Wednesday Night Zoom - Focusing On Usener's Epicurea - Find Notices About This Month's Meeting Here!

Posted on Facebook today:

Excellent visual design, Kalosyni, it's worthy to be printed!

I have two questions regarding U1 and U2.

question (1) Erik Anderson adds a translation of Cleomedes "Lectures on Astronomy" that exceeds the Greek provided by Usener (Erik took the English from Bowen and Todd, p. 489). This itself is not uncommon but in this case I have not been able to find the full Greek text to fill the gap. Does anybody have that text?

question (2) Which Anaximenes is referred to in D.L. 10.28? I would think this is a work of Epicurus about Anaximenes of Miletus and his air-based monism.

But then we have Usener who says "Perhaps the title was 'Anaximenes (or) On Kingship' you might believe that the book was thus titled Anaximenes' 'Changes of Kings.' Plentiful and favorable subject matter was provided for debating the miserable life of kings."

Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters (Deipnosophists), 12.531D: "Anaximenes, in his book entitled the Reverses of Kings, giving the same account of Straton, says that he was always endeavouring to rival Nicocles, who was the king of Salamis in Cyprus, and who was exceedingly devoted to luxury and debauchery, and that they both came to a violent end."

Both Straton and Nicocles probably died during the revolt of satraps around 361 BC, twenty years before Epicurus was born. So that is not our monist Anaximenes, who was around some 250 years before Epicurus.

These are great points Bryan.

Probably you and others are going to have editorial suggestions to make as to Usener's selections, especially as we go through them selectively rather than including all the Diogenes Laertius Book Ten material.

We can add your commentary to the version that we use in the discussion. We'll also do a thread each week where comments can be added. In addition, I am working on another presentation version and I will include your comments there as well..

For this first episode, as you suggested, let's spend most of the time talking about Usener himself, his goals, his organization methods, what sources are included, etc. Then we will take up probably in the first episode the sections on Epicurus' style (which is a lot of quotes) then we will start with U1, U2, etc....

April 10th Agenda: We will address Usener's citations under "Concerning Epicurus' Books And Epicurus' Style and Language." Find the material we will highlight on this page: EpicureanFriends Fragment Collection

Find the full list on Attalus,org or Epicurism.info.

Open to Level 03+ forum members.

And Level 01 forum members can attend after approval by the moderator team.

We will be going through Usener's Epicurea and generally be referring to the PDF that Bryan has been working on which is here:

Post

RE: Wednesday Night Zoom - Focusing On Usener's Epicurea - Find Notices About This Month's Meeting Here!

I'll throw in this updated version of my notes. It may still be preferable to mostly follow Erik Anderson's text. Let me know if you see any errors.

Bryan

April 7, 2024 at 9:00 PM

You also can find our Fragment Collection page here.

Last week we left off on about page 19 of the Usener PDF, after the quote from Cicero's On Divination, so this week we will start with the quote from Aelius Theon:

• On The Language and Style of Epicurus
  • Aelius Theon (fl. probably around 75 AD) wrote “Preliminary Exercises” (Progymnasmata), a training manual for orators

Tonight we will continue in the "On The Language and Style of Epicurus," starting with the quote from Aelius Theon (approximately page 19 of the PDF) and cotinuing as far as we can get to the end of this section, which will then take us up to The "Catalogue of Fragments" / Table of Contents.

We will be going through Usener's Epicurea and generally be referring to the PDF that Bryan has been working on which is here:

Post

RE: Wednesday Night Zoom - Focusing On Usener's Epicurea - Find Notices About This Month's Meeting Here!

I'll throw in this updated version of my notes. It may still be preferable to mostly follow Erik Anderson's text. Let me know if you see any errors.

Bryan

April 7, 2024 at 9:00 PM

Find the material we will highlight on this page: EpicureanFriends Fragment Collection

Find the full list on Attalus,org or Epicurism.info.

This is a post question regarding U1 and U2 raised by Bryan here:

Post

RE: Wednesday Night Zoom - Focusing On Usener's Epicurea - Find Notices About This Month's Meeting Here!

Excellent visual design, Kalosyni, it's worthy to be printed!

I have two questions regarding U1 and U2.

question (1) Erik Anderson adds a translation of Cleomedes "Lectures on Astronomy" that exceeds the Greek provided by Usener (Erik took the English from Bowen and Todd, p. 489). This itself is not uncommon but in this case I have not been able to find the full Greek text to fill the gap. Does anybody have that text?



question (2) Which Anaximenes is referred to in D.L. 10.28? I would think this…

Bryan

March 30, 2024 at 2:07 AM

I have two questions regarding U1 and U2.

question (1) Erik Anderson adds a translation of Cleomedes "Lectures on Astronomy" that exceeds the Greek provided by Usener (Erik took the English from Bowen and Todd, p. 489). This itself is not uncommon but in this case I have not been able to find the full Greek text to fill the gap. Does anybody have that text?

question (2) Which Anaximenes is referred to in D.L. 10.28? I would think this is a work of Epicurus about Anaximenes of Miletus and his air-based monism.

But then we have Usener who says "Perhaps the title was 'Anaximenes (or) On Kingship' you might believe that the book was thus titled Anaximenes' 'Changes of Kings.' Plentiful and favorable subject matter was provided for debating the miserable life of kings."

Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters (Deipnosophists), 12.531D: "Anaximenes, in his book entitled the Reverses of Kings, giving the same account of Straton, says that he was always endeavouring to rival Nicocles, who was the king of Salamis in Cyprus, and who was exceedingly devoted to luxury and debauchery, and that they both came to a violent end."

Both Straton and Nicocles probably died during the revolt of satraps around 361 BC, twenty years before Epicurus was born. So that is not our monist Anaximenes, who was around some 250 years before Epicurus.

Join us as we study Usener's Epicurea - Every Wednesday night 8pm ET - Via Zoom - running for about an hour.

Open to LEVEL 03 forum members...and LEVEL 01 members can attend after approval by the moderator team.

Each meeting we will take one or more of the fragments and discuss the meaning. This discussion group is an open group, so you can drop in on any week, but of course we hope you will join us on a weekly basis, as this is sure to provide new insights into the philosophy of Epicurus. If you have previously attended a Wednesday night Zoom, then you can simply join in with the same link as previous Wednesday night meetings.

For Level 03 (Established Members) who haven't yet attended a Wednesday night meeting, please go the thread with the agenda listed at the top of this page and post there (or send a private message to Cassius or Kalosyni (we will get you the Zoom link to you by private message).

For Level 01 (Introductory Members) - message Cassius for pre-approval by the moderator team.

We will be going through these fragments sequentially from start to finish, but we will be skipping the Diogenes Laertius Book 10 fragments and any short fragments without substance. You can find our Fragment Collection here.

This week we our agenda will be:

Post

RE: Wednesday Night Zoom - Focusing On Usener's Epicurea - Find Notices About This Month's Meeting Here!

I'll throw in this updated version of my notes. It may still be preferable to mostly follow Erik Anderson's text. Let me know if you see any errors.

Bryan

April 7, 2024 at 9:00 PM

Other reference material:

Find the material we will highlight on this page: EpicureanFriends Fragment Collection

Find the full list on Attalus,org or Epicurism.info.

April 3rd / April 10th --- Ok for this week let's tackle the basics of our discussion for this evening. The topics will include everything relating to Usener and his work, including:

1. Who was Herman Usener?
2. What was his purpose in preparing the Epicurea?
3. What sources did he use?
4. What method of organization did he use?
5. Which Epicurean texts are included?
6. Which Epicurean texts are *not* included?

For those who have time to prepare ahead, please feel free to post links or material in this thread to help us discuss this background and everything related to Usener and his project before we get into the details of the text itself.

Comments by DeWitt on Usener:

Quote from DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy

The slanders and fallacies of a long and unfriendly tradition have been enjoying modern sanction ever since Eduard Zeller expounded them with seeming reasonableness and undeniable tidiness a century ago in his Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics. This sanction was confirmed in 1887 by the suave erudition of Hermann Usener in his Epicurea. This indispensable work, which ought to have inaugurated a fresh scrutiny of the texts, was unfortunately accepted as authoritative, and after its publication the attention of scholars was diverted to the minor Epicureans, especially Philodemus. In this field an imposing corpus of meritorious studies has long been accumulating, chiefly through the industry of German and Italian researchers, though the hope of making great additions to our knowledge of Epicurus himself has fallen short of expectations.

In England the ignominy to which Epicureanism had been relegated by Puritanism after flourishing briefly under the Restoration, though long enough to administer a smart stimulus to philosophical thought, was terminated at last in 1910 by R. D. Hicks in his Stoic and Epicurean, followed in 1925 by his translation of Diogenes Laertius, the chief ancient authority, in the Loeb Library; but in the former he merely enlarged with lucidity upon Zeller's mistakes while in the latter he confirmed tradition by the benedictory correxit Usener. A new text and translation was made available in 1925 by Cyril Bailey, soon followed in 1928 by The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, the old errors and fallacies being repeated in both books and amplified in the second one with such urbanity that to dissent seems like discourtesy.

Quote

The best Greek text is that of P. Von der Muehll, Epistulae Tres at Ratae Sentenliae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1922). It includes the Vatican Collection but lacks the fragments. Of the latter a brief but judicious selection may be found in Bailey's Epicurus along with a bibliography, pp. 423-424. Unluckily the indispensable aid, H. Usener's Epicurea (Leipzig: Teubner, 1887) is long out of print. The same is true of Ettore Bignone's Epicurus (Bari: Laterza, 1920).

As things are, however, the student will benefit more by resolute study of the texts of Epicurus himself than by excursions into the bewildering auxiliary literature, still bedeviled by a hostile tradition. It is the aim of the present study to have pioneered in this direction.

I wanted to share this work-in-progress as well. Looks like our first meeting will cover up to page 30.

This is getting overwhelming but it's all good! Thank you Bryan!

Q1: Wikipedia links to this for the greek.

Q2: Anaximenes of Lampsacus

https://www.jstor.org/stable/631231

Very impressive work, Bryan !

I gave tentative answers to your questions in the other thread here.

Thank you Joshua, for the link to Cleomedes! That does fill in the gap between Anderson and Usener, corresponding to "Epicurus boasts as if he were someone significant, trying to count himself among the philosophers; and not only that, but he insists on taking the lead, showing himself to be even bolder than Thersites. For the latter boasted only of being the best and equal to kings, not claiming the foremost place for himself, but this man, under the pretense of great wisdom and knowledge, asserts that he alone has discovered the truth and therefore deserves the leading position.

------

Yes, thank you again Joshua, Anaximenes of Lampsacus, who flourished 340 BC, about 40 years before Epicurus, must be who Usener was referring to!

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 6.18.3,4: The people of Lampsacus favoured the cause of the Persian king, or were suspected of doing so, and Alexander, boiling over with rage against them, threatened to treat them with utmost rigor. As their wives, their children, and their country itself were in great danger, they sent Anaximenes to intercede for them, because he was known to Alexander himself and had been known to Philip before him. Anaximenes approached, and when Alexander learned for what cause he had come, they say that he swore by the gods of Greece, whom he named, that he would verily do the opposite of what Anaximenes asked. Thereupon Anaximenes said, “Grant me, O king, this favour. Enslave the women and children of the people of Lampsacus, raze the whole city even to the ground, and burn the sanctuaries of their gods.” Such were his words; and Alexander, finding no way to counter the trick, and bound by the compulsion of his oath, unwillingly pardoned the people of Lampsacus.

Darius III was defeated by Alexander the same year Metrodorus of Lampsacus was born. So this event would probably have occurred a little before the birth of Metrodorus, when Polyaenus of Lampsacus was a child.

Despite this significance, I do not see that there is much proof either way if the Anaximenes that inspired the title of Epicurus' book is Anaximenes of Lampsacus, as Usener suggests as a possibility, or Anaximenes of Miletus, OR another Anaximenes, who was a contemporary and friend of Epicurus.

I just added these two to the list of topics to be covered in the first meeting above:

1. Which Epicurean texts are included?
2. Which Epicurean texts are *not* included?

If I understand correctly, the Epicurea is in no way a "one-shop-stop" for Epicurean texts. For example, Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and many other Epicurean texts are *not* included - it is more of a compendium of commentators than an attempt to bring together the primary sources?

Am I correct about that Bryan , or does that go too far?

DeWitt "This indispensable work, which ought to have inaugurated a fresh scrutiny of the texts, was unfortunately accepted as authoritative.."

This is true here (and probably generally)!

Quote from Cassius

Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and many other Epicurean texts are *not* included - it is more of a compendium of commentators than an attempt to bring together the primary sources?

Yes, there are only a few small portions of Lucretius, no Diogenes of Oinoanda,* about one hundred quotes from the P. Hercs. (but that is only a small portion of what survives).

*(Discovered about 4 years before Epicurea was puplished -- nothing had been published about the wall at that time).

Martin's link to Usener bio material:

USENER, Hermann Carl

That is a great article Martin!

This part, of course, stood out:

"In 1887, after long tribulations—the work was almost completely printed in 1881—Usener finally published his Epicurea, which he dedicated to Bücheler; additional studies on Epicurus and Epicureans appeared during the next few years... The edition of Epicurus and its subsidium interpretationis testified to massive learning and definitively established Usener’s international reputation. Curiously, though, Usener nowhere indicates any deep interest in Epicurean doctrines, and the whole work very much looks like a philological Pflichtarbeit, which probably originated from his early interest in Diogenes Laertius in connection with his thesis. This would also have been the reason why he never completely finished the Glossarium Epicureum, which was not published until 1977 (cf. Gigante; Schmid: 1980). The appearance in the following years (1892-1896) of new editions of Philodemus by his pupil S. Sudhaus (1867-1914) must have meant a delay, but Usener never shrank from hard work. The fact that his attention was taken up more and more by his theological interests meant that other subjects had to take second place."

This theological interest seems ultimately to lead him closer to Epicurus than I expected:

The article explains "Even older types of gods, at least from a logical point of view, were the augenblicksgötter, gods who owed their existence to those moments when early mankind experienced something divine."

And quotes Usener "... I would like to say it in a more pointed way: man is able to see God and the divine only in images (im bilde)."

It is interesting that he was near blind while doing a lot of his later work.