Posts by Don

nos exaequat victoria caelo.

Exaequat is an interesting verb and had some intriguing connotations.

Perseus parses it as a "verb 3rd sg pres ind act" which would be "it X's"

Nos can be nominative (subject) or accusative (direct object), so we or us. Since the verb is 3rd person singular, it almost has to be "us" here, doesn't it? Wouldn't "we are raised/equal" be "nos exaequamus"?

The verb had the basic definition of "To make even or level or equal with any thing"

So, I'm getting (with my literal rudimentary Latin):

"By (the) victory, it makes us level to/with the sky." ?

Aequo = level, equal

PS:

If my parsing is right, I'm slightly annoyed by translators changing the active to a passive construction. It seems to take the importance or agency away from the victory of trampling religion underfoot. Consider the different feeling of:

It makes us equal...

We are made equal...

The second takes the emphasis away from the trampling; however, should the emphasis be on the trampling (it) or on the beneficiary of the trampling (us)? Maybe it's just poetic license as to what the translator wants to highlight? Does it make a significant difference in interpretation in English?

Quote from Cassius

As for the line numbers i will probably go to my grave never being happy with a numbering system. I've taken lately to using the Loeb numbers and I kept all this designated at under line 62 because Loeb doesn't give another line number until 80.

I hear you! And I didn't mean to be pedantic Just in case someone was looking at their own copy and thinking "Hmm, why don't I see that on line 62???"

vicissim seems to be just "on that other hand, in turn, etc" http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…:entry=vicissim

opteritur appears to be "wear away, to tread upon, etc." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Aentry%3Dtero

I see no terror or fear in those specific lines. That seems to be editorializing. Understandable editorializing, but not in the Latin.

You're right, Cassius , that is a good line!

FYI: I noticed in the Perseus Latin edition, it's line 78-79.

I fully agree with your take on religion vs superstition.

Those translations of various permutations of "we are raised to heaven by victory" or, worse, "His conquest makes us equal to the Gods" bother me. It smacks of the supernatural. Lucretius's "caelo" is just the dative of caelum which is the "the sky, heaven, the heavens, the vault of heaven (in Lucr alone more than 150 times)."

I don't think it can be anything to do with the Gods because the Epicurean gods "reside" in the Intermundia, not the heavens. They are beyond the "vault of the heavens." The "vault of heaven" is just the sphere/bowl that surrounds/covers the Earth that has the stars, planets, etc.

Leonard's translation at Perseus reads:

Wherefore Religion now is under foot,

And us his victory now exalts to heaven.

If you exalt someone to "high heaven" it's just a metaphor for "raising the roof" as it were. Those translation seem to imply a supernatural connotation. I think Lucretius is just saying "Let the bells rings out and the banners fly! Woohoo!! We are victorious! Religion has no power over us!!"

Quote from JJElbert

XLIV. ON MOUNT VESUVIUS.

Quote

This is Vesuvius, lately green with umbrageous vines; here the noble grape had pressed the dripping coolers. These are the heights which Bacchus loved more than the hills of Nysa; on this mountain the satyrs recently danced. This was the abode of Venus, more grateful to her than Lacedaemon; this was the place renowned by the divinity of Hercules. All now lies buried in flames and sad ashes. Even the gods would have wished not to have had the power to cause such a catastrophe.

It's humbling to think that the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum would have been current events for Martial when he wrote this. He's not looking back over centuries like us. The eruption happened in his lifetime.

Quote from JJElbert

He was perilously close to stumbling upon a real point in that last sentence.

You're very diplomatic there

Quote from shahabgh66

Who is the author?

Martial (Marcus Valerius Martialis

Martial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Epigrams of Martial, Englished with some other pieces, ancient and modern.

This strikes me as a life-denying attitude.

"Don't worry. There's a second chance after you die."

No! carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

Pluck the day (for it is ripe); trust in tomorrow as little as possible.

Horace, Odes, 1.11

https://www.instagram.com/p/CSUeQ8CFQES/

I used "Paian Anax!" in today's episode recording. Here's where that all started in my review of Dewitt's Chapter 5.

Apologies to Kalosyni ...

At the risk of bogging down this Welcome thread (Feel free to branch this off, Cassius) , I think Cassius and I have slightly different views on this topic. Not opposed, necessarily, but different emphases starting with different interpretations of PD10.

I completely agree that Epicurus did not dictate or mandate THE Way to Live. No commandments, no mandatory sacrifices, no divinely-inspired edicts, etc.

However, on the other hand, I think that Epicurus would have had no hesitation in telling someone their choices were ill-conceived or detrimental to their leading a pleasurable, less painful, life (a la PD10 and the Letter to Menoikeus). He would have said (and did say from my interpretation): "You are more than welcome to choose to lead a life of indulgence, sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll, etc.; however, though you may find pleasure in the moment in that, you are not going to lead a pleasurable life for long. That path is going to lead to more pain than pleasure."

Voula Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus also has a discussion of Philodemus's "On Frank Speech" where Philodemus goes over some of the faults the teacher will admonish the student for, using frank speech, including "flattery, arrogance, irascibility, slander (13.2), envy, and malicious joy [especially joy at finding faults in others], a misplaced sense of dignity and shame, vanity, self-conceit, ...stubborness and overconfidence, harshness and insolence, egocentrism, insecurity and ingratitude, laziness and procrastination..." Philodemus is basically saying these are not traits that an Epicurean should have. They seem, to me, a practical list of traits that will lead to pain, unhappiness, and a less-pleasurable life overall. If a student is exhibiting these traits in the Garden, the teacher will engage them in some frank speech to (a) make the student aware of their faults, and (b) get the student to apply corrective action.

To my understanding, this dovetails with PD5:

Quote

It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the person is not able to live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.

So, there is not a Universal "Best Way to Live" but there are activities and traits that are going to - judging from observation over time of human beings generally - lead more than likely to eudaimonia and a pleasurable life with less pain.

When Cassius says:

Quote from Cassius

that something gives you the right to enforce that view on everyone else

I don't think I'm advocating a "right to enforce" a view. What I think Epicurus and Philodemus are saying is that every person has the ability (NOT "right" - there are no abstract "rights") to make their own choices and avoidances. However, neither Epicurus nor Philodemus are going to stand by if a student in the Garden is making choices that will impede their progress to leading a pleasurable, less painful, life. Letting someone stumble willingly into pain is not the act of a friend.

Quote from Philia

I guess I still need to examine my personal hang-ups with the word "pleasure" that come from a protestant upbringing.

Welcome to the club Cultural indoctrination is not easy to overcome. Which reminds me of one of my favorite fragments:

Quote

παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν, μακάριε, φεῦγε τἀκάτιον ἀράμενος. "Flee from all indoctrination, O blessed one, and hoist the sail of your own little boat."

Quote from Marco

‘If the stoics want to look for the "humanists" all they need to do is look in the mirror.’

Why, Cassius?

I was wondering that, too.

Well, the Jefferson quote is NOT from a letter to Ezra Stiles but is from the Heart/Head letter:

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 12 October 1786

founders.archives.gov

The Stiles letter from Sept 1, 1786 is here:

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1 September 1786

founders.archives.gov

That doesn't bode well for the other citations.

What is unnatural, or "culturally conditioned and fruitless", is a desire for limitless power, limitless wealth, etc. We, of course, require a sense of agency to be able to make our choices and rejections. But I would urge caution when we start to make arguments for things like a desire for power being natural.

If we look at the animal kingdom, as Epicurus was wont to do, we do see some animals exerting dominance over their troop/pack, but they don't "desire" to exert power over every pack and to build empires. This is not the rule in every animal, either, so even this analogy has limits.

Quote from Philia

culturally conditioned and fruitless

I don't know if I've seen that exact wording before, but I really like that! It's much more descriptive than the usual "empty." Thanks for this!!

We were talking about the word "vessel" in this episode and whether it referred to the mind. The Latin word is vas so I looked up to see if it is anywhere else in Lucretius.

Sure enough, there are several places including 3:1003-1010. Cassius was also spot on in his suspicion it had to do with the Danaids. Here is the relevant passage:

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Liber Tertius, line 978

"Then to be always feeding an ingrate mind,
Filling with good things, satisfying never-
As do the seasons of the year for us,
When they return and bring their progenies
And varied charms, and we are never filled
With the fruits of life- O this, I fancy, 'tis
To pour, like those young virgins in the tale,

Waters into a sieve, unfilled forever."

The word used in Latin is vas in that next to last line, not something meaning sieve. Pertusum does mean perforated, so it's a perforated vessel...

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ntry%3Dpertundo
So this lines up with the leaky vessel "full of holes" in Book 6.

Quote from Philia

I studied Buddhist philosophy (many schools of Buddhism and different teachers) and also attended a Zen Buddhist group for a number of years.

Welcome, Kalosyni!

As Cassius mentioned, you'll find a number of us who came at Epicurus through study of Buddhism first. Mine also took a *brief* detour down the Stoic path before finally stopping by Epicurus's Garden for a look inside.

Quote from Cassius

One of the most valuable things you can do for the forum (and for yourself) will be to post questions and comments and suggestions as you read into Epicurus. Don't wait til the end of your reading - there are no stupid questions

I want to also echo Cassius 's sentiment here. It's valuable for everyone to work through answers, and something you thought "everyone knows" may very well spark a conversation about a topic more complex than you realized when you asked your question. That's happened to me here with pleasing, thought-provoking results

Quote from JJElbert

Try this on for size;

***

There's use within

A cooper's barrel,

But beauty more

In oak and ash–

The poet's verse

Was fine and subtle—

Translated in

A leaking cask.

Display More

I really like than near rhyme which, to me, approximates the "almost but not quite" relation of the translation to its original source.

Nice! Well done!