Posts by Kalosyni

Quote from Bryan

I’ll admit I do not think this fits. A drink is just another pleasure within the meal, not the thing that gives all the other pleasures their order and security. This makes established pleasures sound like an optional side item.

My analogy may not work for everyone...I was thinking about it this way:

If you were invited over to someone's house for dinner, and they served you a full dinner, but did not serve anything at all to drink with the dinner (no water, no lemonade, no wine, no nothing, etc.) then the meal would be lacking in something -- your total pleasure would be incomplete. Whether or not the meal is simple or extravagant is irrelevant, because there is still something else needed...and the pleasure of the meal would be "mixed" with a sense of discomfort. And I think that this is the point of PD10, and also PD12.

Here is a possible analogy for the "completeness" of pleasure:

A meal served without something to drink would be considered incomplete...

"a meal" = all the many varied pleasures of life

"something to drink" = removing fears of death & gods and adding in prudence (the correct understanding of choices and avoidances).

So altogether these would make a "complete meal" which would be an analogy of a complete life of pleasure and well-being.

Happy Twentieth Everyone!

Listen to the Epicurus Rap - Free as Epicurus!

Since tomorrow is the Twentieth... I am thinking again about this quote: "To-morrow, dearest Piso, your friend, beloved by the Muses, who keeps our annual feast of the twentieth invites you to come after the ninth hour to his simple cottage. If you miss udders and draughts of Chian wine, you will see at least sincere friends and you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians. But if you ever cast your eyes on me, Piso, we shall celebrate the twentieth richly instead of simply."

And particularly this section: "...you will hear things far sweeter than the land of the Phaeacians."

A bit of background on the "the Phaeacians"... In Homer's Odyssey, they are a legendary seafaring people who live on the island of Scheria. Known for their advanced shipbuilding and hospitality (xenia), they welcome a shipwrecked Odysseus, listen to his adventures, and safely transport him back to Ithaca on their magical, self-steering ships.

Descended from the god Poseidon, the Phaeacians live in a utopian, paradisiacal realm untouched by war or hardship. They are a semi-divine race ruled by King Alcinous and Queen Arete, possessing an idyllic city with a bronze-walled palace, golden statues, and ever-blooming orchards. Homer emphasizes their mastery of the sea and their status as master navigators.

In the Odyssey, the Phaeacians serve as the primary audience for Odysseus's epic tales. After being stranded on Scheria, Odysseus is discovered by Princess Nausicaa, who brings him to her parents' palace.

The Phaeacians host a grand feast where their blind bard, Demodocus, sings of the Trojan War. Hearing these stories causes Odysseus to weep, ultimately leading him to reveal his true identity and recount his ten-year journey (found in Books 9–12).

Wikipedia: Scheria

Some thoughts this morning, regarding the influence of popular music in the US, and which I think can have an influence on people's angst regarding personal relationships and marriage. Because I believe that music affects people's minds greatly. Also teens idolize the music popstars -- so there are the music lyrics and lifestyles of a few people influencing masses of people -- and it seems that lyrics have become much more negative and also affect how teens form identity. And it's actually quite shocking how some music lyrics can be so dark without presenting any hope of overcoming or resilience.

Popular song lyrics have become more negative since 1973, analysis reveals

Over the past 50 years, the lyrics of popular songs in the U.S. have become simpler, more negative, and contain more stress-related words, according to an…

phys.org

This a "chicken-or-the-egg" as far as which came first - the creators who create negativity or the societal desire for the consumption of negativity.

Just for fun, my illustration of many pleasures:

I may need to update this (which I made back in 2024) and add more subtitles: "pleasures of the mind" (and which can include planning (anticipation), "pleasures of the removal of pain", etc.

WilliamJ welcome to the forum!

What would Epicurus have said about Homer's Odyssey? At some point in ancient Greece it was popularly taught in the various philosophy schools (though no clear evidence during the time of Epicurus).

Here we are in 2026 and there a new Odyssey movie that is opening, and I'm guessing everything now is about to get a lot more "ancient Greek" because movies tend to greatly influence American culture.

Here is an interesting article:

And you can check out a wikipedia about the gods in the Odyssey:

Gods in The Odyssey - Wikipedia

As for Epicurus, regarding the nature of the gods, some excerpts from the Letter to Menoeceus:

"First of all believe that god is a being immortal and blessed, even as the common idea of a god is engraved on men’s minds, and do not assign to him anything alien to his immortality or ill-suited to his blessedness: but believe about him everything that can uphold his blessedness and immortality. For gods there are, since the knowledge of them is by clear vision. But they are not such as the many believe them to be: for indeed they do not consistently represent them as they believe them to be. 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.
[124] For the statements of the many about the gods are not conceptions derived from sensation, but false suppositions, according to which the greatest misfortunes befall the wicked and the greatest blessings (the good) by the gift of the gods."...

...

[134] "For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it."

Pythocles read physical copies, and constantly had them in his hands...

From the start of the Letter to Pythocles:

[84] CLEON brought me a letter from you in which you continue to express a kindly feeling towards me, which is a just return for my interest in you, and you attempt with some success to recall the arguments which lead to a life of blessedness. You ask me to send you a brief argument about the phenomena of the sky in a short sketch, that you may easily recall it to mind. For you say that what I have written in my other works is hard to remember, even though, as you state, you constantly have them in your hands. I was glad to receive your request and felt constrained to answer it by pleasant expectations for the future.

[85] Therefore, as I have finished all my other writings I now intend to accomplish your request, feeling that these arguments will be of value to many other persons as well, and especially to those who have but recently tasted the genuine inquiry into nature, and also to those who are involved too deeply in the business of some regular occupation. Therefore lay good hold on it, keep it in mind, and go through it all keenly, together with the rest which I sent in the small epitome to Herodotus.

And from Diogenes Laertius Book 10, on Epicureans (these are section excerpts appearing before, between, and after the Letters:

Quote

XXIII. They say that there are two passions, pleasure and pain, which affect everything alive. And that the one is natural, and the other foreign to our nature; with reference to which all objects of choice and avoidance are judged of. They say also, that there are two kinds of investigation; the one about facts, the other about mere words. And this is as far as an elementary sketch can go—their doctrine about division, and about the criterion.

***

XXVI. Such are his sentiments on the heavenly phænomena. But concerning the rules of life, and how we ought to choose some things, and avoid others, he writes thus. But first of all, let us go through the opinions which he held, and his disciples held about the wise man.

He said that injuries existed among men, either in consequence of hatred, or of envy, or of contempt, all which the wise man overcomes by reason. Also, that a man who has once been wise can never receive the contrary disposition, nor can he of his own accord invent such a state of things as that he should be subjected to the dominion of the passions; nor can he hinder himself in his progress towards wisdom. That the wise man, however, cannot exist in every state of body, nor in every nation. That even if the wise man were to be put to the torture, he would still be happy. That the wise man will only feel gratitude to his friends, but to them equally[467] whether they are present or absent. Nor will he groan and howl when he is put to the torture. Nor will he marry a wife whom the laws forbid, as Diogenes says, in his epitome of the Ethical Maxims of Epicurus. He will punish his servants, but also pity them, and show indulgence to any that are virtuous. They do not think that the wise man will ever be in love, nor that he will be anxious about his burial, nor that love is a passion inspired by the Gods, as Diogenes says in his twelfth book. They also assert that he will be indifferent to the study of oratory. Marriage, say they, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays it down, in his Doubts and in his treatises on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances of life, he will forsake these rules and marry. Nor will he ever indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet, nor will he entangle himself in affairs of state (as he says in his first book on Lives). Nor will he become a tyrant. Nor will he become a Cynic (as he says in his second book about Lives). Nor a beggar. And even, though he should lose his eyes, he will still partake of life (as he says in the same book).

The wise man will be subject to grief, as Diogenes says, in the fifth book of his Select Opinions; he will also not object to go to law. He will leave books and memorials of himself behind him, but he will not be fond of frequenting assemblies. He will take care of his property, and provide for the future. He will like being in the country, he will resist fortune, and will grieve none of his friends. He will show a regard for a fair reputation to such an extent as to avoid being despised; and he will find more pleasure than other men in speculations.

All faults are not equal. Health is good for some people, but a matter of indifference to others. Courage is a quality which does not exist by nature, but which is engendered by a consideration of what is suitable. Friendship is caused by one’s wants; but it must be begun on our side. For we sow the earth; and friendship arises from a community of, and participation in, pleasures. Happiness must be understood in two senses; the highest happiness, such as is that of God, which admits of no increase; and another kind, which admits of the addition or abstraction of pleasures. The wise man may raise statues if it suits his inclination, if it does not it does[468] not signify. The wise man is the only person who can converse correctly about music and poetry; and he can realise poems, but not become a poet.

It is possible for one wise man to be wiser than another. The wise man will also, if he is in need, earn money, but only by his wisdom; he will propitiate an absolute ruler when occasion requires, and will humour him for the sake of correcting his habits; he will have a school, but not on such a system as to draw a crowd about him; he will also recite in a multitude, but that will be against his inclination; he will pronounce dogmas, and will express no doubts; he will be the same man asleep and awake; and he will be willing even to die for a friend.

These are the Epicurean doctrines.

*****

XXVIII. Now, he differs with the Cyrenaics about pleasure. For they do not admit that to be pleasure which exists as a condition, but place it wholly in motion. He, however, admits both kinds to be pleasure, namely, that of the soul, and that of the body, as he says in his treatise on Choice and Avoidance; and also in his work on the Chief Good; and in the first book of his treatise on Lives, and in his Letter against the Mitylenian Philosophers. And in the same spirit, Diogenes, in the seventeenth book of his Select Discourses, and Metrodorus, in his Timocrates, speak thus. “But when pleasure is understood, I mean both that which exists in motion, and that which is a state.…” And Epicurus, in his treatise on Choice, speaks thus: “Now, freedom from disquietude, and freedom from pain, are states of pleasure; but joy and cheerfulness are beheld in motion and energy.”

XXIX. For they make out the pains of the body to be worse than those of the mind; accordingly, those who do wrong, are punished in the body. But he considers the pains of the soul the worst; for that the flesh is only sensible to present affliction, but the soul feels the past, the present, and the future. Therefore, in the same manner, he contends that the pleasures of the soul are greater than those of the body; and he uses as a proof that pleasure is the chief good, the fact that all animals from the moment of their birth are delighted with pleasure, and are offended with pain by their natural instinct, and without the employment of reason. Therefore, too, we, of our own inclination, flee from pain; so that Hercules, when devoured by his poisoned tunic, cries out:—

Shouting and groaning, and the rocks around

Re-echoed his sad wails, the mountain heights

Of Locrian lands, and sad Eubœa’s hills.^[143]

XXX. And we choose the virtues for the sake of pleasure, and not on their own account; just as we seek the skill of the physician for the sake of health, as Diogenes says, in the[474] twentieth book of his Select Discourses, where he also calls virtue a way of passing one’s life (διαγωγή). But Epicurus says, that virtue alone is inseparable from pleasure, but that every thing else may be separated from it as mortal.

Display More

Source:

The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers | Project Gutenberg

Diogene Laertius talks about Epicureans (as a comparison to the Cyrenaics) in this section in Book 2 of Diogenes Laertius, online:

Quote

VIII. These men then who continued in the school of Aristippus, and were called Cyrenaics, adopted the following opinions.—They said that there were two emotions of the mind, pleasure and pain; that the one, namely pleasure, was a moderate emotion; the other, namely pain, a rough one. And that no one pleasure was different from or more pleasant than another; and that pleasure was praised by all animals, but pain avoided. They said also that pleasure belonged to the body, and constituted its chief good, as Panætius also tells us in his book on Sects; but the pleasure which they call the chief good, is not that pleasure as a state, which consists in the absence of all pain, and is a sort of undisturbedness, which is what Epicurus admits as such; for the Cyrenaics think that there is a distinction between the chief good and a life of happiness, for that the chief good is a particular pleasure, but that happiness is a state consisting of a number of particular pleasures, among which, both those which are past, and those which are future, are both enumerated. And they consider that particular pleasure is desirable for its own sake; but that happiness is desirable not for its own sake, but for that of the particular pleasure. And that the proof that pleasure is the chief good is that we are from our childhood attracted to it without any deliberate choice of our own; and that when we have obtained it, we do not seek anything further, and also that there is nothing which we avoid so much as we do its opposite,[90] which is pain. And they assert, too, that pleasure is a good, even if it arises from the most unbecoming causes, as Hippobotus tells us in his Treatise on Sects; for even if an action be ever so absurd, still the pleasure which arises out of it is desirable, and a good.

Moreover, the banishment of pain, as it is called by Epicurus, appears to the Cyrenaics not to be pleasure; for neither is the absence of pleasure pain, for both pleasure and pain consist in motion; and neither the absence of pleasure nor the absence of pain are motion. In fact, absence of pain is a condition like that of a person asleep. They say also that it is possible that some persons may not desire pleasure, owing to some perversity of mind; and that all the pleasures and pains of the mind, do not all originate in pleasures and pains of the body, for that pleasure often arises from the mere fact of the prosperity of one’s country, or from one’s own; but they deny that pleasure is caused by either the recollection or the anticipation of good fortune—though Epicurus asserted that it was—for the motion of the mind is put an end to by time. They say, too, that pleasure is not caused by simple seeing or hearing. Accordingly we listen with pleasure to those who give a representation of lamentations; but we are pained when we see men lamenting in reality. And they called the absence of pleasure and of pain intermediate states; and asserted that corporeal pleasures were superior to mental ones, and corporeal sufferings worse than mental ones. And they argued that it was on this principle that offenders were punished with bodily pain; for they thought that to suffer pain was hard, but that to be pleased was more in harmony with the nature of man, on which account also they took more care of the body than of the mind.

And although pleasure is desirable for its own sake, still they admit that some of the efficient causes of it are often troublesome, and as such opposite to pleasure; so that they think that an assemblage of all the pleasures which produce happiness, is the most difficult thing conceivable. But they admit that every wise man does not live pleasantly, and that every bad man does not live unpleasantly, but that it is only a general rule admitting of some exceptions. And they think it sufficient if a person enjoys a happy time in consequence of one pleasure which befalls him. They say that prudence is a[91] good, but is not desirable for its own sake, but for the sake of those things which result from it. That a friend is desirable for the sake of the use which we can make of him; for that the parts of the body also are loved while they are united to the body; and that some of the virtues may exist even in the foolish. They consider that bodily exercise contributes to the comprehension of virtue; and that the wise man will feel neither envy, nor love, nor superstition; for that these things originate in a fallacious opinion. They admit, at the same time, that he is liable to grief and fear, for that these are natural emotions. They said also that wealth is an efficient cause of pleasure, but that it is not desirable for its own sake. That the sensations are things which can be comprehended; but they limited this assertion to the sensations themselves, and did not extend it to the causes which produce them. They left out all investigation of the subjects of natural philosophy because of the evident impossibility of comprehending them; but they applied themselves to the study of logic, because of its utility.

Source:

The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers | Project Gutenberg

Here is a good video on "The Food of Ancient Greece" and which gives historical info:

From post 1 above:

Quote from Pacatus

I know this has been discussed before, but I forget. What exactly do we mean by “blessedness” (in simple terms)? It seems to me something like “sainthood” (say, in the sense of Orthodox Christianity – not the Lutheran “sainthood of all believers”.)

It does not seem like something I strive for, or am much interested in. I just try to live a happier life – in terms of more pleasure (kinetic/katastematic), less pain (physical/mental) by my choices, one day at a time.

But maybe I misunderstand …

I think that it is very important when approaching the study of Epicurus, the Letter to Menoeceus, and the word "blessedness" as it relates to Epicurean philosophy, to do so with the intention of "exegesis" (a critical interpretation of a text to discover its intended meaning).

There is something called an "exegetical fallacy" and one example of that type of fallacy is when someone fails to consider the historical context of texts and specific words - and this is called semantic anachronism. This occurs when a modern meaning of a word is read back into earlier literature, ignoring its original context, and the original historical and cultural context is ignored.

This fallacy leads to misinterpretation and can alter the implications and conclusion.

Being aware that semantic anachronism can occur is crucial when approaching the interpretation of an ancient text. Studying deeper into the historical context surround a text helps maintain the integrity of the text by respecting its historical and cultural background.

Once we examine the original context, and gather our general interpretation, then we can take the next step of seeing if there is a way to adapt any that texts "truths" to modern life.

And, everyone has unique and differing ways of adapting the material of Epicurus for their own personal lives (this would be called "eisegesis" because it is "adding into something".)

But generally we should all see fairly similar exegetically interpretations, or at least be able to see how these interpretations are formed.

The truth of the matter is that this forum functions as a free-for-all without any kind of specific aim. Some people what to focus on finding textual interpretion, and others want to enjoy examining a text of Epicurus as if it were a kind of "Rorschach inkblot test". And almost none of us (including myself) are disciplined scholars.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Kalosyni

You acquire a god-like tranquility, meaning your mind is completely peaceful and satisfied, having transcended regular human anxiety

This is exactly the kind of ideal (in the sense of ultimate goal or telos) I no longer entertain, let alone strive for – like Nirvana or Bodhi or “big Satori.” I just let that kind of thing go – relaxing from it, as it were.

Note: Speaking only for myself, not denigrating or dismissing anyone else’s quest or pursuit!

Pacatus

Here is why I think is important to contemplate a difference between "well-being" (of living a life well) and "blessedness" (of the gods) -- as according to the Letter to Menoeceus and Epicurean philosophy. And also when doing so, it is important to set aside other spiritual/philosophical notions and ideas such as "Nirvana/bodhi/satori" etc.

In Epicurean philosophy we see at the start of the Letter to Menoeceus and at the start of the Principal Doctrines, the idea of accustoming oneself to understand the true nature of death. If we combine this with understanding the natural world, and the nature of the soul, as is explained in De Rerum Natura, we come to see more clearly the causes of things and the natural cycles of things.

This is a process that takes time. However, after having fully grasped this new way of mentally relating to the idea of death, it is impossible to lose this understanding. This contemplation and understanding gives one quite a different approach to both life and death that the average person does not have (they may have intense worries, fears, and grief with regard to death that come up anytime death is seen or talked about). This Epicurean cultivated attitude, which is achievable by anyone who takes up the practice, can be said to be a kind of fearlessness that the gods possess. A main reason that the gods are blessed is because they go about their existence without the fears of death that plague humans.

This can be such a different way of viewing death that others that don't see it the same way will be either at awe or shocked. So it is best to just console and comfort others as best as one can. This grounded quality toward death will externally (to others) make one appear "as wise".

Further thoughts:

We might wonder how the writings of one of the most influential philosophers in ancient Greece almost completely disappear? Epicurus wrote hundreds of books and letters that were once widely read throughout Greece and Rome. Yet today, only a small portion of his own words survives. This raises an obvious question: what happened?

And, we might wonder if the high cost of papyrus was the reason. Since papyrus scrolls were expensive to produce, it is easy to imagine that only a few copies of Epicurus' books ever existed. However, historians have found that this was not the case. During the height of Epicurean philosophy, his writings were copied many times and circulated throughout the Mediterranean world.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence comes from the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, a luxurious Roman villa that was buried when Mount Vesuvius erupted in AD 79. Archaeologists discovered an extensive library there that specialized in Epicurean philosophy. Even more remarkable, the library contained multiple copies of some of Epicurus' books. Different handwriting shows that these copies were produced by different scribes, demonstrating that copying his works was a regular and organized practice.

This makes sense because Epicureanism was one of the major philosophical schools of the ancient world. Unlike some other schools that encouraged constant debate and reinterpretation, Epicurus emphasized preserving his teachings accurately. His followers memorized his core doctrines and established communities, known as "Gardens," across Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy. These communities depended on reliable copies of his writings, helping spread his ideas far beyond Athens.

By the first century BC, Epicurean philosophy had become especially popular among many educated Romans. Wealthy patrons, politicians, and intellectuals collected Epicurean books, while commercial publishers copied scrolls for sale throughout the Roman world. The Roman statesman Cicero, although he disagreed with Epicurus' philosophy, complained about how common Epicurean books had become. This tells us that his writings were once widely available rather than rare.

But we might wonder, if so many copies existed, why did they almost all disappear?

The answer lies in events that unfolded centuries after Epicurus died. As the Roman world changed, writing materials changed as well. Beginning in the third and fourth centuries AD, books gradually shifted from papyrus scrolls to parchment codices—the early form of the modern book. Copying older scrolls into this new format required enormous amounts of time, money, and labor. Since it was impossible to preserve every ancient work, scribes had to choose which books were worth recopying.

By this time, Epicureanism had greatly declined in popularity. At the same time, Christianity had become the dominant religious and intellectual force throughout much of the Roman Empire. Epicurus' teachings—that the universe was made of atoms, that the soul did not survive death, and that the gods did not intervene in human affairs—stood in sharp contrast to Christian beliefs. Many Christian scholars and monastic scribes instead devoted their efforts to copying biblical texts, theological works, and selected classical authors they considered valuable or compatible with Christian education. As a result, Epicurus' writings were copied far less frequently and eventually disappeared from most libraries.

Natural decay also played an important role. Papyrus is made from plant fibers and deteriorates over time, especially in the damp climates of Europe. Unless old scrolls were continually recopied onto new materials, they simply wore out and disintegrated. Only in exceptionally dry places, such as the deserts of Egypt, or through unusual circumstances like the volcanic burial of Herculaneum, could papyrus survive for centuries.

Although most of Epicurus' own books have been lost, his ideas were not entirely forgotten. The third-century AD writer Diogenes Laërtius preserved three of Epicurus' letters along with a summary of his philosophy in his collection of biographies of Greek philosophers. Another important source is the Roman poet Lucretius, whose On the Nature of Things presents a detailed explanation of Epicurean philosophy. When this manuscript was rediscovered in a monastery in 1417, it helped renew interest in ancient philosophy during the Renaissance.

Unfortunately, what survives today offers only a small glimpse of what was once one of the largest and most influential collections of philosophical writing in the ancient world.

There is a difference between "well-being" and "blessedness"...

In ancient Greek philosophy, Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία) is the process of active human flourishing, while Makarios (μακάριος) is the secure state of absolute contentment.

We could characterize Eudaimonia as the journey of a life well-lived, and Makarios as the ultimate, unshakeable peace resulting from it.

Here are their conceptual differences:

eudaimonia (human well-being) - Having a "good inner spirit" or guiding genius. Active & Generative: Living pleasurably and excellently according to virtue*(see below) and reason over a lifetime. Human Effort: Built step-by-step through moral choices**(see below), the practice of philosophy, and living wisely. Slightly Vulnerable: Epicurus would likely agree with Aristotle who noted tragedy or extreme misfortune (like King Priam) could break eudaimonia.

makarios (divine blessedness / bliss) - Blessed, supremely fortunate, or self-contained. Static & Experiential: A steady state of undisturbed mental peace and completion. Divine or Ideal: Historically a quality unique to the gods, later achieved by humans through deep philosophical peace. Invulnerable: A state of ataraxia so deep that external crises cannot shatter it.

In the Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus closely links these terms to redefine how humans experience happiness: The Path (Eudaimonia): Epicurus argues that certain basic, natural desires are essential for eudaimonia. We achieve this by actively pruning away empty desires (like the pursuit of fame or endless luxury) and eliminating the mental pain caused by the fear of death or the gods. The Goal (Makarios): By successfully practicing this active Epicurean lifestyle, a person transitions into a state of μακαρίως (blessedly) living. You acquire a god-like tranquility, meaning your mind is completely peaceful and satisfied, having transcended regular human anxiety.

So you could say that eudiamonia is kinetic, and blessedness is katastematic.

* virtue - in Epicureanism virtue leads to pleasure

** moral choices - in Epicureanism the pleasant life is inseparable from choosing "rightly" (see PD05)

More background on Epicurus and his school, and the wealth that allowed him to start and run the school:

Epicurus was relatively wealthy by the standards of ancient Athens, allowing him to afford the vast amounts of papyrus required to author his roughly 300 works. While his philosophy advocated simplicity, his personal financial status was comfortable enough to support his prolific writing career and distinct lifestyle.

His wealth and writing productivity were tied to several factors: inherited affluence and property ownership, and also a supported community network.

Epicurus was born to Athenian parents on the island of Samos. His family possessed enough capital to secure him a top-tier education and allow him to travel widely. When he settled in Athens around 306 BC, he had the financial means to purchase a large house with a walled garden just outside the city walls. Known simply as "The Garden," this property served as both his home and his philosophical school. Buying real estate in ancient Athens required significant wealth.

Epicurus did not live or finance his work in isolation. The Garden operated as a communal living experiment funded by a network of wealthy patrons, devoted students, and co-founders who pooled their resources. These followers regularly donated money and supplies to sustain the community. This consistent financial support allowed Epicurus to dedicate his life entirely to philosophy and writing without needing to work a traditional job for income.

When ancient biographers like Diogenes Laërtius noted that Epicurus wrote 300 "books," it is important to understand the terminology. An ancient "book" (biblion) referred to a single papyrus roll, not a massive modern hardcover. A single roll typically held the equivalent of just one long chapter or a short modern essay (roughly 10,000 to 20,000 words max). His masterwork, On Nature, spanned 37 of these rolls.

While purchasing 300 rolls of papyrus was a steep expense that an ordinary Athenian laborer could never afford, it was a perfectly manageable investment for an independently wealthy property owner supported by a community of dedicated disciples.

Looking into historical aspects of writing at 300 BC...blank papyrus was a significant expense, generally costing a few days' wages for an unskilled laborer. However, the act of copying or writing made books exceptionally pricey, as all texts had to be meticulously transcribed by hand.

While the papyrus plant was easily cultivated in Egypt, shipping and trade markups made it an expensive commodity elsewhere in the Mediterranean, such as in Greece. A standard blank papyrus roll equated to roughly half its weight in modern printer paper made of gold.

The actual writing material only accounted for a small fraction of a book's final price. Professional scribes and copyists commanded high wages, driving up the cost of literary works and records.

Because of the expense, papyrus was frequently washed or scraped clean to be used as scratch paper, or written on both sides (recto and verso) to maximize space.

For temporary notes, calculations, or drafts, people used cheaper alternatives like wax tablets or broken pieces of pottery and limestone known as ostraca. Parchment (animal skins) was also used, but it was historically even more expensive than papyrus.

Since we know that Epicurus liked to send letters, we might wonder also about the materials and methods people used at that time. Sending letters depended heavily on who was writing, the purpose of the message, and how far it had to travel.

For formal, wealthy, or official correspondence, papyrus was the preferred medium. Unlike literary works that were kept as long scrolls, letters were usually written on a single sheet, folded up, tied securely with string, and sealed with wax or clay to ensure privacy. Writers used reed pens dipped in carbon-based ink.

For short, informal, or local notes, people used wax tablets - a diptych (two wooden boards attached by hinges). The inside of the wood was coated in dark beeswax, and the sender used a sharp metal stylus to scratch the message into the wax. The recipient could easily smooth the wax over to reply on the exact same tablet.

For everyday communication among commoners, soldiers, or laborers, broken pieces of ceramic pottery (ostraca) served as free, highly durable "scratch pads." People wrote on them with ink or scratched words directly into the clay.

Lead sheets were occasionally used for highly sensitive, legal, or religious messages. Sheets of lead were hammered thin, etched with a stylus, and tightly rolled up.

Ancient letter writers did not have paper envelopes. Instead, they folded the papyrus or wooden tablet inward so the writing faced the inside. They then wrapped a string around it and placed a dollop of beeswax or clay over the knot. The sender stamped the wax with a unique signet ring, creating a personalized seal. If the seal arrived broken, the recipient knew the letter had been intercepted and read.

There was no public postal system for ordinary citizens in 300 BC. Regular people had to rely entirely on private networks. If you wanted to send a letter, you had to ask a traveling merchant, a trusted friend, a pilgrim, or a slave heading in that direction to deliver it for you.

We might wonder which classes in ancient Athens in 300 BC had both the interest and time for studying or hearing about Epicurean philosophy...

The Garden was founded by Epicurus in Athens around 306 BC and was revolutionary because it rejected the traditional Athenian class system of the highly educated elite. The Academy (Plato) or the Lyceum (Aristotle), required a rigorous, elite background in mathematics and political theory, but the Garden of Epicurus did not.

Because of this, the classes that had the interest and time to engage with it spanned a unique cross-section of Athenian society, as follows:

Wealthy Intellectuals and Aristocrats (The Elite) -- Many wealthy individuals were deeply disillusioned by the political chaos of 300 BC. Athens was trapped in a cycle of Macedonian military occupations and puppet governments. Epicurus offered a radical alternative: lathe biosas ("live unnoticed"). He advocated for completely withdrawing from public life, politics, and civic duties to protect one's peace of mind. This class possessed unlimited leisure time (schole) funded by their estates and slave labor. They could afford to spend entire days lounging and debating in the Garden.

High-Class Courtesans (Hetairai) -- The Garden was highly scandalous in 300 BC because Epicurus openly welcomed women. Hetairai were highly educated, intellectually curious, and lacked the political ties that bound male citizens. Epicurean philosophy’s emphasis on friendship over civic duty deeply resonated with women who were legally marginalized by the state. Famous hetairai, such as Leontion, became prominent Epicurean scholars and even wrote philosophical treatises refuting male philosophers. As independent entrepreneurs, hetairai managed their own schedules. Attending philosophical gatherings was natively aligned with their professional lives, which centered on intellectual and social engagement with elite thinkers.

Enslaved People (Douloi) -- Only 15-20% of all enslaved people where priviliged or highly skilled. Epicurus famously admitted slaves into his school as intellectual equals, a practice that shocked traditional Athenians. Most slaves had no free time. However, privileged domestic slaves or highly skilled slave-craftsmen (choris oikountes) who lived independently and paid a portion of their wages to their masters often had pockets of personal time in the evenings. Epicurus's own slave, Mys, became a fully initiated and respected philosopher within the community.

Wealthy Resident Aliens (Metics) -- Because metics could not vote or hold political office in Athens, traditional philosophies that focused on "how to rule a city" (like Plato's Republic) were irrelevant to them. Wealthy foreign merchants, bankers, and doctors had generated significant wealth from Athens' booming trade sector, granting them the financial freedom and leisure time to pursue philosophy.

---->The class that was left out was the working-class citizens (Zeugitae and Thetes)—the average Athenian craftsmen, small farmers, and laborers—generally lacked both the time and interest for Epicureanism. They were consumed by the daily grind of survival under Macedonian occupation. Furthermore, traditional working-class citizens often viewed the Garden's radical inclusion of slaves and women, combined with its rejection of public civic duty, as deeply unpatriotic and lazy.

*****

As an aside: Modern economic historians estimate that between 15% and 25% of the total slave population in ancient Athens in 300 BC, could be categorized as highly skilled or privileged. Because the Greeks viewed slaves as property rather than tracking them by occupation, scholars reconstruct these proportions based on literary references, court cases, and trade logs.

Out of an estimated total of roughly 80,000 to 100,000 slaves in Attica around this period, the division of labor generally fell into three distinct bands:

The Privileged/Highly Skilled (15% – 25%): This group consisted of choris oikountes ("those living apart"), who were trusted to run workshops, bank counters, and businesses independently. It also included demosioi (state-owned public slaves) who served as the Scythian archer police force, mint workers, and administrative clerks. These were the rare individuals with the pocket money or freedom of movement to theoretically engage with Epicurean philosophy.

The Domestic/Household Slaves (35% – 45%): These individuals lived within the oikos (household). While their daily physical comfort was drastically higher than that of a laborer, they were entirely dependent on the personal temperament of their master and had very little personal autonomy, leisure time, or independent income.

Unskilled Agricultural and Mine Laborers (35% – 45%): This was the largest and most brutal tier. Thousands of completely uneducated chattel slaves worked the fields or were leased out to work the state silver mines of Laurium. They suffered extreme physical attrition and had virtually zero opportunities for education or leisure.

A highly skilled slave (like a literate accountant, doctor, or master stonemason) was an expensive luxury asset. While a common laborer cost about 1 to 2 minae, a highly skilled artisan or tutor could command 5 to 10 minae (nearly a year or two of an average free citizen's wages), limiting how many existed in the market. Masters purposely granted these skilled slaves privileges—like letting them live in their own homes or keep a small percentage of profits (peculium)—not out of kindness, but as an incentive structure to prevent sabotage and maximize business revenue.

*********

We might also wonder what percentage of metics were wealthy...

Based on demographic and economic reconstructions, only about 5% to 10% of metics in Ancient Athens were truly wealthy, while roughly 40% to 45% belonged to a solid middle class. The remaining 50% or more were poor, working-class laborers and small tradespeople. While history often highlights famous, ultra-wealthy metics like the arms-manufacturer Cephalus or the philosopher Aristotle, they represented a small minority of the overall foreign population.

Based on historical data from the 4th century BC, the metic wealth spectrum breaks down as follows:

The ultra-wealthy elite (5% - 10%) -- This group consisted of major international merchants, large-scale slave owners, shipowners, and powerful bank operators. While they were legally barred from owning real estate, they held massive fortunes in "invisible wealth" (cash, loans, ships, and slaves). Like wealthy citizens, this top tier of metics was rich enough to be swept into the eisphora (extraordinary war taxes).

The "Hoplite" middle class (approx. 40% - 45%) -- Historical military logs show that about 43% of metics possessed enough wealth to qualify for the "hoplite census". This meant they earned enough money to buy their own heavy armor and shields to fight in the army alongside middle-class citizens. This group included independent shop owners, successful artists, master craftsmen, and medium-scale traders.

The working-class and impoverished (approx. 50%+) --More than half of all metics were economically indistinguishable from the poorest Athenian citizens (thetes). They lived hand-to-mouth as retail shop assistants, common construction laborers, street vendors, and independent shoe-makers or potters. This tier also included freed former slaves who legally became metics upon gaining freedom, usually starting their independent lives with zero generational wealth.

Thanks Don and thinking further...it appears that you may be hinting that we can't be totally certain about who exactly was attending Epicurus' Kepos, and what types of people attended the Epicurean communities. And yet, I don't think that it would be correct to compare Epicurean communities with early Christian communities. The teachings are very different and they will attract different people.

We see in Lucretius that there is an emphasis on the natural physics with the majority of DRN focusing on the causes of things, so as to dispell the incorrect beliefs about gods causing natural phenomenon. We need to ask ourselves what types of people are interested in this focus, and to see that this aspect of Epicurean philosophy was shining the light on Nature as moving with its own driving force, and this was an "early science" to examine the world and learn about the things that causes various phenomenon. The study of natural physics requires a certain intelligence level, and so then these would be the people more likely to have aquired the skill of reading. So I still stand by my hypothesis that most people who studied Epicurean philosophy in ancient Greece could read.