the person in Crete who was forty-eight cubits tall, according to those who examined the bones that were found
I wonder if they found dinosaur or ancient mammal bones. There was a Deinotherium (prehistoric elephant) fossil on the Greek island of Crete found in modern times.
Hello! I found this website after listening to some of the Lucretius Today podcast. I quite liked the episodes with Emily Austin. I bought her book Living for Pleasure and read through it.
Dr. Austin's book is a great place to start exploring the philosophy (as is the podcast!).
Welcome aboard!
Joshua mentioned Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 215:
By Zeus, that turned into a good episode, if I do say! Excellent editing in post-production! It was an enjoyable, wide-ranging conversation. Thanks for letting me be a part of it!
Next, we must see what reply can be made to those who agree that God is the Creator of the world, but have difficulties about the time of its creation, and what reply, also, they can make to difficulties we might raise about the place of its creation. For, as they demand why the world was created then and no sooner, we may ask why it was created just here where it is, and not elsewhere. For if they imagine infinite spaces of time before the world, during which God could not have been idle, in like manner they may conceive outside the world infinite realms of space, in which, if any one says that the Omnipotent cannot hold His hand from working, will it not follow that they must adopt Epicurus’ dream of innumerable worlds? with this difference only, that he asserts that they are formed and destroyed by the fortuitous movements of atoms, while they will hold that they are made by God’s hand, if they maintain that, throughout the boundless immensity of space, stretching interminably in every direction round the world, God cannot rest, and that the worlds which they suppose Him to make cannot be destroyed...
It still surprises me that we can talk about (and scholars talk about, and the ancients talk about) the demise of the Epicurean school... and yet Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE), writing in the 400s CE, can *still* be railing against Epicurus and his philosophy. As Joshua has pointed out, Augustine wrote that the ashes of Stoicism and Epicureanism are so cold that not a single spark can be struck from them against Christianity (Ep. 118.12). And yet, he feels compelled to include a dig against them in his City of God. Was he trying to convince others or himself that the Epicurean "ashes" were so cold?
Earlier, Theophilus of Antioch (115~183/5 CE) includes slanders against both the Stoics and Epicureans in his letter To Autolycus (Ad Autolycum 3.6):
And Epicurus himself, too, as well as teaching atheism, teaches along with it incest with mothers and sisters, and this in transgression of the laws which forbid it; for Solon distinctly legislated regarding this, in order that from a married parent children might lawfully spring, that they might not be born of adultery, so that no one should honour as his father him who was not his father, or dishonour him who was really his father, through ignorance that he was so. And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?
It seems the early Christians were SO threatened by the Epicureans (and Stoics) that they just railed and railed against them endlessly. From that alone, it appears that Epicurus's school continued to have great significance and impact well into the "Christian" era.
I found the only use of ἀπολύσομεν in Diogenes Laertius (10.82). Not sure if it'll be helpful, but ..
"Hence we must attend to present feelings and sense perceptions, whether those of mankind in general or those peculiar to the individual, and also attend to all the clear evidence available, as given by each of the standards of truth. For by studying them we shall rightly trace to its cause and (we shall) banish (ἀπολύσομεν) the source of disturbance and dread, accounting for celestial phenomena and for all other things which from time to time befall us and cause the utmost alarm to the rest of mankind."
That's a good find, Joshua
Interestingly, the word used for the good here is τἀγαθοῦ.
I am wondering if VS41 and 42 should be read together as one unit?
I'm reluctant to read the sayings in the Vatican manuscript in relation to each other. They are clearly demarcated with their red initial letters (except in a few rare cases) and appear to be meant to be read as individual pronouncements.
Good questions. I'll have to cogitate on those.
To throw another curve: the specific phrase τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν "the greatest good" is what Epicurus calls phronesis "practical wisdom" in the letter to Menoikeus.
Often, ταγαθος (tagathos) "the greatest good" is used when referring to pleasure specifically, although I believe τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν is used, too, I think.
Do I think it refers to phronesis and not pleasure? Probably not, but it's worth at least entertaining other possibilities.
It also fascinates me that ONE LETTER can completely change the meaning of a sentence: ἀπολαύσεως, ἀπολύσεως
I happened to tackle this exact saying here: RE: If Death Is Nothing To Us, Then Life Is Everything to Us
First, we return to the manuscript:
Here's what I see in the manuscript itself:
Ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολύσεως.
The pivotal last word is:
From what I see it's α'πολύσε(ως).
That last swoopy letter is a ligature substantiated in the literature: pasted-from-clipboard.png
So, what were the scholars' transcriptions:
Transcription 1: Usener, Bailey, Long and Sedley, Marcovich (UBLS)
Ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολαύσεως.
"The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment" [Bailey]
Transcription 2: Bignone, Arrighetti and Enrique Álvarez (BAA)
Ὁ αὐτὸς χρόνος καὶ γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ καὶ ἀπολύσεως <τοῦ κακοῦ>.
"The production of the greatest good and (the) release from evil (happens at) [the same time]." [Epicurus Wiki]
"The same time corresponds to the birth of the greatest good and the dissolution of evil." (Enrique Alvarez, translated)
Now, I have issues with each alternative transcription/translation. UBLS "corrects" the text, which I always have issues with. However, ἀπόλαυσις is used in VS27 as the text has noted, so *maybe* they have *some* justification for their correction. BAA adds in the parenthetical <τοῦ κακοῦ> which I would leave out since it is not extant in the manuscript.
If I go with the manuscript, as written, I would offer:
There's a lot of genitive cases in that construction:
γενέσεως τοῦ μεγίστου ἀγαθοῦ
ἀπολύσεως
The καὶ...καὶ... typically can be translated both...and...
So, I would get something like...
(At) the same time, there is both a generation/creation and a releasing/letting go of the greatest good.
The greatest good most likely means pleasure itself.
Now, what the saying mean? That's a very good question. Maybe a commentary on the fleeting nature of feeling pleasure?
In fact, if I would accept the ἀπολαύσεως "correction" by UBLS, I could support their "The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment." However, I have that nagging inclination to go with what the text actually has!
Is this what you're referring to? (with Richard Dawkins?)
Just to clarify: As I understand it, there really isn't ever "something from nothing." See:
If you take all of [the elementary particles] away, however, the “empty space” that remains isn’t quite empty in many physical senses.
For one, even in the absence of particles, quantum fields remain. Just as we cannot take the laws of physics away from the Universe, we cannot take the quantum fields that permeate the Universe away from it.
It's referenced in the article, but here also is a direct link to the animation of what "empty" space is actually doing:
Does my keychain I made count? 
) The Suda, 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia
The Suda is a 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia compiled from medieval sources and older material. I added a comment on the Suda to the thread of new Epicurean timeline that Joshua created (KUDOS to him!!!), but I've moved the non-timeline portion of that comment to here. The entries below on Epicurus are doozies!!
The second entry for Epicurus:
https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/epsilon/2405
WOW! Give THAT one a read!!! WOW!!
This one's kind of a doozy, too:
https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/epsilon/2406
PS. One last Suda entry on the greetings of letters which I find interesting because the letters in Diogenes use χαιρειν:
https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/chi/166
Headword: Χαίρειν
Adler number: chi,166
Translated headword: greetings
Vetting Status: high
Translation:
Kleon headed [his letters] thus, but Plato [preferred] 'do/fare well', and Epicurus 'live well'.
Greek Original: Χαίρειν: οὕτως ἐπέγραφε Κλέων, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων εὐ̂ πράττειν, ὁ δὲ ̓Επίκουρος εὐ̂ διάγειν.
Note: From Diogenes Laertius 3.61. For discussion (and more cross-references) see epsilon 3664; cf. also chi 162, chi 164.
Keywords: biography; daily life; dialects, grammar, and etymology; philosophy; politics; rhetoric
Translated by: Marcelo Boeri on 28 October 2003@13:19:53.
Headword: Εὐ̂ πράττειν
Adler number: epsilon,3664
Translated headword: do well, fare well
Translation: The heading of the Letters of Plato [is] thus. He wrote 13 Letters. They are of the moral kind. 'Live well': Epicurus headed [his Letters] thus; but Cleon headed [his with] 'greetings'.
Greek Original: Εὐ̂ πράττειν: οὕτως ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τω̂ν ἐπιστολω̂ν Πλάτωνος. ἔγραψε δὲ ἐπιστολὰς ιγ#. εἰσὶ δὲ του̂ ἠθικου̂ εἴδους. εὐ̂ διάγειν: οὕτως ̓Επίκουρος ἐπέγραφε: χαίρειν δὲ ἐπέγραφε Κλέων.
I'm not sure if this has been cited, but here's Epicurus's entry in the the Suda:
https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/epsilon/2404
The most pertinent section for the purposes of the timeline include:
His school continued until the first Caesar, for 227 years. In these [years] there were 14 successors.
Now, we now the Epicurean school lasted longer than "the first Caesar" because Popillius Theotimus was in charge of the Garden in 121 CE when Trajan was emperor.
But it appears the Suda is saying there were 14 "successors" to Epicurus between Epicurus's death and "the first Caesar." It looks like we still have the names of 10 of them.
The Suda was composed/compiled in the 900s CE.
Of interest, too, in the online Suda is : Translated by: Marcelo Boeri on 22 October 2003@15:29:13.
Popillius Theotimus
Wasn't there a scholarch with a Roman name? Source amnesia on that one.
https://wiki.epicurism.info/Epicurean_Scholarchs/
I see also this list, which cites a scholar named T. Dorandi as having developed the authoritative list.
That list appears to be the most comprehensive.
I found Dorandi's book on Google Books, and p.75 has the scholarchs... but that page isn't part of the preview! Table of contents: "4. Successione degli scolarchi"
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK X, EPICURUS (341-271 B.C.)
Next came Polyaenus,37 son of Athenodorus, a citizen of Lampsacus, a just and kindly man, as Philodemus and his pupils affirm. Next came Epicurus's successor Hermarchus, son of Agemortus, a citizen of Mitylene, the son of a poor man and at the outset a student of rhetoric.
All these were distinguished, and with them
Polystratus, the successor of Hermarchus
he was succeeded by Dionysius
he by Basilides.
Apollodorus, known as the tyrant of the garden, who wrote over four hundred books, is also famous ;
(and the two Ptolemaei of Alexandria, the one black and the other white ; I'm assuming these were no scholarchs!)
and Zeno39 of Sidon, the pupil of Apollodorus, a voluminous author ; [26] and Demetrius,40 who was called the Laconian ; and Diogenes of Tarsus, who compiled the select lectures ; and Orion, and others whom the genuine Epicureans call Sophists.
Actually, regardless of whether he's right or wrong to pull back from it, I think it's a point worth discussiing. Does (or can) imagining "hypothetical what-might-have-beens" lead to healing?
You raise some interesting points. To add a little more context, I was specifically referring to thinking things like "If only X were alive, they would be graduating from high school and going off to college. X wanted to be a doctor when they were [pick an age when few people really know what they'll do]. I know they would have been a great doctor...etc." That kind of thinking is a rabbit hole of despair. *Maybe* something more healthy would be "X always loved to pretend they were a doctor. I remember them hitting my knee with their little plastic hammer and listening to my heart with the toy stethoscope...etc." Remembering things that actually happened rather than torturng oneself with regrets and prognostications that can never be. If those regrets and prognostications bring pain to the one doing the regretting and making up "little X would be doing ABC IF they were alive...", those things are "bad" by virtue of the pain they bring. If, on the other hand, the living person uses X's possible path to medicine to create a foundation to send other children to medical school and takes pleasure in that endeavor, it could be positive to imagine "what might have been." It all comes round to context.
