We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Thank you, HsiehKW, that is a very thorough response and I will have to read it again more carefully tomorrow!
I fully agree - thank you for such high quality posting! It's going to take me time to even begin to grasp the implications of all the data contained there. And further, I suspect you take the implications of these ideas in interesting ways that would also be productive to pursue.
Good subject for a thread, and yes I myself divide my time between city life and "the countryside" - where I hope to spend more and more of my time. But as of yet I have not developed much of a green thumb, with the exception of planting several fig trees which are now mature and producing.
Thanks for the correction Joshua. I have tried to download most of his essays on Epicurus and I need to put them down in a list with dates. I have tended to mark in my mind his "Philosophy for the Millions" as sort of the beginning of his real emphasis, and that was in 1947, but he started before that:
Here is the start of a timeline with the main articles on Epicurus:
1876 - Date of Birth
1932 - Vergil and Epicureanism (In the same year he wrote "Vergil and the New Testament")
1932 - Notes on the History of Epicureanism
1936 - Epicurean Conturbinium
1936 - Organization and Procedure in Epicuean Groups
1937 - The Epicurean Doctrine of Gratitude
1937 - The Later Paideia of Epicurus
1939 - Epicurean Doctrine in Horace
1939 - Epicurus, Peri Fantasias
1939 - Epicurus, ΠϵρὶΦαντασίας
1940 - Epicurus' Three-Wheeled Chair
1941 - Review of Cicero's Presentation of Epicurean Ethics by Mary N. Porter Packer
1941 - Epicurean Kinetics
1941 - Review of The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers: The Complete Extant Writings of Epicurus,
Epictetus, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius by Whitney J. Oates
1942 - Virgil, Augustus, Epicureanism
1943 - Epicurus and Leucippus
1943 - Epicurus - All Sensations Are True
1943 - Review of Philodemus: On Methods of Inference: A Study in Ancient Empiricism by Phillip Howard
de Lacy ; Estelle Allen de Lacy
1948 - Epicurus - His Perpendicular Universe
1949 - Meditations of an Epicurean
1950 - Epicurus - The Summum Bonum Fallacy
1951 - Review of "The Epicureanism of Titus Pomponius Atticus by Robert Leslie
1954 - Epicurus and His Philosophy
1954 - St Paul and Epicurus
Probably a good place for another general comment about DeWitt. It has been said at various times and places that the emphasis on DeWitt's book here at EpicureanFriends gives the group a "DeWittian" flavor. I don't really know what that would mean, but if it's in part true, in my mind it is not because there is any particular "DeWittian" spin on Epicurean philosophy.
To me, what really distinguishes DeWitt from other commentators is that he seems to have devoted almost his entire professional writing career to the study and exposition of Epicurean philosophy exclusively. So far as I know he never came right out and endorsed it beyond the praise that he gives it in passages such as his "Philosophy for the Millions" article, but it's unmistakable that he saw tremendous value in it and he thought the best way to understand and apply it was to work to get a comprehensive knowledge of the many aspects of it before becoming wedded to a particular interpretation.
There's pretty much something in DeWitt that can be used by almost anyone who has a particular interpretation of Epicurus that they want to advocate, even on issues like ataraxia and the highest good and katastematic and kinetic pleasure. In the end it's not so much the position that DeWitt takes on specific issues, but the way he digs into the material and looks for a "sympathetic" spin that gives effect to the widest sweep of the philosophy. It's that attitude that I admire about DeWitt and what I think makes him so valuable as an introduction to the philosophy.
Most of us will never approach the depth and sweep of learning that a classical scholar in the early 20th century could obtain. We have access to all sorts of manuscripts and resources that he did not have, but what I think the people of that period have over us is "time" -- a slower pace of life where they could devote huge blocks of time to studies with levels of attention that we can't hope to muster today. The chapter 14 of his book that we are going through now on the podcast puts this on display. DeWitt has this sweeping knowledge and absorption of the works of Virgil and Horace and all sorts of other ancient writers that can't be duplicated without huge amounts of time that few of us outside of academia (and maybe inside too) will ever duplicate -- certainly after a lifetime of effort as he devoted to it.
And that's also why I can laugh and forgive DeWitt's tendency to draw parallels to Christianity that I suspect most of us think are excessive. I doubt we will ever really know whether DeWitt considered himself a full Christian or whether his philosophy won out in the end, but even today many of us still labor under restraints that make the Christian-Epicurean dialogue still relevant.
DeWitt's pictures indicate to me that he had a lively and even impish kind of look in his eyes, and that kind of "let's stir the pot" attitude is something great to bring to the study of Epicurus. And as for courage even beyond the religious taboos, I suspect still in early 20th century Canada the ingrained dismissive attitude of "Epicurus isn't worthy of study" was still present. Emily Austin mentions that this survives today; it had to be as strong or stronger in the first part of the 20th century. And yet DeWitt tied himself to the mast of Epicurus like Odysseus sailing past the sirens. That's something that we can work to emulate, but DeWitt succeeded in a way I suspect few others in Epicurean studies will be able to duplicate.
The following post is one of a series so that we can get our collection of the main list of Principal Doctrines under the "Texts" section in better shape. Although this thread will include a "poll" in the next post, what we are really looking for is the "best" combination of faithfulness to the original combined with clarity in modern English. I will get with a collection of the Level 3 participants here to work on editing the final list, but the full discussion should be open to everyone to consider, so that's what we will do here. The results of the poll won't control what is featured on the text page but will definitely influence in and probably at least result in a footnote to this thread.
The English translation of PD04 currently featured here in our Texts section is that of Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:
PD04. Pain does not last continuously in the flesh, but the acutest pain is there for a very short time, and even that which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not continue for many days at once. But chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh.
We have access (thanks to Nate's full collection) to many different variations including:
"Pain does not last continuously in the flesh, but the acutest pain is there for a very short time, and even that which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not continue for many days at once. But chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh." Epicurus PD4 (Bailey)
“Pain does not abide continuously in the flesh, but in its extremity it is present only a very short time. That pain which only just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh, does not last many days. But long diseases have in them more that is pleasant than painful to the flesh.” Yonge (1853)
“Continuous pain does not last long in the flesh, and pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the flesh does not occur for many days together. Illnesses of long duration even permit of an excess of pleasure over pain in the flesh.” Hicks (1910)
“Continuous pain does not last long in the flesh ; on the contrary, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the flesh does not last for many days together. Illnesses of long duration even permit of an excess of pleasure over pain in the flesh.” Hicks (1925)
“Pain does not prevail continuously in the flesh but the peak of it is present for the briefest interval, and the pain that barely exceeds the pleasure in the flesh is not with us many days, while protracted illnesses have an excess of pleasure over pain in the flesh." De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 244 (1954)
“Continuous bodily suffering does not last long. Intense pain is very brief, and even pain that barely outweighs physical pleasure does not last many days. Long illnesses permit physical pleasures that are greater than the pain.” Geer (1964)
“Pain does not last continuously in the flesh: when acute it is there for a very short time, while the pain which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not persist for many days; and chronic illnesses contain an excess of pleasure in the flesh over pain.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)
“Pain does not dwell continuously in the flesh. Extreme pain is present but a very brief time, and that which barely exceeds bodily pleasure continues no more than a few days. But chronic illness allows greater pleasure than pain in the flesh. ” O'Connor (1993)
“The feeling of pain does not linger continuously in the flesh; rather, the sharpest is present for the shortest time, while what merely exceeds the feeling of pleasure in the flesh lasts only a few days. And diseases which last a long time involve feelings of pleasure which exceed feelings of pain.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)
“Continuous physical pain does not last long. Instead, extreme pain lasts only a very short time, and even less-extreme pain does not last for many days at once. Even protracted diseases allow periods of physical comfort that exceed feelings of pain.” Anderson (2004)
“What produces pain does not remain constantly in the body over a long period of time; it is rather that the maximal pain persists for the least span of time, and even that bodily pain which barely exceeds pleasure does not continue to happen for many days <in a row.> And, indeed, chronic illnesses themselves have an excess of what produces bodily pleasure over what is productive of pain.” Makridis (2005)
“Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains.” Saint-Andre (2008) “Bodily pain does not last continuously. The peak is present for a very brief period, and pains that barely exceed the state of bodily pleasure do not continue for many days. On the other hand, protracted illnesses show a balance of bodily pleasure over pain.” Strodach (2012)
“Pain does not last long in the flesh; in fact, extreme pain is present for the briefest time, while that which hardly outweighs pleasure does not last for many days. And illnesses that are prolonged may even afford the flesh more pleasure than pain.” Mensch (2018)
“Pain does not continue for long in the flesh. Rather, the most intense pain lasts the shortest time; any pain that exceeds pleasant feeling in the flesh does not last many days; and lengthy infrmities have more pleasant feeling in the flesh than pain.” White (2021)
“Pain does not abide continuously in the flesh, but in its extremity it is present only a very short time. That pain which only just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh, does not last many days. But long diseases have in them more that is pleasant than painful to the flesh.” Yonge (1853)
“Continuous pain does not last long in the flesh, and pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the flesh does not occur for many days together. Illnesses of long duration even permit of an excess of pleasure over pain in the flesh.” Hicks (1910)
“Continuous pain does not last long in the flesh ; on the contrary, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the flesh does not last for many days together. Illnesses of long duration even permit of an excess of pleasure over pain in the flesh.” Hicks (1925) “Pain does not last continuously in the flesh, but the acutest pain is there for a very short time, and even that which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not continue for many days at once. But chronic illnesses permit a predominance of pleasure over pain in the flesh.” Bailey (1926)
“Pain does not prevail continuously in the flesh but the peak of it is present for the briefest interval, and the pain that barely exceeds the pleasure in the flesh is not with us many days, while protracted illnesses have an excess of pleasure over pain in the flesh." De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 244 (1954)
“Continuous bodily suffering does not last long. Intense pain is very brief, and even pain that barely outweighs physical pleasure does not last many days. Long illnesses permit physical pleasures that are greater than the pain.” Geer (1964)
“Pain does not last continuously in the flesh: when acute it is there for a very short time, while the pain which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not persist for many days; and chronic illnesses contain an excess of pleasure in the flesh over pain.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 115 (1987)
“Pain does not dwell continuously in the flesh. Extreme pain is present but a very brief time, and that which barely exceeds bodily pleasure continues no more than a few days. But chronic illness allows greater pleasure than pain in the flesh. ” O'Connor (1993)
“The feeling of pain does not linger continuously in the flesh; rather, the sharpest is present for the shortest time, while what merely exceeds the feeling of pleasure in the flesh lasts only a few days. And diseases which last a long time involve feelings of pleasure which exceed feelings of pain.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)
“Continuous physical pain does not last long. Instead, extreme pain lasts only a very short time, and even less-extreme pain does not last for many days at once. Even protracted diseases allow periods of physical comfort that exceed feelings of pain.” Anderson (2004)
“What produces pain does not remain constantly in the body over a long period of time; it is rather that the maximal pain persists for the least span of time, and even that bodily pain which barely exceeds pleasure does not continue to happen for many days <in a row.> And, indeed, chronic illnesses themselves have an excess of what produces bodily pleasure over what is productive of pain.” Makridis (2005)
“Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains.” Saint-Andre (2008) “Bodily pain does not last continuously. The peak is present for a very brief period, and pains that barely exceed the state of bodily pleasure do not continue for many days. On the other hand, protracted illnesses show a balance of bodily pleasure over pain.” Strodach (2012)
“Pain does not last long in the flesh; in fact, extreme pain is present for the briefest time, while that which hardly outweighs pleasure does not last for many days. And illnesses that are prolonged may even afford the flesh more pleasure than pain.” Mensch (2018)
“Pain does not continue for long in the flesh. Rather, the most intense pain lasts the shortest time; any pain that exceeds pleasant feeling in the flesh does not last many days; and lengthy infirmities have more pleasant feeling in the flesh than pain.” White (2021)
---
Which of the above, or which with changes you would suggest, should be featured here in the main list? In the interest of space the poll will not include every option, so please add a comment in the thread if you would suggest a variation not listed.
Yes at least for me this definitely has my continued interest so please continue as you can!
These may have been posted previously but it would be good to have them here too for safekeeping. Except for the farm photo, I found some years ago by googling the university where DeWitt taught:
It today's episode we mentioned this from DeWitt p 316
Along with caution and control goes the active hope of good things to come, as exemplified by the words of Cicero to the merry Epicurean Papirius Paetus: "You, however, as your philosophy teaches, will feel bound to hope for the best, contemplate the worst, and endure whatever shall come." footnote 94
It would be necessary to check into the background of Papirius Paetus to assess how well known he was as an Epicurean. I see that the translation cited her does not translate "as your philosophy teaches" but "like the man of sense that you are."
Perseus Under Philologic: Cic. Fam. 9.17.3
Other references to Papirius: https://www.attalus.org/names/p/paetus.html#11
This is probably an example of how desirable it would be to mine Cicero's letters to his friends for references to Epicurean viewpoints.
Here are our topics for this week:
1 - The Vatican Sayings:
VS14. We are born once and cannot be born twice, but for all time must be no more. But you, who are not master of tomorrow, postpone your happiness. Life is wasted in procrastination, and each one of us dies while occupied. [6]
VS15. We value our characters as something peculiar to ourselves, whether they are good, and we are esteemed by men or not, so ought we value the characters of others, if they are well-disposed to us.
2 - Our Special Topic
Aside from general guidance to follow pleasure and avoid pain, is there anything in Epicurean philosophy that tells a particular person what particular pleasure to choose or pain to avoid at any particular time. In other words, this is a variation of the old question: "Is one pleasure or activity in itself 'better' than another?" Is it possible to come up with a coherent analysis of how we would recommend a particular person at a particular time to proceed? Is all we can say is "It's contextual and up to you!" Or is there more for which we can find justification in the Epicurean texts?
Attendees should also plan to be sure they are on Kalosyni's conversation list. If you are not already on that and want the Zoom link so you can attend, please message Kalosyni or any other moderator.
Episode 183 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!
This week: Honesty!
Don from what manuscript are you working? And is there more than one which we can compare?
HsiehKW I haven't had as chance to read up either but do you have a web link you recommend for the basics?
I have not heard of that but sounds interesting.
Yes Joshua I caught that implication too -
"The mind of Epicurus had made a tremendous discovery, the greatest that had ever been made - that the will-to-live and the will-to-pleasure are one"
I think he is correct as consistent with what Dewitt says in the comment to the effect that even though most people do not currently speak that way, their failure to identify this does not mean that Epicurus was wrong , and in fact they would be better off if they did think that way.
And when we consider the comparison between being alive and nothingness I think the conclusion that life (when not in pain) easily meets a reasonable definition of pleasure.
Happy Birthday Charles!! Hope you are doing well and not working too hard!
Happy Birthday to Charles! Learn more about Charles and say happy birthday on Charles's timeline: Charles
Don are there any markings or other reasons for the paragraph divisions, or are those done solely by judgment as to topic change?
We have to read them as a text just like the letters
Possibly better to represent it like the Bible with some or all sentences numbered in Superscript but divided into paragraphs again like Don said as one document/letter rather than a discrete numbered list.
Which brings up the question: which is the best word choice, "quantity" or "magnitude"?
You guys are the experts on the Greek but this is one instance where I am more drawn to Bailey's version.
To my ear "quantity of pleasure" emphasizes a particular dimension, which invites the listener to thing that there is more going on here to consider. The more general "magnitude" variations more clearly invite the connotation of "best" or "height of pleasure." My reading of the issues is that Epicurus has something to say about both perspectives, just as he distinguishes between the "most" pleasure and the "best" pleasure in the letter to Menoeceus where the banqueter chooses not the largest quantity of food, but the most pleasant.
It may very well be that Epicurus was intending to address both perspectives, or maybe only one, so I it will be interesting to see what you guys think as to the Greek. Perhaps quantity is exactly a bad choice because it is not in the text, or maybe it is a great choice because it is. All I know is that Bailey's "quantity" invites the discussion we are having now, which is important to have. A simple "the height of pleasure" or something to that effect would be more easy to interpret as "best" which to a new reader might be misleading.
