Posts by Eikadistes

I think Julius fits right in.

He named himself for Julius Caesar, so between him being the Pope while this was painted, and him being an admirer of Imperial Rome, adorning him with Oak Leaves, placing a Cherub next to him, and having him carrying a book along with Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, and Heraclitus seems to me to expression of respect or admiration, not derision.

Big picture, I'd be surprised if Julius II weren't in this. He would have been jazzed to have been included amongst the ancient philosophers whom he admired, and Raphael would have had motivation to patronize the Pope by including him among the greats.

JJ may have just solved it.

Visually, placing figures in close proximity is an easy way to demonstrate familiar or intimacy, the prime example of this being the famous teacher-student relationship between Plato and Aristotle, which is the first image to which the eye is drawn.

If this trend were consistent, and Raphael had an understanding of Epicurus' biography, then we'd expect him to be placed nearest to Democritus, followed by Aristotle (I doubt that either Praxiphanes or Nausiphanes would have made the final cut).

He may also have placed him near Pyrrho, ONLY because multiple sources mention Epicurus as having admired or been fascinated by Pyrrho and his Eastern journey, even if he completely disagreed within his findings. I think this is more of a stretch.

If proximity isn't indicating relational intimacy, it may be expressing ideological tension and conflict, in which case, Epicurus should be placed near Plato, and painted in a critical, dismissive, or challenging position, which we do observe in the figure in orange to the left. Scholarship online seems to place Heraclitus and Parmenides in close proximity downstage of Plato and Aristotle, so that further indicates an expression of tension. Though, I'm not convinced of those identities. Still, placement near Plato is appropriate.

Divine Revelation within this context matches Plato's proposition that "learning" is actually an immortal soul's recollection of the Divine Truth which the soul knew prior to being born, but simply forgot after experiencing birth and associating with a human body.

To Augustinians (this might be an over-generalization, as I'm just skimming the schools), Truth is to be remembered through revelation; to Thomists, Truth is to be discovered through observation.

[edit:] I was looking for a specific term, and I just found it: ANAMNESIS . Christian theologians gobbled up Plato's theory of anamnesis and injected it into their belief system as the faithful remembrance of Christ. The Wikipedia entries:

ANAMNESIS (PHILOSOPHY)

"In philosophy, anamnesis (/ˌænæmˈniːsɪs/; Ancient Greek: ἀνάμνησις) is a concept in Plato's epistemological and psychological theory that he develops in his dialogues Meno and Phaedo and alludes to in his Phaedrus. The idea is that humans possess innate knowledge (perhaps acquired before birth) and that learning consists of rediscovering that knowledge from within. Terms that have been used to characterize this concept include Doctrine of Recollection and Doctrine of Reminiscence."

ANAMNESIS (CHRISTIANITY)

"Anamnesis (from the Attic Greek word ἀνάμνησις meaning "reminiscence" or "memorial sacrifice"),^[1] in Christianity, is a liturgical statement in which the Church refers to the memorial character of the Eucharist or to the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. It has its origin in Jesus' words at the Last Supper, "Do this in memory of me" (Greek: "τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν", (Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24–25). In a wider sense, anamnesis is a key concept in the liturgical theology: in worship the faithful recall God's saving deeds.^[2] This memorial aspect is not simply a passive process but one by which the Christian can actually enter into the Paschal mystery.^[3]"

I like the idea that it is Grape leaves.

Is this figure is an Epicurean, something indicating wine would be appropriate.

It could be Oak as well, signifying the Father God, and the source of Wisdom, thus, reinforcing the divine nature of whatever truth the writer is inscribing, helped by a cherub.

I am surprised that Raphael painted an author, receiving inspiration from a cherub, and chose NOT to identify him as a poet (with Laurel leaves). That may also have been a missed opportunity, and not the best artistic choice that could have been employed.

Or it could be ambivalent. Rather than specifically identifying a "poet", or "defender or Rome", or "brave soldier", it may just indicate "a Roman to the 16th-century mind".

The subject of Divine Revelation is a good way to distinguish the medieval Christian theologies.

(I mis-wrote above: Scholasticism is also Aristotle-influenced)

I think the main thing is the Scholastics and Thomists believed that God provided humanity with practical reason that could be applied to understand God better by studying Nature. Thomas Aquinas' many portraits of him holding animals like Bob Ross expresses this.

So, we can see the influence of Aristotle over Plato, and the rejection of ideas like "knowledge without experience" or "truth without understanding".

I believe ARISTOTLE is carrying his Ethics, an interesting choice since Plato (to the left of Aristotle) is carrying his seminal text of metaphysics, the dialogue Timaeus. Raphael could have chosen to have Aristotle carry a copy of his own Metaphysics, but, instead, has shifted the association of Aristotelian philosophy away from speculative metaphysics and toward practical ethics, thus, Aristotle gesturing away from Plato's Demiurge.

As a general note, blue tones (Aristotle's fabric) tend to represent the concepts of tranquility and grounded-ness, whereas red tones (like pink and orange) indicate romance and passion. This seems like an appropriate difference to point out between Aristotle and Plato: Plato wrote in poetic dialogues versus Aristotle's dry, logical prose. The blue is also complimented by Earth tones, another way for a Renaissance-era artist to distinguish the cultural archetype of Plato's Forms versus Aristotle's Nature.

I believe PLATO is carrying a copy of his dialogue Timaeus where he establishes his theory of the cosmos. The Stanford Encyclopedia provides a helpful summary:

Quote

"In the Timaeus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe and an explanation of its impressive order and beauty. The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman [...] who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe."

The largest-scale structures of Plato's cosmos were the heavenly bodies and the various levels they inhabited, so his pointing upward no doubt reflects his metaphysics.

He's directly engaging Aristotle to his left (our right), in the middle of the painting (seen elsewhere). This reflects the centrality of Platonic and Peripatetic philosophy to Christian theology. It also reflects the Plato-influence Augustinian and Scholatic schools of theology versus Aristotle-influenced Thomist school of medieval Christian theology.

This seems absolutely characters of SOCRATES both in terms of its coherence with the geometric proportions of his actual bust, as well as the symbolic features of a challenging stare and scowl, expressing what a "gadfly" he was to Athenians.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that stoic MARCUS AURELIUS had his arm around the shoulder of ZENO OF CITIUM, the founder of Stoicism. Perhaps it's even PYRRHO?

Screen Shot 2021-05-23 at 10.50.55 PM.png

At the same time, I think those two characters are also also distant candidates for Lucretius and Epicurus. I'd guess Zeno and Marcus Aurelius, as an impulse.

Without invoking any symbolic imagery, two of this figures SCREAM as being in accordance with two busts that I recognize, immediately.

I don't know of anyone with such a characteristically long, pointed beard as ZENO OF CITIUM. This was a well known bust, and Zeno's features are strong.

Screen Shot 2021-05-23 at 10.42.41 PM.png

The same is true of the wide nose and shaggy face of ANTISTHENES.

Screen Shot 2021-05-23 at 10.43.50 PM.png

In another post, I suppose that the couple pointing to the bald, longe-bearded man in orange strike me as Crates of Thebes and his wife Hipparchia, so the inclusion of Zeno and Antisthenes would strongly indicate that these are Cynics and Stoics.

I'd like to propose that these two characters represent the Cynics CRATES OF THEBES, teacher of the Stoic Zeno of Citium, and his wife HIPPARCHIA OF MARONEIA.

The bald, bearded male in orange standing above them strikes me as being ZENO OF CITIUM, who rose in popularity above his teacher. There is further consistency if we assume the figure in the very back of the row (depicted elsewhere) to be Antisthenes. This entire side represents Cynics and Stoics, if that speculation is accurate.

Laurel wreathes tend to identify poets, so this symbolic allusion would not have been an effective way to express Epicurus: If this Renaissance artist's intention were to depict Epicurus, a symbol of poetry may not have been the first object an artist would have employed to identify an anti-superstitious proto-physicist.

For example: Danté Alighieri is almost exclusively depicted with a laurel wreath on his head. If I the context weren't Athens, I'd say that "Danté" would be a pretty safe guess to identify the figure, especially with the cherub; however, Raphael would have been very familiar with Danté's slender portrait with sharp cheekbones and a pointed chin.

It could be Lucretius: De Rerum Natura was spreading amongst educated circles; Lucretius would have been correctly identified as a "poet", and, symbolically, Raphael would have identified Lucretius as a Roman male, who, by default, are painted without beards when contrasted with Greeks (unless a bust is known like Marcus Aurelius).

It would seem that Lucretius' portrait was, perhaps, more unknown than Epicurus', so Lucretius should be a more likely candidate for the identity of the the "chubby, non-Greek-looking guy" than Epicurus, especially considering that we have a tall, bearded, Greek man with something similar to a bowl cut, painted with a strong brow in the background, who is a much better candidate in all regards for Epicurus.

Though, I'm not sure that the cherub, helping the figure hold up the book is consistent. The cherub, working with a poet to hold an epic would indicate that the poem were divinely inspired. I'm not sure that would have been the right message for a book that opens with a hymn to Venus. Then again, that's the bottom-line of the entire painting: that Greco-Roman pagans were on the right track to truth, but the wrong train.

The identity of this figure will have to cohere with the following imagery: (1) a uniquely chubby character who, (2) is not bearded, (3) is wearing a poet's laurel, (4) their work is being supported by a cherub, and (5) their shoulders are being physically massaged by dark-haired, downward-looking person behind him. The figure is well-fed and tranquil, smiling as a companion massages their shoulders, the very stereotype of a hedonist.

Given my assumption that Raphael didn't know what Lucretius looked like, I think this character, symbolically, in terms of imagery that Renaissance artists were regularly employing to convey meaning, better fits LUCRETIUS than Epicurus.

Even if he had seen the cartoon of Lucretius' profile, it would still have been appropriate to make the choice to remove his beard and add weight to his cheeks, arms, and neck to emphasize the archetype of a Roman Hedonist.

This reminds me of The Peaceable Kingdom (1834), a painting by 19th-century American painter Edward Hicks. He painted over 60 versions of the same scene over a span of several decades. Without unpacking all of the symbolism, you'll notice the abundance of odd-looking, large felines. Despite the fact that it was painted less than 200 years ago by a modern artist, he had never seen a lion, so he painted large house cats.

Despite living around Philadelphia in the early 19th-century with all of its intellectual resources, despite living on a continent filled with other large felines, despite a huge number of historical advantages afforded to this modern figure, it was STILL an EASY mistake for an American painter to simply not have known what a lion looked like.

While it is the case that "we would deduce that MANY people, even if not 'historical figures,' were familiar with [lions] in an unbroken stream throughout history" it just so happened that right in the middle of a time period FULL of people who were familiar with lions, here's an famous painter in Philadelphia in the 19th-century who was so utterly unfamiliar with lions that he painted oversized house cats.

Generalized deduction is not enough. It's just circumstantial.

__________________________________________________

Since this entire discussion is predicated on a physical piece of art, we are burdened with a necessity of finding more evidence in the form of other artifacts – rings, coins, stone inscriptions, busts, or portraits – to which Raphael would have had access.

Given the bearded figure's similarity to Epicurus in the fresco (to the immediate left of Plato), it seems highly likely that Raphael was familiar with Epicurus' bust, and transferred the face of that bust to this figure ... so it seems, anyway.

To which ring, coin, inscription, bust, portrait, or description did Raphael have access?

Suppose the possibility that Raphael wasn't intentionally referencing Epicurus; he was just re-producing the unlabelled bust of a Greek he saw. Not all of the figures are named. Raphael was a 25-year-old artist who did NOT spend his youth studying comparative Hellenistic philosophy. He was being paid by the Vatican Church to glorify the Eternal Divinity of Christ. This was a commissioned, Vatican project in the Apostolic palace, not Raphael's version of the Beatles cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, full of his favorite philosophers. Epicurus could have been featured accidentally.

__________________________________________________

Even still, we're playing "Where's Waldo?" with a Renaissance fresco. This painting was not created so bishops could play "match-the-face-with-the-name" in the Apostolic Palace. It was created to glorify Jesus Christ and His Church.

Epicurus doesn't need to be in the painting; it doesn't support the overall message of the commission. Placing him there would have been a subversive choice of the artist. That's a hell of a bold statement for 1508. It was a bold statement for Sinéad O'Connor to have ripped the Pope's picture on Saturday Night Live in 1992. Like I said, it's like Rivera painting Lenin in the Rockefeller building. It begs more questions.

The Church has a history of destroying artwork (and artists) that didn't support their narrative, so why would Epicurus have been allowed on a wall in the Apostolic Palace?

Does anyone have a single source which mentions any historical figure who would have been familiar with Epicurean philosophy in the Late Middle Ages?

In the 13th century, Danté mentions contemporary "Epicureans" by reputation, but fails to name any Epicurean teachers or writers. Our next recorded mention of Epicurean philosophy is several hundred years later, at the beginning of the Renaissance.

All publicly-identifiable busts of Epicurus in the 21st-century were buried in the 16th.

If 25-year-old in Raphael DID put Epicurus in his fresco, then The School of Athens isn't simply commissioned, Vatican artwork, but a personal, Epicurean treasure. If this were the case, I would fully expect there to be other examples of Epicurean art to normalize Raphael's fresco as an example of a historical trend, rather than as a unique exception to the prevailing trend, that Epicurean philosophy was functionally neglected for 300 years.

From whom, specifically, might Raphael have seen the image?

I agree that it is a reasonable generalization to suppose that one of the hundreds of affluent, Italian benefactors of the Renaissance had access to Epicurus ... but it's hard to prove, especially when we consider that Epicurean literature was just re-discovered, and then proceeded to suffer several hundred years of misinterpretation by enthusiasts.

I think it's imperative to our conclusion that we identify the name of this individual who owned Epicurean memorabilia, because that person would be more significant to the history of Epicurean philosophy than either Poggio Bracciolini and Pierre Gassendi.

If someone had preserved a ring of Epicurus, and recognized the significance of it, they, themselves, would very likely be Epicurean-sympathizers, or Epicureans, themselves. Even Poggio was unconvinced by the the conclusions he read in De Rerum Natura. This would imply that a community was in Italy in the 15th-century that was actively dedicated to preserving Epicurean philosophy. This could be the case, but it would change history.

Even so, it's not even enough to prove that there were Epicureans in Italy at the time.

We need to demonstrate that (1) not only was Epicurean philosophy understood to a thorough level within one century of the rediscovery of De Rerum Natura (2) not only was Raphael familiar with this knowledge, but, most importantly, (3) that a 25-year-old Renaissance painter was dedicated enough to Epicurean philosophy to have chosen to risk his career by painting the Ultimate Anti-Apostle on a fresco in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican. It's an incredibly bold move, and Raphael did not do it for our unique benefit.

Personally, I'm not convinced that any of the figures represent Epicurus.

Bernard Frischer, researcher and archaeologist from Indiana University who specializes in Roman history wrote a book called The Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece in which he attests to the “magnetism” of Epicurus’ portrait. He devotes several hundred pages to exploring different cultural depictions of Epicurus throughout history based on available resources. On page 151 he makes an important point: “Before 1742, when the Epicurus-Metrodorus double herm with ancient identifying inscription […] was discovered beneath the new porch of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome (the herm is now in the Capitoline Museam), Epicurus’ true image was not known.”

Raphael’s intended audience would not have seen portraits or busts of Epicurus, and, even if they had, they would not have recognized the face of the bust to match that of Epicurus. Painting a contemplative, bearded Greek would not have been as Epicurus-esque as would have painting a chubby, smirking Roman (for example).

The four Vatican frescoes were certainly painted within an allegorical context as opposed to a historical one. This is evidenced by the anachronistic presence of philosophers spanning several centuries, several of whom were never active in Athens. The setting of this piece is purely symbolic and not in any way intended to be literal.

It's like "Jurassic Park", filled with dinosaurs from the Triassic and Cretaceous periods.

In an architectural context, the four frescoes in the Stanze di Raffaello in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican were designed to reinforce the Christian narrative. Therein, the inclusion of “pagan” philosophers is not meant to contrast with the divinity of Christ; rather, it signifies a harmony between ancient philosophy and Christian theology.

Thus, the Church's favorite two philosophers, and their supporters (such as Socratics and Pythagoreans) are featured front-and-center. The idolization of Plato and Aristotle is overwhelming. They reinforce the brand. The choice to include Epicurus – at all – would have been antithetical to the function of the painting, taken symbolically. While Raphael may have made that choice anyway, it is thematically inconsistent.

Painting Epicureans in the Apostolic Palace in the first place is contextually inappropriate (It may even have been dangerous). Raphael's inclusion of Epicurus and/or Epicurean philosophers in the Apostolic Palace may have been akin to Diego Rivera painting Vladimir Lenin in the Rockefeller Building in the 30s.

If it were the case that we had some indication that Raphael was a closet Epicurean who subversively hid hedonist-sympathizing clues in his paintings throughout the years (...the way Dan Brown frames Leonardo in the Da Vinci code), then, in my mind, it would seem appropriate to include Epicurus.

However, I think that fiction unlikely. I think the following two possibilities are most probable: (1) Epicureanism is not represented in this painting because Epicureanism is thematically inconsistent with the artistic context, (2) "Epicurus" is represented by the anonymous, chubby, smiling Roman stereotype, writing in the front.

Either way, the relevance I see with this painting to Epicurean philosophy is the reflection of the Christian Church's marginalization of materialism over a millennia. Raphael neither provides us with a glimpse at Epicurus, nor of Epicureanism. What he provides us with is either commentary of ambivalence, that it was not necessary to depict Epicureans clearly, or absence, that omitting Epicurus was necessary.

In conclusion, I don't see any compelling reason for Raphael would have felt compelled to include the Epicurus and his Epicureans. He was not painting a record of Athenian teachers; he was painting a picture of philosophical pre-Christians.

If there's one thing I've learned from this discussion, it's that the medieval world and its inhabitants were utterly revolted, intimidated, and threatened by Epicurean philosophy, and they did everything that was humanly possible to erase his legacy from history.

And yet, here we are.

The abstract beings with a completely FALSE statement: "The well-known and controversial thesis that <<all perceptions are true>> is endorsed by all Epicureans."

This point is HEAVILY contradicted throughout DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy:

Quote

"The fallacy consists in classifying Epicurus as an empiricist in the modern sense; he never declared sensation to be the source of knowledge; much less did he declare all sensations to be trustworthy." (7)

"The fallacy that Epicurus declared all sensations to be true and hence trustworthy still flourished." (24)

"When modern scholars seize upon the saying 'all sensations are true,' which appears nowhere in the extant writing of Epicurus, and stretch it to mean that all sensations are reliable or trustworthy or 'that the senses cannot be deceived,' they are confusing the concept of truth with the concept of value" [...] To assume that Epicurus was unaware of these plain truths, as one must if belief in the infallibility of sensation is impute to him, is absurd. It is because he was aware that the value of sensations, apart from their truth, varied all the way from totality to zero, that he exhorted beginners 'under all circumstances to watch the sensations and especially the immediate perceptions whether of the intellect or any of the criteria whatsoever. Obviously, so far from thinking the sensations infallible, he was keenly aware of the possibility of error and drew sharp attention to the super values of immediate sensations" (139)

"This makes it plain once more that not all sensations are true but the validity of some must be checked by the evidence of others." (150)

Unanswered Questions (an on-going post):

1. Is "Theophilia" – a purported, Epicurean philsopher from Gilles Ménage's History of Women Philosophers – a distinct, historical personality? Or is "Theophilia" a linguistic corruption of either "Themista" or "Demetria"?

answer: YES. Gilles Ménage verified that the Epicurean philosopher "Theophilia" is a distinct historical figure from "Demetria" based on a document to which he had access, written by the Roman poet Marcus Valerius Martialis (38/41 – 102/4 CE). Additionally, Ménage identifies them as being distinct by listing "Themist[a]" immediately before "Theophilia". While the proposition that many of the Epicurean courtesans were inventions by detractors holds merit, their attestation in literature by contemporaries is enough to accept their historical existence unless otherwise contradicted. Herein, both "Theophilia" and "Demetria" have been added to the original post.

2. Is the "Herodotus" mentioned in Norman DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy – the wayward Epicurean who turned away from Epicurus' teachings with Timocrates – the same "Herodotus" to whom Epicurus sent his famous letter on physics?

3. What levels of marginalization and persecution did Epicureans face between the 5th and 13th centuries CE? In weeks of research, I have not identified a single Epicurean philosopher, follower, or patron between the years 400 and 1200. Were there Epicureans in the Persian and Arabian worlds during the European Dark Ages? Do we have Islamic sources of Epicureanism? Was a globally-popular, living moral system truly "lost" for 800 years? If so, how?

answer: Epicureanism was neither "lost", nor was Epicurus "forgotten." Epicurus' history and his teachings were obscured by ideological opponents and neglected by the masses. (Existing sources of Epicurean philosophy are not preserved in Arabic through Islamic sources; our sources come from European scholars who preserved these texts.) Instead being "forgotten", Epicureanism was re-branded and its founder's reputation was distorted. Academic and Peripatetic philosophies were useful to the dominant political authority; Epicurean philosophy was antithetical. Thus, Epicurus was re-written as an unworthy buffoon and his philosophy was re-branded as being evil. For the same reason that the Christian tradition enjoyed near-universal popularity, Epicureanism suffered ubiquitous scorn.