Posts by Bryan

Epibolai really just means “focus.” We understand the eyes can focus on a specific range within the sea of information around us, whereas the ears can focus on a different range within this sea of information, and so for the rest of the senses.

As we know, there is a lot more data out there. From radio waves to radiation, there are many perpetuated disturbances (waves/eidola) all around us that carry information that our external senses do not pick up.

Epicurus understood the internal sense of the mind also focuses on a range of this information, which produces mental images (prolepseis). If we have a thought that is not based on images – it is just "a label on an empty box" (hypolepsis). So, we are talking about a “mental picture.”

Just as when we increase our views of the formerly distant tower, we come to see it’s true nature – as we increase our views of these mental pictures, while guided by the laws of nature, we are more acutely able to focus on and more accurately able see what exists within the universe.

The anticipations are these mental pictures, and mental focus (ἡ ἐπιβολή τῆς διανοίας) is our attention to them.

Quote from Pacatus

...the distinction by the Pyrrhonians between “criteria for truth” (which they found suspect – at least with regard to certain knowledge about “nonevident matters”) and “criteria for agency.” That latter may be uncertain, but can be the best evidence we have to make choices and act upon. It strikes me that, based on Dr. Glidden’s analysis, the prolepseis might fall into that second category.

Yes, it is interesting that Dr. Glidden is keeping the anticipations distinct from the visual focus of the mind (αἱ φανταστικαί Ἐπιβολαί τῆς διανοίας), and not accepting the anticipations as a criteria of truth. I have preferred to coalesce them.

He takes Diogenes as being sloppy here "[10.31] They reject dialectic as superfluous; holding that in their inquiries the physicists should be content to employ the ordinary terms for things. Now in The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and anticipations and our feelings are the standards of truth ; the Epicureans generally make the visual focus of the mind to be also standards."

He prefers to stick to Epicurus "[KD24] If you reject even one sensation and you will not separate (1) a theory about what is still pending, versus (2) what is actually present according to the senses, feelings, and the visual focus of the mind: then you will disturb the remaining senses with empty thought – as you will be rejecting the whole basis of judgment."

Some people point to the non-sequiturs and repetitions in DRN as evidence of it not being fully edited (Let us forget Jerome’s silly statement regarding Cicero’s editing). The repetitions are certainly present, but they are short and cover important points. Happily, more often when there seems to be some lines missing, the text picks up on the same topic. We do not know the state of the manuscript the Carolingians copied from, and the bottom/tops of some of the pages may have been missing or illegible.

Some say that it is unfinished because there is no full section on the gods. It is true that Lucretius does promise to talk at length about the gods (tibi posterius largo sermone probabo – I will show to you later in a large discourse, 5.155), but does not do so.

Some even argue that is is unfinished because it ends on the topic of mass death. However, the beginning of the book is about birth and the end is about death, which seems appropriate to me. The books are all about the same length, with the later books being a bit longer.

The ancient DRN probably did not have the gaps we have. Munro says “not that the great mass of his poem is not in a sound and satisfactory state… but owing to the way in which it has been handed down, his text has suffered in some portions irreparable loss.”

PHerc. 365 may be DRN book 2. But there is too little there to even be certain if it is DRN or not. So the earliest manuscript we have is the one from Dungal of Bobbio when he was in Saint-Denis working in a Carolingian scriptorium between 811 and 825.

There are very many good things about this book. To highlight a few:

Excellent introduction – lots of vocabulary treasures from our school are given in Greek and clearly explained – and you make those bright terms shine even brighter by contrasting them with darkness, as אפיקורוס (“epikorós” meaning “heretic”) is also presented and explained.

Adding art throughout the text is an excellent choice. Other traditions focus so much on words and logic, they forget to use their eyes as a basis of their thinking. Epicureans do not make this mistake. I am slowly producing an edition of Lucretius that has no text and is only pictures.

The double columns on each page are a very appealing formatting choice. The Herculaneum papyri shows how slender the columns were in ancient texts (often only 15 to 20 letters long), so double columns on each page is a format we can embrace with ancient precedent.

The section headings are masterful. Breaking up the original works into labeled sections seems necessary and your work here is excellent. This adds a lot of coherency and accessibility. Coupled with the columns, this book is not a wall of text, but clearly labeled, easily digestible and inviting sections.

If you reject even one sensation and you will not separate (1) a theory about what is still pending, versus (2) what is actually present according to the senses, feelings, and the whole visual focus of the mind: then you will disturb the remaining senses with empty thought – as you will be rejecting the whole basis of judgment.

Also, if you accept (1) all that which is still pending in theoretical concepts, along with (2) that which is not still pending full confirmation: you will not avoid error – since you will have retained all doubt regarding all judgment of what is true or not true.

Interestingly there is some academic fussing over the word in question here. The usual text is (De Finibus 2.15) si id non sit in voluptate, negat se intellegere, nisi forte illud quod multitudinis rumore laudetur.

But it looks like we also have "minore" (R) and "timore" (NV) as options.

nisi forte illud quod multitudinis minore laudetur: Unless, perhaps, that which is commended by a smaller gathering (ie, the garden?).

nisi forte illud quod multitudinis timore laudetur: Unless, perhaps, that which is commended out of fear from the multitude. (ie, Epicurus is trying to avoid legal issues?).

Hello! Thank you for joining and thank you for that story -- it almost makes me want to start leaving copies of Lucretius in public places! It is exciting to have someone with such credentials here!

Quote from Cassius

You have a couple of versions of each sentence joined with a sort of "nodictionaries.com" word by word definition?

It is comparable to "nodictionaries.com" but I think their formatting is superior. I intended to have the vocabulary at an intermediate level, but that formatting for "nodictionaries.com" allows for full flexibility to toggle between levels. This makes it more alive, which I really appreciate.

Quote from Don

And that vocab list was generated automatically by ChatGPT?

Yes it was and (I think even more helpfully) it put the text into sections (I attached the prompt, but it is nothing special). Although, I did make the large breaks (eg, breaking [44] into [44a] and [44b]) and added the translation comparisons. I'll be going through it in 2024 and add etymological notes and another translation. It's much better than a crossword puzzle.

"I want death to find me planting my cabbages, but careless of death, and still more careless of my unfinished garden.” —Montaigne

The results are mixed, and the robot translations are bad, but just producing this "backbone" would have previously taken a lot of time yet this only took a few hours. With this as a starting point, producing another translation (not that another one is needed) is made fun and easy --- as most of the pieces are put right in front of you.

Just bought it -- should be here in two days, thanks Nate!

I love that you are lecturing Cicero as though he is sitting next to you.

Their recommendation for alpha to be pronounced as the "a" in "bad" is surprising. I am not sure I have even seen that suggested before. I suppose they did that to distinguish it from their recommendation of omicron to be pronounced as "o" in "got" (which is reasonable) but also is very close to the more normal range of recommendations for the pronunciation of alpha.

As they say this is for "degrees in ancient history, archaeology or classical archaeology where a high level of language expertise is not required" I know they are in the UK, so the "a" in bad is not as far off as it is in the US, so even if we pronounce "bad" like the king does, the recommendation still seems bad. A little IPA would have gone a long way.

They also say "αι combines the sounds of alpha and iota, producing a diphthong similar to the English ‘eye’." I agree with this, but I think it contradicts their recommendation for alpha to be pronounced as the "a" in "bad."

If we take the "a" in "bad" and slide it with an iota (either as "beat" or "bit") - we do not get "eye" but "a-ei" in "Maggie." However if alpha is pronounced as Smyth recommends (Spanish "casa" or "father") the slide of the diphthong correctly produces "aye."

I agree. Let me throw these into the mix.

Quote from Don

Is that a metaphor for using elephant-mounted troops in warfare?

Yes I agree that war elephants are the main thing -- and probably the only thing -- that Lucretius is referring to. But the Dio Chrysostrom quote had me thinking for the first time perhaps there could be a bit more to it. We know that frozen Mammoth tusk huts are some of the oldest architecture discovered... Maybe there was a time in India when Elephants were as common as buffalo were in the Great Plains 150 years ago, and their bones were really so common that they became part of the architecture for some tribes for awhile.

This is all wild speculation. The climate in India would not preserve this, so the signs from which we can infer are few.

Of course, elephant bones were present and recognized as such by those who were familiar with them.

I recently was thinking about "elephantos, India quorum milibus e multis vallo munitur eburno" "Elephants, many thousands of which fortify India with an ivory wall " (DRN 2.537), I always thought this "wall" was just poetic. I still do, but there is this:

Dio Chrysostrom (Discourse 79.4) “Again, if ivory is a marvelous possession and worth fighting for, the Indians are of all men most blest and pre-eminent by far, for in their land the bones of the elephants are tossed aside and no one troubles to go near them, just as in our land the bones of cattle and of asses are treated; they even say that in many places the skulls of the elephants, tusks and all, are built into their house walls”

Quote from Nate

I self-published is a collection lyrical poetry from three albums I wrote:

That is beautiful. However much we may like Latin, I am ready to put my vote for a nice new script for writing English! Honestly, I have always thrown the fictional baby away with the religious bathwater. Having been burnt by the Bible, I spurned all fiction since childhood. I need to get over it and try to read some Tolkien! There are infinite worlds, after all. We know there are worlds similar to ours, but we must also see that there are worlds very dissimilar from ours. It's wild out there.

Quote from Don

This is a highly controversial topic in some circles

Yes it can be a hot topic! I respect those who feel strongly about it, but I do not. We can tolerate academic fussing, but we don't want to get yelled at in Greek about the national spirit. I learned from Smyth, and it seems I have stuck to it, despite being somewhat bothered by the anachronistic φθχ fricatives at times (as you indicated, we can hold onto the 1st c. BC "Pompeian" usage like a life raft).

I compared Smyth to his recommendations from the 6th to the 1st c. BC. I see mostly agreement (to the extent that I am correctly connecting it to the IPA). Good stuff, thanks again for pointing it out!

Comparison with Ranieri's Greek Pronunciation Chronology

Quote from Don

It's just really hard, as an English speaker, to distinguish and produce the required contrast between aspirated and unaspirated stops.

It really is -- and the video does a good job of highlighting those difficulties. I know that many teachers will mention the fact that this was the more nearly correct pronunciation of Attic, but will discard it on the first day in favor of φθχ fricatives. I like the idea, but it is difficult. Attempts to adopt the older pronunciation lead me to the expected awkwardness and errors, mostly over-doing the aspiration to provide a contrast with the unaspirated (a common mistake, as he says).

That is a good chart, thank you for sharing!

Regarding vowels: as I am looking at his chart, although I am consistent, I'd be guilty of the dreaded "anachronistic combinations of phonemes." Is it too sloppy to say that if it was used before the common era it is fair game? Some town could probably be found using that mix.

Quote from Don

It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how "evolved" Epicurus's pronunciation was toward fricativization and other features

Exactly, I think all we can say of the Greek used in the garden is that it was somewhere in the evolution -- even possibly including features more associated with later dates.

Quote from Nate

I published a little Tolkien project a while ago

I am interested, but sincerely ignorant of Tolkien (beyond the fact he is the author of The Lord of the Rings). I just did a quick wikipedia read however - interesting stuff! Is the script of Tengwar actually printed in the books and legible?

This is great. I see that for classical Attic he is recommending light aspirated stops, which is excellent. This chart shows clearly what I think is one of the more complicated parts of pronunciation.

I will throw these in as well:

[ U74 ] Plutarch, Against Colotes, 1114A: When he proposes at the beginning of his treatise that "the nature of existence is atoms and void," he treats that nature as one, dividing it into two parts, one of them actually nothing, but termed by you and your company "intangible," "empty," and "incorporeal."

[ U75 ] Sextus Empiricus, Against the Dogmatists, 3.333: Epíkouros was in the habit of using the terms holon (whole universe) and pan (all existence) equivalently when describing the nature of bodies and of the void. For at one point he says, "the nature of the whole universe is atoms and void."

[ U76 ] Plutarch, Against Colotes, 1112E: When Epíkouros says "nature of existing things is atoms and void," do we taken him to mean that "nature" is distinct from "existing things," or simply indicate "existing things," and nothing more, just as it is his habit for instance to use the expression "the nature of void," for "void," and indeed "the nature of all existence," for "all existence?"

I agree that epibole tes dianoias (mental focus) and prolepseis (anticipations/stereotypes) are two facets of the same faculty. I also agree every sensation (the criteria of reality) is prerational.

All ideas that are based in reality must necessarily be based upon images.

If the idea is not based in reality -- not based on images -- then it is not a prolepsis but a hypolepsis (post conception, afterthought, supposition) [DL 10.124].

Πάσα φανταστική ἐπιβολή is something like “the entire graphic perception” “the full pictorial focus” “the complete visual attention.”

I think the use of φανταστική (‘graphic’) here is only further explaining the process of mental focus; the whole phrase is therefore equivalent to ἡ ἐπιβολή τῆς διανοίας (‘the focus of the mind’), which Lucretius translates as animī iniectus ‘a casting of mental energy’ or ‘a throwing out of the attention' [DRN 2.740].

Instead of using the modern analogy of ‘focusing’ the mind (as though the mind were something like a camera), Ἐπίκουρος and Lucretius use the analogy of ‘throwing’ or ‘casting’ the mind (as though the mind were something like a net). The paraphrases animī iniectus and ἡ επιβολή τῆς διανοίας therefore are equivalent to our modern use of ‘attention.’

Basically, we need to distinguish between sensations and ideas. Sensations are true per se, but ideas are only true if they accurately reflect our repeated sensations. If we accept any idea as true per se, without demanding any evidence, we have undermined our sensations which are the only foundation we have to accurately understand our environment.