Posts by Don

The manner of our death seems to be one of those things not under our control:

Quote

Letter to Menoikeus, DL, X: 127: Remember that what will be is not completely within our control nor completely outside our control, so that we will not completely expect it to happen nor be completely disappointed if it does not happen.

That being said, we can exercise which may lead to a longer life. We can eat properly and drink alcohol moderately who may lead to a longer life. But there are no guarantees. However, if we live wisely, justly, and nobly, we will at least have a better chance of living a longer healthy life before we die.

Quote from Godfrey

As far as thinking about death goes, to me that would only apply to thinking about a good death... I can't imagine finding pleasure in visualizing being eaten by a tiger.

Ah, but even that death should be mitigated by the knowledge that pain is either chronic and endurable or short and fatal... At least theoretically according to PD4

Quote from Cassius

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you probably mean "if we can find pleasure even in THINKING ABOUT death....."??

That was how I interpreted Godfrey 's post.

For me, "death is nothing to us," means there really is no "state of being dead" - we longer exist and therefore "we" can't be said to exist in a certain "state." We can certainly be "dying" but we can't really be said to "be dead." After we die, we can't be said "to be" anything. We have ceased to exist.

Here's my *very* literal translation of section 126 of the Letter to Menoikeus that seems to talk about what you're proposing:

Then the wise one neither begs/craves for living nor fears not living; Neither to set oneself against living, nor to think/suppose/imagine that it is evil to not live. Just as, on the one hand, the most food is not chosen but that which brings the greatest pleasure; as well as, on the other hand, not the longest time but that in which one enjoys the fruits of that which brings the greatest pleasure. Then, the one who exhorts (on the one hand) for the one who is young to live nobly, and, on the other hand, the one who is old to come to an end (die) nobly is a good-hearted simpleton not only because life is to be welcomed, but also because the practice of living well/nobly/beautifully (καλώς) and (the practice of) dying well/nobly/beautifully (καλώς) are the same. And also far worse (is) the one who says, on the one hand, it is good/kalōn (καλός) not to be born, or "failing this, to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible."

(Last part is a quote from Theognis. See the full poem in his Wikipedia article.)

These are great ideas, Godfrey ! I'm reminded of our conversation from a ways back on the forum on related topics.

The only way to figure out what could be the correct one is to:

1. see if there's room for one or two letters if there's a missing piece of the manuscript: ΜΗ(Ν) vs ΜΗ(ΔΕ).

2. If there's not a lacuna, compare ALL the extant manuscripts and calculate where and how the are differences.

If it's the latter, Userner seems to have examined the manuscripts or at least authoritative copies.

If the former, you're right in that one's positive or negative disposition may influence seeing ΜΗΝ or ΜΗΔΕ.

To try to steer this back to the original question in a roundabout way: I'm leaning toward accepting the Greek text which Bailey provides in his Epicurus: The Extant Remains: https://archive.org/details/Bailey…e/n160/mode/1up After looking at some commentary online on the most trustworthy Diogenes Laertius manuscripts as well as the prefatory commentary in Bailey regarding Usener's scholarship in comparing and "correcting" said manuscripts, it seems to me that Bailey is on solid ground. So, until Sedley gives a full translation of DL Book X, I'm going to use Bailey as my source text.

I bring this up because the Greek section(s) in the Oxford Arundel manuscript of DL do not match the sections in the Perseus online edition. So, I felt I needed some authoritative edition. For now, I'm going with Bailey. When I was recently trying to puzzle out the meaning in the "pleasure at other's misfortune" thread, I can't across this discrepancy between Arundel and Usener/Bailey.

So, what does Bailey say about the marriage question?

One of the key relevant passages is at the start of "verse" 119 in Laertius:

Perseus/Hicks: [119] Καὶ μηδὲ καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ταῖς Διαπορίαις καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ φύσεως. κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν

Usener/Bailey: [119] Καὶ μην καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ταῖς Διαπορίαις καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ φύσεως. κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν

The only difference is that Hicks' 2nd word is μηδέ and Usener's is μήν.

Hicks' μηδέ "(connecting two clauses, used with the same constructions as μή (mḗ)) but not, and not, nor"

which seems to me we would have to look at the preceding phrase and connect it to this one.

Usener's μήν on the other hand is:

"used to strengthen statements: verily, surely, truly, definitely (after other particles)

(καὶ μήν) used to introduce something new or convey affirmation"

Hicks' is negative, Usener's is positive, and this is born out on their translations:

Hicks': "Nor, again, will the wise man marry and rear a family : so Epicurus says in the Problems and in the De Natura. Occasionally he may marry owing to special circumstances in his life."

Usener/Bailey: "Moreover, the wise man will marry and raise children..."

Whether or not Epicurus advocated marriage and childrearing depends on the presence or absence of -δε or -ν after μη-. I would dearly like to see images of the manuscripts, but without that we have to decide which scholar we're going to trust. I think I trust Usener/Bailey on the Greek.

All that being said though, Bailey's English translation doesn't make any sense!...

"Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in the Problems and in the work on Nature. But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life."

Saying "he will marry... But he will marry..." However, **maybe** he will marry but he will marry according to certain circumstances NOT due to compulsion or cultural convention??

Quote from Cassius

And I agree we do want to live a "wise" life because we don't place wisdom as a goal in itself, but employ it among the most valuable tools we can have to pursue our goal (happiness/pleasure) as successfully as possible.

Amen! (We need an Epicurean equivalent of that )* Practical, sensible wisdom - phronimos - is one of the three characteristics Epicurus singles out for living a pleasurable life in PD5

*The closest we seem to come is Παιὰν ἄναξ Paian anax.

Quote from Cassius

How would you apply this to the "4th leg" Don?

Oh, just that it may not be as big of a controversy as we are taking it. If the Epicureans were primarily in agreement, as this text seems to say, maybe we (and DL) are reading more into that than is necessary. Maybe there's some way to reconcile it without seeing it as a schism in the school.

From my perspective, I think we've cracked the meaning of that phrase which on first impression seemed to have a negative connotation. We take pleasure in escaping the misfortune experienced by others, not in their misfortune itself. We also need to learn from that misfortune "for our own correction." How can we apply what we learn from seeing others' misfortune in our own lives to be not at the mercy of Fortune? If we don't apply it, we are not leading a "wise" life.

How's that?

Hmmm... After reading the ancient source text (Thanks, Cassius !!), Frischer seems to me to be going off on a DeWittean historical fiction flight of fancy. He wants to write a good story, but I don't see his conclusion supported by the ancient text itself.

That said, I found the ancient text fascinating! Certainly sets up a contrast with the Stoics, and puts that "controversy" with the "4th leg of the Canon" into a different context, too.

Quote from Marco

He finds very little of the marriage of romantic love to the Greeks and Romans.

I certainly think this is the case for Marriage as the institution, but I also think there is plenty of evidence for relationships based on what we would recognize as romantic love. Not the least of which is Pericles and Aspasia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspasia?wprov=sfla1

Or Metrodorus and Leontion who conceivably could have been the mother of his son and daughter.

I'm not convinced at all that romantic love was created in the Middle Ages. Too much evidence in ancient sources, to me, points to the contrary.

Maybe that's why marriage isn't necessarily promoted? Love outside marriage - in their view - had the potential for more mutual pleasure??

But what does it mean for the wise man "to turn aside from his purpose" and decide to marry? Is he turning away from seeking pleasure? I find that hard to believe. Or is he postponing his own pleasure to marry and raise a family? Or...? I'm genuinely confused about what this could mean. Cassius gives some good ideas on the purpose, but what does it mean to turn away from one's purpose in this characteristic of the wise one?

Quote from A_Gardner

The wise man will not marry UNLESS social convention demands it so."

The actual word used is διατραπήσεσθαί "to turn away from one's purpose." (infinitive future passive) but this brings more questions. The wise man will not marry unless he turns aside from his purpose. What's the wise man's purpose? Purpose isn't in the word itself but implied in the definition. That's the meaning in the passive sense: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…y%3Ddiatre%2Fpw

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

This is a *perfect* example of the hazards of reading only *one* translation of an ancient text (or, in fact, any non-English original text in translation).

As another example, I'm still trying to determine whether Epicurus wanted me to get married or not!

That is an excellent example. Here's my take: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…l-relationships

I like your way of thinking, @Nate ! We can take pleasure in learning from others mistakes "for setting right" our own choices without taking pleasure in the actual misfortune of others. Learn by observation but not Schadenfreude.

The word at the end of the Greek being translated "wish, etc" doesn't seem to have any sense of fortune or luck:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=eu)/xomai

It means wish for, long for, prayed for, etc. St Andres and similar translations seem to be spot on.

Quote from Godfrey

Not knowing Greek, I'm focused on "but only for his correction." A related sentiment might be:

VS74: "In a scholarly debate, he who loses gains more because he has learned something."

Excellent observation, Godfrey !!

http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/dl/dl10.html

Oh! Now this is interesting!! This Greek text (based on Long, it looked like) refers to Usener fragments!

καὶ ἐπιχαρήσεσθαί (fg. 592 Us.) τινι ἐπὶ τῷ διορθώματι

LOL! Usener fragment 592 just lists this line from Diogenes Laertius! So, DL *is* the source for this line.

However, Usener didn't include the part about the ruler μόναρχον in fragment 592. He put that as fragment 577. So, I'm not sure where Yonge is getting his interpretation.

Well, this is interesting:

Yonge translates that line in combination with the preceding one:

Quote

he will propitiate an absolute ruler when occasion requires, and will humor him for the sake of correcting his habits;

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/diogene…ok-10#part-10-1

Skeptical of this, but this adds even more ambiguity to the question.

https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manusc…es_laertius.htm That's an interesting article on the manuscripts and printed editions of DL's Lives.

This is a *perfect* example of the hazards of reading only *one* translation of an ancient text (or, in fact, any non-English original text in translation).