Best Translaton Of PDO1 To Feature At EpicureanFriends?

    The following post is first of a series that I intend to make so that we can get our collection of the Princpal Doctrines into better shape. One service we can provide here at EpicureanFriends is to present a curated list that has been vetted and commented on by our regulars here who have either good sense of the philosophy, or an ability to read the original Greek and Latin - and preferably both the good sense and the language ability. I plan to post one of these on each doctrine over time and then transfer the result over to

    the main list under the "Texts" section.


    Although this thread will include a "poll" in the next post, what we are really looking for is the "best" combination of faithfulness to the original combined with clarity in modern English. I will get with a collection of the Level 3 participants here to work on editing the final list, but the full discussion should be open to everyone to consider, so that's what we will do here. The results of the poll won't control what is featured on the text page but will definitely influence in and probably at least result in a footnote to this thread.


    The English translation of PD01 currently featured here in our Texts section is that of Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:


    The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself, nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favor. For all such things exist only in the weak.


    We have access (thanks to Nate's full collection) to many different variations including:


    “That which is happy and imperishable, neither has trouble itself, nor does it cause it to anything; so that it is not subject to feelings of either anger or gratitude; for these feelings only exist in what is weak.” Yonge (1853)


    “The blessed and incorruptible has no toil or trouble of its own, and causes none to others. It is not subject either to anger or favour.” Wallace, Epicureanism 110 (1880)


    “A blessed and eternal being has no trouble itself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence it is exempt from movements of anger and favour, for every such movement implies weakness.” Hicks (1910)


    “A happy 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.” Hicks (1925)


    “The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favour. For all such things exist only in the weak.” Bailey (1926)


    “The blissful and incorruptible being neither knows trouble itself nor occasions trouble to another, and is consequently immune to either anger or gratitude, for all such emotions reside in a weak creature.” De Witt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 252 (1954)


    “The blessed and incorruptible being neither knows tribulation itself nor occasions it to another; it is consequently immune to feelings of either anger or gratitude, for all such emotion signifies a weak creature." De Witt, St. Paul and Epicurus 187 (1954)


    “That which is blessed and immortal is not troubled itself, nor does it cause trouble to another. As a result, it is not affected by anger or favor, for these belong to weakness.” Geer (1964)


    “That which is blessed and imperishable neither suffers nor inflicts trouble, and therefore is affected neither by anger nor by favour. For all such things are marks of weakness.” Long, The Hellenistic Philosophers 140 (1987)


    “The blessed and immortal is itself free from trouble nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it is not constrained either by anger or by favor. For such sentiments exist only in the weak.” O'Connor (1993)


    “ What is blessed and indestructible has no trouble itself nor does it give trouble to anyone else, so that it is not affected by feelings of anger or gratitude. For all such things are a sign of weakness.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)


    “A blessed and imperishable being neither has trouble itself nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it does not experience feelings of anger or indebtedness, for such feelings signify weakness.” Anderson (2004)


    “That which is blessed and indestructible has no affairs of its own to attend to; nor does it inflict any trouble on others. So, it is agitated neither by ire nor by partiality. For all such are to be found in that which lacks power.” Makridis (2005)


    “That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others, so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (for all such things come about through weakness).” Saint-Andre (2008)


    “The blessed and indestructible being of the divine has no concerns of its own, nor does it make trouble for others. It is not affected by feelings of anger or benevolence,because these are found where there is a lack of strength.” Strodach (2012)


    “The blessed and immortal has no troubles himself and causes none for anyone else; hence he has nothing to do with resentments and partisanship; for all such impulses are a sign of weakness.” Mensch (2018)


    “What is in bliss and imperishable neither has troubles itself nor causes any for others, so it experiences no feelings of either anger or gratitude; for everything of that sort indicates weakness.” White (2021)


    Which of the above, or which with changes you would suggest, should be featured here in the main list? In the interest of space the poll will not include every option, so please add a comment in the thread if you would suggest a variation not listed.

    Best Translaton Of PDO1 To Feature At EpicureanFriends? 5

    The result is only visible to the participants.

    Here is the poll for PDO1

    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…makar%20etymology&f=false , http://www.crossmarks.com/brian/allsaintb.htm ; https://www.studylight.org/lan…k-thoughts/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

    I give Bailey the palm for clear and concise English, well written and very readable.


    I like DeWitt's translation for sound philosophy; the gods are "incorruptible" as opposed to "immortal", blissful by their own lights rather than blessed by something else. I quibble only with that word "creature". What is it doing there? Since it literally means "created thing" it seems out of place in what is otherwise very careful diction.


    I feel the same way about the word "divine" in Strodach.


    Then there is this question of 'movements' vs 'feelings' vs 'emotions' vs something else.


    I voted DeWitt. I would only change two things about his translation. Replace 'being' with 'nature', and replace 'a weak creature' with 'what is weak'.

    OK this is a good example of what I am thinking we should do with this project. Bailey seems good, but his "immortal" seems less accurate, and should be "incorruptible." I am entirely ok with a hybrid so long as we document the result.


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


    Thank you for all the background info but where do you end up yourself? I see you are questioning the relationship of gratitude but everyone seems to throw that in there so is Bailey basically correct?


    Gonna take a long time to go through these and then the Vatican Sayings too but maybe it is a good project to try to focus people on one or two before moving forward.

    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 :)

    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??

    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.>”

    "For perfect peace gods by their very nature

    Must of necessity enjoy, and immortal life,

    Far separate, far removed from our affairs.

    For free from every sorrow, every danger,

    Strong in their own powers, needing naught from us,

    They are not won by gifts nor touched by anger."

    Lucretius I.44-49 (+/-) Melville translation


    Arghh, there's "immortal" again. But "won by gifts" fits well with "favor" or "obligation".

    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.

    Quote from Godfrey

    I would vote for Wallace. It's not perfect, but I think it's the only one with "incorruptible" and with "favor" instead of "gratitude".

    I added Wallace to the poll options.


    Also, just to keep the point in mind, I think that a good balance of accuracy but with consideration for "reputation for trustworthiness" probably calls for using Bailey or some other "authority" as the base, but with specific "tweaks" to address specific issues like the "immortality" issue here which jumps out as needing tweaking. Then in the footnote / reference we can give other options including fully rewritten versions that seem best based on the discussion here, regardless of whether they are based primarily on one author or another.

    Quote from Don
    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.

    What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?