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.
I suspect that if we were sitting together at a table (over pints of beer or a bottle – or two – of wine) it
Name the time and place!!
Be well, and thank you, my friend. 😊
You as well! 
Wonderful, enjoyable post!!!
Your mention of ἁμαρτία brought to mind αἵρεσῐς (hairesis) which meant "choice" in Epicurus's time (and is the word he uses for "choice" and avoidance). By the time the Christians got a hold of it (and it changed pronunciation through the centuries), it took on the meaning (and sound) of "heresy" as in "the wrong *choice*".
Do you have an “acceptable” list? (Otherwise, why would you ask?) And why should I accept (in toto) whatever list you (or anyone else) might have?
Pacatus : Let me start this response by saying that I certainly did not mean to offend or disrespect or belittle anyone's self-designation as an "Epicurean." Honestly, when I said:
I'd ask what "Epicurean teachings" are you trying to apply to better your life.
I sincerely meant to make that rhetorical as in "What Epicurean teachings are you putting into practice that make you feel like you would *want* to call yourself an 'Epicurean'?" I wasn't trying to impose *my* criteria, and if it came off that way, I apologize. *I* may have other practices or doctrines on which I place more emphasis than you.
BUT, from my perspective, if we all "lay our cards on the table," I would offer that there have to be some common "cards" in each of our hands to make us feel we want to be part of the same community, that would lead us to come together in the same Garden. Otherwise, the word "Epicurean" doesn't apply to anything.
And I get your...
I confess that any perceived hint of defining a “party line” that I must, no matter what, affirm or adhere to in order to be a “True™” anything triggers a visceral unease in me
I've seen examples of "party lines" and "orthodoxy" and in-fighting, etc. So I can understand your "visceral unease". There's also the idea of commitments, participation, etc., if you want to be seen as "serious" (which, honestly, is one reason I've kept my participation to online meetings primarily to the 20th. The idea of regular commitments makes *me* uneasy.) I think it is absolutely *wonderful* that Cassius and Kalosyni have made those opportunities a reality!!! I just can't make myself take on the "responsibility" (in my mind) to show up every time, and so I've decided I'll do my best to make the 20th's in keeping with what I see as part of *my* Epicurean identity 
P.S. In some sense, we are *all* neo-Epicureans. We're all doing the best we can with the texts that we have to try to follow (and, in some cases - like quantum physics - update) the 2,000+ year old teachings of Epicurus to make sense of our lives and to provide ourselves with a way to make sense of the world. Like I said previously, there is no apostolic succession from Epicurus to the present like the Popes (although their lineage is arguably tenuous). There is no Epicurean authority imposing dogma or creeds or orthodoxy. By Zeus, even online and internationally, there are several Epicurean groups, and none of them have authority over any other one. My only assertion was that those of us who like to think of ourselves as Epicureans most likely have some shared ideas that join us together.
VS74 In a scholarly dispute, he who loses gains more because he has learned something.
ἐν φιλολόγῳ συζητήσει πλεῖον ἤνυσεν ὁ ἡττηθεὶς καθʼ ὃ προσέμαθεν.
I'm not saying I "lost" 
but those references are great! I was unaware of them. I'm still not entirely convinced by the Torquatus text, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility now. And the others are excellent.
Thanks!!!
we try to apply Epicurean teachings to better our lives
And...Right there. I'd ask what "Epicurean teachings" are you trying to apply to better your life. If you're trying to apply Epicurus's teachings to better your life, that makes you an Epicurean as opposed to a Christian or Stoic or something else.
I'll be the first to say unequivocally that there is no "apostolic" Epicurean lineage, there is no Epicurean scholarch determining Orthodox practices. But, if someone wants to think of themselves as an Epicurean and part of a larger Garden community, there has to be some shared principles and practices. I also grant it's a wide net but the net cannot be so huge that it means nothing to say "I'm an Epicurean." Otherwise, it means nothing and Epicurus at least taught that words have to have a commonly understood meaning otherwise communication is impossible.
There is also a difference between implementing a smorgasbord or cafeteria of practices into one's life and picking a single path. Both can need done. There are Jewish Buddhists out there. But, from my perspective, if someone wants to think of themselves as an Epicurean, they have to share some principles and practices with other "Epicureans" for that word to have meaning.
I never thought we were far apart on this and after further discussion I feel sure of it
On the actual topic of suicide, I would agree. I think we both understand someone's (maybe even my own) decision to take that step in the extreme of pain and suffering. I think that's a humane and humble position to have.
That said, I don't necessarily think that's a position that Epicurus or the Epicurean school would take. I don't see textual evidence of that position. We can rationalize that they might have taken it, but I'm not seeing textual evidence of it.
There are not really any Ideal forms or essences of "Epicureans," only individual people who claim to more or less apply Epicurean views in their lives - and no matter how many doctrines we add or subtract from a person there is no essence or ideal form of an Epicurean for us to justify our labelling, or any moment when an Epicurean ceases to be an Epicurean due to a loss of sufficient Epicurean elements.
Hmmm... Well, under that definition of "Epicurean," it seems to me that I could call myself a "Christian" if I want to. There have to be some Epicurean criteria or some "essential" (I don't like the word but I'll use it) doctrines by which one lives their life to be considered an Epicurean. Otherwise the word has no meaning.
I wasn't saying that Cassius Longinus wasn't an Epicurean. In fact, I said he was an Epicurean. I'm saying his decision to kill himself was in keeping with his heritage and upbringing as to what it meant to be a Roman citizen in a military setting. He could be both things. I would even go so far as to posit that him laying down his life in a manner befitting a Roman may even have given him pleasure in the end. He determined he would die *as a Roman* and not as some kind of captured criminal or slave.
Don, are you pointing to an experience similar to what's reported when someone is on their deathbed and a loved one tells them that it's ok to go if they need to. Basically, the loved one tells the sick person they have permission to let go when they're ready. So instead of clinging to life, they now have permission to "exit the play"?
To me, this scenario seems to match the sentiment behind your quote
Quote from DonIt's accepting one's imminent death "animo aequo" with no more concern than walking out of a play that has no pleasure anymore. "Torquatus" acknowledges that there is no pleasure in the pain, but death is imminent so it's time to not regret or complain to the gods and so on. It's time to hold on to the only thing you have left in your final moments,
Exactly! Well put. That's one of the exact scenarios I was thinking of!
It is easy for me to imagine hypothetical circumstances in which continuing to live would result in overwhelming pain with virtually no offsetting pleasure whatsoever.
Oh, it's easy for me, too. If I ever encounter that situation in my life, what will I do? I don't know, but I'm not discounting the option out of hand. Consider a diagnosis of Alzheimer's or a degenerative physical disease where everything, one's mind and one's control over one's body are slowly, inexorably taken from you accompanied by constant pain. Would you - would I - choose to end our suffering? This also brings up the difference between "suffering" and "pain." They're not the same. Is suicide - or physician-assisted suicide - an option?
I have no problem coming up with hypothetical situations around this topic.
But you also say "virtually no offsetting pleasure whatsoever," which implies that there's *some* "offsetting pleasure" which almost looks to me like a description of Epicurus's end of life.
Like I said above, I might agree with in principle that suicide - or physician-assisted suicide - is a viable end of life option in extremis, but I'm wrestling with whether or not that's necessarily an Epicurean response to that situation. I'm just not seeing justification for that in the extant texts. I *fully* agree with you as you've said elsewhere about Epicurus insisting that we take charge for our lives and choices. But, as far as I can see in the texts, Epicurus and Metrodorus and "Torquatus" never advocated for suicide in response to "intolerable" pain. You've mentioned that Epicurus was able to tolerate his pain and so he wasn't experiencing "intolerable" pain, but to my mind that's splitting hairs. If someone tells me that can't image any greater pain than they were already experiencing and that they feel they're dying within the day, that sounds pretty "intolerable" to me. (Now, whether Epicurus's letter has been embellished over the centuries? Maybe, but we have the text that we have.)
"Do you think Epicurus would say that Cassius made a poor decision in committing suicide rather than handing himself over to Antony's men?"
I hesitant to put words in dead people's mouth, so I won't speak for Epicurus. I will say that it seems to be that G. Cassius Longinus committed suicide because he was a Roman, first and foremost, not because he was an Epicurean. His Roman culture and upbringing and conditioning led him to that - probably to him - inescapable decision to take his life.
The main issue is that I don't see a bright line saying "hang in there to the very last moment" that would apply to everyone in all situations.
It's not a "hang in there until the last moment." That kind of "grit your teeth and bear it" is a Stoic response. That's not what I'm saying the texts say. If you're in pain, you can scream, yell, bite down on a wooden stick, writhe. An Epicurean is not going to "grin and bear it."
BUT, I'm seeing the texts within the time period they were written, which is why it's so hard translating specific ancient situations into modern "hypothetical" scenarios. The intolerable pain, the pain with no pleasure left, the mind-numbing all-encompassing pain - when those texts were written - is going to lead to death imminently. You have wounds or a disease like that, it's going to kill you - most likely in short order. And, even if you are in pain, try to remember to face it "animo aequo" - no regrets, no fear, no superstition.
On the other hand, modern science can work medical miracles in situations that would have been lethal in ancient times! That's where the difficulty comes in. Is it better to allow someone to die rather than provide "life-saving" (usually "life-prolonging-at-what-expense") treatment? That's where the modern "death positive" community is so intriguing and important in providing information on palliative care, hospice care, etc. If pain can be managed and suffering relieved, death can be faced "animo aequo".
"never consider suicide lightly and always consider it to be a last resort but know that death is available to you as a relief from pain if in fact you judge the situation makes it the best choice."
Fully agree with that first statement! And that's where the "death positive" movement says that there are ways to mitigate suffering as death approaches. If it is "the best choice," it has to be after every other option has been weighed because of its finality. Too many people see it as just another choice. Here are some statistics about suicide in the US:
Suicide Data and Statistics | Suicide | CDC
This is why the letter to Menoikeus section is so important in my view. Epicurus is specifically addressing people who talk flippantly about suicide and "leaving life as quickly as possible." It couldn't have been the Stoics either, because they were not the powerhouse they would become at the time Epicurus was writing. This seems to be a general cultural attitude in ancient Greece.
And I know you're not talking flippantly. I know that and want to acknowledge that. But when we talk about suicide being a "choice" or even the "best choice" it seems the old slippery slope argument to making it just another choice if there's pain in one's life. And Epicurus and the Epicurean school did not endorse that in any way.
death is unconsciousness for eternity
I know you didn't mean it this way, but I'll note it anyway. I would caution against using a word like "unconsciousness for eternity" in that context. Unconsciousness is still a state of being and implies a being that is unconscious. Death is the complete absence of sensation and feeling because there's no thing to sense or feel. There is no being - no person, no thing - after one dies. It is the complete cessation of life. Nada. Zilch. No thing. Like I said, I know you didn't mean anything like that by using that word, but it stuck out to me when I read it like "Oops! Better nip this one in the bud before someone else latches onto it!"
The fourth tenet of the Four-Part Cure alludes precisely to this: what is painful, is easy to endure. In illness, we hope to regain our health; even when the illness is chronic and painful, the pain grows dull with habituation, and we learn to cherish the pleasures left us, despite the pain; finally, when pain reaches an unbearable maximum, death cannot be far behind it -- and death means the cessation of the senses, and thus of both pleasure and pain.
Epicurus' view on suicide is both humane and practical: it does not entirely disallow suicide (as does Christianity, and other religious faiths), nor does it offer it too readily, either as escapism or as an article in some code of honor (as have done several militarist cultures).
In principle, I think I agree with that last paragraph, but, for me, it would be an extrapolation from the existing texts and not based on any I've read (in this thread or outside of it). Especially in the letter to Menoikeus, Epicurus seems to come down hard on those who talk about exiting life as quickly as possible. He doesn't appear to add any qualifiers. The end of life situations I read are about living life in a manner that will allow you to accept imminent death at the end, even if accompanied by "pains that cannot be augmented," with no regrets, no cursing the gods, no fear of an afterlife, etc.
I would see "exiting the play when it has ceased to please us" as a viable option.
As I mentioned, I don't see that line as saying what you're interpreting it as. I see it as having no more concern for the approach of imminent death as one would in "exiting the play when it has ceased to please us." The emphasis is not on an active walking out or actively killing oneself that's the metaphor. It's accepting one's imminent death "animo aequo" with no more concern than walking out of a play that has no pleasure anymore. "Torquatus" acknowledges that there is no pleasure in the pain, but death is imminent so it's time to not regret or complain to the gods and so on. It's time to hold on to the only thing you have left in your final moments,
"animo aequo".
And in support of that spirit I would enlist "spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it" as the same spirit of taking charge of your death just as you take charge of your life:
VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.
Same here for Metrodorus's Vatican Saying. You seem to imply that he encourages us to kill ourselves while "singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived." I don't get that at all. He's a little hyperbolic but he's encouraging the same things as I've mentioned above. When the end comes and you know what's coming, sing "a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived." Don't cling needlessly to life if you're dying. Don't try to bargain with the gods. If you've lived well, be happy for that! Life is done. Take the example of Epicurus's death and look back on a life well-lived with pleasant memories as death is imminent.
Here is a paper that cites the one you referenced (that one behind the paywall)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f6a6/8bb87913d6481817873845afa32fd0385936.pdf
I want to state here that this discussion of suicide is not meant to be casual or flippant. It is an exploration of the ancient texts.
I am sure all of us would encourage anyone dealing with thoughts of suicide to reach out for help to a friend or to a medical professional or to the national 988 number.
Today in the US, “988” is the three-digit, nationwide phone number to connect directly to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline as established by the FCC.
you are taking the position that suicide is never warranted for an Epicurean?
I'm not sure I'm saying that, especially in light of modern medical intervention that can continue physical existence but not provide quality of life. Right now, I'm neither saying nor not saying suicide is never an option for an Epicurean. I (think) I am saying I'm not seeing any advocacy for suicide as a viable option in any of the texts.
So that while you might choose to die 'for a friend" you would never choose to die "for yourself"?
I think that's an apple and orange argument. To me, the reason you would "die for a friend" is that if the friend dies and you *could* have saved them, you have to live with that pain for the remainder of your life. I don't think that's applicable to the discussion of whether suicide is an option as an end of life decision.
