Latin-dictionary.net gives this for animans: animate/living being/organism (not man), creature
Wiktionary: A living thing or creature, an animal (as opposed to plants; as opposed to a man)
I'm satisfied as to the Latin. I will tentatively leave in the reference to Menoeceus, but I'm unsure that Greek treats ζωή like Latin treats animans. If I cannot come down to something more certain I will change the note so that it refers to the problem without making a definite conclusion.
Thank you very much Don !
Here is an attachment (I hope) of a draft which shows the general style of the project. When I finish the Hymn to Venus I will upload a more polished version with proper attribution to the sources I'm relying on.
I should also add that I am using OverLeaf as a Latex editor because it's much more tolerant of syntactical mistakes in the code. I am also using the package "glossy" instead of ExPex, because it was designed to be simple and easy instead of feature-rich.
This project has been dormant for two years, but I have recently picked it up from scratch and am making (glacial) progress. I'm grappling with the Latin word animans, which most dictionaries are careful to point out is used for lower order animals but not for humans. I am on the point of insisting that in Lucretius there is no great difference. I am supporting this claim by citing the Letter to Menoeceus, but would appreciate any thoughts as I plow ahead...particularly from Don .
My essential point is that Epicurus in that letter uses the Greek word ζῷον where βίος would be considered more "appropriate". Cyril Bailey translates; "And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfill the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure."
It's clear that Epicurus makes no distinction between lower animals and humans in this paragraph--both are equally motivated to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. In fact, the reference to fear in the preceding sentence really seems to drive home the point; it is humans and gods even more than animals that are under discussion.
I almost forgot to mention, @EricR , that we occasionally have chats with Dr. Kevin Guilfoy who co-edited "The Cambridge Companion to Peter Abelard", so if medieval logic interests you that would be a good book to lay your hands on. Kevin is a great guy and could probably be convinced to answer any questions you might have on that subject.
It would be fair to say that I have an ascetic streak--for part of my twenties I was a car-free vegetarian who commuted by bicycle and drank more tea than anything else, after much reading in Thoreau, Edward Abbey, Frank Herbert and Buddhism. Some of this I found to be impractical in a small Midwestern city. The vegetarianism I found to be a strain on interpersonal relationships. It made dining with others very troublesome.
The thing is I couldn't let philosophy in general go even if I wanted to. I think for some people the questions arise unbidden. When Salman Rushdie went into protection after the fatwa, Susan Sontag told him "Salman! It’s like being in love! I think of you night and day: all the time!" It's like that with philosophy.
Death, life beyond the grave, ethics, morality, the nature of human life; even without Epicurus I should spend much time turning these things over in my mind.
I've been listening to an audiobook by Matthew Stewart called "Nature's God; The Heretical Origins of the American Republic."
I am still in the early chapters, but his project is to trace the Deism of Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, etc--and the list is quote long--back through Charles Blount, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, and finally through Lucretius and back to Epicurus. I cannot really review it at this time (although I might recommend a paper copy as easier to read carefully), but I am finding it very interesting.
Too kind as usual, Pacatus !
Thank you.
All my moral and intellectual being is penetrated by an invincible conviction that whatever falls under the dominion of our senses must be in nature and, however exceptional, cannot differ in its essence from all the other effects of the visible and tangible world of which we are a self-conscious part. The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is; marvels and mysteries acting upon our emotions and intelligence in ways so inexplicable that it would almost justify the conception of life as an enchanted state. No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvellous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural, which (take it any way you like) is but a manufactured article, the fabrication of minds insensitive to the intimate delicacies of our relation to the dead and to the living, in their countless multitudes; a desecration of our tenderest memories; an outrage on our dignity.
This is an excerpt.
That clears that up! Thank you, I was trying to work out how he could have managed that.
Speaking of manuscripts, I watched this video on the digitization of the Venetus A manuscript of the Iliad and found it really fascinating. It's amazing how many different specialists it takes to undergo this kind of project.
That being said, please do report back with your impressions!
I might be thinking of a video where Greenblatt cites Ada Palmer and not his book, but either way he holds her work in high regard.
I have that book. It's a history and document analysis of the surviving manuscripts, and goes into detail studying scholia and marginalia with a view to understanding how Renaissance readers like Montaigne were receiving the poem as they read it.
It's a great book, for the information it contains, and Greenblatt cited Ada Palmer's work pre-publication. Many readers will find it rather dry compared to the The Swerve, which continues to be a favorite of mine.
I mentioned it to Cassius Sunday evening as part of the question we unfortunately didn't get to for lack of time.
"Ixion was expelled from Olympus and blasted with a thunderbolt. Zeus ordered Hermes to bind Ixion to a winged fiery wheel that was always spinning. Therefore, Ixion was bound to a burning solar wheel for all eternity, at first spinning across the heavens,[18] but in later myth transferred to Tartarus.[19][20] Only when Orpheus played his lyre during his trip to the Underworld to rescue Eurydice did it stop for a while."
Regarding the difficult quote from Theophrastus that "The happy man cannot mount the scaffold to the wheel," I found this confession of a 19th century Parisian: "I demand to expiate it; — I accept the responsibility; — I wish to mount the scaffold." This indicates at least to me that 'mounting the scaffold' to be hanged connotes volition on the part of the condemned. Theophrastus might well be saying that it is impossible to willingly undergo torture, and Epicurus responds by saying that one might well undergo torture willingly to save a friend.
Also relevant are these lines from Shakespeare's Richard II:
“O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?
O, no! the apprehension of the good
Gives but the greater feeling to the worse:
Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.”
And also the poem I wrote in response to that passage from Horace:
______________________________________________
Firewood
While walking in the woods, I am at pains
To pause at each cold circle of burnt stone.
A totemic blending of the profane
And sacred: a human altar where none
So human live—where memory and time
Are sacrificed in their concentric rings,
The ageless for the transitory. Each
Ring is a dolmen, or a stele of lime,
And tells of the past in a varied speech.
It gives me pause, this strange chaleur vitale¹.
I think on sacred groves—such that deterred
Thoreau², and Horace, with that old Ital-
ic saw: Do you think Virtue naught but words,
A forest only firewood? For though
The greater mass goes up in flame, pile
Upon pile of charcoal lying near
Sighs at this loss; of what, I do not know—
But that it pleases me to wander here.
______________________________________________
¹French, Vital Heat
²Walden; "I would that our farmers when they cut down a forest felt some of that awe which the old Romans did when they came to thin, or let in the light to, a consecrated grove (lucum conlucare), that is, would believe that it is sacred to some god."
And we also briefly discussed a passing reference to the 6th epistle of the first book of Horace:
If your lungs or kidneys were attacked by cruel disease,
You’d seek relief from the disease. You wish to live well:
Who does not? If it’s virtue alone achieves it, then
Be resolute, forgo pleasure. But if you consider
Virtue’s only words, a forest wood: then beware
Lest your rival’s first to dock, lest you lose Cibyra’s
Or Bithynia’s trade. Cleared a thousand, and another?
Then add a third pile, round it off with a fourth.
Surely wife and dowry, loyalty and friends, birth
And beauty too are the gifts of Her Highness Cash,
While Venus and Charm grace the moneyed classes.
Don’t be like Cappadocia’s king, rich in slaves
Short of lucre. They say Lucullus was asked
If he could lend the theatre a hundred Greek cloaks.
‘Who could find all those? he answered, ‘but I’ll see,
And send what I’ve got’. Later, a note: ‘It seems at home
I’ve five thousand: take any of them, take the lot’
It’s a poor house where there isn’t much to spare,
Much that evades the master, benefits his slaves.
If wealth alone will make you happy, and keep you so,
Be first to strive for it again, and last to leave off.
I cited a passage from Thomas More's Utopia:
[Utopus] therefore left men wholly to their liberty, that they might be free to believe as they should see cause; only he made a solemn and severe law against such as should so far degenerate from the dignity of human nature, as to think that our souls died with our bodies, or that the world was governed by chance, without a wise overruling Providence: for they all formerly believed that there was a state of rewards and punishments to the good and bad after this life; and they now look on those that think otherwise as scarce fit to be counted men, since they degrade so noble a being as the soul, and reckon it no better than a beast’s: thus they are far from looking on such men as fit for human society, or to be citizens of a well-ordered commonwealth; since a man of such principles must needs, as oft as he dares do it, despise all their laws and customs: for there is no doubt to be made, that a man who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his country, either by fraud or force, when by this means he may satisfy his appetites.
