New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I have never had much fix on Usener because I have never been able to read any commentary by him that may exist, but I know I don't have a good feel about Bailey's discretion. But in this case we can't pin this on Bailey, correct? I wish we had more access to Usener's general thoughts on Epicurus to see if (or how) he made similar "this can't be right" comments.
Thank you again Don for all you do.
It's text added by Arrighetti denoted with the <brackets>. I believe I have that version listed in my KD compilation.
And so Nate in this situation the text really is there, and is just read OUT by most, but does exist in the manuscript?
As a general comment - that kind of editorial thinking can easily lead to problems. Is he really so sure what was in Epicurus' mind when the text says something else? Sounds like this is one of those situations where Dewitt prefers "less emended texts."
Add that this editorial thinking comes from Bailey and I am even more suspicious of it.
Yep that's the one, and we're still batting it back and forth! Thanks Don!
It's always interesting and a little scary to read what was written three years ago by the same people who may have very different thoughts now!
I don't see anything about kingship or politics in the Greek. Am I missing something
I seem to remember that we have been down this road before and Elli had some commentary but we will have to look back.....
Don your breakdown by word reminds me of the "nodictionaries.com" format for Latin. I don't suppose you know of an equivalent for Greek?
Which Translation of PD06 Should be Featured At EpicureanFriends.com?
The following post is one of a series so that we can get our collection of the main list of Principal Doctrines under the "Texts" section in better shape. 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 PD06 currently featured here in our Texts section is not that of our normal Cyril Bailey from his Extant Remains:, but this time from Eugene O'Connor:
PD06. Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good. [2]
We have access (thanks to Nate's full collection) to many different variations including:
**EΝEΚA TΟΥ ΘAΡΡEΙΝ ****EΞ AΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ****ΗΝ ΚATA ΦΥΣΙΝ**
**[AΡΧΗΣ ****ΚAΙ ΒAΣΙΛEΙAΣ]***** AΓAΘΟΝ ****EΞ ΩΝ AΝ ΠΟTE TΟΥTΟ**
**ΟΙΟΣ T' ῌ ΠAΡAΣΚEΥAΖEΣΘAΙ. **
***Arrighetti**
“For the sake of feeling confidence and security with regard to men, anything in nature is good, if it provides the means to achieve this.” Yonge (1853)
“As far as concerns protection from other men, any means of procuring this was a natural good.” Hicks (1910)
“In order to obtain security from other men any means whatsoever of procuring this was a natural good.” Hicks (1925)
“To secure protection from men anything is a natural good, by which you may be able to attain this end.” Bailey (1926)
“As for the assurance of safety from the attacks of men, by virtue of the nature of political dominion and kingly power this is a good thing, no matter by whose aid one is able to procure it." DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 79 (1954)
“Political rule and kingly power being what they are, it is a good thing to feel secure in human relations no matter through whose agency one is able to attain this." DeWitt, St. Paul and Epicurus 187 (1954)
“Any device whatever by which one frees himself from the fear of others is a natural good.” Geer (1964)
“Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.” O'Connor (1993)
“The natural good of public office and kingship is for the sake of getting confidence from [other] men, [at least] from those from whom one is able to provide this.” Inwood & Gerson (1994)
“That natural benefit of kingship and high office is (and only is) the degree to which they provide security from other men.” Anderson (2004)
“This [human ability to lead a good life] originally became possible by nature and for the sake of imparting courage in human beings [who were then living in a pre-social condition.] And this is the natural origin and principle on which all authority—be it even kingship—is based. And it is from the same [natural propensities] that a human being is able also to arrange a good and pleasant life.” Makridis (2005)
“It is a natural benefit of leadership and kingship to take courage from other men (or at least from the sort of men who can give one courage).” Saint-Andre (2008)
“Any means by which it is possible to procure freedom from fearing other men is a natural good.” Strodach (2012)
“In order that men might not fear one another, there was a natural benefit to be had from government and kingship, provided that they are able to bring about this result.” Mensch (2018)
“There was some natural good in leadership and kingship for the purpose of establishing mutual confidence among people, any time someone is thereby able to do so.” White (2021)
New Greek Version: “In order to obtain security from other people, there was (always) the natural good of sovereignty and kingship, through which (someone) once could have accomplished this.”
---
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.
Here are our topics for this week:
1 - The Vatican Sayings:
VS18. Remove sight, association, and contact, and the passion of love is at an end.
VS19. Forgetting the good that has been, he has become old this very day.
2 - Our Special Topic - If We Have Time
Aside from general guidance to follow pleasure and avoid pain, is there anything in Epicurean philosophy that tells a particular person what particular pleasure to choose or pain to avoid at any particular time. In other words, this is a variation of the old question: "Is one pleasure or activity in itself 'better' than another?" Is it possible to come up with a coherent analysis of how we would recommend a particular person at a particular time to proceed? Is all we can say is "It's contextual and up to you!" Or is there more for which we can find justification in the Epicurean texts?
Attendees should also plan to be sure they are on Kalosyni's conversation list. If you are not already on that and want the Zoom link so you can attend, please message Kalosyni or any other moderator.
Great find. Lots of good stuff there, including info about the parallel between Epicurean and Sadduccee views, with this writer extending the Epicurean parallel to Cain in Cain vs Abel:
Just as Josephus described Sadducees and Pharisees in terms of their opposing points of view on theodicy, so we find Cain and Abel distinguished point-for-point on the same topic.
Some scholars have attempted to identify Cain and Abel with various historical groups. Sheldon Isenberg, for example, argued that the midrash on Gen 4:8 represents a Sadducee-Pharisee controversy.(45) He based his argument on the stereotype which we have already noted that Sadducees deny the resurrection. Henry Fischel, however, argued that the midrash is Epicurean, citing in support numerous passages from the Rabbis which parallel in form and content the anti-theodicy sayings attributed to Epicureans.(46)
Although the question of provenance, whether Sadducean or Epicurean, may be impossible to solve, that should not deter us from noting the persistence and pervasiveness of the topos either against or for theodicy. It matters little whether Epicureans = Sadducees = Cain or Stoics = Pharisees = Abel, for the issue is that God was perceived in terms of a stereotype, the topos about theodicy. We have ample evidence that on the topic of theodicy, there were stereotypical responses and that certain well known parties in the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds were readily perceived in terms of their stand on theodicy. Stereotypes, then, describe both doctrine discussed and those who discussed it.
I. Summary and Conclusion
In regard to the hypotheses stated earlier in this study, we may now conclude:
1. Among the many theological elements in the Areopagus Speech, the chief issues which Luke highlights are providence and theodicy.
2. Luke presents characters and issues in contrasting pairs and by parallel examples. The Epicureans and Stoics of Acts 17 are balanced by the Sadducees and Pharisees of Acts 23.
3. Like other ancient writers, Luke portrays groups and parties in terms of stereotypes.
4. Luke knows of and presents a stereotypical description of theodicy, a topos on it (Acts 17; 23; 24).
5. Luke is not ignorant of the stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics,(47) and has told the story in Acts 17:16-34 in such as way that these two parties react in contrasting fashion to Paul, both at the beginning of the speech and at its end. The stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics is based on contrasting assessments of theodicy.
From this analysis, we conclude that Luke has cast the characters and the issues in such as way as to argue that Christian theology belongs to the common, acceptable doctrine of God held by good and reasonable people, whether Hellenistic Stoics or Jewish Pharisees. In regard to Paul's speech in Acts 17, we noticed that belief in providence and theodicy, while congenial to the Stoics, is not exclusive to them, but is a common, orthodox doctrine. Paul's speech in Acts 24, moreover, argues that his Christian belief in God is also vintage Jewish theology, although the Sadducees, guardians of Israel's shrine, would not agree. At least Luke makes this claim to orthodoxy through Paul.
Luke, then, presents certain aspects of Christian thought, i.e. theodicy, is terms acceptable to Greek and Jew alike; he would argue that this doctrine is orthodox, common and traditional. And so, the charge in Acts 17:6 that Paul and the Christians "turn the world upside down" must be false, for their doctrine is quite in conformity with what all intelligent, good people think.(48) In fact, to be mocked by the Epicureans and then to be dismissed by the Sadducees plays into this strategy. If mockery and dismissal come from groups which can be shown to be wrong, that in itself is further confirmation of the correctness of what they mock and dismiss. Comparably, to find common ground and perhaps endorsement from groups generally considered the guardians of the basic tradition (Stoics, Pharisees) can only shed that approbation to the new group of Christians as well. At least they are not mavericks.
Fernando's Contribution -- 2 Timothy 3:4 -- LOVER OF PLEASURE -- PHILODONOS
3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. |
3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, |
3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, |
3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; |
3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. |
3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, |
3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. |
3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. |
3:9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. |
3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, |
3:11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. |
3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. |
Kalosyni should have a good presentation for those who can attend, so we look forward to seeing those who are available. We will also talk about whether tonight will substitute for our Wednesday meeting this week -- probably depends on who is available!
Thank you for commenting, Waterholic!
Good idea to discuss this. I scanned through our organizational aspects (forum list, table of discussions, etc) without finding an obvious place for this. To a large extent everything here is "Epicurean Education" but we probably need a forum dedicated specifically to that topic where we can pull some of the obvious resources like "reading list" etc into the same place. Anyone want to suggest a better name than "Epicurean Education"? Does it need a third word like "methods" or "paths" or "competencies"?
This reminds me also of the discussion we had due to the Gellar-Goad article on the "Size of the Sun" perhaps being an Epicurean "shibboleth" or "litmus test" for the school (a test of whether you really understand how the senses work and how to use them):
And it relates to the use of terms like "gods" and even "virtue" where Epicurus was discussing common words in a non-common way. Doing so presents complex issues.
And most recently I would relate this to the commentary about the Tetrapharmakon in the Julie Giovacchini article to the effect that outlining always risks oversimplification, but remains very useful for certain purposes and circumstances:
If you're standing on a streetcorner or for some reason speaking to people who are essentially strangers, terms like "happiness" and "pleasant life" can make sense to use, or you can cite basic principles in tetrapharmakon-like simplification. But if you are talking to people who can or should have a deeper understanding of Epicurus, then you can and should be much more plain-speaking. You should speak frankly and the full truth - truths that are much more clear in the full first four principal doctrines: "pleasure" is the key, and gods of the Yahweh type are anything but truly godlike, and personal consciousness terminates forever at death, etc -- all in uncompromising and clear terms.
Oops i missed that Joshua - sorry!
Don's post as to the Julie G. article have been split out to a separate thread here:
This one is useful too, in analogizing the question under discussion to what Lucretius alludes to with bees flitting from flower to flower:
The image of the bee foraging in the flowers would, according to Barns, be a transparent allusion to the composition of anthologies49. If we compare this verse to the famous Lucretian comparison of poetry with honey, used as an adjuvant to make the bitterness and brutality of the epicurean remedy assimilable50, we have here an interesting analogy which, in the whole of the Rerum Natura,would work at different levels:
– a first level, therapeutic: the pharmacy epicurean, which is already a complex substance coming from different elements, must be mixed with something other than itself (the honey of poetry which dilutes it) to be properly assimilated and treat immediately;
– a second level, which could be called pharmaceutical: the honey itself is the product of foraging or picking from a
collection of philosophical elements, the sentences, maxims and aphorisms attributed to Epicurus , whose intrinsic virtue makes as many pharmacy, available and usable independently of their initial discursive context from the moment they are inserted into a new discourse that presents them effectively, integrating them into a more complete whole.
There is also an interesting comparison of this issue to a passage that Seneca wrote to Lucilius:
You wish me to accompany these letters also, like the preceding ones, with a few sentences from our masters. But they were not preoccupied with flowerets: the whole assemblage <of their thought> is virile. Inequality, you know, is found where remarkable realities dominate. There is nothing admirable in a single tree, if the whole forest rises to the same height. These kinds of sayings, you will find them in poems, in stories. That is why I do not want you to judge that these belong to Epicurus; they come back to everyone, much more, they come back to us. But we notice them more with him, because they arise at rare moments, because we do not expect them, because it is surprising that such strong things should be pronounced by a man who teaches softness. This is indeed how many consider him. To me, Epicurus is a brave fellow, but he wears a lady's shirt. […]
However, if you insist, I won't be stingy, but I'll have my hands full: immense is the mass of these sentences which lies pell-mell, and which must be amassed and not picked. They do not fall one by one, they flow. They are eternal and mixed together. I have no doubt, they would bring a lot to a still clumsy and ignorant listener. Because it is easier to retain concise and poetically ordered elements. That is why we give children to learn maxims, and what the Greeks call chries, because their childish mind can understand them, and is not able to embrace more. But it is shameful for an accomplished man to gather flowers, to rely on very well-known words and in very few numbers, and to stick to their memory: now that he is resting on himself! Let him speak in his name, instead of quotings.
OK I finished reading the google translate of the French article posted above, and it contains a lot of useful information and discussion. If I had to summarize the conclusion, the writer seems to be taking the position that it was an ongoing issue in the ancient world (especially among Epicureans) to debate the relationship and usefulness of summaries vs longer texts. I gather the point is parallel to the question of whether the benefits of philosophy can be gained from what might disparagingly be called the repetition of oversimplified "magic words," or whether the benefits must come through an ongoing enterprise of study over time.
The writer also makes the point that there is a major perspective difference between the kind of material that dedicated thinkers can pursue vs what ordinary people who have no time for philosophy can benefit from. The latter don't have time for long study, but they also deserve to get as much benefit as possible from short presentations of the approximate truth.
I will see if I can quote some important sections but the bottom line view of the article seems to be that the best perspective is to appreciate BOTH approaches, just as Epicurus said that you don't always need the details but that you do need the big picture most of the time. The trouble that is inherent in using only a few words to describe the big picture is something that we have to deal with by keeping in mind that as a practical matter it is the result that matters. Those who have the time and inclination and ability to dig into the details need to do so, and thereby they will get a deeper understanding of the issues. But those who don't have the time and inclination or ability to do so will still benefit from the summary, even if they end up missing the subtleties. Probably another appropriate time to remember the "perfect is not the enemy of the good" maxim.
Here's good quote which I think summarizes the point of the writer about the tension that is involved, but which is sustainable because we can explain the different perspectives and make use of both:
It must therefore be admitted that, at least in their intention, the successors of Epicurus held a difficult line. Claiming, in line with the introduction of theLetter to Herodotusand the continuity it establishes between the complete doctrine and its summary44, a perfect coherence and a complementarity between discursive ethics and the dogmatic and simplified ethics of summaries, they underlined in the same movement the risks linked to the abbreviated form; in this context the tetrapharmacos, taken out of its context, loses its rationality despite its completeness and is emptied of its meaning, since it is in reality not a magic formula but an invitation to reflection
and calculation
I am going to attach here a Google Translate French to english conversion of theJulie Giovacchini document Don linked above. I am just starting to read it so not sure how useful it will be, but on first glance appears reasonable.
