Posts by Cassius

I am in pretty close touch with most of our regular posters here, but I'd like to be sure to regularly ask the lurkers and non-regulars if they have any thoughts, suggestions, criticisms, or other commentary about the state of the forum, projects we ought to undertake, how we can make it more useful, etc.

Feedback is always good, even when it's criticism, so let us know if there's anything on your mind about how EpicureanFriends.com can be more useful to you.

I think we've come a long way since we opened in 2015, but there's a lot more we can do, so please let us know your thoughts.

This is an experience that in my view emphasizes the importance of educating children early about the way things are in life - constantly moving - and that things never really come to rest for us until we die. Religions and idealistic philosophies teach the opposite - that there are permanent ideas and permanent pal-gods who will be with us not only for our whole lives but forever in eternity. One natural effect of that is to think that things will always be the same, and that in fact we'll all spend eternity united with our loved ones in heaven, so really who cares how we spend our time right now?

If people from a young age were taught the way things are, it would be a lot easier to keep focus on how important each day is, and how we have to expect change and learn to be comfortable with it.

I know I feel this way (about losing the past) regularly and it seems to just get more acute as we get older.

Episode 74 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode, we will talk briefly about eclipses, and then move to discussion of the earliest phases of life on earth. As always, please let us know any comments or questions in the thread below:

I knew I was surrounded with Zen Buddhists! All we had to do was mention a "zafu" and they come flooding out of the woodwork!

I was hoping Godfrey would choose to illustate it by sending us a picture of him sitting on one!

A zafu?

Hello and welcome to the forum Matteng !

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!

To comment on your last question first, I definitely think the answer is yes, with your illustration of how much fun it is to dive off the high board, once you have overcome your fear, being a very good example.

Quote from Godfrey

Firstly, it seems that the “absence of pain” proponents are ignoring the first desire in this quote and focusing on the last two. I can see how this might lead one to asceticism. But the desires that are necessary for happiness are what Epicurus places in the position of importance in this quote. Personally, I had either missed this or forgotten it and so was quite pleasantly surprised to read it!

As to that part, the difficulty seems to be not so much that the AOP position ignores the prominent position of "happiness" in that section, but rather they look to other nearby sections of the same letter which can be read to equate happiness with absence of pain. For example, the very next sentence: "The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear."

Epicurus at the beginning has said "We must then meditate on the things that make our happiness, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it." So when he again talks about refer all choice and avoidance.... and aim of the life .... and to obtain this end we always act it is easy to see how they can do that.

So in the end I don't think it is possible to win an argument against AOP by isolating one section of text and saying it's clear, because the AOP position can do exactly the same thing in a way that ends up defining pleasure and happiness as absence of pain and implicitly asceticism.

What the AOP can't do is satisfactorily account for a common-sense definition of pleasure and happiness that includes joy and delight as part of the end -- and those are the kind of 'active pleasures that both the "common person" and Epicurus himself recognizes as the ordinary definition of pleasure. The AOP position tries to say that the joy and delight may be necessary for complete absence of pain (resting / katastematic pleasure) but most common sense people are going to find that unpersuasive.

Reason and logic can be used to analyze Epicurus' position in a way that is consistent with recognizing pleasure and happiness as including the active pleasures in the way ordinary people do, or reason and logic can be used to turn the system into super-asceticism. I think people have commented earlier that the issue becomes kind of a "Rorschach test" - which position they end up taking shows more about themselves than it shows about Epicurus.

It would really be mysterious and strange for Epicurus to have used this kind of phraseology without a good reason, and that's why I don't think it's possible to persuasively analyze this question without looking for that reason. The best explanation I can find is that the reason stems from Plato's logic-based argument that pleasure has no limit, and that happiness or pleasure cannot therefore qualify as the ultimate goal of life or greatest good, since they allegedly can always be made better. I don't think it's sufficient to dismiss that as an argument based on abstract logic and say that it fails for the reason alone.

There's good reason in the texts, including this letter, to conclude that Epicurus was working with a sound and common sense definition of pleasure and happiness, but he does seemingly depart from that at times, so we need an overall theory of what he is doing and why he actually has not. If we just line up the "pleasure" passages against the "absence of pain" passages we're still left with resolving why they can so easily be made to appear to be in conflict, and why redefining "pleasure" as "absence of pain" is not the answer to figuring out the puzzle.

I hope I did that without too much of a rant!

Quote from JJElbert

I love Rolfe Humphries' translation, in spite of his liberties, and Charlton Griffin has become the voice of Lucretius in English for me. His delivery has a sticking power and many of the lines from that audiobook occur to me as I go through life.

I feel exactly the same way. At times I think that Rolfe Humphries' choice of "The Way Things Are" for the title, and some of Griffin's delivery, are a little too overbearing for the material, but as the years go by I do think "The Way Things Are" reflects an accurate tone. Never condescending and always compassionate, but firmly and forcefully explaining that no matter how much we might wish things to be different, this indeed is the way things are.

Thanks for the feedback Godfrey. good to know that is what you do - and that is what I think many people will do. I know new users will hit the home page though, so i try to keep it a decent compromise for new and old posters.

Due to some recent exposure to the "Discourse" forum software, it finally occurred to me after years of running this website that we didn't have a readily-visible "Post Now" button on the front page. I have now added something right beneath the "Announcements" that should work to get people right into the place to post a new thread in "General Discussion.' If anyone has any comments or suggestions about that function, please let me know.

As for me, I have to confess that I have a personal prejudice against the Leonard poetry version. That's the free version that is frequently found on the internet, and that's the version I tried to read for literally decades, always giving up. I am sure the majority of that blame is on me, and maybe if I looked at it today I would feel differently, but at least for beginners I would not recommend Leonard. If someone wants "poetry" I would send them to Rolfe Humphries' "the way things are. If someone wants the current standard, I would send them to Smith's Hackett edition. If someone wants public domain prose, I would send them to Bailey or Munro or 1743 or Watson. I have the feeling that there are probably many others like me whose first exposure to Lucretius is Leonard, and I think that unless someone is already very familiar with the subject matter, the poetry form makes it much harder to get a good grip on the point of it all.

I don't think I am familiar at all with Latham.

Other opinions?

Thank you for reminding me of the Watson translation! I have had it for a long while but for some reason it doesn't seem to be mentioned as often as Munro or Bailey by commentators. I seem to remember something turned me away from it myself (maybe some religious lecturing in the notes?) but I cannot remember. It certainly does have useful notes and seems worthy of checking against the others whenever looking into any particular passage. Interesting that I do not see him mention Munro in his history of translations - maybe I am overlooking that too. I do agree with his comment that Creech takes far too many liberties - enough to make his version unusable in my eyes.

Tonight I finally finished correlating my online copy of Bailey to the paragraph / line number divisions in the Loeb edition. That means that for the remainder of the Lucretius podcast I should be able to be a little more precise in referring to "line numbers."

But the reason I make this post is directed at Joshua: I still don't have a feel for whose translation I really think is "most literal."

I get the idea in comparing the Smith to Bailey that there's a lot of "paraphrasing" going on and that we might have a lot of simply looking at Bailey and using a different wording. I don't have a feel yet for whether the word choice of Bailey or Smith is really closer to the Latin word form and word order, which is what I would prefer. I have always suspected that Monro was the closest of all, but I am not sure there either. And the 1743 edition significantly predates Monro, but despite its age in many instances reads (to me) more smoothly than Munro, which I find counterintuitive.

So Joshua as you make progress in your interlinear edition, after a couple of pages it might be very helpful to try to gauge which public domain translation is most helpful to you in aligning the latin with an understandable English word. To me that would be one of the benefits of at least starting on the interlinear - it might give us once and for all a basis to classify the different translations as to which is "closest" to the Latin.

Episode 73 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode, we will read approximately Latin line 614 - 704 of Book V, and we will talk more about the sun, the moon, and associated astronomical issues. As always, please let us know any comments or questions in the thread below:

Welcome to Episode Seventy-Four of Lucretius Today.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please check back to Episode One for a discussion of our goals and our ground rules. If you have any questions about those, please be sure to contact us at EpicureanFriends.com for more information.

In this Episode 74 we will read approximately Latin line 705-820 of Book Five. We will talk about the initial phases of life on earth. Now let's join Don reading today's text.

Latin Lines 705 - 820

Munro Notes-

705-750: the moon may borrow its light from the sun, increasing as it recedes from him, until, when directly opposite, it shews its full face; and again diminishing as it again approaches: in this case the moon must be a round ball moving below the sun: it may shine too with its own light, and its partial or total concealment may be caused by an opaque body invisible to us getting between it and us in various ways: or thirdly it may be a ball half bright half opaque which presents to us all these various phases, as the Chaldees assert in opposition to the first hypothesis, that of the astronomers : or lastly a new moon may be born daily, each successively presenting a different phase; thus many things, for instance the four seasons, come round in regular order.

751-770: solar eclipses may be caused by the moon intercepting the rays, as the astronomers say; but some opaque and invisible body may just as well be the cause; or the sun may lose for the time his own light in passing through spots inimical to it: lunar eclipses may simi- larly be explained, mutatis mutandis ; thus in the first case it will be the earth which keeps from it the sun's rays.—The three theories here offered to explain the eclipses of the sun awl moon are quite parallel to those given just above to skew how the moon may receive her light.

771-782: having thus explained how all that goes on above in the heaven may take place, the movements of sun and moon and their eclipses, I now come back to the infancy of the world and the earth and proceed to shew what then came to pass.

783-820: first herbage sprang up, then trees, then living things; in the newness of creation the earth produced the larger creatures, birds first, even as now it produces spontaneously worms and the like; then lastly man, whom it fed from its pores with a moisture resembling milk: in the perpetual spring of the new world the children needed nothing more than what the earth thus supplied.

Browne 1743

Lastly, why may not a moon be created new every day, and be distinguished by regular phases, and certain forms of light? And this new orb die, and be succeeded the next day by another, that should supply its place in the same part and quarter of the heavens? It is difficult to assign a reason, and to prove the contrary, especially since we observe so many things are formed, and succeed one another in regular order. And first the spring begins, and Venus enters, with her harbingers (the winged Zephyrs) marching by her side; then mother Flora spreads the way before with flowers of richest dye, and fills the air with sweetest odors; and next advance the scorching summer, and her companion the dusty harvest, and the Etesian Blasts of Northern Winds; and then comes autumn, and jolly Bacchus steps along; now follow ruffling storms and boisterous winds, the roaring southeast, and the sultry south full fraught with thunder; at last the cold brings on the snow and chilling frost, and then creeps winter, all benumbed, and chattering with his teeth. It is the less wonder then that the moon should be formed anew at certain times, and at fixed seasons again expire, since so many things are so regularly produced, and succeed one another.

The eclipses of the sun and moon may proceed, you may suppose, from many causes, for why should the moon deprive the earth of the sun's light, and as she shines above oppose her body to him, and stop his burning rays by thrusting her dark orb between; and not another body, wholly dark, be thought to interpose at such a time, and produce the same effect? And why may not the sun grow faint, and deaden his light at a certain time, and renew it again when he has passed certain regions of the air that are enemies to his beams, and destroy and extinguish his fires? And then again, while the moon in her monthly course passes by the rigid shadow of the earth, which is of a conic figure, why should the earth rob the moon of light, and being above the sun, hold his rays shut in; and why many not another body at the same time move below the moon, and pass above the body of the sun, that may intercept his rays and stop his spreading fires? And yet, if the moon be allowed to shine with her own beams, why may not her brightness decay in certain parts of the world, as she passes through places that are enemies to her light?

And now, since I have explained from what causes proceed the motions of all the celestial bodies, and given you a rule to know what force, what power, dries on the various courses of the sun, and the wanderings of the moon; in what manner their several rays are intercepted, and the earth is covered over with surprising darkness, as if they winked, and how again they spread open their beams, and visit the world with shining light: I now return to the new-formed earth, and her tender soil, to find what kind of beings she first raised into the light, what offspring she first ventured to commit to the faithless winds.

And first the Earth produced the herbs, and spread a gay verdure over all the hills, and the gaudy fields shone all around with green; and nature gave the several trees a power to raise themselves, and grow up with their spreading branches into the air. As feathers, and hair, and bristles, were at first produced from the limbs of beasts and the bodies of birds, so the new earth first bore the herbs and the trees, and then she formed many kinds of living creatures, for various ends, and after a different manner: For the race of animals did not originally fall down from the skies, nor could terrestrial beings rise out of the salt sea; and therefore we say that the Earth justly obtained the name of Mother, because out of her all things were formed. Even no many animals rise from the earth, and are produced by moisture and the heat of the sun; and therefore the wonder is the less that many more should have been created in the beginning of the world, and of a larger size, when the earth was fresh as a young bride, and her husband Aether in the flower of his age. Of all the animal creation, the feathered kind, and various breeds of birds, first broke through the prison of the egg in time of spring; as grasshoppers in the summer now burst their curious little bags, and of themselves know how to seek their food and preserve their life. And the earth next produced the race of men and beasts, for then there was abundance of vital heat and moisture in the soil, and where the place was proper, a sort of womb group up, fixed and sticking in the earth by their roots. These the infants ripe for birth broke through they left their moist enclosure, and sprung out into the air. In those places nature prepared the pores of the earth, and forced her to pour from her open veins a liquor like milk; as a woman after delivery is full of sweet milk, because the principal juices of her food fly into her breasts. The earth gives nourishment to the infant, the warmth of the sun is instead of clothes, and the grass abounding with plenty of soft down affords the bed. But this new world produced no chilling cold, nor too much heat, nor force of rushing winds, for things increased and grew violent by degrees. And therefore by the strictest laws of justice does the Earth claim the name of Mother, because in this manner, for some time, she herself produced mankind, and formed every savage beast that wildly roars upon the mountaintops, and the great variety of birds, distinguished by the beauty of their feathers.

Munro 1886

Again, why a new moon should not be born every day after a regular succession of forms and regular phases, and each day the one which is born perish and another be produced in its room and stead, it is not easy to teach by reasoning or prove by words, since so many things can be born in such a regular succession. Spring and Venus go their way, and the winged harbinger of Venus steps on before; and close on Zephyr’s footprints mother Flora straws all the way before them and covers it over with the choicest colors and odors. Next in order follows parching heat, and in its company dusty Ceres and the etesian blasts of the north winds. Next autumn advances and Euhius Euan steps on together. Then other seasons and winds follow, loud-roaring Volturnus and the south wind stored with lightning. At last midwinter brings with it snows and gives back benumbing cold; after it follows winter with teeth chattering with cold. It is therefore the less strange that a moon is begotten at a fixed time and at a fixed time is destroyed again, since many things may take place at a time so surely fixed.

The eclipses of the sun likewise and the obscurations of the moon you may suppose to take place from many different causes. For why should the moon be able to shut the earth out from the sun’s light and on the earthward side put in his way her high exalted head, placing her dark orb before his burning rays; and yet at the same time it be thought that another body gliding on ever without light cannot do the same? Why too should not the sun be able, quite exhausted, to lose his fires at a fixed time, and again reproduce his light when in his journey through the air he has passed by spots fatal to his flames, which cause his fires to be quenched and to perish? And why should the earth be able in turn to rob the moon of light and moreover herself to keep the sun suppressed, while in her monthly course she glides through the well-defined shadows of the cone; and yet at the same time another body not be able to pass under the moon or glide above the sun’s orb, breaking off its rays and the light it sheds forth? Yes, and if the moon shines with her own brightness, why should she not be able to grow faint in a certain part of the world, while she is passing through spots hostile to her own light?

And now further since I have explained in what way every thing might take place throughout the blue of the great heaven; how we might know what force and cause set in motion the varied courses of the sun and wanderings of the moon; and in what way their light might be intercepted and they be lost to us and spread darkness over the earth little expecting if when so to speak they close their eye of light and opening it again survey all places shining in bright radiance, I now go back to the infancy of the world and the tender age of the fields of earth and show what first in their early essays of production they resolved to raise into the borders of light and give in charge to the wayward winds.

In the beginning the earth gave forth all kinds of herbage and verdant sheen about the hills and overall the plains; the flowery meadows glittered with the bright green hue, and next in order to the different trees was given a strong and emulous desire of growing up into the air with full unbridled powers. As feathers and hairs and bristles are first born on the limbs of four-footed beasts and the body of the strong of wing, thus the new earth then first put forth grass and bushes, and next gave birth to the races of mortal creatures springing up many in number in many ways after divers fashions. For no living creatures can have dropped from heaven nor can those belonging to the land have come out of the salt pools. It follows that with good reason the earth has gotten the name of mother, since all things have been produced out of the earth. And many living creatures even now spring out of the earth taking form by rains and the heat of the sun. It is therefore the less strange if at that time they sprang up more in number and larger in size, having come to maturity in the freshness of earth and ether. First of all the race of fowls and the various birds would leave their eggs, hatched in the springtime, just as now in summer the cicades leave spontaneously their gossamer coats in quest of a living and life. Then you must know did the earth first give forth races of mortal men. For much heat and moisture would then abound in the fields; and therefore wherever a suitable spot offered, wombs would grow attached to the earth by roots; and when the warmth of the infants, flying the wet and craving the air, had opened these in the fulness of time, nature would turn to that spot the pores of the earth and constrain it to yield from its opened veins a liquid most like to milk, even as now-a-days every woman when she has borne, is filled with sweet milk, because all that current of nutriment streams towards the breasts. To the children the earth would furnish food, the heat raiment, the grass a bed rich in abundance of soft down. Then the fresh youth of the world would give forth neither severe colds nor excessive heats nor gales of great violence; for all things grow and acquire strength in a like proportion.

Bailey 1921

[731] Or again, why a fresh moon could not be created every day with fixed succession of phases and fixed shapes, so that each several day the moon created would pass away, and another be supplied in its room and place, it is difficult to teach by reasoning or prove by words, since so many things can be created in fixed order. Spring goes on her way and Venus, and before them treads Venus’s winged harbinger; and following close on the steps of Zephyrus, mother Flora strews and fills all the way before them with glorious colours and scents. Next after follows parching heat, and as companion at her side dusty Ceres and the etesian blasts of the north winds. Then autumn advances, and step by step with her Euhius Euan. Then follow the other seasons and their winds, Volturnus, thundering on high, and the south wind, whose strength is the lightning. Last of all the year’s end brings snow, and winter renews numbing frost; it is followed by cold, with chattering teeth. Wherefore it is less wonderful if the moon is born at a fixed time, and again at a fixed time is blotted out, since so many things can come to pass at fixed times.

[751] Likewise also the eclipses of the sun and the hidings of the moon, you must think may be brought about by several causes. For why should the moon be able to shut out the earth from the sun’s light, and thrust her head high before him in the line of earth, throwing her dark orb before his glorious rays; and at the same time it should not be thought that another body could do this, which glides on ever without light. And besides, why should not the sun be able at a fixed time to faint and lose his fires, and again renew his light, when, in his journey through the air, he has passed by places hostile to his flames, which cause his fires to be put out and perish?

[762] And why should the earth be able in turn to rob the moon of light, and herself on high to keep the sun hidden beneath, while the moon in her monthly journey glides through the sharp-drawn shadows of the cone; and at the same time another body be unable to run beneath the moon or glide above the sun’s orb, to break off his rays and streaming light? And indeed, if the moon shines with her own light, why should she not be able to grow faint in a certain region of the world, while she passes out through spots unfriendly to her own light?

[772] For the rest, since I have unfolded in what manner each thing could take place throughout the blue vault of the great world, so that we might learn what force and what cause started the diverse courses of the sun, and the journeyings of the moon, and in what way they might go hiding with their light obscured, and shroud the unexpecting earth in darkness, when, as it were, they wink and once again open their eye and look upon all places shining with their clear rays; now I return to the youth of the world, and the soft fields of earth, and what first with new power of creation they resolved to raise into the coasts of light and entrust to the gusty winds.

[783] First of all the earth gave birth to the tribes of herbage and bright verdure all around the hills and over all the plains, the flowering fields gleamed in their green hue, and thereafter the diverse trees were started with loose rein on their great race of growing through the air. Even as down and hair and bristles are first formed on the limbs of four-footed beasts and the body of fowls strong of wing, so then the newborn earth raised up herbage and shrubs first, and thereafter produced the races of mortal things, many races born in many ways by diverse means. For neither can living animals have fallen from the sky nor the beasts of earth have issued forth from the salt pools.

[795] It remains that rightly has the earth won the name of mother, since out of earth all things are produced. And even now many animals spring forth from the earth, formed by the rains and the warm heat of the sun; wherefore we may wonder the less, if then more animals and greater were born, reaching their full growth when earth and air were fresh. First of all the tribe of winged fowls and the diverse birds left their eggs, hatched out in the spring season, as now in the summer the grasshoppers of their own will leave their smooth shells, seeking life and livelihood. Then it was that the earth first gave birth to the race of mortal things. For much heat and moisture abounded then in the fields; thereby, wherever a suitable spot or place was afforded, there grew up wombs, clinging to the earth by their roots; and when in the fullness of time the age of the little ones, fleeing moisture and eager for air, had opened them, nature would turn to that place the pores in the earth and constrain them to give forth from their opened veins a sap, most like to milk; even as now every woman, when she has brought forth, is filled with sweet milk, because all the current of her nourishment is turned towards her paps. The earth furnished food for the young, the warmth raiment, the grass a couch rich in much soft down. But the youth of the world called not into being hard frosts nor exceeding heat nor winds of mighty violence: for all things grow and come to their strength in like degrees.

Thank you Godfrey - Here is fine - I will move it to the ethics section.

I have to vent for a moment at how frustrating it can be to correlate the various translations. For only one example:

Just before the memorable section about Epicurus starting "Humana, ante oculous....." the 1743 edition has this lengthy sentence about the nature of the gods (the graphic above just has the last part). (The full text is "For it must needs be that all the nature of the gods enjoys life everlasting in perfect peace, sundered and separated far away from our world. For free from all grief, free from danger, mighty in its own resources, never lacking aught of us, it is not won by virtuous service nor touched by wrath.")

Munro does not include that.

Bailey's 1926 does not include that.

But by 1947, Bailey has added it back in, and the Loeb Rouse/Smith has it, as does Smith in his most recent Hackett edition.

Smith's Hackett version gives a footnote that says that it also appears at Book 2 line 646, so apparently some people think that this was added in by an editor and should not be there twice.

Who knows for sure, but it does make for frustrations in trying to get the various editions to line up, and it's particularly galling when the same translator (Bailey) takes two different positions in two different editions.

Would we be doing too much of a stretch to infer that calling it the noblest of the books implies that it was in a form similar to the other "books"? Once you get past the initial greeting in the letters, it doesn't read that much differently in my mind from the letters, especially in the way the final doctrines are directed at organizing one's life for the best result, and not lamenting the passing of friends.

Don is there a greek word for "book" there in DL or does it give any hint that it might be a "list" rather than a "book"?