Search

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.

Case, agreement, and A-movement dependencies across finite clause boundaries, such as Hyperraising (to subject or object) or Long-Distance Case or Agreement [LDA], are available in many typologically diverse languages. The research on such dependencies typically distinguishes between cross-linguistically restricted true A-dependencies across finite clauses, and generally available binding-like A′-dependencies as found in Prolepsis. In this paper, we investigate both types of configurations in parallel and refer to this as the A-domain. Since the diagnostics to distinguish A-configurations vary across languages and often cannot be compared directly, we define four characteristic properties: (A) whether the construction is restricted by matrix predicate selection, (B) whether movement in the embedded clause is involved, (C) whether the dependency shows locality restrictions (in particular, A-Minimality), and (D) whether there are semantic restrictions on the relevant DP. By combining different values of the characteristic properties, we show, differently from previous approaches, that the A-domain does not simply consist of two types of configurations, but that the empirical landscape represents a continuum of five A-constructions. We suggest a theoretical implementation of our empirical findings, which is built on a predicational relator phrase above the embedded CP and propose that, in some of the constructions, these two projections fuse into one. We employ a minimalist probing approach which relies on differences in the base-generated position of the relevant DP (matrix clause, high in the embedded clause, argument position in the embedded clause), differences in the feature composition of the embedded C (a plain A′-head, or a bundled predicational C head involving composite A/A′ probes), a composite probe hierarchy yielding three types of feature-dependencies of composite probes, and, resulting from that, different probing mechanisms (conjunctive satisfaction, dependent satisfaction, and independent satisfaction). Lastly, this paper also contributes methodological tools for disentangling constructions of the A-domain.

In his article "Blanchot's Impossible Kafka" Antoine J. Polgar challenges Maurice Blanchot's theory of the impossibility and futility of writing as applied to Kafka's struggles with the demands of writing and life. Polgar questions Blanchot's claims on the basis of close readings of the texts of Kafka's texts and explores traces of correspondence between the life and the texts yet unmentioned in Kafka scholarship. Referring to Blanchot's focus on survival as a metaphor for writing in a meta-commentary on the writer's facticity and the contingency to which literary creation is consigned, Polgar comments on the intense bio-critical interest — which the scholar is cautioned against and often ignores — in Kafka's lived experience. According to Polgar, if "the disaster" is the truth outside literature, Blanchot's theory that the impossibility of writing defines a philosophy of writing is a thought lacking in equivalence.

Este artigo se ocupa em averiguar os termos com os quais Cícero, Lucrécio e Diógenes Laércio buscaram tornar compreensível a prólêpsis de Epicuro. Cícero forneceu os termos antecipatio, praenotio e informationem; Lucrécio, notitia, exemplare et vestigia, a fim de dar voz e expor entre os latinos a doutrina do epicurismo. Diógenes Laércio indicou os termos katalêpsis, dóxa, énnoia, hypólêpsin, com os quais, segundo ele, os próprios epicuristas tentaram explicitar a prólêpsis de Epicuro. Por fim, o artigo expõe a opinião de alguns comentadores contemporâneos. This article discusses the terms in which Cicero, Lucretius and Diogenes Laertius sought to make sense of the prólêpsis of Epicurus. To give voice to and to divulge among Latin speakers the doctrine of Epicureanism, Cicero furnished the terms antecipatio, praenotio, and informationem, and Lucretius provided notitia, exemplare, and vestiga. Diogenes Laertius presented the terms katalêpsis, dóxa, énnoia, and hypólêpsin, with which, he says, the Epicureans tried to explain the prólêpsis of Epicurus. The article also discusses the views of some contemporary commentators.