Posts by Bryan

Yes I read about this bust again in Sedley's book and came here to ask this same question.

Quote from Twentier

Bailey's collection of fragments were selected from Usener's

Accordingly, Bailey also did not include what Usener did not include -- for example most of the remains of Epicurus' On Nature. English scholarship is so based on German scholarship this probably in no small way contributed to the lack of treatment of Epicurus' On Nature that we see in German and in English -- whereas it has advanced in the more independent Italian/French line of scholarship.

If we have Epicurus, On Nature, Book 34, P.Herc. 1431, col. 16: Ἀ[να]γκαῖον αὐταῖς ὑπάρχειν κατὰ τὰς πρὸ[ς] ἀλλήλας κρούσεις – ὡς ἐν τῆι πρώτηι γραφῆι εἴρηται – οὐθὲν ἧττον παρὰ τὰς [ἐξ] ἡμῶ[ν], τ[ις] σ[υμ]μετρ[ία] αὐτ[αῖ]ς γίγνε[σθαι]...

I think it can be translated: It is necessary for [atoms] to exist with collisions with each other – as it has been said in the first writing – nevertheless, from those [atoms] that come from us, a certain symmetry with them does occur...

Which I think can be interpreted: You do not feel the atoms that form your body moving because in a certain way they are all moving together.

Happy for any other ideas. At lot hangs on σ[υμ]μετρ[ία], probably too much.

Quote from Cassius

or live like the Cynics

This topic came up in a Wednesday meeting. I said the Cynics had no clear doctrine. Diogenes Laertius does labor to give a short summary of shared Cynic ideas at 6.103. Link here.

More to the point is Philodemus on the Cynics, P.Herc. 339 col. 8 "Human excellence is sidelined, with minimal engagement in deep reflection on such matters. The individuals in question, striving for a radical purity, adopt a lifestyle reminiscent of dogs, utilizing language in a stark and unrefined manner, displaying their masturbation without disguise, and layering their garments. They engage indiscriminately in intimate relationships, readily responding to solicitations and resorting to compulsion... ...advocating for communal sharing of offspring... ...imposing; entangling themselves with their own kin, both maternal and fraternal, without reservation in pursuing intimacy -- even when it escalates to coercion; they pursue intimate interactions with other men."

And it is not just the holy men who act like scuttlefish -- the inconsistencies of Plato and the over-complexities of Aristotle can seem intimidating to the reader -- but really these are devices to hide the weaknesses of the authors' argument.

Do you not really understand what Neo-Platonism is? Don't worry, neither did the Neo-Platonists.

After failing to remember Philodemus' name, or if he wrote in Latin or Greek, we get the quote: "We dont have to read the fragments in Herculaneum!" -- Fontaine from Cornell (1:04:07).

Talk about rejecting something without understanding it!

The word "heresy" originating from αἵρεσις -- Epicurus' main word for "choice," is indeed poignant.

I agree it is good that our school has no tradition of calling for violence on those who disagree with us. The frequent calls for open and underhanded violence to people who disagree with you in religious texts should be shameful -- but is unfortunately common, for example, in the Mishneh Torah.

As we know, the advice for our school is:

Rotzeah uShmirat Nefesh 4.10: "The [following are considered] Epicureans (הָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים, Ha’Epikorsim): those who worship idols or commit transgressions in order to provoke anger. Even if one eats non-kosher meat or wears garments of mixed fabric to provoke anger, he is considered an Epicurean (אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס, Epikoros). This includes those who deny the Torah and the Prophets. It is a commandment (מִצְוָה, mitzvah) to kill them. If one has the power to kill them with a sword in public, he should do so. If not, he should employ tricks until he causes their death. How? If one of them falls into a well (בְּאֵר, be'er) and a ladder (סֻּלָּם, sulam) is inside, he should remove it and say, 'I must go and bring my son down from the roof; I will return the ladder to you,' and he should act similarly in such opportunities."

Thank you Don for finding the Stobaeus quote!

Quote from Don

It *probably* should be in there, but it then continues to call into question the reliability of the Vatican manuscript itself!

Yes, I agree on both points.

"A lot of people we talk to tend to be very benevolent and they want to think the best of other people. They want to think that nobody in their right mind is really attempting to be harmful or really is attempting to obccure, or cause confusion -- but that is not the way the world is." (Cassius Amicus)

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions -- ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

This quote has stuck with me. Jeferson sounds very Epicurean here. Thank you, Joshua, for highlighting those quotes -- I will not soon be forgetting the image of the holy men acting like scuttlefish.

----

Although worlds come and go, there was never a time before there were any worlds. Similarly, the gods have always existed -- but unlike worlds, the gods persevere.

The gods are not inherently deathless, but they are effectively deathless by thier process of living. Living beings that are able to preserve themselves in the manner similar to a god -- but struggle or fail to do so -- no longer fit our anticipation of gods (and therefore are not properly considered to be gods).

It looks like the γεγόναμεν is taken from Plutarch, Non Posse, 27, 1104E: Ἧι καὶ προεπισφάττουσιν οἱ ταυτὶ λέγοντες " Ἂπαξ ἄνθρωποι γεγόναμεν – δὶς δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι, δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτ᾽ εἶναι."

"About which also those who say these things predict in advance: 'once we humans have been born – twice it is not possible to be born, it is necessary to no longer exist for eternity.'"

Kύριος is apparently taken from Stobaeus, Florilegium 16.28 -- but I have not been able to find that section in the Florilegium yet, if by chance you are able to locate it, that would be excellent.

And obviously, when Velleius says "in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. "

Part of what he has in mind is that the gods have a human shape (a shape we know that can have reason), and the gods are not formless, or spherical or infinitely large (shapes that do not have reason) "but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it."

"We have been born once – twice it is not possible to be born: it is necessary to no longer exist for eternity. But you, not being master of tomorrow, you delay joy! Life is lost by this delay – and each of us, while occupied, dies."

Γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ – δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι: δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι. σὺ δὲ, οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος, ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον! ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀσχολούμενος, ἀποθνῄσκει.

Horatius Flaccus, Carmina 1.11:

You – do not seek – it is not to be found! What to me, what to you, the Gods will give as an end, Leuconoë. Nor should you tamper with Babylonian numbers. How much better to endure whatever will be, whether Jupiter grants more winters or the last, (which now with opposing pumice weakens the Tyrrhenian sea). Be wise: you should filter the wine and in short time you should cut back long hope! While we speak, envious age will have fled: harvest the day which expects the least in tomorrow.

Tū – nē quaesíerīs – scī́re néfās! quem míhi, quem tíbī
fī́nem Dī déderint, Λευκονοή. Nec Babylṓniōs
temptā́ris númerōs. ut mélius (quídquid érit) pátī,
seu plū́rīs Híemēs seu tríbuit Iúppiter últimam,
(quae nunc oppósitīs dēbílitat pūmícibus máre
Tyrrhḗnum). Sápiās: vī́na líquēs et spátiō brévī
spem lóngam résecēs! dum lóquimur, fū́gerit ínvida
ǽtās: cárpe díem quam mínimum crḗdula pósterō.

Yes, Don, I agree, without conflicting manuscript evidence to the contrary we should not get too imaginative. It seems the thinking at the time was that, given Vat.gr.1950 itself has errors, many therefore felt more free to try to find "a more original form," in a way that would be inexcusable for the P.Hercs.

For example, as we have seen, if we compare VS10 in Vat.gr.1950 vs. the better attested Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 5.138, we see very different versions:

^Vat.gr.1950: Remember that, being mortal by nature and having received finite time, you ascended to considerations concerning nature as far as infinity and eternity, and you have seen 'the things that exist, the things that will exist, and the things existing before.'

^{Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 5.138:} Although Metrodorus became an Epicurean, he said these things piously: "Menestratus, remember that, having been born mortal and having received a finite life, and having ascended with your soul up until the eternity and to the infinity of circumstances, you have even seen 'the things that will exist, and the things existing before.'"

^{Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 5.138:} Μητροδώρου τε καίτοι Ἐπικουρείου γενομένου ἐνθέως ταῦτά γε εἰρηκότος: "Μέμνησο, Μενέστρατε, διότι θνητὸςφὺς καὶ λαβὼν βίον ὡρισμένον, ἀναβὰς τῇ ψυχῇ ἕως ἐπὶ τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν πραγμάτων, κατεῖδες καὶ 'τά τ' ἐσσόμενα, πρό τ' ἔοντα.'"

Yes, if we take καλος substantively without an article it makes good sense. I also do not see what has led to so much agreement to throw out πλείονος. I feel like we are missing something.

For the quote referenced above by Bailey:

Aristophanes, Acharnians 1227:

CHORUS: You triumph then, brave champion; thine is the wine-skin!

DICAEOPOLIS: Follow me, singing “Triumph! Triumph!”

CHORUS: Aye! we will sing of thee, thee and thy sacred wine-skin, and we all, as we follow thee, will repeat in thine honour, “Triumph, Triumph!”

It is an interesting difference.

Here is Bailey's comment, calling Usener's change from πλείονος to παιῶνος "brilliant."

So as we know, he keeps παιῶνος:

^[Bailey] ...ἄπιμεν ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν μετὰ καλοῦ παιῶνος ἐπιφωνοῦντες ὡς [εὖ] ἡμῖν βεβίωται.

^[Bailey] …we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well.

As you said, if we keep πλείονος, we have something like:

...ἄπιμεν ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν μετὰ καλοῦ πλείονος ἐπιφωνοῦντες ὡς εὖ ἡμῖν βεβίωται.

...we shall depart from life with more [of] good, proclaiming that we have lived well.

I think the phrase "μετὰ καλοῦ πλείονος" is somewhat unusual because "καλοῦ" is an adjective, and "πλείονος" is a comparative adjective, typically modifying a noun. We might expect "μετὰ πλείονος τοῦ καλοῦ" for "with more of the good." But I agree this may not be sufficient reason to divert from the manuscript.

We may also have a connection between Leonteus and Mammarion, (the full context is not yet clear to me, it is possible that Philodemus is just mentioning these as rumored relationships).

Philódēmos, Ad Contubernales, book 1, P.Herc. 1005, col. 5: ...Nikidion was Idomeneus' beloved, and Leonteus' Mammarion, and Hermarchus' Demetria, and such was Pythocles' tutor Polyaenus...

Νικίδιον ἦν Ἰδομενέως ἐρωμένη, Λεοντέως δὲ Μαμμά[ρι]ον, Ἑρμάρχου δὲ Δημη[τρ]ία καὶ τοῖος ἦν Πυθο[κλ]έους π[αιδ]αγωγὸς Πολύ[αινος]…

The Glossarium finally arrived. Although most of the work was completed by Usener, he never published the work. In fact it was not published until 1977 in Rome and (as far as I can tell) never published again. Therefore it is in an unfortunate position to be written in the late 1800's but still has a copyright. This is, I suppose, one reason for it's rarity.

There are some modern edits, for example I was very pleasantly surprised to see a full equivalence table for the old listing of the P.Hercs to the one in modern use. Up to this point when I saw "VH² I f.149" in Usener I had to do some digital digging in the Digital Corpus of Literary Papyri (in some cases unsuccessfully), but now we can look at the table as see that VH² I f.149 = P.Herc. 1005!

Mostly it is a dictionary of Epicurean terms. This idea itself cannot be copyrighted, we will have to form a digital dictionary of Epicurean terms.

In an effort to reconcile (DL 10.32) "All concepts have arisen from the senses" with (DND 1.43) "...gods exist, because nature herself has impressed a notion of them on the minds of all." I am thinking:

What has "nature used to impress a notion of gods on our minds" if not the very images of the gods that come from their bodies?

We also cannot forget that Philodemus discusses the actual physical processes by which the gods exist:

Philódēmos, On Piety, 1.8.205: ^[Obbink] And having written another book On Holiness, in it too he makes clear that –not only that thing which exists indestructibly – but also (that which) continually exists in perfection as one and the same entity: are termed in the common usage "[unified] entities" – some of which [entities] are perfected out of the same elements, and others from similar elements.

Philódēmos, On Piety, 1.13.347: ^[Obbink] Its constitution out of things similar would obviously be a unified entity: for it is possible [for beings constituted] out of similarity for ever to have perfect happiness – since [unified] entities can be formed no less out of identical than out of similar elements ([and both kinds of entity] are recognized by Epicurus as [being] exactly the same things, for example in his book On Holiness.)

Philódēmos, On Piety, 1.13.364: ^[Obbink] ...Therefore he was wont to say that nature brought all these things to completion alike – and that for the most part many things come about [when they are formed] from an aggregation of various similar particles…

Sedley is correct when he says "each of us has an innate propensity to imagine." We also have an innate ability to see -- but we have to actually look and see things to use that ability! So he goes too far by saying "By doing so, we are ipso facto giving a concrete realization to the prolepsis of god." We can give similar mental "realizations" to centaurs. The process Sedley is describing is actually how we form a hypolepsis (supposition) and unless it corresponds to an external body, it is an empty thought.