REMINDER: SUNDAY WEEKLY ZOOM - March 22, 2026 -12:30 PM EDT - Ancient text study and discussion: De Rerum Natura - - Level 03 members and above (and Level 02 by Admin. approval) - read more info on it here.
There are logical reasons why "one god" doesn't work in Epicurean philosophy, regardless of its other attributes. Nature never furnishes only one thing of a kind. In an infinite cosmos these forms are being endlessly thrown up somewhere.
This assumes, of course, that one takes the realist view of Epicurean divinity.
It is true, Susan, as you say; Epicurus did not formulate a philosophy of mind that would impress a Gautama, or a Shankara. But neither did these two develop philosophies of nature that would have engaged the attention of an Epicurus. And if there be any room for mysticism in this tradition, it must necessarily be a mysticism of nature, and not of mind.
When I contemplate the cosmic scale—when I consider, from my humble vantage point, the deepness of time, the incomprehensibility of the twin eternities that stand in apposition on either side of my short life—then do I feel something of the mystic's ultimacy. We are, as Lucretius put it, "all sprung from celestial seed". There is an ineffable kinship in this; that we share a like beginning not only with the animal, but with the vegetable and mineral.
That while poring over these ancient texts I also breathe, and so literally 'con-spire', in one atmosphere that spans distant oceans, with the humble grassy reeds of the Nile Delta, whose forgotten ancestors were made into the papyrus scrolls upon which these books were first written down and copied—and that we alike were mothered by the same earth, and we alike shall die here, our atoms in some later age to mingle in forms equally kindred, and yet half alien—that in this there is something encouraging and almost transcendent.
This is all poetry and metaphor, of course. And there will be those who say that the Epicurean cosmos is terribly cold, heartless and bleak. I have no answer for this, except to say that I do not share that view. Upon the Universities of the West are draped the name of Alma Mater. The credit for this coinage belongs to Lucretius—and yet for him this Mother was the whole generative power of nature. If you can look at another human and see at once the man, the material, and the animal, and see also the boundless world of Nature that it took to make thus much, you may find a glimmer of something mystical in these kinships.
We are star stuff harvesting starlight. -Carl Sagan
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. -Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
This bit on the comic playwrights is interesting. One thing that Epicurus certainly had going for him in this respect was that he had Menander in his corner, as a boyhood friend who was sympathetic to the philosophy.
Another thing to consider is this; the comic playwrights were having a go at the "sacred cows" of Athenian high culture. Epicurus doesn't really fit into that category.
I might be misremembering slightly! That does look like the right passage.
And that's correct (in a vacuum), right? How or why would he intuit that? I think I need to revisit that Letter.
I don't have a citation to hand, but see Lucretius on this point. I think he says that in the absence of air-resistance a ball of wool and a ball of lead will fall at the same speed.
On a side note Don, you may want to give Hello Internet a listen if you haven't already. CGPGrey and Brady Haran. Its my favorite podcast!
Haven't had a chance to watch this yet, but I've always had a slight confusion on the "down" issue. Epicurus seemed to think that the "original" motion of any given atom was "down" until it either swerved or hit another atom and ricocheted. Except that the cosmos was beginningless, so I'm not sure when this "original" downward motion happened. Lucretius is clear that an atom in motion is governed by inertial force at a uniform rate of speed in any given direction until they swerve or are acted upon by an outside force. These atoms, once moving in another direction, are not affected by any downward pull. Do I have that right?
I've only just read through it once Charles, but thank you for your hard work! I'll return to it in a day or two for rereading and comments.
I need to get back to work on The Greek Anthology, as he has several epigrams in there.
The difficulty is that he made a name for himself as a satirist, and cleaving to one doctrine or philosophy does not position one well to write good satire. A satirist must float more nebulously. The moment he sets his foot on solid ground, he exposes himself to ridicule and charges of hypocrisy—in other words, to satire. He becomes an apologist, and ceases to be a satirist. Those who believe in the infallible truth of revelation and who attempt satire are for this reason unfailingly absurd.
A more Epicurean literary style at that time was the pastoral, as in Horace's Epodes, or in Virgil's Eclogues. Epic poetry was more generally a civic-minded affair, and in Virgil's case a more stoical one. The Lucretian synthesis of a cultural Epic with rich pastoral imagery and strongly individualistic philosophy is a factor in the success of his poem.
Consider how differently we would look on Shakespeare if he only wrote tragedies. Lucian may well have been an Epicurean through and through, but it would have done him no favors in his satires.
Also for the record, by the words "enquire in vain" I'm inferring that Automedon was being dismissive of Epicurus and his philosophy.
While I don't endorse the overall sentiment in any way
Ha! Certainly not. A lot of these epigrammatists were very sour. I'll start posting Palladas next week. He has a few good ones but most of his are even worse than this.
Apart from being merely ironic and satirical, I can think of one fact in connection with Menophanes' proverbially tiny field. The Ancient Greeks did not use primogeniture where the eldest son is awarded the estate. Instead they divided the land among all of the heirs. As the generations went by, each parcel was subdivided again and again with every successive death in the family, until they became so small as to be entirely unusable. The Greek solution to this problem was to pack a bunch of smallholders onto a ship and send them off to start a colony on empty land somewhere.
This was, in fact, the fate of Neocles and his family. Neocles was born in Gargettos seven miles outside of Athens, but was sent to the island of Samos where a colony was founded.
But I wouldn't read too much into any of these! Lucilius has dozens like these two, where he satirizes people's stature and appearance.
I think that No. 72 by Menander is an encouraging sign of more fertile fields beyond. He was a comic playwright and a boyhood friend of Epicurus (serving alongside him in the mandatory two-year military training from age 18-20), and some of his works are even still being rediscovered. They were almost entirely lost in the middle ages, but a number of discoveries in the 19th and 20th centuries have brought back a few of his plays. In several instances the sheets of papyrus were found in the paper lining of mummy cases.
I'm finding quotations on the internet attributed to him that are thoroughly Epicurean (it is absurd to think that the gods answer prayers, for instance), but nothing authoritative. If a good online source can be found we will need to look into it.
Book XI - Convivial and Satirical Epigrams
No. 44 - Philodemus
"To-morrow, dearest Piso, your friend, beloved by the Muses, who keeps our annual feast of the twentieth invites you to come after the ninth hour to his simple cottage. If you miss udders and draughts of Chian wine, you will see at least sincere friends and you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians. But if you ever cast your eyes on me, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."
Translated W. R. Paton
Book XI - Convivial and Satirical Epigrams
No. 249 - Lucilius
"Menophanes bought a field, and from hunger hanged himself on another man's oak. When he was dead they had no earth to throw over him from above, but he was buried for payment in the ground of one of his neighbors. If Epicurus had known of Menophanes' field he would have said that everything is full of fields, not of atoms."
Translated W. R. Paton
Book XI - Convivial and Satirical Epigrams
No. 103 - Lucilius
Epicurus wrote that all the world consisted of atoms, thinking, Alcimus, that an atom was the most minute thing. But if Diophantus had existed then he would have written that it consisted of Diophantus, who is much more minute than the atoms. Or he would have written that other things were composed of atoms, but the atoms themselves, Alcimus, of Diophantus.
Translated W. R. Paton
Book XI - Convivial and Satirical Epigrams
No. 93 - Lucilius
"Lean Marcus once made a hole with his head in one of Epicurus' atoms and went through the middle of it."
Translated W. R. Paton
Book XI - Convivial and Satirical Epigrams
No. 50 - Automedon
"Blest is he first who owes naught to anyone, next he who never married, and thirdly he who is childless. But if a man be mad enough to marry, it is a blessing for him if he buries his wife at once after getting a handsome dowry. Knowing this, be wise, and leave Epicurus to enquire in vain where is the void and what are the atoms."
Translated W. R. Paton
Book VII - Sepulchral Epigrams
No. 106 - Diogenes Laertius
On Epicurus
"Adieu, and remember my doctrines," were Epicurus' last words to his friends when dying. For after entering a warm bath, he drank wine and then on the top of it he drank cold death."
Translated W. R. Paton
Book VII - Sepulchral Epigrams
No. 72 - Menander
On Epicurus and Themistocles
"Hail, ye twin-born sons of Neocles, of whom the one saved his country from slavery the other from folly."
Translated W. R. Paton
