Posts by Joshua

Aulus Gellius was a 2nd century Roman Grammarian who wrote a book called Attic Nights. That source is a very readable web page, but the English transcription is incomplete. The text can also be found on Perseus and the PDF is available for download at the Internet Archive.

A reference to Virgil's imitation of Lucretius can be found in the thread here, and a passage on Plutarch's criticism of Epicurus quoted in the 201st episode of the podcast can be found here.

There is also a reference to "Lucius Piso", that being an ancestor of our Piso.

Aulus Gellius on Virgil's imitation of Lucretius; Here

Quote

The positive assertion of Julius Hyginus that he had read a manuscript of Virgil from the poet's own household, in which there was written et ora tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror and not the usual reading, sensu torquebit amaro. Nearly everyone reads these lines from the Georgics of Virgil in this way: At sapor indicium faciet manifestus et ora Tristia temptantum sensu torquebit amaro. Hyginus, however, on my word no obscure grammarian, in the Commentaries which he wrote on Virgil, declares and insists that it was not this that Virgil left, but what he himself found in a copy which had come from the home and family of the poet: et ora Tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror. and this reading has commended itself, not to Hyginus alone, but also to many other learned men, because it seems absurd to say "the taste will distort with its bitter sensation." "Since," they say, "taste itself is a sensation, it cannot have another sensation in itself, but it is exactly as if one should say, 'the sensation will distort with a bitter sensation.' . Moreover, when I had read Hyginus' note to Favorinus, and the strangeness and harshness of the phrase "sensu torquebit amaro" at once displeased him, he said with a laugh, "I am ready to swear by Jupiter and the stone, which is considered the most sacred of oaths, that Virgil never wrote that, but I believe that Hyginus is right. For Virgil was not the first to coin that word arbitrarily, but he found it in the poems of Lucretius and made use of it, not disdaining to follow the authority of a poet who excelled in talent and power of expression." The passage, from the fourth book of Lucretius, reads as follows: dilutaque contra Cum tuimur misceri absinthia, tangit amaror. And in fact we see that Virgil imitated, not only single words of Lucretius, but often almost whole lines and passages.

I made the point that demanding that desire be pulled up by the roots to prevent profligacy would be like demanding that public roads should be pulled out of their beds to prevent highway robbery. It occurs to me now that Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons has an exchange that bears on this analogy; that the law stands in the way of vengeance is not an argument against the law, it is an argument against vengeance.

That desire can lead to profligacy is not an argument against desire, it as argument against profligacy. Epicurus' advice to moderate desire is exactly what is needed here, but Cicero makes him out to be a patron of profligates unless he condemns desire full stop. This is nothing other than fundamentalism. Only a lunatic would demand that roads be destroyed if they provide aid and comfort to vagabonds--a sensible person will weigh that risk against going roadless through thick cover, but what is this if not the vagabond's home turf? He will have us denounce the name of desire, of pleasure, and adopt the speech of his "illustrious men"--but are vagabonds and profligates incapable of putting on such airs? And thus I clothe my naked villainy/ With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ;/ And seem a saint, when most I play the devil. Will they not crouch behind the form of virtue, even behind the name of the gods themselves? Will Cicero throw away arms if they are carried also by deserters? Medicine, if peddled also by quacks? This is not philosophy, this is not wisdom--this is the petulance of a child threatening to take their ball and go home. Yet Cicero counsels even this.

Nature has given us pleasure as the dux vitae, the guide of life. To spurn this gift for the virtues held to be noble by the crowd would be to put forth on water not with a star to direct our course, but with mere smoke of public opinion, that falls silent as soon as we are out of earshot from the shore. My pilot in these matters is not so lacking in sense as to succumb to that line. We will cleave to that which announces itself to our natures to be good, and not merely that which announces itself for applause in the forum or the marketplace.

Show Notes:

Attic Nights by 2nd century grammarian Aulus Gellius

On Plutarch "word-chasing" and logic-chopping;

Quote

Plutarch, in the second book of his essay On Homer, asserts that Epicurus made use of an incomplete, perverted and faulty syllogism, and he quotes Epicurus's own words: "Death is nothing to us, for what is dissolved is without perception, and what is without perception is nothing to us." "Now Epicurus," says Plutarch, "omitted what he ought to have stated as his major premise, that death is a dissolution of body and soul, and then, to prove something else, he goes on to use the very premise that he had omitted, as if it had been stated and conceded. But this syllogism," says Plutarch, "cannot advance, unless that premise be first presented."

What Plutarch wrote as to the form and sequence of a syllogism is true enough; for if you wish to argue and reason according to the teaching of the schools, you ought to say: "Death is the dissolution of soul and body; but what is dissolved is without perception; and what is without perception is nothing to us." But we cannot suppose that Epicurus, being the man he was, omitted that part of the syllogism through ignorance, or that it was his intention to state a syllogism complete in all its members and limitations, as is done in the schools of the logicians; but since the separation of body and soul by death is self-evident, he of course did not think it necessary to call attention to what was perfectly obvious to everyone. For the same reason, too, he put the conclusion of the syllogism, not at the end, but at the beginning; for who does not see that this also was not due to inadvertence??

In the same book, Plutarch also finds fault a second time with Epicurus for using an inappropriate word and giving it an incorrect meaning. Now Epicurus wrote as follows: "The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of everything that pains." Plutarch declares that he ought not to have said "of everything that pains," but "of everything that is painful"; 3 for it is the removal of pain, he explains, that should be indicated, not of that which causes pain.

In bringing this charge against Epicurus Plutarch is "word-chasing" with excessive minuteness and almost with frigidity; for far from hunting up such verbal meticulousness and such refinements of diction, Epicurus hunts them down.

full text

Aristotle's work On Categories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Aristotle)

Quote

The Categories (Greek Κατηγορίαι Katēgoriai; Latin Categoriae or Praedicamenta) is a text from Aristotle's Organon that enumerates all the possible kinds of things that can be the subject or the predicate of a proposition. They are "perhaps the single most heavily discussed of all Aristotelian notions".[1] The work is brief enough to be divided, not into books as is usual with Aristotle's works, but into fifteen chapters.

full text

Cicero continually conflates the feeling of pleasure with things productive of pleasure, but he forgets his Aristotle; the feeling of pleasure is a subject, while "things productive of pleasure" are predicative on the subject of pleasure. He compounds this error by committing it repeatedly and at length.

While pleasure has manifold causes, it is itself one thing--the feeling of pleasure. It is subject to a variety of different conditions (which we express as predicates); quantity (duration), quality (intensity), location, time reference (i.e. I felt pleasure yesterday or feel pleasure now or anticipate pleasure in the future), and so on. Does Cicero not understand this, or does he pretend that it is beyond comprehension for the effect of argument? I think we know the answer.

Cicero, Pro Plancio

Cicero pretends to be scandalized at Epicurus' mention of the pleasures of sex, and insists that he would need to apologize before even naming it, but in a trial defending Gnaeus Plancius who was accused of bribery in an election, Cicero casually dismisses an allegation that Plancius and his friends raped an actress;

Quote

And would you dim with your sullying insinuations the lustre of that untarnished life ? You hint darkly at acts of immorality, charges which cannot even be suspected, far less substantiated, against him. Not content with inventing charges, you invent names for your charges, and call him " bigamist." You say that he took with him to the province a companion to be the instrument of his base passions ; this statement is not a charge, but a reckless and libellous falsehood. You say that he raped a ballet-girl ; we hear that this crime was once committed at Atina by a band of youths who took advantage of an old privilege allowed at the scenic games, especially in country towns. ** [31] What a tribute to the propriety of my client's youthful days. He is reproached with an act which he was permitted by privilege to commit, and yet even that reproach is found to be baseless. You say that he released a criminal from prison. True, but the release was inadvertent, as you are aware, and was ordered at the request of an excellent young man whose claims upon my client were not to be put by ; and a warrant was subsequently issued for the re-arrest of the prisoner. These, gentlemen, and these alone, are the scandals alleged against my client's life, and it is on these that you are asked to base your doubts of his scrupulous honour and integrity.

Again, as I said during the recording, I should not have seen the need to mention this case if Cicero had not insinuated that Epicurus was a sexual pervert.

Cicero, On Ends, Book I

Cicero attempts to lure Epicurus into absurdity by asking whether absence of pleasure is the most intense pain; he forgets that Torquatus has given us his answer: if you consider the description of the life of pleasure in its most complete form, then the opposite of this life is certainly a life of anguish.

Quote

Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

Suppose on the other hand a person crushed beneath the heaviest load of mental and of bodily anguish to which humanity is liable. Grant him no hope of ultimate relief in view, also give him no pleasure either present or in prospect. Can one describe or imagine a more pitiable state? If then a life full of pain is the thing most to be avoided, it follows that to live in pain is the highest evil; and this position implies that a life of pleasure is the ultimate good. In fact the mind possesses nothing in itself upon which it can rest as final. Every fear, every sorrow can be traced back to pain; there is no other thing besides pain which is of its own nature capable of causing either anxiety or distress.

Amazon link

That's where Ada Palmer's book comes in!

St. Augustine is also writing very near the limit of Late Antiquity, in the early 5th century.

Quote

In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or medieval period (also spelled mediæval or mediaeval) lasted approximately from the late 5th to the late 15th centuries, aligning with the post-classical period of global history. It began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD and ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD before transitioning into the Renaissance and then the Age of Discovery.

And in the medieval period Epicurus was still calumniated, but as a glutton rather than a philosopher. We would need a more complete understanding of medieval literature to find the traces of atomism and hedonism, which I certainly lack.

Quote

while they make avoiding of evil to be the very essence and consummation of good

It looks like an alternative translation could be something like;

The sum of the good follows where the height of evil flees.

Which sort of accounts for the time element in the Vatican saying.

I found something in Plutarch that might bear on the question;

"Thus do Epicurus and Metrodorus, while they make avoiding of evil to be the very essence and consummation of good, and so receive but as it were the satisfaction of slaves or of rogues newly discharged the [jail], who are well enough contented if they may but wash and supple their sores and the stripes they received by whipping, but never in their lives had one taste or sight of a generous, clean, unmixed, and unulcerated joy." (Translation source)

‘ ἀναφερομένων, ἀπειρίᾳ δὲ τοῦ κάτω καὶ ἄνω καὶ ἀγνοίᾳ τὸ μέσον ἄκρον ἡγουμένων εἶναι καὶ πέρας: ὥσπερ Ἐπίκουρος ἡγεῖται καὶ Μητρόδωρος, οὐσίαν τἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀκρότητα τὴν τοῦ κακοῦ φυγὴν τιθέμενοι καὶ χαίροντες ἀνδραπόδων τινὰ χαρὰν ἢ δεσμίων ἐξ εἱργμοῦ λυθέντων ἀσμένως ἀλειψαμένων καὶ ἀπολουσαμένων μετὰ τὰς αἰκίας καὶ τὰς μάστιγας, ἐλευθέρας δὲ καὶ καθαρᾶς καὶ ἀμιγοῦς καὶ ἀμωλωπίστου χαρᾶς ἀγεύστων καὶ ἀθεάτων. οὐ γάρ, εἰ τὸ ψωριᾶν τὴν σάρκα καὶ λημᾶν τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν [p. 378] ἀλλότριον, ἤδη καὶ τὸ κνᾶσθαι καὶ τὸ ἀπομάττεσθαι θαυμάσιον οὐδ᾽ εἰ τὸ ἀλγεῖν καὶ φοβεῖσθαι τὰ ’

I thought it was notable because Plutarch uses τοῦ κακοῦ, the very phrase used to amend the text of VS42, and in the context of the chief good (pleasure) residing in the removal of evil (pain).

Lucretius is supportive of sex as a way to satisfy the claims of the body, but he is critical of romantic love. I'll be at more liberty to comment when I get home from work.

That is a great topic, and one that I am also interested in!

Cicero, De Finibus, Book V, Section 3

Or just control+F search for "rings"

I should have ended with a quote from Stephen Greenblatt; “Compared to the unleashed forces of warfare and of faith, Mount Vesuvius was kinder to the legacy of antiquity.”

I'm not saying he is one, I'm just saying there are red flags.

It is definitely useful to see these things in their context. For example;

In a letter scholars have dated to c. 355, Julian the Apostate was commenting on the political inaction of the Epicureans;

Letter to Themistius the philosopher - Wikisource, the free online library

Another letter from the same advocates the Suppression of Epicurean texts;

Fragment of a letter to a priest - Wikisource, the free online library

Quote

Let us not admit discourses by Epicurus or Pyrrho; but indeed the gods have already in their wisdom destroyed their works, so that most of their books have ceased to be. Nevertheless there is no reason why I should not, by way of example, mention these works too, to show what sort of discourses priests must especially avoid; and if such discourses, then much more must they avoid such thoughts. For an error of speech is, in my opinion, by no means the same as an error of the mind, but we ought to give heed to the mind first of all, since the tongue sins in company with it.

By edict of a pagan emperor in a letter to one of his priests, Epicureanism becomes thought crime. It is actually worse in his view to think about than to speak about it, because speech is vulnerable to correction and purgation while thought is not.

The 15th century Florentine iconoclast priest Savonarolo would be proud.

Quote

“Listen women,” he preached to the crowd, “They say that this world was made of atoms, that is, those tiniest of particles that fly through the air.” No doubt savoring the absurdity, he encouraged his listeners to express their derision out loud: “Now laugh, women, at the studies of these learned men.”

A few decades after the reign of Julian came St. Augustine's survey of the situation -- "The ashes of Epicureanism are so cold that not a single spark can be struck from them."

Within two centuries of Diogenes Laertius, there was almost nothing left.

Thank You!

Quote from Cassius

Also for future reference, you indicated this morning that you found a better "keyword" to use in searching for something like this better than "timeline." Do you recall what that was?

Well, that's the trouble; there is the Gantt Chart which is infuriatingly close to what we need, and may actually be helpful in feeding a growing table of data into a chart maker. But it has it's downsides. For one thing, the resulting chart will almost always be longer vertically than horizontally, which means a pretty massive file for the amount of data presented.

Also, every one I've seen has the labels in a column on the left rather in the chart itself.

I just don't know how to search for this;

File:Timeline of Indian history.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

without finding a lot of this:

Economy of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Link to main timeline; https://time.graphics/line/852902

This will be regarded as the final version.

Edit; the main repository will be in the forum Gallery at this link.

There are later figures, but the citation is usually something like "2nd Century" or "c. 250 AD". Too many different kinds of data make it difficult to plot well.

I suppose I should include Plotina's intervention on behalf of the school as an event.

Epicurean Scholarchs - Epicurus Wiki

I see also this list, which cites a scholar named T. Dorandi as having developed the authoritative list.

I'm wondering if Eikadistes and Don can help clear up the succession of scholarchs for me. I was going by the link to the table posted by Cassius in #1, but then I found this list by Nate at Society of Epicurus and some of the dates don't match.

Protrarchus isn't mentioned at all in the table Cassius linked to, but does appear in SoFE list. The dates for Apollodorus are completely conflicting.

Nate, should I go with the list you posted at SoFE? It looks more complete.

Couldn't sleep!

The .png file on my computer is 947 kb but it compresses to 236 kb when I upload it. I can send you the file if you have a way to upload it uncompressed.