Posts by Don

There's also the section on death in the Letter to Menoikeus (emphasis added):

Quote from Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus

Furthermore, accustom yourself in believing that, for us, death is nothing since all pleasure and pain are in perception of the senses and the mind, and death is the absolute negation of perception. So, correct understanding is that death is nothing for us, and this is what makes the mortality of life enjoyable: not gaining an endless lifetime for oneself but taking away the yearning for not dying or immortality. [125] For there is nothing terrible in living for the one who truly comprehends that there is nothing terrible in not living. So, the one who says death is to be feared is foolish, not that there will be pain and distress when it is present but that there is pain in anticipation; because that which is present does not trouble, disquiet, or annoy, and anticipation itself pains and distresses one fruitlessly. Death, that which causes utter horror, which causes one to shudder, that "most utterly horrifying of pains" as it is understood by the hoi polloi, then is nothing to us. On the one hand, at the time when we are (that is while we are living), death is not present; on the other hand, whenever death is present, then we are not (i.e., we don't exist). Death is neither a concern for those who are living nor for those whose lives are ended.

But the hoi polloi, on the one hand, flee from death as if it is the greatest evil, then, on the other hand, on the other hand, they desire for themselves an ending of the evil (pain) in living. [126] So then, the wise one neither begs nor craves for living nor fears not living: Neither to set oneself against living, nor to imagine that it is evil to not live. Just as the most food is not chosen but that which brings the greatest pleasure; choose as well not the longest time but that in which one enjoys the fruits of that which bring the greatest pleasure.

So, the one who exhorts, on the one hand, for the one who is young to live nobly; and, on the other hand, the one who is old to come to an end nobly is a good-hearted simpleton not only because life is to be welcomed but also because the practice of living well, nobly, and beautifully and the practice of dying well, nobly, and beautifully are the same. But far worse is the one who says, on the one hand, it is well not to be born; or, on the other hand,

"failing this, to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible."

[127] On the one hand, if what they say is persuasive, how does one not depart from life? For this is readily at hand, if indeed one was to resolve oneself steadfastly to this. If, on the other hand, this is in jest, one is foolish for making fun of things which do not admit of this.

To me, all those underlined parts are saying the same this as leaving life "animo aequo."

Quote from Cassius

This is certainly an interesting question, especially in regard to Epicurus' own death. It has never been clear to me from the texts whether Epicurus knew that his condition was irreversible and terminal, or whether he had hope of recovery, which I think would make all the difference in a situation like his.

Well, he says ""On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life" That sounds pretty irreversible and terminal to me.

Quote from Cassius

very close to a "mind over reality" situation

Oh, I don't think that at all. Even the sage will cry out on the rack. But leaving life "animo aequo" just means:

aequo (aequiore, aequissimo) animo, with even mind, with equanimity, patiently, calmly, quietly, with forbearance

If you're experiencing that much intolerable pain, you know what's coming. Scream, wail, cry out in pain, but don't rail against. Don't curse the gods. Don't complain about regrets in your life. If you *know* you're dying (which is what that kind of pain meant in Epicurus's day) and there's no escape, face it "animo aequo".

Quote from Cassius

Do you not think that such situations exist? Or do you think that .even in such extreme circumstances we have the mental power to suppress our pain?

Again, I'm not saying the pain is repressed like a Stoic. I'm saying the pain is real, intolerable, and lethal. An Epicurean isn't "suppressing" anything. They're feeling and acknowledging their pain. If it's that bad, they understand the end is near. All this comes out of the medical assistance that was available in Epicurus's day.

Where we're at now with medical treatment is a different story entirely.

Quote from Cassius

you are Not going to die voluntarily if there is any reasonable way around it.

Again, I bring up the example of Epicurus's death. He *knew* he was going to die, and yet he still didn't choose to die voluntarily, even though there was no way around it.

Quote from Cassius

sometimes you choose to die for a friend is clearly stated, and everyone should be a friend to themselves, so I definitely think that applies.

Hmm... not sure if I agree here either. That seems a little convoluted in being a friend to yourself so you'll die for you? I think this is an apple and oranges situation here.

Quote from ccarruth42

Does VS38 apply to this EOL question? Reading through the PD and VS and saw it.

"He is of very small account for whom there are many good reasons for ending his life."

Exactly, ccarruth42 !

There's also VS75:

This saying is utterly ungrateful for the good things one has achieved: provide for the end of a long life.

εἰς τὰ παρῳχηκότα ἀγαθὰ ἀχάριστος φωνὴ ἡ λέγουσα· τέλος ὅρα μακροῦ βίου.

Saint-Andre has a note to this translation: The force of ὅρα here might be "provide for" (as I have translated it), "beware", or even just "look to"; the overall sense is that preparing for a supposed afterlife shows a lack of appreciation for the good things of life on earth.

Vatican Sayings, by Epicurus

Cicero, De Finibus 1.15.49

ut enim mortis metu omnis quietae vitae status perturbatur, et ut succumbere doloribus eosque humili animo inbecilloque ferre miserum est, ob eamque debilitatem animi multi parentes, multi amicos, non nulli patriam, plerique autem se ipsos penitus perdiderunt, sic robustus animus et excelsus omni est liber cura et angore, cum et mortem contemnit, qua qui affecti sunt in eadem causa sunt, qua ante quam nati, et ad dolores ita paratus est, ut meminerit maximos morte finiri, parvos multa habere intervalla requietis, mediocrium nos esse dominos, ut, si tolerabiles sint, feramus, si minus, animo aequo e vita, cum ea non placeat, tamquam e theatro exeamus.

Specifically:

si tolerabiles sint, feramus, si minus, animo aequo e vita, cum ea non placeat, tamquam e theatro exeamus.

Rackham's translation (that Cassius gives above) reads:

It is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us.

Yonge (from Project Gutenberg ) reads:

For as the whole condition of tranquil life is thrown into confusion by the fear of death, and as it is a miserable thing to yield to pain and to bear it with a humble and imbecile mind; and as on account of that weakness of mind many men have ruined their parents, many men their friends, some their country, and very many indeed have utterly undone themselves; so a vigorous and lofty mind is free from all care and pain, since it despises death, which only places those who encounter it in [pg 116]the same condition as that in which they were before they were born; and it is so prepared for pain that it recollects that the very greatest are terminated by death, and that slight pains have many intervals of rest, and that we can master moderate ones, so as to bear them if they are tolerable, **and if not, we can depart with equanimity out of life, just as out of a theatre, when it no longer pleases us.**

Okay, so here are those initial thoughts I foreshadowed previously...

I read this text in relation to PD4

"Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains." (Saint-Andre)

The reason that "the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time" is because, in Epicurus's time at least, that meant it would kill you.

However, according to this PD again, "diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains."

Both sections of this PD are exactly the situations that Epicurus found himself in, but he wrote on his deathbed: "My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could augment them." If there was a time to advocate suicide, this would surely have been a place to do it. And yet, Epicurus's conduct at the end of life even gets lauded by Stoics like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca.

I've admitted my Latin is rudimentary, at best, but it seems to be that the way the punctuation in the Latin goes seems to set up the following phrases:

si tolerabiles sint "if it (pain) is tolerable"

feramus "we bear (it)"

si minus "if not"

animo aequo "with a calm mind"

e vita "from life"

cum ea non placeat "when it (life) no longer pleases"

tamquam e theatro exeamus "as if we are exiting from a theater"

Read in the context of PD4, this Ciceronian text says to me: When pain is no longer tolerable, it is going to kill you. but you should be able to face that situation, with a calm mind, as if you're simply exiting a theater presenting a play that you are no longer enjoying.

To my reading, this text is not advocating suicide even in the most extreme cases, because Epicurus was experiencing pains so bad that "nothing could augment them." But, even then, he set his "gladness of mind" against that pain to recall happy memories.

If you break down the Yonge translation:

1. the very greatest [pains] are terminated by death

2. slight pains have many intervals of rest

3. we can master moderate ones, so as to bear them if they are tolerable

4. if not, we can depart with equanimity out of life, just as out of a theatre, when it no longer pleases us.

To my reading of the text, it is saying that if you have intolerable pain, it'll be over soon. Keep your calm mind in anticipation of leaving life as you would walking out of a theater when the play no longer pleases you.

I don't think I'm doing any tricky or complex exegesis here. I'm trying to read the text as literally as possible, and I'm not seeing an advocacy of suicide in any sense.

Cassius: Would you want to move posts #6 to the end to a new thread so we don't hijack the original intent of this thread?

LOL! Just to check myself:

Definition of ALBEIT

even though : although… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Yeah, I'm still not sure I agree, but this'll have to wait until later. I have thoughts.

Quote from Cassius

It is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us.

Hmm... I've seen other translations and the Latin and I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation as that text endorsing suicide as a solution albeit in the extreme. I'll create another thread possibly so this thread isn't hijacked.

Quote from Kalosyni

So it is incorrect to translate it as "culture"? (as Monadnock does in above translation).

The word is παιδεία which refers to the educational system that made one a "good citizen" of the polis, very pro-Platonic and pro- Aristotelian. So, acculturation and indoctrination are my preferred translations.

Quote from Cassius

here is also the slightly less agreeable (but still true) implication that we are "able to leave when the play has ceased to please us" -- meaning that under truly horrible circumstances there is always the possibility of taking our "final exit."

I know you bring this up on occasion, but I can never remember the textual reference. Where is that?

Quote from Cassius

Question:

"Do you know of any material on how Epicurus viewed differences from the start of life that are out of our control? For example, a baby being born into a rich family vs. a poor family and having more opportunities, or being born in adverse racial or ethnic or religious or other circumstances? Are these initial differences determined by Nature? I think not because that would imply some divine intervention?"

Fascinating question. I would reference VS09. From my perspective, this Vatican Saying addresses "differences from the start of life that are out of our control." It's also a clever bit of writing from Epicurus. The original Greek reads "κακὸν ἀνάγκη, ἀλλʼ οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη ζῆν μετὰ ἀνάγκης." Note those three occurrences of ἀνάγκη/ἀνάγκης. The word itself means force, constraint, or necessity; so a literal translation would be something like "An evil, necessity (is); but (there is) no necessity to live in the midst of necessity." This retains the clever wordplay but is honestly a little clunky in English. To get the import of the statement, a paraphrase is better. Consider what he is saying. Being constrained - or perceiving or assuming that you are constrained - in your choices is an evil. If you have only one choice - or feel you only have one choice - that is an evil and thus painful. However, we have free will, so we are not required to live having our choices curtailed and constrained. Even if we make choices we don't want to make, we are exercising our free will. "I don't want to go to work today, but I have to." No, you don't. You could quit. But are you ready to face the consequences of quitting your job? You can consciously decide today is not the day I quit. I make the decision to get up and do the work. Likewise, maybe getting a new job is the right decision. Weigh your options. Exercise your faculty of choice and rejection. You are not forced to be forced to do something.

In the current discussion, this implies that one is not ultimately constrained by their birth situation - albeit with important caveats.

Epicurus encourages us to make prudent choices and rejections and to practice well.

Okay, here is the 11-page DRAFT version of Epicurus’s Birthday: The 7th, 10th, or 20th of Gamelion? A Mystery Solved

Epicurus’s Birthday_ The 7th, 10th, or 20th of Gamelion.pdf

Ready for initial review and comment.

This will be revised into a final version and eventually posted to the Filebase/Library here at the forum. I'm also planning on uploading it to Internet Archive like I did with the Letter to Menoikeus. Maybe Academica.edu since I've seen Hiram post some of his articles there. Why not!

I realize this is a lot of material and ended up more as a collection of notes instead of a linear narrative, but, take a look, let me know what you think and where improvements can be made, what material can be added or subtracted or modified

Hope you enjoy!

PS: One correction done already: Any mention in the PDF of the "first tenth" has been changed to the "earlier tenth."

btw, definitely knocking down the "7th day of the month of Gamelion" is taking longer to pull together all the references, images, etc. than I expected. I think it is a strong case (especially with Alpers and other scholars weighing in since the 1960s) but I want to be sure to cover all the bases. Basically, so that if someone wants to argue, they aren't arguing with just little old me but with several decades of established scholarship!

Knocking down Gamelion 10 and supporting Gamelion 20 are going to go much faster!

Just a status report on that mythical paper I've claimed to be writing (all physical evidence to the contrary)

Quote from Cassius

an indepth article well linked and very findable to short-circuit the question next time it is asked

LOL! Be careful what you ask for! I'm in the process of working on a semi-formal paper consolidating all this information about the controversy among Gamelion 7, 10, and 20 with links in the PDF plus image snippets from the manuscripts and a bibliography of sources. Hopefully it'll be complete in the next day or so to get some feedback and then polish.

Quote from Pacatus

What I really appreciate is that – even with the sincere investigation and really trying to come up with a meaningful date – it is all more in the nature of fun, rather than fundamentalism.

Thanks! That was certainly the spirit.

Quote from Pacatus

I do have a prophecy, however. This will not be the last year of discussion on the matter – whatever date you hit upon: you all would just miss the sheer pleasure of it too much!

I hear you, but, honestly, I'm getting pretty confident and satisfied with what we've come up with on this thread. Besides there are *plenty* of other obscure details that I want to sink my research teeth into including pinpointing the location of the Garden. Currently, I'm eyeing the site of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Athens:

Church of the Holy Trinity at Kerameikos · Pireos, Athina 105 53, Greece

★★★★★ · Greek Orthodox church

goo.gl

for various reasons... but that all will be for another thread!

There's also the on-going look at Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics... and I'm also curious to go through the texts to pick out specific foods mentioned in reference to the Epicureans. It goes beyond "bread and water" and cheese.

As for me and Epicurus's Birthday, put me down as a firm "Twentyer" or, in Ancient Greek, ΕΙΚΑΔΙΣΤΗΣ (Eikadistes).

Kalosyni and Joshua inspired me to poke around, too. Found this one:

Kepos: Garden Spaces in Ancient Greece: Imagination and Reality

A number of images have been removed from the electronic copy of this thesis for copyright reasons. A list of the removed images is available below.

www.academia.edu

Note: Only 1 mention of "Epicurean" but remember that The Garden was just outside the Dipylon Gate in the Kerameikos district... And lots on that!

I had commented on this very topic quite some time ago when I was sharing my thoughts on DeWitt's book. Here's the pertinent excerpt from that earlier post:

p.101 of Epicurus and his Philosophy has:

Quote

There is, however, still something to be added. During the first three centuries of Christianity the representations of Christ exhibit a youthful and beardless face, not unlike that of Apollo. The bearded portraits began to appear at a later date and simultaneously with the absorption of the Epicurean sect into the Christian environment. These new pictures of Christ exhibit a similarity to those of Epicurus, then growing obsolete. This similarity is such as to be manifest to the most disinterested observer.

No, I don't buy this, and it's not "manifest to the most disinterested observer." For one glaring difference, the earliest "portraits" of a bearded Jesus have very long hair. The Wikipedia article on the depiction of Jesus shows one of the earliest bearded images from the late 4th century. The long flowing locks are quite visible. That's not Epicurus. The article does a fairly good job of outlining the various theories of where this bearded depiction comes from, and it's not copies of Epicurus. The references in that article, too, also point to numerous options for where the bearded depiction comes from.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

monthly assembly of his school on the 20th was established.

From our point of view, what about Jan 20 vs Feb 20?

Edited the summary above.

For sources and further explanation, feel free to read through this thread. To summarize the current understanding:

- The are good reasons to believe that the reference to Apollodorus' Chronicle in Diogenes Laertius, Book 10.14 should be translated "he was born in the seventh month of Gamelion" and NOT "the seventh day of Gamelion."

- It is confirmed that the reference to the "earlier tenth of Gamelion" in Epicurus's Will refers to the 20th day of the lunar cycle in the ancient Athenian calendar.

- For this reason, there is his reason to accept that Epicurus's Birthday was actually Gamelion 20, that it was the usual practice to celebrate it on that day, and that is why the monthly assembly of his school on the 20th was established.

- Since the month of Gamelion most closely matches January in the current calendar (give or take a couple weeks), the best way in modern times to keep to the spirit of Epicurus's Will is to celebrate his Birthday on January 20 every year. (It is to this "Annual 20th" that Philodemus was inviting Piso.)

- We can also create a "movable feast day" using a reconstructed Ancient Athenian calendar but we should use Gamelion 20 as the day.