An article I clipped somewhere -- not in English, but good pictures and possibly can be read through translators:
https://www.academia.edu/12743915/Immag…afia_lucreziana
I was slightly surprised that they date that engraved gem to the 1st century BCE. I hadn't realized that was contemporary to him. My only question would be: do we *know* it's Lucretius the poet and not another 1st c. BCE member of the gens Lucretia:
I wish I could downvote Leonard
LOL! I hear you. His language is stilted and Victorian at best.
Don, especially given your interest in the translation details -- am I missing something here in Leonard vs the others? And Leonard is the one Perseus uses too, if I recall correctly.
Correct. Perseus uses Leonard:
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK I, line 1
Should you be looking a little further down for that Latin to correspond?
Fear holds dominion over mortality
Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.
Also starting in passage 102, it says "we do not know the nature of the soul" implying skeptism. The "we" is totally incorrect because it is talking about the misleading nature of others. And I see in other translations it uses "they".
I agree with Kalosyni that the difference between "we" and "they" is significant!
ignoratur enim quae sit natura animai, (1.112)
ignoratur is verb 3rd sg pres ind pass, i.e., 3rd person singular would be "he" (or "they" if used in the singular sense) not "we" (1st person plural).
If Humphries is using "we"... that's an issue.
I'm partial to Stallings primarily since that's the first translation I read front to back 
For anyone interested, I just saw this lunar calendar for 2023 available online.
I found it fascinating to see the phases all in one grid.
PS. There's also a moon phase calendar at this site:
It's when we get into objects such as clothing and votive candles when it starts to become cult-like.
I'm assuming when you say "clothing" you're talking about distinctive apparel like a Catholic clerical collar, Japanese robes for Zen practitioners, and the distinctive attire of Hare Krishna proselytizers or even Mormon (excuse me, LDS) missionaries. If that's the case, I agree. There's no need for Epicureans to adopt a distinctive style or piece of clothing.
That said, if a group of Epicureans wants to host a special event that encourages attendees to wear an ancient Greek or Roman costume, I see no harm in that as long as it's for the pleasure of attendees and seen as a fun part of the evening. It's a form of re-enactment. There are re-enactors of all stripes, from those recreating Roman soldiers to US Civil War and Revolutionary-era regiments to members of the Society for Creative Anachronism.
The issue appears to me to lie in the adoption of a distinctive piece of clothing that announces to the world that "Hey, I'm a member of X!! Look at me!! I am SO special!!" Epicureans, it seems to me, did live unobtrusively most of the time but were always available if someone was curious about the school. The wearing of a ring or a piece of jewelry is a way to remind **oneself** to "act as if Epicurus were watching." It's not meant to be an advertisement to the world that "I'm acting as if Epicurus were watching! Look at me!" Rings and jewelry and cups in one's own home are private reminders. Unless someone comes up and closely examines that ring or is invited to one's home, they're not going to know the items contain a portrait of Epicurus. That's where the wearing of a t-shirt with Epicurus on it might be questionable?
As for votive candles, if it's done in the spirit of honoring the person of Epicurus and/or the philosophy, I see no problem if it brings pleasure to the person setting out the portrait and candles. If it reminds someone to "do everything as if Epicurus were watching" Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet. Just like a ring or piece of jewelry, that seems fine. We have pictures in our homes of relatives and others that we hold dear. Having a picture with a candle of someone who provides a foundation for one's way of living doesn't seem so far out of bounds to me.
And to be clear: EPICURUS IS NOT WATCHING! He's dead. He's gone. His atoms have dispersed. It's his philosophy by which we've chosen to live our lives. It's the philosophy that he taught that provides guidance. A feeling of awe or respect for the founder should not be confused with blind adherence to some guru.
In thinking further along these lines, Epicurus and his philosophy are compared to light throughout Lucretius. For example:
O thou who first uplifted in such dark
So clear a torch aloft, who first shed light
Upon the profitable ends of man,
O thee I follow, glory of the Greeks,
And set my footsteps squarely planted now
Even in the impress and the marks of thine
...
For if must needs be named for him the name
Demanded by the now known majesty
Of these high matters, then a god was he,-
Hear me, illustrious Memmius- a god;
Who first and chief found out that plan of life
Which now is called philosophy, and who
By cunning craft, out of such mighty waves,
Out of such mighty darkness, moored life
In havens so serene, in light so clear.
...
Even Epicurus went, his light of life
Run out, the man in genius who o'er-topped
The human race, extinguishing all others,
As sun, in ether arisen, all the stars.
Wilt thou, then, dally, thou complain to go?
In light of that (pun intended), maybe a votive candle is not such a bad symbol to remind someone of Epicurus and the philosophy. Hmmm 
My only hesitation is that the picture has - to me - an almost Jesus vibe with the orientation of the face and the long hair. I didn't notice the pig until cassius pointed it out.
Their idea is that Epicurus was a kind of megalomaniac, because of those statues, rings and protraits; or the celebrations every month; or because of the patternalistic practices
It seems the practices of wearing rings or displaying portrait busts or having cups with Epicurus's picture on them is a physical manifestation of both Seneca's quote "Do all things as if Epicurus were watching" and VS32 Honoring a sage is itself a great good to the one who honors. τοῦ σοφοῦ σεβασμὸς ἀγαθὸν μέγα τῷ σεβομένῳ ἐστί.
σεβασμὸς in modern Greek just means "respect" however, in ancient Greek it was broader: "to be moved by awe, fear, or respect for others or for their opinions; to feel shame; to experience the same feelings in a religious sense." So, this coincides in some ways with the orientation Epicureans should feel toward the gods themselves.
For example: if a person said: "Oh how I wish I could go on a flight on Blue Origin, but it costs $1.25 million per passenger so I can't afford to do it." So then one would then reason about how this desire is not necessary for a happy life AND then replace that desire with something easier to get. Or another (more down to earth) example: if someone has very limited finances, but says "Oh it would be so nice to go to drive to a resort town on the ocean, but hotels are so expensive these days and I need to be careful about not spending away my limited savings." -- and then sees that the basic "deeper" human desire is for exploration (or for learning, experiencing, novelty, or relaxation) then finding something else such as exploring things and going to museums in one's own city, or finding a nice park with a river or lake.
Seems to dovetail nicely with:
Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?
The internet definition of groundless = "not based on any good reason". And I really would want to know the original Greek word used? Don if you know?
The word usually associated with "groundless, empty, etc. desires" in translation is κενός kenos which is the exact same word Epicurus uses for "void" as in atoms and void. I always see "groundless" as having the connotation "nothing to back it up" and I'd agree with "not based on any good reason".
That said, if you're curious about a specific text, just let me know. I'd be happy to dig into it.
I just saw melikraton in that one excerpt from the book. That's VERY similar to the word used in Philodemus's poem!
μελιχρότερα
melikhrotera
(Merriam Webster) melicrate
archaic
: a fermented or unfermented beverage of honey and water : hydromel
I haven't read Frischer's book yet. I need to add it to my ever-growing list of books to read.
On hero worship: From my perspective, there's no doubt that Epicurus was "venerated" as (sort of) divine figure. We just have to look to the hymns to Epicurus in Lucretius. That's also part of the whole birthday observations. It wasn't simply "cake and presents" to use a modern metaphor.
The word used in the Will of Epicurus in the "funeral offerings to my father, mother, and brothers" is ἐνάγισμα "enagisma." These were not just performed at the funeral, these were "an offering to the dead" per LSJ. There is also a German Wikipedia article on the practice. Here's a Google Translate version of that article:
Enagisma - Wikipedia (de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog)
So, that's in relation to Epicurus's father, mother, and brothers. It looks like standard practice for the dead.
The "the customary celebration of (Epicurus's) birthday" and "the meeting of all my School held every month on the twentieth day to commemorate Metrodorus" strikes me as those days each month dedicated to gods like Apollo, Aphrodite, Dionysus, etc. There is no specific word in those phrases that refer to a specific kind of celebration like enagisma.
"Let them also join in celebrating the day in Poseideon which commemorates my brothers." συντελείτωσαν δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμέραν τοῦ Ποσειδεῶνος:..."
The "celebrating" the day in Poseidon is συντελέω synteleo (συντελείτωσαν); and, according to LSJ, that is "celebrate or hold sacred rites."
"...and likewise the day in Metageitnion which commemorates Polyaenus, as I have done hitherto." συντελείτωσαν δὲ καὶ τὴν Πολυαίνου τοῦ Μεταγειτνιῶνος καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς. The same word συντελείτωσαν is used here as well. So, the practicing of "sacred rites" was established by Epicurus himself for his brothers and Polyaenus. In fact, both "funeral offerings" and monthly "sacred rites" were performed for Epicurus's brother.
The book The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period by Gunnel Ekroth is available for reading online. It sheds some light on the terms within those texts:
The general tendency in modern scholarship has been to regard enagizein and its associated nouns as particularly connected with sacrifices to the dead and the heroes....Casabona’s detailed study of the sacrificial terminology has shown, however, that the relation between enagizein and thyein is that of a technical term versus a very general term.
...
On the general level, the meaning of enagizein has been understood as tabu facere, to render sacred or to place in the domain of the sacred, i.e., to remove from the sphere of the living.237 Concerning the rituals covered by the terms, two main explanations have been advanced. On the one hand, enagizein has been considered to refer to a total destruction of the victims or offerings by burning them in a holocaust.238 In this sense, an enagizein sacrifice would imply that no part of the animal would be available for consumption by the worshippers. On the other hand, the terms have been linked to various kinds of libations, such as wine, melikraton, milk and, in particular, blood.239 It has also been suggested that enagizein and the related nouns can refer to both kinds of actions, i.e., the discarding of the blood of the animal followed by the burning of the carcass.
Destruction sacrifices at which no dining took place, covered by the terms holokautos in the inscriptions and enagizein, enagisma and enagismos in the literary texts, are rare and cannot be considered as the regular kind of ritual in hero-cults. All the terms seem to cover the same kind of ritual, the destruction of the offerings, but they have different bearings on the character of the recipient. Holokautos was more neutral, being used for both heroes and gods, while enagizein, enagisma and enagismos are particular to hero-cults and the cult of the dead. Apart from referring to a destruction sacrifice, enagizein, enagisma and enagismos also mark the recipient as being dead and therefore impure in some sense, and distinguish him, or a side of him, from the gods, who are immortal and pure. In most cases, the destruction sacrifices to heroes were performed as separate rituals and not in connection with a thysia.
I found the underlined section interesting in that the gods in Epicurean theology were "immortal and pure" and Epicureans were seen as able to live akin to the gods in life. Since there is NO afterlife in Epicurean philosophy, it's also interesting to think how these rites would be interpreted within the Garden.
Diogenes Laertius 10.7:
he spent a whole mina daily on his table, as he himself says in his letter to Leontion and in that to the philosophers at Mitylene.
[ U158 ]
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 18.9: The great hedonist teacher Epicurus used to observe certain periods during which he would be niggardly in satisfying his hunger, with the object of seeing to what extent, if at all, one thereby fell short of attaining full and complete pleasure, and whether it was worth going to much trouble to make the deficit good. At least so he says in the letter he wrote to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus {308 - 307 B.C.}. He boasts in it indeed that he is managing to feed himself for less than a half-penny, whereas Metrodorus, not yet having made such good progress, needs a whole half-penny!
And I'm going to have to find out from the Latin what those "pennies" actually translate.
[9] Certos habebat dies ille magister voluptatis Epicurus quibus maligne famem exstingueret, visurus an aliquid deesset ex plena et consummata voluptate, vel quantum deesset, et an dignum quod quis magno labore pensaret. Hoc certe in iis epistulis ait quas scripsit Charino magistratu ad Polyaenum; et quidem gloriatur non toto asse <se> pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto.
PS: According to some websites I found:
(1st Century A.D.)
1 one pound loaf of bread = 2 asses
1 sextarius wine (~0.5 liter) = 1 - 5 asses
Remember that it is Seneca using the as as the coin in question, and he lived 4 BC – 65 AD. So, technically according to Seneca's quotation of a letter by Epicurus, Epicurus didn't need a whole "as" to live on for per day. However, Epicurus wouldn't have used the "as" coin since that was a Roman currency. Without the original text, there is NO way of knowing how much money Epicurus was referring to. However, even if we take Seneca's anachronistic currency, if Epicurus were "experimenting" with eating bread and drinking water, he could have bought a 1 pound loaf of bread for 2 asses and it would have lasted him two days. A pound of bread is a pretty good-sized loaf.
In his Coinage and History of the Roman Empire (vol. 2, p. 21), Vagi reports that "around the time of its destruction in A.D. 79 the average pay of a laborer in Pompeii was about 8 asses (half a denarius) per day, though actual salaries ranged from 5 to 16 asses per day. Skilled miners in rural Dacia earned wages of 6 to 10 asses, which were supplemented by free room and board values at 2 to 3 asses per day, bringing their true salaries more in line with the workers at the resort town of Pompeii."
This is an interesting question because as I remember reading somewhere, Epicurus experimented with how much he needed to maintain his happiness and pleasurable living from time to time. Sorry, can't think of the citation off the top of my head.
Correct me if I'm misremembering, but Lucretius's poem was considered unfinished even in the ancient world, right?
Very good question but if so I am not aware of anything to establish that. Isn't one of the only ancient comments someone (a church father?) making the comment about Cicero "emending" it?
Ah! That's what I believe what I was thinking of. The whole Cicero thing. Thanks!
That would be a nice counterpoint to:
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
***
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Atque metus omnes, et inexorabile fatum
Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari
Correct me if I'm misremembering, but Lucretius's poem was considered unfinished even in the ancient world, right?
Not to sound like a skeptic, but to me, this kind of thing is a reminder of how much we really don't know - even in areas that we tend to assume modern science has pretty well figured out.
That sounds like withholding judgement until more evidence of available... Very Epicurean 
Thanks for those, Todd
If anyone's looking, I'd suggest the books by Bart Ehrman, too.
We know the mind is inextricably linked to the brain, but I've never been that hard on Epicurus for the chest thing. From the literally "breathtaking" feeling one feels in the presence of awe-inspiring sights to the feeling of being heartbroken, we really do *feel* emotion in the chest!
The phrase used in Diogenes Laertius 10.66 is:
τὸ δὲ λογικὸν ἐν τῷ θώρακι
to (de) logikon en tō thōraki
"(and) the reason/intellect {is} in the "the thorax""
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λογι^κ-ός
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, θώραξ
I also found it interesting that just prior to the logikon section, the "a-logos" is said to be distributed throughout the body.
I'm going to have to go back and see how that Scholion fits into the pathē and pleasure and pain, etc. especially since it says we feel fear and joy in the "thorax"/chest.
So Epicurus was on to something: maybe (part of) the brain is in the chest
Fascinating with respect to the Canon!
We know the mind is inextricably linked to the brain, but I've never been that hard on Epicurus for the chest thing. From the literally "breathtaking" feeling one feels in the presence of awe-inspiring sights to the feeling of being heartbroken, we really do *feel* emotion in the chest!
Here are some of the more common physical sensations of emotions:
- Anxiety. Lump in your throat, churning stomach, trembling, dry mouth, sweating, shortness of breath, feeling weak or tense.
- Anger. Hot or flushed face, clenched fists or jaw, shaking, jerky body movements.
- Joy. Feeling of lightness in your body, warm heart, “butterflies” in your stomach.
- Sadness. Feeling of “heartache,” heaviness in your body, tightness in chest, fatigue, drooping face.
- Shame. Hot face, lowered eyes, sunken body posture.
- Fear. Dizziness, weakness in legs, goosebumps, fast breathing and heart rate.
We also have numerous sayings referring to the mind-body connection:
- hot-headed (anger)
- hot-blooded (passionate)
- heartbroken
- getting cold feet (doubt or apprehension)
- stomach-dropping news
- gut-wrenching anxiety
Maybe related, but intriguing nonetheless...
I need to read back up the thread to see the list Don gave, but I don't think it is likely a good bet to draw a bright line at "five" or "six" or "ten" or whatever.
