Posts by Cassius

Elli that's a good line of attack -- even if we forget about the busts, what about the rings?

I don't have a good list of how many there are or where they are now, but we don't think that each and every ring was discovered in Herculaneum or Pompeii, do we? Presumably there were many more rings than busts to start with, and they would be passed down from generation to generation. And some (at least) of the rings have Epicurus' name inscribed too, correct?

I would think the first thing that someone commissioned to do a fresco of historical figures would do is to scour his available contacts for all representations preserved in any form.

Certainly you would also include references from Diogenes Laertius as to objects or names (of books) that people were associated with, but you would certainly do everything you could to incorporate ALL available evidence.

Welcome to Episode Seventy-Two 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 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. Now let's join Don reading today's text.

Munro Notes-

509-533: the stars may move from various causes : if the whole heaven revolves, then must we say that, while an air presses on each pole and keeps it in its place, the heaven revolves with its stars by a third air which either blows on it above in the direction in which it and its stars are going, or beneath in an opposite direction ; so that the whole sphere is thus kept in motion like a waterwheel: if the heaven does not move, then may the stars move because they have in them fires of ether trying to escape and thus driving them on ; or an air blowing from some quarter may impel them ; or they may move of themselves whither their food invites them: it cannot be told for certain how this goes on in our world; but in the countless existing worlds every one of these causes is in operation; and one must act in this our world; but it is rash to assert that any one must be the sole cause.— This passage too as Lach. has proved stands in no proper connection with what precedes and follows: 534 should at once follow 508; and at 774 he makes no allusion whatever to this paragraph : clearly then it is an after addition of the poet's who had observed that he had entirely omitted this question of the stars, though he had so fully discussed sun and moon: it was left then by him unconnected with the rest, and placed here by his first editor.

534-563 : the earth remains at rest in the midst of the world, because its weight gradually diminishes and below it is another nature closely connected with the air above the earth: thus the whole forms as it were an organic whole, and one part does not weigh down another any more than one member of the body another member, the whole having been united and working together since its first formation : see too how the light soul sustains and puts in motion the whole heavy body.

564-591: the sun, the moon whether it shine by its own or borrowed light, and the stars are about the same size as, it may be a very little greater or less than, they appear to us; just as fires here on earth so long as they are visible do not increase or diminish in size to any great extent.

592-613: the great amount of heat and light proceeding from so small a sun may be explained in several ways: the sun may be the well-head to which the light and heat of the whole world flow; or the air about it may be of a nature to catch fire; or much unseen fire may exist in the neighbourhood of the visible sun.

Browne 1743

And thus were produced the Sea, the Air, and the Sky (or the ether) spangled with stars. All the finer seeds went to the formation of these fluid bodies, but some were more light than others; and the most light and liquid ether mounted higher, and spread over the body of the air, but its liquid parts never mixed with the turbulent blasts of the air below it. The airy region is tormented by violent whirlwinds, and disturbed by uncertain storms, while the ether calmly glides and bears along its fires in a fixed course. And that the ether may flow thus gently, and in a regular motion, we have an instance in the Euxine Sea, that runs with one certain tide, and preserves one constant stream in the current of its waters.

Now let us show from what cause proceeds the motion of the stars. And first, if the whole orb of the heavens be moved, then we must allow that the air bounds and encloses the outward surface of the heavens, and both the poles. The upper part of this air presses above, and drives the skies down to the west, the course in which the stars (the great lights of the world) are to move; the under part flows below, and lifts up this orb from beneath, and makes it rise, as we see the wheels of a mill, or buckets, are turned about by a running stream.

Or perhaps the whole body of the heavens may remain fixed, and yet the stars may execute their motions, either because some rapid particles of the sky are shut up, and struggling to find a way into the empty space, are whirled about, and drag the stars along with them; or some external air, rushing in from some other place, may turn them about; or they may move severally forward of themselves through the sky, where proper nourishment invites them to feed and keep alive their fires. But it is hard to resolve for certain what is the particular cause of these motions in this world of ours. I rather propose reasons in general for what may be done through the universe, in the multitude of worlds contained in the great All, and formed after various manners, And I offer many causes that may account for the whole, yet one only can be the true one that produced these effects; but to pronounce which it is, no wary philosopher will take upon him to do.

But that the Earth should rest in the middle region of the world it is necessary that its weight should in some degree lessen and be laid aside, and for this end it was fit that another substance should be placed under it, to which from the very beginning it should be united closely by natural and congenial ties, and upon which it should be staid. This substance being the surrounding air, which is a part of the same whole, and as it were of a piece with the earth, the earth therefore hangs suspended in the middle, and is no weight or pressure to the air at all; and so the limbs are no load to the body of a man, nor is the head a burden to the neck, nor do we perceive the weight of the whole body to press heavy upon the feet; but whatever weight is laid upon us from without, and is no part of us, is a pain to us, though it be ever so small. Of so great concern it is to what every being is severally united. For the earth was not brought from any other place and then thrust into the strange embrace of a different air, but was formed together with it, and became a regular part of the world, as our limbs were produced with the body, and are essential parts of it.

Besides, the earth, when it is shaken of a sudden by a violent thunder, makes every thing that is upon it tremble, which it could by no means do unless it was closely joined to the airy parts of the world, and to the heavens above; for they all stick closely together by common bonds, and kindly unite from the very beginning. Don’t you observe how the most subtle power of the soul supports the body with all its weight, because it is so strictly connected and so closely joined to it? And what is it but the force of the soul which actuates the limbs that raises the body, and makes it leap nimbly from the ground? Don’t you perceive now what a substance of the most subtle nature is able to do, when united with such a heavy body; such as the air when it is joined to the Earth, and as the soul to this body of ours?

But further, the orb of the sun is not much larger, nor is its heat much greater, than what our senses discovery to us; for at whatever distance the fire can send out its rays of light, and warm us with its heat, that distance takes away nothing from the bigness of the flame, nor does the fire appear less contracted to the eye. And therefore since the heat of the sun, and his diffused light, do reach our senses, and shine upon the earth, you are to conclude that his form and magnitude are no greater nor less than they appear to be.

And the moon, whether she views the world with borrowed light, or whether she shoots out her beams from her own body, however it be, she is of no greater size than to our sense she appears. For all objects we look upon at a great distance, and through a long tract of air, show first irregular and confused, before we discover their utmost figure and proportion. And therefore since the moon at once presents to us the certain form and the complete appearance of the whole orb, she shows to us above as great as she really is.

Besides, since all our fires here below, when they are seen at great distance, so long as their light is clear, and their brightness shines out to us, do seem to change a little, and show more or less contracted, we may conclude that the stars we view either the heavens are very little either greater or less than they appear.

Nor are we to wonder how it comes to pass that so small a body as the sun is able to emit so much light as to spread over the seas the whole earth and the heavens, and to cherish all things with its kindly heat. For you may imagine that from the sun one large fountain of light breaks out, and flows abundantly, like a river, over the whole world, and that the seeds of fire from all parts of the universe meet in the body of the sun, and are there collected as into a spring, from whence the heat of the whole world is diffused abroad. Don’t you observe how widely a small fountain of water spreads its stream over the meadows and overflows the fields?

Or perhaps the heat flowing from the small body of the sun may inflame the adjacent air, if the air be properly tempered and disposed to catch the fire from the feeble strokes of heat, as we sometimes see the corn and the stubble to be set all in a blaze from one small spark falling upon it. Or it may be the sun, shining above with the rosy light, has many dark and unseen stores of fire about it, which, though distinguished by no outward brightness, may yet increase the heat of its rays and make their strokes more inflamed.

Munro 1886

Then the sea, then the air, then the fire-laden ether itself, all are left unmixed with their clear bodies; and some are lighter than others, and clearest and lightest of all ether floats upon the airy currents, and blends not its clear body with the troubled airs; it suffers all these things below to be upset with furious hurricanes, suffer them to be troubled by wayward storms; while it carries along its own fires gliding with a changeless onward sweep. For that ether may stream on gently and with one uniform effort the Pontos shows, a sea which streams with a changeless current, ever preserving one uniform gliding course.

Let us now sing what causes the motions of the stars. In the first place, if the great sphere of heaven revolves, we must say that an air presses on the pole at each end and confines it on the outside and closes it in at both ends; and then that a third air streams above and moves in the same direction in which roll on as they shine the stars of the eternal world; or else that this third air streams below in order to carry up the sphere in the contrary direction; just as we see rivers turn wheels and water-scoops. It is likewise quite possible too that all the heaven remains at rest, while at the same time the glittering signs are carried on; either because rapid heats of ether are shut in and whirl round while seeking a way out and roll their fires in all directions through heaven’s Summanian quarters; or else an air streaming from some part from another source outside drives and whirls the fires; or else they may glide on of themselves going whithersoever the food of each calls and invites them, feeding their flamy bodies everywhere throughout heaven. For which of these causes is in operation in this world, it is not easy to affirm for certain; but what can be and is done throughout the universe in various worlds formed on various plans, this I teach, and I go on to set forth several causes which may exist throughout the universe for the motions of stars; one of which however must in this world also be the cause that imparts lively motion, to the signs; but to dictate which of them it is, is by no means the duty of the man who advances step by step.

And in order that the earth may rest in the middle of the world, it is proper that its weight should gradually pass away and be lessened, and that it should have another nature underneath it conjoined from the beginning of its existence and formed into one being with the airy portions of the world in which it is embodied and lives. For this reason it is no burden and does not weigh down the air; just as his limbs are of no weight to a man nor is his head a burden to his neck, nor do we feel that the whole weight of the body rests on the feet; but whatever weights come from without and are laid upon us, hurt us though they are often very much smaller: of such great moment it is what function each thing has to perform. Thus then the earth is not an alien body suddenly brought in and forced from some other quarter on air alien to it, but was conceived together with it at the first birth of the world and is a fixed portion of that world, just as our limbs are seen to be to us. Again the earth when suddenly shaken by loud thunder shakes by its motion all the things which are above it; and this it could in no wise do, unless it had been fast bound with the airy portions of the world and with heaven. For the earth and they cohere with one another by common roots, conjoined and formed into a single being from the beginning of their existence. See you not too that great as is the weight of our body, the force of the soul, though of the extremest fineness, supports it, because it is so closely conjoined and formed into a single being with it? Then too what is able to lift the body with a nimble bound save the force of the mind which guides the limbs? Now do you see what power a subtle nature may have, when it is conjoined with a heavy body, as the air is conjoined with the earth and the force of the mind in us?

Again, the disk of the sun cannot be much larger nor its body of heat much smaller, than they appear to be to our senses. For from whatever distances fires can reach us with their light and breathe on our limbs burning heat, those distances take away nothing by such spaces between from the body of the flames, the fire is not in the least narrowed in appearance. Therefore since the heat of the sun and the light which it sheds reach our senses and stroke the proper places, the form too and size of the sun must be seen from this earth in their real dimensions, so that you may not add anything whatever more or less. And whether the moon as it is borne on illuminates places with a borrowed light, or emits its own light from its own body, whatever that is, the form with which it is thus borne on is not at all larger than the one which it presents to our eyes seems to us to be. For all things which we see at a great distance through much air look dimmed in appearance before their size is diminished. Therefore since the moon presents a bright aspect and well-defined form, it must be seen on high by us from this earth precisely such as it is in the outline which defines it, and of the size it actually is. Lastly in the case of all those fires of ether which you observe from this earth, since in the case of fires which we see here on earth, so long as their flickering is distinct, so long as their heat is perceived, their size is seen sometimes to change to a very very small extent either way, according to the distance at which they are, you may infer that the fires of ether may be smaller than they look in an extremely minute degree or larger by a very small and insignificant fraction.

This likewise need not excite wonder, how it is that so small a body as yon sun can emit so great a light, enough to flood completely seas and all lands and heaven and to steep all things in its burning heat. It well may be that a single spring for the whole world may open up from this spot and gush out in plenteous stream and shoot forth light, because elements of heat meet together from all sides out of the whole world in such manner and the mass of them thrown together streams to a point in such manner, that this heat wells forth from a single source. See you not too what a breadth of meadowland a small spring of water sometimes floods, streaming out over the fields? It is likewise possible that heat from the sun’s flame though not at all great may infect the whole air with fervent fires, if haply the air is in a suitable and susceptible state, so that it can be kindled when struck by small bodies of heat; thus we see sometimes a general conflagration from a single spark catch fields of corn and stubble. Perhaps too the sun as he shines aloft with rosy lamp has round about him much fire with heats that are not visible, and thus the fire may be marked by no radiance, so that fraught with heat it increases to such a degree the stroke of the rays.

Bailey 1921

Then the sea and then the air and then the fiery ether itself were all left unmixed with their liquid bodies; they are lighter each than the next beneath, and ether, most liquid and lightest of all, floats above the breezes of air, nor does it mingle its liquid body with the boisterous breezes of air; it suffers all our air below to be churned by headstrong hurricanes, it suffers it to brawl with shifting storms, but itself bears on its fires as it glides in changeless advance. For that the ether can follow on quietly and with one constant effort, the Pontos proves, the sea which flows on with changeless tide, preserving ever the one constant rhythm of its gliding.

Now let us sing what is the cause of the motions of the stars. First of all, if the great globe of the sky turns round, we must say that the air presses on the pole at either end, and holds it outside and closes it in at both ends; and that then another current of air flows above, straining on to the same goal, towards which the twinkling stars of the everlasting world roll on; or else that there is another current beneath, to drive up the sphere reversely, as we see streams moving round wheels with their scoops. It may be also that the whole sky can abide in its place, while yet the shining signs are carried on; either because swift currents of ether are shut within them, and seeking a way out are turned round and round, and so roll on the fires this way and that through the nightly quarters of the sky; or else an air streaming from some other quarter without turns and drives the fires; or else they can themselves creep on, whither its own food invites and summons each as they move on, feeding their flaming bodies everywhere throughout the sky. For it is hard to declare for certain which of these causes it is in this world; but what can happen and does happen through the universe in the diverse worlds, fashioned on diverse plans, that is what I teach, and go on to set forth many causes for the motions of the stars, which may exist throughout the universe; and of these it must needs be one which in our world too gives strength to the motions of the heavenly signs; but to affirm which of them it is, is in no wise the task of one treading forward step by step.

Now that the earth may rest quiet in the mid region of the world, it is natural that its mass should gradually thin out and grow less, and that it should have another nature underneath from the beginning of its being, linked and closely bound in one with those airy parts of the world amid which it has its place and life. For this cause it is no burden, nor does it weigh down the air; even as for every man his own limbs are no weight, nor is the head a burden to the neck, nay nor do we feel that the whole weight of the body is resting on the feet; but all weights which come from without and are laid upon us, hurt us, though often they are many times smaller. Of such great matter is it, what is the power of each thing. So then the earth is not suddenly brought in as some alien body, nor cast from elsewhere on alien air, but it has been begotten along with it from the first beginning of the world, a determined part of it, as our limbs are seen to be of us. Moreover, the earth, when shaken suddenly by violent thunder, shakes with its motion all that is above it; which it could not by any means do, were it not bound up with the airy parts of the world and with the sky. For they cling one to the other with common roots, linked and closely bound in one from the beginning of their being. Do you not see too how great is the weight of our body, which the force of the soul, though exceeding fine, supports, just because it is so nearly linked and closely bound in one with it? And again, what can lift the body in a nimble leap save the force of the soul, which steers the limbs? Do you not see now how great can be the power of a fine nature, when it is linked with a heavy body, even as the air is linked with earth, and the force of the mind with us?

Nor can the sun’s blazing wheel be much greater or less, than it is seen to be by our senses. For from whatsoever distances fires can throw us their light and breathe their warm heat upon our limbs, they lose nothing of the body of their flames because of the interspaces, their fire is no whit shrunken to the sight. Even so, since the heat of the sun and the light he sheds, arrive at our senses and cheer the spots on which they fall, the form and bulk of the sun as well must needs be seen truly from earth, so that you could alter it almost nothing to greater or less. The moon, too, whether she illumines places with a borrowed light as she moves along, or throws out her own rays from her own body, however that may be, moves on with a shape no whit greater than seems that shape, with which we perceive her with our eyes. For all things which we behold far sundered from us through much air, are seen to grow confused in shape, ere their outline is lessened. Wherefore it must needs be that the moon, inasmuch as she shows a clear-marked shape and an outline well defined, is seen by us from earth in the heights, just as she is, clear-cut all along her outer edges, and just the size she is. Lastly, all the fires of heaven that you see from earth; inasmuch as all fires that we see on earth, so long as their twinkling light is clear, so long as their blaze is perceived, are seen to change their size only in some very small degree from time to time to greater or less, the further they are away: so we may know that the heavenly fires can only be a very minute degree smaller or larger by a little tiny piece.

This, too, is not wonderful, how the sun, small as it is, can send out so great light, to fill seas and all lands and sky with its flood, and to bathe all things in its warm heat. For it may be that from this spot the one well of light for the whole world is opened up and teems with bounteous stream, and shoots out its rays, because the particles of heat from all the world gather together on every side, and their meeting mass flows together in such wise, that here from a single fountain-head their blazing light streams forth. Do you not see too how widely a tiny spring of water sometimes moistens the fields, and floods out over the plains? Or again, it may be that from the sun’s fire, though it be not great, blazing light seizes on the air with its burning heat, if by chance there is air ready to hand and rightly suited to be kindled when smitten by tiny rays of heat; even as sometimes we see crops or straw caught in widespread fire from one single spark. Perhaps, too, the sun, shining on high with its rosy torch, has at his command much fire with hidden heat all around him, fire which is never marked by any radiance, so that it is only laden with heat and increases the stroke of the sun’s rays.

Lots of interesting stuff in there, but I have to comment on this:

Quote

As a symbol that oversees the enactment of official papal decrees in the Stanza Della Segnatura, Heraclitus’s ink pot (from which notions of the fleetingness of all authority would pour forth), is a courageously subversive symbol. It denies power by declaiming the futility of any attempt to inscribe oneself indelibly into the world. It and it alone sanctions the fluidity of identity that Raphael ingeniously constructs (and deconstructs) across the surface of his painting. Remove the ink pot from the epicentre of Raphael’s fresco, and the work dissolves into a fiasco of confused and confusing forms. Heraclitus’s profound, if overlooked, ink pot is the very well-spring from which the elastic energy of Raphael’s masterpiece endlessly emanates.

Oh come on, Kelly Grovier! (the author) Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you say something like It's all about the inkpot?

Lots of good points bring made. I woke up thinking about this that has probably already been covered, but how firm is the identificstion of the group to the right of Plato with one or more Stoics? If that group were shown to be clearly stoic, I suspect that Raphael and his contractors would have had a hard time resisting the parallelism of putting one or more Epicureans on Socrates left to mirror them and keep things "even.". Regardless of what anyone knew about what anyone looked like from the bustd, I gather that the church always held Cicero in high regard, and never lost his works, and it would be impossible to know about his "On Ends" and not know that Epicureans were one of the major schools that would leave a major gap if omitted.

All I can say for sure right now is that it is definitely an interesting debate.

As to the Speucippus that's based ONLY on proximity, correct? Or are there likenesses or descriptions of Speucippus that support that?

Great research and thank you!

But I have to say that the speculation that either the descending figure (blue) or the ascending figure (long hair looking away) seem to me to be absolutely and totally fanciful and I see no way in the world that these guys had anything to go on other than sheer speculation.

Do you gather that they had any reasoning other than wanting to put Epicurus in the scene?

I was looking back at Munro's notes as I was posting this week's episode:

Quote

416-431: I will now describe how the various parts of the world were formed: as we said above, it was not by design that atoms framed it; but after many fruitless collisions, they chanced to fall into such motions as produced the world and all that is in it.

I think we can all understand Munro's phrasing, and how most people would relate to it. But I don't think Epicurus/Lucretius would agree with it - especially the word "fruitless." This phrasing gives the impression that for an eternity before us the atoms were working on rearranging themselves all so they could arrive at the beneficent arrangement in which they find themselves in the month of May in the year of our lord 2021. Or at least the year 5000 BC or 10 billion or whatever starting point you'd like to affix as particularly significant. (I think in my case I'll pick 753 BC for the founding of Rome!)

I doubt seriously whether that kind of perspective is consistent with what Epicurus wanted to convey The motion of the atoms has never been any more or less "fruitless" (in the sense of reaching some point of particular importance to Nature) than the motion that's going on today. There's both no starting point and no end point from the Epicurean perspective.

Episode 71 of the Lucretius Today Podcast is now available. In this episode, we will read approximately Latin line 416 -508 of Book V, and we will talk about the formation of the world (which in Epicurean terms is not the whole universe, but our local part of it, from the fundamental elements. As always, please let us know any comments or questions in the thread below:

That makes Bailey sound more reasonable. Hard to say why Sedley and Long are so sure otherwise. I guess it doesn't include no fixed time and no fixed place.

I have the podcast edited so will be posting in next couple of hours at most.

Nate you are the artist among us. What are your current thoughts on this question?

All I read was the abstract but it didn't sound promising. Instead of the common sense easy to understand illustration that "true" means "honest" or "without opinion" combined with DeWitt's comparison to witnesses in court, the abstract seems to want to launch off into typical academic obscurity by referencing terms like "propositional, existential, and factive" meanings of the word true.

Epicurean philosophy is simple and direct enough to be understood by children, and this part of the doctrine is no exception. Spending too much time on articles like this may provide some benefit to "us" who are really into the details, but it is just a shame that people can't be up front and direct rather than hiding important observations in the weeds.

I haven't had time to read this (by Philop Hardie et al.) but since it appears relatively new (2020, and in fact still in draft) I am putting a link here for reference

https://www.academia.edu/40698907/Lucre…card=view-paper

I'm going by:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato (now that one might not bear much resemblance due to the age issue)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Of course it is hard to know whether or how these were identified as being of the people asserted.

Yes I am wanting to be very specific that I am not criticizing you (Don) or Joshua or anyone else personally, including Takis, for their positions on this issue.

I think the whole question presents a very interesting and clear way to discuss many issues of epistemology in a low-impact setting devoid of political or other aspects that would introduce bias or emotion too much into the picture.

You've listed a good set of various possibilities as to the result, and it would be equally interesting to discuss some of the issues that Elli is raising about - "Given the evidence, what are the possibilities for how to process that evidence? How much do we defer to consensus, or authority, or speculation, and when does speculation based on "some" evidence rise to the level of something to be entertained, or believed, and when does it not?"

I see the question of "when do we defer to the consensus of authorities" and "when do we pursue our own judgment that conflicts with those of authorities" as maybe one of the most important and regularly-occurring ones that we could address.

Certainly it seems to me that Epicurus was in almost complete rebellion against the philosophic opinions of his day, so we know that willingness to take an independent stand was important to him, but I think we have a long way to go to describe how he himself dealt with prior consensus and authority, or how we can apply his example ourselves.

Elli: Given the new development about the changes in the two characters you are looking at between draft and final execution, maybe it's time for you (or someone) to update your article?

When you say:

Quote from elli

Μyths and fairytales (Jesus and Saul/Paul) mixed with books and movies (Umberto Eco and Dan Brown) and a totally rejection of the two criteria of truth of the Canon which are our own eyes and our feelings for the examination on the issue: where and who is Epicurus on the fresco by Raphael?

I would say that it would be extremely interesting to see a discussion of that argument. I think it's easy to understand how your would assert that your senses (eyes) bear on the issue, but not so easy to explain how "feelings" play into the assertion. After the evidence of the eyes (which I think is strong), I would think that we are left with little more than a long chain of deductive reasoning based largely on hearsay as to the proper identification of the two figures. I think it would be useful to discuss through this example how an Epicurean DOES used deductive reasoning (tied closely to the senses) just as Epicurus used deductive reasoning throughout his physics.

And the article could also discuss how it becomes very difficult to get out from under a consensus after it is long formed and has assumed the air of an authority, but that an Epicurean will trust his senses and his own reasoning (if he is confident enough of it) against a consensus of other people no matter how large that consensus might be, depending on the evidence.

I tagged you in a note about the article that Don linked to - here is a statement in one of its footnotes that makes the point that I simply cannot /do not accept as true.

It looks like the article contains a lot of good historical information even for someone (like me) who rejects certain of its fundamental premises from the start. The idea that Raphael had no models to work by and guessed at the central figures from descriptions, but that his "guesses" proved so accurate to the busts in so many cases, strikes me as absurd. Hopefully as I read further into the article the writer won't take an extreme position on that.

OK I have read it. He does take the pretty extreme position, but the article is focused on disputing the identity of the figure sitting on the steps in front of Plato and Aristotle, which the write says is Socrates rather than Diogenes the Cynic, as is apparently the consensus today. Some reasonably good arguments in it, but the contention flies in the face of the other Socrates figure being a dead ringer for the bust that is today identified with Socrates. Maybe the identification of the bust of Socrates and his location in the picture is wrong, but since the article is really based on the contention that Raphael had little or no knowledge of the ancient busts, i am very skeptical.

And maybe we can check other translations of Diogenes Laertius and compare. I think we have access to at least one and maybe two more recent editions (but not in public domain). Also we can check Epicurus reader, which seems to bear out Sedley and Long

:

Quote from Don

Can't tell if it addresses Epicurus directly, but the abstract seems to contend that Raphael didn't use portrait sculpture for any of the portraits. Even Socrates was supposedly derived from textual descriptions.

Not questioning you, Don, but the statement on its face. Can such a theory even be seriously entertained? We need that full article because this assertion I want to read in detail.

And yes I think you're correct to observe that even in the course of someone who is extremely anti-Vatican, and anti-Church, and slow to impute "good" motives to any of them, it would be part of the thesis of someone arguing Elli's point that Raphael (at least Raphael, if not his Church supervisors) wanted to be accurate in placing Epicurus in a position more consistent with his central role in Greek philosophy, rather than banish him to the edges or some other unflattering position.

More Sedley from the same article, and this time he says: "contain no hint." More weight to the "Bailey uses the wrong word" possibility:

And just to be sure I am not misquoting Bailey in the "Core Texts" page here, here is a screenshot from "Epicurus, the Extant Remains" - Apparently Sedley thinks that whatever is translated here as "some swerving" is really "no hint of the swerve doctrine."

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.