Text of PD5 in Laertius vs VS5 in Vat.gr.1950

    The text in Diogenes Laertius for PD5 is slightly different than the text of VS5. Often, VS5 is simply referenced as PD5 ... but while the text is VERY similar, it is not identical.


    PD5 Diogenes Laertius text: Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, <οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως> ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως. ὅτῳ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ ὑπάρχει ἐξ οὗ ζῆν φρονίμως, καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτον ἡδέως ζῆν.


    It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives well and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life. (Hicks)


    VS5 text: Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, ὅπου δὲ τοῦτο μὴ ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῆν.

    It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and so where these do not exist, it is impossible to live a pleasant life. (Vat.gr.1950 manuscript, with translation repurposing Hicks with the exception of ὅπου "where" vs ὅτῳ "whenever".)


    (NOTE: This should really also be posted to the VS5 thread but that section is locked... Cassius?)

    It looks like the Vatican Sayings show simplified versions (or with a more common language in some cases) of some Principal Doctrines.
    I share a comment that can be interesting from Enrique Álvarez' dissertation:
    "In both cases [PD 5 and VS 5], we can see how the genre of the florilegium is effective in the transmission of doctrine at the price of rounding off and simplifying the contents. Thus, PD 5 has become an effective aphorism that is a reminder of the reciprocal implication of pleasure and virtue.

    Indeed, we understand that "this" (τοῦτο) in the last sentence refers to the doctrine taught by both members of the biconditional: if there is no pleasure there is no virtue and if there is no virtue there is no pleasure. As for SV5, we interpret that the compiler's purpose has been to express the Epicurean doctrine in the form of a simple argument having the form of the modus ponens, in this case, with negative premises: if one does not live with virtue, one does not live with pleasure; one does not live with virtue, therefore, one does not live with pleasure. τοῦτο, at the end of SV5 takes up the protasis of the first premise of the modus ponens, that is, sentence P of the form of reasoning: P then Q, and P; therefore Q." (El Gnomologium Vaticanum y la filosofía de Epicuro, 2016, p. 212)