Posts by Cassius

That's possible, I guess. I was thinking about it in terms of it being focused on "the future" - which seems to be a particularly broad way of looking at things from a theoretical point of view.

Welcome to Episode Seventy-Five 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 75 we will read approximately Latin line 821-924 of Book Five. We will talk about the initial forms of life on earth, and how we can judge what was possible, and what was not possible, in their arising to life.

Now let's join ________ reading today's text:

Podcast 75

Latin Lines 821-924

Munro Notes-

821-836: thus mother earth produced in the beginning every kind of living thing, till she left off bearing from age; for she and the world change like everything else: all things have a time of vigour and decay.

837-854: at first the earth tried to produce monsters of all kinds, half-men half-women, creatures without feet or without hands or mouths, or with limbs not separated; so that they could not grow up nor continue their kind: they all therefore perished off.

855-877: many races of regularly organised creatures must have died off, because they wanted either some natural power by which to protect themselves, or could not be turned to use by man and be saved thereby: these fell a prey to others and disappeared, unable to endure the struggle for existence.

878-924: but centaurs and the like with twofold natures cannot exist : the horse has reached maturity when the boy is scarcely yet weaned ; and is worn out ere the other is grown to manhood and so with Scyllas, half-maid half-fish : then since fire burns lions like other creatures, how can a chimera exist breathing out flame: earth in its freshness produced many things, but not these figments of poets or philoso- phers.—This passage is extremely well and acutely reasoned out : he covertly refutes Empedocles' notion of the XXXXX and the XXXXX which are as impossible as the centaurs Scyllas and chimeras of the poets. The man-woman or hermaphrodite is possible enough, because the natures of man and woman are not incompatible; and doubtless it and other monstrous things tried at first to continue existence; but the creatures here described never could begin to come into being.

Browne 1743

And that the earth might have some release, and not be always in labor, she at length left off, as a woman worn out and past her prime; for time changes the nature of the whole world, one body continually rises from another, no being remains long like itself, things are in a perpetual flux, one thing decays and grows weak by time, another becomes vigorous and flourishes in its strength. Thus time alters the face of the whole world; and the earth passes from one state to another. She can no more produce the creatures she once did, and now she bears what she could not do before.

The Earth, it may be supposed, was at first delivered of many monstrous births, of a wonderful shape, and of an uncommon size (and some between the two sexes, not properly of both, yet not far removed from either) some without feet, and others without hands, many without a mouth and eyes; some had their limbs growing and sticking together over all their bodies that they could do no office of life, nor move from their place, nor fly what was hurtful, nor receive food to preserve their beings. Many other monsters, and strange productions of this kind, were at first formed, but in vain! For nature was shocked, and would not suffer them to increase; they could not arrive to any maturity of age, nor could they find their food; nor taste the pleasures of love; for many circumstances, we observe, must kindly agree that creatures might be able to propagate their kind. First of all there must be proper food, and then fit organs for the genial seed to flow through from all the limbs; and that the male and female may be closely joined, they must be furnished with those parts that may promote the mutual delights of both.

And therefore many kind of animals must needs be extinct, nor could they all by propagation continue their species, for almost every race of creatures we now see living, either their cunning, or their courage, or their swiftness, have secured and preserved them from the very beginning. And there are many that, from their usefulness to mankind, have recommended themselves to our defense. And first the fierce breed of lions, and their savage race, their courage protected; craft secures the fox, and swiftness the stag. But the watchful and faithful race of dogs, all beasts of burden, the flocks and herds, all these, my Memmius, are committed to the care of man. These fly swiftly from the rage of wild beasts; they love a quiet life, and depend upon us for their fill of provision, without any labor, of their own, which we allow them plentifully, as a reward for the benefits we receive from them. But those creatures on whom Nature has bestowed no such qualities, that cannot support themselves nor afford us any advantage, why should we suffer such a race to be fed by our care, or defended by our protection? These, by the unhappy laws of their nature being destitute of all things, became an easy prey to others till their whole species was at last destroyed.

But never have there been any such things as centaurs, nor could a creature at any time be formed from a doubtful nature, from two bodies, and out of members so different and disagreeable. The limbs and faculties of a man and a horse could never act uniformly together, with all their power; and this is obvious to a very mean apprehension. For a horse at three years old is strong and active; a child is far from being so, at that age he is commonly feeling for the mother’s breast in his sleep; and when the horse’s strength decays by old age, and his feeble limbs fail him at the end of life, then the boy flourishes in the prime of youth, and the beginnings of a beard appear upon his cheeks. Never think, therefore, that there is or ever can be such a creature as a centaur, made up of a human nature and the servile seed of a horse; or that there are any such things as Scyllas, having their loins surrounded with the ravenous bodies of half sea-dogs. Believe nothing of other monsters like these, whose members we observe so opposite and disagreeing, which neither live to the same age, nor grow strong or decay together, which are neither inflamed with the same sort of love, nor have the same dispositions, nor preserve their bodies by the same food; for goats, we see, often grow fat with hemlock, which to men is sharp poison. And since fire will scorch and burn the yellow body of a lion, as well as the bowels of any other creature living with blood in its veins, how could a chimera, with his body of three kinds, with a lion’s head, a dragon’s tail, and the middle like a goat, blow abroad a fierce flame out of his body?

Munro 1886

But because she must have some limit set to her bearing, she ceased like a woman worn out by length of days. For time changes the nature of the whole world and all things must pass on from one condition to another, and nothing continues like to itself: all things quit their bounds, all things nature changes and compels to alter. One thing crumbles away and is worn and enfeebled with age, then another comes unto honor and issues out of its state of contempt. In this way then time changes the nature of the whole world and the earth passes out of one condition into another: what once it could, it can bear no more, in order to be able to bear what before it did not bear.

And many monsters too the earth at that time essayed to produce, things coming up with strange face and limbs, the man-woman, a thing between the two and neither the one sex nor the other, widely differing from both; some things deprived of feet, others again destitute of hands, others too proving dumb without mouth, or blind without eyes, and things bound fast by the adhesion of their limbs overall the body, so that they could not do anything nor go anywhere nor avoid the evil nor take what their needs required. Every other monster and portent of this kind she would produce, but all in vain, since nature set a ban on their increase and they could not reach the coveted flower of age nor find food nor be united in marriage. For we see that many conditions must meet together in things in order that they may beget and continue their kinds; first a supply of food, then a way by which the birth-producing seeds throughout the frame may stream from the relaxed limbs; also in order that the woman may be united with the male, the possession of organs whereby they may each interchange mutual joys.

And many races of living things must then have died out and been unable to beget and continue their breed. For in the case of all things which you see breathing the breath of life, either craft or courage or else speed has from the beginning of its existence protected and preserved each particular race. And there are many things which, recommended to us by their useful services, continue to exist consigned to our protection.

In the first place the fierce breed of lions and the savage races their courage has protected, foxes their craft and stags their proneness to flight. But light-sleeping dogs with faithful heart in breast and every kind which is born of the seed of beasts of burden and at the same time the woolly flocks and the horned herds are all consigned, Memmius, to the protection of man. For they have ever fled with eagerness from wild beasts and have ensued peace and plenty of food obtained without their own labor, as we give it in requital of their useful services.

But those to whom nature has granted none of these qualities, so that they could neither live by their own means nor perform for us any useful service in return for which we should suffer their kind to feed and be safe under our protection, those, you are to know, would lie exposed as a prey and booty of others, hampered all in their own death-bringing shackles, until nature brought that kind to utter destruction.

But Centaurs never have existed, and at no time can there exist things of twofold nature and double body formed into one frame out of limbs of alien kinds, such that the faculties and powers of this and that portion cannot be sufficiently like. This however dull of understanding you may learn from what follows:

To begin, a horse when three years have gone round is in the prime of his vigor, far different the boy: often even at that age he will call in his sleep for the milk of the breast. Afterwards when in advanced age his lusty strength and limbs now faint with ebbing life fail the horse, then and not till then youth in the flower of age commences for that boy and clothes his cheeks in soft down; that you may not haply believe that out of a man and the burden-carrying seed of horses Centaurs can be formed and have being; or that Scyllas with bodies half those of fishes girdled round with raving dogs can exist, and all other things of the kind, whose limbs we see cannot harmonize together; as they neither come to their flower at the same time nor reach the fulness of their bodily strength nor lose it in advanced old age, nor burn with similar passions nor have compatible manners, nor feel the same things give pleasure throughout their frames. Thus we may see bearded goats often fatten on hemlock which for man is rank poison.

Since flame moreover is wont to scorch and burn the tawny bodies of lions just as much as any other kind of flesh and blood existing on earth, how could it be that a single chimera with triple body, in front a lion, behind a dragon, in the middle the goat whose name it bears, could breathe out at the mouth fierce flame from its body?

Bailey 1921

[826] But because she must needs come to some end of child-bearing, she ceased, like a woman worn with the lapse of age. For time changes the nature of the whole world, and one state after another must needs overtake all things, nor does anything abide like itself: all things change their abode, nature alters all things and constrains them to turn. For one thing rots away and grows faint and feeble with age, thereon another grows up and issues from its place of scorn. So then time changes the nature of the whole world, and one state after another overtakes the earth, so that it cannot bear what it did, but can bear what it did not of old.

[837] And many monsters too earth then essayed to create, born with strange faces and strange limbs, the man-woman, between the two, yet not either, sundered from both sexes, some things bereft of feet, or in turn robbed of hands, things too found dumb without mouths, or blind without eyes, or locked through the whole body by the clinging of the limbs, so that they could not do anything or move towards any side or avoid calamity or take what they needed. All other monsters and prodigies of this sort she would create; all in vain, since nature forbade their increase, nor could they reach the coveted bloom of age nor find food nor join in the work of Venus. For we see that many happenings must be united for things, that they may be able to beget and propagate their races; first that they may have food, and then a way whereby birth-giving seeds may pass through their frames, and issue from their slackened limbs; and that woman may be joined with man, they must needs each have means whereby they can interchange mutual joys.

[855] And it must needs be that many races of living things then perished and could not beget and propagate their offspring. For whatever animals you see feeding on the breath of life, either their craft or bravery, aye or their swiftness has protected and preserved their kind from the beginning of their being. And many there are, which by their usefulness are commended to us, and so abide, trusted to our tutelage.

[862] First of all the fierce race of lions, that savage stock, their bravery has protected, foxes their cunning, and deer their fleet foot. But the lightly-sleeping minds of dogs with their loyal heart, and all the race which is born of the seed of beasts of burden, and withal the fleecy flocks and the horned herds, are all trusted to the tutelage of men, Memmius. For eagerly did they flee the wild beasts and ensue peace and bounteous fodder gained without toil of theirs, which we grant them as a reward because of their usefulness.

[871] But those to whom nature granted none of these things, neither that they might live on by themselves of their own might, nor do us any useful service, for which we might suffer their kind to feed and be kept safe under our defence, you may know that these fell a prey and spoil to others, all entangled in the fateful trammels of their own being, until nature brought their kind to destruction.

[875] But neither were there Centaurs, nor at any time can there be animals of twofold nature and double body, put together of limbs of alien birth, so that the power and strength of each, derived from this parent and that, could be equal. That we may learn, however dull be our understanding, from this.

[883] First of all, when three years have come round, the horse is in the prime of vigour, but the child by no means so; for often even now in his sleep he will clutch for the milky paps of his mother’s breasts. Afterwards, when the stout strength and limbs of horses fail through old age and droop, as life flees from them, then at last youth sets in in the prime of boyish years, and clothes the cheeks with soft down; that you may not by chance believe that Centaurs can be created or exist, formed of a man and the load-laden breed of horses, or Scyllas either, with bodies half of sea-monsters, girt about with ravening dogs, or any other beasts of their kind, whose limbs we see cannot agree one with another; for they neither reach their prime together nor gain the full strength of their bodies nor let it fall away in old age, nor are they fired with a like love, nor do they agree in a single character, nor are the same things pleasant to them throughout their frame. Indeed, we may see the bearded goats often grow fat on hemlock, which to man is rank poison.

[901] Since moreover flame is wont to scorch and burn the tawny bodies of lions just as much as every kind of flesh and blood that exists on the earth, how could it have come to pass that the Chimaera, one in her threefold body, in front a lion, in the rear a dragon, in the middle, as her name shows, a goat, should breathe out at her mouth fierce flame from her body?

But I don't think the Stoics could ever endorse it due to their insistence on fate and divine providence, correct? Or no? The ancient, consistent, Stoics, I mean, not the modern variety

Yes that's the attitude that should be instilled in people at as young an age as possible, especially instead of filling their heads with much about their "fate" or "god's will" or "hard determinism"

Reminds me of a line we don't talk about too often:

Quote

We must then bear in mind that the future is neither ours, nor yet wholly not ours, so that we may not altogether expect it as sure to come, nor abandon hope of it, as if it will certainly not come.

If you post on Facebook, here's a post related to this topic, in which I reminded people not only of the forum but that it's a great source for Elli's graphics and Nate's graphics which have many uses.

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.