Posts by Don

From my perspective, it is problematic to assign the gods the activity of maintaining their "incorruptibility" through their actions. That implies to me that if they, for some reason, fail to maintain themselves that would be a source of anxiety for the gods. They would have to remain vigilant every minute, maintaining, checking, working to keep balance in their atoms, or some such thing. That seems incompatible with Epicurus's whole definition of divinity. To me this excerpt from Diogenes Laertius implies that not only do the gods not experience an increase in pleasure but they do not experience any decrease as well. If their "incorruptibility" aspect dips a little and they have to maintain it, that implies a decrease in pleasure as well.

Quote from Diogenes Laertius 10.121

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. (Yonge)

[121] Τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν διχῆ νοεῖσθαι, τήν τε ἀκροτάτην, οἵα ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν θεόν, ἐπίτασιν οὐκ ἔχουσαν: καὶ τὴν <κατὰ τὴν> προσθήκην καὶ ἀφαίρεσιν ἡδονῶν.

VS33 also says "The body cries out to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold. Anyone who has these things, and who is confident of continuing to have them, can rival the gods for happiness." To me, a god would not have a body that cries out to not be incorruptible. I suppose someone could counter that the gods are "confident of continuing" to be incorruptible.

The paper by Geeta Raghunanan provides an interesting solution to the incorruptible seen as eternal issue:

“Imperishability” as Immunity to Moral Corruption: A Response to the Problem of the Imperishability of the Epicurean Gods (Presentation for the CPA Annual Congress 2014)

“Imperishability” as Immunity to Moral Corruption: A Response to the Problem of the Imperishability of the Epicurean Gods (Presentation for the CPA Annual…

www.academia.edu

Quote

I contend that they may be imperishable; that is, the Epicurean gods may be destined to dissolution and yet be imperishable in the sense that they are impervious to decay or corruption, particularly, what might be termed moral decay or moral corruption. ... But I emphasize “moral corruption” or “moral decay” also to incorporate Epicurean descriptions of the gods that seem to suggest that imperishability might in fact have meant to the Epicureans imperviousness to moral corruption. ... it is possible
to maintain that given an Epicurean physical theory and the doctrine that all compounds will dissolve, the Epicurean gods, as compounds, are yet still imperishable in the sense that they are morally incorruptible.

This appeals to me - if I were to accept the idea that the Epicureans thought of the gods as living beings. One of my main objections to "god as living being" vs "god as conceptual metaphor" is that I can't reconcile Epicurus's foresight and critical thinking with believing in a physical god... However, Raghunanan narrowing of αφθαρτον to "incorruptible" ie "not able to be corrupted, from a moral/ethical perspective" - with the understanding that the gods will eventually physically decay due to their being material compound beings is enticing. And, if the gods do die, it would be nothing to them as they have lived in the midst of unceasing pleasure.

Things to think about for me at least.

123f. ἐναργὴς γαρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ γνῶσις.

Here's our δέ "on the other hand."

ἐναργὴς [δέ] ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις

"And the knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις (gnōsis)) of them (θεοί "gods", note the plural here) is ἐναργὴς." But what does ἐναργὴς mean?

LSJ provides two primary definitions:

visible, palpable, in bodily shape, properly of gods appearing in their own forms (in Homer); so of a dream or vision; ex., ἐναργὴς ταῦρος "in visible form a bull, a very bull"

manifest to the mind's eye, distinct

Epicurus can't mean the first meaning since he's adamant that the gods don't interact with humans. But the second definition coincides with his contention (and the idea of the prolepsis of the gods) that the gods are apprehended by the mind only. In first Principal Doctrine's scholia (i.e., a note added to the text by a later author), we read τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς "the gods are conceived of through contemplation by reasoning." We don't - can't! - see the Epicurean gods with our physical eyes as Homer describes seeing the Olympian gods "in visible form." Homer's gods were εναργής in one sense of the word; Epicurus's in the other sense. The truth of the gods' existence in Epicurus's philosophy takes place entirely in our minds by reasoning through their existence by means of contemplation. But through that contemplation, Epicurus asserts that their existence is εναργής "clearly discernible to us / manifest to us in our minds."

This emphasis on contemplation is interesting in light of the characteristic of the Epicurean sage in Diogenes Laertius Book X.30: μᾶλλόν τε εὐφρανθήσεσθαι τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις. I continue to maintain that "in contemplation" is the best translation of ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις for this characteristic of the sage: "The sage will also enjoy themselves more than others in contemplation, speculation, and theorizing." Many translators see this as referring to state festivals and spectacles. I've explored the use of the word elsewhere in Diogenes Laertius' work as well as in Aristotle online. https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…tion?authuser=0 If the gods are "manifest" in contemplation, this seems consistent with that characteristic of an Epicurean sage.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to resolve our problem with puzzling out how a god is a ζώον. Are they physically-existent material beings? Are they existing only as mental perceptions manifest merely to the mind's eye? The ambiguous nature of εναργής doesn't necessarily help us fully. It does, however, set up some of Epicurus's clever wordplay contrasting his view with Homer's.

Thanks, TauPhi , for the citation. I did have On Nature 14 as part of my review of Les Epicuriens that I checked out of the library on interlibrary loan. Here's my rough translation from the French, but we'll need to march this up to the Greek, too. This rough draft just happened to be sitting in my Google Drive:

[34 : p. 19 Leone: (29.22)]. [those] who specify a particular form belonging to fire, earth, water or air, are more ridiculous than those who, without specifying any, according to the juxtapositions, willy-nilly, that certain particular species of forms arise, which correspond to each of the associations which one could call substantial (for some are mistaken on the subject of the elements); but in speaking thus, they would say something that is more in line with these. And generally also they [introduce ?] differences in mixtures, and...

π̣[υρ]ὸς ἢ γῆς ἢ ὕδατος ἢ̣ [ἀ]έ̣ρος

Fire or earth or water or air

γελοιότεροί something like "those who are to be laughed at", ultimately from γελάω "laugh" but meaning more like ludicrous, absurd; mirth-provoking, amusing. Maybe in the spirit of the "laughing philosophers"?

For a start:

Ionia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chios is the same place as referenced in Philodemus' invitation to Piso for the Twentieth with "Chian wine", wine produced in Chios Βρομίου χιογενῆ.

Chian wine - Wikipedia

Metrodorus was not an uncommon name.

On Metrodorus of Chios:

Aetius (philosopher) - Wikipedia

Quote from Cassius

"teacher of Epicurean philosophy."

That makes the most sense.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

αὔριον εἰς λιτήν σε καλιάδα, φίλτατε Πείσων,

ἐξ ἐνάτης ἕλκει μουσοφιλὴς ἕταρος,

εἰκάδα δειπνίζων ἐνιαύσιον: εἰ δ᾽ ἀπολείψεις

οὔθατα καὶ Βρομίου χιογενῆ πρόποσιν,

ἀλλ᾽ ἑτάρους ὄψει παναληθέας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπακούσῃ

Φαιήκων γαίης πουλὺ μελιχρότερα:

ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων,

ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.

Display More

Don English translation?

Display More

It's Philodemus' epigram invitation to Piso to attend the Twentieth at Philodemus self+described καλιάς "hut, wooden dwelling." Metaphorically, it can refer to a bird's nest or can refer to a shrine.

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.

Philodemus: Epigrams - translation

αὔριον εἰς λιτήν σε καλιάδα, φίλτατε Πείσων,

ἐξ ἐνάτης ἕλκει μουσοφιλὴς ἕταρος,

εἰκάδα δειπνίζων ἐνιαύσιον: εἰ δ᾽ ἀπολείψεις

οὔθατα καὶ Βρομίου χιογενῆ πρόποσιν,

ἀλλ᾽ ἑτάρους ὄψει παναληθέας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπακούσῃ

Φαιήκων γαίης πουλὺ μελιχρότερα:

ἢν δέ ποτε στρέψῃς καὶ ἐς ἡμέας ὄμματα, Πείσων,

ἄξομεν ἐκ λιτῆς εἰκάδα πιοτέρην.

I also want to say that I don't think we're trying to rationalize or water down or make excuses for Epicurus on this. I'm including both the 4th line of the tetrapharmakos AND PD04 in this. Epicurus was neither stupid nor naive. But if even Cicero can give criticism that makes one go "Hmmm, he's not entirely wrong here" it deserves some digging into the meaning.

I wanted to add, after my lengthy digressions, a short appreciation of the chance to discuss this. I assume most people will read "easily" and dismiss Epicurus as out of touch and irrelevant. Here we have the opportunity to wrestle with, discuss, bounce ideas off each other.

So, thank you to the community, to the existence of the forum, to Cassius for being the "founder of this feast".

Quote from Godfrey

The big criticism of PD04 is that it takes severe circumstances too lightly. Chronic long-term illness, terminal illness: these must be boldly met.

I've tried to rationalize PD04 in the past as "Epicurus was writing in a different time. Wounds or illnesses that would be curable now were fatal back then. PD just needs updating to our time.... Etc." But if I remember correctly, even Cicero had the same criticism we do of the sentiments of PD04:

2.29.94 On Ends: As for your maxim that severe pain is short and prolonged pain light, I cannot make out what it may mean. For I see pains that are at once severe and considerably prolonged; and the truer way to endure them is the other method, which you who do not love moral worth for its own sake are not able to employ. Courage has its precepts and its rules, rules of constraining force, that forbid a man to show womanish weakness in pain. Hence it must be considered a disgrace, I do not say to feel pain (that is sometimes inevitable), but that 'rock of Lemnos to outrage' with the cries of a Philoctetes,

Till the dumb stones utter a voice of weeping,

Echoing his wails and plaints, his sighs and groanings.

Let Epicurus soothe with his spells, if he can, the man whose

Veins and vitals, from the viper's fang

Envenom'd, throb with pangs of anguish dire

in this way: 'Philoctetes! If pain is severe, it is short.' Oh, but he has been languishing in his cave for these ten years past. "If it is long, it is light: for it grants intervals of respite.' In the first place, this is not often the case; and secondly, what is the good of a respite embittered by recent pain still fresh in memory, and tormented by fear of pain impending in the future? Let him die, says Epicurus. Perhaps that were the best course, but what becomes of the maxim about 'a constant preponderance of pleasure'? If that be true, are you not guilty of a crime in advising him to end his life? Well, then, let us rather tell him that it is base and unmanly to let pain demoralize, crush and conquer one. As for the formula of your sect, 'Short if it's strong, light if it's long,' it is a tag for copybooks. Virtue, magnanimity, endurance, courage — it is these that have balm to assuage pain.

I'll have to go back and listen to the podcast episode(s) that tackle those sections.

Thread

Episode 219 - Cicero's On Ends - Book Two - Part 26 -Cicero Continues His Attack On Epicurus' Position On Pain

Welcome to Episode 219 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread…

Cassius

March 10, 2024 at 2:30 PM

However, even Cicero's last line - Virtue, magnanimity, endurance, courage — it is these that have balm to assuage pain. - I don't know if Epicurus would disagree. Can pain be endured boldly by leaning on courage and being generous and kind to others who genuinely want to help, living virtuously? Does that path eventually lead to a "preponderance of pleasure"?

Quote from Cassius

Would "readily" work?

No.

Seriously though, "readily" conveys to me something immediately available: "without hesitating; ex., They readily accepted her advice." It can be used for "easily" but, to me, it doesn't have the right connotation.

Quote from Eikadistes

Fear not God nor death;
The good is easy to get,
The bad, boldly met.

I like the direction that heads. We don't have to run from pain or hide from pain or try to convince ourselves that pain isn't there. But boldly strikes me as leaning Stoic: teeth-gritting, "virtuously" standing up to show how one sees oneself as being indifferent to pain.

That said, some synonyms/uses of "boldy" are possible: fearless before danger; (obsolete) assured, confident.

We can be "emboldened" by putting "the terrible" in context. If the pain is acknowledged and dealt with, we need not pile mental suffering on top of physical pain or on mental pain, grief, sorrow, etc. I'm an NOT saying that chronic pain is "easily" dealt with, as in "it's no big deal, be stoically indifferent to it." Investigate it, how can you gain perspective on it? How can you put it into context within the larger experience of your life. By Zeus, I count myself fortunate that I do not have any type of chronic pain, but I am convinced that if we belittle anyone who does or say "Pain is easily endured," Epicurus's philosophy loses credibility.

That said, I still contend boldly that the tetrapharmakos is a useful shorthand for those who want to explore the philosophy and a useful shorthand for "veteran Epicureans" to keep the MOST basic tenets of the philosophy at hand.

So, how to deal with the English translation "easily..."? We don't seem to have a problem with the εὔκτητον "easy to get". We don't like the εὐεκκαρτέρητον "easily endured."

I keep coming back to my options in #48 above: "without undue effort" or going smoothly or being able to accomplish something without any impediments or burdens. In keeping with eu-'s usual "well/good" connotation.

εὔ-κτητον "well/good - acquired, procured" Interestingly, LSJ gives εὔκτητος the definition of "honestly acquired." One can acquire pleasure without effort. It is literally all around you, every minute of the day, if you are willing to recognize it (i.e., everything that does not cause pain). It can be "easily" acquired. There are no impediments to acquiring The Good, only the impediments you put in your own way.

εὐ-εκκαρτέρητον "well/good" > ἐγκαρτερέω "persevere or persist in a thing" To me, persevere or persist has a a different feel/connotation than "endure." It's a subtle shade of meaning, but it's there - nagging at my neurons. Endure has a teeth-gritting quality to it. If one "perseveres well" or "persists well"... what could that mean? To me, the word is still saying that we can persevere in the presence of pain IF we don't throw up impediments that are unnecessary. Worrying about worrying. Being anxious about something that has not happened yet. And so on. Keeping PD4 in mind.

NONE of this is "easy" in the sense of "trivial." "Oh, that's SO easy. La de da." No, maybe effortlessly? One synonym is "uncomplicated" for effortless. Don't complicate the pursuit of pleasure or the perseverance of pain! Take it easy. Don't fight against the waves. Let the waves of pleasure wash over you. Enjoy them. Don't fight against the waves of pain. Acknowledge them. Embrace the help of friends and family. Accept emotional and medical help for chronic disease pain. Pick your battles. Don't fight needlessly.

So, in the end, I guess there's not a perfect one-word English modifer for a translation of εὔκτητον and εὐεκκαρτέρητον. Easily, effortlessly, boldly, readily, prudently?? Sensibly, wisely?

καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον, - and The Good, on the one hand, is effortlessly acquired

τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον - while on the other hand, we prudently persevere against The Terrible

Those are convoluted paraphrases, taking the dynamic equivalence approach to translation to a fare-the-well! But that's how I'm beginning to understand those two lines and to make peace with εὔκτητον and εὐεκκαρτέρητον.

We all have issues with that "easily..." in the translations. So, this morning before work I took a stroll through the LSJ dictionary to look at other words with the eu- prefix. The prefix usually carries the idea of well or good, and not all eu- words are "easily" but first here's the small selection I pulled out:

ευκριτος easy to decide
ευκρυπτος easy to hide
εὐλέπιστος easily peeled or shelled
ευλυρος skilled in the lyre (easy with the lyre?)
ευλυσια suppleness, ease of movement
εὔρητος easy to tell
εὐρίπιστος easily fanned into flame
εὔροπος easy sliding, easy slipping (as in a noose)
εὐρύθμιστος easily shaped
ευλαβής Pass., easy to get hold of, but also metaph., undertaking prudently, discreet, cautious

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , εὐκρα_τό-μελι , εὐλαβ-ής

To me, the common idea is "without undue effort" or going smoothly or being able to accomplish something without any impediments or burdens. Maybe an option is to think about those last two lines as these paths need not be seen as being something to be worried about. We will endure pain. We endure it with the help of friends. We endure it by keeping it in perspective. Don't add undue mental suffering and worry to physical pain. We can find pleasure The Good if we're just open to it.

First thoughts. Responses welcomed.

Quote from Godfrey

I'm referring to "on the one hand... one the other hand"

καὶ τἀγαθὸν μὲν εὔκτητον,
τὸ δὲ δεινὸν εὐεκκαρτέρητον.

μὲν -_- - δὲ - - - "on the one hand - - - on the other hand - - -"

Those two little one-syllable words do a lot of work in ancient Greek and are used all the time to link two phrases/ideas together. They can often be let out of translations and replaced with "but" or even with a semi-colon. But the main idea when they are used is you have this first idea and then, on the other hand, you have this other idea. For complicated grammatical reasons, they cannot come first in a phrase which is why they show up here where they do. But anytime you see μεν in a sentence, look ahead and see if there's a δε that links the two ideas together.

Quote from Cassius

"good" is a very generic word that both sounds philosophical and doesn't emphasize some kind of pointed state of ecstacy. Does the original greek bear a "bad" that corresponds to what is translated as "good" so that the entire passage sounds more philosophical than referring to "terrible" or "dreadful?"

The tetrapharmakos uses tagathon "The Good" and to deinon "The Terrible". That's the literal translation. But tagathon is the accepted word used in many texts for The Good, the telos, the highest good, including Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…ok-1?authuser=0

Quote from Cassius

Is there any way beyond ellipsis that we can indicate how much of gap exists before and after the Text?

You could indicate how many Greek letters or lines are missing, but that would not indicate how much "English" is missing. That seems to be the most usual way to do it: 2 missing lines, brackets to indicate missing text. There's no optimal way in my mind to indicate exactly "how much" is missing.

Follow the link to papyri.info. That shows the transcription and links to the drawn images from the 1800s. For example, here's column 5:

Yellow is the word tetrapharmakos. Blue are the four lines of it. It's fairly intact right before and after, but you can clearly see the rips and holes.

I thought I posted my translation of PHerc. 1005. Cassius , feel free to move this elsewhere. I have not read this through, so I am not vouching for the fluidity or readability of this. Consider this a rough draft for others to work on . Here you go...

Philodemus: Against [?]; Addressed to [?]* …

https://papyri.info/dclp/62437 (P.Herc. 1005)

The title (see the end off the translation where titles were affixed on the papyri) is mostly missing. The only surviving text is:

Φιλοδήμου

Πρὸς τοὺς

Which is merely:

Philodemou (the author’s name, Philodemus in the genitive case, so “(a work) Of Philodemus”

And ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ which is the preposition προς and the accusative definite article. The preposition followed by the accusative case article (which, in turn, would be followed by an accusative case noun) implies “Against” or “Towards”

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

Various scholars have suggested reconstructions of what word comes after the article, but they are all just that: reconstructions and conjectures. There is NO way of knowing what word is missing. It is, at best, reasonable to argue that Philodemus is arguing against someone or some group, presumably those who are not attending to the study of the Epicurean texts.

In any case, the text is instructive, at the very least, for encouraging those who call themselves “Epicurean” to attend to the extant texts.

[Fragments 1 to 80 inconsistent]

[Frg. 81]... Under the archonship of A- - - : “However, concerning [books], these books, it is for your health that I have sent them for you through their intermediary.” How can one [not] see precisely that it is necessary, when discussing, to express absolutely everything, [while in] books sometimes...?

[Frg. 82 to 85 inconsistent]

[Frg.86]...[standing] away from obscurity and counterfeiting, so as to expose all things with measure, without neglecting anything that rises to the level of the whole nor, despite everything, having [never] abandoned the detail [precisely]. On the other hand, with regard to utility, a very similar [reputation] also attaches, in a different way to wealth, to works which offer utility by the [pattern (French: schema)] of what is therein. [exposed]. [And] it is by this means indeed that …

[Frg. 87 to 89 inconsistent]

[Frg. 90] ... Compare to this what [we learn from] Epicurus' listeners, and [which is characterized] by power and, if not at least, by will and ardor (French: une volonté et une ardeur; κα̣ὶ̣ βουλήσει̣ [will, volition] καὶ̣ προθ̣υμίαι [properly, "before-passion" referring to someone who is already being willing, i.e. an eager disposition which is pre-inclined (already "ready and willing").]) (these are one and the same thing for Epicurus) that manifest themselves both in word and in deed, and deploy your efforts in this direction. For besides, if you don't aim for that and don't harm it,...

[Frg. 91 to 106 inconsistent].

[Frg. 107] … [if] we compare the styles of those who edited treatises after the death of Hermarchus and even, if you will, after the disappearance of all direct disciples of Epicurus, in order to ... [Frg. 108] ... from Pythocles [missing 3 lines] of Zeno...

[Frg, 109 inconsistent]

[Frg. 110] a copy of the Physicist of Antisthenes ...

[Frg. 111]... the Socrates of Aristippus, the Praise [Elegy] of Plato of Speusippus, the Analytics and the Nature of Aristotle, all works that we [missing 1 word] And again, under the archonship of Euboule: “The letter …”

[Frg, 112 and 113 inconsistent]

[Fr. 114]. And again: “Don't worry, [missing 1 proper name?], neither surveys nor other sophisticated [treatises], but come right away [join me], from which you will have [collected] all these books.” Then, under the archonate of Isée (Ἰσαΐου; Don: possibly Isaeus, 285 BCE), [this is what he writes] to the sons of Menoikeus: “... “

[Frg. 115 inconsistent]

[Frg. 116] "overwhelmed by the [feasts] which at Teos last all day, before playing the sophist while the one who reads the books of Anaxagoras and Empedocles also indulges in endless subtleties on these texts.” And again: “He who in Teos gathered the ‘Hermocopids’ (Ἑρμοκοπίδας) [to] study Democritus and Leucippus...” [Don note: Strabo said Epicurus grew up in Samos and then Teos http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…us-eng1:14.1.18 ; Hermocpids were those who vandalized the Herms around the Athens. Unsure if there was a similar incident in Teos.]

[Frg. 117]. If they [did not question] each of our institutions orally and in writing, would we address [strong] reprimands to those who do not [hold] [on the grounds that] familiars of our Guides saw fit at the time, to praise people devoid of knowledge? Moreover, this is rather today, certainly the fact of people who have benefited from a teaching... [1 column illegible] [2] ... without addressing, once again, reproaches to those who advance some good argument and know a very large number of things in a way convincingly, [then in truth] we will gently back off.

I therefore recognize, as I rightly said at the beginning, that among those who pride themselves on the title of Epicureans, there are those who produce, both orally and in writing, many compilations, of statements of their own which do not agree with the body of our doctrine, and certain assertions which they have extracted from it in a superficial and in a rushed manner/hastily (French: à la va-vite), regardless of ... [3] the exactness which characterizes us, us and the people who [missing 2 lines]. But the thing will be possible, [on the condition that this] and the activities exercised by [all those who], after Hermarchus, joined our school, it is shown that the latter wanted them and carried them out in the same way - - which I don't think will happen until all humans are black, short and deformed. (πάντας ἀνθρώπους μέλανα[ς] εἶναι καὶ μικροὺς καὶ δι̣[εσ]τραμμένους) [Book footnote suggests a reference to "Pygmies"]

Besides, if they had not named themselves by analogy with those who do not [reject] the books... [4] of those who call themselves [Epicureans]. In fact, one of his characters, whom we have known, on whom we have even made an in-depth investigation and who is precisely (this is what he affirms) "the authentic reader" because he [collects a multitude] of treatise titles, despite having [large] numbers of anthologies! He has not the slightest knowledge of the detailed contents of the thoughts, and, as for the prescriptions to follow, he [transforms] them into headings, like the one who is said to have learned to pilot a ship (κυβ[ερνήτ]η̣ν̣) from a book. And in all circumstances…

[5] ... remembering what [you have been taught] and the happiness (that you experienced), take this into account again: [have high hopes] concerning the future and [believe that] the fourfold remedy is powerful precisely in all circumstances: "Nothing to fear from the divinity, nothing to apprehend from death! And it is easy to procure what is good, easy to bear what is dreadful!" As for the reasonings by analogy that he draws, he says, from books, you will know that these formulas are correspondences of twelve or fifteen... [6] ... [on] the questions to be explored, he has provided the most luminous explanations possible, and thinks the same thing [in] all [cases; and] it is in this way, that we can draw [from books] a very great wisdom.

He also shows the memory he retains [of the disturbing facts contained in] books, repeating over and over again that in our doctrine there is mention of Leontion and company, that Nicidion was the beloved of Idomeneus, Mammarion that of Leonteus, Deme[tri]a that of Hermarchus, and that the pedagogue of Pythocles, Polyaenus, was such [that] … [7] … [If] we, who give [to our Guides the names [of] [missing 1 word] and, in a word, of [wise men], are not under the authority, assuredly, of men who have deserved to be remembered and to benefit from the recognition not of one person, but of everyone,and if we do not flatter ourselves with this authority with one of our friends, let us turn away, as they say, misfortune on the wild goats! And if we designate by these names, or very similar names, the one who has learned to understand in a methodical way the content of the books of our Guides so as to say out loud, precisely, that... [columns 8 and 9 illegible]

[10] … [In his book] On The Dissemblance of Atoms, [Zeno treated] of their declension as well as of the primary origin of the aggregate, and of [supreme] fulfillment and happiness in his books On the Ends. ([Πε]ρ̣[ὶ τῆς τῶν ἀ]τ̣ό̣[μων ἀ]ν̣ομοι[ό]τητο̣ς̣ καὶ πε̣ρ̣ὶ παρεγκλίσεως καὶ τῆς τ̣οῦ ἀθρόου προκαταρχῆ[ς], καὶ περὶ τελειώσ̣ε̣ως̣ [ἄκρας] καὶ τ̣[ῆ]ς̣ [εὐδαιμ]ον[ίας ἐν] τοῖς Περὶ τελῶν. Zeno’s name doesn’t appear in the manuscript, so I'd suggest looking at Epicurus's titles, too. Note that there are at least two titles mentioned here: the one on the atoms covered "their declension as well as of the primary origin of the aggregate" and On the Telos covered "supreme] fulfillment and happiness.")

And, in truth, to answer the accusations brought against the discourse and of Epicurus and his entourage, he made use of the very contents of their books, from which he quotes innumerable passages on each subject: such as On Grammar, On Systematic Inquiry (Περὶ ἱστορίας), On Proverbs and the like (Περὶ παροιμιῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων), On Speaking Style/Diction (Περὶ λ[έ]ξεως), On [Useful] Poems (Περὶ ποιημάτων χρή[σεως), On Piety (Περὶ εὐσεβε̣[ίας]) [one line missing]...

[11] [However, Zeno had good reason to ?] consider, in connection with many [writings of our school], that a doubt hung over the opinions which were those of our great men at the origins [of the Garden]; thus [he designated for Epicurus] certain letters, the summary on celestial phenomena To Pythocles ([Πρὸς Πυ]θ̣οκλέα περὶ̣ μ̣[ε]τεώρων ἐπιτομῆςand) and On The Virtues (Περὶ ἀρ̣[ετ]ῶ̣[ν]) (Footnote in book: These are the works of Epicurus, although his name is not mentioned and the last title is not otherwise attested.), as well as those writings attributed to Metrodorus which are The Rules of Conduct, the Testimonies and, more certainly, the second book of Against Plato's "Gorgias"; the books Against the Rhetoricians and The Moon attributed to Polyaenus, and those attributed to Hermarchus. Moreover, he made a selection precisely [missing 1 word] [from the] writings ... [12] ... of his own expressions both elsewhere and in the [sixth book] of The Aristaia, the man who was very proud of having compared what we read in Epicurus and among these people, from the [strong] observation that, immediately after him, the expressions of the recent [Epicureans] are precisely quite different, even believed that it was a very great injustice, or rather even a sacrilege, to report to him, to him, [such expressions], since, to put it in a nutshell, ... [13] ... Driven out of Athens at the time of the capture of the city [Book footnote: circa 87/86 BCE; Don: by Roman general Sulla], [Zéno] precisely addressed a letter in a copy to our sympathizers, in which he ordered them to save Demaratos [who had become] an Epicurean; and each of them did what necessity demanded.

He who, in truth, has presented these facts and many others as characteristic marks of a veneration close to that which fools devote to the gods, by posing as being the truth even something (je ne sais quoi) simplistic, ... [14] ... things deserving of recognition, but not … Of this, indeed, other Epicureans [have been able to experience; it is besides it was in their company that I became one of the most faithful devotees of Apo[llodo]rus and Zeno, as long as the latter survived him, and, after the death of Zeno, a tireless laudator, so are all his virtues and, I will add, the divine delirium and transports inspired in him by Epicurus. [καύ̣χαις τε καὶ θεοφ̣[ο]ρίαις, both boasts and inspirations]

Well, the most lamentable thing about the majority of Epicureans [and] their inexcusable refusal to work on the books is this: … [15] … [they listen to the calumnies peddled ?] commonly on the account of our great men too --- even to the point of making all kinds of remarks, and the worst, on their way of life as well as on the bonds of friendship, hugs/embraces, and conversations they had with each one — as if they had not read the body of the doctrine. Our great men must, at the same time, be taken for public enemies and see themselves reproached for their morals, since they had precisely all the vices! And since, among people who are absolutely not philosophers, there are hardly any who are conciliatory and good, although there are some among those who devote themselves to philosophy according to other schools, or else ...

[16] ... The people able to pay attention to books are those who, because they have been lucky enough to attend a school that befits Greeks, not [missing 1 word], and are trained in academic disciplines, precisely explain the words of men who have taken care to elucidate what is obscure. Having studied like philosophers - at least from childhood to old age - similar considerations at least, for lack of anything else, they composed very numerous writings which are very interesting for their precision. On the other hand, those who are slaves and do hard work, or who are deprived of education, and who have not learned to read and write, ... [17] ... [when] they invoke, as [applying to people from among us] (I do not speak of those who have withdrawn from the world, but of those who are immersed in it), a letter addressed by our Guides to unwary sympathizers. (Besides, if the accusations we make against them are false, who'll they deny us by doing even one of the things we just talked about! But [they will say:] "We can, but we don't want it," as someone said of me, perhaps in mockery.)

And, in a way, what Epicurus says is, from our point of view a reality, it is inconceivable that the goods according to nature are [difficult] to procure. [18] [5 lines illegible] … And, indeed, in order to prevent our first writing from exceeding the right measure, it is in three main headings that we will conclude the first act of resistance to which you have led us.

In fact, since -- as you know -- they don't allow everything to be repelled altogether (they are indeed, for the most part, invulnerable to the arrows fired at them), but only those who have no little intelligence and reactivity... [19] ......;

...; and if, of course, we defend ourselves by [applying ourselves to compose] writings addressed to them, in the case of [our] comments we [discover] that it is not [isolated individuals] who are the subject of the writings that we compose.

Because, surely, the first move of the first was not such and when they converse with people who are misleading themselves or who are misleading collectively, they do not pursue the discussion with that people, nor either, for sure, when it is with those people from outside who are incapable of [reaching an agreement]... [20] … [when one has a solid formation?] precisely in reading and [writing, one] is able to take an interest in [a large number] of books about which, together, we [proceed has a] thorough review. Therefore, whoever oversteps the proper measure or falls short of it will, because he engages in inappropriate behavior, be cataloged (in accordance with the whole school) as not being [admitted], justly, among the competent interlocutors.

Those to whom, for my part, I address themselves, they are people like those whom I have caught red-handed and whom I am at the moment trying to unmask, because they are of this sort [missing some lines].

Φιλοδήμου [Of Philodemus]

Πρὸς τοὺς [Directed against …?]

Nothing to fear from gods.

Stories of hell are frauds.

Good feelings are easily procured.

Pains and woes are easily endured.

REALLY quick attempt.