While reading the Discourses of Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher who lived in the 2nd Century, A.D., I came across this passage (which others may already know about) concerning counterfeit coins and it offers a fascinating little peek into the numismatic past: "Therefore, the first and most important duty of the philosopher is to test impressions, choosing between them and only deploying those that have passed the test. You know how, with money - an area where we believe our interest to be much at stake - we have developed the art of assaying, and considerable ingenuity has gone into developing a way to test if coins are counterfeit, involving our senses of sight, smell, hearing and touch. The assayer will let the denarius drop and listen intently to its ring; and he is not satisfied to listen just once: after repeated listenings he practically acquires a musician's subtle ear. it is a measure of the effort we are prepared to expend to guard against deception when accuracy is at a premium." -Epictetus, Discourses, Book I, §20 "Concerning reason, and how it studies itself." Some things never change.
Cool passage from the Stoic. Agreed: things really never change. My earliest counterfeit is from the 4th Century BCE Persian Empire... Persia Achaemenid Empire 4th C BCE FOURREE 15mm Siglos Persian hero-king in running incuse
Ancient counterfeits, an endless source of joy and numismatic discussion... Artaxerxes II – Darius III, Achaemenid Empire, fourrée siglos, ca. 375–336 BC. Obv: Great King kneeling left, holding dagger and bow, three pellets on chest. Rev: irregular punch. 14.4mm, 4.92g. Ref: Carradice 1987, type IV C (prototype). Roman Republic, moneyer: Marcus Cipius M. f., fourrée denarius, 115–114 BC, Rome mint (prototype). Obv: Helmeted head of Roma r.; before, M CIPI M F upwards; behind, X. Rev: Victory in biga r., holding reins in l. hand and palm-branch tied with fillet in r. hand; below, rudder; in exergue, ROMA. 17mm, 2.95g. Ref: RRC 289/1 (prototype). Septimius Severus, Roman Empire, fourrée denarius, 198–202 AD, Rome mint (prototype). Obv: L SEPT SEV AVG IMP XI PART MAX, head of Septimius Severus, laureate, r. Rev: VICTORIAE AVGG FEL, Victory flying l., holding wreath, shield to l. 17mm, 2.2g. Ref: RIC IV.1 144b (prototype). Listening to the ring of the coin dropping seems like a gentle and sophisticated method of detecting forgeries. Yet, those with less subtle inclinations could also just take a sharp chisel, get the hammer, and give the coin in question a heartfelt whack... Attica, Athens, AR tetradrachm, ca. 440s–430s BC. Obv: head of Athena to right, wearing crested Attic helmet decorated with three olive leaves and palmette. Rev: AΘE; Owl standing right, head facing; to left, olive sprig and crescent; all within incuse square. 24mm, 17.14g. Ref: Kroll 8.
I love reading Epictetus. He is by a large margin the funniest ancient philosopher I have come across. I am grateful that Arrian thought it appropriate to make notes, or we would have nothing from the perceptive ex slave at all.
I was curious about the context of this - so had a bit of a poke around. It gives the impression of being pro-science. That is to say - its advice is to reject the surface appearance and look deeper into the facts of the matter. Kind of like Democritus "the truth is hidden in the deep". But does that impression itself stand up to test? Epictetus does not follow through with any rigorous inquiry into the roots of empiricism that I could see. Did I miss something? I am inclined to think his real aim was rather to undermine critical objectivity itself. I have in mind a comment by the stoic Marcus Aurelius: "All is opinion". Thus casting doubt on all observation. A kind of 'ancient post-modernism'. But heck - what would you call an ancient post-modernist?
@EWC3 Firstly, that Marcus Aurelius quote is spurious and is unfortunately a commonly shared meme that runs counter to Stoic epistemology in a number of pretty serious ways. I have not been able to establish the actual source. In the Epictetus quote, I believe he is making the point that if a person is seriously considering how to 'live the good life' they should examine how people who are specialists in certain areas of daily life behave, how they have established certain methods to ensure that they are not deceived by false impressions, and consider how that could be applied to the way that we experience events and how impressions about external events arise. The core principle in Epictetus' method, or at least one of the core principles, is that nothing external is ever a good or a bad, because if that is so then we have no ability to alter them in any consistent way and are merely at the whim of the fates. If health is truly a good, then anyone who experiences ill health is necessarily cut off from living the good life. If financial wealth is part of the good, then any loss of wealth cuts us off from accessing the good life, and again we are at the mercy of the fates. If you are interested in learning about Stoic ethics, I recommend looking at Cicero's De Finibus in which he has the character of Cato explain the Stoic system as developed by the Romans with excellent clarity. Similarly, Diogenes Laertius does something similar. Epictetus himself is very interesting.
As for your specific question, the Stoics did exactly what you seem to be hoping for. They advocate the examination of impressions before giving 'assent' to them, because they claimed that we suffer because we too quickly assent to impressions that do not in fact reflect the reality of a given situation. Their assessment of human psychology and their understanding of the role of emotions is well ahead of their time. If you want a clearer picture of this side of the Stoics I highly recommend Seneca's letters and essays which are easily available and very entertaining.
Many thanks for the spirited response - I look forward to examining these matters further. For now I will consider just your "Firstly" - concerning the position I attributed to Marcus Aurelius: "all is opinion" Below you state clearly that my comment was a "spurious"..... "meme". However - see this translation, (at Book XII para 8) http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2133/Aurelius_1464_LFeBk.pdf It is a direct quote. Rob T
My mistake Rob, I assumed (I assented to a false impression haha) that you were referring to the commonly shared quote which says 'Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.' I'm so used to people posting the image with that quote that I assumed that it was the one you were referring to. Apologies. In the Marcus Aurelius quote you are actually referring to, he is talking specifically about the things that disturb us, and that it is not the thing itself which disturbs us, when we appreciate what it actually is (by using the Stoic theories), but our opinions and false assumptions about what they mean to us. So the Stoic theory states that if we understand what is actually in our power, ie whether we wish to act in accordance with the facts about human nature and world around us, we should then not be disturbed by the thing itself, because we understand whether something is good or bad in advance. If we get an immediate impression during an event, an inevitable thing, we need to recognise that we have formed the beginnings of an opinion, a value judgement, about the thing, and we are not considering the thing itself. An example used in the literature by Seneca, I think, is of a man on a ship during a severe storm. He inevitably shows the beginning signs of fear as a natural impulse, but he is capable with the right preparation of recognising that his initial pangs of fear do not mean that he has to give in in paralysing terror to an imagined chain of events, and that it is better to recognise that according to the Stoic scheme, virtue is the only true good and therefore he must act in accordance with that. Another useful metaphor which gets at the same idea is that we are like a dog tied to a cart that is travelling along the road which is our life. We can either job alongside the cart pleasantly and do what we can with what appears along the way, or be dragged by the neck against out will. We are going along regardless.
Concerning "opinion" in the works of Marcus Aurelius, "opinion" is how some translators have rendered the Greek ὑπόληψις. The word appears twice in Aurelius' Meditations: at 4.3.4 and again at 12.8.1. As @EWC3 notes, the quote in English probably comes from the latter, as the former ends a discussion of the mutability of things, whereas the latter deals with interpretation of various experiences. The problem is that ὑπόληψις has a very broad semantic range. Its primary meaning (see previous link) is "taking up, esp. taking up the cue, taking up the matter where another leaves off." From this comes the meaning "rejoinder, reply." Another meaning is "taking in a certain sense, assumption, notion," from which the connotations of "hasty judgement, prejudice, suspicion," "estimate formed of a person or thing, good or bad reputation, public opinion," and "estimate, plan" are derived. Lastly, debatable rare connotations include "subvention, subsidy" and "payment in advance." The clause in 12.8.1 translated as "how all is opinion" is ὅτι πάντα ὑπόληψις. Taking ὅτι in its typical sense of "that" rather than "how" (for which there is a separate Greek word), this can be translated a number of ways: "that all things are an assumption," "that all things are an answer," "all things are a response," "that all things are a judgment," "that all things are a continuation," or -- as I believe best fits the context of the passage -- "all things are subjective" because the passage speaks of how individuals feel pain and pleasure, which are, of course, subjective experiences. C.R. Haines translates it as "nothing is but what thinking makes it." It is a stretch to take the post-modernist approach that Marcus Aurelius is denying the existence of objective reality or facts here. Marcus Aurelius's view wasn't that there are no facts. Rather, he believed there are facts but that properly understood, none of the facts of the external world should disturb us. And to make it numismatic, here's a denarius of Marcus Aurelius:
So we can glean that forgeries and fourrees were a problem. Just like when a checker at a supermarket holds up a $100 bill to the light to determine that the indicia is there.
Crooks have been around since the beginning of time. Some people would rather put their time and energy into cheating than actually making an honest living.
Wow. Many thanks for this. Yes, I agree. But I think there is more to be said. Looking at the guy in general, I would say he is a kind of half way house to what I am thinking of as “Post-Modern”. I make two points 1) He places himself as opposed to the sort of hard science approach that traced back to Democritus. The key issue for him (and most ancients I think) was to do with the hard line taken on determinism by Democritus & co. Actually Marcus comes across here, as everywhere, as a likeable and humble sort of thinker. He does not say Democritus & co were wrong - merely that he hopes they were wrong. 2) I am happy to accept your proposed version "nothing is but what thinking makes it" and its subjectivist leaning. Taken literally it supports an extremely negative attitude to scientific objectivity. As it seems does http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2133/Aurelius_1464_LFeBk.pdf Book VI 52. The external things themselves have no power of causing opinions in us. Read literally these are just wrong. As Epictetus says - our opinion about whether a coin is false very definitely depends on external factors. Now – what I take you as saying in reply is that Marcus is indulging in a bit of routine and forgivable hyperbole. He makes completely general statements but intends them to be understood in a restricted context. That is entirely plausible, but I make two points 1) Can you offer a line from Marcus or any Stoic that corrects the obviously misleading impression given by these lines? 2) Even if you are correct – they still put him at a half way house to what I am calling “Post-Modernism". ********************************************** Moving on, there are two important tags I tend to associate with the Post-Modernist. One is a tendency to write in a mystifying/obscure way, and another is to routinely undermine rationality by pointing to paradoxes (these days involving Heisenberg and/or Goedel etc). I find both very irritating. Marcus absolutely never does either. So at worst for me he is only a halfway house to Post-Modernism. However – I argue his advisor Maecinanus more or less does both sorts of things (citing Aristotle not Goedel on the paradoxes of infinity!) – and he does it concerning profound matters to do with Roman economics and thus (I would argue) Roman coins. Here perhaps is a challenge for you to think about? Maecianus wrote arguably the most important classical text on the mysteries of weight standards. As far as I can discover - it has never been translated! Rob T
Could not, or would not? I don't see this as an addiction, but rather a means of employment without work (a paradox since the counterfeiter works to by-pass the system). So much energy and time spent on finding ways to be dishonest and beat the system that could have been used to benefit all.
What I meant was that it was difficult to suddenly change your career path if your entire living was based on illegal activity
I still need my first fourree. I'm kind of bummed out I've neglected this area. It looks just as fun to collect as celtic imitations, an area that I'm now starting to get into.
