This volume is offered as a detailed untangling of the philosophy, rhetoric and poetry found in Lucretius' ‘critique’ of Heraclitus (635–704), Empedocles (705–829) and Anaxagoras (830–920) in the opening book of his De rerum natura (DRN). M. aims first to establish the nature and date of Lucretius' sources, and second to highlight the adaptation and elaboration Lucretius employed in turning philosophical cut and thrust into gripping poetry. Such a study also strives to enhance our understanding of the reception of the Presocratics and the development of Epicureanism in late Republican Rome, by identifying Lucretius' role in both endeavours. This monograph, a lightly edited Ph.D. thesis, is aimed primarily at Epicurean scholars and particularly those interested in Presocratic doxography.

M. begins by clearing the ground with a comprehensive discussion of scholarship on the extent to which Lucretius' material was derived from early (largely Peripatetic) doxographical sources or from a polemical Epicurean source. He concludes that Lucretius' treatment of the Presocratics, while ultimately deriving from Peripatetic material, is largely based on Epicurean polemical sources. M.'s conclusions largely follow Rösler (‘Lukrez und die Vorsokratiker: doxographische Probleme im I. Buch von De Rerum Natura’, Hermes 101 [1973], 48–64), although he brings recent advances, most notably those of Sedley (Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom [1998]), to bear on key questions regarding Lucretius' treatment of the Presocratics.

In Chapter 2, the longest of the book, M. undertakes a comprehensive presentation and analysis of the papyrological remains of Epicurus' Περὶ φύσεως (ΠΦ) 14 and 15. The chapter attempts to accomplish two things. First, it aims to challenge Sedley's theory that ΠΦ 14 and 15, as Lucretius' primary source, were largely concerned with a systematic critique of Presocratic material theories, to which Epicurus appended digressions concerning his own theory of atomic aggregation. Second, it presents a ‘new edition of some of the fragments’ of ΠΦ 14 and 15 (p. 10) based on autopsy of the papyri. As admirable as these individual ambitions are, they often compete with one another for attention. The chapter is difficult to navigate, both for the papyrologist in search of the new readings, who must wade through the negative arguments regarding Lucretius' reliance on these books, and for the philosopher who finds the line of argument regarding Epicurus' criticisms of his predecessors entangled with the minutiae of textual criticism. If both audiences persist, however, they will find a comprehensive account of the text and its content. M., in a reversal of Sedley's emphasis, argues that the majority of ΠΦ 14 was dedicated to Epicurus' own theory of the formation of atomic aggregates, and that the criticisms in ΠΦ 14 and 15 were ancillary to this account.

The detailed analysis M. presents of the Epicurean criticisms in ΠΦ 14 and 15 are of interest to scholars of ancient doxography, although the relevant information is difficult to locate. The bulk of chapter two is taken up with three arguments. First, M. maintains that in ΠΦ 14 Epicurus was more concerned with refuting monist arguments concerning rarefaction and condensation than those concerning fire, calling into question whether Heraclitus figures at all in this section of the ΠΦ. On the basis of the evidence regarding the order and length of the papyrus roll, M. further argues that there is no room for an extended treatment of Empedocles in ΠΦ 14, since Plato's position is the last to be addressed; not last among the limited pluralists as Sedley suggests, but last full stop, since M. argues that the category of limited pluralists is not present in ΠΦ 14. Finally, regarding the role of Anaxagoras' theory in ΠΦ 15, M. prefers the conclusion of Rösler, that Epicurus uses terms related to ὁμοιομέρεια not only in his criticism of Anaxagoras' theory, but also in his own account of atomic compounds, over that of Sedley, who sees them as a sign that refuting Anaxagoras was Epicurus' primary concern. Ultimately, M. opposes the view that Theophrastus' φυσικαὶ δόξαι is a source for Epicurus, instead contending that Epicurus used Aristotle's De caelo, although without the detailed argument one comes to expect from M.

Having set out a strong negative case against Sedley's thesis regarding the source of Lucretius' critique in Chapter 2, the reader expects Chapter 3 to provide positive claims about the alternative sources at Lucretius' disposal. Instead, we get a revision of modern scholarly opinion that rarely takes the discussion further, even when it could. M. tends to follow Sedley's analysis, even when his own suggestions point towards different conclusions or new contributions. For example, Sedley provides three motivations for placing the critique at the centre of Book 1, the first being that this allows Lucretius to emphasise the theme of how philosophy can best be written. M. writes ‘this is in my view the main reason behind Lucretius’ decision to introduce the Critique at this point of book I' (p. 165) before going on to summarise Sedley's two further points. And yet, M. later presents, albeit in telegraphic form, the intriguing suggestion that rhetorical strategy and formal argumentation lie behind Lucretius' choice (p. 167). M. concludes, although never explicitly, that the nature of our extant evidence leaves the identity of Lucretius' source for the critique in question.Footnote ¹

Finally, in Chapter 4, M.'s interpretative strengths become most evident. He turns his attention to the elaborate poetical and rhetorical strategies that Lucretius employs in adapting his source material. M. highlights the playful, parodic and at times sharply ironic approach that Lucretius takes first towards Heraclitus and his Stoic successors, and later towards Anaxagoras. In his analysis of Empedocles, M. highlights the complex relationship Lucretius has to his predecessor, which reveals a mixture of reverence and praise for his accomplishments, while none the less highlighting Lucretius' triumph over his poetic and philosophic rival. M.'s attentiveness to Lucretius' use of wordplay throughout the critique, as well as its extension in subsequent passages, is exemplary, and one wishes that this analysis had been further developed into a line of argument about what the DRN reveals about Lucretius' own implicit argumentative aesthetic.

M. includes three appendices, which sit oddly with the rest of the text. The first concerns the composition of Lucretius' text, the second focuses on the format of the papyrus fragments and the last on the relationship between Epicurus' ΠΦ, ad Herodotum and ad Pythoclem. Only the second appendix has any explicit bearing on the arguments presented in the body of the text, whereas the others seem to have been included in order to round out ancillary issues.

The observations found in this volume are occasionally incisive, but intertwined as they are, it is difficult, even for readers well-versed in the intricacies of this material, to unpick what is original here. Cohesive lines of argument across chapters are missing, and M. overlooks numerous opportunities to highlight his own insightful contributions. Moreover, although M. contends with Sedley's interpretation throughout, he none the less remains under its strong influence. In short, this study would have benefited from further revision, in both its form and its content. I have every reason to believe that this is a scholar with much to offer us, and this monograph has value in so far as it identifies important issues related to Lucretius' critique of the Presocratics, analyses key Epicurean texts and provides insight into Lucretius' poetical and rhetorical methods.