Quotes from Karl Krohn's dissertation "Der Epikureer Hermarchos"

  • The text was downloaded from:


    I corrected numerous failures of the OCR where they were obvious. Some breaks in the text indicate that a bit of the content may have been lost in the generation of the electronic document. The dissertation appears to be short by today's customs.

    Although parts of Karl Krohn's work have probably become obsolete because of later findings, I listed everything which appeared interesting for our forum or myself. I can add surrounding text of some quotes upon request.

    Accents above Greek letters are lost in my quotes. I rendered lower German quotation marks as upper ones.







    PageQuote in German originalEnglish translation by Google corrected by MartinMartin's Comments
    9Von den fünf Schriften Hermarchs, deren Titel uns überliefert werden (Epistolika über Empedokles, Über die Wissenschaften, Gegen Plato, Gegen Aristoteles, Briefe, fr. 20), sind uns die beiden gegen Plato und Aristoteles ihrem Inhalt nach gänzlich unbekannt.

    Of the five writings of Hermarchus whose titles have come down to us (Epistolica on Empedocles, On the Sciences, Against Plato, Against Aristotle, Letters, fr. 20), the content of the two against Plato and Aristotle is completely unknown to us.
    9Porphyr bezeichnet in seinem Werke über den Vorzug der vegetarischen Lebensweise die Ausmalung der Urzustände der Menschheit und ihrer allmählichen Entwicklung (I 7-12) allgemein als aus epikureischer Quelle stammend (...). Ein Vergleich der diesen 6 Kapiteln vorangehenden und nachfolgenden Quellenangaben, die chiastisch einander gegenübergestellt sind (...) ergibt einwandfrei den Hermarchischen Ursprung der von Porphyr geschilderten menschlichen Urgeschichte (fr. 24), wie Jacob Bernays (Theophrastos Schrift über die Frömmigkeit Berlin 1866) erwiesen hat.In his work on the preference of the vegetarian way of life, Porphyry describes the depiction of the original state of mankind and its gradual development (I 7-12) as generally coming from an Epicurean source (...). A comparison of the sources preceding and following these 6 chapters, which are chiastically juxtaposed (...) unequivocally shows the Hermarchic origin of the human prehistory described by Porphyry (fr. 24), as Jacob Bernays (Theophrastos writing about devotion Berlin 1866) has proved.
    11/12Den Zusammenhang der Menschheitsgenealogie bei Porphyr (I 7-12) mit Epikurs Κυριαι δοξαι 31-40 (Diog. L. X 150 ff.) hat schon Usener (Ep. S. 397/8) erkannt. Er und Bernays nahmen an, daß Hermarch bei Abfassung seines Werkes über Empedokles die uns vorliegenden Sentenzen des Meisters in ihrer Form etwas abänderte und sie in seinen uns wörtlich von Porphyr überlieferten Text hineinflickte. Neuerdings hat nun Diels (a. a. O. S. 50) die Behauptung aufgestellt, jene zehn Sentenzen seien Exzerpte des Originaltextes der Schrift über Empedokles. Da die wörtliche Wiedergabe der Genealogie durch Porphyr oben widerlegt ist, handelt es sich jetzt darum, zu entscheiden, ob Epikur der Verfasser jener 10 Sentenzen ist, die Hermarch dann in sein Werk aufgenommen haben müßte und über die uns Porphyr ein Referat gäbe, oder ob ein jüngerer Epikureer, der als Redakteur sämtlicher 40 Sentenzen anzusehen wäre (Us. Ep. S. XLVI) die 30 ursprünglichen "Grundansichten" durch einen Zusatz von 10 aus Hermarch entnommenen vermehrt hat. Nun zeigt sich zwar, daß die Gedanken der Sentenzen 31, 33-35 über Existenz eines natürlichen Rechts (31. 33. = Epikur Us. fr. 593. 524. 529. 597. 531. 551 - Hermarch K. 7 und 8 ) und Abschreckung als Wesen der Strafe (34. 95. = Epikur Us. fr. 531. 532. 534. 535. 582. 18. 397 - Hermarch K. 7 und 8 ) sowohl bei Epikur als auch bei Hermarch vorkommen. Aber der Inhalt der Sentenzen 32, 36-40 hat keine Parallele bei Epikur. Gedanken wie Unmöglichkeit eines friedlichen Bündnisses mit Tieren (32 = Hermarch K. 12), Unterschied von allgemein menschlichen und einzel-völkischen Rechtsprinzipien (36-38 - Hermarch K. 12), Erstarkung eines Gemeinwesens nach außen und innen durch gesetzliche Ordnung (39-40 = Hermarch K. 10) finden sich nirgends in den erhaltenen Schriften Epikurs.






    Usener (Ep. p. 397/8) already recognized the connection between the human genealogy in Porphyry (I 7-12) and Epicurus Κυριαι δοξαι 31-40 (Diog. L. X 150 ff.). He and Bernays assumed that Hermarchus, in composing his work on Empedocles, somewhat modified the form of the sentences of the master that are available to us, and patched them into his text, which has come down to us verbatim from Porphyry. Recently, Diels (ibid., p. 50) has asserted that those ten sentences are excerpts from the original text of the writing on Empedocles. Since the literal rendering of the genealogy by Porphyry has been refuted above, the issue now is to decide whether Epicurus is the author of those 10 sentences which Hermarchus would then have to have included in his work and on which Porphyry would give us a report, or whether a younger Epicurean, who should be regarded as the editor of all 40 Sentences (Us. Ep. p. XLVI), has augmented the 30 original "fundamental doctrines" by adding 10 taken from Hermarchus. Now it turns out that the thoughts of Sentences 31, 33-35 about the existence of a natural right (31. 33. = Epicurus Us. fr. 593. 524. 529. 597. 531. 551 - Hermarchus K. 7 and 8 ) and deterrence as the essence of punishment (34. 95. = Epicurus Us. fr. 531. 532. 534. 535. 582. 18. 397 - Hermarchus K. 7 and 8 ) occur both in Epicurus and in Hermarchus. But the content of Sentences 32, 36-40 has no parallel in Epicurus. Thoughts such as the impossibility of a peaceful alliance with animals (32 = Hermarchus K. 12), difference between general human and national legal principles (36-38 - Hermarchus K. 12), strengthening of a community both externally and internally through legal order (39- 40 = Hermarchus K. 10) are found nowhere in the surviving writings of Epicurus.
    13Die Vermutung liegt nahe, daß Epikur seine Auffassung u. a. auch Protagoras entlehnt hat. Wenn anderseits nun auch Hermarch mit den beiden Vorsokratikern Berührungspunkte zeigen sollte - und man kann als solche die Verteidigung des Fleischessens und Tiertötens (Demokrit, Diels Vorsokr. fr. 251-260; Hermarch K. 10) und Erörterung des unvorsätzlichen Mordes (Protagoras, Diels A 10; Hermarch K. 9) auffassen -, so liegt durchaus nicht die Notwendigkeit vor, hier in Epikur den Vermittler zwischen Protagoras und Demokrit einerseits und Hermarch andrerseits zu sehen und daraus zu folgern, daß Hermarch etwa jene beiden Stellen Epikurs Schriften entnommen habe; nichts spricht dagegen anzunehmen, daß er beide Vorsokratiker unabhängig von Epikur hätte benutzen können. Die Selbständigkeit der Schilderung Hermarchs und ihre, wenn auch nicht allzu erhebliche Abweichung von der seines Meisters kann also auch für den Fall der Gemeinsamkeit der Gewährsmänner Protagoras und Demokrit aufrechterhalten bleiben.


    It is reasonable to assume that Epicurus based his opinion on Protagoras among others. If, on the other hand, Hermarchus should also show points of contact with the two pre-Socratics - and one can as such see the defense of eating meat and killing animals (Democritus, Diels Vorsokr. fr. 251-260; Hermarchus K. 10) and the discussion of unintentional murder (Protagoras, Diels A 10; Hermarchus K. 9) - then there is absolutely no need to see Epicurus as the mediator between Protagoras and Democritus on the one hand and Hermarchus on the other and to conclude from this that Hermarchus took those two passages from Epicurus's writings; nothing speaks against assuming that he could have used both pre-Socratics independently of Epicurus. The independence of Hermarchus description and its, albeit not too significant, deviation from that of his master can therefore also be maintained for the case of commonality between the references Protagoras and Democritus.Murder is by definition intentional, at least for the German word used by Krohn.














    14Schon im Altertum hat es nicht an Leuten gefehlt, die einige der Grundansichten (Κυριαι δοξαι) Epikur aberkannten (vgl. fr. 28).










    Already in antiquity there was no lack of people who rejected Epicurus' authorship of some of the Principal Doctrines (Κυριαι δοξαι) (cf. fr. 28).










    Google translated this wrongly as: "Even in antiquity there was no lack of people who rejected some of the basic views (Κυριαι δοξαι) of Epicurus (cf. fr. 28)."
    15Man entdeckt vor allem in fr. 29 und 31 einen Kritiker, der ein Wahrzeichen rednerisch-dialektischer Vorbildung, wie sie Hermarch besaß, an sich trägt: die spitzfindige Wort- und Begriffsklauberei.One discovers above all in fr. 29 and 31 a critic who bears a mark of oratorical-dialectical training, such as Hermarchus possessed: the subtle quibble about words and concepts.
    15Nicht erst seit Kant weiß man, daß das Unsterblichkeitsproblem mit dem Gottesproblem eng verbunden ist. Und der abstrakte Gottesbegriff des Empedokles (Diels fr. 134) hat sicher des Epikureers Spott und Disputierlust herausgefordert.Not only since Kant has it been known that the problem of immortality is closely connected with the problem of God. And Empedocles' abstract concept of God (Diels fr. 134) certainly provoked ridicule and lust for debate on the part of the Epicureans.
    49Inhaltsübersicht.
    A. Bericht über Leben und Schriften.
    I. Leben.
    II. Schriften.
    a) Die Epistolika.
    b) Über die Wissenschaften.
    c) Briefe.
    B. Fragmente und Zeugnisse.
    I. Über das Leben (fr. 1-19).
    II. Über die Schriften (fr. 20-57).
    1. Epistolika (fr. 20-39).
    2. Über die Wissenschaften (fr, 40-44).
    3. Briefe (fr. 45-51).
    III. Zweifelhaftes (fr. 58).
    Nachtrag.
    Autorenverzeichnis.
    Table of Contents.
    A. Account of Life and Writings.
    I Life.
    II. Writings.
    a) The Epistolica.
    b) About the sciences.
    c) Letters.
    B. Fragments and Testimonies.
    I. About life (fr. 1-19).
    II. About the scriptures (fr. 20-57).
    1. Epistolica (fr. 20-39).
    2. About the sciences (fr, 40-44).
    3. Epistles (fr. 45-51).
    III. Doubtful (fr. 58).
    Addendum.
    Index of authors.
  • Interesting that the PDs are referred to as "sentences." In the Saint-Andre translation I quickly counted only 5 as having more than one sentence. This may help to explain, at least to a degree, how they were divided into the current 40 PDs: the original groupings may have simply been separated into sentences.


    Somewhere I read, although I can't remember where, that the authorship of the PDs was in question. Wherever I read it, I think a footnote connected the idea to an Italian source. Tantalizing, but not much help!

  • Referring back to fr.28 referred to in post # 3 above, out doesn't seem to say what Krohn implies that it says. The first citation on p.28 is to Philodemus, pherc.1005, column 8, lines 18-19.

    The book states :

    εξέλεξεν και δε εκ των επιγεγραμμενων Κύριων δοκών ενιας

    "And so chose some from the writings of the Principal Doctrines (Κύριων δοκών)

    I don't see any references to the PDs in the actual papyrus.


    Here's what that papyrus has :


    DCLP/Trismegistos 62437 = LDAB 3610


    column 11

    P.Herc. 1005 col. 8th

    Sketched 1803-1806 by Giuseppe Casanova

    Engraved 1844-1861 by Vincenzo Corazza


    [ ⁇ -ca.?- ⁇ ἐρχόμενον ἀκριβεί-]

    αι πρ 罗 [ς τ 斯 τणν ἀνδρणν] ,

    [πε] ρ πολλणν 재γ [εCSσ] θαι [τἀ-]

    κε 利 [ί] νοις ἀρέֹ [σ] κοντ ', [ἐκ] τ行 ς ἀ [ρ-]

    5 χῆς 玛ποψί [α] ν τιν 재 [λ] α 信μβά-

    ν [ει] ν ⁇ ς περί τινων ἐπι-

    στολ行行ν 利 κα 红 τῆς [Πρքς Πυ-]

    θ行οκλέα περ 间 μ [ε] τεώρων

    ἐπιτομῆς κα 空 τοῦ Περ ἀ-

    10 ρ С [ετ] 行 [ν], κα 布 τ ν ε 利ς Μητρό-

    δωρον ἀναφερομένων

    红ποθηκῶν κα 红 τणν Μαρ-

    τυριῶν κα 红 μ λλον [δ] ⁇ ֹ

    τοῦ Πρքς τքν Πλάτωνοֹς

    15 Γοργίαν δευτέρου, κα 空 τणν

    ες Πολύαινον τοῦ Πρքς

    τοքς 재ήτορας κα κα κ α το ῦ Περ 空

    σελήνης κα 红 τणν ε 罗ς 长ρ く-

    μαρχον · ἐξέλεξεν δ ⁇ κα 空

    20 [ 行 行 行 行 行 行 行 行] γεγραμένω [ν]


    And here's the clunky translation I gleaned from Les Epicuriens in French, trying to compare with the Greek...

    [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 (Πρքς Πυ]θ行οκλέα περ 间 μ 利[ε]τεώρων ἐπιτομῆς) and On The Virtues (Περ ἀρ 利[ετ]ῶ 行[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. Furthermore, he made a selection precisely [missing 1 word] [from the] writings ...


    I'm still working on the second citation in the book. Stay tuned...


    #Polyaenus

  • The next citation is to Philodemus On Anger, pherc. 182, col. 43, lines 16-23:

    DCLP/Trismegistos 62390 = LDAB 3555


    ..., ὥστε καὶ τοῦτον

    ἀσθενῆ ποιεῖν, οὐ παρενο-

    χλήσει, καθάπερ ἐν[ί]οις, οἳ

    πάνδεινον ἡγήσαντο, ταῖς

    20 Κυρίαις Δόξαις ἀντιγρά-

    φοντες, εἰ τετόλμηκέ τις

    ἐν ἀσθενείαι λέγειν ὀ̣ργὴν

    καὶ χάριτα καὶ πᾶν τὸ τοι-

    οῦτον,...