Posts by Don

From the Hermarchus book.

The "breathing" seems to be reconstructed from:

επισπωμ(......)ευ(.)α

I'd have to see the digitized manuscript to accept πνεύμα from that fragmentary text.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, πνεῦμα

That "breath, air, wind, spirit" could have multiple interpretations.

Even επισπωμ(ενους) seems to be related to aorist middle participle of ἐφέπω (ephépō); Mid. to follow, pursue.

The transliterated προιεμενους appears related to προΐημι which *can* mean "utter sounds" but that is a long way from conversation.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, προΐημι

PS

Here is the rest of fragment 39...

I got called away yesterday and didn't have a chance to follow-up on this post. Just realized this morning that #39 had more to it! I'm going to work on done translation because this is going to change my perspective, I'm betting

PPS. Here's the papyri.info entry for Philodemus's On the Gods

DCLP/Trismegistos 62386 = LDAB 3551

Makes it a little easier to copy and paste text and gives a better idea of the condition of the papyri itself.

Eikadistes : Came across this compilation of Hermarchus's fragments. However, it's in German, Greek, and Latin, but it's a start:

Quote from Joshua

1. Do not trouble about the gods, for the gods do not trouble about you.

I'm beginning to like @Joshua's interpretation. It also seems to correspond to the Letter of Menoikeus section:

Quote from Letter to Menoikeus

So, they (i.e, the hoi polloi, "the many") believe the greatest evils are brought to the wicked from the gods as well as the greatest aid to the good, because the hoi polloi are believing that the gods accept those who resemble themselves who are similar through all excellences and goodness; all those not of their sort are strange and alien.

But this idea that the gods bestow evils and aid is a mistaken idea about the gods, according to Epicurus. The gods are not swayed by prayer or sacrifice or ...gratitude to them.

PD01: Broken up:

Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει,

(singular) That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others,

ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται:

so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (Saint-Andre)

ὥστε with the indicative, to express the actual result with emphasis.

συνέχεται (3rd person singular middle/passive indicative < συνέχομαι can mean (as far as I can tell, anyone please correct me!) "afflicted with" but other connotations are impelled or disturbed, constrained by, trapped.

So, if ὥστε introduces a "result" of that which is blessed/incorruptible not causing trouble to itself or others... Wait, that sounds an awful lot like "neither harm nor be harmed." Hmm... Not the same words as PD31, but similar sentiment?

ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

for all such things come about through weakness

More food for thought...

TauPhi : You bring up some interesting points. I had a few thoughts as I was reading your post.

Quote from TauPhi

Epicurean gods can be viewed as immortal only when seen as collective of infinite number of blessed beings. On individual level they must be creatures that reached the state of blessedness but they are alive, created from compounds of atoms and therefore mortal and destructible.

This section I found intriguing. The idea of an individual god vs the gods as a collective made me thing of the scholia attached to PD01.

Quote from Hicks translation at Perseus Project

PD01. 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.]

Scholia ("ancient commentary") section: [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.]

Honestly, the "numerically distinct" and images and the rest have always befuddled me. Breaking it down, the "discernable through reason alone" here is a translation of simply λόγῳ θεωρητούς "'discernable' by/through reason, thinking, " (dative of λόγος). I don't see evidence of the word alone, but I suppose it's implied. LSJ includes the following in their definition: λόγῳ θεωρητά mentally conceived, opp. sensibly perceived. So, per that definition of that phrase, we can say that The gods are (only) mentally conceived, not sensibly perceived. Does that mean they can *never* be sensibly perceived, i.e., perceived by the physical senses and so not actually corporeal? Then the scholia talks about "others" as in "other gods"? Are there several different kinds of gods? Some can only be mentally conceived, and others are produced by continuous "similar images" *directed to* the same spot? Those images are the familiar εἰδώλων (eidolon), the films/simulacra/images being shed by bodies. The gods are an odd lot!

Oh, I didn't set out to resolve anything... just throwing more grist in the mill

Quote from Joshua

I should hate to be guilty of Norman DeWitt's unforgivable sin--amending the text!

I don't think you're amending the text at all. That's an interesting interpretation. I'll have to dig into the Greek but you may be onto something!

Quote from Nate

It seems to me that he (and apparently Hermarchus, based on fragmentary attestation I'm still trying to organize) had concerns about the status of the gods' social lives and their speech patterns

If you compile those sources, I'd be very interested to see them.

Here's a section from my Menoikeus translation:

Quote from Don

τὸν θεὸν ζῷον "a god (is a) ζῷον. But what is a ζῷον?

ζῷον (zōon) is where English zoology comes from.

LSJ gives two primary definitions:

living being, animal

in art, figure, image, not necessarily of animals (or a sign of the Zodiac)

So, unfortunately, at this point in the Letter we can't necessarily resolve the question of what the nature of the gods (or of a god) is according to Epicurus. Some scholars think Epicurus believed the gods were material beings ("living being, animal") somehow living between the various world-systems (cosmos) in the universe. Some think Epicurus believed the gods were mental representations or personifications of the concepts ("figure, image, sign") of blessedness.

The Letter goes on to describe what kind of ζῷον a god is: ἄφθαρτον and μακάριον

These are the exact words used in the first of the Principal Doctrines (Κυριαι Δοξαι): Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον "One who is blessed and imperishable." (Note, these are again singular.) The words held the first spot in the Principal Doctrines, and Epicurus chooses this as the first element of noble living of which to remind Menoikeus. Πρώτον, indeed! Epicurus obviously placed a great deal of importance on this topic so it behooves us to study it in-depth, to engage in some μελέτη.

μακάριον

This word is often translated as "blessed, fortunate, wealthy, 'well-off.'" There appears to be no certain etymology of the root [makar] or the longer form [makarios/on]. It appears to possibly have something to do with being wealthy, either literally or figuratively. Taking Ancient Mythology Economically by Morris Silver has a very interesting section on the origins of the word. This is yet another example of the inadequacy of using one word to translate from one language to another.

ἄφθαρτον

LSJ gives the definition of "incorruptible, eternal, immortal, uncorrupted, undecaying" and gives references to Epicurus, Philodemus, and Diogenes of Oenoanda. At its root, the word is α- "not" + φθαρτον "destructible, perishable." LSJ states φθαρτον is the opposite of ἀίδιος "everlasting, eternal" (related to ἀεί "ever, always") which poses an interesting question: Why did Epicurus choose to use ἄφθαρτον instead of ἀίδιος or ἀθάνατος? Φθαρτον is related to θνητός "liable to death, mortal, opposite: ἀθάνατος [athanatos]" (LSJ) Φθαρτον is also connected to the verb φθείρω "destroy, pass away, cease to be, perish." It seems that Epicurus didn't want to evoke that the gods (a god?) were simply immortal or eternal but that he wanted to impress upon us the sense that they would not pass away or cease to be. This is in contrast to everything else composed of atoms and void. Everything else is subject to be φθαρτον; only the gods are ἄφθαρτον! How can this be? Could it be that they are ἄφθαρτον precisely because they are mental concepts? That's one of the reasons I find Sedley's so-called "idealist" nature of the Epicurean gods intriguing.

I have also seen arguments that the stress should not be on the "eternal," as in everlasting in time, but rather the "incorruptible," as in the state of being. A "god" is "incorruptible" or "not able to be corrupted or to decay." They are unaffected by the vicissitudes of fortune, unaffected by anger or gratitude. To me, this is an intriguing perspective and gives a possible reason why Epicurus made the decision to use ἄφθαρτον and not an alternative that evokes the "eternal in time" connotation like ἀθάνατος. From my perspective, this argument is a strong one and deserves some study and thought. For now, let's move on to see if there are more clues.

Display More

Quote from Cassius

Actually maybe I should ask, Don, do you agree with this sentence from the paper as written, or would you modify it?

"It is important to remember, in this context, that for Epicureans all virtues—like moderation and justice—are defined not absolutely, by an independent objective standard. They are instrumentally valuable because they contribute to a pleasurable life, and so what counts as virtuous in a case depends on what in fact produces happiness (Ep. Men. 132)."

Yes. I agree with the quoted passage.

Basically, PD05 says, to me, you can't live pleasantly without living virtuously BUT virtue is not the end/goal. The virtues contribute to living pleasantly, and living pleasantly is a result of living virtuously. But one's eye should always be on the pleasant life lived.

Great paper! Thanks for sharing. The take on the gods near the end seems spot on from my perspective:

Quote

The gods exist, but because they are ‘blessed and indestructible’ they need not feel gratitude. Gratitude indicates weakness and is relevant only for those who have deficiencies and thus need others to help or benefit them. That humans feel anger or gratitude reveals our limitations and dependency. So, if wisdom enables a human to ‘live as a god among men’ (Ep. Men. 135), would not a wise and virtuous person also have no need for gratitude?

The answer, it seems to me, must be ‘no.’ The fact that gods feel no gratitude does not mean that we should not; though Epicureans seek to emulate the gods’ tranquility and happiness, no human can attain their invulnerability or immortality, and any desire to do so would be unnatural and empty.

It is important to remember, in this context, that for Epicureans all virtues—like moderation and justice—are defined not absolutely, by an independent objective standard. They are instrumentally valuable because they contribute to a pleasurable life, and so what counts as virtuous in a case depends on what in fact produces happiness (Ep. Men. 132).

...for indestructible and perfectly self-sufficient gods, gratitude is not a value, while for vulnerable and deficient humans, it is. No matter how wise we become, we cannot eliminate these facts about what we are. Gratitude is part of how we achieve what limited and imperfect self-sufficiency we can obtain.

Quote from Godfrey

There's a pleasurable aspect to gratitude as well, such as the gratitude of waking up to a beautiful day in a beautiful place. Whereas normal folk may feel a pleasing sense of gratitude in this case, apparently a god would experience the pleasure but no gratitude.

I *think* part of it is that a god is literally by definition filled with maximum pleasure already and only would experience the variety of pleasure expressed in PD18.

Quote from PD18

Pleasure in the flesh admits no increase when once the pain of want has been removed; after that it only admits of variation...

Quote from Don

Quote from Godfrey

Once one has children, keeping one's calm becomes a natural and necessary desire. When looked at in this way, it bumps it up in the list of priorities to be dealt with.

What's Epicurean for "Amen!"

τῷ ὄντι! (tō onti)

how are τῷ ὄντι doing? - Textkit Greek and Latin Forums

Indeed! Really! In fact! In reality!

Amen is actually ancient Greek ἀμήν (amḗn), from Biblical Hebrew אָמֵן‎ (ʾāmēn, “certainly, verily”) but I like τῷ ὄντι! for our purposes better.

Of course, there's always By Zeus!

monon hedone, monon aponia, monon ataraxia?

Quote from Godfrey

Once one has children, keeping one's calm becomes a natural and necessary desire. When looked at in this way, it bumps it up in the list of priorities to be dealt with.

What's Epicurean for "Amen!"

I maintain that ataraxia is a sort of mindset. The metaphor is sailing on calm seas. It affects how we approach other choices. To me, ataraxia is the eye in the hurricane. We can have a tranquil mind in the midst of chaos. It's "katastematic" because it is a state of being arising from within. As opposed to the pleasure or pain that comes from activities.

I fully agree that parenting can be chaotic, but we have the choice to deal with it calmly (at least internally) or with anger or impatience. And sometimes we will be angry but we need to know if it does, does it come from a place of correcting behavior of children or protection of them or from some other place?

Quote from Cassius

don't think Epicurus expected that naming "pleasure" the guide of life could ever be interpreted as a call for the draining of all active physical and mental pleasures from life .

Quote from Epicurus

67. I do not think I could conceive of the good without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms.

I continue to soapbox that all pleasures are included in Epicurus's definition of pleasure/hedone; however, he also taught that we can have more confidence in pleasure that arises from within ourselves (tranquility, memory, anticipation, etc.) than that which arises from outside ourselves (sex, food, music, dance, etc.) . That which arises from within are always at hand.

"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."

ἀσθενεῖ

• weakness
• sickness
• moral weakness, depravity

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 (10.77) "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.

I would answer yes to Cassius's sentiment when he says:

Quote from Cassius

a "god" would be so self-sufficient that it would never experience an emotion of receiving something that it lacked previously?

PD1 refers to those who are incorruptible and completely blessed. So, we "mere" humans should show gratitude.

We need to also take into account what Diogenes Laertius reports that:

[121] Two sorts of happiness can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures.

It seems there could easily be two standards when it comes to gratitude as well, one "such as the gods enjoy" and one for the rest of us who should be thankful for our pleasures that we experience.

Some other words:

φιλία (philia)

affectionate regard, friendship, usu. betw. equals

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, φι^λί-α

περιχορεύει (perikhoreuei)

To dance (χορεύει) around in a circle (περί)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, περιχορ-εύω

I like the connotation that the word has of dancing in a group, in a dramatic or religious chorus of dancers, not in a solitary way.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χορός

οἰκουμένην (oikoumenēn)

the inhabited world, particularly that known to the ancient Greeks: (sub-polar) Europe, (western) Asia, and (northern and Saharan) Africa

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, οἰκουμέν-η

κηρύττουσα (kēruttousa)

Attic form of κηρῠ́σσω (kērússō)

• To be a herald or auctioneer
• To make a proclamation as herald
• (transitive) To summon by herald
• (transitive) To proclaim, announce
• (transitive) To command someone publicly to do something (with infinitive or dative of thing)
• (New Testament) To preach the gospel

δή • (dḗ) (discourse particle) + πᾶσιν

• Adds temporal specificity: now, already
• Adds emphasis: truly, !, indeed, in truth
• Adds specificity: exactly
• Sometimes ironical: no doubt, of course
• With pronouns: of all people
• + πᾶσιν "to all, every, each"

ἐγείρεσθαι (egeiresthai)

present mediopassive infinitive of ἐγείρω (egeírō)

rouse or stir oneself, be excited by passion, etc.,

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἐγείρω

Here's a pertinent excerpt from my letter to Menoikeus translation:

Quote

Another pivotal word here is μακαρίως which appears to have no certain etymology but seems possibly to be derived from the idea of being wealthy in a literal and/or figurative sense. The usual translation is something like "blessed, fortunate, wealthy, 'well-off'”. That being said, "happy" or as Saint-Andre says "completely happy" doesn't, in my view, provide the overall sense of satisfaction or completeness conveyed by a word like μακαρίως. Keep in mind that this is a form of the exact word used to describe the "blessed" beings talked about in Principal Doctrine 1: Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει· ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται· ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

"That which is blessed/completely happy/blissful and imperishable/indestructible has no troubles itself nor causes troubles for others; as a consequence, it is affected by neither anger nor gratitude; because all this would be an indication of weakness/sickness/lack of strength."

That Doctrine's μακάριον is rarely translated as simply "happy" but rather "blissful" and other superlatives like that.22,23,24

22

https://books.google.com/books?id=sPCww…ymology&f=false

23

http://www.crossmarks.com/brian/allsaintb.htm

24

https://www.studylight.org/language-studi…/index.cgi?a=38

Display More

Quote from Kalosyni

the last two letters of the word look different than in the above ancient Greek (in post 1 above)

The endings of ancient Greek words are very mutable: case endings, conjugations, etc.

LSJ is *the* authority for definitions, too:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Α α,