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 much prefer "breaking away from the herd" to "retirement from the world."
And yet if the Greek really very clearly were "retirement from the world" it would probably be best to keep that. Probably the key word that bothers me is the "retirement" or "withdraw" that can be read to imply exhaustion and "giving up" - which is very different from "breaking away from the herd."
Don did you opine on your ultimate view on that word? I see you were considering "go, make way, make room, withdraw, etc."
This is a paste of a post from an earlier discussion where the issue was buried in a "Welcome" thread. It would be good to discuss general approaches to how to construe texts which may seem corrupted or may seem contradictory with other passages. How do we decide between them?
The issue of how contracts and statutes are construed in court is certainly not exactly the same issue, but it seems to me that similar principles provide at least a starting point for analysis. Here's the earlier post, and I hope we can find more to add to the discussion and maybe compile our own list of considerations to think about in any textual controversy. I bet there are lists of considerations for more general critical analysis, but these below are the first that come to my own mind.
The issue of textual construction is never going away no matter how many Herculaneum texts we find.
---
Here's a good list of rules of construction. A work of philosophy isn't exactly a statute, and many of these obviously don't apply, but many do:
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/Rehnquist_Court_Canons_citations.pdf
This list might actually be better than the first list I linked:
https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf
Here's a good list of rules of construction. A work of philosophy isn't exactly a statute, and many of these obviously don't apply, but many do:
https://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013PDS/Rehnquist_Court_Canons_citations.pdf
This list might actually be better than the first list I linked:
https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf
AGB your comment reminded me of just one of many examples of the controversies about Epicurus. Here is an example of both Cicero's issues and the general controversies about what Epicurus meant. I think i am so used to these controversies that it is probably a good idea for those of us who are regulars here to step back and think about what new readers of Epicurus are expecting to find. If they are looking for a clear and undisputed body of work that everyone interprets in the same way, boy are they in for a disappointment / surprise! 
And for that reason -- that so many of his doctrines are disputed -- I have always remembered and appreciated the very first words of DeWitt's books -- which I think are very important to remember:
Saint-Andre translation: 14 Although some measure of safety from others comes from the power to fight them off and from abundant wealth, the purest security comes from solitude and breaking away from the herd.
Agreed Martin -- I much prefer "breaking away from the herd" to "retirement from the world."
AGB I yield totally to Don on this question. I had some basic Latin in high school and college, but never had the first class in Greek.
I still hold out the hope of making some progress in understanding some basic Greek, but I decided some years ago that devoting a lot of time to basic Greek would not be the best use of my time. Perseus, such as Don suggests, and the side-by-side translations let us do basic honesty-checking, but it seems to me that when classical scholars who devote their whole lives to studying the minutia can come to such different conclusions, any hope I have of being able to second-guess them is itself minute. No doubt there is a lot of pleasure in being able to grasp the original (as I can do somewhat with Lucetius) but in the end the subtleties of the philosophy are going to turn on connotations of words that will always be obscure to me. In those cases, like with an expert witness, I think it's best for me to yield to those who have invested the time to study the known usages of those words in detail.
For that reason I've made a point of always checking three or four (or a many as I can get) translations against each other for consistency, but in the end I go with the one that seems to me to have the best grasp of what I think Epicurus was intending to say -- with the standard being the direction that the whole philosophy seems to be pointing. Whenever a translator comes up with a version that seems to point in a different direction, that sends up the red flags that I try to heed.
For that reason I often listen to DeWitt's versions over some of the others, and in Lucretius I prefer Munro over Bailey, and even the 1743 version over some of the later ones. I think DeWitt, Munro, and 1743 have the most "sympathy" with Epicurus' philosophy and are less likely to go off-key than Bailey.
Again as to Lucretius I also stay away from the "poetic" translations to the extent possible, although I do think Rolfe Humphries has an inspired choice of words in many cases.
There definitely are a number of passages that are either mangled or so foreign to us that we don't have a clear idea of their meaning, and so lend themselves to controversies. I put the whole issue of "absence of pain" near the top of that. I certainly see how sections of the Letter to Menoeceus, and some other passages, can be read to point in one direction, but I also firmly think that the great weight of the philosophy points in a direction different than many modern commentators would give to those selections.
So you may be retired, but it's not time to put away your "statutory interpretation" skills because they will definitely be needed in "reconstructing" many important questions.
Glad to have you AGB -- that is my profession as well, so good to have someone else to help offset Cicero in is anti-Epicurean lawyer arguments!
I always fear that I am too pushy on my main reading recommendation, but just in case you've somehow escaped my regular call-outs on this site (they are actually easy to miss if you mainly use a phone for access) please be sure to check out Norman Dewitt's book for what I think is by far the most sympathetic and sweeping introduction to Epicurean philosophy. Here's a page of info about it.
Don what about the "prosperity" part - that seems to me the most controversial aspect of the quote. I am surprised that Inwood and Gerson would deviate so far from what appears to be otherwise the consensus. That is from page 33 of the Epicurus Reader and unfortunately there appear to be no footnotes. I don't know how we can track that down but such a departure calls into question the reliability of the Epicurus Reader if there is no good reason for it.
Very good! Thank you and keep us posted on your comments!
Welcome AGB !
This is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. Please remember that all posting here is subject to our Community Standards / Rules of the Forum our Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean and our Posting Policy statements and associated posts.
Please understand that the leaders of this forum are well aware that many fans of Epicurus may have sincerely-held views of what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with the purposes and standards of this forum. This forum is dedicated exclusively to the study and support of people who are committed to classical Epicurean views. As a result, this forum is not for people who seek to mix and match some Epicurean views with positions that are inherently inconsistent with the core teachings of Epicurus.
All of us who are here have arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies, and we do not demand of others what we were not able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is very different from other viewpoints, and it takes time to understand how deep those differences really are. That's why we have membership levels here at the forum which allow for new participants to discuss and develop their own learning, but it's also why we have standards that will lead in some cases to arguments being limited, and even participants being removed, when the purposes of the community require it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, or committed to unlimited free speech, or devoted to any other form of organization other than the pursuit by our community of happy living through the principles of Epicurean philosophy.
One way you can be most assured of your time here being productive is to tell us a little about yourself and personal your background in reading Epicurean texts. It would also be helpful if you could tell us how you found this forum, and any particular areas of interest that you have which would help us make sure that your questions and thoughts are addressed.
In that regard we have found over the years that there are a number of key texts and references which most all serious students of Epicurus will want to read and evaluate for themselves. Those include the following.
It is by no means essential or required that you have read these texts before participating in the forum, but your understanding of Epicurus will be much enhanced the more of these you have read.
And time has also indicated to us that if you can find the time to read one book which will best explain classical Epicurean philosophy, as opposed to most modern "eclectic" interpretations of Epicurus, that book is Norman DeWitt's Epicurus And His Philosophy.
Welcome to the forum!
It looks like we have a significant difference among sources as to how PD14 should end, so we need to have a discussion as to why that is the case, and this thread is the best place for that. This is prompted by Nate's graphic here Principal Doctrine 14 which cites Inwood and Gerson:
XIV "The purest security is that which comes from a quiet life and withdrawal from the many, although a certain degree of security from other men does come by means of the power to repel [attacks] and by means of prosperity." (Epicurus, Principal Doctrine 14) PD14 Translated by Inwood and Gerson (1994)
The other cites we've listed initially are:
Bailey Version: 14. The most unalloyed source of protection from men, which is secured to some extent by a certain force of expulsion, is in fact the immunity which results from a quiet life, and retirement from the world.
Greek: 14Τῆς ἀσφαλείας τῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένης μέχρι τινὸς δυνάμει τινὶ ἐξερειστικῇ καὶ εὐπορίᾳ εἰλικρινεστάτη γίνεται ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἡσυχίας καὶ ἐκχωρήσεως τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφάλεια.
Hicks translation: 14 When tolerable security against our fellow-men is attained, then on a basis of power arises most genuine bliss, to wit, the security of a private life withdrawn from the multitude.
Saint-Andre translation: 14 Although some measure of safety from others comes from the power to fight them off and from abundant wealth, the purest security comes from solitude and breaking away from the herd.
Emidio Spinnelli paper: The purest security is that which comes from a quiet life and withdrawal from the many, after having obtained a certain degree of security with respect to other men by means of comfort and prosperity.
Yes it is not really focused on Laertius and contains other material as well.
It's good to have too, bit I think you want a translation if the entire set of books. They are actually fun to read
Yes and I was referring to to the tendency of Amazon to convert scans of old books to "print on demand" which may turn out to be of a quality inferior to what you can get at a used book store. I haven't ordered many like that but it's my understanding that the print on demand product might not be satisfactory in some cases. I always prefer the originals when possible.
The Epicurus reader is well respected. I would be careful about the Yonge and Hicks versions from Amazon as they may be cheap reprints. Have you searched Ebay or places like Abebooks?
Don may have recommendations....
That was less than two months ago and I had completely forgotten about it too!
Don is this part of this article incorrect as to the text where it asserts that the texts asserts positively.....?
Well, the original does say:
Original text: Καὶ μηδὲ καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν....
Here marriage is specifically mentioned: γαμήσειν "to be married" and τεκνοποιήσειν "to bear children" and μηδὲ is negation so..
And neither marry nor bear children..
But the following phrases seem to say that "under certain circumstances" the wise one will turn aside (from this course) and marry.
Yep - some say one way, some say the other way, as below. Seems to me the best course is to be sure to mark the passage as controversial and apparently corrupted
I forget how many volumes the Loeb is in..... But to be clear, Bailey is only Book 10.
Here's another issue with Mensch, and since I am all in favor of Epicureans marrying and having lots of children so there will be more Epicureans, I consider this a serious problem with this version There's a lot of controversy about that line and apparently the text is unclear, but I resolve that dispute consistently with Epicurus providing in his will for Metrodorus' daughter eventually to be married to a member of the school. It doesn't look like in Mensch that she even annotates it, but just chooses what I perceive to be the negative option.
In my case Mensch has not proved to be a new favorite, and here is one reason, comparing PD3:
Epicurus Wiki:
Mensch:
For me, I usually see the translators include what the Epicurus wiki renders as "magnitude" (I think Bailey uses "quantity.") I happen to think that is a very important word, and I am sorry to see Mensch leave it out. My general impression is that she is being a little too free with the translation and less literal than would be desired given that the material can be pretty complex.
