Great to have you Macario and let us know how we can help!

Good to hear! One thing we need to do is go back through and make a better index and mark the dates when we had some personnel changes. We made it through more than half the book with most of the original team intact, but we did lose Julie and Elayne along the way and we would love to have them back or at least supplement their female perspective. Right now it's mainly Martin and myself with the addition of Don, who I am happy to say is doing a great job.

We're nearing the end of the book now so we probably won't push too hard to add anyone else now, but I've long seen this podcast as just a start toward the future, so anyone who takes the time to listen to the existing series and would like to participate in the future I am sure we will welcome with open arms into our next project.

But rest assured - in NONE of the episodes do you have to listen to me alone! You are right to note that discussion and back and forth are key to the helpfulness of the podcast!

Yes I absolutely agree. When I was first starting I did not know Diogenes Laertius was available.

As I think about it now I do think that - ironically - the history part written by DL is the part I would focus on. When you get to the actual letters and the list of doctrines, you're again thrown into the context that Epicurus was writing to people who had access to his context and wider teachings, and these summaries can also seem overwhelming if you read them out of context.

Because DL is explaining from a generalist perspective, his own commentary part is easier to understand (though even that runs into issues such as Nikolsky explains in his "Epicurus on Pleasure" article.) As Nikolsky explains DL was often following a formula and trying to cover much the same group of topics for everyone he was writing about. Therefore the patterns in his presentation are helpful to know about - and if you don't know why he considers something to be important, it's easy to be confused.

One example is how he at the beginning of the book divides the schools by geographic regions rather than in the ways we're familiar with, so that even what appears to be straightforward can be confusing, such as labelling Epicurus part of the "Italian" school (I bet our friend Elli from Greece probably doesn't care for that )

From wikipedia:

Diogenes divides his subjects into two "schools" which he describes as the Ionian/Ionic and the Italian/Italic; the division is somewhat dubious and appears to be drawn from the lost doxography of Sotion. The biographies of the "Ionian school" begin with Anaximander and end with Clitomachus, Theophrastus and Chrysippus; the "Italian" begins with Pythagoras and ends with Epicurus. The Socratic school, with its various branches, is classed with the Ionic, while the Eleatics and Pyrrhonists are treated under the Italic.

BUT ALSO FROM THE SAME ARTICLE:

He also frequently focuses on trivial or insignificant details of his subjects' lives while ignoring important details of their philosophical teachings and he sometimes fails to distinguish between earlier and later teachings of specific philosophical schools. However, unlike many other ancient secondary sources, Diogenes Laërtius generally reports philosophical teachings without attempting to reinterpret or expand on them, which means his accounts are often closer to the primary sources.

(And of course that is open to dispute as to what is trivial vs what is important, and it presumes that we are in a position to judge his accuracy better than he was, which is very debatable given that he presumably had direct access to the materials and we don't)

The great majority of my life I kept trying and trying and trying to read Lucretius and never made any headway, so I never suggest that anyone start with it at the beginning. Much better is to get a fundamental grounding in the philosophy like DeWitt gives, and then you are equipped to understand what you are hearing.

I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I am sure some people can pick up Lucretius and immediately get into it. For me it was largely gibberish until I heard Charlton Griffin read it to me, and then (if I recall - sort of simultaneously) read DeWitt.

Having someone read it who knows where to pause, to stop, to emphasize, and how to change tone with the subject -- that makes SO much difference!

And then on top of the reading, being given a framework for putting it all together - which is what DeWitt does -- for me that was the key.

Now that I have finally slogged through it I think I see that the best thing - generally - to recommend is to start reading DeWitt first, and then pick up Lucretius after you've at least read chapter one of Dewitt, and preferably the whole thing.

Ha it would be great to hear YOUR review of the podcast too!

Also, from the biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius:

Quote

Epicurus differs from the Cyrenaics about pleasure. For they do not admit static pleasure, but only that which consists in motion. But Epicurus admits both kinds both in the soul and in the body, as he says in the work on Choice and Avoidance and in the book on The Ends of Life and in the first book On Lives and in the letter to his friends in Mytilene. Similarly, Diogenes in the 17th book of Miscellanies and Metrodorus in the Timocrates speak thus: ‘Pleasure can be thought of both as consisting in motion and as static.’ And Epicurus in the work on Choice speaks as follows: ‘Freedom from trouble in the mind and from pain in the body are static pleasures, but Joy and exultation are considered as active pleasures involving motion. '

The most succinct and authoritative analysis I have seen of this is the Boris Nikolsky article "Epicurus on Pleasure"

Also:

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, III.18.41: Why do we shirk the question, Epicurus, and why do we not confess that we mean by pleasure what you habitually say it is, when you have thrown off all sense of shame? Are these your words or not? For instance, in that book which embraces all your teaching (for I shall now play the part of translator, so no one may think I am inventing) you say this: “For my part I find no meaning which I can attach to what is termed good, if I take away from it the pleasures obtained by taste, if I take away the pleasures which come from listening to music, if I take away too the charm derived by the eyes from the sight of figures in movement, or other pleasures by any of the senses in the whole man. Nor indeed is it possible to make such a statement as this – that it is joy of the mind which is alone to be reckoned as a good; for I understand by a mind in a state of joy, that it is so, when it has the hope of all the pleasures I have named – that is to say the hope that nature will be free to enjoy them without any blending of pain.” And this much he says in the words I have quoted, so that anyone you please may realize what Epicurus understands by pleasure.

It's been a while but I recall too that being a useful episode. You'll find lots of praise here on the forum for David Sedley but more mixed reviews for James Warren, because it's usually through Warren or several others of the same disposition (edit- Tim O'Keefe comes to mind too) that perspectives like this following one get emphasized:

Quote from Quote

At the centre of his philosophy is the idea that the goal of human life is pleasure, by which he meant not luxury but the avoidance of pain

...which I find to be a misleading and distracting slant of which I do not think Epicurus would approve.

While pleasure is certainly a key issue with Epicurus, In my opinion the issue being referenced about the nature of pleasure is much too subtle to be conveyed in this way to beginning readers. The distinction raised is not "at the center" of the philosophy, and Epicurus did not even campaign against "luxury" in itself, any more than he campaigned for frugality. That's because what he indeed campaigned for is not properly defined as "absence" but instead the "presence" of the feeling of pleasure in a way that everyone can immediately grasp through feeling rather than intellectually.

In fact this issue is fascinating and in my view probably describes how the school fractured in the centuries after Epicurus, as later self-styled Epicureans deviated from Epicurus himself, who saw the issue as critical. This is well captured here by Torquatus from On Ends, who himself (through Cicero, probably) seems to have embraced the "heresy":

(This first part is likely absolutely correct):

"Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.) Strip mankind of sensation, and nothing remains; it follows that Nature herself is the judge of that which is in accordance with or contrary to nature.

What does Nature perceive or what does she judge of, beside pleasure and pain, to guide her actions of desire and of avoidance?"

(Now here comes the heresy:)

"Some members of our school however would refine upon this doctrine; these say that it is not enough for the judgment of good and evil to rest with the senses; the facts that pleasure is in and for itself desirable and pain in and for itself to be avoided can also be grasped by the intellect and the reason. Accordingly they declare that the perception that the one is to be sought after and the other avoided is a notion naturally implanted in our minds. Others again, with whom I agree, observing that a great many philosophers do advance a vast array of reasons to prove why pleasure should not be counted as a good nor pain as an evil, consider that we had better not be too confident of our case; in their view it requires elaborate and reasoned argument, and abstruse theoretical discussion of the nature of pleasure and pain."

To conclude, whether you agree with what I am assertion at this stage or not, it will pay to keep alert to the implications of this issue and to be aware that not everything you read about Epicurus, even by those who appear to be in Epicurus' side, can be accepted at face value.

You are very welcome, and I do hope you will continue to make comments on each episode as they occur to you - that's why we have a thread for each episode and it will really build value for everyone if we extend the discussion on each section of the text.

Paquin your comments remind me to mention that if you have not come across the Charleston Griffin audio recording of Lucretius you might want to look that up. For me, finding the Griffin version and hearing it read to me by someone who seemed to be almost Lucretius himself was a real breakthrough - if I recall correctly, that came before I found the DeWitt book. I doubt I would have taken the time to read DeWitt had I not finally made it past the first few pages of Lucretius, and I only did that because of Griffins reading.

Griffin uses the Rolfe Humohries translation, which we actually don't talk about that much here (we stick with the public domain versions for our main readings). Like all the poetic translations Humphries takes some liberties with the text rather than being strictly literal, but I think his take on the material is generally very sound, all the way down to translating the title as "The Way Things Are."

Welcome Macario !

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Welcome to the forum!

Seeing lots of references to this La Rouchefocauld person with whom I am also not familiar:

Another classic reference shared by Epicureans and Augustinians is the image of drugs, which are beneficial or harmful depending on the dose: ‘Les passions sont comme les herbes empoisonne´es. Les doses seules en font des poisons ou des antidotes.’10 This passage is an allusion to a famous maxim by La Rochefoucauld: ‘Les vices entrent dans la composition des vertus comme les poisons entrent dans la composition des reme`des.’11 La Rochefoucauld is himself alluding to a passage from The City of God: ‘Even poisons, which are disastrous when improperly used, are turned into wholesome medicines by their proper application.’12 I have argued elsewhere, following Lafond,13 that there is such a convergence of language as well as of polemical aims between authors like La Rochefoucauld, Bayle and Mandeville that it is often difficult to tell whether a particular argument is Epicurean or Augustinian: so much so

Helvetius as an Epicurean political theorist

http://www.columbia.edu/~pf3/helvetius.pdf.

"There is no explicit mention of Epicureanism in De l’esprit, or De l’homme, even though De l’esprit has an epigraph from Lucretius. Helve´tius’ posthumous Notes, however, mention Lucretius and Epicurus many times. For instance, Epicurus is praised as ‘le seul des anciens qui humanisa la vertu philosophique’.7"

It's going to take some digging to really get a fix. I found the Essays on the Mind in English but a word search indicates no mention of Epicurus or Lucretius.

I see that Helvetius is described as following Locke (and this Aristotle) on a radical "blank slate" position. That would likely indicate a deviation from Epicurus, but I would trust summaries until we see what he wrote himself.

I am going to tag Charles on this one - old French philosophy is his department!

And we are glad to have you! If your reading has not yet included the DeWitt book, I will risk being johnny-one-note and suggest you get it -. Not because I am slavishly devoted to DeWitt, but because I honestly think it is the best way for an average 21st century reader to immerse themselves in the full sweep of the philosophy on a generalist level. At the very least, don't let your interest wane until you give that book a chance :-). It made all the difference for me.

Welcome Jo.

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Welcome to the forum!

Note: I just happened to be looking at the users online list and I noticed a name that I didn't recognize and don't think we welcomed back in May. So please excuse me Will1776 for not acknowledging you earlier. So in the spirit of better late than never:

Welcome Will1776

This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.

Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.

All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.

One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.

In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.

1. "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Norman DeWitt
2. "A Few Days In Athens" by Frances Wright
3. The Biography of Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius. This includes the surviving letters of Epicurus, including those to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus.
4. "On The Nature of Things" - by Lucretius (a poetic abridgement of Epicurus' "On Nature"
5. "Epicurus on Pleasure" - By Boris Nikolsky
6. The chapters on Epicurus in Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks On Pleasure."
7. Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section
8. Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section
9. The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation
10. A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright
11. Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus
12. Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.

And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.

Welcome to the forum!

We received this post today at Facebook:

Quote

Has somebody here studied Helvetius?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Adrien_Helv%C3%A9tius

I noticed that nobody mentions him here. I haven't studied or read any of his work, but based on the discription in Wikipedia, there are clear similarities.

I responded:

That's a great question and not someone I am familiar with, but I see this at wikipedia - "In 1758 Helvétius published his philosophical magnum opus, a work called De l'esprit (On Mind), which claimed that all human faculties are attributes of mere physical sensation, and that the only real motive is self-interest, therefore there is no good and evil, only competitive pleasures. "

I see also that he was associated with Frederick the Great, who was a known fan of Lucretius.

Thanks very much for this post and we'll see what others come up with. He definitely looks work looking into!

So as we have time, let's look into him!

Here is a paper which appears very relevant to this topic, because it apparently focuses on how Epicurus' philosophy does not lead to universalization as does that of Kant. I have not had a chance yet to read beyond the first page, and I expect to disagree at least in part with the writer's summary in which he says that Epicurus' system propounds happiness for all." (I agree that the goal of all is the happiness or themselves and their friends, but if the author asserts that each individual has the happiness of everyone living in the world as his/her goal, then I will say he is mistaken. Yes the practical and actual happiness of "others" is relevant to ours, but I would strongly dispute that "others" means "everyone" for a variety of practical and theoretical reasons. I would assert there is a scale of relevance in which the happiness of those closest and dearest to us is most important, and the further away from us and our acquaintance, the less generally relevant that person's happiness will be of concern to us.)

But let's read the article and see if it sheds any light on our issue.

Tonight in our Twentieth discussions Martin and I talked briefly about the historical character of Memmius. We couldn't remember what details there were outside of Lucretius in regard to Memmius, but I thought there was a something in Cicero and it appears there was - something about Memmius buying Cicero's house and wanting to raze it to build something new, to which the local Epicureans objected. Here's some of that material:

Here is the Wikipedia reference:

Gaius Memmius (poet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaius Memmius (died circa 49 BC, incorrectly called Gemellus, "The Twin") was a Roman orator and poet. He was Tribune of the Plebs (66 BC), possibly a patron of Lucretius, and an acquaintance of Catullus and Helvius Cinna. His sister Memmia was married to Gaius Scribonius Curio.^[1]

While at first a strong supporter of Pompey, he later quarrelled with him and went over to Caesar, whom he had previously attacked. In 54, as candidate for the consulship, he lost Caesar's support by revealing a scandalous transaction in which he and his fellow candidate had been implicated.^[2]

Being subsequently condemned for illegal practices at the election, he withdrew to Athens, and afterwards, to Mytilene. He died about the year 49. He is remembered chiefly because it was to him that Lucretius addressed the De rerum natura, perhaps with the idea of making him a convert to the doctrines of Epicurus. It appears from Cicero^[3] that he possessed an estate on which were the ruins of Epicurus' house, and that he had determined to build on the site a house for himself. According to Ovid^[4] he was the author of erotic poems. He possessed considerable oratorical abilities, but his contempt for Latin letters and preference for Greek models impaired his efficiency as an advocate.^[5]

Gaius Memmius was married to Fausta Cornelia, the daughter of Lucius Cornelius Sulla.^[6] They had at least one son, Gaius Memmius, suffect consul in 34 BC.

1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica:

MEMMIUS, GAIUS (incorrectly called Gemellus, “The Twin”), Roman orator and poet, tribune of the people (66 B.C.), friend of Lucretius and Catullus. At first a strong supporter of Pompey, he quarrelled with him, and went over to Caesar, whom he had previously attacked. In 54, as candidate for the consulship, he lost Caesar’s support by revealing a scandalous transaction in which he and his fellow candidate had been implicated (Cic. Ad Att. iv. 15-18). Being subsequently condemned for illegal practices at the election, he withdrew to Athens, and afterwards to Mytilene. He died about the year 49. He is remembered chiefly because it was to him that Lucretius addressed the De rerum natura, perhaps with the idea of making him a convert to the doctrines of Epicurus. It appears from Cicero (Ad Fam. xiii. 1) that he possessed an estate on which were the ruins of Epicurus' house, and that he had determined to build on the site a house for himself. According to Ovid (Trist. ii. 433) he was the author of erotic poems. He possessed considerable oratorical abilities, but his contempt for Latin letters and preference for Greek models impaired his efficiency as an advocate (Cic. Brut. 70). Another Gaius Memmius, tribune in 111 B.C., attacked the aristocrats on a charge of corrupt relations with Jugurtha. Memmius subsequently stood for the consulship in 99, but was slain in a riot stirred up by his riyal the praetor Glaucia. Sallust describes him apjan orator, but Cicero (De oratore, ii. 59, 70) had a poor opinion of him.

For Don, the Latin text! https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/comme…oadfam13.1.html