We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
Which has me wondering...how often were festivals, celebrations, shared meal gatherings, etc. part of an ancient Epicurean lifestyle?
According to Philodemus's On Piety, Epicurus regularly took part in the rites inherent to the city of Athens. And it seems the ancient Greeks had some kind of religious observance or festival on a regular basis.
I've used Tsouna's book for reference primarily and haven't read beginning to end. I realize now that I should really do that. Now that I know we have access to the manuscripts or at least apographs and I can see the translation of On Anger, I'll need able to follow along with her references. Adding it to my list of to-do's.
In rethinking this, I think I should prioritize reading On Anger then read Tsouna's book. Having access to an ancient Epicurean text seems like it should take priority. ... So many books, so little time.
Godfrey , that's exactly it! I was about to start typing out a long explanation, but your water-skiing example is spot on. Just transferring that to a teacher/doctor-student/patient scenario where the teacher is trying to get the student to see how to deal with anger or their habit of dealing with an angry disposition and I think that's it.
The phrase that Tsouna keeps using is "vivid description."
Tsouna: "It seems reasonable to infer that the technique works by inducing the creation of pictures or images in the patient's mind and engages some form of imagination which has mental pictures and related items as its proper medium. An enraged person sees the evils deriving from anger, feels aversion towards the passion, and forms the desire to remove it."
I would conjecture Philodemus's On Anger excerpts below would serve as part of a session of setting before the eyes to get someone to abandon their angry ways:
Column 8 [ circa nineteen lines missing or untranslatable ] … [16] the rage … anger … if … whole … [20] as if composed of raging fever and swelling and irritation and indignation and a dreadful desire to get revenge and anxiety [26] whether one will be able to, as the utterances of those people will demonstrate, who sometimes boast they will “gird themselves with the guts” of the one who hurt them and other times “tear him up raw.” [32] Then (their anger progresses) to unstable movements distributed throughout their bodies; I mean, for example, the dislocation of their lungs, ribs and all, from their shouting, their very rapid, shallow breathing like that of men who have just run a thousand stadia, the throbbing of their heart … Column 9 [ circa seventeen lines missing ] … [18] trembling fits and [movements] of their parts and [paraly]ses, such as hap[pen] to epileptics [as well], so that, since (these effects) continually follow them, they are afflicted for their whole lives and take the greater part of their time in nursing their misery. [27] The fact is that it (sc. anger) and its consequences have produced breakings of lungs, pains in the sides, and many such afflictions that bring death in their wake—[34] as it is possible for those watching over them to hear from their doctors and to notice. At the same time, (these circumstances) dispose them to continual bouts of melancholy as well, so as often [to produce] black …"
Fragment 18: "he has the eyes of [madmen] in his outbursts of anger, eyes [5] sometimes even throwing out flashes, a thing that the greatest of the poets appear to have made a distinguishing mark (sc. of anger), and “gazing,” [10] that is looking, [“askance” ] at those with whom he is angry, and characteristically he has a flushed face in most cases, but some have [15] a blood-red one, and some have their neck stretched tight, and their veins swelling up, and their saliva very bitter and salty, [20] and in some such way"
These are just two examples.
On a different but related note, I found Column 45 to be very interesting:
Column 45
the Founders accept the idea that “the wise man will be enraged,” not according to that preconception, but according to the more general one. [5] In fact, Epicurus makes clear in his First Appellations *214 both that the sage “will experience rage” and (will experience it) “in moderation,” and Metrodorus, if he says “the rage of the wise man” in its proper sense, shows also that he feels it “very briefly.” [12] That “he will feel rage”… also to Hermarchus … [ two lines missing or untranslatable ] … [16] so that I am amazed at those who want to be textbook Epicureans, *215 that they ignored these and the things I mentioned before, and as a result tried to demonstrate that, according to our Founders, “the sage will become wrathful.” [23] And their proofs that he will become enraged are very far from establishing that he will become enraged according to every notion of rage, as they ought to have, since nowhere do they establish both anger and rage as separate categories, nor that “he (the wise man) will become angry” in the sense common (to both words), as we will show. [33] It is clear that both in magnitude and quality rage differs from anger and is not natural. [37] But they have reasoned wrongly about when anger and rage are referred to the same thing and when they are not,"
*214. The Anaphōnēseis is mentioned only here, and this is its only fragment.
*215. The βιβλιακοί are “Epicureans by the book,” or at least so they claimed. The school encouraged verbal disputations over the texts of the founders like those in Demetrius Laco’s Textual Problems . See Sedley 1998, 62– 93; and Del Mastro’s (2014, 184– 87) reconstruction of the title Πρὸϲ τοὺϲ φαϲκοβιβλιακούϲ Α , in P.Herc . 1005/862 (partially published in Angeli 1988a).
as I understand it (at least in the specific context of the scrolls) is to work on improving specific shortcomings of a student.
What you're describing is certainly valid as a practice, but I don't think that's what "setting before the eyes" is referring to. It seems very specific. As I recall, it's always referred to under discussion of "therapy".
That's my understanding as well, Godfrey .
And I concur that the list of + and - is a valid practice but it's not "setting before the eyes."
I've used Tsouna's book for reference primarily and haven't read beginning to end. I realize now that I should really do that. Now that I know we have access to the manuscripts or at least apographs and I can see the translation of On Anger, I'll need able to follow along with her references. Adding it to my list of to-do's. 
Sedley's paper isn't an easy read but worthwhile. One of my favorite parts of Book XXVIII is still Epicurus's self-deprecation at the end about prattling on long enough.
That seems to be a solid epitome to me! Well done!
as for the gods, they are too caught up in palliative pleasures to see the need to break the cycle
This always intrigued me about the Buddhist gods on the wheel of samsara: They're so blissed out and pleasure-filled, they can't conceive of not being reborn as a god (to greatly simplify the situation).
Which got me thinking: How does this apply to the Epicurean gods? They are supposedly experiencing pleasure all the time. Is that correct? Isn't this just another form of "harps in heaven"? Would a blissful, pleasure-filled eternity get old? If every variety of pleasure could be experienced eventually in infinite time by an incorruptible being/spirit/entity/god, wouldn't pleasure get old? Is that one reason we don't need an infinite life to experience the most pleasurable life? 
I bring this up because I also just recently finished all four seasons of The Good Place, and this was exactly the dilemma the characters faced when redesigning the Good Place. All the "people" there were numb, lethargic etc because they had experienced *everything* they had ever wanted to do. Now, the biggest excitement was milkshakes (according to Hypatia). The main characters decided it was human life's mortality that gave life meaning. So, in the redesign of the Good Place, they decided to provide an exit. When you've experienced everything you could ever want, you could decide to leave the Good Place for good and "return your essence to the universe," i.e., cease to exist. Which struck me as almost Epicurean in the end. Your atoms will eventually get recycled for other purposes by the cosmos. That's not an afterlife btw, just the natural process to be clear.
Thinking out loud here and open to thoughts.
It seems too like a key part of it is a teacher or friend describing or illustrating to the one receiving therapy. It doesn't seem to be a technique for solitary meditation. Setting before the eyes would then be the act of describing or illustrating, right?
I'm not entirely sure about the solitary possibility. I could see reading (the works of Philodemus like On Anger for example) to "put before your eyes" a situation the individual is dealing with. But that teacher/student (doctor/patient) relationship within the community does seem to be a BIG component of where this is coming from. This also seems to me to be an important way in which Epicurus's philosophy was practiced within the school.
Unfortunately this author saddles Epicurus with preaching the absence of pain, and his overall conclusion is that one needs a Platonic or religious world view for true happiness
I figured as much. At least it shows what we continue to be up against. (Insert sad trombone here)
Thanks for that work! Sounds in most cases like the meaning is essentially "Think about the consequences..." Or "imagine for a moment the consequences..." Of s particular course of action?
That's part of it, but I'm getting the impression that it's not just "think about.." and is more "imagine.." Really "see" it, *not* in a "mystical, visualization" way but see it vividly. In other parts of On Anger, (and I think Tsouna writes about this) Philodemus vividly describes the bulging eyes etc. of someone consumed with rage. He makes it, literally, not a pretty sight.
If you're bringing up words, David Sedley's examination of language and definitions in Epicurus's On Nature, Book 28, may be interesting:
Just found this paper at Academia.edu: Was Epicurus a Buddhist?
Haven't read it but the title was intriguing enough to post here. Don't know anything about the author's credentials.
I realized I could get online access to Philodemus's On Anger (Philodemus, On anger / by David Armstrong and Michael McOsker. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020) through one of the university libraries. What I've done is copy Columns 1-5 and then highlight where the phrase in question shows up. I apologize for the disjointed text. There are lengthy passages of each papyrus leaf that are intact for the most part, allowing long texts, but they are broken up at the top of the rolls. So, here is what I have so far. All text is copied. I haven't included any commentary of my own. There are also mentions of the therapeutic technique in On Frank Criticism but I don't have an English translation for that one, so I may have to puzzle through the Greek on my own. For now, here are the passages mentioning the "setting before the eyes" explicitly in On Anger, keeping in mind the book goes on for 357 pages with only a small introduction. Most of it is Greek on one page, English translation on the other. There are a lot of details in dealing with the patient/student that I haven't included here which could flesh out the technique but simply do not use that phrase:
From Column 1: From this point on, the papyrus unrolled very cleanly, and there are no major problems with stratigraphy or order, except for the fragments of tops pasted in above the columns (frags. A– H), some of which cannot be securely placed.
Column 1
[ circa seventeen lines missing or untranslatable ]
“…[nor do] I [deny?] this. For it is obvious to all that, just as that is an evil, so is this.” [7] By such arguments, indeed, he (sc. Timasagoras) undertook (to prove) that “blaming (anger) is ridiculous,” but idly, as is his custom. [12] Now, if he were rebuking those who only blame (anger) and do little or nothing else about it, like Bion in his On Anger and Chrysippus in the Therapeutikos Logos of his On Emotions , he would be taking a reasonable position. [20] As it is, in supposing that the general idea, (i.e.,) putting the consequent evils before one’s eyes, is ridiculous and raving, he him[self is rav]ing and ri[diculous].…
Column 2
[ circa sixteen lines missing ]
… natural (angers?) … by feeling com[es about (?)] … of his reasonings. [6] [When]ever he (sc. the philosopher censuring anger) inf[ers] what is hidden from him —what is external is obvious, especially to a person who can reason about emotions —he has not m[isled] us, and it is “obvious to all” (66*) that things [are] as he has said. [15] And that element of their disposition, from which they (angry people) become distraught, through which (they are) afflicted by numberless evils, we know begets new evils all over again, in most cases. [21] … philosophical reasoning … [from belief?] (can change this disposition?),
66*. Philodemus sarcastically paraphrases Timasagoras’s words πᾶϲι … φα | νερόν (see 1.5– 6 above), as he will do yet again in 5.22 and in lines 9– 10 of this column (and see n. 70).
Column 3
[ circa seventeen lines missing or untranslatable ]
… [5] for which reason, [by describ]ing some things that are completely unknown (sc. to the patient), some that have been forgotten, others that are being left unappraised— at least with respect to their seriousness, if in no other regard—[11] and others that he never contemplated as a whole, and by putting all this in his sight, he (sc. the therapist) creates a great fright, so that (the patient), now that he has also been reminded that it is up to him, can escape it with ease. [18] For this is what even ordinary philosophers present to him, but the really good ones also sketch out the behaviors by which we might fall prey to angry passions as little as possible. [25] That is, in fact, why, in saying that it is quite “obvious” to everyone … (sc. that Timasagoras is mistaken?) …
Column 4
[ circa nineteen lines missing or untranslatable ]
… [4] although some?] of the doctors (sc. point out?) the seriousness of the disease, the sufferings that happen because of it, and its other difficulties, and sometimes also its dangers, these things escape the sick men’s notice— some generally, others by (failure of) rational appraisal, [12] which is why they become too careless of their escape (sc. from these dangers), as if moderate (evils) were afflicting them, but these (evils), once put before their eyes,*74 render them attentive to their treatment. [19] In fact, in this case (i.e., philosophical therapy), because they do not consider some of these at all and others not clearly, they do not even want to commit themselves to therapy, but once they have learned … according to (?) …
*74. Putting the consequences of evildoing before one’s eyes for rational appraisal ( τιθέναι πρὸ ὀμμάτων ; cf. 1.21– 23 and 3.13– 14), is key to Epicurean therapy; it also appears at Lib. [On Frank Criticism] frag. 26.4– 5; cf. frag. 78Ν.1– 3 ( ἐπιδεικνύναι πρὸ ὀμμάτων ) and col. 17a.4– 14. Here it is defended as a paramedical virtue of the right kind of diatribe. See further Tsouna 2003.
Column 5
[ circa sixteen lines missing or untranslatable ]
… [7] and others call (on them) to pay attention more carefully to this therapy and not to pass over lightly the seriousness and the evils attached to their diseases and to their fits of anger, since the reasons why it is indispensable for doctors to use blame are no less unknown (to Timasagoras?), or at any rate equally as unknown. [17] So the misfortunes that were going to follow from his anger toward Basilides and Thespis were not “obvious” (sc. to him), even though, as he thought, he had s[e]t limits to his bitterness. [25] He is so blind that, though it is much more profitable … (to pay attention to?) reputable [sages] … easi[ly] …
Ah, maybe not relevant then (the light thing). Thanks for the cites!
I'm reading quickly through your posts, but you might be expecting something more than I'm expecting out of all this research. I think the words "technique" or "practice" may imbue this way of counteracting behaviors in a formal teacher/student interaction with more of a "mystical" flavor than either Philodemus or I intended. That's all I'll say for now. Heading out to work. I find this fascinating and an enjoying digging into the texts. More later.
I haven't read your last post yet but:
What is that section in Lucretius with "bring into the light" or something like it? I can't remember the context to determine if it's relevant here or not.
So are there intact sentences which give context to the usage?
Yes. Both On Anger and On Frank Criticism have much of their papyri intact. Here's a better link to Column 1 of On Anger:
I tracked down "set before the eyes" in both Philodemus's On Frank Criticism and in his On Anger. I found the first two mentions but haven't had a chance to read all the columns yet. But Tsouna is absolutely correct in using that phrase. It is a literal translation of τιθῶμεν πρὸ ὀμμάτων:
On Frank Criticism/Peri parressias Column 26.4-5
τιθῶμεν πρὸ ὀμμάτων
On Anger/Peri orges (De ira (Latin)) Column 1.23
τιθέναι πρὸ ὀμμάτων
τιθῶμεν/τιθέναι < τίθημι "place or put"
(with ἐν ὄμμασι (en ómmasi)) I set before one's eyes
522 BCE – 443 BCE, Pindar, Nemean Ode 8.43:
μαστεύει δὲ καὶ τέρψις ἐν ὄμμασι θέσθαι πιστόν
"yet delight also seeks to set a trustworthy pledge before the eyes"
(Full ode: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…3DN.%3Apoem%3D8 )
LSJ entry for τίθημι: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…7:entry=ti/qhmi
ὀμμάτων = poetic word for "eye" (very popular! See quotations at Wiktionary entry: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%84…1#Ancient_Greek )
LSJ entry: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…57:entry=o)/mma
I think Pindar's use of the phrase is instructive since the whole context seems to point toward a vivid picture in the mind:
Pindar, Nemean, Nemean 8 For Deinias of Aegina Double Foot Race ?459 B. C.
Excellence grows among skillful and just men up to the liquid air,
as a tree shoots up fed by fresh dew.
The uses of friends are of all kinds;
those in times of toil are the highest,
yet delight also seeks to set a trustworthy pledge before the eyes.
Which brings up the idea that Epicureanism may work best for people with a strong and healthy physical constitution
According to DeWitt (and some ancient sources?), Epicurus himself suffered from ill health and (according to DeWitt) had to to taken back and forth from home to the Garden in a 3-wheeled cart/chair.
Unless there is some allowance for the pleasure of release from pain
I think that's supposed to be the intent of the last two lines of the Tetrapharmakos:
On the one hand, the good [pleasure] is easily obtained;
On the other, the terrible (pain) is easily endured.
But the last line has to be understood to include chronic pain in that, even then, some pleasure can be "easily" found if one looks for it and also remembers past pleasures.
Interestingly, the brain was sometimes dealt with in a rather cavalier fashion in antiquity
Yeah, I still like the stories of the ancient Egyptian embalmers taking such care with the heart, placing it in its own canopic jar... Then sticking a hook up the nose and just yanking out the brain, chunk by chunk 
it is extremely damaging to a normal person's hope for happiness for them to come to believe that they are the slaves of any kind of fate whatsoever and that they can have no effect on their futures no matter what they do.
To the best of my understanding, this is part of Daniel Dennett's position with regards to free will.
