Well here ya go again - I guess my memory was a little better than I thought. Here's David Sedley - the phrase "does not feature" is not the same as "does not appear" but i tend to think "does not appear" is probably what he means given the "nonetheless amply attested as his" (?) My tendency at this point is to question Bailey's translation.
Here's what I was probably remembering as to there being nothing in the letter to Herodotus (or the other letters) from Epicurus himself. This is from A.A. Long's "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism." Maybe the word Bailey translates as "swerve" is something else, or maybe the meaning of this passage from Long isn't exactly saying what it seems at first glance to say. Maybe Long is referring only to a certain aspect (free will) of the swerve?
However I don't think this is the only such reference to the swerve being only in Lucretius:
And the atoms move continuously for all time, some of them falling straight down, others swerving, and others recoiling from their collisions.
And of the latter, some are borne on, separating to a long distance from one another, while others again recoil and recoil, whenever they chance to be checked by the interlacing with others, or else shut in by atoms interlaced around them.
Maybe I am wrong to think that commentators assert that the swerve is not in Herodotus, because Bailey uses that word in the above excerpt from his translation of it. Or maybe its really a different word, or the point is that Lucretius' version is significantly more detailed.
The letter also says that the universe as a whole is now as it always has been, so maybe the thought that there was ever a "first" swerve leading to the atoms getting entangled is the inconsistent piece, and maybe that was and remained Epicurus' own position.
I would think Epicurus would have held tightly to the view that while we can look narrowly at "local" events as having "firsts" and "lasts," that as to the universe as a whole there is and never has been anything truly new.
Joshua have you compared that to the letter to Herodotus?
Here's a note I am making while editing this week's podcast. Around the 20 minute mark I mention that I have a hard time remembering whether the swerve was attributed by Lucretius as playing a part of the formation of worlds. As I write this I think the answer is yes, but it's interesting to correlate that with the letter to Herodotus, because in that letter Epicurus has a description of the formation of worlds but he does NOT mention the swerve. That's one part that's relatively easy to remember, because I seem to remember the commentators have a consensus that but for Lucretius and Cicero (and perhaps some other later sources, but I'm not sure) we would not know about the swerve from the letters of Epicurus himself. And it's interesting there to remember that Laertius was writing long after Lucretius and Cicero, so presumably Laertius did or should know about the swerve theory.
I am pretty sure I did not see "Name of the Rose." Worth watching, or gag-inducing deference to the Vatican and "holiness" of the church (attributing anything bad to bad people as opposed to the rotten foundation)?
Oh, too, there was an early church figure associated as being Epicurean too -- i forget the name - {Pelagius?} Might need a thread on him too.
Wasn't the whole secret hidden manuscript the plot of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose?
You know a topic on the "Secrets of the Vatican" might make for an interesting thread itself. I've heard of that, but the only related them I am familiar with is that Tom Hanks movie -- what was that? 
Does anyone have enough interest or material for a "Secrets of the Vatican" thread?
Getting back to Elli's post for just a moment, I think that it would be interesting to consider the possibilities of what was going on with Raphael drastically revising that particular figure, even if we assume Elli's contention is correct:
- the first that comes to mind is that it appears that the drawing was first conceived with someone else in that position. If so, then that observation would tend to diminish any linkeage between the other figures arrayed nearby with Elli's Epicurus. I think we had previously speculated that one of more of them might be female and perhaps a reference to Epicurus' associates, but that possibility might be less likely if the original drawing was not intended to be Epicurus, because those other figures remain the same.
- Can we tell anything of significance about the figure that was removed? His eyes seem strange to me. I wanted to describe it as a "deer in the headlights" look but that might not be best. Might be best to speculate about him based on his headpiece, which I don't recognize but which might be identifying.
- Then there's the dramatic change in the wreathed figure. That may say something too,
a significant work by an important figure was hidden away in perfect secrecy.
I grant you that it is a poor idea to impute efficiency to the core church leadership. However I don't hesitate for a moment to impute power-lust and corruption to them, so there's that aspect as well. And I am not sure that our alternatives are mutually incompatible - they apparently wrote over lots of early manuscripts and there could be some combination of issues - obviously Lucretius did escape their worst efforts, and apparently the works of Cicero and Diogenes Laertius were too widespread to be eliminated entirely.
The main part of this aspect that concerns me is that in my view I see over and over examples of where individual "rebels" get stamped out by the central orthodoxy, and the lesson I take from that is that no countervailing force can hope to succeed for long unless it too "organizes" so as to perpetuate itself. As brilliant as Epicurus was, his works barely survived, and then likely only because they penetrated the culture so far initially that the views were picked up by others elsewhere and perpetuated.
I'm no Nietzsche expert but my understanding is that a similar observation (that nature does not provide that the "strong" always survive over the "weak" who have superior numbers) was behind much of Nietzsche's critique of some of Darwin's views. Regardless of that, I don't think we should underestimate what Epicureans in history have always been up against, and I don't at all think that those forces of opposition are gone. In fact, I see them again, at present, gathering strength for another offensive.
Yes I am thinking that there are not a large number of podcasts dedicated to Epicurus or Lucretius, so we probably pop to the top of the list of podcast searches much more than general text searches at google and similar. Thanks for letting us know.
EDIT: I checked out ivoox to see how high we were, and I was struck that we weren't nearly as high as i thought. Had to get to page two before finding us. Not sure how their rankings work. But it looks like the number of episodes may work for us.
Consider first that neither the Vatican nor anyone else even knows what Jesus or ANY of his disciples looked like.
As for a likeness of Jesus and.or the disciples, I think the most likely answer to that is that he never really existed except as a composite figure of one of more various local rebellion-leaders.
As for Shakespeare I am tempted to think much the same thing as well.
And there certainly have been "good" figures mixed in to the history of the catholic church (and the rest of organized religion), but I don't see that really changing its overall picture as machinery for manipulation and oppression of the "masses."
Glad I could help Elli! I will never believe for a second that the Vatican ever lost track of the correct image of Epicurus. I will never believe for a second that the Vatican didn't keep in its records a complete copy of Lucretius' poem. I will never believe for a second that there aren't many more texts of Epicurus and the Epicureans secreted away in the Vatican Library even today.
The Vatican has always known, and some of us over the years have always known, that Epicurus was the Number One mortal enemy that the Church has had since its inception. Nietzsche saw it. Norman DeWitt was probably correct that the early Christians considered Epicurus either one of, or the main, "Anti-Christ." Talmudic scholars have always known it, using Epicurus' name as a term of denunciation. I don't know about the past Islamists, but I would certainly expect them to have seen the same thing.
This is something that is totally lost in discussing Epicurus as primarily interested in "pleasure," especially in the form of "absence of pain." Epicurus was a philosophical and moral revolutionary, and the various religious groups had to work to stamp him out because his comprehensive view of the universe and the place of humanity in it would blow their fantasies sky high if they became well known and accepted by significant numbers of people. It does a great disservice to Epicurus to focus on food and drink and bodily pleasures - there's no doubt in my mind but that Epicurus was aiming at a virtual overthrow of the established culture and education - the groups that adopted Christianity and Islam and (today) Humanism so completely. People who are focused on those issues won't ever see what a revolutionary Epicurus was.
I think a lot of people over history have seen and understood that, and the Vatican saw and understood it too. I would therefore expect that they studied their primary opponent in close detail and kept good records of how they planned to defeat his ideas and prevent their flaring up ever again.
And the primary way they did that was to multiply Cicero's characterization of Epicurus as effeminate (focused on sensual pleasure rather than seeing "feeling" as the philosophical opponent of Virtue and Religion. And that's the way they succeeded in branding his ideas as disreputable and unfit for discussion in the camp or in the Senate (the way I understand Cicero described it).
In fact that's the thought I woke up with this morning, and started to post about. I know in the past I've received some criticism for focusing on the importance of "pleasure" as the goal of life, and at this point I'll begin to agree with that criticism, at least to this extent: I don't think Epicurus saw his work on the practical side of pleasure (what to eat, drink, clothing, dance, etc) as particularly unique or what he wanted to be remembered for. I think Epicurus saw his achievement as his insight that pleasure is really feeling, and that it's feeling rather than virtue and religion and rationalism that life is all about. I think Epicurus saw his comprehensive view of the universe as natural, as eternal, as infinite, and that there are no such things as supernatural gods or life after death, as the key benefit of his philosophy. Yes pleasure is important, but it's third in line in the principal doctrines after the dogmatic assertions that there are no supernatural gods and there is no life after death. The place that pleasure holds derives from those insights, and that there are no ideal forms or anything magic about "logic" and rationalism, and it's on all of that where Epicurus departs from the prior consensus, not just in appreciating good food and drink.
The Vatican knows that. The Vatican knows that defining "epicurean" as pursuing fine wine and dining and the like is never going to be a threat to their empire. They don't really care even for that, and thus they promote Cicero's "absence of pain" viewpoint, but in reality its the rest of the philosophy that's the iceberg waiting to take out the Vatican's Titanic.
Elli I wonder if Takis included this cartoon draft in his analysis?
Closeup of the first draft of the section Elli is pointing to:
http://projects.mcah.columbia.edu/raphael/htm/ra…athens_draw.htm
also: https://www.ambrosiana.it/en/partecipa/p…chool-of-athen/
Does it not appear that the twisted-head figure has some kind of headpiece on? I would think that undercuts the idea that he was originally a major figure, and I would see his being replaced as some evidence of special attention being paid to this character. He may have a beard, but the overall look doesn't impress me as being a philosopher, unlike the figure that replaced him.
I'm not sure why but in the past (and some of my comments probably reflect this) I was thinking that this fresco was in some part of Italy other than the Vatican. Since I now stand corrected and find that this is in the Vatican, in my own mind that adds near-certainty to Elli's conclusion. I personally have no doubt that the arch-enemies of Epicurus in the Vatican never lost track of what their primary enemy looked like, and one of them could and would have pointed out his bust to Raphael.
I see one view of the cartoon is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/art…-of-athens.html
and indeed the area you are pointing to is different:
As is the chubby wreathed figure:
My first impression is that these differences help your thesis, but that's only a first thought based on thinking that the preliminary sketch appears to be a generic set of onlookers with a man whose head is twisted as if he is paying particular attention or is otherwise an inferior student. On the other hand the finished product appears to be a dead ringer for Epicurus with much different head position and facial expression. I don't think you would insert someone strong like that (complete with philosopher beard) unless you wanted to feature a particularly important person.
If we could get a more clear view of that twisted head figure we might be able to learn more.
Also, the forerunner of the wreathed figure looks nothing like a Greek philosopher at all (nor does the current wreathed figure.)
Elli I see this section from the Wikipedia article but I have never seen pictures of any of these preliminary sketches. Have you found them and checked to see whether there are any details in the figures that would bear on your thesis?
I discovered your podcast by chance, just after exploring Lucretius' book.
I'm interested to know how you discovered it -- by using a podcast app to search for Lucretius, or what?
I don't feel confident to participate yet,
I think if you will look around you will see proof that everyone here is very nice and welcoming regardless of your level of knowledge. We've tried very hard to keep everything friendly and even "light" - at least where appropriate -- so if you experience any comments you feel are less than welcoming you let me know by private message and I'll take care of the offending party - but I am quite sure that isn't going to happen! 
Welcome again Alex, and thanks for saying hello so quickly!
