Posts by Cassius

I think I've mentioned before that I had the opportunity some years ago to hear her give a lecture live. She's definitely one of the leading scholars on Epicurus alive today and if I remember her presentation was very interesting, so should be worth it.

Sounds to me like Ms. Tsouna is promoting heresy -- the "fourth leg" of the canon! - but past experience indicates her research is going to be worth listening to regardless of the conclusion

Links:

https://zoom.us/meeting/regist…IaoMkHQ0m_AbJUe

https://www.forumhellenisticum.com/support

Good grief- where did I get THAT from? thanks for correcting me!

Do you mean this one? One point against that would be that he doesn't appear to be blind (?)

Thats a really good point - checking out Raphael's other works for clues.

Nate what about that pronounced downward pointed nose on the orange-balding figure. Of course we have to keep in mind Don's caveat, but the nose on the bust of Zeno doesn't seem to be so pronounced in pointing downward (?)

Good sleuthing to count the balding ones in the painting. We'd have to ask Elli about this, but I wonder if anything can be said about whether Greek men (ancient or modern) have a more or less tendency to go bald than Romans or other Europeans(?) I am by no means expert on the racial characteristics of Greeks but I wonder if anything can be said about their relative baldness. Maybe the number of balding men in this picture is an indication of using local figures as models rather than the busts - and maybe the sculptors tended to embellish the amount of hair?

Quote from Don

I'd suggest caution again as to who knew what when as to those busts.

Very true. I am exercising caution, even as I take the position in my own mind that these guys probably had access to virtually every bust/image that we have today, plus more that have probably been lost. the only reason I caveat with "virtually" is that i acknowledge that some may have been buried at Vesuvius, but for every one we've gained from Vesuvius i'd wager at least one and maybe two have been lost in the intervening 500 years.

Quote from Don

At what time did that figure become associated with Epicurus?

I agree that is an important question. While I know that science has improved over the centuries, I don't think we should presume that "knowledge in general" has always improved, and I would suspect that the further back in time we go the more deference ought to be given to statements from people of the older period, absent some reason not to credit it. I especially think that's true in terms of translations and interpretations - I would think that the further back in time the person is, the "closer" they would be to a more accurate understanding of subtle changes in meaning of words.

We have no reason to give much deference to monks of the 5th century on their general knowledge of science, but I would expect those monks to be able to run rings around later academics in their ability to understand the subtleties of ancient Greek and Latin texts. Someone like Bailey or Munro can study a lifetime and be the foremost expert of their age, and yet still not have the accuracy of understanding of Greek or Latin that would have been held by many off-the-street ancient Romans of ordinary education.

From - https://www.epicureanfriends.com/index.php?thread-add/672/

Nate (or anyone) is there any historical or other reason to portray Zeno as fat as this orange-clad figure is shown? I agree about the beard, but the bald head combined with the very large size would seem to me to need some correlation too, or else they point in a different direction.

If Julius is who commissioned the fresco, then portraying him in a prime location as if he is the one harking back to the books and smiling while he imagines the scene, that he is in actuality making available to us, would be a nice way to honor him.

Seems that often Irascible volatile warriors tend to like to have their images preserved for eternity, however. I have no opinion at this point; that's the kind of suggestion that would take a lot of exploration.

You think Julius II looks liked the wreathed figure in blue? He does seem to have carried some significant weight.

Another reason I agree that some placement nearer Plato would be significant is that it continues to impress me that Cicero did not seem to have an especially high impression of Aristotle, if the amount of time paid to him in "On Ends" is an indication. I understand that the Thomists may have been responsible for elevating Aristotle's stature, but I am thinking that someone who was brought up in the Ciceronian tradition (which is probably more insightful as to the significance of the Stoics and Epicureans) would not have Aristotle in as central a location. I am gathering that while Epicurus agreed more with Aristotle than with Plato, that the ancient Epicureans probably considered Aristotle little more than a watered-down Platonist.

We're seeing I think how this fresco is really helpful for advancing basic discussion.

We see Plato pointing to the skies (to god and to his true reality).

We see Aristotle disputing that, and pointing forward, saying that reality is here (too?), but also that our reality comes from god / the prime mover.

Within that context, how would we tell a young Epicurean student to place Epicurus in this scene? How would we best imagine Epicurus gesturing or otherwise making his basic point about supernatural gods and the nature of reality?

The thought occurred to me too that it could be fig leaves, but they look more like some kind of oak to me.

So if the Scholastics and Thomists say that god provided humanity with practical reason which is useful for knowing how to live, as a complement to divine revelation (presumably), then what is the thumbnail summary of the Augustinian position. That human / practical reason is totally useless for ultimate questions? Would Plato agree that such would be a logical conclusion of his theories?

Don -- I note in that article you linked this passage below. I haven't yet tried to get a timeline on availability of Diogenes Laertius' biographies but this would indicate "widespread" and extensive knowledge of Epicurean philosophy by 1433 - which I gather is approximately the same time Greenblatt pins to the "rediscovery" of Lucretius. That would seem quite a coincidence in timing, as if perhaps one fed into the other. I'm still thinking that there's little reason to think that DL (and thus the basics of Epicurean philosophy) was ever gone from fairly widespread circulation. If there was a single "encyclopedia" that a reputable monk or monastery would want in its collection, seems to me that DL would be it. (I'm trying to think like a librarian! )