Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Thanks and yes t hat looks much better. For the benefit of anyone else reading, it's not necessary to go into the code view if you just block select the text that is hard-coded, then select the Font Size, Font Family, or Font Color option in the editor menu. Click on that button and the last option at the bottom of each is "Remove....." and that lets you remove the hard-coding using the GUI. But either method works fine.

Sorry, just to let you know: I did eventually use the "Remove..." but I couldn't figure out what was wrong (since the font was already "black"... just hard-coded). When I went into the html I could see the tags and had the "eureka" moment of realizing what was going on. That GUI with the "Remove..." feature for font family, size, and color is *very* helpful! Thanks again!

Quote from Cassius

Yes great work Don! Also, would you mind editing your post by blocking it all and selecting "remove color" from the menu? Pasting it from Google brought over hard-coded dark text which is hard to see using a dark forum style. Might be good to "remove font" too so that it looks best on all forum styles. I could do it myself but once you see how that works you ll know for the future.

Thanks, Cassius, for that hint! I do see <span style...> tags for the color in the html now that you mentioned it and removed them. Nope, no need to do it yourself! This was a good learning exercise!

Quote from Martin

The numbering appears to be a bit odd.

Other than that, I noticed only one bug: I guess that

"..., the wise one will not let the passions hinder progress towards wisdom once they’ve become wise"

should be

"..., the wise one will not let the passions hinder progress towards wisdom once he has become wise".

It seems at every corner, we encounter wrong translations or significant differences between translations. Thanks for exposing some more.

Display More

Thank you, Martin and Joshua , for the comments.

Martin , I fully agree about the numbering system on this outline ended up odd. I'm not sure what happened in my pasting from Google. The forum didn't like it and honestly it was late when I posted so I did what I could and called it "good enough" That'll definitely be fixed in any final version.

Regarding "they", 3rd person singular "they" in that sentence.I was actually using the 3rd person singular "they" in that sentence.

Characteristics of an Epicurean Sage

The following is a comparison of two translations of Diogenes Laertius’s exposition of “the views of Epicurus himself and his school concerning the wise man.” There are not a lot of male pronouns in the text and many of the verbs are 3rd-person-plural (“They” do this or that…), but “the sage” or “the wise one” is the translation of ὁ σοφός, a male noun. Many of the characteristics are also aimed at men. However, gender neutral language will be used when possible in the notes, because, in light of the inclusion of women in the Garden and writing philosophical treatises, being a σοφός should (theoretically) be open to both men and women.

I undertook this to see what characteristics of someone considered a sage in Epicurean philosophy would be “outdated” and which ones could apply to our time.

The two translation under consideration are the Hicks (1925) translation as provided by Wikisource https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives_of_…osophers/Book_X and the Yonge (1895) translation available at Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/57342/57…-h.htm#Page_424 of Diogenes Laertius, Lives, Book X:117-121 with notes on the original text. For the original text, I am using the Greek version on the Perseus Digital Library: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0257.

I have found that Yonge may have been using a different Greek text than the Hicks version on Perseus. This may account for some of the discrepancies. Also consulted was the digitized Oxford-held manuscript of DL online at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Vi…l_ms_531_fs001r (page f171v) This is the page where section 117 begins.

I will also be referring from time to time to the 2018 translation by Pamela Mensch from OUP.

Format: Hicks translation is first, followed (indented) by Yonge. Article author’s notes come last in each bullet point.
(Working on transferring the outline format from Google Docs to forum format)

• There are three motives to injurious acts among men – hatred, envy, and contempt; and these the wise man overcomes by reason.

1. He said that injuries existed among men, either in consequence of hatred, or of envy, or of contempt, all which the wise man overcomes by reason.
   1. NOTE: The three motives in the original (accusative case) are:
      1. Μῖσος: hate, hatred, grudge (LSJ)
         1. Trivia: origin of the mis- in misanthrope
      2. Φθόνον: ill-will or malice, esp. envy or jealousy of the good fortune of others (LSJ)
      3. Καταφρόνησιν: contempt, disdain (LSJ)

Moreover, he who has once become wise never more assumes the opposite habit, not even in semblance, if he can help it.

1. Also, that a man who has once been wise can never receive the contrary disposition, nor can he of his own accord invent such a state of things as that he should be subjected to the dominion of the passions; nor can he hinder himself in his progress towards wisdom.

He will be more susceptible of emotion than other men: that will be no hindrance to his wisdom.

1. NOTE: Yonge seems to include the emotions and their non-hindrance with the above. i.e., the wise one will not let the passions hinder progress towards wisdom once they’ve become wise.
2. NOTE: The original text (per Perseus) is: ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφὸν μηκέτι τὴν ἐναντίαν λαμβάνειν διάθεσιν μηδὲ πλάττειν ἑκόντα: πάθεσι μᾶλλον συσχεθήσεσθαι: οὐκ ἂν ἐμποδίσαι πρὸς τὴν σοφίαν. Which is composed of three clauses:
   1. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφὸν μηκέτι τὴν ἐναντίαν λαμβάνειν διάθεσιν μηδὲ πλάττειν ἑκόντα:
      1. Literally: Also, the once-arisen sage will no longer fall back to the opposite disposition nor be put into that mold wittingly (on purpose).
   2. πάθεσι μᾶλλον συσχεθήσεσθαι:
      1. Literally: By the pathē they will exceedingly be affected...
   3. οὐκ ἂν ἐμποδίσαι πρὸς τὴν σοφίαν.
      1. Literally: This will not be a hindrance on the path to wisdom.
3. NOTE: However, the digitized manuscript appears to have, (with punctuation as interpreted by me):
   1. αλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφὸν, μηκέτι τὴν ἐναντίαν λαμβάνειν διάθεσιν· μηδὲ πλάττειν ἑκόντα πάθεσι μᾶλλον συσχεθήσεσθαι· οὐκ ἂν ἐμποδίσαι πρὸς τὴν σοφίαν.
   2. The manuscript then gives five different clauses or phrase:
   3. αλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφὸν,
      1. Literally: Once one has become wise… (the once-arisen sage)
   4. μηκέτι τὴν ἐναντίαν λαμβάνειν διάθεσιν·
      1. Literally: ... will no longer fall back to the opposite disposition...
   5. μηδὲ πλάττειν ἑκόντα πάθεσι μᾶλλον συσχεθήσεσθαι·
      1. Literally: .. nor (μηδέ) be put into (that) mold readily/wittingly by the πάθη exceedingly to be affected…
         1. Συσχεθήσεσθαι: future infinitive “to be constrained, distressed, afflicted, and, generally, to be affected by anything whether in mind or body”
   6. οὐκ ἂν ἐμποδίσαι πρὸς τὴν σοφίαν.
      1. Literally: .. This would not impede/hamper/fetter (their way) toward wisdom.
   7. NOTE: This section appears to mean that the sage will not be exceedingly affected by the passions, emotions, etc., that they won't be overcome with emotion and this is not an impediment on the way to wisdom.
4. NOTE: I am more inclined to take Hicks's interpretation as the text being two separate ideas. This appears to flow better:
   1. The sage, once wise, won't fall back into ignorance, nor will they willingly do this on purpose.
   2. Sages are greatly affected by the pathē (i.e., more so than other people) but this doesn't hinder their progress to wisdom.
5. Trivia: ἐμποδίσαι literally means to have one's feet bound, to be put in fetters.

However, not every bodily constitution nor every nationality would permit a man to become wise.

1. That the wise man, however, cannot exist in every state of body, nor in every nation.
2. Οὐδὲ μὴν ἐκ πάσης σώματος ἕξεως σοφὸν γενέσθαι· ἂν οὐδ᾽ ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει.
3. NOTE: The key phrases here are:
   1. ἐκ πάσης σώματος: (neither) from every body
      1. σώματος "a body, one's life in the physical world"
   2. ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει: (nor) in every έθνος (tribe, nation; later referring to "barbarian" nation (non-Hellenic); class of people)
      1. Is this saying that a sage can't be found in every nation or is it saying not in certain classes? The meaning of έθνος is broad.
   3. ἕξεως "of a state, habit, condition (of a body)"
4. NOTE: What does this mean? How does this connect with the evangelical nature of the philosophy? We know women were a part of the Garden and wrote treatises, so the "state of body" can't exclude women. And Epicurean communities were in "barbarian" lands. How to interpret this? Is this where DeWitt is getting that Epicurus said non-Greeks couldn't achieve wisdom? I can certainly see that if someone is incapable of studying and applying the philosophy due to mental illness, brain injury, or other condition. I can also see some "nations" not being conducive to allowing or encouraging study and application because of repression, culture, exposure to the philosophy, etc. I would be reluctant to say (for modern applications) anything akin to "women can't be sages" or "Russians can't be sages."

Even on the rack the wise man is happy.

1. That even if the wise man were to be put to the torture, he would still be happy.
2. NOTE: It's important to remember that the original says εὐδαίμονα not "happy." There's a difference!
3. Trivia: στρεβλωθῇ literally means "stretch on the wheel or rack, to rack, torture, applied to slaves for the purpose of extracting evidence" (LSJ)

He alone will feel gratitude towards friends, present and absent alike, and show it by word and deed.

1. That the wise man will only feel gratitude to his friends, but to them equally whether they are present or absent.
2. NOTE: Is it Hicks's "he alone will feel" or Yonge's "only feel gratitude towards friends"?
3. NOTE: I find it odd that this clause is sandwiched between two mentions of torture. Is this a scribal error? Does this one about friends reference something about the sage being tortured? The Perseus original text is identical to the digitized Oxford manuscript.

When on the rack, however, he will give vent to cries and groans.

1. Nor will he groan and howl when he is put to the torture.
2. NOTE: Will the σοφός groan or not? The original text runs ὅτε μέντοι στρεβλοῦται, ἔνθα καὶ μύζει καὶ οἰμώζει. There doesn't appear to be a "nor" here:
   1. ὅτε when
   2. μέντοι indeed, however, to be sure
   3. ἔνθα when
   4. μύζει I. (he) murmurs with closed lips, mutters, moans.
   5. (και) οἰμώζει
      1. (and) wails aloud, laments
3. NOTE: So, Hicks seems to have the upper hand here. This also makes sense in the light of the sage being more affected by the emotions (#3) but also remaining content under torture (#5).

As regards women, he will submit to the restrictions imposed by the law, as Diogenes says in his epitome of Epicurus' ethical doctrines.

1. Nor will he marry a wife whom the laws forbid, as Diogenes says, in his epitome of the Ethical Maxims of Epicurus.
2. Mensch's translation has: The wise man will not consort with women in any manner proscribed by law, as Diogenes says in his Epitome of Epicurus' Ethical Doctrines.
3. NOTE: Does the original text talk about marriage? Sexual relations? Consorting? γυναικί τ᾽ οὐ μιγήσεσθαι τὸν σοφὸν ᾗ οἱ νόμοι ἀπαγορεύουσιν…
   1. Interestingly, γυναικί is the singular dative case "of, by, for (a) woman"
   2. (οὐ) μιγήσεσθαι - one definition is "to (not) have intercourse with, to be united to, of men and women" but another if simply "to (not) mingle with."
   3. οἱ νόμοι ἀπαγορεύουσιν "the laws/customs forbid"
4. NOTE: For a modern application, consider what laws or customs dictate how men and women should behave in establishing a consensual, sexual relationship. This may be the best way to interpret this characteristic.

Nor will he punish his servants; rather he will pity them and make allowance on occasion for those who are of good character.

1. He will punish his servants, but also pity them, and show indulgence to any that are virtuous.
2. Will the σοφός punish their servants or not? The original begins with ουδέ, a mark of negation, so it appears Hicks again has the upper hand here.
3. Trivia: οἰκέτας = "household slaves". Neither translator wants to use the word "slave." Servants aren't the same as slaves.
4. NOTE: It appears the Epicurean will be benevolent to "servants" and will be sure to encourage "good" ones by rewarding them.

Only the first 9 and much revision to go. As a final product, it may end up being my own translation of the list of characteristics with something like the above as endnotes.

Feel free to take a read through and provide comments.

This is great, Joshua ! Thanks for posting the step by step. I'll look forward to seeing your progress. If your design is like the tree ring, could you technically use the ring to impress into wax seals eventually? Ευπραττειν! May you do well!

Thank you, Martin , for these detailed comments on Dimitriadis's book. I'll admit I have only just started it, but your comments on the science that he cites certainly gives me pause. My own radar went up when he mentions the "strip of gray matter in the prefontal cortex" and seems to equate this to the seat of consciousness. That section of the book is open to interpretation, but things like the expansion on the universe being due to black holes, the improper use of the phrase "Planck time", and the heliocentric universe can be checked with a quick Google or Wikipedia search.

It's these kinds of incorrect small details that give me pause to an entire work. This was my first reaction to DeWitt and his "Epicureanism is hiding behind every Christian corner" habits. Now, I'm glad I'm giving DeWitt another chance and I'll continue to read Dimitriadis's book.

I do not in any way question Dimitriadis's sincerity and passion for Epicurus, but those errors and misrepresentations *really* need to be corrected if his book as a whole is to be taken seriously.

Quote from Cassius

But don't let it sidetrack you too long from DeWitt

LOL I have actually been reading and highlighting DeWitt. I just haven't had a chance to post my thoughts on the book here yet... And I keep getting sidetracked by his excellent articles!

Thanks for reminding us of Dimitriadis's book. It fell off my radar. Having your positive review of his work has sparked my curiosity!

Just downloaded it from my library's Hoopla Digital collection. Looking forward to reading (and commenting).

Poking around on the internet today and came across a 2017 paper abstract on the etymology of the word/name επίκουρος. Looks like researcher traces it back to Indo-European. Granted, a little in the weeds but figured I'd share since we have a vested interest in someone named that

I also was watching a video* recently where the person was pronouncing Epicurus/Επίκουρος with stress on the second syllable: -pi- "e-PI-cur-us". Usually, I hear it and pronounce it "e-pi-CUR-us" when Anglicizing it. I had never heard that other pronunciation before and looked back at the original Greek and, sure enough, the acute accent mark (high tone) is on the -pi-/-πι-. That gives a whole different "flavor" to the sound of our founder's name. Give it a try.

Just found these interesting and thought I'd share.

*I'm not advocating the video content just found the pronunciation novel.

Quote from azbcethananderson

is empathy pleasurable? if its painful, which one is more valuable, empathy or pleasure?

The individual would have to answer that question for themselves. If one derives pleasure from being empathetic, it's pleasurable. However, this also connects with Principal Doctrine 31:

Quote

31. Natural justice is a symbol or expression of expediency, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.

Is empathy necessary if our concern is to not be harmed or not harming another? It also depends how "empathy" is defined. It also connects to our choices and rejections. How do we choose to treat others for pleasurable long term consequences for ourselves. I would argue that we will have better outcomes if we treat others well. It may appear to be empathy from the outside, but maybe it's just the best choices for us in the long run.

Good questions! I'll look forward to others weighing in on this thread.

Thanks for the article link! Frankly, I would have preferred DeWitt include that in his book rather than the "Titles and Ranks" section. There were similarities in this essay to some content in Voila Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus. This is no surprise since they're dealing with the same source material. Enjoyable reading.

I find myself pining for a published collection of DeWitt's essays. I firmly grasp DeWitt's importance to understanding Epicurus and his philosophy, and his scholarship is evident at all turns; however, for my taste, he's much better in the short, bright bursts of his essays than the overwrought prose and historical fiction of his book. Sigh.

And so we arrive in Athens!

Quote

p. 90: This would afford explanation of the affectionate missive which detractors quoted to disparage Epicurus: "Glory be, darling Leontion, with what jubilation you filled us when we read your precious note."4

Footnote 4 cites Diogenes Laertius (DL) 10.5.:

Quote

DL 10.5: "O Lord Apollo, my dear little Leontion, with what tumultuous applause we were inspired as we read your letter."

Παιὰν ἄναξ, φίλον Λεοντάριον, οἵου κροτοθορύβου ἡμᾶς ἐνέπλησας ἀναγνόντας σου τὸ ἐπιστόλιον:

It's interesting that in the last chapter, DeWitt wrote about Epicurus's adding mentions of the gods in his letters, using this exact example: Παιὰν ἄναξ Paian anax. DeWitt is consistent in his "Glory be" translation here. Paian anax is a reference to Apollo and DeWitt's translation removes us from the cultural context of Epicurus's world. I realize DeWitt is paraphrasing, but "Glory be" seems to miss the flavor of Epicurus's style. This is especially true since Paian has a deeper connotation regarding it's use as an epithet of Apollo. The title connotes Apollo as savior, yes, but more as the "healer" or physician of the gods. It was also used as an address to other gods after deliverance from a catastrophe. So, Epicurus's own view of his philosophy as "medicine" in this context is interesting. Epicurus himself is a healer of sorts. Same for anax, lord/master, which also connotes a "master of the house" which Epicurus was as well. DeWitt says that the phrase Paian anax was a favorite one with Epicurus. Did Epicurus see Paian anax in some way referring to himself as physician to his students and Lord of his house? Is that why it was a favorite?

On p. 92, we have an interesting section:

Quote

P. 92: The two properties were not contiguous and there is evidence for believing that Epicurus, whose health was uncertain, sometimes fared back and forth in a three-wheeled chair.13

Footnote 13 refers to DeWitt's own article: "Epicurus' Three-Wheeled Chair" Norman W. DeWitt. Classical Philology. 35:2 (Apr., 1940), pp. 183-185 (3 pages) In it, he parses DL 10.5, specifically:

Quote

...πρὸς δὲ Θεμίσταν τὴν Λεοντέως γυναῖκα Οἷός τε φησίν εἰμί, ἐὰν μὴ ὑμεῖς πρός με ἀφίκησθε, αὐτὸς τρικύλιστος, ὅπου ἂν ὑμεῖς καὶ Θεμίστα παρακαλῆτε, ὠθεῖσθαι.

and to be more precise, DeWitt is most interested in the word τρικύλιστος which he (in his article) translates as a "three-wheeled chair" pushed by someone and steered by Epicurus due to his ill health. DeWitt makes a fairly compelling case in his artice (Another reason I like his articles - overall - more than his book). He mentions that some translators try to make it sound like Epicurus is hurrying or doing some gyrations: "to spin thrice (τρι/three) on my own axis and be propelled" (Hicks). But DeWitt makes the case that the τρικύλιστος (trikylistos) would have been pushed (Hicks: "be propelled" translating

ὠθεῖσθαι "(to be) pushed"). According to DeWitt, τρικύλιστος doesn't occur anywhere else and so is open to interpretation within the context.

On p. 93, DeWitt begins talking about the "Ranks and Titles" within the Garden and school of Epicurus. He begins:

Quote

The title chosen for himself as head was hegemon,18 which Cicero rendered by dux, "leader" or "guide."

Footnote 18 refers to DL 10.20:

Quote

[20] "Ποιείσθωσαν δὲ μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν καὶ Ἕρμαρχον *κύριον τῶν προσόδων*, ἵνα μετὰ τοῦ συγκαταγεγηρακότος ἡμῖν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ καὶ καταλελειμμένου **ἡγεμόνος** τῶν συμφιλοσοφούντων ἡμῖν ἕκαστα γίνηται.

[20] "Let them make Hermarchus *trustee of the funds* along with themselves, in order that everything may be done in concert with him, who has grown old with me in philosophy and is left at the head of the School.

The phrase that DeWitt appears to be saying that Epicurus "himself" chose "as head was hegemon." The text appears to be ἡγεμόνος τῶν συμφιλοσοφούντων "hegemonos ton symphilosophounton" which appears to simply mean "leader of those join in the love and pursuit of wisdom." Hegemonos (or hegemon) appears to simply be a "one who leads or guides the way." It seems to me as Epicurus in his will is just saying "make Hermarchus the leader." I'm not entirely convinced that it was a "title" that Epicurus chose for himself. He was simply the leader of the group and needed to name someone to lead them after he died. Because later on on page 93, DeWitt states, with no citation:

Quote

Instructors of all grades were consequently designated by titles that mean "leader" or "guide."

But that's what "hegemon" means. You can't say Epicurus chose "hegemon" which means "leader" or "guide" as a title for himself and then say all instructors were called "leaders" or "guides" without saying what the original Greek was! That doesn't seem like playing fair.

On 94, we then read:

Quote

Next in rank to the supreme leader stood the three men Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyaenus. The title bestowed upon them was kathegemones. 24

Footnote 24 references Philod., On Anger, frag. 45.1; On Management, col. 12.20; Rhet., vol. i, col. 23.22, p. 49 (Sudhaus). and, unfortunately, I don't have access to Philodemus. However, it would appear to be καθηγεμόνος One of the definitions in LSJ is simply "of the founders of the Epicurean school", but the basic definition is "leader, guide." Which are the *same* English words as we saw back on p. 93 when DeWitt says "Instructors of all grades were consequently designated by titles that mean "leader" or "guide."" We seem to going in circles on these! All in all, I'm a little dubious on the "Ranks and Titles" section.

Which moves us along to p. 95 with the mention of Epicurus's slave Mys:

Quote

Since the school was also a publishing concern, the staff must have included a number of literate slaves to serve as secretaries and copyists. The oversight of these would undoubtedly have fallen to the talented slave whose name was Μῦς Mys. His position was comparable to that of Tiro in the household of Cicero. He was rewarded by freedom at the master's death, and tradition reports him as a philosopher in his own right.32

Footnote 32 references D.L. 10.3, 21. DL 10.3 simply says Mys's name and his status as Epicurus's slave. DL 21 simply names the slaves that Epicurus freed in his will: "Of my slaves I manumit Mys, Nicias, Lycon, and I also give Phaedrium her liberty." Again, I *really* wish DeWitt would give a citation for something as pivotal as Mys was a "philosopher in his own right." I have no reason to doubt DeWitt, but it would be great if he backed something up like that with a citation.

On p. 96, DeWitt writes:

Quote

Since so many women shared the life of the school, it must be assumed that the number of female slaves was proportionate. The oversight of these would have fallen to one Phaedrium, since she was singled out for manumission in the will of the master.38

Footnote 38 again references DL 10.21, again *just* the list of slaves given their freedom on Epicurus's death. Mys supervising the copyists and Phaedrium overseeing the female slaves is pure assumption and colorful historical fiction-writing on DeWitt's part, painting the picture he wants to portray with respect to the management of the Garden. The citations do not back up these roles.

That whole section brings up the topic of slavery in the Garden. We know Epicurus owned slaves. How does that square with the idea of "natural justice" and PD 37? That's a topic for another thread, but one I wrestle with in relation to Epicurus.

p.101 has:

Quote

There is, however, still something to be added. During the first three centuries of Christianity the representations of Christ exhibit a youthful and beardless face, not unlike that of Apollo. The bearded portraits began to appear at a later date and simultaneously with the absorption of the Epicurean sect into the Christian environment. These new pictures of Christ exhibit a similarity to those of Epicurus, then growing obsolete. This similarity is such as to be manifest to the most disinterested observer.

No, I don't buy this, and it's not "manifest to the most disinterested observer." For one glaring difference, the earliest "portraits" of a bearded Jesus have very long hair. The Wikipedia article on the depiction of Jesus shows one of the earliest bearded images from the late 4th century. The long flowing locks are quite visible. That's not Epicurus. The article does a fairly good job of outlining the various theories of where this bearded depiction comes from, and it's not copies of Epicurus. The references in that article, too, also point to numerous options for where the bearded depiction comes from.

On p. 103, DeWitt asserts that:

Quote

Epicureanism was the prevalent philosophy in New Testament days.

I'm skeptical, especially with no citation to back it up. This "article" online references several academic papers and gives an interesting look at "ways to at the least approximately quantify the philosophical landscape of the Greco-Roman world." Worth taking a look at.

On p. 104/5, DeWitt talks about the choice of the 20th as the day of honoring Epicurus:

Quote

It was a sacred day in a cult of Apollo and it was on the twentieth that the final rites of initiation were performed in the mysteries of Demeter.

I have no reason to doubt the Apollo reference. I'll accept DeWitt's scholarship on this, but I find it interesting, if this is indeed the case, in light of what I found about Epicurus's use of Paian Anax in his letters and its relation to Apollo.

And, finally, DeWitt's contention that the communal meals of 20th were used as the pattern for the Christian agape feasts... I don't accept that. Communal meals were not uncommon in ancient world, and it's not necessary to ascribe this to Epicureans See this history of the Love Feasts on Internet Archive.

And so I have to end - unfortunately, again! - in opposition to DeWitt's Christianity/Epicureanism theme. I'm looking forward to getting into his examination of the doctrines of the philosophy and getting away from the history. It was fascinating, and in places enlightening, but there was a lot of historical fiction-writing to add color to his story as he wanted to tell it. But that's simply a lot of what it was from my perspective.

This was an interesting chapter with much to dig into, both DeWitt's text itself and intriguing references. I found this enjoyable... except for those last couple pages. Consider that a teaser. Here we go...

Quote

p. 73: This is not the limit of our information, however. It is fairly plain that Epicurus chose for his assault upon the Mytilenean philosophers one of the more irritating of all forms of argument, the "sorites syllogism."

I had no idea what the "sorites syllogism" was. Wikipedia had a basic introduction to polysyllogism. "A sorites is a specific kind of polysyllogism in which the predicate of each proposition is the subject of the next premise."

On p. 78, DeWitt talks about Origen writing about Epicurus penchant "to sprinkle his writings liberally with the names of the Greek gods. I found this intriguing and followed up on the citation for that sentence has (Footnote 27). Footnote 27 cites Usener 389:

Quote

U389: Dionysius the Episcopalian, On Nature, by way of Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel, XIV 26, 2 p. 779A: And moreover he {Epicurus} inserts in his own books countless oaths and adjurations addressed to those who are nothing to us, swearing continually "No, by Zeus," and "Yes, by Zeus," and adjuring his readers and opponents in argument "in the name of the gods," having, I suppose, no fear himself of perjury nor trying to frighten them, but uttering this as an empty, and false, and idle, and unmeaning appendage to his speeches, just as he might hawk and spit, and turn his face, and wave his hand. Such an unintelligible and empty piece of acting on his part was his mentioning the name of the gods.

Usener fragment 389 (i.e., footnote 27) doesn't cite Origen, but DeWitt may be referring to others nearby in the Usener list which cite Origen:

Quote

U390: Origen, Against Celsus, VII.66, [p. 386 Hoesch.]: And the charge of folly applies not only to those who offer prayers to images, but also to such as pretend to do so in compliance with the example of the multitude: and to this class belong the Peripatetic philosophers and the followers of Epicurus and Democritus. For there is no falsehood or pretense in the soul which is possessed with true piety towards God.

On Page 79 there is a lengthy paragraph that talks about Theodorus, "an egotistical and insolent hedonist of Cyrene." Footnote 32 refers to Epicurus "filching part of his [Theodorus's] doctrine." The footnotes in this section cite Diogenes Laertius 2.97:

Quote

"The Theodoreans derived their name from Theodorus, who has already been mentioned, and adopted his doctrines. Theodorus was a man who utterly rejected the current belief in the gods. And I have come across a book of his entitled Of the Gods which is not contemptible. From that book, they say, Epicurus borrowed most of what he wrote on the subject."

That paragraph also mentions Hipparchia (footnote 33: DL 6.97) who, though not an Epicurean, sounds interesting after looking at her section in Diogenes Laertius:

Quote

DL 6.97: "...[Hipparchia] appeared at the banquet given by Lysimachus, and there put down Theodorus, known as the atheist, by means of the following sophism. Any action which would not be called wrong if done by Theodorus, would not be called wrong if done by Hipparchia. Now Theodorus does no wrong when he strikes himself : therefore neither does Hipparchia do wrong when she strikes Theodorus. He had no reply wherewith to meet the argument, but tried to strip her of her cloak. But Hipparchia showed no sign of alarm or of the perturbation natural in a woman."

On p. 83, DeWitt provides an example of one of my frustrations with him. He states a "fact" without any citations to sources:

Quote

P. 83 Quote: "Epicurus even went so far as to declare that only those who spoke Greek were capable of philosophizing, and Philodemus would have it that the gods themselves spoke some form of the Greek language."

Why couldn't he put a footnote in there? Those both seem like a pretty big deal in light of the evangelical nature of Epicurean philosophy. DeWitt's articles are referenced to a fault. This book, however, has him simply stating things that are obviously from somewhere. It's just aggravating.

This was also the first chapter where I highlighted a reference to Croenert. (p. 83, footnote 54, Croenert, p.4-8):

Quote

"Extant in papyri are also remnants of attacks upon the Lysis and the Euthydemus of Plato."

This refers to Kolotes Und Menedemos (1906) by Wilhelm Crönert which is available on Internet Archive. I don't read German, unfortunately, but it looks like it could be interesting.

And, finally, we come to my pet peeve with DeWitt with his Epicureanism hidden in Christianity proclivities. It just all seems so superfluous in this particular work. Which is why DeWitt decided to write the St. Paul one, I'm sure. He had much more to say (unfortunately). In any case, I highlighted two sections in particular. First:

Quote

P. 85: "It may be observed in passing that St. Paul quoted the words Peace and Safety as catchwords of the Epicureans, to whom he refused the honor of mention by name. 69 In this collocation Peace signified harmonious relations with neighbors while Safety meant the security of the man as a citizen, the sort of safety that Paul himself enjoyed by virtue of Roman citizenship."

This drives me crazy! Paul doesn't mention who is speaking by name. So HOW does DeWitt have such certainty that he's referring to Epicureans?? I can read that passage of Paul's and have a completely different interpretation if Epicureans aren't mentioned!! The text is I Thessalonians 5:3. See also this in Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1-9: Who’s Speaking When and Why It Matters by Justin King for different interpretations.

And, this section in DeWitt:

Quote

P.88: "Thus the epistles of Epicurus seem to have been unique and must have furnished the model for New Testament writers. One immediate purpose of the latter was to create for the benefit of converts from Epicureanism a substitute literature which should preserve the form of the texts with which they were familiar. Common to both was the practice of addressing each epistle to an individual or a group, though the intention was that copies should be distributed among circles of adherents everywhere."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but, to me, this appears to just be letter writing that DeWitt is referring to! You address it to a person or group. There was a robust letter writing tradition in the ancient world even as a literary genre. One need look no further than the Letters of Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD). DeWitt makes it sound like Epicurus invented letter writing.

I hated to end this section on a downer when I found so much else interesting in this chapter. DeWitt's scholarship is evident in his works, but I still find some of his habits frustrating.

Looking forward to Chapter 5. Onto Athens!

Thanks, Martin, for those insights using the original German. This demonstrates again how important it is to go back sometimes to non-English original texts, whether written in German, Latin, Greek, etc., to really understand what authors are trying to say.

Sorry, Cassius ! I thought the two were together in the original article! I didn't intend to be critical of you.

But, yes, I agree. That second one is spot on!

bodily comfort and peace of mind: τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν.

I'm not sure why Dimitriadis chose to use that excerpt from the Letter to Menoikos since the word ataraxia αταραξία itself doesn't appear there. I think I understand his basic argument, but I would think a better quote would have been one where the word under discussion was actually used by Epicurus. I realize it does say "freedom from turmoil in the mind" using other terms than ataraxia itself, but I found it an interesting choice.

Is ataraxia possibly just a quality of the mind and not a goal? A description just using available vocabulary that people would readily understand? The person who follows Epicurus's teachings can hope to feel this quality of mind (and the feeling of freedom from pain in the body) by striving to make sound choices and rejections but that quality is not in and of itself a goal or end, not a telos. Just something that arises naturally as part of Epicurean practice.

I'm glad you started this, Cassius . This has been a hang-up for me with regards to Epicurus' teachings.

On the one hand, one would think Epicurus would want to get the most accurate view of the universe - το παν - available through the senses with regard to the "sciences."

On the other, I get the impression from some readings that once you get a "good enough" explanation of, say, meteorological phenomena (ex., DRN VI:96-160, different possible causes of thunder), you accept one and move on. That part makes it sound like Epicurus or Lucretius were not advocates of any kind of deep "research" for lack of a better word right now.

I find it hard to reconcile these two so I'm looking forward to more in this thread.

Here's her record from Find-A-Grave with a photo of her stone.

Quote from JJElbert

Frances Wright's grave is in Cincinnati.

Oh my! I didn't realize that! Thanks, Joshua ! In addition to my other duties at the library, I'm also the coordinator of the Ohio Center for the Book. I'll be adding Frances Wright to our Ohio author mini-biographies now! She was not in our list!

Consider that Epicurus himself more than likely walked across the grounds of the Acropolis in Athens and around the (real) Parthenon. He said that Epicureans could enjoy public spectacles more than other people (I believe he said that) and so more than likely participated in things like the Panathenaic Festivals and other ceremonies on the Acropolis. And I can imagine him appreciating the view from the summit at least. Think about that if you travel to Nashville and circumambulate the "Parthenon" there.