “On a Remarkable Phenomenon that Occurs in Total and Annular Eclipses of the Sun.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 4.2: 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakker, F. 2016. Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization. Leiden.Google Scholar

Baraz, Y. 2012. A Written Republic: Cicero’s Philosophical Politics. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. 1989. “The Size of the Sun in Antiquity.” ACD 225: 29–41.Google Scholar

Bees, R. 2004. Die Oikeiosislehre der Stoa. Würzburg.Google Scholar

Belliotti, R. 2009. Roman Philosophy and the Good Life. Lanham, MD.Google Scholar

Benferhat, Y. 2001. “Cum Scriberem contra Epicureos: Cicéron et l’épicurisme dans les Tusculanes I–II.” VL 164: 21–35.Google Scholar

Benferhat, Y. 2002. “Plaidoyer pour une victime de Cicéron: Pison.” REL 80: 55–77.Google Scholar

Benferhat, Y. 2005a. Ciues Epicurei: les épicuriens et l’idée de monarchie à Rome et en Italie de Sylla à Octave. Brussels.Google Scholar

Benferhat, Y. 2005b. “Catulle et les affrontements politico-littéraires à Rome à la fin de la République,” in Poignault: 2005, 131–148.Google Scholar

Berry, D. H. and Erskine, A. (eds.) 2010. Form and Function in Roman Oratory. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Beretta, M. 2015. La rivoluzione culturale di Lucrezio. Filosofia e scienza nell’antica Roma. Rome.Google Scholar

Bergsma, A., Poot, G. and Liefbroer, A. C.. 2008. “Happiness in the Garden of Epicurus.” Journal of Happiness Studies 9: 397–423.Google Scholar

Bernstein, W. H. 1985. “A Sense of Taste: Catullus 13.” CJ 80: 127–130.Google Scholar

Bibauw, J. (ed.) 1969. Hommages à Marcel Renard II. Brussels.Google Scholar

Bielskis, A. 2018. “On the Genealogy of Kitsch and the Critique of Ideology: A Reflection on Method.” Genealogy 2.1.9.Google Scholar

Biondi, G. G. 2003. “Lucrezio e Catullo: osservazioni su una vexata quaestio (con note sulla interpretazione e la cronologia di Catull. 64 e 68).” Paideia 58: 207–234.Google Scholar

Blyth, D. 2010/11. “Cicero and Philosophy as Text.” CJ 106: 71–98.Google Scholar

Boissier, G. 1897. Cicero and His Friends. New York.Google Scholar

Bonner, S. F. 1977. Education in Ancient Rome. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Bourne, F. C. 1977. “Caesar the Epicurean.” CW 70: 417–432.Google Scholar

Boyle, R. 2017. 18 August. “Earth Has the Solar System’s Best Eclipses.” FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/earth-has-the-solar-systems-best-eclipses/.Google Scholar

Bragantini, I. and Sampaolo, V.. 2013. La pittura Pompeiana. Naples.Google Scholar

Bramble, J. C. 1970. “Structure and Ambiguity in Catullus LXIV.” PCPhS 16: 22–41.Google Scholar

Brandt, E. et al. 1968. Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen, vol 2: Staatliche Münzsammlung. Munich.Google Scholar

Braund, D. and Gill, C. (eds.) 2003. Myth, History and Culture in Republican Rome: Studies in Honour of T.P. Wiseman. Exeter.Google Scholar

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

Bringmann, K. 2012. “Cicero über seine Philosophica: Zu Überlieferung und Interpretation einer umstrittenen Selbstaussage in Att. 12, 52, 3.” Hermes 140: 25–36.Google Scholar

Brinton, A. 1988. “Cicero’s Use of Historical Examples in Moral Argument.” Ph&Rh 21: 169–184.Google Scholar

Brittain, C. 2016. “Cicero’s Sceptical Methods: The Example of De finibus,” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 12–40.Google Scholar

Broch, H. 1933. “Das Böse im Wertsystem der Kunst.” Die neue Rundschau 44.2: 157–191.Google Scholar

Brown, E. 2002. “Epicurus on the Value of Friendship (Sententia Vaticana 23).” CPh: 68–80.Google Scholar

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

Brunt, P. A. 1975. “Stoicism and the Principate.” PBSR 43: 7–35.Google Scholar

Brunt, P. A. 1986. “Cicero’s Officium in the Civil War.” JRS 76: 12–32.Google Scholar

Brunt, P. A. 1989. “Philosophy and Religion in the Late Republic,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 174–198.Google Scholar

Buchheit, V. 1971. “Epikurs Triumph des Geistes.” Hermes 99: 303–323.Google Scholar

Buffière, F. 1956. Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque. Paris.Google Scholar

Cairns, F. 2003. “Catullus in and about Bithynia: Poems 68, 10, 28 and 47,” in Braund and Gill: 2003, 165–190.Google Scholar

Cappello, O. 2016. “Everything You Wanted to Know About Atticus (but Were Afraid to Ask Cicero): Looking for Atticus in Cicero’s ad Atticum.” Arethusa 49: 463–487.Google Scholar

Cappello, O. 2019. The School of Doubt: Skepticism, History, and Politics in Cicero’s Academica. Leiden.Google Scholar

Carilli, M. 1975. “Le nugae di Catullo e l’epigramma greco.” ASNP 5: 925–953.Google Scholar

Castagnoli, L. 2013. “Democritus and Epicurus on Sensible Qualities in Plutarch’s Against Colotes 3–9.” Aetia 3.Google Scholar

Castner, C. J. 1988. Prosopography of Roman Epicureans from the Second Century B.C. to the Second Century A.D. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar

Chandler, C. 2017. Philodemus: On Rhetoric, Books 1 and 2: Translation and Exegetical Essays. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Chevallier, R. (ed.) 1984. Présence de Cicéron. Paris.Google Scholar

Classen, C. J. 2010. “Teaching Philosophy, a Form or Function of Roman Oratory: Velleius’ Speech in Cicero’s ‘De natura deorum,’” in Berry and Erskine: 2010, 195–207.Google Scholar

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

Clay, D. 1998. Paradosis and Survival: Three Chapters in the History of Epicurean Philosophy. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Cleary, J. J. and Shartin, D. C. (eds.) 1989. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy. Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Cleary, J. J. and Wians, W. (eds.) 1994. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 10. Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Cosenza, P. 1996. “La dimostrazione della non eleggibilità dell’ingiustizia nella Rata Sententia XXXIV di Epicuro,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 361–376.Google Scholar

Cowan, R. 2013. “Fear and Loathing in Lucretius: Latent Tragedy and Anti-Allusion in DRN 3,” in Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis: 2013, 113–133.Google Scholar

Croisille, J.-M. 1963. “Le sacrifice d’Iphigénie dans l’art romain et la littérature latine.” Latomus 22: 209–225.Google Scholar

Crönert, W. 1907. “Die Epikureer in Syrien.” JÖAI 10: 145–152.Google Scholar

Curran, L .C. 1969. “Catullus 64 and the Heroic Age.” YCS 21: 169–192.Google Scholar

D’Anna, G. 1965. Alcuni aspetti della polemica antiepicurea di Cicerone. Rome.Google Scholar

Dale, F. R. 1958. “Caesar and Lucretius.” G&R 5: 181–182.Google Scholar

Dalfen, J. (ed.) 1980. Symmicta philologica Salisburgensia Georgio Pfligersdorffer sexagenario oblata. Rome.Google Scholar

Damon, C. 1997. The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Davis, G. 1991. Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar

Davis, G. (ed.) 2010. A Companion to Horace. Malden, MA.Google Scholar

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

Delattre, D. 1984. “Philodème dans la ‘Correspondance’ de Cicéron.” BAGB: 27–39.Google Scholar

Delattre, D. and Pigeaud, J. (eds.) 2010. Les Épicuriens. Paris.Google Scholar

Dettmer, H. 1986. “Meros amores: A Note on Catullus 13.9.” QUCC 23: 87–91.Google Scholar

Dettmer, H. 1989. “Catullus 13: A Nose Is a Nose Is a Nose.” SyllClass 1: 75–85.Google Scholar

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

Diano, C. 1940. “La Psicologia d’Epicuro e la teoria della passioni. Part I (section 2).” Giornale critico della Filosofia Italiana, 2nd ser. vol. 8: 151–165.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.) 2010. Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Diels, H. 1879. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin.Google Scholar

Dillon, J. and Long, T. (eds.) 1988. The Question of Eclecticism: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Dobesch, G. 1985. “Politische Bemerkungen zu Ciceros Rede Pro Marcello,” in Weber and Dobesch: 1985, 153–231.Google Scholar

Donini, P. 1988. “The History of the Concept of Eclecticism,” in Dillon and Long: 1988, 15–33.Google Scholar

Donini, P. and Inwood, B. 1999. “Stoic Ethics,” in Algra et al: 1999, 675–738.Google Scholar

Dueck, D. 2009. “Poetic Quotations in Latin Prose Works of Philosophy.” Hermes 137: 314–334.Google Scholar

Dyck, A. 2004. A Commentary on Cicero, De Legibus. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Elliott, J. 2013. Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales. New York.Google Scholar

Englert, W. 1994. “Stoics and Epicureans on the Nature of Suicide,” in Cleary and Wians: 1994, 67–96.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 1992a. “Orthodoxie und Anpassung. Philodem, ein Panaitios des Kepos?” MH 49: 171–200.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 1992b. “Cicero und ‘unorthodoxer’ Epikureismus.” Anregung 38: 307–322.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 1994. “Die Schule Epikurs,” in Flashar: 1994, 203–380.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 2001. “Response to Voula Tsouna,” in Auvray-Assayas and Delattre: 2001, 173–78.Google Scholar

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

Erler, M. 2016. “The Closing Columns of Philodemus’ On the Good King According to Homer, PHerc. 1507 Cols. 95–98 (= Cols. 40–43 Dorandi).” CronErcol 46: 55–81.Google Scholar

Erler, M. 2020. Epicurus: An Introduction to His Practical Ethics and Politics. Basel.Google Scholar

Erler, M. (ed.) 2000. Epikureismus in der späten Republik und der Kaiserzeit. Akten der 2. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 30. September–3. Oktober 1998 in Würzburg. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Essler, H. 2011. “Cicero’s Use and Abuse of Epicurean Theology,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 129–151.Google Scholar

Evans, M. 2004. “Can Epicureans Be Friends?” AncPhil 24: 407–424.Google Scholar

Fabrizi, V. 2012. Mores veteresque novosque: rappresentazioni del passato e del presente di Roma negli Annales di Ennio. Pisa.Google Scholar

Fantham, E. 2006. “‘Dic si quid potes de Sexto Annali’: The Literary Legacy of Ennius’ Pyrrhic War.” Arethusa 39: 549–568.Google Scholar

Fantham, E. 2009. “Caesar as an Intellectual,” in Griffin, M. T. (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar. Malden, MA, 141–156.Google Scholar

Farrell, J. 2008. “The Six Books of Lucretius’ De rerum natura: Antecedents and Influence.” Dictynna 5: 1–21.Google Scholar

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

Fish, J. 1998. “Is Death Nothing to Horace? A Brief Comparison with Philodemus and Lucretius.” CronErcol 28: 99–104.Google Scholar

Fish, J. 2011. “Not All Politicians Are Sisyphus: What Roman Epicureans Were Taught about Politics,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 72–104.Google Scholar

Fish, J. 2016. “The Closing Columns of Philodemus’ On the Good King According to Homer, PHerc. 1507 Cols. 95–98 (= Cols. 40–43 Dorandi).” CronErcol 46: 55–81.Google Scholar

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

Fitzgerald, J. (ed.) 2008. Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. London.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, J. T., Obbink, D. and Holland, G. S. (eds.) 2004. Philodemus and the New Testament World. Leiden.Google Scholar

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

Flashar, H. (ed.) 1994. Die Philosophie der Antike, Band 4: Die Hellenistische Philosophie I. Basel.Google Scholar

Föllinger, S and Müller, G. M. (eds.) 2013. Der Dialog in der Antike: Formen und Funktionen einer literarischen Gattung zwischen Philosophie, Wissensvermittlung und dramatischer Inszenierung. Berlin and Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Fordyce, C. J. 1961. Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. 1989. “Lucretius and Politics,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 120–50. Reprinted in M. R. Gale (ed.), Lucretius. Oxford, 2007, 397–431.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. 2000. Roman Constructions: Readings in Postmodern Latin. Oxford.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. 2002. Lucretius on Atomic Motion. A Commentary on De rerum natura 2.1, 332. Oxford.Google Scholar

Frede, D. 2016. “Epicurus on the Importance of Friendship in the Good Life (De Finibus 1.65–70,” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 96–117.Google Scholar

Freudenburg, K. (ed.) 2005. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Freudenburg, K. 2010. “Horatius anceps: Persona and Self-Revelation in Satire and Song,” in Davis: 2010, 271–290.Google Scholar

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

Friedrich, G. 1908. Catullus Veronensis liber. Leipzig and Berlin.Google Scholar

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

Fuhrer, T. 2012. “Philosophische Schulen und ihre Kommunikationsräume im spätrepublikanischen und kaiserzeitlichen Rom,” in Mundt: 2021, 241–252.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1970. “Variations on Themes from Empedocles in Lucretius’ Proem.” BICS 17: 55–64.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1996. “The Earth in Epicureanism and Contemporary Astronomy,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 119–125.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. 1999. “Cosmology,” in Algra et al.: 1999: 412–451.Google Scholar

Fussl, M. 1980. “Epikureismus im Umkreis Caesars,” in Dalfern: 1980, 61–80.Google Scholar

Gaisser, J. H. 1995. “Threads in the Labyrinth: Competing Views and Voices in Catullus 64.” AJP 11: 579–616.Google Scholar

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

Gale, M. R. 2001. “Etymological Wordplay and Poetic Succession in Lucretius.” CP 96: 168–172.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2007. “Lucretius and Previous Poetic Traditions,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 59–75.Google Scholar

Gale, M. R. 2009. Lucretius: De rerum natura V. Warminster.Google Scholar

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

Garani, M. and Konstan, D. (eds.) 2014. The Philosophizing Muse. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Garbarino, G. 2010. “Cesare e la cultura filosofica del suo tempo,” in Urso: 2010, 207–221.Google Scholar

Garcea, A. 2012. Caesar's De analogia. Oxford.Google Scholar

Gatzemeier, S. 2013. Ut ait Lucretius. Die Lukrezrezeption in der lateinischen Prosa bis Laktanz. Göttingen.Google Scholar

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

Giannantoni, G. and Gigante, M. (eds.) 1996. Epicureismo greco e romano. Atti del congresso internazionale, Napoli 19–26, maggio 1993, vol. 1. Naples.Google Scholar

Gibson, R. and Whitton, C. (eds.) Forthcoming. Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Studies. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Giesecke, A. L. 2000. Atoms, Ataraxy, and Allusion: Cross-Generic Imitation of the De Rerum Natura in Early Augustan Poetry. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York.Google Scholar

Gigante, M. 1995. Philodemus in Italy. Trans. Dirk Obbink. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Gigon, O. (ed.) 1978. Lucrèce: Huit exposés suivis de discussions. Geneva.Google Scholar

Gilbert, N. 2015. “Among Friends: Cicero and the Epicureans.” Diss. Toronto.Google Scholar

Gilbert, N. 2019. “Lucius Saufeius and His Lost Prehistory of Rome: Intellectual Culture in the Late Republic.” CP 114.1: 25–46.Google Scholar

Gilbert, N., Graver, M. and McConnell, S. (eds.) Forthcoming. Power and Persuasion in Cicero’s Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gildenhard, I. 2007. Paideia Romana. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gildenhard, I. 2013. “Cicero’s Dialogues: Historiography Manqué and the Evidence of Fiction,” in Föllinger and Müller: 2013, 235–274.Google Scholar

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

Giuffrida, P. 1950. L’epicureismo nella letteratura latina nel I sec. av. Cristo II: Lucrezio e Catullo. Turin.Google Scholar

Glucker, J. 1988. “Cicero’s Philosophical Affiliations,” in Dillon and Long: 1988, 34–69.Google Scholar

Glucker, J. 2012. “Cicero’s Remarks on Translating Philosophical Terms – Some General Problems,” in Glucker and Burnett: 2012, 37–96.Google Scholar

Glucker, J. and Burnett, C. (eds.) 2012. Greek into Latin from Antiquity until the Nineteenth Century. London and Turin.Google Scholar

Goldberg, S. M. 1995. Epic in Republican Rome. New York.Google Scholar

Goldberg, S. M. 2000. “Cicero and the Work of Tragedy,” in Manuwald: 2000, 49–59.Google Scholar

Goldberg, S. M. and Manuwald, G.. 2018. Fragmentary Republican Latin: Ennius. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Goldhill, S. (ed.) 2008. The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, N. 2013. Shaggy Crowns: Ennius’ Annales and Vergil’s Aeneid. Oxford.Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, V. 1977. La doctrine d’Épicure et le droit. Paris.Google Scholar

Gordon, D. R. and Suits, D. B. (eds.) 2003. Epicurus: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance. New York.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. 2004. “Remembering the Garden: The Trouble with Women in the School of Epicurus,” in Fitzgerald, Obbink and Holland: 2004, 221–243.Google Scholar

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

Görler, W. 1974. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros Philosophie. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Görler, W. 1995. “Silencing the Troublemaker: De Legibus I.39 and the Continuity of Cicero‘s Scepticism,” in Powell: 1995b, 85–113.Google Scholar

Gorman, R. 2005. The Socratic Method in the Dialogues of Cicero. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Gowers, E. 1993. The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford.Google Scholar

Granarolo, J. 1967. L’oeuvre de Catulle: Aspects religieux, éthiques et stylistiques. Paris.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. 1986. “Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide.” G&R 33: 64–77; 192–202.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. 1989. “Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 1–37.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. 1995. “Philosophical Badinage in Cicero’s Letters to His Friends,” in Powell: 1995b, 325–346.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. 1997. “The Composition of the Academica: Motives and versions,” in Inwood and Mansfeld: 1997, 1–35.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. 2001. “Piso, Cicero and Their Audience,” in Auvray-Assayas and Delattre: 2001, 85–99.Google Scholar

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

Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. 1997. Philosophia Togata. II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome. Oxford.Google Scholar

Griffin, M. T. (ed.) 2009. A Companion to Julius Caesar. Malden, MA.Google Scholar

Grimal, P. 1978. “La poème de Lucrèce en son temps,” in Gigon: 1978, 233–270.Google Scholar

Gruen, E. 1992. Culture and National Identify in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Gurd, S. 2007. “Cicero and Revision, 61–46 BCE.” CA 26: 49–80.Google Scholar

Hadot, P. 1995. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Trans. M. Chase. Malden, MA.Google Scholar

Hall, J. 1996. “Social Evasion and Aristocratic Manners in Cicero’s De Oratore.” AJP 117: 96–118.Google Scholar

Hallett, J. P. 1978. “Divine Unction: Some Further Thoughts on Catullus 13.” Latomus 37: 747–748.Google Scholar

Hammer, D. 2014. Roman Political Thought from Cicero to Augustine. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Hanchey, D. 2013a. “Rhetoric and the Immortal Soul in Tusculan Disputation 1.” SyllClass 24: 77–103.Google Scholar

Hanchey, D. 2013b. “Cicero, Exchange, and the Epicureans.” Phoenix 67: 119–134.Google Scholar

Hanchey, D. 2014. “Days of Future Passed: Fiction Forming Fact in Cicero’s Dialogues.” CJ 110: 61–77.Google Scholar

Hanchey, D. 2015. “Conflicting Models of Exchange in Cicero’s Brutus.” Latomus 74: 112–129.Google Scholar

Hankinson, R. J. 2013. “Lucretius, Epicurus, and the Logic of Multiple Explanations,” in Lehoux, Morrison and Sharrock: 2013, 69–98.Google Scholar

Hanses, M. 2020. The Life of Comedy after the Death of Plautus and Terence. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Hardie, P. 2007. “Lucretius and Later Latin Literature in Antiquity,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 111–130.Google Scholar

Hanslik, R., Lesky, A. and Schwabl, H. (eds.) 1972. Antidosis: Festschrift für W. Kraus zum 70. Geburtstag. Vienna.Google Scholar

Hariman, R. 1995. Political Style. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Harrison, S. J. 2002. “Ennius and the Prologue to Lucretius DRN 1 (1.1–148).” LICS 1: 1–13.Google Scholar

Hatzimichali, M. 2011. Potamo of Alexandria and the Emergence of Eclecticism. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Heinze, R. (ed.) 1897. T. Lucretius Carus: De Rerum Natura Buch III. With Commentary. Leipzig.Google Scholar

Henry, W. B. (ed.) 2009. Philodemus, On Death. With Translation and Notes. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Herrmann, L. 1956. “Catulle et Lucrèce.” Latomus 15: 465–480.Google Scholar

Hessler, J. E. 2012 . Epikur. Brief an Menoikeus. Edition, Übersetzung, Einleitung, und Kommentar. Basel.Google Scholar

Hiltbrünner, O. 1972. “Einladung zum epikureischen Freundesmal,” in Hanslik, Lesky and Schwabl: 1972, 168–182.Google Scholar

Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Hine, H. 2016. “Philosophi and Philosophy: From Cicero to Apuleius,” in Williams and Volk: 2016, 13–29.Google Scholar

Hirzel, R. 1882. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften II. De finibus. De officiis. Leipzig.Google Scholar

Holmes, B. and Shearin, W. H. (eds.) 2012. Dynamic Reading. Oxford.Google Scholar

Hope, V. M. 2009. Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London.Google Scholar

Horsfall, N. 1989. Cornelius Nepos: A Selection. Oxford.Google Scholar

Hourticq, L. 1946. L’art et la littérature. Paris.Google Scholar

Hutchinson, G. 2001. “The Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 51: 150–162.Google Scholar

Inwood, B. 1990. “Rhetorica Disputatio: The Strategy of de Finibus II.” Apeiron 23.4: 143–164.Google Scholar

International Occultation Timing Association 2017. “Observing the August 21, 2017 Total Solar Eclipse to Measure the Size of the Sun.” 20 August 2017. http://occultations.org/eclipse2017/.Google Scholar

Inwood, B. and Mansfeld, J. (eds.) 1997. Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero's Academic Books. Leiden.Google Scholar

Irby, G. L. (ed.) 2016. A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome. Malden, MA.Google Scholar

Jocelyn, H. D. 1967. The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments. With an Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Kajanto, I. 1969. “Balnea vina venus,” in Bibauw: 1969, 357–367.Google Scholar

Kechagia, E. 2011. Plutarch against Colotes; A Lesson in History of Philosophy. Oxford.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. 1970. “Doctus Lucretius.” Mnemosyne 23.4: 366–392. Reprinted in M. R. Gale (ed.), Lucretius. Oxford, 2007, 300–327.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. (ed.) 1971. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura Book III. Cambridge.Google Scholar

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

Knox, P. E. 2007. “Catullus and Callimachus,” in Skinner: 2007, 151–171.Google Scholar

Knox, P. and Foss, C. (eds.) 1998. Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

König, J. and Woolf, G. (eds.) 2017. Authority and Expertise in Ancient Scientific Culture. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 1977. Catullus’ Indictment of Rome: The Meaning of Catullus 64. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 2007. “The Contemporary Political Context,” in Skinner: 2007, 72–91.Google Scholar

Konstan, D. 2020. “Epicurean Phantasia.” Πηγή/Fons 5: 1–18.Google Scholar

Konstan, D., Clay, D., Glad, C. E., Thom, J. C. and Ware, J. (eds.) 1998. Philodemus: On Frank Criticism. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Krebs, C. B. 2013. “Caesar, Lucretius and the Dates of De rerum natura and the Commentarii.” CQ 63: 772–779.Google Scholar

Kulka, T. 1996. Kitsch and Art. University Park, PA.Google Scholar

Kundera, M. 1984. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Trans. Michael Heim. New York.Google Scholar

Kundera, M. 2006. The Curtain: An Essay in Seven Parts. Trans. Linda Asher. New York.Google Scholar

Laks, A. and Schofield, M. (eds.) 1995. Justice and Generosity. Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Landolfi, L. 1982. “Tracce Filodemee di estetica e di epigrammatica simpotica in Catullo.” CronErcol 12: 137–143.Google Scholar

Lattimore, R. 1942. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana, IL.Google Scholar

Lee, G. 2008. Catullus: The Complete Poems. Oxford.Google Scholar

Leeman, A. D., Pinkster, H. and Wisse, J. (eds.) 1996. Marcus Tullius Cicero: De Oratore Libri III. Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern Band IV. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

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

Leslie, R. J. 1950. “The Epicureanism of Titus Pomponius Atticus.” Diss. Columbia. Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Lévy, C. 1984. “La dialectique de Cicéron dans les livres II et IV du De finibus.” REL 62: 111–127.Google Scholar

Lévy, C. 1992. Cicero Academicus. Recherches sur les Académiques et sur la philosophie cicéronienne. Rome.Google Scholar

Lezra, J. and Blake, L. (eds.) 2016. Lucretius and Modernity: Epicurean Encounters Across Time and Disciplines. New York.Google Scholar

Lieberg, G. 1962. Puella divina: Die Gestalt der göttlichen Geliebten bei Catull im Zusammenhang der antiken Dichtung. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Lindsay, H. 1998. “The Biography of Atticus: Cornelius Nepos on the Philosophical and Ethical Background of Pomponius Atticus.” Latomus 57: 324–336.Google Scholar

Littman, R. J. 1977. “The Unguent of Venus: Catullus 13.” Latomus 36: 123–128.Google Scholar

Lloyd, G. E. R. 1987. The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Long, A. G. 2019. Death and Immortality in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar

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

Lorca, A. M. 1996. “Lucrecio: una critica ilustrada a la religion popular,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 851–864.Google Scholar

Luciani, S. 2005. “Amour sacré et amour profane chez Catulle et Lucrèce,” in Poignault: 2005, 151–166.Google Scholar

Luper-Foy, S. 1987. “Annihilation.” PhilosQ 37.148: 233–252.Google Scholar

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

McConnell, S. 2014. Philosophical Life in Cicero’s Letters. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. 1993. “Aspects of Epicurean Theology.” Mnemosyne 46: 172–210.Google Scholar

Manuwald, G. (ed.) 2000. Identität und Alterität in der frührömischen Tragödie. Würzburg.Google Scholar

Manuwald, G. 2011. Roman Republican Theatre. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Manuwald, G. 2012. Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, Vol. II: Ennius. Göttingen.Google Scholar

Marcović, D. 2008. “Lucretius 1.471–7: Tragic Flames in DRN.” Mnemosyne 61: 647–650.Google Scholar

Marcovich, M. 1982. “Catullus 13 and Philodemus 23.” QUCC 11: 131–138.Google Scholar

Martha, C. 1896. Le poème de Lucrèce. Paris.Google Scholar

Masi, F. and Maso, S. (eds.) 2013. Fate, Chance and Fortune in Ancient Thought. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Maslowski, T. 1974. “The Chronology of Cicero’s Anti-Epicureanism.” Eos 62: 55–78.Google Scholar

Maso, S. 2008. Capire e dissentire. Cicerone e la filosofia di Epicuro. Naples.Google Scholar

Maurach, G. 1989. Geschichte der römischen Philosophie. Darmstadt.Google Scholar

Merlan, P. 1967. “Aristoteles’ und Epikurs müssige Götter.” ZPhF 4: 485–498.Google Scholar

Millar, F. 1988. “Cornelius Nepos, Atticus and the Roman Revolution.” G&R 35: 40–55.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 and London.Google Scholar

Mitsis, P. 1989. “Epicurus on Death and the Duration of Life,” in Cleary and Shartin: 1989, 303–322.Google Scholar

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

Momigliano, A. 1941. Review of B. Farrington, Science and Politics in the Ancient World. JRS 31: 149–157.Google Scholar

Morel, P.-M. 2000. Atome et Nécessité. Démocrite, Epicure, Lucrèce. Paris.Google Scholar

Morel, P.-M. 2013. “Epicuro e la desacralizzazione della necessità,” in Masi and Maso: 2013, 159–175.Google Scholar

Morel, P.-M. 2016. “Cicero and Epicurean Virtues (De Finibus 1–2),” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 77–95.Google Scholar

Morford, M. 2002. The Roman Philosophers from the Time of Cato the Censor to the Death of Marcus Aurelius. London and New York.Google Scholar

Morisi, L. 2002. “Ifigenia e Polissena (Lucrezio in Catullo).” MD 49: 177–190.Google Scholar

Morisset, R. and Thévenot, G.. 1950. Les lettres latines. Paris.Google Scholar

Mulgan, R. G. 1979. “Was Caesar an Epicurean?” CW 72: 337–339.Google Scholar

Mundt, F. (ed.) 2012. Kommunikationsräume im kaiserzeitlichen Rom. Berlin and Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Mynors, R. A. B. 1958. C. Valerii Catulli Carmina. Oxford.Google Scholar

Nagel, T. 1970. “Death.” Nous 4.1: 73–80. Reprinted in Nagel: 1979, 1–10.Google Scholar

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

Nagel, T. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford.Google Scholar

Nappa, C. 2001. Aspects of Catullus’ Social Fiction. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar

Nethercut, J. S. 2012. “Provisional Poetics in Lucretius’ De rerum natura.” Diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Nethercut, J. S. 2014. “Ennius and the Revaluation of Traditional Historiography in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura,” in Pieper and Ker: 2014, 435–461.Google Scholar

Nethercut, J. S. 2018. “The Alexandrian Footnote in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” Mnemosyne 71: 75–99.Google Scholar

Nicgorski, W. 2002. “Cicero, Citizenship, and the Epicurean Temptation,” in Allman and Beaty: 2002, 3–28.Google Scholar

Nightingale, A. 2015. “Sight and the Philosophy of Vision in Classical Greece: Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle,” in Squire: 2015, 54–67.Google Scholar

Nisbet, R. G. M. 1961. In L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio. Oxford.Google Scholar

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

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

O’Connor, D. K. 1989. “The Invulnerable Pleasures of Epicurean Friendship.” GRBS 30: 165–186.Google Scholar

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

Panoussi, V. 2009. Greek Tragedy in Vergil’s “Aeneid”: Ritual, Empire, and Intertext. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J. and Frangoulidis, S. (eds.) 2013. Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature: Encounters, Interactions and Transformations. Berlin.Google Scholar

Paratore, E. 1973. “La problematica sull'epicureismo a Roma.” ANRW 1.4: 116–204.Google Scholar

Perlwitz, O. 1992. Titus Pomponius Atticus: Untersuchungen zur Person eines einflussreichen Ritters in der ausgehenden römischen Republik. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Perutelli, A. 1996. “Iphigenia in Lucrezio.” SCO 46: 193–207.Google Scholar

Peters, W. T. 1963. Landscape in Romano-Campanian Mural Paintings. Assen.Google Scholar

Philippson, R. 1939. “M. Tullius Cicero: Die philosophischen Schriften.” RE VIIa1: 1104–1192.Google Scholar

Pieper, C. and Ker, J. (eds.) 2014. Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII. Leiden.Google Scholar

Pizzani, U. 1993. “La cultura filosofica di Cesare,” in Poli: 1993, 163–189.Google Scholar

Poignault, R. (ed.) 2005. Présence de Catulle et des élégiaques latins: actes du colloque tenu à Tours (28–30 novembre 2003). Clermont-Ferrand.Google Scholar

Poli, D. (ed.) 1993. La cultura in Cesare, Vol. 1. Rome.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2018a. “Ocular Penetration, Grammatical Objectivity, and an Indecent Proposal in De Rerum Natura.” CP 113.2: 206–212.Google Scholar

Pope, M. 2018b. “Seminal Verse: Atomic Orality and Aurality in De Rerum Natura.” Eugesta 8: 108–130.Google Scholar

Powell, J. G. F. (ed.) 1990. Cicero: On Friendship and the Dream of Scipio. Warminster.Google Scholar

Powell, J. G. F. 1995a. “Introduction: Cicero’s Philosophical Works and their Background,” in Powell: 1995b, 1–35.Google Scholar

Powell, J. G. F. 1995b. (ed.) Cicero the Philosopher.Twelve Papers. Oxford.Google Scholar

Powell, J. G. F. 1995c. “Cicero’s Translations from Greek,” in Powell: 1995b, 273–300.Google Scholar

Prinzen, H. 1998. Ennius im Urteil der Antike. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Pucci, G. C. 1966. “Echi lucreziani in Cicerone.” SIFC 38: 70–132.Google Scholar

Rambaud, M. 1969. “César et l'Épicurisme d'apres les Commentaires,” in Actes du VIIIe Congrès de l'Association Guillaume Budé. Paris, 411–435.Google Scholar

Rambaud, M. 1984. “Le Pro Marcello et l'insinuation politique,” in Chevallier: 1984, 43–56.Google Scholar

Raubitschek, A. E. 1949. “Phaidros and His Roman Pupils.” Hesperia 18: 96–103.Google Scholar

Rawson, E. 1985. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. Baltimore, MD.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. 2005. “The Language of Epicureanism in Cicero: The Case of Atomism,” in Reinhardt, Lapidge and Adams: 2005, 151–177.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. and Adams, J. N. (eds.) 2005. Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose. Oxford and New York.Google Scholar

Richlin, A. 1988. “Systems of Food Imagery in Catullus.” CW 81: 355–363.Google Scholar

Richter, G. 1965. The Portraits of the Greeks. London.Google Scholar

Richter, G. 1971. Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans, Part II. London.Google Scholar

Rigsby, K. 2008. “Hauranus the Epicurean.” CJ 104: 19–22.Google Scholar

Rist, J. M. 1972. Epicurus: An Introduction. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Romeo, C. 1979. “Demetrio Lacone sulla grandezza del sole (PHerc 1013).” CronErcol 9: 11–35.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, S. E. 1986. “How to Be Dead and Not Care: A Defense of Epicurus.” AphQ 23: 217–225.Google Scholar

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

Rosenbaum, S. E. 1989b. “The Symmetry Argument: Lucretius against the Fear of Death.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50: 353–373.Google Scholar

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

Roskam, G. 2007b. A Commentary on Plutarch’s De latenter vivendo. Leuven.Google Scholar

Roskam, G. 2012. “Will the Epicurean Sage Break the Law If He Is Perfectly Sure that He Will Escape Detection? A Difficult Problem Revisited.” TAPA 142: 23–40.Google Scholar

Roskam, G. 2019. “Cicero against Cassius on Pleasure and Virtue. A Complicated Passage from De finibus (1,25).” CQ 69: 725–733.Google Scholar

Ross, D. O. 1969. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Rouse, W. H. D. 1975. Lucretius: On the Nature of Things. Revised by M. F. Smith. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Rudolph, K. 2011. “Democritus’ Perspectival Theory of Vision.” JHS 131: 67–83.Google Scholar

Rudolph, K. 2015. “Sight and the Presocratics: Approaches to Visual Perception in Early Greek Philosophy,” in Squire: 2015, 36–53.Google Scholar

Sanders, K. R. 2011. “Philodemus and the Fear of Premature Death,” in Fish and Sanders: 2011, 211–234.Google Scholar

Schefold, K. 1957. Die Waende Pompejis: Topographisches Verzeichnis der Bildmotive. Berlin.Google Scholar

Schiesaro, A. 1990. Simulacrum et imago: gli argomenti analogici nel De rerum natura. Pisa.Google Scholar

Schiesaro, A. 2007. “Lucretius and Roman Politics and History,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 41–58.Google Scholar

Schilling, R. 1954. La religion romaine de Vénus depuis les origines jusqu’au temps d’Auguste. Paris.Google Scholar

Schmid, W. 1971. “Philodem als Dichter und als Philosoph: uber eine Athetese Kaibels in AP 9.570,” in Acta Conventus XI Eirene, Warsaw, 201–207.Google Scholar

Schmid, W. 1984. Ausgewählte philologische Schriften. Berlin and New York.Google Scholar

Schofield, M. 2008. “Ciceronian Dialogue,” in Goldhill: 2008, 63–84.Google Scholar

Schofield, M., Burnyeat, M. and Barnes, J. (eds.). 1980. Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford and New York.Google Scholar

Scodel, R. 1980. The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides. Göttingen.Google Scholar

Seager, R. 2011. “Cicero and the ‘False Dilemma,’” in Smith and Covino: 2011, 99–109.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1976. “Epicurus and the Mathematicians of Cyzicus.” CronErcol 6: 23–54.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1989. “Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World,” in Griffin and Barnes: 1989, 97–119.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1996. “The Inferential Foundations of Epicurean Ethics,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 313–339.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1997. “The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius.” JRS 87: 41–53.Google Scholar

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

Seel, G. 1996. “Farà il saggio qualcosa che le leggi vietano, sapendo che non sarà scoperto?,” in Giannantoni and Gigante: 1996, 341–360.Google Scholar

Seel, O. 1967. Caesar-Studien. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1965–70. Cicero's Letters to Atticus. 7 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1977. Cicero's Epistulae ad familiares. 2 vols. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1980. Cicero: Select Letters. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. O. 2014. “Socration or Philodemus? Catullus 47 and Prosopographical Excess.” CJ 109: 385–405.Google Scholar

Shearin, W. 2012. “Haunting Nepos: Atticus and the Performance of Roman Epicurean Death,” in Holmes and Shearin: 2012, 30–51.Google Scholar

Sider, D. 1987. “The Love Poetry of Philodemus.” AJP 108: 310–324.Google Scholar

Sider, D. 1995. “The Epicurean Philosopher as Hellenistic Poet,” in Obbink: 1995, 42–57.Google Scholar

Sider, D. 1997. The Epigrams of Philodemos. New York and Oxford.Google Scholar

Silverstein, H. S. 1980. “The Evil of Death.” JPh 77.7: 401–424.Google Scholar

Skinner, M. B. 1976. “Iphigenia and Polyxena: A Lucretian Allusion in Catullus.” Pacific Coast Philology 11: 52–61.Google Scholar

Skinner, M. B. 1979. “Parasites and Strange Bedfellows: A Study in Catullus’ Political Imagery.” Ramus 8: 137–152.Google Scholar

Skinner, M. B. 1989. “Ut decuit cinaediorem: Power, Gender and Urbanity in Catullus 10.” Helios 16: 7–23.Google Scholar

Skinner, M. B. 2001. “Among Those Present: Catullus 44 and 10.” Helios 28: 57–73.Google Scholar

Skinner, M. B. 2003. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Skinner, M. B. (ed.) 2007. A Companion to Catullus. Malden, MA and Oxford.Google Scholar

Skutsch, O. 1985. The Annals of Q. Ennius: Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar

Smith, C. and Covino, R. (eds.) 2011. Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric. Swansea.Google Scholar

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

Squire, M. (ed.) 2015. Sight and the Ancient Senses. London.Google Scholar

Steel, C. E. W. 2005. Reading Cicero. Genre and Performance in Late Republican Rome. London.Google Scholar

Steel, C. E. W. 2013. “Structure, Meaning and Authority in Cicero’s Dialogues,” in Föllinger and Müller: 2013, 221–234.Google Scholar

Stem, R. 2012. The Political Biographies of Cornelius Nepos. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Stokes, M. 1995. “Cicero on Epicurean Pleasures,” in Powell: 1995b, 145–170.Google Scholar

Striker, G. 1977. “Epicurus on the Truth of Sense Impressions.” AGPh 59.2: 125–142.Google Scholar

Striker, G. 1989. “Commentary on Mitsis: Epicurus on Death and the Duration of Life,” in Cleary and Sharkin: 1989, 323–328.Google Scholar

Striker, G. 1995. “Cicero and Greek Philosophy.” HSCPh 97: 53–61.Google Scholar

Striker, G. 1996. “Epicurean Hedonism,” in Striker: 1996, 196–208.Google Scholar

Striker, G. (ed.) 1996. Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics. Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar

Stroup, S. C. 2010. Catullus, Cicero, and a Society of Patrons: The Generation of the Text. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Suerbaum, W. 1995. “Der Pyrrhos-Krieg in Ennius’ Annales VI im Lichte der ersten Ennius-Papyri aus Herculaneum.” ZPE 106: 31–52.Google Scholar

Suerbaum, W. 2002. Die archaische Literatur: Von den Anfängen bis Sullas Tod. Munich.Google Scholar

Syme, R. 1956. “Piso and Veranius in Catullus.” C&M 17: 129–134.Google Scholar

Tait, J. I. M. 1941. “Philodemus’ Influence on the Latin Poets.” Dissertation: Bryn Mawr College.Google Scholar

Tamás, A. 2016. “Erroneous Gazes: Lucretian Poetics in Catullus 64.” JRS 106: 1–20.Google Scholar

Taormina, D. 2016. “‘What Is Known through Sense Perception Is an Image.’ Plotinus’ tr. 32 (Enn. V 5) 1.12–19: An Anti-Epicurean Argument?,” in Taormina and Longo: 2016, 113–310.Google Scholar

Taormina, D. P. and Longo, A. (eds.) 2016. Plotinus and Epicurus: Matter, Perception, Pleasure. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Taylor, B. 2016. “Rationalism and the Theatre in Lucretius.” CQ 66: 140–154.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. C. W. 1980. “All Perceptions Are True,” in Schofield, Burnyeat and Barnes: 1980, 105–124.Google Scholar

Thibodeau, P. 2016. “Ancient Optics: Theories and Problems of Vision,” in Irby: 2016, 130–144.Google Scholar

Thomas, C. 2017. “Putting a Ring on It: 2017 Total Solar Eclipse,” NASA AFRC2017–0233-009. www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/2017_total_solar_eclipse/AFRC2017-0233-009.html.Google Scholar

Thomas, R. F. 1994. “This Little Piggy Had Roast Beef (Catullus 47).” Prudentia 26: 147–152.Google Scholar

Titchener, F. 2003. “Cornelius Nepos and the Biographical Tradition.” G&R 35: 40–55.Google Scholar

Torres, M. 2018. Epicuro, epicúreos y el epicureísmo en Roma. Madrid.Google Scholar

Trapp, M. B. 2007. Philosophy in the Roman Empire: Ethics, Politics and Society. Aldershot.Google Scholar

Trapp, M. B. 2017. “Philosophical Authority in the Imperial Period,” in König and Woolf:2017, 27–57.Google Scholar

Trappes-Lomax, J. M. 2007. Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal. Swansea.Google Scholar

Tsouna, V. 2001. “Cicéron et Philodème: quelques considérations sur l’éthique,” in Auvray-Assayas and Delattre: 2001, 159–172.Google Scholar

Tsouna, V. 2007. The Ethics of Philodemus. Oxford.Google Scholar

Tsouna, V. 2012. Philodemus: On Household Management. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Tutrone, F. 2017. “Granting Epicurean Wisdom at Rome: Exchange and Reciprocity in Lucretius’ Didactic (DRN 1.921–950).” HSCPh 109: 275–337.Google Scholar

Urso, G (ed.) 2010. Cesare: precursore o visionario? Pisa.Google Scholar

Valachova, C. 2018. “The Garden and the Forum: Epicurean Adherence and Political Affiliation in the Late Republic,” in van der Blom, Gray and Steel: 2018, 147–164.Google Scholar

van der Blom, H., Gray, C. and Steel, C. (eds.) 2018. Institutions and Ideology in Republican Rome: Speech, Audience, and Decision. Cambridge.Google Scholar

van den Steen, T. 2009. “Injustice: An Epicurean Guarantee for Justice.” QUCC NS 93: 137–150.Google Scholar

Vander Waerdt, P. A. 1987. “The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man.” CQNS 37: 402–422.Google Scholar

Verde, F. 2013. “ΤΥΧΗ e ΛΟΓΙΣΜΟΣ nell’epicureismo,” in Masi and Maso: 2013, 177–197.Google Scholar

Verde, F. 2016. “Epicuro e la grandezza del sole: sul testo di Pyth. 91.” Méthexis 28: 104–110.Google Scholar

Verde, F. 2017. Review of F. A. Bakker, Epicurean Meteorology: Sources, Method, Scope and Organization. BMCR 2017.06.38.Google Scholar

Vessey, D. W. T. C. 1971. “Thoughts on Two Poems of Catullus: 13 and 30.” Latomus 30: 45–55.Google Scholar

Vogt, K. M. 2016. “All Sense-Perceptions Are True: Epicurean Responses to Skepticism and Relativism,” in Lerza and Blake: 2016, 145–159.Google Scholar

Volk, K. 2010. “Lucretius’ Prayer for Peace and the Date of De Rerum Natura.” CQ 60: 127–131.Google Scholar

Volk, K. 2021. The Roman Republic of Letters: Scholarship, Philosophy, and Politics in the Age of Cicero and Caesar. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

Volk, K. Forthcoming a. “Philosophy,” in Gibson and Whitton.Google Scholar

Volk, K. Forthcoming b. “Towards a Definition of sapientia: Philosophy in Cicero's Pro Marcello,” in Gilbert, Graver and McConnell.Google Scholar

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

Wardle, D. 2009. “Caesar and Religion,” in Griffin: 2009, 100–111.Google Scholar

Warren, J. 2002. Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia. Cambridge.Google Scholar

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

Warren, J. 2007. “Lucretius and Greek Philosophy,” in Gillespie and Hardie: 2007, 19–32.Google Scholar

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

Warren, J. 2014. “The Symmetry Problem,” in Luper, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Life and Death. Cambridge, 165–180.Google Scholar

Warren, J. 2016. “Epicurean Pleasure in Cicero’s De Finibus,” in Annas and Betegh: 2016, 41–76.Google Scholar

Weber, E. and Dobesch, G. (eds.) 1985. Römische Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik: Festschrift für Artur Betz zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres. Vienna.Google Scholar

Welch, K. E. 1996. “T. Pomponius Atticus: A Banker in Politics?” Historia 45: 450–471.Google Scholar

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

Westman, R. 1955. Plutarch gegen Kolotes. Seine Schrift “Adversus Colotem” als philosophiegeschichtliche Quelle. Helsingfors.Google Scholar

White, P. 2010. Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic. New York.Google Scholar

Whitlatch, L. 2014. “Empiricist Dogs and the Superiority of Philosophy in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura.” CW 108.1: 45–66.Google Scholar

Willi, A. 2010. “Campaigning for Utilitas: Style, Grammar, and Philosophy in C. Iulius Caesar,” in Dickey and Chahoud: 2010, 229–242.Google Scholar

Williams, B. 1973. “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality,” in Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers 1956–1972. Cambridge, 82–100.Google Scholar

Williams, D. G. and Volk, K. (eds.) 2016. Roman Reflections: Studies in Latin Philosophy. New York.Google Scholar

Wirth, J. M. 2015. Commiserating with Devastated Things: Milan Kundera and the Entitlements of Thinking. Oxford.Google Scholar

Wiseman, T. P. 1969. Catullan Questions. Leicester.Google Scholar

Wiseman, T. P. 2015. The Roman Audience: Classical Literature as Social History. Oxford.Google Scholar

Wolfsdorf, D. 2013. Pleasure in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Woltjer, J. 1877. Lucretii philosophia cum fontibus comparata: specimen litterarium, quo inquiritur quatenus Epicuri philosophiam tradiderit Lucretius. Groningen.Google Scholar

Woolf, R. 2015. Cicero. The Philosophy of a Roman Sceptic. London and New York.Google Scholar

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

Yona, S. 2018. Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of Satire. Oxford.Google Scholar

Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: the Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Zetzel, J. 1998. “De Republica and De Rerum Natura,” in Knox and Foss: 1998, 230–247.Google Scholar