Posts by Cassius

The PDF at Archive.org that you've found Tau Phi contains the full book and therefore considerable commentary on Epicurus under both the topics of Virtue and Liberty (Virtue i know because I've now glanced at most of it; Liberty I am presuming.).

This is going to open up considerably more access than we've had before. The Bernier edition is MUCH easier to read than the Thomas Stanley version of Gassendi's life of Epicurus.

I'll rearrange the forum on Gassendi and set up separate locations to discuss those other two topics, because there is a lot of material I doubt most of us have seen before.

This is relevant to the discussion of pain. This comes from the Gassendi book on Happiness/Virtue/Liberty that Tau Phi linked earlier today. Doesn't cite Epicurus but seems to be a restatement of Epicurus' argument:

Happy Birthday to briefvacation! Learn more about briefvacation and say happy birthday on briefvacation's timeline: briefvacation

Thank you Tau Phi this will be extremely helpful!

As a test I decided to look for the original version of whatever was used to generate this part, which occurs on page 21 right before the beginning of the section entitled "How Epicurus and Aristippus Differ"

Checking the digital copy of the English translation it appears to me that looking for this would take us to this page, to which I would then scroll to the bottom:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/1:4.1.2?rgn=div3;view=fulltext

But I can't find anything parallel there.

In contrast, the paraphrasing of the start of the next section "How Epicurus and Aristippus Differ" does track nicely with the original, which is here:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/1:4.2.1?rgn=div3;view=fulltext

I'm not sure why that method of finding the link doesn't track, but here's one that does seem to match:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A42442.0001.001/1:4.2?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

Quote

Which can be word searched to find:

There is but one passage more that may seem to create some difficulty. It is that which Cicero ob∣jects, as being taken out of the Book wherein Epi∣curus's Ends and Designs are described; for he makes him say, That if we take away Bodily and Sen∣sual Pleasures, he knows no other good. But why may we not easily suppose that the Stoicks, who have been so bold to forge whole Books, and make Epi∣curus their Author, have maliciously put this Passage in his Book, and it being thus abused and falsified, it is come into the hands of Cicero, and Atheneus? That which makes us suspect this is, First, That Laertius, who hath left us a Catalogue of Epicurus's Books, and consequently ought to know what was in them, when he relates a passage out of his Book of The End, and others of the same, saith, That they are Fools that impose such things upon Epicurus,

for they are not to be found in the true Copies. And Hesichius assures us that they are gross Lyars, that assert any such thing of him. Secondly, Epicurus himself complains of their making him speak those words which were against his Judgment, and his Disciples would never acknowledge that passage; but they have rather always complain'd of it, and exclaim'd against it. Thirdly, These words are expresly contrary to those, which are known to be of Epicurus, Res Venereae nunquam prosunt, & multum est ni noceant, as we have already observ'd. Fourth∣ly, That Cicero amongst these Objections that he makes, cannot but propose this Question, as if Truth himself had forced him to it; What, do you believe that Epicurus was of this Perswasion, and that his Opinions were dishonest, sensual, and lewd? For my part I can't believe it; for I find, that he declares a great many excellent things, and very vertuous. Fifthly, That Cicero acknowledges, as he was a very Popular Man, that he did not tie up himself to speak according to the strict Opinions of the Philosophers, but agreeable with the Notions of the People. Verum ego non quaero nunc quae sit Phi∣losophia verissima, sed quae Oratori conjuncta maxime: Not to say that he could not bar himself from speaking well of Epicurus, as being a Man without Malice, or rather a right honest Man. Venit Epicu∣rus Vir minime malus, vel potius Vir optimus. And when he speaks of the Epicureans, he saith, that they are very good Men, that he hath never met with a sort of Persons less malicious; that the Epicureans complain of his endeavouring to speak ill of Epicurus; that whole Crowds of Epicureans came frequently to visit him, but that nevertheless he doth not despise them. Quos tamen non aspernor; These are his own words. description PAGE 58 Wherein Epicurus, and Aristippus differ. NOW that we may see exactly in what Epicu∣rus differs from Aristippus, we ne

So the paraphrase is definitely accurate and Gassendi does allege that this statement is not true to Epicurus.

I don't find Gassendi's reasoning to be persuasive nor do I recall other scholars following him on it.

So this little exercise indicates well of the paraphrase but also indicates the hazards of following Gassendi too closely.

I haven't had time to pursue this further but my current thought is that much of the usefulness of this presentation is going to turn on the extent to which we can verify that this modernization is consistent with the original text. On first look I haven't seen a link to an original Latin or French version of this text, so if someone finds something over time please be sure to post here.

Eikadistes you will find the link very interesting. I don't as yet have a fix on what he worked from and whether that original is accessible. it's clear that it's a "modern paraphrase" so that will entail hazards but there's a tremendous amount of interesting material so it will be good to get a fix on how much confidence to place in this version.

How ironic that we were also talking about this very thing today too

EMT - FAQs - bennett

OK I finished it. The article tails off into an overly-long praise of frugality and simple living, even managing to finish with some praise of walking around naked and shoeless, but the lack of a rousing ending does not diminish what a generally interesting and helpful article this is.

I'd like to know what Karl Marx's criticism was to see how it comports with mine, but as I see it on first reading the defects are pretty limited but clear:

1- Gassendi won't abandon or examine the implications of the absence of a supernatural god.

2 - Ditto as to there not being an immortal soul.

3 - He doesn't seem to appreciate fully that the mental pleasures of rest that he praises are in addition to, and not solely for the sake of, his pleasures of rest. But he actually does catch himself and goes on relatively at length to insist that Epicurean pleasures do not entail inaction, so he's not as bad on that score as some.

In general, my summary would be that this is an essential article for anyone who wants to understand Epicurus and how we got to where we are today in appraising him.

There are lots and lots of anecdotal quotes that I've never seen referenced before.

Bryan you are among the most well-read of us here. Are you familiar with this work?

Joshua is going to really enjoy all this detailed analysis of the story of Marcus Regulus around page 47.

Gassendi even explains and defends Torquatus for defending his ancestor's execution of his son for violating the rules of battle --- this article is amazingly comprehensive.

I doubt we've mentioned Maximus of Tyre at all here on this forum, or if we have we certainly haven't mentioned him much, and yet he bursts out of this article as having some of the best takes since Epicurus himself!

I am still reading it fast and furiously but this document clearly merits Gassendi's reputation as a defender and transmitter of Epicurus. But I have lots of questions including:

UPDATE: Some answers here https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/faqs/how

1. When was it written?
2. To whom was it published?
3. When was it first translated into English?
4. Is this what Jefferson and others had access to which acquainted them with Epicurean arguments?
5. Lots and lots of questions in my mind about this document, not the least of which is:
6. Why hasn't this document been one of the centerpieces of discussion of Epicurean philosophy for the last 100 years?
7. Did DeWitt have this? Is this something that the well-known commentaries about Epicurus over the last 50 years have incorporated?
8. Who is Jonathan Bennett? Where has this appeared other than this website?
   1. I note: Copyright ©2010–2015 All rights reserved. Jonathan Bennett [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . . . . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions are reported between brackets in normal-sized type. —This version is based on the French translation of the work by Gassendi’s friend François Bernier. When a passage by an ancient author is reported or quoted in French, Bernier usually gives it in Latin also; his French versions are pretty accurate, so the Latin will be passed over silently except where there is a reason to call attention to it. —For the other work by Gassendi presented on this website, see the final set of Objections to Descartes’s Meditations. First launched: March 2021

OMG -- On page 21 it seems that Gassendi is denying that Epicurus made the statement that Epicurus would not know the good but for the pleasures of taste, etc. And this PDF glosses over the entire argument with an aside which does not include the key material!

Reading through this section that deprecates active pleasures and seems to elevate an overly high estimation of Seneca makes me want to agree even more firmly with Karl Marx that Gassendi does not have all of his Epicurean philosophy correct.

Thanks Patrikios!

Further, I am not clear whether this document is a translation, a paraphrase, or some combination of the two.

At the end of today's session we discussed the possibility of taking up prolepsis as it relates to divinity, and we'll put that on the list for attention soon.

However Robert's offhand comment about the Gassendi article has led me to realize that I don't think we've discussed that article at all in the past, and on quick reading of it I can tell we need to remedy that asap.

I will post more here as I read through the article. It has defects that we all should expect - Gassendi is a Christian and he believes in an active Providential God and an eternal soul. But at least a large part of the rest of his commentary on Epicurus seems very well grounded, so we should go through it at least enough to pick out the highs and lows to assist others reading it in the future.

So let's go ahead and plan that this be the focus of the November 9 Zoom meeting.

I see on page 10 that Gassendi holds that Epicurus did *not* hasten his own death / commit suicide. Note that Gassendi is denouncing the Stoics for allowing suicide, and he is praising the religious view that only God should determine the end of our lives.

Gassendi quotes Lactantius saying that Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Zeno killed themselves "in hopes of being instantly transported to heaven."

looks to me like he is referring to Stoicism when he says "this is a cursed and abominable doctrine which drives men out of their lives."

As should be expected, the usefulness of this is limited almost immediately into the discussion by Gassendi's insistence that there is both a Providential god whom we should worship and an eternal soul that survives death.

The opening section right at the beginning about how to judge the man who is roasted in the bull of Phalaris as still happy is an excellent extrapolation of Epicurus and right on point with our discussion in the Zoom today!

Possibly the best explanation of Happiness as I personally think Epicurus would define it that i have seen.

Note: This will be the thread to post about Gassendi's commentary on Epicurus from the "Happiness" section of his 1699 Three Discourses On Happiness - Virtue -Liberty.

Almost offhandedly Robert wins the award for the day, probably the week, and possibly for the month for bringing something we've not discussed before to our attention. I highly recommend his link on Gassendi on Happiness. I suspect we're not going to agree with everything that Gassendi has to say but this is VERY interesting. Thanks Robert!

You'll probably want to start reading from page one, but i'm clipping the following just to show how it's directly on point with our discussions.