New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
As an example of what does bring me joy 
: ΚΥΡΙΑΙ ΔΟΞΧΑΙ starts in the middle of the third line from the bottom on folio 247b in this manuscript, Publication date : 1075-1150:
Okay... but procrastination brings pain, so NOW I'm off to trim the hedges 
Okay, so here's my next project in my "copious" free time I want to look at the "best" Greek manuscripts transcribing Diogenes Laertius and go through them, looking for natural breaks in the text - not topical necessarily but literally in the written texts. Then to "reconstruct" the book listed as Κύριαι δόξαι by Diogenes in Epicurus's bibliography. Note that that title doesn't have a definite article. It's NOT 'Αι κύριαι δόξαι "THE Principal Doctrines" but Κύριαι δόξαι "Principal Doctrines" as in maybe these are not EVERY Principal Doctrine of Epicurus but a good solid exposition of the important teachings Epicureans should pay attention to.
From my letter to Menoikeus introduction, I found that the six manuscripts listed by Bailey as the most significant and "representing a careful copying" are:
codex Borbonicus Neapolitanus gr. iii B. 29 (12th c) known as B
codex Parisinus gr. 1759 (14th c.) known as P
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8470453h/f497.item (the letter begins four lines from the bottom of folio 243r)
codex Parisinus gr. 1758 (14th or 15th c.) known as Q
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107231783/f203.item (letter starts 16 lines down on left folio on page number 148)
codex Constantinopolitanus Veteris Serail. (14th or 15th c.) known as Co
codex Laurentianus LXIX. 35 (14th c.) known as H
http://mss.bmlonline.it/Catalogo.aspx?Shelfmark=Plut.69.35
Plut.69.35 is listed in the online catalog as coming from the 12th century, so I am unsure if it is H or something else. However, it's inclusion in the Laurentian Library and its shelfmark 69.35 (i.e., LXIX. 35) leads me to believe it is. I'm not sure why Bailey gives it a date of 14th century.
codex Vaticanus gr. 140 (14th c.) known as W
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.140 (letter begins 13 lines down on right folio 177)
PS. This project will be *after* revising my Menoikeus commentary to include the discussion on απολαυσεις in 131 etc. Just saying.
Good idea. We really need to pin this down. It's logical to have a way to keep track of the sentences, but the artificial division introduces an overlay of meaning that needs to be kept in the background - by "force" if necessary.
It's a similar situation to the Bible in that there were no "verses" in the original texts. Scholars started dividing the New Testament into verses in the 1400-1500s. Maybe the artificial divisions are an outgrowth of that tendency.
Plus I don't think we should lose sight of the "celestial book" references
I'm sorry, can you refresh my memory on the "celestial book" reference? Oops, never mind. I found the discussion:
If Epicurus or the later school leaders had thought separation and numbering were important or helpful, then presumably they could easily have numbered them themselves - and if they did not, that is significant.
It certainly appears to me that they did not number the PDs.
Okay, this was VERY interesting. I used the 1739 Greek with Latin translation to compare with the text at Perseus Digital Library:
1739: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nnc1.0021…7768674761-1400
Perseus Greek (DL, Book 10): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…0%3Achapter%3D1
Perseus English (DL, Book 10): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…0%3Achapter%3D1
I used the Greek text to compare with each other since 1739 had 44 Principal Doctrines and Perseus (i.e., Hicks, 1972) had the "normal" 40! I wanted to see what was different. And were there differences!! Starting at 44, I had to go all the way back to PD18 to get the lists to coincide!! Some Hicks were divided by the 1739, a couple 1739's were combinations of Hicks, and so on. To follow the numbers, capital Roman numerals are the 1739. Hicks uses a modified Roman numeral system with ϝ being V (5). So, where 1739 uses XXVI for 26; Hicks would use χχϝι for 26. I'm also, in part, placing this here to serve as notes for myself and anyone else who wants to dive in to this.
Principle Doctrine Comparison: 1739 edition vs Hicks 1972 (Perseus Digital Library)
[139] [ι.] Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται: ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον. [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.]
[ιι.] Ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς: τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ: τὸ δ᾽ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς.
[ιιι.] Ὅρος τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡ παντὸς τοῦ ἀλγοῦντος ὑπεξαίρεσις. ὅπου δ᾽ ἂν τὸ ἡδόμενον ἐνῇ, καθ᾽ ὃν ἂν χρόνον ᾖ, οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἀλγοῦν ἢ τὸ λυπούμενον ἢ τὸ συναμφότερον.
211 [140] [ιϝ.] Οὐ χρονίζει τὸ ἀλγοῦν συνεχῶς ἐν τῇ σαρκί, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἄκρον τὸν ἐλάχιστον χρόνον πάρεστι, τὸ δὲ μόνον ὑπερτεῖνον τὸ ἡδόμενον κατὰ σάρκα οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας συμμένει.212 αἱ δὲ πολυχρόνιοι τῶν ἀρρωστιῶν πλεονάζον ἔχουσι τὸ ἡδόμενον ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἤ περ τὸ ἀλγοῦν.
[ϝ.] Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, <οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως> ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως. ὅτῳ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ ὑπάρχει ἐξ οὗ ζῆν φρονίμως, καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτον ἡδέως ζῆν.
213 [141] [ϝι.] Ἕνεκα τοῦ θαρρεῖν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ἦν κατὰ φύσιν [ἀρχῆς καὶ βασιλείας] ἀγαθόν, ἐξ ὧν ἄν ποτε τοῦθ᾽ οἷός τ᾽ ᾖ παρασκευάζεσθαι.
[ϝιι.] Ἔνδοξοι καὶ περίβλεπτοί τινες ἐβουλήθησαν γενέσθαι, τὴν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀσφάλειαν οὕτω νομίζοντες περιποιήσεσθαι. ὥστ᾽ εἰ μὲν ἀσφαλὴς ὁ τῶν τοιούτων βίος, ἀπέλαβον τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἀγαθόν: εἰ δὲ μὴ ἀσφαλής, οὐκ ἔχουσιν οὗ ἕνεκα ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τὸ τῆς φύσεως οἰκεῖον ὠρέχθησαν.
[ϝιιι.] Οὐδεμία ἡδονὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ κακόν: ἀλλὰ τὰ τινῶν ἡδονῶν ποιητικὰ πολλαπλασίους ἐπιφέρει τὰς ὀχλήσεις τῶν ἡδονῶν.
214 [142] [ιχ.] Εἰ κατεπυκνοῦτο πᾶσα ἡδονή, καὶ χρόνῳ καὶ περὶ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα ὑπῆρχεν ἢ τὰ κυριώτατα μέρη τῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἄν ποτε διέφερον ἀλλήλων αἱ ἡδοναί.
[χ.] Εἰ τὰ ποιητικὰ τῶν περὶ τοὺς ἀσώτους ἡδονῶν ἔλυε τοὺς φόβους τῆς διανοίας τούς τε περὶ μετεώρων καὶ θανάτου καὶ ἀλγηδόνων, ἔτι τε τὸ πέρας τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐδίδασκεν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε εἴχομεν ὅ τι ἐμεμψάμεθα αὐτοῖς, πανταχόθεν εἰσπληρουμένοις τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ οὐδαμόθεν οὔτε τὸ ἀλγοῦν οὔτε τὸ λυπούμενον ἔχουσιν, ὅ περ ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν.
[χι.] Εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου, μή ποτε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ᾖ τι, ἔτι τε τὸ μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν ἀλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας.
215 [143] [χιι.] Οὐκ ἦν τὸ φοβούμενον λύειν ὑπὲρ τῶν κυριωτάτων μὴ κατειδότα τίς ἡ τοῦ σύμπαντος φύσις, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποπτευόμενόν τι τῶν κατὰ τοὺς μύθους: ὥστε οὐκ ἦν ἄνευ φυσιολογίας ἀκεραίους τὰς ἡδονὰς ἀπολαμβάνειν.
[χιιι.] Οὐθὲν ὄφελος ἦν τὴν κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἀσφάλειαν κατασκευάζεσθαι τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑπόπτων καθεστώτων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ.
[χιϝ.] Τῆς ἀσφαλείας τῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένης μέχρι τινὸς δυνάμει τε ἐξερειστικὴ216 καὶ εὐπορίᾳ εἰλικρινεστάτη γίνεται ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἡσυχίας καὶ ἐκχωρήσεως τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφάλεια.
217 [144] [χϝ.] Ὁ τῆς φύσεως πλοῦτος καὶ ὥρισται καὶ εὐπόριστός ἐστιν: ὁ δὲ τῶν κενῶν δοξῶν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκπίπτει.
[χϝι.] Βραχέα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα ὁ λογισμὸς διῴκηκε καὶ κατὰ τὸν συνεχῆ χρόνον τοῦ βίου διοικεῖ καὶ διοικήσει.
[χϝιι.] Ὁ δίκαιος ἀταρακτότατος, ὁ δ᾽ ἄδικος πλείστης ταραχῆς γέμων.
[χϝιιι.] Οὐκ ἐπαύξεται ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἡ ἡδονή, ἐπειδὰν ἅπαξ τὸ κατ᾽ ἔνδειαν ἀλγοῦν ἐξαιρεθῇ, ἀλλὰ μόνον ποικίλλεται. (XIX) τῆς δὲ διανοίας τὸ πέρας τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀπεγέννησεν ἥ τε τούτων αὐτῶν ἐκλόγησις καὶ τῶν ὁμογενῶν τούτοις, ὅσα τοὺς μεγίστους φόβους παρεσκεύαζε τῇ διανοίᾳ.
XX 218 [145] [χιχ.] Ὁ ἄπειρος χρόνος ἴσην ἔχει τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ ὁ πεπερασμένος, ἐάν τις αὐτῆς τὰ πέρατα καταμετρήσῃ τῷ λογισμῷ.
ΧΧΙ [χχ.] Ἡ(1739: Εἰ) μὲν (1739: η) σὰρξ ἀπέλαβε τὰ πέρατα τῆς ἡδονῆς ἄπειρα, καὶ ἄπειρος αὐτὴν χρόνος παρεσκεύασεν. (ΧΧΙΙ) ἡ (1739: Εἰ) δὲ διάνοια τοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς τέλους καὶ πέρατος λαβοῦσα τὸν ἐπιλογισμὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ τοῦ αἰῶνος φόβους ἐκλύσασα τὸν παντελῆ βίον παρεσκεύασεν, καὶ οὐθὲν ἔτι τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνου προσεδεήθη: <οὐ> μὴν ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ἔφυγε τὴν ἡδονήν, οὐθ᾽ ἡνίκα τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν τὰ πράγματα παρεσκεύαζεν, ὡς ἐλλείπουσά τι τοῦ ἀρίστου βίου κατέστρεφεν. (NOTE: The two ει's "IF" AT THE BEGINNING OF 1739'S XXI AND XXII AND HOW THEY SPLIT #20 IN PERSEUS)
ΧΧΙΙΙ 219 [146] [χχι.] Ὁ τὰ πέρατα τοῦ βίου κατειδὼς οἶδεν, ὡς εὐπόριστόν ἐστι τὸ <τὸ> ἀλγοῦν κατ᾽ ἔνδειαν ἐξαιροῦν καὶ τὸ τὸν ὅλον βίον παντελῆ καθιστάν: ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲν προσδεῖται πραγμάτων ἀγῶνας κεκτημένων.
XXIV [χχιι.] Τὸ ὑφεστηκὸς δεῖ τέλος ἐπιλογίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐνάργειαν, ἐφ᾽ ἣν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀνάγομεν: εἰ δὲ μή, πάντα ἀκρισίας καὶ ταραχῆς ἔσται μεστά. (1739 HAS SOME SPELLING DIFFERENCES: ὑφεστηκὸς < ὑφεςηκὸς; μεστά < μεςα
XXV [χχιιι.] Εἰ μάχῃ πάσαις ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν, οὐχ ἕξεις οὐδ᾽ ἃς ἂν φῇς αὐτῶν διεψεῦσθαι πρὸς τί ποιούμενος τὴν ἀναγωγὴν κρίνῃς.
XXVI 220 [147] [χχιϝ.] Εἴ τιν᾽ ἐκβαλεῖς ἁπλῶς αἴσθησιν καὶ μὴ διαιρήσεις τὸ δοξαζόμενον κατὰ τὸ προσμένον καὶ τὸ παρὸν ἤδη κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ πᾶσαν φανταστικὴν ἐπιβολὴν τῆς διανοίας, συνταράξεις καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς αἰσθήσεις τῇ ματαίῳ δόξῃ, ὥστε τὸ κριτήριον ἅπαν ἐκβαλεῖς. (XXVII) εἰ δὲ βεβαιώσεις καὶ τὸ προσμένον ἅπαν ἐν ταῖς δοξαστικαῖς ἐννοίαις καὶ τὸ μὴ τὴν ἐπιμαρτύρησιν, οὐκ ἐκλείψεις τὸ διεψευσμένον: ὡς τετηρηκὼς ἔσῃ πᾶσαν ἀμφισβήτησιν κατὰ πᾶσαν κρίσιν τοῦ ὀρθῶς ἢ μὴ ὀρθῶς.
XXVIII. 221 [148] [χχϝ.] Εἰ μὴ παρὰ πάντα καιρὸν ἐπανοίσεις ἕκαστον τῶν πραττομένων ἐπὶ τὸ τέλος τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλὰ προκαταστρέψεις εἴ τε φυγὴν εἴ τε δίωξιν ποιούμενος εἰς ἄλλο τι, οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι τοῖς λόγοις αἱ πράξεις ἀκόλουθοι.
(APPEARS "OUT OF ORDER" AS ALTERNATIVE TEXT for 32 BELOW) [χχϝι.] Τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ὅσαι μὴ ἐπ᾽ ἀλγοῦν ἐπανάγουσιν ἐὰν μὴ συμπληρωθῶσιν, οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι ἀλλ᾽ εὐδιάχυτον τὴν ὄρεξιν ἔχουσιν, ὅταν δυσπόριστοι ἢ βλάβης ἀπεργαστικαὶ δόξωσιν εἶναι.
(NOT APPEARING AS THIS IN 1739 EDITION, see below: [χχϝιι.] Ὧν ἡ σοφία παρασκευάζεται εἰς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου μακαριότητα, πολὺ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις.)
(NOT APPEARING AS THIS IN 1739 EDITION, see below: [χχϝιιι.] Ἡ αὐτὴ γνώμη θαρρεῖν τε ἐποίησεν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μηθὲν αἰώνιον εἶναι δεινὸν μηδὲ πολυχρόνιον, καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὡρισμένοις ἀσφάλειαν φιλίαις222 μάλιστα κατεῖδε συντελουμένην.)
(ALTERNATE TEXT for 29, combines text from χχϝιι. and χχϝιιι. from Perseus: Ὧν ἡ σοφία παρασκευάζεται εἰς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου μακαριότητα, πολὺ μέγισόν ἐσιν ἡ τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις. καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὡρισμένοις ἀσφάλειαν φιλίαις μάλισα κτησει δει νομιζειιν συντελουμένην. XXIX. Ex iis, quae ad totius vitae beatitudinem sapientia comparat, longe maxima est amicitiae possessio. Et in mediocribus opibus securitatem, amicitiae possessione maxime perfici putandum est. Google Translate: Of those which wisdom brings to the happiness of the whole life, the possession of friendship is by far the greatest. And in moderate wealth security is to be thought best accomplished by the possession of friendship.)
(ALTERNATE TEXT for 30: λ'. Ἡ αυτη γνωμη θαρρειν τε εποιησεν ὑπερ του μηθεν αιωνιον ειναι δεινον, μηδε πολυχρονιον. XXX. Eadem sententia confidentiam parit, quod nullum sit aeternum malum, neque diurturnum. Google Translate: The same sentence gives birth to confidence that there is no eternal evil, nor long-lasting.)
XXXI 223 [149] [χχιχ.] Τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ <καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι: αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ> καὶ οὐκ ἀναγκαῖαι: αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτ᾽ ἀναγκαῖαι ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμεναι. [φυσικὰς καὶ ἀναγκαίας ἡγεῖται ὁ Ἐπίκουρος τὰς ἀλγηδόνος ἀπολυούσας, ὡς ποτὸν ἐπὶ δίψους: φυσικὰς δὲ οὐκ ἀναγκαίας δὲ τὰς ποικιλλούσας μόνον τὴν ἡδονήν, μὴ ὑπεξαιρουμένας δὲ τὸ ἄλγημα, ὡς πολυτελῆ σιτία: οὔτε δὲ φυσικὰς οὔτ᾽ ἀναγκαίας, ὡς στεφάνους καὶ ἀνδριάντων ἀναθέσεις.]
(ALTERNATIVE TEXT for 32: λβ'. Των επιθυμιων ὁσαι μη επ' αλγουν επαναγουσιν εαν μη συμπληρωθωσιν ουκ εισιν αναγκαιαι, αλλ' εθδιαχυτον την ὀρεξιν εχουσιν, ὁταν δυςτοριζοι, η βλαβης απργαζικαι, δοξωσιν ειναι. XXXII. Cupiditates illae; quae dolorem non inducunt, si consummatae non fuerint, non sunt necessariae: sed adpetitum habent, qui facile dissipetur, quoties paratu difficiles, aut detrimenti effectrices esse videantur. Google translate: Those desires; which do not cause pain, if they have not been completed, they are not necessary: but they have an appetite, which is easily dissipated, whenever they appear to be difficult in preparation, or productive of harm.)
XXXIII [χχχ.] Ἐν αἷς τῶν φυσικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, μὴ ἐπ᾽ ἀλγοῦν δὲ ἐπαναγουσῶν ἐὰν μὴ συντελεσθῶσιν, ὑπάρχει ἡ σπουδὴ σύντονος, παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν αὗται γίνονται καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν οὐ διαχέονται ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κενοδοξίαν.
XXXIV 224 [150] [χχχι.] Τὸ τῆς φύσεως δίκαιόν ἐστι σύμβολον τοῦ συμφέροντος εἰς τὸ μὴ βλάπτειν ἀλλήλους μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι.
XXXV [χχχιι.] Ὅσα τῶν ζῴων μὴ ἠδύνατο συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν ἄλλα μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι, πρὸς ταῦτα οὐθὲν ἦν δίκαιον οὐδὲ ἄδικον. ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν ὅσα μὴ ἠδύνατο ἢ μὴ ἐβούλετο τὰς συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι.
XXXVI [χχχιιι.] Οὐκ ἦν τι καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ δικαιοσύνη, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ταῖς μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων συστροφαῖς καθ᾽ ὁπηλίκους δή ποτε ἀεὶ τόπους συνθήκη τις ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι.
XXXVII 225 [151] [χχχιϝ.] Ἡ ἀδικία οὐ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν κακόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ κατὰ τὴν ὑποψίαν φόβῳ, εἰ μὴ λήσει τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων ἐφεστηκότας κολαστάς.
XXXVIII [χχχϝ.] Οὐκ ἔστι τὸν λάθρᾳ τι κινοῦντα ὧν συνέθεντο πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἰς τὸ μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι, πιστεύειν ὅτι λήσει, κἂν μυριάκις ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος λανθάνῃ. μέχρι γὰρ καταστροφῆς ἄδηλον εἰ καὶ λήσει.
XXXIX [χχχϝι.] Κατὰ μὲν <τὸ> κοινὸν πᾶσι τὸ δίκαιον τὸ αὐτό, συμφέρον γάρ τι ἦν ἐν τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίᾳ: κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἴδιον χώρας καὶ ὅσων δή ποτε αἰτιῶν οὐ πᾶσι συνέπεται τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον εἶναι.
XL 226 [152] [χχχϝιι.] Τὸ μὲν ἐπιμαρτυρούμενον ὅτι συμφέρει ἐν ταῖς χρείαις τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίας τῶν νομισθέντων εἶναι δικαίων, ἔχει τὸν τοῦ δικαίου χαρακτῆρα, ἐάν τε τὸ αὐτὸ πᾶσι γένηται ἐάν τε μὴ τὸ αὐτό. (XLI) ἐάν δὲ νόμον θῆταί τις, μὴ ἀποβαίνῃ δὲ κατὰ τὸ συμφέρον τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίας, οὐκέτι τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ δικαίου φύσινἔχει. κἂν μεταπίπτῃ τὸ κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον συμφέρον, χρόνον δέ τινα εἰς τὴν πρόληψιν ἐναρμόττῃ, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἦν δίκαιον τοῖς μὴ φωναῖς κεναῖς ἑαυτοὺς συνταράττουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς εἰς τὰ πράγματα βλέπουσιν.
XLII 227 [153] [χχχϝιιι.] Ἔνθα μὴ καινῶν γενομένων τῶν περιεστώτων πραγμάτων ἀνεφάνη μὴ ἁρμόττοντα εἰς τὴν πρόληψιν τὰ νομισθέντα δίκαια ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων, οὐκ ἦν ταῦτα δίκαια. ἔνθα δὲ καινῶν γενομένων τῶν πραγμάτων οὐκ ἔτι συνέφερε τὰ αὐτὰ δίκαια κείμενα, ἐνταῦθα δὲ τότε μὲν ἦν δίκαια, ὅτε συνέφερεν εἰς τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίαν τῶν συμπολιτευομένων: ὕστερον δ᾽ οὐκ ἦν ἔτι δίκαια, ὅτε μὴ συνέφερεν.
XLIII 228 [154] [χχχιχ.] Ὁ τὸ μὴ θαρροῦν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἄριστα συστησάμενος οὗτος τὰ μὲν δυνατὰ ὁμόφυλα κατεσκευάσατο: τὰ δὲ μὴ δυνατὰ οὐκ ἀλλόφυλά γε: ὅσα δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν, ἀνεπίμεικτος ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐξωρίσαθ᾽229 ὅσα τούτων λυσιτελῆ πράττειν.
XLIV [χλ.] Ὅσοι τὴν δύναμιν ἔσχον τοῦ τὸ θαρρεῖν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὁμορούντων παρασκευάσασθαι, οὕτω καὶ ἐβίωσαν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἥδιστα τὸ βεβαιότατον πίστωμα ἔχοντες, καὶ πληρεστάτην οἰκειότητα ἀπολαβόντες οὐκ ὠδύραντο ὡς πρὸς ἔλεον τὴν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος προκαταστροφήν.
Sorry, I'll stop soon...
Here's a Greek/Latin edition from Curiae Regnitianae : Apud G. J. Püttnerum, 1739. That includes 44 Principal Doctrines again. Interestingly, the Greek is not subdivided. Oh, mistaken! The Greek text does have Greek numbers in the PDs!! Now I'll have to go and verify those weren't there...I don't believe they were, but can't hurt to check!... Yeah, the books from the 1500s definitely do not have numbered PDs in Latin or Greek.
Danish scholar Marcus Meibomius
So, Marcus divided the books into paragraphs; what I called verses in my Menoikeus translation.
Usener's Epicurea was published in 1887; but we have above the 1758 French translation with enumerated PDs. Curiouser and curiouser.
I'm wondering if Martin is able to determine where the 44 comes from in the German translation.
French 1758
Spanish 1792
The Latin translation here also has no numbers or divisions:
Quod beatum atque...
Thought about this on my morning walk today. The three maxims said to have been inscribed on the temple of the Oracle at Delphi are probably most well known through Socrates emphasis of "know thyself." But there were three inscriptions plus 147 maxims ascribed to the Seven Sages. For a summary, check out the Wikipedia article:
What got me on my walk was thinking about the first maxim, then that led to thinking about the others.
My question to myself was "How would Epicurus have viewed or interpreted the maxims?" They were basically "common knowledge" by his time (and beyond). However, would he have seen them as part of παιδεία - the acculturation or indoctrination he urged one to escape - or would he have reinterpreted them in light of his philosophy?
Here's my attempt at reinterpretation:
Here's the three:
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν "Know thyself"
Μηδὲν ἄγαν "Nothing too much"
Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ατα "Give a pledge and trouble is at hand"
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν "Know thyself"
This one is easy, in my opinion. Epicurus taught his students to use their feelings of pleasure and pain to guide their choices. We need to assess consequences that our choices may have on us. How else is one to do this than to know yourself, know how you react in situations, pay attention to what you're really feeling, and so on. I see no real trouble in accepting "Know thyself" in an Epicurean context.
Μηδὲν ἄγαν "Nothing too much"
I also think this maxim *can* be incorporated into an Epicurean context, but carefully. Epicurus constantly wrote about limits and that we should pay attention to them. He did not advocate mediocrity or asceticism but did talk about choosing the "best" as opposed to the "most." "Nothing too much" seems a better interpretation/translation than "Everything in moderation." The maxim is negative (nothing) not positive (everything).
Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ατα "Give a pledge and trouble is at hand"
I've seen this referred to as the forgotten maxim as well as it having multiple translations due to the ambiguity of εγγύα. Various meanings are:
"pledge, surety, security, whether received or given; betrothal, contract for a future marriage." The idea seems to be making an obligation to another person, being required to do something. To me, this hints at Epicurus's aversion to necessity. We are not - and should not - be bound by necessity when it is possible to make a decision not to be subject to necessity: κακὸν ἀνάγκη, ἀλλʼ οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη ζῆν μετὰ ἀνάγκης. "Being constrained in our choices is bad, but we are not constrained to live constrained in our choices." (my translation of VS9) If we want to help a friend, our friend should be safe in the knowledge that we would help them. No pledges or surety required.
Those are some thoughts off the top of my head. I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on these or any of those 147 maxims from the "Seven Sages" (see the Wikipedia link above)
However, didn't Philodemus also encourage his readers to get back to the books? I need to delve back into that work of his.
This is what I was looking for...
ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐγνωσμένος ἢ καὶ διιστορη̣μένος ὑ̣π’ ἡμῶν, ὃς καί φησι εἶν̣[α]ι̣ ὁ̣ γνήσιος ἀναγνώ̣[σ]τ̣ης ἐ̣π̣ὶ γραφὰς [ἐγλεκ]τὰς κα[ὶ πλ]ήθη συγγρ̣α̣[μμ]άτων, κἂν βάλ̣ηι̣ [γ]ε̣ [κα]λῶς, ἀνείληφε πολ[λὰ]ς̣ ἐγλογὰς καὶ τῶν μ[ὲ]ν̣ ἐπὶ μέρους διανο[η]μάτων ἀπειρότατός ἐστιν. ἃ δὲ προστάττεται ποι̣εῖν, ἐπὶ κεφάλαι[α βλέ]πει, καθάπερ ὃν λ[έγου]σιν ἐκ βυβλίου κυβ[ερνήτ]η̣ν̣ καὶ διὰ παντ[ός - - -]
...
ἀλλὰ τὸ σχετλιώτατ̣ο̣[ν] ἐκεῖν̓ ἐστὶν̣ [ἐ]πὶ τοῖς πλείοσιν τῶν Ἐπικουρείων ὃ τὴν ἐν τοῖς βυβλί[ο]ις ἀ[νε]ν̣εργησίαν ἀπαραίτητο[ν ποιεῖ...]
He who claims to know us and to be instructed by us, who claims to be a genuine reader of various writings and of complete books, even if he says something correctly, he has only memorized various quotations and does not know the multitude of our thoughts. What he has to do, he looks up in summaries, like people who believe that they [can learn to be] steersman from books and [can cross every ocean].
...
but the most shocking thing of most Epicureans is the unforgivable inactivity in regards to the books...
Here's some commentary from Hiram on PHerc 1005 (primarily using the translation and commentary in Les Epicuriens):
This may be relevant:
However, didn't Philodemus also encourage his readers to get back to the books? I need to delve back into that work of his.
Having mentioned Long & Sedley again, I'll repost the link to Internet Archive. Highly encourage a free account there to "check out" books.
The section on gods begins on p. 139 with the commentary I summarized starts at the bottom of p. 144:
As I understand it, current scholarly consensus is that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd c BCE as if it was written in the 6th c BCE. All the predictions are "accurate" because the author was simply relating known historical facts. As a summary, from Wikipedia:
Dating
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.
Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.
I see that "bitter gift" referred to on this Jehovah's Witness site:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1997805
"Lacking “the joy of Jehovah,” Epicurus called life a “bitter gift.” (Nehemiah 8:10)"
And then other sites quote the letter to Menoikeus about the pleasures of the profligate. But nowhere does Epicurus call life a *bitter gift*... Nowhere! It's frustrating that it appears so widespread online!!
