Posts by Cassius

i will combine them!

velleius would have some spicy language about religion.

I was about to ask you because I cannot recall what is the point of the letter to Marcella?

There is so much good in the primary sources that it would be a shame to include too much secondary material.

And I wouldn't dream of putting the letter to Marcella or any plutarch ahead of the Torquatus or even Vellius material that Cicero has preserved.

The Torquatus material in particular is very hard to match, and probably a direct copy from an Epicurean work anyway even though it has Cicero's name on it.

This is similar to Hiram's question on what is the most important sections. I know personally that I would never want to abridge the "introductory" sections of each of the six books, and there are some key sections on "epistemology" and on death and romantic love and on the development of the world over time.... gee as I list them there is a lot I would want to see kept in as is. But no doubt there is a lot of repetition of some of the proofs which could be "abridged" pretty easily.

Hmmm I personally find the description very unpersuasive, but the face may be detailed enough to be recognizable as Hermarchus? I wonder if Elli agrees with that?

I know that the standard list would include the section on romantic love, and some of the discussion on atoms and void, but really the most interesting sections are the beginnings of the six books. Those are much more lively than a lot of the details, and they explain the significance of what is being discussed. That kind of context is missing from many discussions of Lucretius and without them it's easy to take some of the details and think that it's all a waste of time.

Charles when you get a chance could you set up a separate thread entitled Anti-Seneca (or however it should be designated) within his subforum, and possibly copy to it either what you've pasted above or a link to where you have transcribed what is available?

Here, for comparison, are the relevant sections on marriage and resisting fate from Inwood and Gerson's "The Epicurus Reader."

On first thought - the introductory sections of each of the six books, all of which refer to Epicurus and/or general ethics issues

The section reconciling us to death (end of book three)

The section in book four discussing the primacy of the senses over reason.

I just checked both and I see what you mean about the formatting. That's great work Charles!

A more general comment -- this book includes more pictures than I would expect, and fewer footnotes as to textual issues.

And as for this photo, how does she know it is an Epicurean philosopher?

Ok this appears to me to be REALLY troubling.

Here is the Bailey version: "He [the wise man] will face fortune and will never desert a friend."

Here is what appears in the Mensch version: " He will face his destiny and will not make any possession dear to him."

What in the world?????????

Also it is disappointing to me to see her take the side of the flat assertion that the wise man will not marry and have children, without even noting any possibility of ambiguity:

Hereis the Bailey version, which takes the opposite view of the main phrase:

And note also the Inwood and Gerson "Epicurus Reader" version below, which follows Bailey.

I note no references to DeWitt, but instead to Warren and Okeefe and Rist:

Martin and I were talking a few minutes ago about Diogenes Laertius and I just discovered that there is a new 2018 translation by someone I have never heard of - Pamela Mensch. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Lives-Eminent-…s/dp/0190862173

I don't see an "about the author" section, and this gives me pause that she is leaning heavily on other people, as indicated here. In the following posts, on the other hand, I'll indicate some ways that she might not have leaned heavily enough, because she departs from some well-established versions of key sections:

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE

Pamela Mensch

Close translation, with all its unsolvable difficulties, is the only method by which most translators can hope to do justice to an author’s work. The challenge is to respect, capture, and convey the elements of a writer’s style—diction, tone, rhythm, and flow—knowing all the while that compromise in each of these areas is inevitable, and that each compromise, no matter how minute, increases the distance between the reader and the original work. That distance can never be eliminated, which is why all translators are bound to revere their intrepid predecessors, whose efforts become a lasting source of moral support. Thus it is a great pleasure to acknowledge the debt I owe to Robert Drew Hicks, Diogenes’ Loeb Classical Library translator, and to the seven translators of the French edition published in 1999 by Livre de Poche. The ingenuity of Richard Goulet deserves special mention.

Two of our consulting editors gave me extensive help with the doctrinal material in Books 7 and 10: A. A. Long elucidated the Stoic doxography, and James Allen the letters of Epicurus. I am beholden to them for their expertise and generosity. Jay Elliott reviewed the entire translation; his responses, always astute, prompted a great many improvements. James Romm reviewed all the biographical passages, offered me an invaluable trove of suggestions, and showed himself willing to discuss and debate them to my heart’s content, a gift for friendship being among his foremost. And for her unerring grasp of how to make a sentence fulfill its promise, all honor to Prudence Crowther.

Our translation is based on Tiziano Dorandi’s edition of the Greek text, published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press.

Listen to or Download "Episode 04 - Recap of Opening Sections Of Book One" on Spreaker.

Welcome to Episode Four of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who lived in the age of Julius Caesar and wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you line by line through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a self-taught Epicurean. 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.

Before we get started with today's episode let me remind you of our three ground rules.

First: The opinions stated on this podcast are those of the people making them. Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, not to tell you what we think Epicurus might have said or should have said, in our opinions.

Second: In this podcast we won't be talking about modern political issues. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is entirely up to you. Over at the Epicureanfriends.com web forum, we apply this approach by following a set of ground rules we call "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is not a religion, it''s not Stoicism, it's not Humanism, it's not Libertarianism, it's not Atheism, and it's not Marxism or any other philosophy - it is unique in the history of Western Civilization, and as we explore Lucretius's poem you'll quickly see how that is the case.

Third: Please be willing to re-examine whatever you think you already know about Epicurus. Lucretius will show that Epicurus was not focused on fine food and wine, like some people say, but neither did he teach that we should live like a hermit on bread and water, as other people say. Epicurus taught that feeling - pleasure and pain - are what Nature gave us to live by, and not gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

As we get started today, remember that the home page of this podcast is LucretiusToday.com, and there you can find a free copy of the version of the poem from which we are reading, and links to where you can discuss the poem between episodes at Epicureanfriends.com.

Today's episode is going to be devoted to a review of what we have read so far, with special emphasis toward explaining how Epicurus was both a vigorous opponent of supernatural religion, while at the same time using himself the word "gods" to refer to true nature of what a divine being would be like if we happened some time in the future to fly out into space and come across one. Whatever else you may end up concluding about Epicurus' view of divine beings, we know for certain that Epicurus held that true divine beings are not supernatural; they did not create the universe, they do not control the universe, and they do not intervene in any way at all in the affairs of human beings.

Whether you think the Epicurean theory of divine beings is interesting and helpful, or whether you it is irrelevant because they have no concern or connection with us, just keep in mind that whenever an ancient Epicurean referred to gods, we know for sure that those gods were nothing like Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Jesus, or Allah, or any of the standard definition of gods we use today.

With that, let's get started with today's discussion:

The part of the poem we have read so far from the 1743 Daniel Browne edition is as follows:

MOTHER of Rome, Delight of Men and Gods, Sweet Venus; who with vital power does fill the sea bearing the ships, the fruitful Earth, all things beneath the rolling signs of Heaven; for it is by Thee that creatures of every kind conceive, rise into life, and view the Sun’s bright beams. Thee, Goddess, Thee the winds avoid; the clouds fly Thee and Thy approach. With various art the Earth, for Thee, affords her sweetest flowers; for Thee the sea’s rough waves put on their smiles, and the smooth sky shines with diffused light. For when the buxom Spring leads on the year, and genial gales of western winds blow fresh, unlocked from Winter’s cold, the airy birds first feel Thee, Goddess, and express thy power. Thy active flame strikes through their very souls. And then the savage beasts, with wanton play, frisk over the cheerful fields, and swim the rapid streams. So pleased with thy sweetness, so transported by thy soft charms, all living Nature strives, with sharp desire, to follow Thee, her Guide, where Thou art pleased to lead. In short, Thy power, inspiring every breast with tender love, drives every creature on with eager heat, in seas, in mountains, in swiftest floods, in leafy forests, and in verdant plains, to propagate their kind from age to age.

Since Thou, alone, doest govern Nature’s laws, and nothing, without Thee, can rise to light, without Thee nothing can look gay or lovely; I beg Thee a companion to my lays, which now I sing of Nature, and I devote to my dear Memmius, whom Thou art ever pleased, sweet Goddess, to adorn with every grace. For him, kind Deity, inspire my song, and give immortal beauty to my verse. Meantime, the bloody tumults of the war, by sea and land, compose, and lay asleep. For Thou, alone, mankind, with quiet peace, canst bless; because it is Mars Armipotent that rules the bloody tumults of the war, and He, by everlasting pains of love, bound fast, tastes in Thy lap most sweet repose, turns back his smooth long neck, and views thy charms, and greedily sucks love at both his eyes. Supinely, as he rests, his very soul hangs on thy lips. This God, dissolved in ease, in the soft moments when thy heavenly limbs cling round him, melting with eloquence, caress, great Goddess, and implore a peace for Rome.

For neither can I write with cheerful strains, in times so sad, nor can the noble House of Memmius desert the common good in such distress of things. The hours you spare, apply with close attention to my verse, and, free from care, receive true reason’s rules; nor these my gifts, prepared with faithful pains, reject with scorn before they are understood. For I begin to write of lofty themes, of Gods, and of the motions of the sky, the rise of things, how all things Nature forms, and how they grow, and to perfection rise, and into what, by the same Nature’s laws, those things resolve and die; which as I write I call by various names; sometimes it is matter, or the first principles, or seeds of things, or first of bodies, whence all else proceed.

For the whole nature of the Gods must spend an Immortality in softest peace, removed from our affairs, and separated by distance infinite; from sorrow free; secure from danger; in its own happiness sufficient, and nothing of ours can want, is neither pleased with good, nor vexed with evil.

Indeed mankind, in wretched bondage held, lay groveling on the ground, galled with the yoke of what is called Religion; from the sky this tyrant shewed her head, and with grim looks hung over us, poor mortals, here below; until a man of Greece, with steady eyes, dared look her in the face, and first opposed her power. Him not the fame of Gods, nor thunder’s roar, kept back, nor threatening tumults of the sky; but still the more they roused the active virtue of his aspiring soul, as he pressed forward, first to break through Nature's scanty bounds. His mind’s quick force prevailed; and so he passed by far the flaming limits of this world, and wandered with his comprehensive soul over all the mighty space; from thence returned, triumphant; told us what things may have a being, and what cannot; and how a finite power is fixed to each; a bound it cannot break. And so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn. His conquest makes us equal to the Gods.

But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood; her virgin hair a fillet bound, which hung in equal length on either side of her face. She saw her father, covered with sorrow, stand before the altar; for pity to his grief the butchering priests concealed the knife. The city, at the sight, overflowed with tears; the virgin, dumb with fear; fell low upon her knees on the hard Earth; in vain the wretched princess in distress pleaded that she first gave the honored name of Father to the King; but hurried off, and dragged by wicked hands, she, trembling, stood before the altar. Alas! not as a virgin, the solemn forms being duly done, drawn with pleasing force to Hymen’s noble rites, but a chaste maid, just ripe for nuptial joy, falls a sad victim, by a father’s hand, only to beg a kind propitious gale for Grecian ships. Such scenes of villainy Religion could inspire!

Just glancing at the wikipedia article, I see this, which seems very similar to an exchange that I recently had with Oscar. If I recall the issue that bothered Oscar was whether to use "continuum" or "spectrum" terminology, but the real point that I was interested in was the point Mettrie makes here - that there is no abrupt transition.

Man and the animal

Prior to Man a Machine he published The Natural History of the Soul in 1745. He argued that humans were just complex animals.^[9] A great deal of controversy emerged due to his belief that "from animals to man there is no abrupt transition".^[10] He later built on that idea: he claimed that humans and animals were composed of organized matter. He believed that humans and animals were only different in regards to the complexity that matter was organized. He compared the differences between man and animal to those of high quality pendulum clocks and watches stating: "[Man] is to the ape, and to the most intelligent animals, as the planetary pendulum of Huygens is to a watch of Julien Le Roy"

Also, I bet we are going to find that this part of the Wikipedia article is not correct, and that he did not advocate the "unbridled" pursuit of pleasure except in the sense that any Epicurean worth his salt identifies pleasure as the highest goal:

There La Mettrie wrote the Discours sur le bonheur (1748), which appalled leading Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, Diderot and D'Holbach due to its explicitly hedonistic sensualist principles which prioritised the unbridled pursuit of pleasure above all other things.^[5]

And also a good chance that we will find this slanderous just as the type of thing aimed at Lucretius:

Death

La Mettrie's celebration of sensual pleasure was said to have resulted in his early death. The French ambassador to Prussia, Tirconnel, grateful to La Mettrie for curing him of an illness, held a feast in his honour. It was claimed that La Mettrie wanted to show either his power of gluttony or his strong constitution by devouring a large quantity of pâté de faisan aux truffes. As a result, he developed a gastric illness of some sort. Soon after he began suffering from a severe fever and eventually died.^[3][8]

Thanks! Lots of good points for research in there!

Yes the "Age of Reason" had about as much impact on me as any book I have ever read. It is a real Eye-opener for anyone who grows up thinking the "founding fathers" were conservative religiously.

Quote from Charles

Though he refers to the universe as "nature" and personifies nature as a woman (Mother Nature, but not "Earth" with a following grammatical gender, an important distinction), but I think this is due to his slight poetic flair or method of describing the laws of movement in an easy and frank manner to his readers.

That would be consistent with Lucretius and therefore probably with Epicurus himself, so it might be we are going to find that La Mettrie deserves the title of Epicurean more so than many of the others we come across.

Do we know if he called himself an Epicurean?