We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Or should we just conclude that images of the gods impacted us and led us back to the topic?
mental visions are conjured up by what Catius calls spectres
the mind can be so struck is more than I can see. It will be your duty to explain to me,
Both of these, while conveying Cicero's consternation at the idea, point to the Epicureans teaching that the mind was "struck" by images directly, especially in recollection of memories or thinking about something.
He are some relevant papers:
They did not believe in the Olympians that Hesiod and Homer had depicted, but anthropomorphic yet bizarre gods: although these were compounds of atoms, they were immortal, unlike any other compound in the Epicurean universe, and there was quite possibly an infinite host of such deities, all alike and all nameless. These gods were not considered figments of the imagination by the Epicureans, but as real, living entities that actually existed, remotely, somewhere out there in the cosmos, doing very little aside from maintaining their supremely peaceful, painless, and tranquil dispositions. And these gods needed to be considered real in order to be genuine, ethical models for mankind to follow, which was their main function within the Epicurean world-view. The atoms of these gods, like everything in existence, were held to be perpetually in motion, constantly being emitted from their bodies as images that then travelled directly to the minds of mankind and thereby presented a true depiction of divinity, of peacefulness, and above all, of happiness, which would then be examples for individual Epicureans to follow on their individual journeys towards ἀταραξία, tranquillity.
gods exist, because nature herself has imprinted a conception of them on the minds of all mankind. For what nation or what tribe of men is there which possesses untaught some preconception of the gods?12
I mean this humorously and I am in no way turned off by the discussion as I find it fascinating but what's the sentence in the raw material that stands out?
"Discussion of the details of the Athenian calendar became in their hands so abstruse that for decades few other scholars have ventured into the jungle."
I have no opinions on this but reading about these details is fascinating.
Oh, and we're not even discussing the "abstruse" part!! 
If you take a look at their books in Internet Archive, you'll see abstruse! Calculations of days correlated with lunar cycles cross-referenced with prytanies and archonships with discussions of omitted days! By Zeus, the Athenian calendar was definitely a constant work in progress and it looks like it was overtly political and open to revision when it came to something as basic as the number of days in each month!!!
I presume you would agree that the long discussion of images in Lucretius book 4 and other places in the texts does confirm that the Epicureans did consider "images" to be a physical phenomena of atoms moving through space, and not a matter of simple "thought." Right(?).
Oh, of course! It's all atoms and void. Images from a tree, a goat, a god, are all films of atoms (per the Epicurean theory). Thought itself is a physical phenomenon within our psykhē. But the images of the gods are so subtle they can only be perceived by the faculty of our minds in contemplation and dreams.
nec de corpore quae sancto simulacra feruntur
in mentes hominum divinae nuntia formae,
That line from Lucretius is pretty unambiguous to my reading.
Pritchett sounds like quite a Powerhouse!
and to our current discussion:
Kendrick Pritchett was a combative scholar who flourished in the rough and tumble of scholarly debate. While still at Princeton, before he was forty, he published Calendars of Athens with Otto Neugebauer, a leading historian of ancient science at Brown University. Renouncing published views he earlier shared with his mentor and collaborator, B. D. Meritt, Pritchett mounted a spirited defense of a lunar-observed calendar in ancient Athens and of the organization of the year of the Council of Five Hundred as described by Aristotle in his Constitution of the Athenians. Meritt adopted a more flexible constitutional system and relied more heavily on the evidence for the calendar in Athenian inscriptions. Hence was born a long and often bitter controversy between the two leading scholars in America on Attic time-reckoning and inscriptions. It was to continue until Meritt’s death in 1989. Discussion of the details of the Athenian calendar became in their hands so abstruse that for decades few other scholars have ventured into the jungle. This episode in the study of ancient Athens awaits its impartial historian.
Those images which from their holy bodies
Are carried into intellects of men,
As the announcers of their form divine.
-Book VI, Leonard Translation
nec de corpore quae sancto simulacra feruntur
in mentes hominum divinae nuntia formae,
mentes = the mind, disposition, feeling, character, heart, soul
And of course the next step in that positioning is to take a position whether the "gods" exist ONLY as constructs of the mind or whether they also have independent physical existence in the manner described by Velleius. At the moment I can't remember your position on that (?) I presume you are siding with what we've often described as he "idealist" position vs the "realist" position (though I am not sure i really like those labels)
Yeah, I'm not fond of those labels either... but, yes, I'm siding with the Sedleyan "idealist" position.
But whether the Epicurean gods exist as mental constructs (i.e., goals toward which to strive) OR as physical entities in the μετακόσμια or intermundia, we humans will never see them with our physical eyes like a tree or a goat or another human. If we receive their images, we intercept the subtle images with the sensory faculty of our minds.
it doesn't seem to entirely jibe with the references about receiving "images" of the gods
We receive images of the gods *in our minds.*
Per LSJ, in Ancient Greek, ἐναργής meant:
A.visible, palpable, in bodily shape, esp. of the gods appearing in their own forms, [Don's note: i.e., as in Homer when they appears as majestic, giant humanoids in person or in dreams or visions] or
2. manifest to the mind's eye
I cannot interpret any of Epicurus's words as meaning we see the gods with our physical eyes.
From the book Elli referenced in her post above:
Athenian calendars and ekklesias by Pritchett, W. Kendrick (William Kendrick). 2001
Accessible to borrow for free at Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/atheni…ge/n14/mode/1up
The chart on p. xiii:
From Pritchett's note on p. 56:
Pritchett also has a book on the Choiseul Marble, also available to borrow at Archive:
From that book, here is the footnote on p. 24
In light of Pritchett's critique of Meritt and his Choiseul Marble text, I may substitute Pritchett's work for Meritt's in my paper. However, from what I read in Pritchett's books, the basic thesis of the "earlier tenth/προτερα δεκατη" = 20th of the month still stands from my perspective.Pritchett does talk a lot about the omitted days that determined the hollow and full month, but the term for the 20th appears to stay intact. If someone checks out the book from Internet Archive, please feel free to correct me if I'm reading it wrong, please!
Pritchett also praises Chronologie Untersuchungen über das Kalenderwesen d. Griechen, insonderheit d. Athener
by Mommsen, August (1883) available for free (but in German!!) at Internet Archive as "the best collection of days in literary resources." In fact, Mommsen seems to be skeptical of the use of προτερα δεκατη; however, he also seems to assert that Epicurus's Will should be interpreted as Epicurus referring to both dates as the 20th within that section of his Will. If Martin would weigh in the German when he has a chance, it would be greatly appreciated. I'll put it below. That said, it appears Pritchett is fine with asserting "δεκατη προτερα = 20th" later and in the note in the Choiseul Marble. Mommsen did publish his work in 1883. Kendrick published in 1970, so I'm not sure Mommsen had access to the Choiseul Marble.
Mommsen, pp.93-94:
It's also instructive to remember the scholia to PD1:
[Elsewhere (Epicurus) says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]
[ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς, οὓς μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοείδειαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένωι ἀνθρωποειδῶς.]
θεωρητούς
A. that may be seen
2. of the mind, to be reached by contemplation
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, θεωρ-ητός
λόγῳ "by reason" or "by thinking" or "through reasoning"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λόγος
I don't really like Hicks translation of the scholia note: "the gods are discernible by reason alone". My preference would be, using the definitions, for something like "the gods are conceived by contemplation through reasoning."
We don't - can't! - see the Epicurean gods with our physical eyes. The "truth" of their existence takes place entirely in our minds by reasoning through their existence through contemplation. But through that contemplation, Epicurus asserts that their existence is εναργής "clearly discernable to us / manifest to us in our minds."
I continue to maintain that contemplation is the best translation for one of the characteristics of the sage, too. "The sage will also enjoy themselves more than others in contemplation, speculation, and theorizing" (my translation) For full explanation, see:
For now, I'll just post a quick copy from my translation:
123f. ἐναργὴς γαρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις.
"And the knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις (gnōsis)) of them (θεοί "gods", note the plural here) is ἐναργὴς." But what does ἐναργὴς mean?
It has two primary definitions:
Epicurus can't mean the first meaning since he's adamant that the gods don't interact with humans. But the second definition coincides with his contention (and the idea of the prolepsis of the gods) that the gods are apprehended by the mind only. That also sets up a nice contrast with the first definition's use by Homer in describing the Olympian gods appearing "in visible form." Homer's gods were εναργής in one sense of the word; Epicurus's in the other sense.
Elli Thanks for calling my attention to the work by W. Kendrick Pritchett. I'll definitely take a look at their work and post thoughts over the next day or so.
Are the two of you together?
No, we definitely have differences of opinion, but I'm more than happy to go back and dig into the research. 
Just currently involved in other commitments, so it'll be a little while before I can post again.
Those are great quotations Cassius & Joshua !
Part of me still wants to believe that the prolepsis of the divine is at least in part the human capacity to feel wonder and awe in response to both natural (the night sky, Yosemite Valley, etc.) and man-made (inside a cathedral, huge statues of the gods, sweeping music, etc.) things.
Well, Danae was the "companion" of Sophron, not his (legally/technically) wife. The word used is ἑταιρίζω hetairizō "to be a hetaira" usually translated as "courtesan."
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἑταιρ-ίζω
Looks like mention of Sophron is only in Deipnoshists, but possibly here:
PS: Another translation or version of the Danae story:
Philarchus remembers one Sophron of Ephesus to have had in his delights Danae,* daughter to Leontius, of the Sect of the Epicures, a man well seen in the speculations of Phi∣losophy.
To her trust were all the domestick affairs of the house committed, even by the consent of his wife Laodice; who at length perceiving his love to encline to Danae, she purposed at her next best opportunity to make away with her husband. This being found out by Danae, and in great secrecy revealed to Sophron, he gave at the first no credit to the report; yet at her importunacy, he promised within two daies to consider of the matter, and in that time to de∣liberate what was best to be done in the prevention of such a mischiefe, and in that interim conceals himselfe in the City: by which, Laodice finding her purpose to be discovered, she accused Danae for his murther, and instantly (without further process) by the help of her friends and servants, hurried her to the top of a high Promontory, from thence to throw her headlong; who seeing imminent death before her eies, fetching a deep sigh, she thus said: I marvell not now that the gods have so small honour done to them, in regard of their injustice, since I am thus punisht for saving the life of my friend, and this Laodice is thus honoured, that would have took away the life of her husband.
*That last quote of Danae's reminds me of the "the sage would die for a friend."
"And let Amynomachus and Timocrates take care of Epicurus, the son of Metrodorus, and of the son of Polyaenus, so long as they study and live with Hermarchus. Let them likewise provide for the maintenance of Metrodorus's daughter,32 so long as she is well-ordered and obedient to Hermarchus; and, when she comes of age, give her in marriage to a husband selected by Hermarchus from among the members of the School
It's intriguing to consider if Danae is a daughter of Metrodorus and Leontion, or whether Danae is a daughter of Leontion from after Metrodorus died, or whether Danae is the daughter referenced in Epicurus's Will and she didn't like who Amynomachus and Timocrates were going to marry her off to so she ran away with her dowry to Sophron, the governor of Ephesus. So many possible storylines!
The daughter of Leontion/Leontium:
Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, Book XIII., chapter 64
And Sophron the governor of Ephesus had a mistress, Danae, the daughter of Leontium the Epicurean, who was also a courtesan herself. And by her means he was saved when a plot was laid against him by Laodice, and Laodice was thrown [p. 947] down a precipice, as Phylarchus relates in his twelfth book in these words: “Danae was a chosen companion of Laodice, and was trusted by her with all her secrets; and, being the daughter of that Leontium who had studied with Epicurus the natural philosopher, and having been herself formerly the mistress of Sophron, she, perceiving that Laodice was laying a plot to murder Sophron, revealed the plot to Sophron by a sign. And he, understanding the sign, and pretending to agree to what she was saying to him, asked two days to deliberate on what he should do. And, when she had agreed to that, he fled away by night to Ephesus. But Laodice, when she learnt what had been done by Danae, threw her down a precipice, discarding all recollection of their former friendship. And they say that Danae, when she perceived the danger which was impending over her, was interrogated by Laodice, and refused to give her any answer; but, when she was dragged to the precipice, then she said, that “many people justly despise the Deity, and they may justify themselves by my case, who having saved a man who was to me as my husband, am requited in this manner by the Deity. But Laodice, who murdered her husband, is thought worthy of such honour.”
On Leontion, see Diogenes Laertius Book X:
Metrodorus,34 the son of Athenaeus (or of Timocrates) and of Sande, a citizen of Lampsacus, who from his first acquaintance with Epicurus never left him except once for six months spent on a visit to his native place, from which he returned to him again. [23] His goodness was proved in all ways, as Epicurus testifies in the introductions35 to his works and in the third book of the Timocrates. Such he was : he gave his sister Batis to Idomeneus to wife, and himself took Leontion the Athenian courtesan as his concubine.
The sage will be fond of the countryside, enjoying being outside the towns and cities. (120)
Hicks: He will be fond of the country.
Yonge: He will like being in the country,
I think it's wonderful that this characteristic is a single word in the original: φιλαγρήσειν (philagrēsein) "They will love the ἀγρός" "fields, land, country as opposed to the town."
Note: This is the same construction that gives us φιλοσοφία (philosophia "philosophy") and φιλάνθρωπος (philanthrōpos "philanthropy").
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀγρός
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Φ φ, , φι^δ-ίτι^ον , φι^λαγρ-έω
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Φ φ, , φι^δ-ίτι^ον , φίλαγρ-ος
Also used in Lucian
οἶσθα δ᾽ ὡς φίλαγρός εἰμι. "You know how I dote on the country!"
PS. Turns out there is a word for "loving one's country/city-state, patriotic" Φιλόπολις (philopolis)
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Φ φ, , φι^λοπευστ-έω , φι^λόπολις
LOL! Be careful what you ask for
Let's start with some definitions from LSJ:
δόγμα (dogma)
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δόγμα
From the LSJ definition's references, we can see it translated as opinions, public decree, convictions, beliefs, etc.
δογματίζω (dogmatizo) "to dogmatize" The "controversial" word used in the characteristics of an Epicurean sage "δογματιεῖν τε καὶ οὐκ ἀπορήσειν"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δ , δμῳ-ή , δογμα^τ-ίζω (tufts.edu)
- ἀπορήσειν "to be in doubt, to be puzzled,"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπορ-έω (tufts.edu)
This is the same word as used in talking about when the sage will make money and is translated in some texts as "to be in poverty/need" so each instance could be translated as "to be in want."
This means the Epicurean puts trust in the picture of reality painted by Epicurus, *declares* those beliefs to be trustworthy, and doesn't remain in doubt - doesn't go through life in want or need - of an explanation of reality.
At its most basic, dogma just means a settled opinion or something firmly established. It doesn't *need* to be something taken on blind faith. Epicurus has reasoned out his "dogma" and built it on a firm foundation, that's why we can trust it or, if you will, have "faith" in it.
I'm becoming more convinced of the significance of the juxtaposition of δογματιεῖν (dogmatiein) and ἀπορήσειν (aporēsein) after looking at various references, especially the Diogenes Laertius excerpt below from the life of Pyrhho. If Diogenes Laertius was copying from some Epicurean text for those characteristics, it seems there was a definite contrast being made between those who δογματιεῖν and those who ἀπορήσειν.
Check this out:
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IX, Chapter 11. PYRRHO (c. 360-270 b.c.)
Besides these, Pyrrho's pupils included Hecataeus of Abdera, Timon of Phlius, author of the Silli, of whom more anon, and also Nausiphanes of Teos, said by some to have been a teacher of Epicurus. All these were called Pyrrhoneans after the name of their master, but Aporetics, Sceptics, Ephectics, and even Zetetics, from their principles, if we may call them such-- [70] Zetetics or seekers because they were ever seeking truth, Sceptics or inquirers because they were always looking for a solution and never finding one, Ephectics or doubters because of the state of mind which followed their inquiry, I mean, suspense of judgement, and finally Aporetics or those in perplexity, for not only they but even the dogmatic philosophers themselves in their turn were often perplexed (ἀπορητικοὶ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ τοὺς δογματικοὺς ἀπορεῖν καὶ αὐτούς). Pyrrhoneans, of course, they were called from Pyrrho. Theodosius in his Sceptic Chapters denies that Scepticism should be called Pyrrhonism ; for if the movement of the mind in either direction is unattainable by us, we shall never know for certain what Pyrrho really intended, and without knowing that, we cannot be called Pyrrhoneans. Besides this (he says), there is the fact that Pyrrho was not the founder of Scepticism ; nor had he any positive tenet ; but a Pyrrhonean is one who in manners and life resembles Pyrrho.
