Posts by Don

Quote from Godfrey

...people felt about Dionysus as about no other god. He was not only outside of them, he was within them, too. They could be transformed by him into being like him. The momentary sense of exultant power wine-drinking can give was only a sign to show men that they had within them more than they knew; “they could themselves become divine."

That's a very interesting summary and direct quote, Godfrey . As I'm sure you meant to emphasize, this seems to echo or parallel Epicurus's ideas that we can live like gods among mortals. I agree that last part is problematic, but I would be curious of the timeline of developments. Maybe that's why Epicurus could enthusiastically participate in the feasts and sacrifices, and of the Dionysian ones especially, while overlaying it all with his version of piety.

I'm still trying to find the words Obbink translated as "meagre feast" which *could* be nothing more than a reference to maza and wine.

I'll be interested to find if anyone finds anything else in this topic.

Well, this has turned into a very interesting thread!

I dug into the transcriptions in light of the summaries in those notes I pasted. Please remember my Greek is rudimentary at best. As a way to jump back in to my studies, I've just started the video series from the Center for Hellenic Studies. Don't have the book, so we'll see how it goes.

I defer to the translations in my notes (from Obbink), but it's nice to see names and phrases corroborated in the papyrus.

Anyway, here are some excerpts:

Column 28, lines 10-15: ε̣[ὑρίσ]κεται πάσαις ταῖς πατρίοις ἑορταῖς ((filler)) καὶ θυσίαις κε[χ]τ(*)[η-] μένος. "to all the traditional feasts and sacrifices"

πατρίοις patriois, related to patrimony, patriot, having to do with hereditary or what's been handed down from the forefathers.

ἑορταῖς feasts

θυσίαις sacrifices, burnt-offerings

Column 28, lines 15-21: ἐπ' Ἀρ[ιστ]ωνύμου μὲγ γὰ[ρ] (For during the time of archon Aristomenos) Φύρσωνι (to Physon) περί τινος αὐτοῦ πολείτου Θεο̣δότου (fellow-citizen Theodotos) γράφων καὶ τῶν ἑορτῶν [φησι (he says)] πασῶν (of all the feasts)

Column 28, line 24/25: τὴν τω̣[ν] Χε(*)ῶν ἑορτὴν "the feast of Khoai"

Well, that was fun!

Eikadistes especially might be interested in seeing the papyrus transcription and images of On Piety:

DCLP/Trismegistos 62400 = LDAB 3563

Scroll down there for columns 28, 29.

Quote from Nate

I guess what I want to know is this: in which public festivals, specifically, did Epicurus participate? Better yet, let me ask, what public festivals existed in Hellenistic Greece were compatible with Epicurean theology?

Your question made me go back and look at my posted notes on On Piety. This post talks about those festivals:

Post

RE: Philodemus On Piety

The following are excerpts and notes from columns 27-36 of Obbink's Philodemus On Piety which outline the participation of Epicurus himself and the early Epicureans in religious festivals and other rites and practices. Obbink also shared more detailed notes in his book, so I may try and share some of those pages in later posts. For now, the material below has proved quite interesting...

Quoted in col. 27, On Piety: Epicurus, On Gods (Περί θεών): as being both the greatest thing and that…

Don

December 25, 2020 at 10:05 PM

You can of course check out the link, but here are some excerpts:

Col. 28/9: Epicurus wrote to Phyrson during the archonship of Aristonymus (289/8 BCE) about Physon's countryman from Colophon, Theodotus, Epicurus says that he (Epicurus) shared in all the festivals... Epicurus celebrated the festival of the Choes and the urban mysteries and the other festivals at a meagre dinner, and that it was necessary for him (prob. Theodotus) to celebrate this feast of the Twentieth for distinguished revelers, while those in the house decorated it most piously ('ολως) and after making invitations to host a feast for all of them.

Notes

For festivals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthesteria

The Choes were part of this festival dedicated to Dionysus

The "urban mysteries" refer to the Attic Dionysia, either the Lenaea (in the month of Gamelion, Epicurus's birth month) or Lesser Mysteries during 20-6 Anthesteria, both in honor of Dionysus.

I find it interesting that the festivals mentioned were dedicated to Dionysus. It could just be coincidence that those are mentioned; or Athens had a lot of Dionysian festivals; or Epicurus had an affinity for Dionysian festivals or the god. No way to tell from what I've read so far.

Col. 29: Epicurus advised them to retain asservations made by means of these and similar expressions, and above all to preserve those made by Zeus himself (maintain the practice of swearing by Zeus by name νή Δία!)... Not merely "it must be so!"

Notes

So, Epicureans, feel free to pepper your writing and conversation with νή Δία! "By Zeus!"

Very good posts, Eikadistes . And I like where you ended up.

I'll have to go back and check my notes on Obbink's work on On Piety to see if I wrote down any mention of specific rites Epicurus took part in. Can't remember off the top of my head.

There's also the fact that the religious rites in ancient Athens included dramatic festivals and things we might not consider religious. I guess *similar* to your mention of Christmas and July 4.

Cassius , do I remember mention somewhere of Epicurus approving music but not dance or some such thing (other than than "I can't imagine the good without... pleasing movements, etc.")?

Quote from Joshua

Also, lactose and galaxy!

Exactly! Thanks for the reminder Joshua ! Ain't language fun!

I always get such a kick out of the fact that cosmos and cosmetics are directly related in etymology in that they "bring order to chaos."

Quote from Cassius

You mean like a "yard light" or "There's a light on outside that darn window and I can't get to sleep"?

Exactly. I forgot "yard light", but, yes, we used that too when I was growing up.

Oh, and second thought: I didn't mean to imply that Epicureans *had* to "worship within traditional/cultural rites and practices," but, taking Epicurus as our example, it's not out of the question for those thus inclined.

Oh, sorry, Cassius . I didn't mean to imply that you did. I just wanted to lay out the basic similarities that either realists or idealists should be able to agree on.

Quote from Scott

Quote from Cassius

There is on "outside" the universe.

Cassius I believe you will want to correct this sentence. Minor point but...

My first thought was: There is no "outside light" on in the universe.

(Does anyone else use the phrase "outside light" or is that a regional thing?)

Quote from Cassius

I've never felt that the "gods" issue is the hill to die on (so to speak) in working toward a reconstituted Epicurean philosophic school

Agreed... But I still maintain we should understand *why* Epicurus placed such a high priority in having a correct understanding of the nature of the gods in the PDs, writing to Menoikeus, plus a book written on the topic, plus Philodemus's illustrations of his piety in On Piety, plus Diogenes Laertius's statement that "His piety towards the gods ... no words can describe." (DL X.10)

Plus we need to understand what his correct understanding was and possible applications of that for us today.

I believe a big part of Epicurean piety is knowing that the gods (regardless of their ultimate nature):

- do NOT concern themselves with humans

- do NOT bestow blessings or punishment

- - (although it appears "blessings" or benefit can accrue to the Epicurean "worshipper" of the gods... See below)

- do NOT have any part in the creation or maintenance of the cosmos

- enjoy the "highest possible" happiness (ευδαιμονία) that can be conceived, which cannot be augmented (literally, having no increase in intensity [tightening or slackening])

- can be "worshipped" (in the widest possible sense) within traditional/cultural rites and practices as long as the other characteristics above are adhered to.

Thoughts on that?

I always come back to the definition of the ancient Greek "dogmatizō" meaning "to declare or take a position." I have come to see this word used to oppose the Epicureans to Skeptics especially in the use of the two words in the characteristic https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…oubt?authuser=0

Just listened to the Alda episode. Made a lot of sense and some practical ideas. That's a great podcast and an interesting episode. Thanks Godfrey !

I just remembered that that was one of the charges against Socrates: that he was creating new gods when he talked about listening to his daimon.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why Epicurus and the Epicureans worked within the existing symbols and why Lucretius could say it's okay to say Bacchus and Mother Earth as long as we remember they're metaphors and that we're actually talking about wine and ability of the earth to bring forth life.

Quote from Nate

Quote from Don

- "natural conception of god" (της του δαιμονος επινοιας) Note we're using daimonos instead of theos here. Not sure why.

Don, do we have any other instances of rhetorical symmetry between daimonos and theos?

Excellent question. I'm not *aware* of any but that doesn't mean there isn't, of course. I often wonder if eudaimonia connotes a connection and what the ancient Greeks understood by using that term.

I thought it might be helpful to link to my notes from Philodemus's On Piety (edited/translated by Dr. Dirk Obbink).

I also just (re-)found P.Oxyrhynchus 215 as possibly being written by Epicurus or, at the very least, an Epicurean philosopher: https://archive.org/details/oxyrhy…up?view=theater

I found this translation on p. 32 interesting emphasis added):

' Nor, indeed, even when this further statement is made by the ordinary man, •' I fear all the gods and worship them, and to them I wish to make every sacrifice and offering." It may perhaps imply more taste on his part than the average, nevertheless by this formula he has not yet reached the trustworthy principle of religion. But do you, sir, consider that the most blessed state lies in the formation of a just conception concerning the best thing that we can possibly imagine to exist ; and reverence and worship this idea.' [και θαυμαζε ταυτην την διαληψιν και σεβου']

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Θθ , θαρσα^λ-εότης , θαυμ-άζω (tufts.edu)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δ , διαλα_κέω , διάληψις (tufts.edu)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Σ ς, , Σεβάστ-ιος , σέβομαι (tufts.edu)

btw... I'm assuming this topic may just come up during the 20th celebration tomorrow. I'll do my best to join in. Happy 20th Eve!

Quote from Nate

If this charges of atheism had merit, I would expect at least one treatise by Philodemus called Against Piety, or a polemic by Metrodorus called Against the Gods. Instead, we have the exact opposite

Your political analogy makes a lot of sense, but the matter of merit is beside the point. Many attackers neither strive to exhibit merit nor even take it into consideration. Critics see an opening, stretch a pebble of truth into a whole specious mountain, and go ad hominem on their targets. The charges of impiety and atheism were leveled against the Epicurean school. Philodemus documents it and addresses it directly in On Piety. The reason Philodemus didn't write Against Piety is because he felt that it was only the Epicureans who were practicing true piety, the only ones who had the correct perspective on the divine. Everybody else was impious. I would make the same case for Metrodorus. Epicureans could take part in the rituals and festivals with a clear conscience because internally they were practicing *true* piety and *knew* they had nothing to fear from the gods.

Quote from Cassius

he left the physical details loose

I'm not sure if that's the case or not, and the physical details seem inextricably linked to their nature. I don't have Long and Sedley The Hellenistic Philosophers available right now, but I'd be interested to see how much detail there is. If I remember, Epicurus talks about the gods' anthropomorphic shape, but I've also seen scholars say that's because the gods are idealized humans, what humans may aspire to. So one has to "see" them in your minds eye as human-shaped to be able to gain inspiration from them. But Diogenes Laertius directly contrasted the Epicureans' idea of the happiness of the gods with the happiness that humans can experience:

Two sorts of happiness can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures.

I also keep coming back to the emphasis and importance Epicurus placed on a correct understanding of the gods. It's first in the letter to Menoikeus. It's the first Principle Doctrine. I maintain it behoves us to examine and come to grips with this because Epicurus found this to be a foundational matter in his philosophy.