Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

And the youth might ask in reply: "And so, kind sir, are you telling me that all this adds up to your telling me that you are certain, and that you know, that there is no hell? Or are you trying to drown me in a sea of words and answer questions with questions and leave me unsatisfied like that gadfly Socrates?

Quote from Don

You say "You've never been there." Again, I would ask "Where would I go to visit this place?" My senses and experience and reason tell me that there is no immortal soul that exists after I am dead. You say this "Hell" is a place of punishment potentially for me and for those who do evil in the world. But if I do not exist after I die - and I see no evidence that I do - how can this Hell-place affect me? Even if it does exist, who dwells in it? Spirits without bodies? And if they have bodies, where do they stand? If they are Spirit, they can have no effect on me now, while I am alive. And once I'm dead, I no longer exist for them to have an affect on me. If you say I've never there, you would be correct, because, to my understanding of the universe, there is no "there" to go to.

I would simply turn the question back to you and ask you to define your terms when we speak of Hell. Describe this place of which you obviously have some knowledge that I do not possess. Please, tell me from whence you came about your certainty and where I, too, can gain knowledge of this place. I wish to learn!

Quote from Cassius

Probably the Latin for this jab from Cicero in "On The Nature of the Gods" is also going to be relevant:

Hereupon Velleius began, in the confident manner (I need not say) that is customary with Epicureans, afraid of nothing so much as lest he should appear to have doubts about anything. One would have supposed he had just come down from the assembly of the gods in the intermundane spaces of Epicurus!

I will see if i can find the Latin.....

Here it is: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Asection%3D18

18] Tum Velleius fidenter sane, ut solent isti, nihil tam verens quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur, tamquam modo ex deorum concilio et ex Epicuri intermundiis descendisset, “Audite” inquit “non futtilis commenticiasque sententias, non opificem aedificatoremque mundi Platonis de Timaeo deum, nec anum fatidicam Stoicorum Pronoeam, quam Latine licet Providentiam dicere, neque vero mundum ipsum animo et sensibus praeditum rutundum ardentem volubilem deum, portenta et miracula non disserentium philosophorum sed somniantium.

Interlinear translation: https://nodictionaries.com/novifex?text=1…et%2C+%E2%80%9C

Display More

M. Tullius Cicero, de Natura Deorum, LIBER PRIMUS, section 18

You beat me to it! Cross posted

Tum Velleius fidenter sane nihil tam verens quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur, tamquam modo ex deorum concilio et ex Epicuri intermundiis descendisset

Then Velleius confidently feared nothing so much as not to be seen to doubt about any matter, as if he had just descended from the council of the gods and from the interworlds of Epicurus.

Quote from Cassius

So for 'certain' we are talking "certo"?

Yes.

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, certus

determined, resolved, fixed, settled, purposed: non dubius.

Quote from Cassius

"You don't know there's no hell - and there's no way you can know - because you've never been there!"

Where would this place called Hell be? My senses tell me there is nothing but atoms and void , and nothing is created from that which does not already exist.

You say "You've never been there." Again, I would ask "Where would I go to visit this place?" My senses and experience and reason tell me that there is no immortal soul that exists after I am dead. You say this "Hell" is a place of punishment potentially for me and for those who do evil in the world. But if I do not exist after I die - and I see no evidence that I do - how can this Hell-place affect me? Even if it does exist, who dwells in it? Spirits without bodies? And if they have bodies, where do they stand? If they are Spirit, they can have no effect on me now, while I am alive. And once I'm dead, I no longer exist for them to have an affect on me. If you say I've never there, you would be correct, because, to my understanding of the universe, there is no "there" to go to.

Caveat: My Latin knowledge (no pun intented) is slim to none, but I want to learn... so here goes.

Here is the pertinent section in English on Perseus (Leonard translation):

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, BOOK IV, line 469

Same section in Latin:

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Liber Quartus, line 469

Pertinent word for knowing here is sciri. That's the word that is used throughout this section.

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, scĭo

"In gen., to know, in the widest signif. of the word; to understand; perceive; to have knowledge of or skill in any thing, etc."

Here's a nice discussion on Stack Exchange on the difference between scio vs novi (and other "to know" verbs):

What is the difference between "novi" and "scio"?

Latin has at least two words that straightforwardly translate to English "know": novi (perf. of nosco) scio Plautus combines the two pleonastically: nec…

latin.stackexchange.com

Quote

This is quite a large question, to which a comprehensive answer is easily found in the more comprehensive dictionaries under Know, with copious examples. However, in direct answer, there certainly are meanings not shared between the two, which I will try to summarise, although it is worth pointing out that the differences in usage can be very slight.

Scio is the most general word, meaning that you have a certainty, or at least clearly perceive, some fact(s) or other. It is followed by the kinds of clause that you would expect: acc. + inf., de + abl., relative + subj., neuter pronoun, and so on. Its opposite nescio, (‘not to know’, ‘be unaware/ignorant of’ etc.) is used similarly. But scio (and nescio) can also have the sense of ‘know how to …’ (particularly where it refers to a skill) as in scio scribere, nescio aratro uti.

The simple idea behind ‘not to know’ is expressed by ignoro (this being possibly more definite than nescio, which can be qualified by, for example, a clause after quin). The opppsite of ignoro is nosco, meaning ‘am acquainted with’, which is more usually seen in the perfect tenses, still giving a present sense in English. To claim a personal acquaintance, say, you might appropriately introduce yourself with te novi, or me no(ve)ris.

With, I think, a shade of meaning rather more active than that of simply learning (for which disco/didici or certior fieri is appropriate), the verb for the sense of ‘getting to know’ or ‘finding out’ is cognosco, most often in the perfect tenses to imply the knowledge for which scio in the present might sometimes be used equally well. Comperio is different again, with the sense of ‘know for certain’ or ‘tried and tested by experience’; compertum habet = ‘he knows without doubt’.

---- and -----

I would use novi (not scio) to mean to have met someone.

Notus is the participle of nosco and in a specific sense means acquaintance, friend (at least post-Classically, L&S only lists the plural noti in this sense). It seems to me that there is no parallel with scio for this meaning.

From the definitions, it seems that one can scire and noscere something, but only noscere someone.

I can find examples of novi+person, but none of scio+person without some deed by that person being the thing that is actually known.

Display More

As you can see, "knowing" is much more complicated than the English word would have us believe. The Romans split up the semantic field much finer when it came to knowledge it appears.

Quote from Pacatus

With regard to the Lucretius quote (and with the hope that Don might help with translations), I think maybe we would be well advised (today) to replace "certainty" with "reliance." What can we -- must we -- rely upon? And that, I think, Epicurus nailed (and, again, something that I suspect Sextus just misunderstood)

LOL! You know I'm always up for a good translation exercise, even in Latin. To which Lucretius quote are we referring?

Quote from Pacatus

Note: I’m a pretty strong introvert (which I do not accept as a flaw to struggle against – even though extroverts are the vast majority in our society); I do not get “lonely” when I’m alone; I value and cherish a few friends.

Fully agree! If you haven't read Susan Cain's Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, I highly recommend it. Her website is at:

Home - Susan Cain

Hi, I’m Susan! #1 NYT bestselling author. Unlikely award-winning speaker. Seeker of kindred spirits.Welcome to the world of QUIET and BITTERSWEET Susan Cain’S…

susancain.net

The monthly 20th being based on Epicurus's Birthday also makes sense in light of ancient Greek religion.

The gods all had specific days of the month on which they were celebrated: Apollo, 7th; Aphrodite, 4th; etc. Epicurus was compared to a god (see Lucretius, for example), so establishing his birth date as the day of the month for celebrations makes perfect sense.

Quote from Nate

The Attic calendar was not meant to be an objective measurement of time, but simply a day-to-day, month-to-month tool that was regularly changed to accommodate the needs of the populace.

Well said! You've stated that in a better, clearer, and more succinct way!

Gamelion, 2nd year of the 700th Olympiad

Gamelion 7 is January 28.

That was my initial take, but I firmly believe that's now wrong in light of the misinterpretation of Apollodorus' reference in Diogenes Laertius per Alpers, Lewis, and others. Epicurus was not born on Gamelion 7. He was born in the 7th month of the Attic calendar, Gamelion. Apollodorus doesn't give a day.

According to the website, Gamelion 20, 2nd year of the 700th Olympiad, will be Feb. 10/11, 2023.

Honestly, I'm not as concerned with the floating Julian date as I am with nailing down Gamelion 20. And that's confirmed to my satisfaction. In light of that, celebrating annually on January 20 makes the most sense to me since that gets closest to the spirit of Epicurus's Will because (and I'm stating these as facts but anyone is welcome to contest if they like):

• Epicurus was born Gamelion 20.
• His birthday was celebrated annually during his life and after his death on Gamelion 20.
• The monthly assembly was established in honor of that 20th.
• The celebration of the 20th was lost for centuries and was not celebrated according to any calendar: Attic, Gregorian, or Julian.
• In modern times, we've decided to reestablish observance of the monthly 20th according to our calendar.
• The ancient Gamelion was roughly equal to the time of year we've divided into January (give or take a couple weeks).
• The ancients' celebration of Gamelion 20 was part of their regular monthly assemblies, just with added significance and ceremonies to celebrate the Founder's birth.
• Therefore, according to the custom set forth in Epicurus's Will by Epicurus, we can celebrate January 20 as Epicurus's Birthday and feel that we're honestly sticking to a time-honored tradition to the best of our ability.

Trying to pin down an exact Julian date in modern times for an event that took place 2,000+ years in the past is fraught with danger. In some ways, it's a "how many angels can dance on a pin" question. Even saying something like "Julius Caesar died on March 15" because he was assassinated on the Idēs of "March" is, at best, a rough approximation and convenient shorthand.

But don't misunderstand me! I think it's a fascinating exercise, and I fully support the idea of celebrating a movable observance of Epicurus's Birthday annually. I think that's a very cool exercise, and that's why I've "accepted" the Hellenic Month Established Per Athens website calculations as "good enough" for me on that count:

HMEPA: Hellenic Month Established Per Athens temporary

It's at least used by a modern Hellenic pagan group to celebrate their festivals, so if they are confident to use it for their re-constituted religion, I'm happy to use it for my purposes.

With the intercalated days and missing lists of Archons and the ancients' adding in days when the needed/wanted, it is well nigh impossible to say "this ancient event happened on March 15 and simply could NEVER have happened on March 14 or 16 in 44 BCE!! Furthermore, in 2022, that date exactly corresponds to March 16!!" It can't be done. Like I said, I think this is a fascinating, intriguing, enjoyable intellectual exercise, but there's no way - to my mind - that anyone is going to be 100% iron-clad *right* in these calculations.

For me, January 20 is the best date to celebrate the Founder's Birthday that respects the ancient tradition in keeping with Epicurus's wishes as set down in his will. We could honor his wishes and establish a custom for modern Epicureans by observing the Annual 20th on that date.

Quote from Cassius

(1) For commemoration purposes it makes sense to honor the decision of the Epicureans to celebrate on the nearest 20th (Jan 20) but that

... honor the decision of *Epicurus*...

Quote from Don

Oh, and due to the fact that Metrodorus would have been appointed Epicurus's successor had he not died before Epicurus, it makes sense to me that Epicurus wanted to share a commemoration day with him. It seems that Epicurus losing Metrodorus would have been (to Epicurus) akin to the Garden losing Epicurus himself.

There's this, too:

Understanding the Birthday Paradox – BetterExplained

Or it could even have been that Metrodorus had his birthday on a different month's 20th. Hard to tell.

Oh, and due to the fact that Metrodorus would have been appointed Epicurus's successor had he not died before Epicurus, it makes sense to me that Epicurus wanted to share a commemoration day with him. It seems that Epicurus losing Metrodorus would have been (to Epicurus) akin to the Garden losing Epicurus himself.

Quote from Nate

Can we confirm that Apollodorus was Diogenes' only source for original Epicurus' birthdate?

That's the only reference he gives:

Quote from Diogenes Laertius Book 10.14

He was born, according to Apollodorus in his Chronology, in the third year of the 109th Olympiad, in the archonship of Sosigenes,26 on the seventh day of the month Gamelion,27 in the seventh year after the death of Plato.

***

Quote from Nate

(a) we have no record of the actual date of Epicurus' birth and that we only have attestation to the ceremonial celebration with friends? Or (b) was he, coincidentally, born on Eikas?

It seems to me that the evidence points to Epicurus actually being born on Gamelion 20 and that was the reason the 20th was chosen as the monthly assembly date, too. I don't think it is coincidental. I think that's the reason it was picked.

Now, whether Metrodorus was also born, or died, or was born *in* Gamelion or some other reason being why the two were both commorateted on the *monthly* 20th, there's no way to tell for now. But, from all evidence I see, Gamelion 20 was an annual celebration with remembrance offerings for the *actual* birthday of Epicurus. And that was what Piso was being invited to by Philodemus.

LOL! Mystery solved to, I think, my satisfaction!

In the short note by D.M. Lewis:

Two Days

Author(s): D. M. Lewis

Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Dec., 1969), pp. 271-272

Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/707723

Accessed: 27-11-2022 13:19 UTC

Lewis, along with Alpers, is cited in that French paper. Lewis lays out an easy, elegant solution to the multiple dates problem: Gamelion 7, 10, 20.

The Gamelion 7 is from Apollodorus, cited by Diogenes. However, it has been demonstrated that the only month & date birthdays Apollodorus gives are for Socrates and Plato. He gives Epicurus's as occuring in Gamelion with a gloss notation of 7 in the text. Gamelion is simply noted as the **7th month** of the Athenian calendar! It's not a date!

The Gamelion 10 date is simply a misinterpretation of πρότερα δέκατη in the Greek as we've been going over and is corroborated by multiple sources now.

Gamelion 20 is Epicurus's Birthday. The "customary" in the Greek is now interpreted by me (and others) to refer to the fact that it was customary to celebrate his birthday annually with certain rites and ceremonies, but that the commemoration of himself and Metrodorus was monthly and used as the regular assembly of his students and members of the school.

All this makes the most sense of all this conflicting data. I'm convinced.

If we want to celebrate the spirit of Epicurus's Will, we should celebrate his birthday on January 20 every year.

If we want a movable feast, we use Eikadistes 's calculations using the online calendar.

By Zeus, I'm finding some REALLY good stuff in French and German academic papers. It looks to me like Epicurus's birthday was accepted as Gamelion 20 since at least 1968 in a paper by Karl Alpers, "Epikurus Geburtstag"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24813898

That paper is cited by a French paper in 2016

Déniz Alcorac Alonso. Offrandes funéraires à Thespies : les ἐνπορίδια « sacrifices par le feu » dans IThesp. 215. In: Revue des Études Grecques, tome 129, fascicule 1, Janvier-juin 2016. pp. 63-83.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/reg.2016.8399

Offrandes funéraires à Thespies : les ἐνπορίδια « sacrifices par le feu » dans IThesp. 215 - Persée

I'm still digging around for how Gamelion 7 fits in, and I'm trying to compile all these corroborating papers and evidence. This may take a little longer than I thought! My utter lack of fluency in French and German doesn't help!

So, while I am definitely not the first to connect τῃ προτέρᾳ δεκατῃ to the 20th, it's heartening to see the corroborations start to line up!

Quote from Cassius

We could also email Christos Yapijakis and ask him

What exactly are we asking him? And that's not meant to be snarky (I see it could be read that way).

This would also imply that the "annual celebration of the 20th" referenced in philodemus's poem as the invitation to Piso was, in fact, the *annual* celebration of the 20th was in fact the one celebrations Epicurus's Birthday on Gamelion's 20. That resolves the "annual" vs "monthly" conundrum with that poem!

I will say I am absolutely gobsmacked that no one - academic or lay person - picked up on that "the earlier tenth" before. I've seen some translations use "first Tenth" and similar words, but everyone I've seen simply feels that implies "the tenth day of Gamelion." But it's right there in the Greek in a complete dative phrase. I stand resolved that that equals the 20th.

At the risk of self-horn-tooting, am I the first person to bring this up?? I find that hard to believe but I'm not seeing any evidence to contradict that. If anyone sees a flaw in my interpretation of others who've said it and gone unnoticed, please let me know!