Posts by Cassius

Quote from Don

I've personally chalked this one up to Dewitt's penchant for writing embellished historical fiction.

I think I agree as to this "Peace and Safety" watchword business. I think it's a reasonable extrapolation, but it needs to be clearly considered to be that.

In earlier years I tended myself to use that phrase a lot and I think I used it frequently at NewEpicurean.com. However I've consciously stopped doing that in recent years, and I am about ready to deprecate it entirely, especially since it doesn't fit well with the "warrior Epicurean" approach that I think is more accurate. It might also possibly be a phrase that the Christians were using in a deprecating manner, which is an aspect that DeWitt might not have approved of in the way he described it.

All in all I think this is one of the examples that I would most frequently cite as a point of departure between me and DeWitt.

I don't think it's totally harmful, and I can see the strong attraction of wanting to give people who are familiar with Christianity a reason to be interested in Epicurus, but I do think this is overplayed.

I haven't pulled out DeWitt to check the reference before writing this, but I definitely agree with this:

Quote from Don

This might be one of those instances unless someone knows where there is mention of Peace and Safety as a greeting or motto in the Epicurean texts. I'll happily give a mea culpa.

Quote from Nate

cared about it, which I think he did not.

As usual I may or may not be plagiarizing this from DeWitt, but I do think that he would have cared about it to the extent that some people might equate immense size with an attribute of being a god (in the supernatural/non-Epicurean sense). I think I remember reading DeWitt say that, or maybe it was someone else, or maybe I am just dreaming it. There should be no necessary relationship between size and being a supernatural god, but I can see the possibility of enough connection that it might have been on Epicurus' mind as a reason to denounce the conclusions of those who were arguing that their geometric calculations were somehow divine.

(Note - I may be reading it into that passage from Lucian criticizing the mathematicians, which wasn't directly on point, but I think would be related. Let's see if i can find it reasonably quickly. Ok it's here:

from Lucian’s Dialog “Icaromenippus, An Aerial Expedition:”

“Menippus. Ah, but keep your laughter till you have heard something of their pretentious mystifications. To begin with, their feet are on the ground; they are no taller than the rest of us ‘men that walk the earth’; they are no sharper-sighted than their neighbors, some of them purblind, indeed, with age or indolence. And yet they say they can distinguish the limits of the sky, they measure the sun’s circumference, take their walks in the supra-lunar regions, and specify the sizes and shapes of the stars as though they had fallen from them. Often one of them could not tell you correctly the number of miles from Megara to Athens, but has no hesitation about the distance in feet from the sun to the moon. How high the atmosphere is, how deep the sea, how far it is round the earth— they have the figures for all that. Moreover, they have only to draw some circles, arrange a few triangles and squares, add certain complicated spheres, and lo, they have the cubic contents of Heaven.

Then, how reasonable and modest of them, dealing with subjects so debatable, to issue their views without a hint of uncertainty; thus it must be and it shall be; contra gentes they will have it so. They will tell you on oath the sun is a molten mass, the moon inhabited, and the stars water-drinkers, moisture being drawn up by the sun’s rope and bucket and equitably distributed among them.”

What are you guys thinking about this way of asking the question. I think I see your answer, but can this be answered clearly yes or no?

"Does Epicurus' answer allow for the possibility of the Sun being larger than the earth?"

Great research.

So if this is Aristarchus' model as to the sizes:

What do we think about whether Epicurus was disputing this, or whether is "it is the size it appears to be" can be reconciled with this, which would indicate that the sun is larger than the earth?

It could not have been lost on Epicurus that as formula in words like "it is the size it appears to be" will strike some people as too ambiguous to be useful. So is that phrasing in itself an indication that Epicurus knew very well that the sun was not the size of an orange or any everyday object like people accuse him of believing? Almost certainly he knew that a very large size was a reasonable possibility, and it doesn't appear that he wanted to eliminate that possibility, along the lines of our continuing observation that only one among several alternate possibilities can't be arbitrarily selected as the sole answer.

Maybe that's an easier way to ask the question.

"Does Epicurus' answer allow for the possibility of the Sun being larger than the earth?"

I wonder if the Antikythera mechanism, or other Greek diagrams of the solar system (if they exist) would not give us insight into their way of looking at this. Perhaps the diagrams showing the sun to be large, and yet no so large as to swallow up the earth many thousands of times over, would help us get a more balanced picture of the situation.

https://scitechdaily.com/2000-year-old-…first-computer/

It seems clear that he thought it was important to limit the distance on the grounds that (1) light sources don't shrink as much as other objects at a distance and (2) things that we see sharply don't tend to be as far away as objects that seem to us to be blurry.

But on the other hand we see the sun and moon on the horizon as further away or at least comparable in size to the mountain ranges, and we know the mountains to be huge.

I am thinking that part of the answer here lies, as in other areas, in comparing Epicurus to what he was arguing against. I don't have a reference but I seem to have picked up over the years that the people Epicurus was arguing against (Pythagoreans?) had calculated the sun to be huge as part of their program of seeing the sun (and maybe moon and stars) as gods, and so they were using their calculations of the size being hugely bigger than the earth itself as part of their program of deeming the sun to be a god. (Not sure what they thought about the size of the moon. Did they have that right?)

So maybe it would be clearly to us what Epicurus was saying if we knew that he thought it was possible and acceptable that the sun be bigger than the mountains, just so long as he didn't have to admit that the sun was many times larger than the earth itself.

That probably takes us back to the issue of what the model really was. Our world is clearly not the center of the universe, but was the earth the center of our world? If so, then we might have the perspective there that would allow us to see that Epicurus could admit that the sun was pretty large just so long as the calculating didn't have it swallowing up the whole "world." And we could probably come up with a picture or diagram that would make the position a lot more clear, and a lot less ridiculous-looking, than presuming he meant the sun was the size of a basketball.

In fact, a diagram of our "world" in Epicurean terms would be highly helpful for many uses.

Yes that's a good idea, and a good comparison. I haven't looked at other broadcasts from the forum, but I gathered this was probably pretty typical.

It didn't help in my case that the zoom call kept breaking up, especially in the QA session at the end. Did you experience that Godfrey?

and yes either the script itself, or at least a list of bullet points so we would know where we were in the presentation.

I think a major point that this discussion of grasping is reinforcing with me is the issue that Epicurus has right on the surface of the text we're reading most from:

There's both a "big picture" and a "detailed picture" and if we want to be most proficient in living we have to be able to have a command of both, and be able to constantly flip back and forth between them without skipping a beat. I don't see that as a particularly blinding insight but maybe I'm overlooking it because it seems so obviously true - and yet I think the failure to do that (have command of both levels) is what we see time and time again. People get obsessed with details (like the meaning of ataraxia or epibole) and they get fixated for long periods of times on details while the rest of their lives is totally at odds with the Epicurean big picture (absence of gods, absence of absolute standards of virtue, absence of life after death). Or the get fixated on the very highest level picture (that same absence of gods, absence of absolute standards of virtue, and absence of life after death) and they never offer ordinary people any level of detailed advice about how that high-level insight is to be applied moment by moment.

I think if we could find a way to drive that lesson home, with a limited number of core examples of both the big picture and the details, we'd be 90% or more of the way to providing a solid Epicurean program without ever once mentioning 'ataraxia" or "aponia" or "epibole" or any greek or latin word whatsoever.

I'll close with the caveat that I love Latin in particular, and I also honor the Greek, and for those who find it interesting I am all for explaining it to them. But when I look around at day to day life outside my office i think I see fewer and fewer people who seem interested in that. Were it not for Charles and Eikadistes being with us, our average age is probably not having us all on Social Security, so the clock is ticking on our work!

Quote from Nate

why he suggested that both celestial objects are about the same size.

You're probably right but did he say that precisely, or was it that both were "about the size they appear to be?"

Quote from Nate

so the Sun and the Moon must be immeasurably larger by comparison than a mountain.

YES I think that is a very important point, and for me that seals in my mind that people who assert that he thought the sun to be the size of a basketball, or whatever analogy they use to indicate that Epicurus thought the sun was relatively small, are full of nonsense.

Like I said in the podcast I don't think it's necessary to try to maintain that Epicurus' view of the size of the sun has turned out to be "exactly correct," although i am open to the possibility that the "size that it appears" might even be stretched that far, especially if we could find more of Epicurus' writings on the subject.

But even if we don't maintain that Epicurus was completely right, there's no need at all to ridicule his position as absolutely wrong, at least without noting the point that you are making here that Epicurus surely understood that the Sun is very large.

Thanks godfrey! What was going through my mind in a lot of my comments is how we might use a zoom format for projects of our own. No doubt there is a value in seeing people online ask questions, but I find as i get older that I have ever less tolerance for what I consider to be grandstanding by questioners - and questions in philosophic contexts tend to turn out to be mini-sermons in themselves very frequently.

And ha - i laugh as I think this to myself - it also seems to me that the people who make a beeline to the microphone first tend to be the oddest of the oddballs, and the people with the most intelligent and thoughtful questions tend to be the most polite and retiring and thereby generally end up at the end of the line.

i thought the overall result was very worthwhile even though there was a good bit of reading, and I really don't know if or whether there should be a way to avoid that. i tend to think that some kind of visuals during a presentation makes them easier for everyone to appreciate, while at the same time the facial expressions do add a very valuable element.

Surely the paper is available somewhere but I doubt they recorded it - I looked and don't see links to past episodes. We'll keep an eye out for the paper

Quote

In Part Three I pursue the aforementioned distinction in late Epicureanism, in particular Lucretius and Philodemus. I try to show how, during that period, epibolê enjoys the status of a criterion and also acquires paramount moral importance. I conclude with a few general remarks.

If she got around to discussing this in the Zoom presentation I must have missed it. I heard a few comments about it, but it seemed to me that most of the presentation ended up revolving around the issue of what the epibole word means, rather than how it fits into the Epicurean canon of truth.

Did anyone pick up her position in any greater clarity than what is written above? I remain unclear on Tsouna's own view as to whether any form of grasp should be considered a criteria of truth. I didn't hear anything to persuade me that it should be counted a fourth leg, and much that I heard continue to motivate me that it shouldn't.

Quote

T10

‘And because of an attachment to life, not due to the fact that they (sc. foolish old men) live pleasantly but resulting from their terror of death, they appear to push away even the epibolai focusing on it (tas epibolas tas ep’auton). Then, when the sight of it becomes clearly evident (enargês theôria), it strikes them as something paradoxical. For this reason, unable to bring themselves even to the point of writing a will, they are overtaken and surrounded and, as Democritus says, are forced to bear a double misfortune. Sensible men, on the other hand, [even if for] some compelling reason they did not suspect that the paragraph and limit of their life was already approaching, when it comes into actual view, after they have surveyed in their thought systematically and with the greatest clarity, in a way that cannot be explained to the ignorant, their perfect enjoyment of every thing and the utter unconsciousness that will come over them, they breathe their last as calmly as if they never had lost their epibolê even for an instant’ (De mort. XXXIX.6-25).

I am really impressed by this excerpt, which I don't think I have seen before. To me the thrust of this sentiment seems to go along with considering the whole issue of epibole to be summarized in English as "grasp." I read this as saying that we need a grasp of the big picture of what life is all about, along with a grasp of the details as we live minute by minute, and we need a command of the subject that allows us to move back and forth between the big picture and the details to allow us to see how both fit together. If we get lost either in the big picture, or in the details, we equally "get lost" and fail to have a command over what is necessary in life to live as happily as possible. If we keep that command, then even as we age and approach death, and actually die, we keep with us to the end the best possible experience of living, which ought always to be our goal. Nothing mystical or mysterious about any of this and all perfectly translatable into ordinary English.

Worthy of note. - Anthony "A.A. Long," writer of some of my favorite articles on Epicurus.

Also present were David Konstan, Julian Annas, and a couple of other names I recognized. Didn't see David Sedley or MF Smith however.

Did anyone else see the presentation? Comments on it?

Unfortunately I don't see a way to watch a replay. And I don't immediately see a link to the full paper.

The lecture handout:

Handout of translated texts

Hellenistic Forum

20 May 2021

THE EPICUREAN NOTION OF EPIBOLÊ

Voula Tsouna

T1

‘Those who have sufficiently advanced in the comprehensive survey (epiblepsis) of the entire system ought to fix in their memory the outline of the whole treatise, organised as it is under the headings of its principal elements. For we frequently are in need of a comprehensive grasp of the whole (athroa epibolê), whereas we seldom need to have a grasp of the details (kata meros epibolê)’ (Epicurus, H 35).

T2

‘Thus we must continually return to those (principal elements) and must memorise them, so that we shall both acquire a comprehensive epibolê of things and discover all the details with precision when the general outlines have been correctly understood and remembered. For this is the privilege of the advanced student, to be able to make ready use of his epibolai by referring each of them to the basic elements and the (corresponding) terms. For it is impossible to contemplate the results of continuous diligent study of the totality of things unless we can summarise in simple expressions and hold in the mind all that might have been accurately expressed even to the most minute detail’ (H 36).

T3

‘First, then, Herodotus, we must grasp the items which fall under the words, so that we may have them as a reference point against which to judge matters of opinion, enquiry and puzzlement, and not have everything undiscriminated for ourselves as we attempt infinite chains of proofs, or have words which are empty. For the primary concept corresponding to each word must be seen and need no additional proof, if we are going to have a reference point for matters of enquiry, puzzlement, and opinion. Furthermore, we should attend in every way to our sensations and, generally, to the present epibolai (tas parousas epibolas) whether of the mind or of anyone of the criteria, and similarly to our actual feelings, so that we may have the means of drawing sign-inferences about not yet confirmed or non-evident things’ (H 37-38).

T4

‘And whatever representation (phantasian) we receive by way of epibolê (epiblêtikôs) through the mind or the sense-organs, whether it is a representation of shape or of some other property, this shape is the shape of the solid thing and has been constituted either in accordance with a close condensation of the film(s) of atoms as a whole or in accordance with what remains of it. On the other hand, falsehood and error always dwell in the additional element of opinion about <that which awaits> to be confirmed or remain uncontested but then receives no confirmation <or is contested>. [(This opinion is formed) following a certain movement in ourselves, which is attached to the representational epibolê (phantastikê epibolê) but distinct from it, and according to which falsehood occurs]. For the imaginary figments (phantasmôn) received, for instance, in a picture or arising in dreams or from certain other epibolai of the mind or of the other criteria would never have resembled the things that we call real and true, were there not certain actual things of the same kind as those that we compare them to. On the other hand, error would not have occurred, if we had not experienced also some other movement in ourselves conjoined with the representational epibolê but distinct from it. In relation to this movement, if it is not attested or is contested, falsehood arises, whereas if it is attested or not contested truth is established. We must closely adhere to this doctrine, if we are not to reject the criteria established on the basis of clear evidence (kata tas enargeias) nor throw everything into confusion by asserting falsehoods as if they were truths’ (H 50-52).

T5

‘All these properties, I claim, merely give the body its own permanent nature. They all have their own epibolai and distinguishing features, but always along with body as a whole (tou athroou) and never in separation from it; and it is in accordance of this complete conception of body as a whole (kata tên athroan ennoian) that it is designated as such’ (H 69).

T6

‘The exposition is of such a sort that those who have already tolerably or even perfectly mastered the details can, by analysing them into the corresponding sort of epibolai, pursue most of their investigations of nature in its totality. On the other hand, those who do not really belong to the category of mature students can rapidly and silently run over in their minds the cardinal doctrines of this exposition in order to gain peace of mind’ (H 83).

T7

‘At a time when human life lay for all to see squalidly sprawled on the ground, crushed beneath the weight of institutional religion (religio) that reared its head from the regions of heaven, lowering over mortals and terrible to behold, it was a man from Greece who first dared to raise those mortal eyes against her and was the first to make a stand against her. Neither the fables of the gods nor thunderbolts nor the heaven with its threatening roar held him back, but these all the more stirred up the eager courage of his mind (acrem animi virtutem), making him desire, first of all men, to break open the tight-shut bars of natures’ gates. And so the energetic power of his mind (vivida vis animi) prevailed and issued forth (previcit et processit) far beyond the flaming walls of the world, as he roamed through the immeasurable universe with his mind and imagination (atque omne immensum peragravit mente animoque). Whence he returns victorious to relay to us what can occur and what cannot, and moreover how each thing has its power delimited and its deep-set boundary stone. As a result, religion is now in her turn trampled underfoot, while we by his victory are raised to the heights of heaven’ (Lucretius, DRN I.62-79).

T8

‘You (sc. the Stoics) on the contrary cannot see how nature can achieve all this without the aid of some (cosmic) intelligence, and so, like the tragic poets, being unable to bring the plot of your drama to a solution, you have recourse to a god. You certainly wouldn’t have needed his intervention if you contemplated the measureless magnitude of space stretching in every direction, by projecting and focusing itself (se iniciens ... et intendens) into which the mind travels far and wide without ever seeing a boundary of its extremities at which it could stop’ (Cicero, ND I.53-54).

T9

‘The construction of inferences from signs (did not happen) by contraposition of ‘if this is [this’ but was apprehended] through the [appearances providing uses] for it. Indeed the person who is puzzled about how [representations] of the mind [will be judged thinks] that inferences from signs [should be constructed] if they are verified by observation and do not [conflict] with all the things that are called criteria of non-evident things - with sensations, preconceptions, representational [epibolai of the mind], and feelings’ (Philodemus, De sign. fr. 1 De Lacy and De Lacy).

T10

‘And because of an attachment to life, not due to the fact that they (sc. foolish old men) live pleasantly but resulting from their terror of death, they appear to push away even the epibolai focusing on it (tas epibolas tas ep’auton). Then, when the sight of it becomes clearly evident (enargês theôria), it strikes them as something paradoxical. For this reason, unable to bring themselves even to the point of writing a will, they are overtaken and surrounded and, as Democritus says, are forced to bear a double misfortune. Sensible men, on the other hand, [even if for] some compelling reason they did not suspect that the paragraph and limit of their life was already approaching, when it comes into actual view, after they have surveyed in their thought systematically and with the greatest clarity, in a way that cannot be explained to the ignorant, their perfect enjoyment of every thing and the utter unconsciousness that will come over them, they breathe their last as calmly as if they never had lost their epibolê even for an instant’ (De mort. XXXIX.6-25).

I am getting the impression so far, 15 minutes in, that we are about to spend an hour discussing what it means to "grasp" something by observing that Epicurus said that we need to grasp both the forest and the trees - both the big picture and the details - except that since he spoke in Greek so he used the word "epibole."

Notes

1. The phrase that certain things "have their own epibole" seems particularly troubling to me.
2. I am not convinced that there is anything of significance in the "projection" terminology"
3. Ok so "attention" is not a sufficient word. I agree. The issue of grasping is broader than paying attention.
4. Even in referring to the opening of Lucretius Book 1 about Epicurus projecting his mind throughout the universe, I am not sure there is anything all that deep here. "Mental projection" seems to mean a lot more to her than it does to me - it seems to me it's just a way of describing focusing your mind on something so you can grasp it.
5. Ok now we head toward the issue of whether this grasp, no matter how strong, constitutes a criteria of truth. I continue to think, so far, that Epicurus would never elevate a "grasp" - no matter how strong that grasp might be - to a criteria of truth.
6. Oh this text item TEN is very helpful I think -- and I think it clearly means that the word simply means "grasp" or "has a full understanding" and little more than that. Sure it means we'll have strength of mind, because we have focused on the issues, studied both the details and the big picture, and we are comfortable with both. That's highly important, but there's nothing mysterious here.
7. Ok now they are in questions, and a Platonist comes in to say he likes Plato better but will ask something anyway. Not sure this is a great use of time - typing the questions would be more efficient (but maybe not as much fun)
8. Voula has a pleasing personality and presentation so she makes a good lecturer.
9. Repeat -- it adds nothing to switch back and forth between Greek and English words other than to make the speaker (the Platonist) sound intelligent and make the discussion harder for the normal person to follow,
10. David Konstan asks question (he's the writer correct?)
11. Very long and complex question about Plotinus - another reason to vet the questions in writing first.

- This is the first zoom presentation I have watched involving presentation of a paper. She's basically reading large sections of it, but this will hopefully be followed by question and answer. What's the best format using zoom? Is it ok to basically read a paper as the main presentation? (thinking out loud)

I've only watched the first three minutes or so of the video, but when I am world dictator one day (ha), every such video is going to be required to start with a disclaimer on the screen for at least ten seconds (or time enough to read it!) stating:

"In what you are about to hear, the narrator uses an authoritative tone and talks as if what he is saying is established for all time and beyond a shadow of a doubt. Be aware that theories of everything such has presented in this video have been regularly developed in the past and then discarded as more evidence is gathered, so some or all of what you are about to see may well be completely overturned in the future. You may find that other reasonable theories are presented by other reasonable scientists, and if so, and if you do not have available to you the ability to say that only one theory among the possibilities is correct, you are going beyond the authority of your evidence if you select one and maintain that it is the only correct theory. All anyone can do is work with the evidence available to them. Therefore do not accept anything you are about to hear as anything other than a theory deemed to be reasonable by the presenter which must be tested against the evidence available to us today. "

Great thoughts Nate - looking into the astronomical activity that would have been significant in Epicurus' period.

Welcome to Episode Seventy-Three 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 73 we will read approximately Latin line 614-704 of Book Five. We will talk about the rising and setting of the sun and moon. Now let's join Martin reading today's text.

Latin Lines 614 - 704

Munro Notes-

614-649: it is by no means clear how the sun performs its annual course, and how the moon in a month goes through the same journey: Democritus may be right who says that the nearer any body is to the earth, it is carried on less swiftly by the revolution of the heaven; now the moon is nearer than the sun, the sun than the signs of the zodiac; therefore the moon seems to travel faster than the sun, the sun than the signs, because in truth they in their revolution with the heaven catch up the moon which is slowest first, and then the sun: or two airs may blow in turns in cross directions, one of which drives the sun from the summer to the winter signs, the other drives it from the latter to the former: and so with moon and stars.

650-655: night comes, either because the sun is extinguished, or, if that is not so, because he passes beneath the earth in the same way as he passed above this and the following paragraphs he leaves you your choice between the hypothesis that the sun dies daily and a new one takes its place in the morning, and theories more resembling the ordinary belief of astronomers; experience being unable to decide: just so his master in Diog. x

656-679: daylight returns at stated hours, either because the same unchanged sun passes under the earth and comes above it again, or because the fires of a new sun collect every morning at the proper time: this may well be; for many things, such as puberty in man, come at a certain time; and many things such as snow rain and lightning return pretty regularly: so it has been from the beginning and so it continues to be.—The alternative here allowed is the same as that given in the preceding passage; see Epicurus there cited: the old sun returns, or a fresh one is born every day.

680-704: days and nights lengthen and shorten time about, either because the sun continuing the same chooses to run in unequal curves above and below the horizon, his course above being as much more or less than a semicircle, as his course below is less or more, until at each equinox the two are equal: all this you may see marked on a map of heaven: or else the air is denser in some parts than in others, so that he travels more slowly through the former: and thus the winter nights are longer: or else a new sun is always born, and in successive parts of the year his fires collect more or less quickly and so rise in particular quarters.—Again three courses are open to your choice, the first most resembling the theory of vulgar philosophers.

Browne 1743

Nor can one certain reason be assigned why the sun declines from its summer height and bends his winter course toward the tropic of Capricorn, and then returning, reaches the tropic of Cancer, and makes summer solstice; and that the moon in every month finishes the same course through the twelve signs, as the sun takes up a whole year in running through. I say, one certain reason cannot be assigned for these events, for perhaps the cause may be what the venerable opinion of that great man Democritus has laid down, that the nearer the stars are to the Earth, they are carried more slowly about by the general motion of the heavens. For the rapid force and celerity of the upper sky are much lessened before they reach the inferior orbs, and therefore the sun, with the lower signs that follow it, is in some measure left, because it is much lower than the high region of the stars. And the moon is much lower still, and the greater distance from the heavens she observes in her course, and the nearer she approaches the earth, the less is she capable of keeping pace with the motions of the signs, and the slower she is in her motion than the sun as she moves below him; and the signs may the more easily overtake her, and pass about and beyond her the oftener. And therefore the moon seems the sooner to run through all the signs when in reality the signs return to her. Or perhaps two several airs may at certain seasons blow from the opposite parts of the world by turns; the one may drive the sun down from the summer signs into his winter course, and the extremity of cold; the other may raise it from the cold winter signs into the summer solstice. And for the same reason the moon and the stars, which fulfill their periods and revolutions in their long courses, may be forced upwards and downwards in the heavens by two several streams of air likewise. Don’t you observe the clouds, driven by contrary winds, move different ways, the lower opposite to those above? What then should hinder that the stars should not be carried on by contrary blasts of air through the great circles of the sky?

And the night, we imagine, covers the earth with thick darkness, either because the sun in his long course has reached the extremity of the heavens, and being tired, has blown out his fire scattered by the swiftness of his motion, and decayed by the tract of air he passed through, or the same force that raised his orb, and drove it round above, compels him to change his course and roll beneath the earth. And Matuta, the goddess of the morning, at a fixed time leads Aurora blushing through the regions of the sky, and opens the day, either because the sun, returning from under the earth, attempts to enlighten the world with his rays, before he appears himself; or because the seeds of fire that were dispersed abroad in his journey the day before flow together in the eastern sky, and illustrate the Earth with a faint light, before they have kindled up anew the globe of the sun. This (they say) is easily discovered from the top of Mount Ida; where, upon the rising of the sun, we first discovery his scattered rays, which are afterward contracted into one orb and make up one ball of light. Nor are you to wonder that these seeds of fire should flow together constantly every day and repair the splendor of the sun; for we observe many things in nature that act regularly and at a fixed time. The trees look green at a certain season, and at a certain season cast their leaves. Children at a certain time shed their teeth, and the boy grows ripe at a certain time, and shows the soft down upon his cheeks. And lastly, the thunder, the snow, the rains, the clouds, the winds, are no less certain, and fall out in fixed seasons of the year, for the course which things observed from the beginning of the world they pursue the same, and continue still to act in the same certain order.

The days likewise increase, and the nights grow shorter, and the nights increase, and the days shorten, either because the sun, in his course above and below the earth, moves obliquely in unequal lines, and divides the heavens into unequal parts, and what he takes off from one part of the heavens he adds so much to the opposite part again, till he arrives at that sign in the heavens where he cuts the Aequinoctial line, and makes equal day and night, for this line is equally distant from the two tropics, which are the bounds of the sun’s motions toward the north and south; and this is owing to the obliquity of the zodiac through which the sun finishes his annual revolution, and shines upon the earth and the heavens with an oblique light, such is the opinion of those who have marked out all the regions of the heavens, and adorned them with twelve constellations. Or because, at certain seasons of the year, the seeds of light which repair the decayed splendor of the sun flow together sooner or later and so occasion his rising in different parts of the heavens.

The moon may shine with rays borrowed from the sun, and appear to us every day with greater light, as she retires further from the sun’s orb, till being directly opposite to him, she shines out with full beams, and climbing up the earth, views him from above setting in the west; and then goes backwards as it were, and hides her light gradually as she passes through the different signs in her nearer approaches to the sun. Thus they explain her phases who conclude her round like a ball, and that she moves below the sun, and they seem to be right in their opinion, and speak the truth. But the moon, possibly, may steer her course by her own light, and show different phases and forms of brightness, for another body may move below her, and attending to all her motions, may interpose and hinder her light from being seen; but this body, being thick and dark, cannot be discovered by the eye. And perhaps the moon may roll around her axis like a ball, whose one half only is bright. This ball, as it moves round its center, will express the different appearances of light, till it turns the whole bright side to us, and shines full upon the open eye, and then by degrees it turns backward, and takes away its bright side as it rolls, and we see no more of it. This was the doctrine of the Chaldeans, who followed the hypothesis of Berosus, and attempted to overthrow the vulgar astrology of the Greeks; as if the schemes of both could not be true, or you had less reason to embrace the one than the other.

Munro 1886

Nor with regard to the sun is there one single explanation, certain and manifest, of the way in which he passes from his summer positions to the midwinter turning-point of Capricorn and then coming back from thence bends his course to the solstitial goal of cancer, and how the moon is seen once a month to pass over that space, in traversing which the sun spends the period of a year. No single plain cause, I say, has been assigned for these things. It seems highly probable that that may be the truth which the revered judgment of the worthy man Democritus maintains: the nearer the different constellations are to the earth, the less they can be carried along with the whirl of heaven; for the velocity of its force, he says, passes away and the intensity diminishes in the lower parts, and therefore the sun is gradually left behind with the rearward signs, because he is much lower than the burning signs. And the moon more than the sun: the lower her path is and the more distant she is from heaven and the nearer she approaches to earth, the less she can keep pace with the signs. For the fainter the whirl is in which she is borne along, being as she is lower than the sun, so much the more all the signs around overtake and pass her. Therefore it is that she appears to come back to every sign more quickly, because the signs go more quickly back to her. It is quite possible too that from quarters of the world crossing the sun’s path two airs may stream each in its turn at a fixed time; one of which may force the sun away from the summer signs so far as his midwinter turning-point and freezing cold, and the other may force him back from the freezing shades of cold as far as the heat-laden quarters and burning signs. And in like manner we must suppose that the moon, and the stars which make revolutions of great years in great orbits may pass by means of airs from opposite quarters in turn. See you not too that clouds from contrary winds pass in contrary directions, the upper in a contrary way to the lower? Why may not yon stars just as well be borne on through their great orbits in ether by currents contrary one to the other?

But night buries the earth in thick darkness, either when the sun after his long course has struck upon the utmost parts of heaven and now exhausted has blown forth all his fires shaken by their journey and weakened by passing through much air: or else because the same force which has carried on his orb above the earth, compels him to change his course and pass below the earth. At a fixed time too Matuta spreads rosy morning over the borders of ether and opens up her light, either because the same sun, coming back below the earth, seizes heaven before his time trying to kindle it with his rays; or because fires meet together and many seeds of heat are accustomed to stream together at a fixed time, which cause new sunlight to be born every day. Thus they tell that from the high mountains of Ida scattered fires are seen at day-break, that these then unite as it were into a single ball and make up an orb. And herein it ought to cause no surprise that these seeds of fire stream together at a time so surely fixed and reproduce the radiance of the sun. For we see many occurrences which take place at a fixed time in all things. At a fixed time trees blossom and at a fixed time shed their blossoms; and at a time no less surely fixed age bids the teeth be shed and the boy put on the soft dress of puberty and let a soft beard fall down equally from each cheek. Lastly lightnings, snow, rains, clouds, and winds take place at not very irregular seasons of year. For where causes from their very first beginnings have been in this way and things have thus fallen out from the first birth of the world, in due sequence too they now come round after a fixed order.

Likewise days may lengthen and nights wane, and days shorten when the nights receive increase, either because the same sun running his course below the earth and above in curves of unlike length parts the borders of ether and divides his orbit into unequal halves; and as he comes round adds on in the opposite half just as much as he has subtracted from the other of the two halves, until he has arrived at that sign of heaven, where the node of the year makes the shades of night of the same length as the daylight. For when the sun’s course lies midway between the blast of the north and of the south, heaven keeps his two goals apart at distances now rendered exactly equal on account of the position of the whole starry circle, in gliding through which the sun takes up the period of a year, lighting with slanting rays earth and heaven; as is clearly shown by the plans of those who have mapped out all the quarters of heaven as they are set off with their array of signs. Or else because the air is denser in certain parts, therefore the quivering beam of fire is retarded below the earth and cannot easily pass through and force its way out to its place of rising: for this reason in winter-time nights linger long, ere the beamy badge of day arrive. Or else, because in the way just mentioned at alternate parts of the year fires are accustomed to stream together more slowly and more quickly, which cause the sun to rise in a certain point, therefore it is that those appear to speak the truth [who suppose a fresh sun to be born every day.]

The moon may shine because struck by the sun’s rays, and turn that light every day more and more directly towards our sight, in proportion as she recedes from the sun’s orb, until just opposite to him she has shone out with full light and at her rising as she soars aloft has beheld his setting; and then by slow steps reversing as it were her course she must in the same way hide her light, the nearer and nearer she now glides to the sun from a different quarter through the circle of the signs; according to the theory of those who suppose the moon to be like a ball and to hold on her course under the sun. She may also very possibly revolve with her own light and display various phases of brightness; for there may well be another body which is carried on and glides in her company getting before her path and obstructing her in all manner of ways and yet cannot be seen, because it glides on without light. She may also revolve, like it may be to a spherical ball steeped over one half in shining light, and as she rolls round this sphere she may present changing phases, until she has turned that half which is illuminated full towards our sight and open eyes; then by slow steps she whirls back and withdraws the light-fraught half of the spherical ball; as the Babylonian science of the Chaldees refuting the system of the astronomers essays to prove in opposition to them; just as though that which each party fights for might not be equally true, or there were any reason why you should venture to embrace the one theory less than the other.

Bailey 1921

Nor is there any single and straightforward account of the sun, to show how from the summer regions he draws near the winter turning-point of Capricorn, and how turning back thence, he betakes himself to the solstice-goal of Cancer; and how the moon is seen in single months to traverse that course, on which the sun spends the period of a year as he runs. There is not, I say, any single cause assigned for these things. For, first and foremost, it is clear that it may come to pass, as the judgement of the holy man, Democritus, sets before us, that the nearer the several stars are to earth, the less can they be borne on with the whirl of heaven. For its swift keen strength passes away and is lessened beneath, and so little by little the sun is left behind with the hindmost signs, because it is much lower than the burning signs. And even more the moon: the lower her course, the further it is from the sky and nearer to earth, the less can she strain on her course level with the signs. Moreover the weaker the whirl with which she is borne along, being lower than the sun, the more do all the signs catch her up all around and pass her. Therefore, it comes to pass that she seems to turn back more speedily to each several sign, because the signs come back to her. It may be too that from quarters of the world athwart his path two airs may stream alternately, each at a fixed season, one such as to push the sun away from the summer signs right to the winter turning-places and their icy frost, and the other to hurl him back from the icy shades of cold right to the heat-laden quarters and the burning signs. And in like manner must we think that the moon and those stars which roll through the great years in great orbits, can be moved by airs from the opposite quarters in turn. Do you not see how by contrary winds the lower clouds too are moved in directions contrary to those above? Why should those stars be less able to be borne on by currents contrary one to the other through the great orbits in the heaven?

But night shrouds the earth in thick darkness, either when after his long journey the sun has trodden the farthest parts of heaven, and fainting has breathed out his fires shaken by the journey and made weak by much air, or because the same force, which carried on his orb above the earth, constrains him to turn his course back beneath the earth. Likewise at a fixed time Matuta sends abroad the rosy dawn through the coasts of heaven, and spreads the light, either because the same sun, returning again beneath the earth, seizes the sky in advance with his rays, fain to kindle it, or because the fires come together and many seeds of heat are wont to stream together at a fixed time, which each day cause the light of a new sun to come to birth. Even so story tells that from the high mountains of Ida scattered fires are seen as the light rises, and then they gather as if into a single ball, and make up the orb. Nor again ought this to be cause of wonder herein, that these seeds of fire can stream together at so fixed a time and renew the brightness of the sun. For we see many events, which come to pass at a fixed time in all things. Trees blossom at a fixed time, and at a fixed time lose their flower. Even so at a fixed time age bids the teeth fall, and the hairless youth grow hairy with soft down and let a soft beard flow alike from either cheek. Lastly, thunder, snow, rains, clouds, winds come to pass at seasons of the year more or less fixed. For since the first-beginnings of causes were ever thus and things have so fallen out from the first outset of the world, one after the other they come round even now in fixed order.

And likewise it may be that days grow longer and nights wane, and again daylight grows less, when nights take increase; either because the same sun, as he fulfills his course in unequal arcs below the earth and above, parts the coasts of heaven, and divides his circuit into unequal portions; and whatever he has taken away from the one part, so much the more he replaces, as he goes round, in the part opposite it, until he arrives at that sign in the sky, where the node of the year makes the shades of night equal to the daylight. For in the mid-course of the blast of the north wind and of the south wind, the sky holds his turning-points apart at a distance then made equal, on account of the position of the whole starry orbit, in which the sun covers the space of a year in his winding course, as he lights earth and heaven with his slanting rays: as is shown by the plans of those who have marked out all the quarters of the sky, adorned with their signs in due order. Or else, because the air is thicker in certain regions, and therefore the trembling ray of his fire is delayed beneath the earth, nor can it easily pierce through and burst out to its rising. Therefore in winter time the long nights lag on, until the radiant ensign of day comes forth. Or else again, because in the same way in alternate parts of the year the fires, which cause the sun to rise from a fixed quarter, are wont to stream together now more slowly, now more quickly, therefore it is that those seem to speak the truth [who say that a new sun is born every day].

The moon may shine when struck by the sun’s rays, and day by day turn that light more straightly to our sight, the more she retires from the sun’s orb, until opposite him she has glowed with quite full light and, as she rises, towering on high, has seen his setting; then little by little she must needs retire back again, and, as it were, hide her light, the nearer she glides now to the sun’s fire from the opposite quarter through the orbit of the signs; as those have it, who picture that the moon is like a ball, and keeps to the path of her course below the sun. There is also a way by which she can roll on with her own light, and yet show changing phases of brightness. For there may be another body, which is borne on and glides together with her, in every way obstructing and obscuring her; yet it cannot be seen, because it is borne on without light. Or she may turn round, just like, if it so chance, the sphere of a ball, tinged over half its surface with gleaming light, and so by turning round the sphere produces changing phases, until she turns to our sight and open eyes that side, whichever it be, that is endowed with fires; and then little by little she twists back again and carries away from us the light-giving part of the round mass of the ball; as the Babylonian teaching of the Chaldaeans, denying the science of the astronomers, essays to prove in opposition; just as if what each of them fights for may not be the truth, or there were any cause why you should venture to adopt the one less than the other.

Episode 72 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this Episode 72 we will read approximately Latin line 509-613 of Book Five. We will talk about the location of the Earth within our "world," and well discuss Epicurus' perspective on science for the sake of science and the size of the sun and moon. As always, please let us know any comments or questions in the thread below: