Posts by Don

Yes! I encourage everyone to read the article. I've hit its Up vote button!

I'm also going to check out her book, just published Nov 1.

Good find, Cassius !

I had heard the "make a eunuch a man" quote, but I wanted to look up the origin. Diogenes Laertius quotes this in Book 4.6.43 on Arcesilaus.

Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK IV, Chapter 6. ARCESILAUS (c. 318-242 B.C.)

Another pleasant story told of him is this. Some one had inquired why it was that pupils from all the other schools went over to Epicurus, but converts were never made from the Epicureans: "Because men may become eunuchs, but a eunuch never becomes a man," was his answer.

"ἐκ μὲν γὰρ ἀνδρῶν γάλλοι γίνονται, ἐκ δὲ γάλλων ἄνδρες οὐ γίνονται."

The word translated "eunuch" is γάλλος

A. priest of Cybele, Schwyzer 633.11 (Eresus, ii/i B. C.), Arr. Epict.2.20.17, AP6.234 (Eryc.), 220 (Diosc.):—fem. form Γαλλαί Lyr.Adesp.121.

II. eunuch, J.AJ4.8.40, PGnom.244, D.L.4.43.

The word translated "man" is ἄνδρες which is man as in male person. Arcesilaus doesn't use άνθρωπος "human being" but "manly man."

A γάλλος as LSJ shows was a eunuch but I find the fact that this refers specifically to a priest of Cybele very interesting. Yes, Arcesilaus was obviously referring to the castration part. But, this part in the Wikipedia article is interesting too (emphasis added):

"Most modern scholarship agrees that Cybele's consort, Attis, and her eunuch Phrygian priests (Galli) would have arrived with the goddess, along with at least some of the wild, ecstatic features of her Greek and Phrygian cults."

The Epicureans were slandered with saying they took part in wild, hedonistic parties, which would have dovetailed nicely with this Γάλλος epithet.

Quote

As eunuchs, incapable of reproduction, the Galli were forbidden Roman citizenship and rights of inheritance; like their eastern counterparts, they were technically mendicants whose living depended on the pious generosity of others. For a few days of the year, during the Megalesia, Cybele's laws allowed them to leave their quarters, located within the goddess' temple complex, and roam the streets to beg for money. They were outsiders, marked out as Galli by their regalia, and their notoriously effeminate dress and demeanour, but as priests of a state cult, they were sacred and inviolate. From the start, they were objects of Roman fascination, scorn and religious awe.

EDIT: I stand corrected on the "ecstatic rites" in Wikipedia. I misinterpreted. See

The GALA and the Gallos

The Luwian ritual texts known as the Songs of Istanuwa and the Songs of the Men of Lallupiya are shown to be at once the earliest textual references to the…

www.academia.edu

"They are noted for their wailing and lamentation of Attis, Cybele’s mythological companion who died after castrating himself. The processions of the galloi, accompanied by the clanging of cymbals, were characterized by ecstatic selfmutilation and bloodletting."

However, that paper goes on to say that...

"The stereotypical gallus of Roman literature wore feminine dress and heavy makeup, had long yellow-tinted hair, and was willing to perform sex acts considered degrading by the Romans."

Just had to comment on Joshua 's mention of drama at 39:10. He's thinking of Aristophanes' The Clouds with Socrates teaching in the "Thinkatorium."

The Clouds - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plato appears to have considered The Clouds a contributing factor in Socrates' trial and execution in 399 BC.

"There is a famous story, as reported for example by Aelian, according to which Socrates cheerfully rose from his seat during the performance of The Clouds and stood in silent answer to the whispers among foreigners in the festival audience: "Who is Socrates?""

Quote from Pacatus

Unaffrighted by carefree gods,

untroubled by unfeeling death –

I really like that you didn't go the imperative command route on these! No "do not..." just describing the situation.

Quote from Pacatus

with perhaps a mantra,

How about this:

No fear

No death

Feel good

Bear pain

That's **very** much an "of the top of my head."

As always, there's much more going on behind why I chose these lines here and in the above poem, butI 'll jump down off my TetrapharmaBox for awhile now.

Okay, so here is draft 2, composed in the light of day. I tried to pay more attention to the syllable structure and alliteration and a little rhyme:

Blissful gods I do not fear,

free from care and woe.

Destined death bears not a threat,

think not rod nor gift.

Pleasant feeling is the good,

easy to procure.

Terror comes from pain and grief,

but I can endure.

EDIT: Okay, final revision (LOL) with more attention to syllable structure and formal alliteration, etc. I can almost guarantee this won't be the last one... but I'll stop hijacking the thread!

Blissful gods I do not fear,

free from care and woe.

Destined death, devoid of risk,

removes rod and reward.

Pleasant feeling is the good,

gained by nature's ease.

Dreadful pain disturbs my peace,

but I can endure.

Note: I have purposefully "almost" alliterated "peace" and "but" (same articulation, but one voiced one unvoiced). I also just realized ease and peace are almost rhymes with the same voiced/unvoiced pair. That was accidental but ... hmm...

Okay, a very quick attempt at an imayo (Japanese 4-line poem with 12 syllables in each line in a 7 first / 5 last split with a caesura separating them. Lines can also be split at the caesura. And, no, I didn't even know this was a poem style until I looked at that list in the last post!)

So, this is an attempt at a possible prayer-like, poetic rendition of the Tetrapharmakos:

Blissful gods I do not fear | free from care and woe.

My pending death brings nothing | neither rod nor gift.

The good is pleasant feeling | easy to procure.

The terrible is painful | but we can endure.

With the lines split:

Blissful gods I do not fear

free from care and woe.

My pending death brings nothing

neither rod nor gift.

The good is pleasant feeling

easy to procure.

The terrible is painful

but I can endure.

Thought y'all might be interested:

List of 168 Poetic Forms for Poets

Check out this list of 168 poetic forms for poets that includes everything from abstract poetry and ae freislighe to villanelle and zappai—and so many more in…

www.writersdigest.com

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Don

That's always been one of my reasons for advocating for the Tetrapharmakos

That is both simple and familiar to an Epicurean. The usual English translations, though, seem more like instructions or rubrics, rather than self-expressive prayer or meditative affirmations. And not everyone will find the Greek either resonant or easy to remember/recite.

LOL! I'll take that as a challenge to come up with one that's not in the imperative and is more prayer-like

Quote from Pacatus

For me, the best prayers are brief: easy to remember.

That's always been one of my reasons for advocating for the Tetrapharmakos

I thought I had posted about prayer previously and sure enough - 2 years ago - I was going through Obbink's translation and commentary on On Piety:

Post

RE: Philodemus On Piety

προσευχεσθαι γαρ εν τωι Περί [Βιων] οικείον είναι [ημεί]ν φησίν.

I promised something on prayer yesterday, so to fulfill my self-imposed obligation , here's what Epicurus said about prayer according to column 26 of On Piety. The original is above and is mostly intact in the papyrus.

For he says in the On Ways of Life, προσευχεσθαι is οικείον for us.

προσευχεσθαι [proseukhesthai] means "prayer", specifically to offer prayers or vows; offer prayers or worship. The word can be broken down…

Don

December 16, 2020 at 11:05 PM

Not that it's any great insight! Just thought y'all could find it interesting.

This part of the thread does seem to revolve around something like the Greek πιστεύω pisteuō, from which I thought - up until 30 seconds ago! - we got the word epistemology.

πιστεύω pisteuō

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πιστ-εύω

Epistemology on the other hand:

Etymology Online: "theory of knowledge," 1856, coined by Scottish philosopher James F. Ferrier (1808-1864) from Greek episteme "knowledge, acquaintance with (something), skill, experience," from Ionic Greek epistasthai "know how to do, understand," literally "overstand," from epi "over, near" (see epi-) + histasthai "to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."

Etymology from ἐπί (epí) +‎ ἵστημι (hístēmi)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, ἐπίσταμαι

So, epistemology seems to conjure up for me that idea of the Epicureans being "dogmatic" in that they were "making a stand" They were willing to take a firm position as opposed to remaining forever skeptical and puzzled.

btw, I like that word "overstand"! I think I would much rather overstand something than understand it

The closest the ancient Epicureans got to a creed in my opinion was the Tetrapharmakos.

Quote from Kalosyni

Onenski brought up the question of: Can you be certain about some things and what can you be dogmatic about in Epicureanism?

Quote from Don

On the "dogmatic" discussion, this goes back in part to Diogenes Laertius' characteristics of the sage:

https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…remain-in-doubt

The two key words are:

Epicureans will δογματιεῖν and not ἀπορήσειν.

δογματιεῖν dogmatiein

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Ddogmati%2Fzw

ἀπορήσειν aporēsein

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…y%3Da)pore%2Fw2

So, my perspective has always been (similar to what Cassius was saying) that the Epicurean sage (or Epicureans in general) would take a position and lay down an opinion (δογματιεῖν) and will not remain puzzled or "skeptical" of everything (ἀπορήσειν)

Display More

Sorry to repeat myself, but I think this bears repeating. From my perspective, the "dogmatic" assertions of the Epicureans are more about being willing to take a position in opposition to the skepticism of the Academy or Skeptics or Cynics. The Epicureans say we *can* know something! That doesn't negate the holding off on an opinion until evidence is available. That's my interpretation of Diogenes Laertius's characteristics of the Epicureans. As for Cicero's jabbing the Epicurean speaker about his confident manner, I think that's just Cicero being Cicero.

Quote from Godfrey

Coincidentally, I just listened to this podcast which has a conversation on beliefs and science, beginning in the second half of the podcast.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6L…4NTFlZWE0?ep=14

That's a good high school motto BTW.

Thanks for the Alan Alda podcast reminder! Big fan but he got pushed down within my subscriptions.

It works on my Android here and in different browsers.

Just when you thought I forgot about this project....

I posted a little more on Book 3 this morning:

I'm finding points of agreement with Epicurus, but I'm getting bogged down in minutiae. After a little more of this, I need to pull back out and cover more ground from a birds eye view... Until it becomes necessary to swoop back down.

Quote from Cassius

On the bread and water material, this would be an excellent topic to write up your summary (not much needed other than what is above plus your conclusion) and we will post it as a blog post here and then promote on Facebook. Or of course just a post on your own blog that we can link to and copy here so it will be safe both places

Oh, you're talking about a blog article here?

Blog Articles - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

First, I apologize for the length of this post!

I wasn't quite sure where to post this, but this episode of the podcast seemed appropriate after hearing your discussion on whether we need to study Plato or if it's helpful to study Plato to understand where Epicurus's perspective came from. I am inclined to agree with Martin in that we can read secondary sources and don't necessarily have to read every work that Plato and Aristotle et al. wrote to understand the philosophical discussion that was going on during Epicurus's lifetime.

However, once in a while, one runs across a revelation (at least for me) that opens up a whole new line of understanding and possible exploration.

So, what was my revelation? And I freely admit this may only be a revelation to me. I can't remember if DeWitt brings this up...

I'm reading The Faith of Epicurus by Benjamin Farrington (able to be borrowed online an hour at a time from Internet Archive; I borrowed mine from the library) and came across a very interesting section that, to me, bears directly on the whole infamous "existing on bread and water" debate concerning Epicurus. Academics and the general public use this to say that Epicurus lived ONLY on bread and water. I've addressed this - from my perspective - misinterpretation in my translation of the Letter to Menoikeus (p. 72). BUT Farrington brought to light for me a related but different thread that I may very well incorporate into a revised edition of my translation at some point in the indeterminate future.

In Chapter 1, Farrington calls attention to the section in Plato's The Republic where Socrates is discussing the earlier or simple origins of the way of life in the city and how it has evolved. Socrates appears to be advocating for the simpler way of life. Here is the excerpt - emphasis is mine - from the Perseus Digital Library:

Quote from Plato "The Republic"

Socrates:

First of all, then, let us consider what will be the manner of life of men thus provided. Will they not make bread and wine and garments and shoes? And they will build themselves houses and carry on their work in summer for the most part unclad and unshod and in winter clothed and [372b] shod sufficiently? And for their nourishment they will provide meal from their barley and flour from their wheat, and kneading and cooking these they will serve noble cakes and loaves on some arrangement of reeds or clean leaves, and, reclined on rustic beds strewn with bryony and myrtle, they will feast with their children, drinking of their wine thereto, garlanded and singing hymns to the gods in pleasant fellowship, not begetting offspring beyond their means [372c] lest they fall into poverty or war?”

Here Glaucon broke in: “No relishes (ὄψον is anything eaten with bread, usually meat or fish) apparently,” he said, “for the men you describe as feasting.” “True” said I; “I forgot that they will also have relishes—salt, of course, and olives and cheese and onions and greens, the sort of things they boil in the country, they will boil up together. But for dessert we will serve them figs and chickpeas and beans, [372d] and they will toast myrtle-berries and acorns before the fire, washing them down with moderate potations and so, living in peace and health, they will probably die in old age and hand on a like life to their offspring.” And he said, “If you were founding a city of ***pigs,*** Socrates, what other fodder than this would you provide?” “Why, what would you have, Glaucon?” said I. “What is customary,” he replied; “They must recline on couches, I presume, if they are not to be uncomfortable, [372e] and dine from tables and have made dishes and sweetmeats such as are now in use.” “Good,” said I, “I understand. It is not merely the origin of a city, it seems, that we are considering but the origin of a luxurious city. Perhaps that isn't such a bad suggestion, either. For by observation of such a city it may be we could discern the origin of justice and injustice in states. The true state I believe to be the one we have described—the healthy state, as it were. But if it is your pleasure that we contemplate also a fevered state, there is nothing to hinder.

Plato goes on from here to talk about justice, etc., over the course of the rest of The Republic. "They are the subject-matter of the remaining eight books. They are also the objects of Epicurus's attack. | It can hardly be doubted that Epicurus had noted this passage in the Republic and taken strong exception to it." (Farrington, p. 17)

Farrington notes that Athenaeus in the Deipnosophistae that Epicurus was indebted to Plato for the distinction of "natural" and "superfluous" needs:

Quote from Athenaeus, The Deipnosophistae, Book 12 (511-12)

And in the eighth book of his Republic, the same Plato has previously dilated upon the doctrine so much pressed by the Epicureans, that, of the desires, some are natural but not necessary, and others neither natural nor necessary, writing thus - "Is not the desire to eat enough for health and strength of body, and for bread and meat to that extent, a necessary desire ? - I think it is. - At all events, the desire for food for these two purposes is necessary, inasmuch as it is salutary, and inasmuch as it is able to remove hunger ? - No doubt. - And the desire for meat, too, is a necessary desire, if it at all contributes to a good habit of body? Most undoubtedly. - What, then, are we to say? Is no desire which goes beyond the appetite for this kind of food, and for other food similar to it, [512] and which, if it is checked in young people, can be entirely stifled, and which is injurious also to the body, and injurious also to the mind, both as far as its intellectual powers are concerned, and also as to its temperance, entitled to be called a necessary one ? - Most certainly not." (Source)

BUT, back to the "bread and water" debate! Farrington makes note of the following excerpt in Lucretius on the Epicurean picnic that echoes The Republic!

Quote from Lucretius, Book 2 and 5

Yet still to lounge with friends in the soft grass

Beside a river of water, underneath

A big tree's boughs, and merrily to refresh

Our frames, with no vast outlay- most of all

If the weather is laughing and the times of the year

Besprinkle the green of the grass around with flowers.

***

These tunes would soothe and glad the minds of mortals

When sated with food,- for songs are welcome then.

And often, lounging with friends in the soft grass

Beside a river of water, underneath

A big tree's branches, merrily they'd refresh

Their frames, with no vast outlay- most of all

If the weather were smiling and the times of the year

Were painting the green of the grass around with flowers.

(Sources: Book 2 and Book 5)

Display More

These two excerpts echo Socrates in the Republic, and, additionally, there is Epicurus's fragment about reclining on couches (Usener 207):

Quote from Epicurus

Porphyry, Letter to Marcella, 29, p. 209, 1: "It is better for you to have confidence {about the future} while lying on a cheap bed than to be disturbed while possessing a golden couch and an extravagant table." (Source)

So, my take on all this? Epicurus is making a point in the "bread and water" sayings about enjoying the simply, everyday things (like the regular midday meal of the ancient Greeks on bread and beverage) as I mentioned in my translation. However, he's also specifically refuting Plato's ideal city-state as laid out in the Republic, what Socrates calls "the luxurious city," and is making a point of contrasting the overgrown city-state that imposes so many unnecessary desires and demands on its citizens, with what nature can provide.

I found that fascinating and worth investigating.

Canon comes from the Greek word: κανών which was a straight measuring stick made out of reed. Canon was often used by carpenters or masons for measurement and also to test out straightness.

From this meaning, the word "canon" evolved to mean a “measurement”, “norm”, “standard”, “regulation”, “list” etc.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Κκ , κανυσῖνος , κα^νών