Posts by Cassius

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 PD05 currently featured here in our Texts section is that of Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:

It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honorably, and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honor, and justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life is not living prudently, honorably, and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life] cannot possibly live pleasantly." Epicurus PD05 (Bailey)

**ΟΥΚ EΣTΙΝ ΗΔEΩΣ ΖΗΝ ****AΝEΥ TΟΥ ΦΡΟΝΙΜΩΣ ****ΚAΙ ΚAΛΩΣ**

**ΚAΙ ΔΙΚAΙΩΣ ****[ΟΥΔE ΦΡΟΝΙΜΩΣ ****ΚAΙ ΚAΛΩΣ ****ΚAΙ ΔΙΚAΙΩΣ] **

**AΝEΥ TΟΥ ΗΔEΩΣ·**** ΟTῼ Δ' EN TΟΥTΩN ΜΗ ΥΠAΡΧEΙ ****ΟION**

**ΖΗΝ ΦΡΟΝΙΜΩΣ ****KAI ΚAΛΩΣ ****KAI ΔΙΚAΙΩΣ ΥΠAΡΧEΙ ****OΥΧ**

**EΣTΙ TΟΥTΟΝ ΗΔEΩΣ ΖΗΝ. **

“It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently, and honourably, and justly; nor to live prudently, and honourably, and justly, without living pleasantly. But to whom it does not happen to live prudently, honourably, and justly cannot possibly live pleasantly.” Yonge (1853)

“It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man does not live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.” Hicks (1910)

“It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.” Hicks (1925)

“It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honourably and justly, [nor again to live a life of prudence, honour, and justice] without living pleasantly. And the man who does not possess the pleasant life, is not living prudently and honourably and justly, [and the man who does not possess the virtuous life], cannot possibly live pleasantly.” Bailey (1926)

“It is impossible to live pleasurably without living according to reason, honor and justice, nor to live according to reason, honor, and justice without living pleasurably….” DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 184, 246 (1954)

“It is impossible to live pleasantly without living prudently, well, and justly, (and to live prudently, well, and justly) without living pleasantly. Even though a man live well and justly, it is not possible for him to live pleasantly if he lacks that from which stems the prudent life.” Geer (1964)

“It is impossible to live a pleasantly without living prudently, well, and justly, nor is it possible to live prudently, well, and justly without living pleasantly. The man for whom this latter condition is impossible cannot live prudently, well, or justly; he for whom the former is impossible, cannot live pleasantly.” O'Connor (1993)

“It is impossible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honourably, and justly and impossible to live prudently, honourably, and justly without living pleasantly. And whoever lacks this cannot live pleasantly.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)

“It is impossible to live pleasantly without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking (when, for instance, one is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly) it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.” Anderson (2004)

“It is impossible to lead a pleasant life without leading a life that is prudent, proper, and just. Nor is it possible to live a life that is prudent, proper, and just without living a life that is pleasant. Whoever lacks [any one of] the above [elements of a good and pleasant life] cannot have a good life.” Makridis (2005)

“It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously.” Saint-Andre (2008)

“It is impossible to live the pleasant life without also living sensibly, nobly, and justly, and conversely it is impossible to live sensibly, nobly, and justly without living pleasantly. A person who does not have a pleasant life is not living sensibly, nobly, and justly, and conversely the person who does not have these virtues cannot live pleasantly.” Strodach (2012)

“It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently, honorably, and justly; nor can one live prudently, honorably, and justly without living pleasantly. Nor is it possible for the man who does not live prudently, though he may live honorably and justly, to live pleasantly.” Mensch (2018)

“It is not possible to live pleasantly without living wisely, honorably, and justly, [nor wisely, honorably, and justly] without living pleasantly; and for anyone who does not have that, {does not live wisely, honorably, and justly, does not have,} it is not possible for him to live pleasantly.” 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.

Quote from Joshua

That's a good question that I don't have an answer to.

Yes after the first person translated Diogenes Laertius from Greek to Latin (for example) I would not necessarily expect a bunch of new writers to launch off into their own totally original versions, even though that is certainly possible if they did not have access to each others' work. It's not like they had the internet to circulate them.

It's probably worth speculating that the oldest Latin copies of Diogenes Laertius would be potential sources for "correction" to some of the difficult Greek passages. I would expect that the further you go back into the distant past that the Greek to Latin translation was made, the more it might be possible that the translators had access to other texts , or other sources of tradition about Epicurus, which now do not exist. Certainly that's a lot of speculation but it would be interesting to do such a comparison on difficult passages.

Are the Latin translations varying dramatically such as modern translations of Lucretius into English do, or do they tend to be largely latin word for latin word consistent?

Yes I hope you will point out Latin lines like that. For many of us the Latin words will always ring in a way that the Greek equivalents never will. Not saying that's good, just the way that it is.

And with the Latin too we have the possibility or probability that these translations date back to a period when the people who made them were fluent in both languages *and* had access to people who really understood the philosophy due to training from real Epicurean experts.

So there's lots of reasons in my mind to pay special attention to the Latin translations. I wish we had a good digital (text) version of DIogenes Laertius in Latin. (Do we?)

Welcome to Episode 185 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 14, entitled "The New Virtues."

Chapter XIV - The New Virtues

• Attitude Toward the Present
• Gratitude
• Gratitude to Teachers
• Gratitude to Nature
• Gratitude To Friends
• Fruits Of Gratitude

Very nice tapering ending on that one:

Episode 184 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available!

I do see we have this earlier reference, but it refers to a "Forest Fire"?

Post

Threads of Epicureanism in Art and Literature

Note; If I have Cassius' permission, I wanted a place to simply list minor treatments of Epicurean characters, motifs, and themes in works by Non-Epicureans. The purpose is a simple reference; if you find something interesting, add it to the list. If something on the list merits attention and/or discussion, start a thread and we'll talk about it! Entries should include Author, Title, Year/Period, Brief Description of Relevance.

_______________________________________________

Walter Pater; "Marius…

Joshua

November 24, 2019 at 8:11 PM

Quote from Don

It was obviously a summary.

Much like the letter to Herodotus or to Pythocles are summaries that cover a wide variety of topics but still hang together as identifiable by theme.

Or another analogy is with the atoms themselves and how in Sedley's words we have to avoid radical atomic reductionist thinking that only the atoms are "real." (Just as Epicurus seems to have opposed that line of thinking in Democritus.)

The individual sentences of the PD do deserve separate and detailed examination, but when they come together in summary they produce a "body" which has real characteristics of its own that are not identifiable when looking only with a magnifying glass -- like the forest that can't be seen if we do nothing but look at leaves.

Joshua posted a supplement on something we mentioned in this discussion, It deserves a thread of its own and is now here:

Thread

Piero de Cosimo's Lucretius - Inspired Paintings

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/3989/



Piero di Cosimo, A Hunting Scene, c. 1500

Text from the Metropolitan Museum of Art:

[…]

And so now,

in what remains, my train of argument

has now brought me to this point, where I must

set down an explanation how the world

is a mortal substance and was born,

how a collection of materials

established earth, heaven, sea, stars, sun,

and the moon’s globe, then what living creatures

sprang from earth, as well as those never born

at any time, how the human race began

to…

Joshua

July 26, 2023 at 9:34 PM

Joshua I don't think we have these featured anywhere and we probably need a thread devoted to them specifically, so I will leave a cross-reference here but set up a separate thread. Thanks!

Moved from here:

Post

RE: July 26, 2023 - Wednesday Night Zoom Agenda - Vatican Sayings 14 & 15

Joshua posted a supplement on something we mentioned in this discussion, It deserves a thread of its own and is now here:

Piero de Cosimo's Lucretius - Inspired Paintings

Cassius

July 27, 2023 at 4:54 AM

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:

VS16. No one when he sees evil deliberately chooses it, but is enticed by it as being good in comparison with a greater evil, and so pursues it. ^[7]

VS17. It is not the young man who should be thought happy, but the old man who has lived a good life. For the young man at the height of his powers is unstable, and is carried this way and that by fortune, like a headlong stream. But the old man has come to anchor in old age, as though in port, and the good things for which before he hardly hoped he has brought into safe harbor in his grateful recollections.

And Fernando has suggested that in connection with these (especially 16) we discuss the issue of the Greek view of whether there is a battle in the world/universe between "good" and "evil." See also this on the Socratic position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_intellectualism Is this something with which Epicurus would have agreed?

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.

Quote from Pacatus

And, I confess, I have never finished DeWitt.

Ok since it is confession time -- have you read Lucretius from start to finish? Just curious!

Your comments are helpful for someone tackling the book so I am glad Joshua started the thread.

Quote from Don

I *fully* agree that his methodical, synoptic approach is valuable

If I had to point to one thing, this is the key. The prime issue that I believe I see in many people who think they appreciate Epicurus is that they start and stop with the ethics as if they are self-evident and can be understood fully just by reading the letter to Menoeceus. I am convinced that anyone who takes the time to get a grasp of the "big picture" of the philosophy, including the physics and canonics, is in most cases likely to come away from the ethics with an entirely different picture than those who think that the implications of pleasure as being the guide of life are easy to grasp on first reading.

DeWitt's book goes after a synthesis of the big picture in a way that I don't think most other commentators even attempt to do, and that's its great merit. As anyone who dives into it will see, it's difficult to understand or evaluate or even trace down many of the allusions that Dewitt mentions, but someone who makes an effort to grasp the big picture is going to be far better off than those who don't even make the effort.

I think that's what we're after here at EpicureanFriends too, and if there emerges from that a distinct flavor that separates this from other approaches, it's not adherence to DeWitt's conclusions that makes the difference. It's much more a shared approach of going after everything we can find that sheds light on what Epicurus may have been thinking, and trying to place it fairly but sympathetically to reconstruct the larger picture, that makes the difference.

Quote from Joshua

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.

Poll:

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.