Posts by Cassius

Quote from Godfrey

As long as nothing is interfering with this process then no philosophy is necessary.

Godfrey how frequently do you think that this condition ("nothing is interfering with this process") will exist? Frequently enough that it ought to be considered a default position, on the order of observing that all young things at birth pursue pleasure and avoid pain? Or infrequently, but important to identify as the general rule? Or somewhere in between? What does the answer tell us about how we should state the general rule. Or is it useful or not useful to state a general rule?

Great research, thank you! I was thinking that Frances Wright"s treatment was probably her own overlay and it sounds like it might be . A good hypothesis about the truth, but in the end a hypothesis.

Thanks for commenting on this because yes I think this was a very interesting discussion and something that needs to be articulated better. I'm not sure we really understand the Polyaenus example either. I know Frances Wright treats it at some length, and now her commentary has replaced in my mind what may be in the ancient texts from which we are working.

Don do you agree that that the Polyaenus illustration is pretty much exactly on point? When I get back to the computer later today I will try to gather the actual references. I think we can trace them through footnotes in DeWitt if nowhere else.

Episode 30 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available:

This (I think) is the Vasari material on Raphael mentioned on the Wikipedia page. I do not see it referencing Epicurus:

Quote from Don

I'm also skeptical whether Epicurus would have had so prominent a spot right down front if we take the traditional attribution.

That's another angle on this to consider. Which position is more "prominent"? The one down front with the pudgy wreathed figure, or the position located very close to the central figures of the fresco (even if somewhat obscured)?

OK I have to apologize to everyone because I have only now had the time to follow Don's original links to see what Joshua was commenting on..... Now I see where Joshua was coming from.

At least to organize my own thoughts, if not the thread as a whole, it seems we are talking about a series of things:

1. Did Raphael have access to good information as to what Epicurus really looked like?
   
   1. The context of that question is that clearly at some point in history various book publishers featured renderings of Epicurus which were apparently "reconstructed" as if they did not have access to good information about Epicurus' likeness.
   2. On the other hand, it appears to be the case that there were busts of Epicurus at the Vatican which survived from antiquity. If the memory was also preserved that these busts were of Epicurus (which needs to be determined) then at least some Europeans retained a correct knowledge of his likeness even while books were being published elsewhere with incorrect portrayals.
   3. Is it possible that Epicurus' true face was not known anywhere with confidence until the small bust inscribed with his name was found at Herculaneum?
2. Did Raphael convey to others who each of the figures in his fresco were intended to represent?
3. If Raphael did not convey his own views to others, is there a record of a historical tradition as to who each figure was?
4. We're presumably talking about the Wikipedia attribution. What authority does the Wikipedia page cite?
5. Is it possible that Raphael knew what Epicurus really looked like, but nevertheless portrayed him as the pudgy wreathed stenographer?
6. If the pudgy wreathed stenographer was not intended to be Epicurus, is there another likely candidate for that figure?
7. What case can be made that the figure which most resembles the actual Epicurus, the bearded figure in Orange to the left of Plato, was intended by Raphael to represent Epicurus?
8. What implications can be drawn from the placement of the figures and the context in which they are placed?

It's interesting that after more than three years we finally get a discussion going on this topic! This is what "forum" software is good for - asynchronous discussion! I particularly hope that now that we have called this to michelepinto 's attention he will keep the question in mind, as being from Italy he probably is uniquely position to raise this question every so often with people who are in a position to have some really keen insight into the question.

Admin note: At this point in this discussion I moved a series of posts in this thread over to the discussion entitled "Where is Epicurus in the School of Athens?"

OKAY now I understand based on those first two photos I presumed you were talking about something from Don's link but I wasn't diligent enough to try to figure it out. Now we have a basis to explore at some future point when we both have more time. I think I am going to move these posts to the thread on the painting where they will be easier to find. Thank you!

In terms of hugging are we talking about THIS figure with the blue top? I see the hand on "her" shoulder, but I would not think anyone is asserting that hand belongs to Epicurus (in orange, two figures away)? Or are they? I am referencing this comment here.

Well that is interesting and probably a new take in the conversation. You are suggesting that regardless of whether Raphael knew what Epicurus looked like, he might have wanted to embody the current thought as to his character.

I am afraid that I don't even really know the data as to whether Raphael himself ever gave a list of who was who, or where the list we are discussing came from. When I have time I need to start at the beginning and confirm the trail of who is or was asserting the identity of these peripheral figures. Presumably Aristotle and Plato in the center were never in doubt, but I don't know the trail of history of these designations.

Thank you Michele!

And hey that is a great new AVATAR you are using!

Argh I am wasting your time on this discussion I am afraid. I think my issue is that I don't see which figure is hugging a female - I will go back and look closer.

michelepinto -

In a more recent thread Joshua and I took a sidetrack and Joshua expressed his opinion that he felt differently than Elli on this question, and that he thought the figure identified as "2" in Elli's graphic above, as is often stated (perhaps on the wikipedia page too).

I don't think you were communicating with us regularly when this debate started, and in fact I see the original post is so old that some of the graphics have now disappeared. I am not sure I can reconstruct those but I will see what I can do.

But my reason for posting this is: I think this is a very interesting debate, and I wonder if you have an opinion not only on the main question but on:

(1) Do you think knowledge of Epicurus' true appearance was ever COMPLETELY lost to the world?

(2) Do you know anything about the history of what he was thought to have looked like, and when that became solidified?

I think I have read that there was a discovery at Herculaneum of a bust that had his name etched on it, so at that point any debate would have ceased. However it is also my impression that there are MANY surviving busts of Epicurus, along with rings, and I find it very difficult to believe personally that NO ONE in the world retained an accurate tradition.

And of course that gets us back to the question - Even if we presume that some people some places knew that Epicurus was not bald and pudgy, what do we know (if anything) about Raphael's connection to that knowledge, or his own description of who these characters are supposed to represent.

If you have any insight, or know anyone we could ask, that would be greatly appreciated!

Well just to be up front and on the record I am going to have to side with Elli on this one, but it's a multi-layered issue and that's why I asked about the history - it's certainly possible that there is some record that would substantiate the possibility that Raphael intended what you mean.

Back when Elli posted the article there was some additional discussion with one of the other Greek activists on the issue of "Was knowledge of the true face of Epicurus ever really TOTALLY lost, or are we just talking some people in some areas thought it was lost while other areas / other people had access to one or more of the relatively large numbers of busts of Epicurus that apparently survived the ancient world. I tend to think that given the hurdles of communication back in those years it's entirely possible that some people were well aware of what Epicurus looked like and others were not, but I have nothing to back that up other than I don't think it is likely logical that digging up a single bust in Herculaneum was the first time that any living human had an inkling of Epicurus' true face in 500 or 1000 or 1500 years.

Then there are the issues of the people involved in the mural in Italy and who knew what.

I think the details of all that historical debate are as interesting, perhaps more so, than the debate on where we think Epicurus "should" have been placed.

Like I said I side with Elli's interpretation, but I think there's a lot more to be learned from discussing the issue.

Come to think of it I believe this debate all took place before we came into contact with Michelle Pinto. I will see If I can post something somewhere to see if he has an opinion on this.

Note to self: I need to go back to the article and check this - I do not recall Elli suggesting that the figure of Epicurus was hugging the female figure:

Quote from JJElbert

The main question with that article is whether the man "hugging" Leontion is meant by the illustrator to signify Epicurus. Groping the 'courtesan', and all that.

OK I see! These are "interpretational" arguments that I can certainly understand. I was thinking that you were referring to some specific clues that you saw referenced in the British museum article beyond just the mural itself. That's what I wanted to be sure to file away in my mind - whether you saw some new data that I'd missed. Thanks for elaborating!

Quote from JJElbert

Thank you for following up on that, Don; I was up far too late last night.

I also found that British Museum article, and I found the illustrations very interesting. Elli wrote an article a few years back on what she believes was the misidentification of Epicurus in Raphael's School of Athens. I think at some point I'll write an article or make a video arguing the other side in that debate, looking at Diogenes Laertius, the Nuremburg Chronicle, and De Claris Mulieribus for clues.

1 - Yes I think Jstor has some level of free plan most of the time -- 5 articles at a time, or something like that (?)

2 - So just to be clear on your earlier comment, the issue you noticed is that there may be some evidence that the wreathed figure was intended to be Epicurus? I am thinking i am much more interested in hearing your poetry than seeing you get diverted on that, but if you could summarize in a sentence of two what you think may be there I would love to file that away in my mind too

Quote from JJElbert

Thank you for following up on that, Don; I was up far too late last night.

I also found that British Museum article, and I found the illustrations very interesting. Elli wrote an article a few years back on what she believes was the misidentification of Epicurus in Raphael's School of Athens. I think at some point I'll write an article or make a video arguing the other side in that debate, looking at Diogenes Laertius, the Nuremburg Chronicle, and De Claris Mulieribus for clues.

you mean you think there are clues that the pudgy guy with the head wreath is Epicurus? Or was intended to be him? Don't bite off too many projects at one time but that is one I hope you'll be able to follow up on because if there are relevant source materials it would be interesting.

Great information thank you Don!

It may be anonymous but I presume there must have been some context in which it was found, you think?