Posts by Don

Quote from Nate

What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?

Oh, it's not the reference to the gods, it's the use of the plural where the text has a singular.

Take a look at all the nuances of χάρις in LSJ, especially section II.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χάρις

I think I have a problem with "favor." I can't put my finger on it but I'll try to percolate on it.

Can we vote more than once? I think my "first" choice changes daily!

Quote from Nate

If I might take a whack at the task ... “The blessed and imperishable [gods] neither trouble themselves nor others, as neither anger nor obligation afflict them; for, all of this is weak. <In other places, however, Epicurus said the gods are reached by reason, that, on one hand, [the gods] exist partially distinct; those [gods], however, made of the same consistency exist due to the continuous stream of similar images upon the self, personally, in the form of humans.>”

Generally, I like where you're going, but the insertion of [gods] disguises the fact that Τὸ μακάριον and (Τὸ) ἄφθαρτον are singular, not plural. This may not be significant but then again might be. Sedley seems to imbue those singular references to the gods as referring to one's individual conception of a god.

I think I know what you're trying to convey with the ending but I got a lot lost myself there.

There's also the issue of how to translate Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον. The definite article Τὸ shows the two words μακάριον (and) ἄφθαρτον should be taken as nouns in the sense of:

One who is...

That which is...

A thing/being that is...

I'd even venture so fast as to suggest:

One who has the traits of bessedness and Incorruptibility...

Do you personify the traits? Do you make them an impersonal thing? Do you apply them to a being??

Quote from Cassius

Don do you agree that "incorruptible" or something like is is more appropriate than "immortal"?

Yes. Incorruptible is better than immortal.

α "not, un-" + Φθαρτον "destructible, perishable"

χάρισι "favourable disposition towards someone: grace, favor, goodwill; gratitude"

I'll keep my choice to myself as not to influence anyone's vote for now

In an attempt to help everyone in their voting, here are some older notes I had on PD1

Greek text: Usener edition

1 Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει· ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται· ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

"One who is blessed/completely happy/blissful and imperishable/indestructible has no troubles themself nor causes troubles for others; as a consequence, they are affected by neither anger nor gratitude; because all this would be an indication of weakness/sickness/lack of strength." Being affected by anger as a sickness or weakness makes sense, but why would being affected by gratitude be a sign of weakness? In the Letter to Herodotus, Epicurus wrote "For troubles and anxieties and feelings of anger and partiality do not accord with bliss, but always imply weakness and fear and dependence upon one's neighbours." This appears to demonstrate that the negative aspects of anger or gratitude would be that it would show a lack of self-reliance / αυτάρκεια. If we needed reassurance / affirmation from others and didn't just do things because they were pleasurable, we're not truly living a blessed life. That sense of self-assurance would make one το μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον. Blessed, yes. Imperishable? This echoes the idea that, once desires are uprooted, they can't come back. Some of the senses of φθαρτος, opposite of ἄφθαρτος, are "pass away, able to be bribed, adrift." Considering the opposite of these qualities gives a deeper sense to what a mortal life potentially filled with ἄφθαρτος would be like. And consider that Epicurus decided that it is τὸ μακάριον, neither male nor female. I think that's significant. Some older translation gloss over that when translating the other parts: he is exempt from movements of anger. The proper way to express it might better be to use "one who is…"

Perseus Project: [139] [ιι.] 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.]

Perseus Project translation: 1. A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being ; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness [Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]

• Τὸ μακάριον - KD1 - blessed, fortunate, wealthy, “well-off”. There appears to me no certain etymology of [makar] or the longer form [makarios/on].It appears to have something to do with being wealthy (both literally and figuratively?). See also https://books.google.com/books?id=sPCww…ymology&f=false , http://www.crossmarks.com/brian/allsaintb.htm ; https://www.studylight.org/language-studi…/index.cgi?a=38
  • See also KD27 μακαριότης: 27 Ὧν ἡ σοφία παρασκευάζεται εἰς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου μακαριότητα, πολὺ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις. Of all the things that wisdom provides for the complete happiness of one’s entire life, by far the greatest is friendship.
    • DB - Why translate μακαριότητα (happiness, bliss) happiness here but μακαριον blessed in KD1 other than obfuscation?
    • ἡ τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις = the property/possession of friendship
• Ἄφθαρτον LSJ. incorruptible, Epicur. Ep.1p.29U., al., Phld.D.3Fr.88b, al., Diog.Oen.63, al. eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying. Φθαρτον = destructible, perishable.
• Πράγματα LSJ in a bad sense, trouble, annoyance. π. παρέχειν τινί to cause one trouble, Hdt.1.155
• Παρέχει supply, furnish, provide

Ούτε … ούτε

• Neither… nor

συνέχω

• fut. mid. in pass. sense, Dem.
• I. to hold or keep together, Il.: to enclose, encompass, embrace, Hes., Plat.
• 2. to keep together, keep from dispersing, of soldiers, Xen., Dem.: —then, ς. πόλιν to keep the state together, keep it from falling to pieces, Eur.; καὶ θεοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπους ἡ κοινωνία ξ. Plat.; ς. τὴν πολιτείαν Dem.; so, ξ.τὴν εἰρεσίαν to keep the rowers together, make them pull in time, Thuc.
• 3. to constrain or force one to a thing, NTest.
• 4. to compress, oppress, id=NTest.: Pass. to be constrained, oppressed, afflicted, Hdt., attic
• II. intr. to meet, εἰς ἕν Arist.

ἀσθενής m or f (neuter ἀσθενές); third declension ἀσθενεῖ DATIVE after εν

• without strength, weak
• feeble, sickly
• sick, ill
• insignificant
• poor

τοιοῦτον

• inflection of τοιοῦτος:

neuter nominative singularReferring back to Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτονmasculine and neuter accusative singularOf this kindSuch a one

The Popularity of Epicureanism in Late-Republic Roman Society. The Ancient World, XLIII (2012) pp.151-172.

The Popularity of Epicureanism in Late-Republic Roman Society. The Ancient World, XLIII (2012) pp.151-172.

www.academia.edu

EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND GREEK PHILOSOPHY:

THE ARGUMENT OF ACTS 17:16-34 IN LIGHT OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEBATES OF EARLY POST-HELLENISTIC TIMES

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/291165/THESIS%2520FINAL_corrected.pdf

Quote from Joshua

Thank you Don for all of your work in bringing the information here!

It's literally been my pleasure

I just wanted to add here how unimaginably fortunate we are for the libraries and archives that have scanned their books and ancient and medieval manuscripts. Online repositories allow us to do research with an ease that would have been inconceivable to Usener, Wotke, Bailey, et al. What would have involved international travel, getting permission from administrators of institutions, and other difficulties not that long ago, now involves me just casually bringing up 14th century manuscripts, magnifying, copying, and comparing, with merely a few keystrokes.

By Zeus! The Internet gets a (deservedly) bad rap sometimes, but for things like this, it is absolutely wonderful and amazing.

Edit

And I should add that the Internet provides us with the opportunity to have this virtual Garden, too!

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0395

Edit:

Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, section 13

DigiVatLib

402v

I'm skeptical now to say that VS20 = PD29 since we've seen some discrepancies in a one-to-one duplication of VS's and PD's.

The transcription of this VS/PD appears to run here:

τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ καὶ pasted-from-clipboard.png ἀναγκαῖαι, δὲ αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμαι.

or as it appears to be...

τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ καὶ μέν οὔκ ἀναγκαῖαι, δὲ αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμαι.

Of the desires, on the one hand, there are the natural and necessary; then the natural ones and the not necessary ones; then the not natural and not necessary arising from empty belief.

Now the usual transcription and translation run:

τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ καὶ <ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ καὶ> οὐκ ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ οὔτε φυσικαὶ οὔτε ἀναγκαῖαι, ἀλλὰ παρὰ κενὴν δόξαν γινόμεναι.

Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).

You can compare the discrepancies in the manuscript vs the usual transcription.

DigiVatLib

402v

He who forgets the good things he had yesterday becomes an old man today.

τοῦ γεγονότος ἀμνήμων ἀγαθοῦ γέρων τήμερον γεγένηται.

DigiVatLib

402v

Usual transcription and translation:

The passion of love disappears without the opportunity to see each other and talk and be together.

ἀφαιρουμένης προσόψεως καὶ ὁμιλίας [καὶ] συναναστροφῆς ἐκλύεται τὸ ἐρωτικὸν πάθος.

DigiVatLib

402v

First saying at top of folio 402v

Typical transcription and translation, matching to manuscript still needs verified (7/8/23):

It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of.

οὐ νέος μακαριστὸς ἀλλὰ γέρων βεβιωκὼς καλῶς· ὁ γὰρ νέος ἀκμῇ πολὺς ὑπὸ τῆς τύχης ἑτεροφρονῶν πλάζεται· ὁ δὲ γέρων καθάπερ ἐν λιμένι τῷ γήρᾳ καθώρμικεν, τὰ πρότερον δυσελπιστούμενα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀσφαλεῖ κατακλείσας χάριτι.

DigiVatLib

402r

VS16 is the last saying on folio 402r

Usual transcription is:

No one who sees what is bad chooses it willingly; instead he is lured into seeing it as good compared to what is even worse, and thus he is trapped.

Οὐδεὶς βλέπων τὸ κακὸν αἱρεῖται αὐτό, ἀλλὰ δελεασθεὶς ὡς ἀγαθῷ πρὸς τὸ μεῖζον αὐτοῦ κακὸν ἐθηρεύθη.

Quote from Cassius

Any possibility they trying to save space on the paper as much as possible so writing in continuous lines, but somehow marking where lines started on the manuscript from which they were copying?

(I also added a postscript to that last post of I was editing while you were replying.)

The scribe here in Vat.gr.1950 doesn't seem as concerned with maximizing his writing surface. Back in the day, Philodemus's texts would run everything all together. This 14th c manuscript with the Sayings actually has word breaks and will start a new line when the previous saying is done. One component is definitely the start of a new quote, but not consistently... At least from our perspective on what we would expect to be a new quote.

Quote from Cassius

So do you have any theory at all as to the use of the red?

Typically, it's simply the first word of each "saying," marking the beginning of each quote.

However, as I've noted on several just so far, sometimes the beginning of what we would see as a beginning does not have a red letter, and a couple so far have a red letter in the "middle" of a saying. I initially just took the "Oh, they mark the start of each saying" route. Now, I'm not sure whether we should invest them with any additional significance or not. This has become an eye opening exercise!

This exercise also brings to light a problem with just accepting "Oh, Vatican Saying X is just identical to Principal Doctrine Y. Nothing to see here." Yes, they may be *almost* identical, but if they're not entirely, how does that affect our reading of each? Vat.gr.1950 is dated to 1300-1350 CE, so not as early as some of the earliest manuscripts for Diogenes Laertius which go back to the 12th c, I believe. How do the VS/PD correlations look in reference to the earliest Laertius manuscripts? Vat.gr.1950 is getting its versions from somewhere! This is where the fun begins!

This is the header/title of the section containing the "Vatican Sayings"...

and reads:

Επικουρου προσφωνησισ (Epikourou prosphonesis)

The first word is, of course, "of Epicurus"

The second word means something like "address, dedication, etc."

So it could be even something like "the mode of speaking of Epicurus" or, since his name comes first, "Epicurus's mode of speaking."

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, π , προσφύρω , προσφών-ησις

I must say I like that fancy initial Epsilon+pi ligature in Epicurus's name With a little fancy photomanipulation we can get just Epicurus's name with some flourishes from that title:

Επικουροσ (Epicurus)