Posts by Cassius

Welcome to Episode 187 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. We are now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."

This week we continue our discussion of Chapter 15, entitled "Extension, Submergence, and Revival."

Chapter XV - Extension, Submergence, And Revival

• The School In Alexandria
• Epicureanism In Italy
• Epicureanism In Rome
• The Reaction Against Epicureanism
• Epicureanism In The Early Empire
• Plutarch, Anti-Epicurean
• Epicureanism In The Graeco-Roman World
• Third And Fourth Centuries
• Epicureanism In the Middle Ages
• The Epicurean Revival

Editing of this week's podcast has encountered some delays I was unable to avoid, but with any luck will be out tomorrow before we record our next episode.

Thank you Don! That's a new resource to me.

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

That link to Aristotle's politics doesn't seem to work but might be useful for comparison. At the moment it would seem to me that something generic ("kingly office") is likely to fit best in the overall context of the discussion, if we presume that 6 and 7 are both seeming to say that safety and security are so valuable that anything that does in fact **in a particular set of circumstances** produce safety and security, at least for a time, has a sanction of nature. Seems to me that Bailey's sentiment goes too far in thinking that Epicurus could not have said that. In the overall scheme of things some degree of power for protection, being desirable, would qualify at least at times as being a natural good - even at times the level of power held by a king - which can vary tremendously from the King of a small island to the King of Persia. "I'd see 'king' as potentially a very generic term and not necessarily invoking the idea that everyone resents and wants to kill the king.

Don if you get a chance to supplement your post here that would also be helpful:

Post

RE: PD06 - Best Translation of PDO6 to Feature at EpicureanFriends.com

Greek text: Usener edition

6

ἕνεκα τοῦ θαρρεῖν ἐξ ανθρώπων ἦν κατὰ φύσιν ἀρχῆς καὶ βασιλείας ἀγαθόν, ἐξ ὧν ἄν ποτε τοῦτο οἷός τʼᾖ παρασκευάζεσθαι.

• Ἕνεκα
  • ἕνεκᾰ
    • (with genitive)
      • on account of, for the sake of, because of
      • with regard to, as far as regards, as for
• τοῦ θαρρεῖν
  • θαρσέω to be of good courage, take courage; confidence, audacity
    • θαρρεῖν present active infinitive
    • C. inf. to believe confidently that, Soph.; also, to make bold or venture to do, Xen.
• ἀρχῆς καὶ βασιλείας

…

Don

August 8, 2023 at 12:26 PM

I have never had much fix on Usener because I have never been able to read any commentary by him that may exist, but I know I don't have a good feel about Bailey's discretion. But in this case we can't pin this on Bailey, correct? I wish we had more access to Usener's general thoughts on Epicurus to see if (or how) he made similar "this can't be right" comments.

Thank you again Don for all you do.

Quote from Nate

It's text added by Arrighetti denoted with the <brackets>. I believe I have that version listed in my KD compilation.

And so Nate in this situation the text really is there, and is just read OUT by most, but does exist in the manuscript?

As a general comment - that kind of editorial thinking can easily lead to problems. Is he really so sure what was in Epicurus' mind when the text says something else? Sounds like this is one of those situations where Dewitt prefers "less emended texts."

Add that this editorial thinking comes from Bailey and I am even more suspicious of it.

Yep that's the one, and we're still batting it back and forth! Thanks Don!

It's always interesting and a little scary to read what was written three years ago by the same people who may have very different thoughts now!

Quote from Don

I don't see anything about kingship or politics in the Greek. Am I missing something

I seem to remember that we have been down this road before and Elli had some commentary but we will have to look back.....

Don your breakdown by word reminds me of the "nodictionaries.com" format for Latin. I don't suppose you know of an equivalent for Greek?

Which Translation of PD06 Should be Featured At EpicureanFriends.com?

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 PD06 currently featured here in our Texts section is not that of our normal Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:, but this time from Eugene O'Connor:

PD06. Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good. [2]

We have access (thanks to Nate's full collection) to many different variations including:

**EΝEΚA TΟΥ ΘAΡΡEΙΝ ****EΞ AΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ****ΗΝ ΚATA ΦΥΣΙΝ**

**[AΡΧΗΣ ****ΚAΙ ΒAΣΙΛEΙAΣ]***** AΓAΘΟΝ ****EΞ ΩΝ AΝ ΠΟTE TΟΥTΟ**

**ΟΙΟΣ T' ῌ ΠAΡAΣΚEΥAΖEΣΘAΙ. **

***Arrighetti**

“For the sake of feeling confidence and security with regard to men, anything in nature is good, if it provides the means to achieve this.” Yonge (1853)

“As far as concerns protection from other men, any means of procuring this was a natural good.” Hicks (1910)

“In order to obtain security from other men any means whatsoever of procuring this was a natural good.” Hicks (1925)

“To secure protection from men anything is a natural good, by which you may be able to attain this end.” Bailey (1926)

“As for the assurance of safety from the attacks of men, by virtue of the nature of political dominion and kingly power this is a good thing, no matter by whose aid one is able to procure it." DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 79 (1954)

“Political rule and kingly power being what they are, it is a good thing to feel secure in human relations no matter through whose agency one is able to attain this." DeWitt, St. Paul and Epicurus 187 (1954)

“Any device whatever by which one frees himself from the fear of others is a natural good.” Geer (1964)

“Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.” O'Connor (1993)

“The natural good of public office and kingship is for the sake of getting confidence from [other] men, [at least] from those from whom one is able to provide this.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“That natural benefit of kingship and high office is (and only is) the degree to which they provide security from other men.” Anderson (2004)

“This [human ability to lead a good life] originally became possible by nature and for the sake of imparting courage in human beings [who were then living in a pre-social condition.] And this is the natural origin and principle on which all authority—be it even kingship—is based. And it is from the same [natural propensities] that a human being is able also to arrange a good and pleasant life.” Makridis (2005)

“It is a natural benefit of leadership and kingship to take courage from other men (or at least from the sort of men who can give one courage).” Saint-Andre (2008)

“Any means by which it is possible to procure freedom from fearing other men is a natural good.” Strodach (2012)

“In order that men might not fear one another, there was a natural benefit to be had from government and kingship, provided that they are able to bring about this result.” Mensch (2018)

“There was some natural good in leadership and kingship for the purpose of establishing mutual confidence among people, any time someone is thereby able to do so.” White (2021)

New Greek Version: “In order to obtain security from other people, there was (always) the natural good of sovereignty and kingship, through which (someone) once could have accomplished this.”

---

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.

NOTE: If you are a new member who has not previously attended a meeting, click here for background information on how to attend and obtain the Zoom link.

Here are our topics for this week:

1 - The Vatican Sayings:

VS18. Remove sight, association, and contact, and the passion of love is at an end.

VS19. Forgetting the good that has been, he has become old this very day.

2 - Our Special Topic - If We Have Time

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.

Great find. Lots of good stuff there, including info about the parallel between Epicurean and Sadduccee views, with this writer extending the Epicurean parallel to Cain in Cain vs Abel:

Quote

Just as Josephus described Sadducees and Pharisees in terms of their opposing points of view on theodicy, so we find Cain and Abel distinguished point-for-point on the same topic.

Some scholars have attempted to identify Cain and Abel with various historical groups. Sheldon Isenberg, for example, argued that the midrash on Gen 4:8 represents a Sadducee-Pharisee controversy.⁽⁴⁵⁾ He based his argument on the stereotype which we have already noted that Sadducees deny the resurrection. Henry Fischel, however, argued that the midrash is Epicurean, citing in support numerous passages from the Rabbis which parallel in form and content the anti-theodicy sayings attributed to Epicureans.⁽⁴⁶⁾

Although the question of provenance, whether Sadducean or Epicurean, may be impossible to solve, that should not deter us from noting the persistence and pervasiveness of the topos either against or for theodicy. It matters little whether Epicureans = Sadducees = Cain or Stoics = Pharisees = Abel, for the issue is that God was perceived in terms of a stereotype, the topos about theodicy. We have ample evidence that on the topic of theodicy, there were stereotypical responses and that certain well known parties in the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds were readily perceived in terms of their stand on theodicy. Stereotypes, then, describe both doctrine discussed and those who discussed it.

I. Summary and Conclusion

In regard to the hypotheses stated earlier in this study, we may now conclude:

1. Among the many theological elements in the Areopagus Speech, the chief issues which Luke highlights are providence and theodicy.

2. Luke presents characters and issues in contrasting pairs and by parallel examples. The Epicureans and Stoics of Acts 17 are balanced by the Sadducees and Pharisees of Acts 23.

3. Like other ancient writers, Luke portrays groups and parties in terms of stereotypes.

4. Luke knows of and presents a stereotypical description of theodicy, a topos on it (Acts 17; 23; 24).

5. Luke is not ignorant of the stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics,⁽⁴⁷⁾ and has told the story in Acts 17:16-34 in such as way that these two parties react in contrasting fashion to Paul, both at the beginning of the speech and at its end. The stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics is based on contrasting assessments of theodicy.

From this analysis, we conclude that Luke has cast the characters and the issues in such as way as to argue that Christian theology belongs to the common, acceptable doctrine of God held by good and reasonable people, whether Hellenistic Stoics or Jewish Pharisees. In regard to Paul's speech in Acts 17, we noticed that belief in providence and theodicy, while congenial to the Stoics, is not exclusive to them, but is a common, orthodox doctrine. Paul's speech in Acts 24, moreover, argues that his Christian belief in God is also vintage Jewish theology, although the Sadducees, guardians of Israel's shrine, would not agree. At least Luke makes this claim to orthodoxy through Paul.

Luke, then, presents certain aspects of Christian thought, i.e. theodicy, is terms acceptable to Greek and Jew alike; he would argue that this doctrine is orthodox, common and traditional. And so, the charge in Acts 17:6 that Paul and the Christians "turn the world upside down" must be false, for their doctrine is quite in conformity with what all intelligent, good people think.⁽⁴⁸⁾ In fact, to be mocked by the Epicureans and then to be dismissed by the Sadducees plays into this strategy. If mockery and dismissal come from groups which can be shown to be wrong, that in itself is further confirmation of the correctness of what they mock and dismiss. Comparably, to find common ground and perhaps endorsement from groups generally considered the guardians of the basic tradition (Stoics, Pharisees) can only shed that approbation to the new group of Christians as well. At least they are not mavericks.

Display More

Fernando's Contribution -- 2 Timothy 3:4 -- LOVER OF PLEASURE -- PHILODONOS

Kalosyni should have a good presentation for those who can attend, so we look forward to seeing those who are available. We will also talk about whether tonight will substitute for our Wednesday meeting this week -- probably depends on who is available!

Thank you for commenting, Waterholic!

Good idea to discuss this. I scanned through our organizational aspects (forum list, table of discussions, etc) without finding an obvious place for this. To a large extent everything here is "Epicurean Education" but we probably need a forum dedicated specifically to that topic where we can pull some of the obvious resources like "reading list" etc into the same place. Anyone want to suggest a better name than "Epicurean Education"? Does it need a third word like "methods" or "paths" or "competencies"?