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!
Draft Agenda for A First Online Meeting (to be updated - please make suggestions in the thread)
Remind everyone to keep their comments about themselves general, because we want to record this and edit into a "podcast" to be released for others to hear. Total length of the call no more than about an hour.
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.
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:
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.
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?
This is the kind of research that takes time and lots of effort to pursue, so maybe over time we can figure it out.
I think it's pretty clear that the Epicurean material in Cicero's "On Ends" and "On the Nature of the Gods" was probably never lost to the world for any considerable length of time, and I get the impression that Diogenes Laertius, which has the bulk of the core stuff, was generally available too.
We seem to get the impression in talking about the recovery of Lucretius that the atomic theory was brand new upon its "rediscovery," but if Diogenes Laertius was available (as appears so) then the core of the teaching was available through the Letter to Herodotus.
Charles this question comes up in my mind due to our posts today about Voltaire. Have you been able to pin down where La Mettrie stood on whether the universe was supernaturally created - i.e. whether he was a "deist?"
There's also a related question of whether he makes any direct statement on life after death.
No doubt there's a great deal to be learned from anyone who is writing about Lucretius, but as I think about it and as we explore these writers from this period, these are probably among the first questions we ought to ask about them, and post it early in our threads as we discuss them, to put them in context.
Otherwise, like Ninon, we may be ending up diverting ourselves into foundation-less assertions about ethics (even those discussing "happiness" or "pleasure") which ultimately are not of tremendous use since they would rest on our deciding to accept the assertions of the author rather than being grounded back in a world view of the fundamental nature of the universe.
Note: It might be better if we end up moving La Mettrie out of this "Leaders In Epicurean Philosophy" subforum into the same subforum as Voltaire. That's probably a better place for people who had lots of important things to say about Epicurean philosophy, but who seems to have been essentially a Deist. At this point without knowing the answers to these questions about La Mettrie's positions I am not at all sure.
1. He was unfamiliar with Epicurus as a direct source. His familiarity was with Lucretius, which was a popular document in the intellectual life of anti-clerical intellectuals of his day.
2. Much of what he wrote were commentaries on Lucretian ideas.
Hiram so you are saying that as far as you can tell La Mettrie did not have access to Diogenes Laertius?
If I recall correctly much of Gassendi was based on Diogenes Laertius, so that would seem unlikely, but maybe so, as I am totally unfamiliar with his writing.
I know Dewitt argues that anticipations are hardly mentioned, if at all, in Lucretius, so if La Mettrie was not incorporating what Diogenes Laertius had to say, and what Cicero has Velleuis say about anticipations in "On the Nature of the Gods," then that would be a severe limitation on La Mettrie's analysis, at least at to the nature of "anticipations" themselves.
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" (So great the evils to which religion could prompt!)
Do we have any Voltaire experts who would know where to get the complete quote where Voltaire wrote that this famous line from Book 1 of Lucretius would last as long as the world? I am looking for the full quote with context in a work of Voltaire. I see it referenced several places but I can't find the original version despite a long session of googling. This clip is from Martin Ferguson Smith's edition of Lucretius:
Charles:
While not entirely relevant, I found a paper from Catherine Wilson about Lucretius' influence on the Enlightenment, Voltaire wasn't mentioned in the abstract or introduction, but he was included in my key word search, so clearly he's mentioned. Sadly its behind an academic paywall.
Cassius:
Yes Charles I am seeing many references to Voltaire writing to Frederick the Great about this too, but I am not finding the precise original text where Voltaire describes this as a line that "will last as long as the world."
Charles:
A short praise of Epicurus and Lucretius from Voltaire can be found here as well. https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volfinal.html
Don't worry, it's well into the public domain
Cassius:
From that link you posted, Charle, I see this below. I did not realize that Voltaire was a deist, and that lowers my estimation of him significantly -- plus it's probably not a coincidence that his characterization here of Epicurus ethics is also truncated and insufficient:
Cassius:
Charles that sounds like that will be something to check in your reading of La Mettrie and the others you are pursuing -- if they were "deists" then they clearly were rejecting a central foundation of Epicurean philosophy and I would not even call them "Epicureans" at all. For some reason I do not have the impression that Frederick the Great was a deist, but I am not at all sure on that.
Although it's probably always a good idea to be careful in saying a person "is an Epicurean" or "is not an Epicurean," in my mind I have little doubt that in general terms the classical Epicureans would never have considered anyone to be a true Epicurean who did not rule out the creation of the universe by supernatural forces. And that would rule out most of the "Deism" movement, including people like Thomas Paine, who didn't specifically embrace Epicurus like Thomas Jefferson or Frances Wright did.
In this Episode three we probably have enough material to stick with the Iphianassa passage before going forward. Let's use this to highlight the general topic of the Epicurean theme that supernatural religion is not necessary for happy living, and that in fact it detracts from that goal. I think there are other relevant passages in Epicurean literature that we can draw on, so let's try to list them here. The first one that come to mind is from Diogenes of Oinoanda:
Fr. 20
[So it is obvious that wrong-doers, given that they do not fear the penalties imposed by the laws, are not] afraid of [the gods.] This [has to be] conceded. For if they were [afraid, they] would not [do wrong]. As for [all] the others, [it is my opinion] that the [wise] are not [(reasoning indicates) righteous] on account of the gods, but on account of [thinking] correctly and the [opinions] they hold [regarding] certain things [and especially] pains and death (for indeed invariably and without exception human beings do wrong either on account of fear or on account of pleasures), and that ordinary people on the other hand are righteous, in so far as they are righteous, on account of the laws and the penalties, imposed by the laws, hanging over them. But even if some of their number are conscientious on account of the laws, they are few: only just two or three individuals are to be found among great segments of multitudes, and not even these are steadfast in acting righteously; for they are not soundly persuaded about providence. A clear indication of the complete inability of the gods to prevent wrong-doings is provided by the nations of the Jews and Egyptians, who, as well as being the most superstitious of all peoples, are the vilest of all peoples.
On account of what kind of gods, then, will human beings be righteous? For they are not righteous on account of the real ones or on account of Plato’s and Socrates’ Judges in Hades. We are left with this conclusion; otherwise, why should not those who disregard the laws scorn fables much more?
So, with regard to righteousness, neither does our doctrine do harm [not does] the opposite [doctrine help], while, with regard to the other condition, the opposite doctrine not only does not help, but on the contrary also does harm, whereas our doctrine not only does not harm, but also helps. For the one removes disturbances, while the other adds them, as has already been made clear to you before.
Are there other Epicurean texts directly on point on the corrupting power of religion?
Am I also not remembering that someone famous in the Middle Ages made a comment about Lucretius' line "So great is the power of religion to persuade to evil deeds!" being one of the most memorable of the poem that would live forever? or as long as poetry survives.... or something like that?
This below is a hint of it, but not the full quote:
"When a single day brings the world to destruction, only then will the poetry of the sublime Lucretius pass away." This judgment by the Roman poet Ovid , written in the generation after Lucretius's death, has been echoed by such writers as Voltaire and George Santayana; the author of De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) holds a place in world literature as one of the great philosopher-poets.
The most obvious and famous result of this attitude is Lucretius’ extreme hostility to traditional religion—which, in his view, is neither reasonable or natural and is the source of endless anxiety and cruelty. And responses to his poem often begin and end with that. Voltaire, as one might expect, enthusiastically approved the most famous line in the poem attacking traditional religion: “That shows how much/ religion can turn mankind to evil” (1.134), and the energy of that endorsement is matched by any number of people who turned away from Lucretius in horror for this irreligious stance.
Good to hear from you Michael.
My personal take on this is that there are at least a couple of very important points that need to be considered separately:
(1) We know from pretty reliable sources that the Epicureans advised people to "think about death," so the meaning of the phrase is not "death is totally irrelevant to us so don't even think about it." Given how much of Epicurean advice is about dealing with reality and overcoming fear that is unjustified, it would not be consistent for the Epicureans to hold that the subject is totally irrelevant, and in fact Lucretius (and thus Epicurus in On Nature) devoted a lot of time to exploring the subject.
(2) To me personally, the heart of the issue has always been better stated in English as something like "the state of being dead is nothingness." The starting point is that all good and evil is experienced through sensation, and there is no sensation after we die, so there is no way to experience anything good or evil, or to experience anything at all, after we are dead. I think that is the main point of the doctrine, and as a result it emphasizes not only the absence of any reason to fear being dead, it also emphasizes the importance of using our time wisely so as to experience the most pleasurable life that we can while we are alive.
(3) We know that Epicurus had a will and that he planned for what would happen after he died. This was not a contradiction of PD2 but shows us how to apply it reasonably and in full context of the rest of the philosophy. By planning for his inevitable death he minimized he kind of present worry and concern that you mention in your question.
The second episode of the LucretiusToday podcast is now available for download. Lots of work went into preparing this episode, so please let us know your comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc.
If you have questions you would like us to cover in the next episode, please place them in a comment or send us an audio file and we will try to incorporate that into a future show. Ongoing future discussion of the episode will take place here: Episode Two - The Lucretius Today Podcast
This second program covers approximately lines 62-80 (from the 1743 Edition):
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.
As to the reference Mike to "On Methods of Inference" I agree that you will probably find that interesting. I have read in full and highly recommend both the translation but particularly the commentary by Philip De Lacey
I have found De Lacey's discussion in the appendix of the epistemology issues between Epicurus, the Stoics, Plato, and Aristotle to be among the most helpful I have every read.
This is an important question about which there are several sections of Cicero criticizing Epicurus for not paying enough attention to it. I gather that the Epicureans did not admit that he omitted this, but that he denied the analysis being given to it by the logicians and asserted another approach to it that he held to be superior.
So this part quoted below may not be something that the ancient Epicureans admitted to "dispensing" with - but asserted that they dealt with in a different way:
categorization, logic, and abstraction are indispensable especially when communicating with others our subjective experience and the knowledge we get out of it.
So the challenge is to articulate the Epicurean counterpoint, and probably not to admit the approach to or the priority of these subjects suggested by the Platonists.
Great to hear from you - post whenever you can. So you've move from truck-driving to surveying? Quite a move there must be a story behind how you picked surveying!
"the shining borders of the light",
Interesting that you picked that reference because it is one that interests me too. I think i have seen it rendered as well "shores of light" as if a reference to a seacoast, and it has always made me wonder what was being implied by the allusion. I gather that it generally is used in context of certain atoms coming together into bodies which then become visible - which were not visible before due to their size - but it seems to have been a metaphor for birth or something else that we ought to recognize as significant given that the phrase is used regularly - and I bet this is worth discussion to bring out the subtext.
For those who are reading along in this thread, I've had some discussions about scheduling an open session for next Wednesday night, the 29th of January, at 8PM Eastern time, so you might want to pencil that into your calendar. I'll post an agenda but pursuant to my latest thinking I suspect the best thing to do would be to devote at least part of the beginning to starting to talk about the letter to Herodotus, but then of course it would be great to hear general thoughts and commentaries and any brief "getting to know you" info material you'd like to share. More details to come.
I trust that everyone here reading this is at least largely on the same page as to general approach to things, so it might be preferable for us to open up the invitation in stages. It would probably be a good idea for the first stage to be those of us here at Epicureanfriends as the first invitees, perhaps with some selected people at Facebook, rather than simply posting a public notice on FB or other locations.
If you haven't joined us before we've been using Skype, so that will be the way to join at least for the first event or two.
