Definitely an interesting suggestion. I tend to think the standard interpretation makes the most sense, but on the other hand there are lots of subtleties to consider.
Gratitude and Weakness (Especially In Relation to the Gods)
-
-
I should hate to be guilty of Norman DeWitt's unforgivable sin--amending the text!
-
I'd like to present my view on gratitude among gods and their nature (Were/are the god(s) animal(s)?). I'll attach two quotes from Letter to Menoeceus and elaborate on them. All criticism is welcome as I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to understand the nature of gods from a perspective of Epicurean philosophy and I'm still not sure if I got it right.
(1) On gratitude:
[...]And the impious man is not he who popularly denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many.[...]
We cannot treat gods as reflections of humans, therefore gratitude, as any other human feelings, must be alien to gods.
(2) Were/are the god(s) animal(s)?:
[...]For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision.[...]
Immortality of individual gods is not permitted by Epicurean physics (as there are only 3 things that are eternal and indestructible: individual atoms (not compounds of them); the void and the universe itself as an infinite container of infinite number of everlasting atoms)). Epicurean gods have no names. There are no individual gods mentioned anywhere and for good reason. There are infinite visions of gods, however, that we can perceive because in eternal universe there must be infinite number of gods and our minds are capable of detecting some of the visions.
Epicurean gods can be viewed as immortal only when seen as collective of infinite number of blessed beings. On individual level they must be creatures that reached the state of blessedness but they are alive, created from compounds of atoms and therefore mortal and destructible.
So, were/are the god(s) animal(s)? The answer is yes if gods are considered as separate beings (blessed but created from compounds of atoms and therefore mortal and destructible living beings). The answer is no if we treat Epicurean gods as everlasting visions and ideals of blessedness to which human should aspire.
-
Tau Phi just for background I am curious as to how many of the texts you have reviewed in this. Have you gone into the Dirk Obbirk (sp?) material in On Piety as well as the Velleius section of "On the Nature of the Gods"? I really haven't done an exhaustive review of what is out there. Have you done that because just having a list of things to check would be helpful to people studying this.
-
*Obbink
-
I should hate to be guilty of Norman DeWitt's unforgivable sin--amending the text!
I don't think you're amending the text at all. That's an interesting interpretation. I'll have to dig into the Greek but you may be onto something!
-
I should also note that this is very timely, since our podcast discussion on Epicurus and His Philosophy will turn to "The New Piety" after we finish "The New Hedonism".
-
TauPhi : You bring up some interesting points. I had a few thoughts as I was reading your post.
Epicurean gods can be viewed as immortal only when seen as collective of infinite number of blessed beings. On individual level they must be creatures that reached the state of blessedness but they are alive, created from compounds of atoms and therefore mortal and destructible.
This section I found intriguing. The idea of an individual god vs the gods as a collective made me thing of the scholia attached to PD01.
PD01. A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being ; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness [Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]
Scholia ("ancient commentary") section: [ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς, οὓς μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοείδειαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένωι ἀνθρωποειδῶς.]
Honestly, the "numerically distinct" and images and the rest have always befuddled me. Breaking it down, the "discernable through reason alone" here is a translation of simply λόγῳ θεωρητούς "'discernable' by/through reason, thinking, " (dative of λόγος). I don't see evidence of the word alone, but I suppose it's implied. LSJ includes the following in their definition: λόγῳ θεωρητά mentally conceived, opp. sensibly perceived. So, per that definition of that phrase, we can say that The gods are (only) mentally conceived, not sensibly perceived. Does that mean they can *never* be sensibly perceived, i.e., perceived by the physical senses and so not actually corporeal? Then the scholia talks about "others" as in "other gods"? Are there several different kinds of gods? Some can only be mentally conceived, and others are produced by continuous "similar images" *directed to* the same spot? Those images are the familiar εἰδώλων (eidolon), the films/simulacra/images being shed by bodies. The gods are an odd lot!
Oh, I didn't set out to resolve anything... just throwing more grist in the mill
-
It seems to me that he (and apparently Hermarchus, based on fragmentary attestation I'm still trying to organize) had concerns about the status of the gods' social lives and their speech patterns
If you compile those sources, I'd be very interested to see them.
My access to primary sources is limited, but these reputable sources feature secondary attestation:
Quote"One specific thesis is however attributed to Hermarchus, cited at Philodemus On Gods, PHerc. 152/7, col. 13.20–41:25 the gods breathe and are not mute but converse with each other, since felicity is incompatible with lack of conversation. He is even said to have provided an argument: the gods are living beings, and the notion of a living being entails that of breathing, just as that of a fish that of water and of a bird that of wings; breathing, we may infer, is a ‘permanent property’ of the gods. Philodemus col. 4.8–13 adds that their language is Greek. He also tells us, col. 10.25–30, that the Epicureans not only accept the existence of the gods of the Panhellenes but say that there are even more. But we are unable to determine to what extent the ideas found in our later sources may be traced back to Hermarchus and Epicurus." (The Cambridge Guide To Hellenistic Philosophy 456-457)
And also:
Quote"Philodemus asserts the connection in fr. 13, 'Those who attempt to deprive them of imperishability must [also] deprive them of blessedness'; and the same idea seems to underlie the discussion of the gods' use of language which eh cites from Epicurus' successor Hermarchus in cols. xiii.36-xiv.6:
'And one must say that they use speech and converse with one another; for, he says, we would not consider them more fortunate and indestructible [...] if they did not, but rather similar to mute human beings. For since in fact all of us who are not maimed make use of language, to say that the gods either are maimed or do not resemble us in this respect (there being no other way either they or we could give shape to utterances) is extremely foolish, especially since conversation with those like themselves is a source of indescribable pleasure to the good.'
[...] Hermarchus wrote a treatise Against Empedocles in twenty-two books, and Bernays' suggestion that Plutarch On the Cessation of Oracles 420c-e [...] is derived from it has been generally accepted. Certainly it is the most economical hypothesis that this vast work was both Plutarch's source for the Epicurean attack on Empedocles and Philodemus' for this argument and for the further points about divine physiology for which he cites Hermarchus by name in cols. xiii-xiv." (Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustuns 218-219)
-
1. Do not trouble about the gods, for the gods do not trouble about you.
I'm beginning to like @Joshua's interpretation. It also seems to correspond to the Letter of Menoikeus section:
Quote from Letter to MenoikeusSo, they (i.e, the hoi polloi, "the many") believe the greatest evils are brought to the wicked from the gods as well as the greatest aid to the good, because the hoi polloi are believing that the gods accept those who resemble themselves who are similar through all excellences and goodness; all those not of their sort are strange and alien.
But this idea that the gods bestow evils and aid is a mistaken idea about the gods, according to Epicurus. The gods are not swayed by prayer or sacrifice or ...gratitude to them.
PD01: Broken up:
Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει,
(singular) That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others,
ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται:
so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (Saint-Andre)
ὥστε with the indicative, to express the actual result with emphasis.
συνέχεται (3rd person singular middle/passive indicative < συνέχομαι can mean (as far as I can tell, anyone please correct me!) "afflicted with" but other connotations are impelled or disturbed, constrained by, trapped.
So, if ὥστε introduces a "result" of that which is blessed/incorruptible not causing trouble to itself or others... Wait, that sounds an awful lot like "neither harm nor be harmed." Hmm... Not the same words as PD31, but similar sentiment?
ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.
for all such things come about through weakness
More food for thought...
-
Tau Phi just for background I am curious as to how many of the texts you have reviewed in this. Have you gone into the Dirk Obbirk (sp?) material in On Piety as well as the Velleius section of "On the Nature of the Gods"? I really haven't done an exhaustive review of what is out there. Have you done that because just having a list of things to check would be helpful to people studying this.
Cassius I'm afraid I'm going to leave you a bit disappointed regarding sources for my previous entry. I based my views on books by Polish author called Adam Krokiewicz. He was a university professor who published several works on ancient Greek philosophy including two books on Epicurus. The first one was called 'Nauka Epikura' (transl.: Teachings of Epicurus) published in 1929 and the second one called 'Hedonism Epikura' (transl.: Hedonism of Epicurus) published in 1960. He was Polish equivalent of Cyril Bailey, more or less. I don't believe these books were ever translated into English. If there are any Polish speaking members here, I can refer you to the second book (pages 172-194) for discussion on the nature of gods.
Not to leave you completely disappointed Cassius , I list below main sources Adam Krokiewicz quotes in his discussion on the nature of gods (I didn't study these myself):
Cicero - De Natura Deorum
The scholia attached to PD01 (also mentioned by Don above)
Philodemos On the Gods
Sextus Empiricus - Adversus Mathematicos IX
W. Scott - The Physical Constitution of the Epicurean Gods - Journal of Philology XII 1883, p.219
Don I appreciate your addition of grist in this mill. I like the idea of infinite, individual and mortal gods vs eternal eidola of blessed beings because it's the best idea I found that is consistent with Epicurean physics (atomism), epistemology (eidola) and ethics (blessedness) at the same time.
I don't particularly like to talk about gods in general as I almost always feel like a blind man talking about the beauty of yesterday sunset but I'll add one more thing that I came up with on that topic. It's just my personal opinion and may be as accurate as the description of that sunset, though.
I like to think that human perception of Epicurean gods is similar to our perception of rainbows. Please mind I don't equate rainbows to gods. Rainbows aren't sentient and are perceived by us by the sense of vision whereas Epicurean gods are sentient and experienced directly by our minds through eidola. I'm just trying to show the essence of these perceptions.
So are rainbows real? They are because we can see them. At the same time they are just refraction of light in water droplets. We can admire their beauty briefly if the conditions are right. Rainbows like Epicurean gods cannot, however, influence anything. Individual rainbows are not immortal but we can be entirely sure that we'll observe rainbows for as long as light, rain and the Earth exist. In that sense rainbows are immortal. Visual refraction of light in water droplets are like mental perceptions of atomic layers of divine blessedness. If that makes any sense.
-
Very interesting!
I based my views on books by Polish author called Adam Krokiewicz.
A Polish Cyril Bailey is very interesting. I am not a big fan of Cyril Bailey's take on Epicurus but I feel sure you mean his scholarship more than has personal impression. I am curious about how Krokiewicz fits in that regard in terms of his ultimate assessment of Epicurus. Do you find him to be a supporter of Epicurus' ethics and general worldview who looks for reasonable constructs where the texts are unclear (sort of like DeWitt), or more scholastically neutral?
-
Eikadistes : Came across this compilation of Hermarchus's fragments. However, it's in German, Greek, and Latin, but it's a start:
Der Epikureer Hermarchos [microform] : Krohn, Karl, 1895- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveGreek texts with commentary in German and notes in Latinarchive.org -
From the Hermarchus book.
The "breathing" seems to be reconstructed from:
επισπωμ(......)ευ(.)α
I'd have to see the digitized manuscript to accept πνεύμα from that fragmentary text.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πνεῦμα
That "breath, air, wind, spirit" could have multiple interpretations.
Even επισπωμ(ενους) seems to be related to aorist middle participle of ἐφέπω (ephépō); Mid. to follow, pursue.
The transliterated προιεμενους appears related to προΐημι which *can* mean "utter sounds" but that is a long way from conversation.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, προΐημι
PS
Here is the rest of fragment 39...
I got called away yesterday and didn't have a chance to follow-up on this post. Just realized this morning that #39 had more to it! I'm going to work on done translation because this is going to change my perspective, I'm betting
PPS. Here's the papyri.info entry for Philodemus's On the Gods
DCLP/Trismegistos 62386 = LDAB 3551
Makes it a little easier to copy and paste text and gives a better idea of the condition of the papyri itself.
-
Cassius
May 10, 2023 at 9:18 AM Changed the title of the thread from “Gratitude and Weakness” to “Gratitude and Weakness (Especially In Relation to the Gods)”. -
I took the liberty of clarifying Nate's thread title so it will be more easily findable in the future by adding "(Especially In Relation to the Gods)" to indicate that we are talking mostly about the issue of gratitude in relation to divinity.
Nate if you prefer another way of expressing that please feel free to rename it again. Seems like in the future it will be easier to find if it references these issues as related to the divinity question.
I also want to link here a new thread I am starting that stems from this discussion but would take it too far afield ---
I think here in this thread we continue to talk about the main topic of how the gratitude issue with gods and humans plays into practical conclusions.
In the other thread I'd like to start a discussion that goes in a different direction, first going back into questioning to what extent Epicurus endorsed the view that Diogenes Laertius attributes to the Cyreniacs as viewing pleasure related to "smooth motion." I would like to be able to cite whether Democritus had a view on that, but at the moment I don't know. That's a topic for the other thread.
-
Very interesting!
I based my views on books by Polish author called Adam Krokiewicz.
A Polish Cyril Bailey is very interesting. I am not a big fan of Cyril Bailey's take on Epicurus but I feel sure you mean his scholarship more than has personal impression. I am curious about how Krokiewicz fits in that regard in terms of his ultimate assessment of Epicurus. Do you find him to be a supporter of Epicurus' ethics and general worldview who looks for reasonable constructs where the texts are unclear (sort of like DeWitt), or more scholastically neutral?
Cassius Yes, by comparing Adam Krokiewicz to Cyril Bailey I meant similarity of their scholarship.
My impression is that Adam Krokiewicz personally valued Epicurus and his philosophy. It looks to me as Krokiewicz always tried to do Epicurus justice and presented his philosophy as a consistent system. That said, Krokiewicz was a full-blooded scholar and it shows especially in his 1929 book. It's an academic treatise which can be difficult to read sometimes. His 1960 book, however, is written with broader public in mind and definitely more accessible.
I cannot compare Krokiewicz to DeWitt as I've never read the latter. I know his work is highly valued here and it's on my reading list but for now I can't say much more.
-
As to Krokiewicz compared to Bailey, I made a collection of comments from Cyril Bailey I find irritating here:
The “Yea-Sayers” and the “Nay-Sayers” – NewEpicurean
Just for one example (so as not to derail the thread too far,) here is the kind of comment I can't see someone like DeWitt, or anyone firmly convinced of the basics, making:
Cyril Bailey: “The weakness of the Epicurean morality begins to show itself, as that of any form of egoistic hedonism necessarily must, as soon as the individual is set in relation with his fellow men. Nor does the picture become brighter if the virtues are left and certain other means are considered which the ‘wise men’ will pursue to secure ‘immunity’ from his fellows.” (The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, p 515)
So it is always interesting to me if we come across new names to add to the list of scholars who seem fundamentally in support of Epicurus without this kind of hedging that we have from Bailey.
-
FYI
Adam Krokiewicz – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopediapl.wikipedia.orgIf someone wants to run that through Google translate
