Posts by Don

That Obbink footnote also references Cicero's De Finibus, I.62, as another instance where the Tetrapharmakos is restated or paraphrased (emphasis mine):

Quote

The conclusion is that no foolish man can be happy, nor any wise man fail to be happy. This is a truth that we establish far more conclusively than do the Stoics. For they maintain that nothing is good save that vague phantom which they entitle Moral Worth, a title more splendid than substantial; and say that Virtue resting on this Moral Worth has no need of pleasure, but is herself her own sufficient happiness. 62 "At the same time this Stoic doctrine can be stated in a form which we do not object to, and indeed ourselves endorse. For Epicurus thus presents his Wise Man who is always happy: his desires are kept within bounds; death he disregards; he has a true conception, untainted by fear, of the Divine nature; he does not hesitate to depart from life, if that would better his condition. Thus equipped he enjoys perpetual pleasure, for there is no moment when the pleasures he experiences do not outbalance the pains; since he remembers the past with gratitude, grasps the present with a full realization of its pleasantness, and does not rely upon the future; he looks forward to it, but finds his true enjoyment in the present. Also he is entirely free from the vices that I instanced a few moments ago, and he derives no inconsiderable pleasure from comparing his own existence with the life of the foolish. More, any pains that the Wise Man may encounter are never so severe but that he has more cause for gladness than for sorrow.

In a footnote in Obbink's Philodemus On Piety, Obbink mentions the Tetrapharmakos' restatement/paraphrase in PHerc 1251 Col 4. I haven't had a chance to attack a translation yet but wanted to get this here while it was fresh. PHerc 1251 is Philodemus's On Choices and Avoidances (to give it the traditional title). I've italicized a few words that appear common to the original in PHerc 1005:

http://papyri.info/dclp/62463

Philodemus , De electionibus et fugis

Content: Philodemus; peri haireseon kai phygon (on choices and rejections), with end title

P.Herc. 1251 col. 4

Engraved 1840-1844 by Raffaele Biondi

καὶ [τὸ κ]ακ̣ὸ[ν οὐ] μό̣νο[ν ἔ-]

χον̣ ὅ̣[ρ]ους [κατ]ὰ̣ τὸ μέγε̣θ̣ος

καὶ κατὰ [τὸν] χρόνον, ἀλλὰ

καὶ εὐεκκα[ρτ]ακ(*)ητον, ἐπει-

5 δήπερ οὐδ[ὲ]ν̣ ὄφελος ὡ[ρίσθ]αι

μέν, ἡμῖν δ̣' [ἄκ]τητον ἢ δ[ύσ-]

κτητον ε[ἶναι] τἀγαθόν, ἢ [πε-]

περάνθα[ι μέ]ν, ἀνεγκαρτέ-

ρητον δ' [εἶν]αι διὰ τὴ[ν πο-]

10 λυχρονιότ[ητ]α τὸ κακόν· πε-

ριγίνεται γὰρ ἐκ τῶν γνώσε-

ων τούτων τό τε μηθὲν δι-

ώκειν ὃ μὴ πέφυκεν ἀλγη-

δόνα περιαιρεῖν, οἷα τὰ πλεῖσ-

15τα τῶν κατεσπουδασμέν[ων]

ἐστὶν παρ' ἀνθρώποις, μή[τε]

φεύγειν ὃ μὴ κωλύει τ[ὴν ἡ-]

δονὴν ἔχειν, οἷ(*)α τὰ πλεῖσ[τ]α

τῶν ἐν προκοπῆι δεῖ ν[οῆσαι·]

20 κ̣αὶ πάλ̣ιν πρὸς μηδεο̣[ ̣ ̣]ς

The book is searchable here. I suggest trying "easily" and "Col. IV" as here "good" and "attain" which will give a snippet of translation of Col. IV:

"It is just as well that we know that the good is not only limited in magnitude but also is easy to attain) and that the bad not only had limits in magnitude and time, but also is easy to bear; for otherwise it would be of no use that the good should be limited but impossible or difficult for us to attain, or ..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=yDI_A…involume&q=good

This doesn't affect the content of the treatise but looking through the introductory material I came across this:

The author and title in the physical scroll are designated at the end only by:

Φ---

Π---

That's it. Just the first letters are left.

The title is taken to be Π[ΕΡΙ ΕΥΣΈΒΕΙΑΣ] since the extant line right before the title and author lines describes the treatise as a ΛΟΓΟΣ logos (treatise) on ΕΥΣΈΒΕΙΑ (piety).

BUT!

Obbink says it's just as likely that the author of On Piety is Φ[ΑΙΔΡΟΥ] Phaedrus as it is Φ[ΙΛΟΔΕΜΟΥ] Philodemus!! Obbink says he uses "Philodemus" throughout his work as a convention only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_…ean?wprov=sfla1 I wonder if this could be Phaedrus's On the Gods that Cicero requested or at least a related treatise

That authorship mystery took me completely by surprise so I had to share.

(Note: I'm going to start just using Σ and σ/ς for sigma (Latin letter S s) instead of the C c that I was using earlier because it's easier to type on the keyboard I'm using. C c is a later Greek/Hellenistic letterform for sigma, Σ σ/ς are the older and traditional forms. C c is used in the scroll. Just wanted to be sure to have full disclosure.)

I think it's also important to look at the actual word that Philodemus uses in his title:

ΕΥCΕΒΕΙΑ (eusebeia)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…ntry=eu)se/beia

Yes, the convenient single word English translation is "piety" but LSJ also gives the fuller "reverence towards the gods or parents, piety or filial respect."

Related to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=eu)sebh/s

I get the sense that it implies an obligation (providing what is due to someone, e.g., taxes to the emperor)

I don't want to get into the trap that we get fixated on the English without examining what word Philodemus uses... AND when that word is extant, or lightly missing a letter or two but easily read, or completely missing and added in by scholars from context (and makes sense) or added in by scholars blue-skying it. When we have the ancient words, it behooves us to dig into those. THAT'S what Philodemus said, and to quote Dr Seuss, we have to assume he said what he meant and meant what he said.

I've seen it simply referred to as either the papyrus no. "P.Herc 1005" or the partial title in Greek "Pros Tous..." The thing about the Greek ΠΡΟC (pros) is that it can mean either "against x" or "(addressed) to x" when followed by the accusative case (which is the case that the plural article ΤΟΥC "the" is in) See Section C in this definition from LSJ for all the potential accusative meanings:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…057:entry=pro/s

Skimming through on a Friday night. Reading the actual text translations and a little commentary. First impressions:

Fascinating but fragmentary.

Still enough continuous text to be understandable in parts.

Jury still out on idealist vs realist debate; have to dig in on that

Overall organization of Philodemus's On Piety:

1. Arguments for the gods

2. Observance of cult and ritual (This section was especially interesting and unexpected)

3. Harms and benefits from the gods

4. The origin of atheism and justice

There followed criticism of poets and mythographers and then Philosophers representations of the gods.

This isn't easy going. Dense and footnote-filled. But a pleasurable experience so far! More to come...

Quote from JJElbert

Book XI - Convivial and Satirical Epigrams

No. 50 - Automedon

Quote

"Blest is he first who owes naught to anyone, next he who never married, and thirdly he who is childless. But if a man be mad enough to marry, it is a blessing for him if he buries his wife at once after getting a handsome dowry. Knowing this, be wise, and leave Epicurus to enquire in vain where is the void and what are the atoms."

Translated W. R. Paton

Display More

While I don't endorse the overall sentiment in any way (for the record), I find it interesting that "blest" is used to translate the first word Ευδαίμων Eudaimōn (i.e., Eudaimonia).

Quote from JJElbert

Book VII - Sepulchral Epigrams

No. 72 - Menander

Quote

On Epicurus and Themistocles

"Hail, ye twin-born sons of Neocles, of whom the one saved his country from slavery the other from folly."

Translated W. R. Paton

Display More

One thing that struck me here was the Νεοκλειδα Neocleida "twin-born sons of Neocles" (both their fathers were named Neocles). This echoes the designation of Agamemnon and Menelaus as the Atreidai "two sons of Atreus" in the Iliad. Neocleida is simply in the vocative dual case of address as in "O sons pair of Neocles!"

Joshua what a service you're providing by posting all these! I just made it through all your current threads. I was going to like and thank every one, but I thought that might be overkill. Please take this post as a virtual pan-thank-you! I especially appreciate your including the original texts!! I may go through and pick out a few favorite lines or words. For example, line 3 has εικαδα δειπνιζων (eikada deipnizōn) is "the feast of the twentieth". The fact that it's the ενιαυσιον"annual" is a little surprising but maybe they had one big one a year where everyone was invited in addition to monthly smaller events.

Check out what came in on interlibrary loan this afternoon! I'll share thoughts etc on this thread. Stay tuned...

I don't think you're doing it, but I don't think it's fair to slight the Tetrapharmakos itself for it's being misused.

I still maintain it's a nice direct link for modern "practicing" Epicureans back to our classical forebears.

Consider ο θεός in this case to read "the divine" as in "that which is blessed and incorruptible."

The tetrapharmakos uses singular ο θεός (the) god but I wouldn't read monotheism into this. That's a regular construction in ancient Greek. The singular can be used to refer to gods/deity in a general sense. There is definitely no "implicit approval of monotheism" implied her

Yes, getting a look at Sbordone would be nice but I would rather see Angeli: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/800107647

Sbordone tries to say the title of PHerc 1005 is Pros Tous Sophistas "Against the Sophists" but he is blue-skying that last word. The final word of the title on the papyrus is missing, torn off. All that's there is Pros Tous... ΠΡΟC ΤΟΥC... "Against/To The..." To imply otherwise is disingenuous. Angeli leaves the title alone if I remember correctly. That's why I'm a little mistrustful of Sbordone.

So it seems to me that, according to that article:

1. The tetrapharmakos is a legitimate, authentic Epicurean epitome.
2. It could be used for several purposes including instruction for those who didn't have the time or education to study the full texts themselves.
3. It could also be used by more scholarly students of the philosophy to keep key points more readily at hand and to serve as "une invitation à la réflexion et au calcul" an invitation to reflection and calculation. (I think they're referring to the calculation of "choices and rejections.")
4. That being said, Philodemus definitely advocated study of the actual texts was the best course of action in studying the philosophy.

I literally just found this. It looks promising if you can read French:

https://journals.openedition.org/philosant/3044?lang=en

One can also run it through Google Translate it you're using Chrome.

Sorry. Some confusion on my part. It's actually the one right above the image you clipped.

column 5 P.Herc. 1005 col. 4

(I think it's just a transcription vs physical scroll numbering thing)

The Tetrapharmakos starts on line 8 there.

You'll see the word itself half on line 8, ending in line 9:

μένο̣[ν] ἡ τετραφάρμα- (menon hē tetrapharma-)
κος· 'ἄφοβον ὁ θεός, (kos; "aphobon ho theos,...)

I'm going to try and puzzle through the immediate context of those surrounding lines and columns. Don't expect anything for a little while but I'll keep y'all posted.

The Tetrapharmakos appears in Column V... Of course, that's not one the article translates!

But I did find the transcription of the entire PHerc 1005! http://papyri.info/dclp/62437

Philodemus, Against/To the ... (Πρὸς τοὺς [ – ], P.Herc. 1005) has been translated/edited at least twice into Italian:

1. Francesco Sbordone. Philodemi Adversus [Sophistas] e Papyro Herculanensi 1005 (Naples: L. Loffredo, 1947)
2. Anna Angeli. Filodemo, Agli Amici di Scuola (PHerc. 1005) (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1988).

See also https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-ep…rmakos.html?m=1 where the Tetrapharmakos and its context are on p.87 of Sbordone.

Hiram appears to be referencing Les Epicureans again in his post on P. Herc 1005. And that French work appears to include a translation so I'm inclined to accept his take although it would be nice to see his source (even if I don't read French).

I also found an article in Italian that discussed P.Herc 1005 (attached). I ran the Italian sections from the manuscript through Google Translate:

Col. II
<I therefore agree, as I said at the beginning, on the fact that among those who want epicurean passphrases some say and write many things with material affirmed from various parts and many personal things in disagreement with respect to the content of the writings of the school and some things that are detached from those writes superficially and hastily. But I'll make a distinction between the things said by them. If indeed ...>

Col. III
This is not possible at all, unless even the things that all those who entered the sect after Ermarco did, someone present wanted and done in the same way, a sosa that will not be able to prove, I believe, before men are all black and small and misshapen. But if they did not take the name of Epicureans in conformity with those who wrote the dondamenral books, they are not worthy of this name>. >>

Col. VII
<If we call them by the names of wise men in general, we do not descend from those who have become worthy of memory and gritudine, not for some, but for all, and this we do not wish that it will happen to some of our friends, but we turn the disease towards the wild goats. If, on the other hand, one calls with these names and other similar ones the one who has learned to understand by method what is found in the books of the Masters in order to contribute something in a single point regarding those books, they are not wise but unworthy of that denomination. >>

Col. XII
<< ... with a comparison through the juxtaposition of his phrases in other places and in the first book of the Aristaia (?), he who was proud to have put together the documents found in Epicurus and who judged this, as it actually is , superior in all expressions to the 'moderns' and thought that a very serious injustice would be claimed against him, indeed an act of impiety performed, if ... >>

Col. XV
<< ... so that even in the most varied ways they start to defame the ways of life, both the procurement of friends and the relationships of love and the single companions, as if they had not read the precepts of the school, having to perčsJmpio themî € considered enemies both if they have become completely evil (among those completely devoid of philosophical education not many are balanced people) as if they are good (even among those who follow other schools or who deserted), without spreading slander or causing harm. >>

Col. XIX
<< and for Zeus we on the one hand defend ourselves by opposing ourselves without giving in, on the other we discover that we are writing dispassionately about ways of living.That was not the first behavior held by the first philosophies that, when they become familiar with those they fall into error by mistake on their own or in the company of others, they do not remain attached to them and neither, when they come across irreconcilable people of the external world, do we clearly demonstrate.

Col. XX
<< ... also with regard to the reading and writing of books he can closely follow those (the Masters) and he does not judge as evil that kind of writings on which we are investigating; therefore whoever violates the measure in excess or in defect and behaves inappropriately in fundamental things will be classified as incompetent in relation to the whole discipline. And I to those who have lain as incompetent and who are discovered as such <I will never cease to resist.

I'll reply more fully later, but the Tetrapharmakos is contained in P.Herc 1005, column V.

Here is a page I just found from Hiram:

https://societyofepicurus.com/on-philodemus-scroll-1005/

He says: Philodemus is aware of the utility of summaries and outlines, and in fact not only is he (and/or his Scholarch Zeno of Sidon) responsible for the shortened formulation known as the Tetrapharmakos (Four Cures), but he also instructs his students to write outlines of the doctrines on wealth. So he is making full use of these outlines and summaries (also known as Epitomes) in his own method of teaching, and yet he also instructs his students to delve into the sources and read the books. So he is NOT telling people to avoid the use of outlines–he would not have forbidden a practice that he himself engaged in. What he was saying is that the outlines are tools for memorizing and learning, not an excuse to neglect our philosophical studies.

One of the reasons I like the Tetrapharmakos is because it's short and easy to memorize in ancient Greek. I find myself reciting it regularly throughout the day.

But another reason I like it is because it challenges me. Is pain *really* easy to endure? Do I believe that? Is pleasure easy to procure? Do I *really* believe - accept - that there's nothing to fear from the gods? That being dead *does* come with no risk? It brings these tenets up to consciousness and makes me confront my doubts and ingrained beliefs.