Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

Do we think even those dots date back to the original, or did they evolve later

Greek orthography - Wikipedia

For contrast, here's a page from Philodemus' On Choices and Avoidances from P.Herc. 1251. dating to between 50 to 1 BCE.

At that time, everyone just "knew" where to read punctuation and the script was written continuously and in all "capitals" to our way of thinking... But that was just how they wrote. Once Greek started to be a lingua franca among disparate cultures (or just to make it easier to read!), the punctuation and accent marks were "invented" and added to the text.

It's the difference between this:

ITWOULDBEQUITEDIFFIC

ULTBUTNOTIMPOSSIBLE

TOREADTHISWAYINTEXT

and this

It would be quite difficult, but not impossible, to read this way in text.

So, the "punctuation marks" were always there, after a fashion, even if they weren't written. That said, it can be interesting to see how phrases were punctuated. Here's an example from my characteristics of the sage:

Quote from Cassius

Wow thank you Don! At least we are now pretty sure the original was divided neatly and numbered to 40! But I do see regular "dots" that presumably indicate something (?)

My pleasure! It was fun.

The "dots" are typically either "semi-colons" (a raised dot in Greek manuscripts) or periods.

Okay, as promised, here are the best digitized manuscripts I can find online of Diogenes Laertius with citations and images of where the Principal Doctrines start. I have not begun to go through the various texts to see where gaps appear to be, but the Oxford Arundel MS531 seems to be the most promising for that exercise; however, the others definitely need to be examined.

Oh, and this isn't intended to be just for people who read Greek. I would be curious for anyone to take a look at the pages starting where I've indicated to see if anyone sees, to their eyes, natural breaks in the text. Even if you don't read Greek, point them out! We'll see where they end up.

Enjoy!

First manuscript from 14th century CE

codex Parisinus gr. 1759 (14th c.) known as P

Diogène Laërce

Diogène Laërce -- 1075-1150 -- manuscrits

gallica.bnf.fr

Principal Doctrines start on 247v, bottom of page, middle of the 3rd line from the bottom with το μακαριον…

Second manuscript from 14/15th c. CE

codex Parisinus gr. I758 (14th or 15th c.) known as Q

Grec 1758

Grec 1758 -- 1401-1500 -- manuscrits

gallica.bnf.fr

Principal Doctrines start on folio 206, middle of page; 14 lines from the top, right side; alternatively, 12 lines from the bottom

Third manuscript from the 12 century CE

codex Laurentianus Plut.69.35 - written 1101-1200 CE (12 century CE)

http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWOItZA2I1A4r7GxMME1&c=Laertius%20Diogenes#/oro/496

Principal Doctrines start on folio 243v, 10 lines from the bottom on the left side.

Fourth Manuscript from 2nd half of 15th century CE

Oxford Arundel MS531

https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=arundel_ms_531_fs001r

Principal Doctrines start on f.176r: 7 lines down from the top after a NOTICEABLE SPACE in the text.

There is a fifth manuscript, codex Vaticanus gr. 140 (14th c.) known as W

DigiVatLib

but the digital copy is in terrible shape!

I'll add a link to my commentary for anyone interested in diving in...

Letter To Menoikeus: A New Translation With Commentary : Don Boozer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A new translation of the Letter to Menoikeus (Menoeceus) by Epicurus with commentary.

archive.org

Quote from Cassius

I cannot promise to keep up the pace of same-day turnaround between recording and posting

Applause for Cassius on even attempting the one-day turnaround! Being in the behind-the-scenes of a podcast at work, I know what goes into the post-production. Kudos to you!

To build on Eikadistes 's post...

Also, Fragment 68. To those who are able to reason it out, the highest and surest joy is found in the stable health of the body and a firm confidence in keeping it. τὸ γὰρ εὐσταθὲς σαρκὸς κατάστημα καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν ἔλπισμα τὴν ἀκροτάτην χαρὰν καὶ βεβαιοτάτην ἔχει τοῖς ἐπιλογίζεσθαι δυναμένοις.

PD35 Οὐκ ἔστι τὸν λάθρα τι κινοῦντα ὧν συνέθεντο πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἰς τὸ μὴ βλάπτειν μηδὲ βλάπτεσθαι, πιστεύειν ὅτι λήσει, κἂν μυριάκις ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος λανθάνῃ. μέχρι γὰρ καταστροφῆς ἄδηλον εἰ καὶ λήσει.

Hicks translation: It is impossible for the man who secretly violates any article of the social compact to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure he will not be detected.

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

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, π , πισσόχριστος , πίστις

G4102 - pistis - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G4102 - πίστις pístis, pis'-tis; from ; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher),…

www.blueletterbible.org

G4102 - pistis - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G4102 - πίστις pístis, pis'-tis; from ; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher),…

www.blueletterbible.org

I really liked Kalosyni 's closing comments. I thought that was a good summary!

I thought Joshua might be interested in this paper...

Discourse Ex Nihilo: Epicurus and Lucretius in Sixteenth-Century England.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the afterlife of De rerum natura is the way that the poem’s dynamic treatment of atomism and mutability seems to generate…

www.academia.edu

I'll add in the link to my commentary...

Letter To Menoikeus: A New Translation With Commentary : Don Boozer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

A new translation of the Letter to Menoikeus (Menoeceus) by Epicurus with commentary.

archive.org

https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203141526&type=googlepdf

As you'll see in the excerpt below, this author seems to dismiss Epicurus as arguing that the gods are "pure nonsense" which is off the mark. But the title is intriguing nonetheless.

The Neurobiology of the Gods

Excerpt:

Gods, demons, angels . . . muses, spirits, ghosts . . . fairies, devils, imps, fauns, unicorns, dragons, poltergeists, ghouls, vampires, djinns, werewolves. . . saviors . . .

Have you ever wondered why humans have spent so much time writing and worrying about, praying to, running from, blessing, cursing, exorcizing, and placating these entities? If there is so little physical evidence that any of these things exist, why do we spend so much energy thinking about them?

Philosophers as early as Epicurus argued that they are pure nonsense, yet since the dawn of our existence humankind has been convinced of the power of these ``spiritual'' entities. Isn't this irrational? Illogical? Even potentially harmful? Why would such a propensity evolve, when clearly a more rational animal would never waste precious biological resources on self-sacri®ce, burnt offerings, or self-mutilation in the name of a god?

I started reading the article Godfrey posted, more out of curiosity than anything. I thought a passing similarity between Jungian archetypes and Epicurean gods would be it, but, as I'm reading, this line jumped out at me:

Quote

we Jungians cannot go on basing our theory of archetypes on scientific assumptions which have been falsified by more recent research if we do not want to run the risk of becoming ridiculous in the scientific world. It is important that we stop arguing that archetypes are transmitted genetically if we want to be taken seriously.

I would amend that first phrase as:

"we Epicureans cannot go on basing our theory of prolepseis on scientific assumptions which have been falsified by more recent research if we do not want to run the risk of becoming ridiculous..."

The use in paper of the word "innate" also seemed to echo the idea of the prolepseis in Cicero and other spots.

Seligman's paper may be interesting to look up for our purposes here.

Quote

Preparedness: Even Seligman (1972), a behavioural psychologist and certainly not a friend of analytical psychology, found a phenomenon which he called ‘preparedness’: it refers to the interesting fact that humans generally develop anxieties and especially phobias towards animals like snakes or spiders, even though they may never have had any contact with them, but usually not towards animals such as rabbits or cows. He explains this by a biologically based preparedness which has developed throughout evolution and serves the aim of protection against poisonous animals – otherwise it could be possible that one cannot learn from a first contact experience because one does not survive it.

I like the author's first line of the conclusion:

Quote

I must admit that, for now, there are more questions than conclusions...

Now, *there's* a direct parallel with the prolepsis of the gods!

Another interesting angle could be the cultural complex paper that the author referenced (Singer & Kimbles 2004) .

Okay, after reading I do see parallels between prolepsis and archetype, but I also think this author's perspective, attitude, and honesty is relevant to our search for understanding the conundrum of prolepsis, especially of the divine. I continue to insist that Epicurus found a correct understanding of the gods to be of vital importance to his philosophy. It is put first in several places, at least the PDs and the letter to Menoikeus plus he devoted sections of On Nature to the topic. He seemed to see it as a necessary thing to "get right" to be able to live a pleasurable life. Now, whether he saw this primacy in the context of his own time ("This is how I make sense of the way we can worship the gods in the culture in which we live...") or as fundamental to his whole system of philosophy ("This is the way we MUST understand the gods if we are to have no fear of them! You must get this right FIRST!") can be argued. I lean toward the latter but not leaning so far as to fall over (to take that metaphor to its end).

So, for further rabbit-holing, I'm looking for:

- Seligman, M. E. & Hager, J. L. (Eds.) (1972). Biological Boundaries of Learning.

Appleton: Century-Crofts

- Singer, T. & Kimbles, S. (2004). ‘Emerging theory of cultural complexes’. In Analytical

Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives in Jungian Psychology, eds. J. Cambray & L.

Carter. Hove & New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Quote from Joshua

A book that I always meant to read but never got around to is God is not One; The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World by Stephen Prothero.

Thanks! Added to my Good Reads "Want to read" list

Quote from Kalosyni

More on an idealist Epicurean view of the gods, by Sedley:

https://www.academia.edu/11365772/Epicu…ogical_innatism

That's a good one. Sedley is the big name when it comes to this topic.

I'm looking forward to listening!

And August 20 is the anniversary of the Launch of Voyager II in 1977 to explore the cosmos.

Voyager 2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Cassius

and therefore you will no more approach their shrines with an easy mind, no more in tranquility and peace will you be able to receive the images, the representations of their divine forms, that form from their pure bodies and strike powerfully upon the minds of men:

I think it's interesting to consider the opposite of what Lucretius is saying:

If you do purge your mind of such conceits, and do banish them your breast, and do forebear to think unworthily of the gods, then you can approach their shrines with an easy mind, in tranquility and peace will you be able to receive the images, the representations of their divine forms, that form from their pure bodies and strike powerfully upon the minds of men.

That's how Epicurus approached his participation in the rites and festivals of the gods.

Okay, "seize the day" has been so in-grained in modern Western popular culture to equate with FOMO (Fear of missing out) or constantly seeking new thrilling experiences that I feel obliged to urge everyone to take a look at Horace's original.

Wikipedia actually has a nice article:

Carpe diem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To me, I prefer the more literal "Pluck the day" or "Harvest the day".

Compare Greek καρπός (karpós, “fruit”) and κείρω (keírō, “to cut off”), English harvest, sharp, shear.

"Seize" always has such a frenzied feel to it. Seizing, grasping, clutching... And that's not what the original means.

I envision Horace plucking a ripe peach from a tree and sinking his teeth into its perfect, juicy flesh.

Quote from Cassius

Dewitt comments that Epicurus is pointing to a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints). I am not so sure about that, and in fact I wonder if we fail to grasp some of what Epicurus is saying because we are trying to fit his perspective into a mold in which life can be viewed as fair to everyone. .

Oh my! I'm about to defend DeWitt everybody! Mark your calendars.

It's true that the Principal Doctrines literally laid out the "basic doctrines" of the philosophy for Epicureans to study and memorize. But Epicurus was providing practical solutions and philosophical medicine to real people. I think he had to provide "a way to console us for loss of immortality (presumably as alleged by religious viewpoints)." I'm not sure of the word "console" but he had to provide an alternative. This went hand in hand with removing the fear of divine punishment or reward. Even without Eternal Hell/Heaven, there was also the prevalent ancient Greek of existing eternally as a shade as Homer describes Odysseus' trip to Hades. Even as a shade, you still get to "live" forever. And most people, I believe, would answer in the affirmative if asked "If you were given the ability to be immortal, would you?" before, of course, thinking about the details. So, yes, Epicurus had to provide consolation or at least a reasonable alternative to the desire for immortality.

Quote from Cassius

t could be that Epicureans were flatly so convinced of the universe's total lack of overall plan that they weren't at all thinking about any "perfection" and that they were constantly thinking only on practical terms about how best to spend "the present" whatever that happens to be.

I think that's the *Epicurean* perspective, but the Principal Doctrines no doubt circulated as a"recruitment tool" as well. As you've said, Cassius, they should make sense to "normal" people

I just came across this paper:

Horace, Ofellus and Philodemus of Gadara in Sermones 2.2

This paper examines Horace's portrayal in Sermones 2.2 of Ofellus, the poet's rustic spokesman whose recent loss of property provides the opportunity…

www.academia.edu

Good analysis of Epicurean themes in Horace. Still reading but seems solid. One basic thread is the encouragement to be satisfied with little - to take pleasure in little - if circumstances change and little, ie, only the basics, is all you have.

Quote from DavidN

one to poke at Don, Wouldn't the Jefferson Bible count as an epicurean "job".

Oh, exactly.

Somebody now needs to purge the "irrelevant" material out of DeWitt's book on Epicurus.