Posts by Don

These are great ideas, Godfrey ! I'm reminded of our conversation from a ways back on the forum on related topics.

The only way to figure out what could be the correct one is to:

1. see if there's room for one or two letters if there's a missing piece of the manuscript: ΜΗ(Ν) vs ΜΗ(ΔΕ).

2. If there's not a lacuna, compare ALL the extant manuscripts and calculate where and how the are differences.

If it's the latter, Userner seems to have examined the manuscripts or at least authoritative copies.

If the former, you're right in that one's positive or negative disposition may influence seeing ΜΗΝ or ΜΗΔΕ.

To try to steer this back to the original question in a roundabout way: I'm leaning toward accepting the Greek text which Bailey provides in his Epicurus: The Extant Remains: https://archive.org/details/Bailey…e/n160/mode/1up After looking at some commentary online on the most trustworthy Diogenes Laertius manuscripts as well as the prefatory commentary in Bailey regarding Usener's scholarship in comparing and "correcting" said manuscripts, it seems to me that Bailey is on solid ground. So, until Sedley gives a full translation of DL Book X, I'm going to use Bailey as my source text.

I bring this up because the Greek section(s) in the Oxford Arundel manuscript of DL do not match the sections in the Perseus online edition. So, I felt I needed some authoritative edition. For now, I'm going with Bailey. When I was recently trying to puzzle out the meaning in the "pleasure at other's misfortune" thread, I can't across this discrepancy between Arundel and Usener/Bailey.

So, what does Bailey say about the marriage question?

One of the key relevant passages is at the start of "verse" 119 in Laertius:

Perseus/Hicks: [119] Καὶ μηδὲ καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ταῖς Διαπορίαις καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ φύσεως. κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν

Usener/Bailey: [119] Καὶ μην καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ταῖς Διαπορίαις καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ φύσεως. κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν

The only difference is that Hicks' 2nd word is μηδέ and Usener's is μήν.

Hicks' μηδέ "(connecting two clauses, used with the same constructions as μή (mḗ)) but not, and not, nor"

which seems to me we would have to look at the preceding phrase and connect it to this one.

Usener's μήν on the other hand is:

"used to strengthen statements: verily, surely, truly, definitely (after other particles)

(καὶ μήν) used to introduce something new or convey affirmation"

Hicks' is negative, Usener's is positive, and this is born out on their translations:

Hicks': "Nor, again, will the wise man marry and rear a family : so Epicurus says in the Problems and in the De Natura. Occasionally he may marry owing to special circumstances in his life."

Usener/Bailey: "Moreover, the wise man will marry and raise children..."

Whether or not Epicurus advocated marriage and childrearing depends on the presence or absence of -δε or -ν after μη-. I would dearly like to see images of the manuscripts, but without that we have to decide which scholar we're going to trust. I think I trust Usener/Bailey on the Greek.

All that being said though, Bailey's English translation doesn't make any sense!...

"Moreover, the wise man will marry and have children, as Epicurus says in the Problems and in the work on Nature. But he will marry according to the circumstances of his life."

Saying "he will marry... But he will marry..." However, **maybe** he will marry but he will marry according to certain circumstances NOT due to compulsion or cultural convention??

Quote from Cassius

And I agree we do want to live a "wise" life because we don't place wisdom as a goal in itself, but employ it among the most valuable tools we can have to pursue our goal (happiness/pleasure) as successfully as possible.

Amen! (We need an Epicurean equivalent of that )* Practical, sensible wisdom - phronimos - is one of the three characteristics Epicurus singles out for living a pleasurable life in PD5

*The closest we seem to come is Παιὰν ἄναξ Paian anax.

Quote from Cassius

How would you apply this to the "4th leg" Don?

Oh, just that it may not be as big of a controversy as we are taking it. If the Epicureans were primarily in agreement, as this text seems to say, maybe we (and DL) are reading more into that than is necessary. Maybe there's some way to reconcile it without seeing it as a schism in the school.

From my perspective, I think we've cracked the meaning of that phrase which on first impression seemed to have a negative connotation. We take pleasure in escaping the misfortune experienced by others, not in their misfortune itself. We also need to learn from that misfortune "for our own correction." How can we apply what we learn from seeing others' misfortune in our own lives to be not at the mercy of Fortune? If we don't apply it, we are not leading a "wise" life.

How's that?

Hmmm... After reading the ancient source text (Thanks, Cassius !!), Frischer seems to me to be going off on a DeWittean historical fiction flight of fancy. He wants to write a good story, but I don't see his conclusion supported by the ancient text itself.

That said, I found the ancient text fascinating! Certainly sets up a contrast with the Stoics, and puts that "controversy" with the "4th leg of the Canon" into a different context, too.

Quote from Marco

He finds very little of the marriage of romantic love to the Greeks and Romans.

I certainly think this is the case for Marriage as the institution, but I also think there is plenty of evidence for relationships based on what we would recognize as romantic love. Not the least of which is Pericles and Aspasia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspasia?wprov=sfla1

Or Metrodorus and Leontion who conceivably could have been the mother of his son and daughter.

I'm not convinced at all that romantic love was created in the Middle Ages. Too much evidence in ancient sources, to me, points to the contrary.

Maybe that's why marriage isn't necessarily promoted? Love outside marriage - in their view - had the potential for more mutual pleasure??

But what does it mean for the wise man "to turn aside from his purpose" and decide to marry? Is he turning away from seeking pleasure? I find that hard to believe. Or is he postponing his own pleasure to marry and raise a family? Or...? I'm genuinely confused about what this could mean. Cassius gives some good ideas on the purpose, but what does it mean to turn away from one's purpose in this characteristic of the wise one?

Quote from A_Gardner

The wise man will not marry UNLESS social convention demands it so."

The actual word used is διατραπήσεσθαί "to turn away from one's purpose." (infinitive future passive) but this brings more questions. The wise man will not marry unless he turns aside from his purpose. What's the wise man's purpose? Purpose isn't in the word itself but implied in the definition. That's the meaning in the passive sense: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…y%3Ddiatre%2Fpw

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

This is a *perfect* example of the hazards of reading only *one* translation of an ancient text (or, in fact, any non-English original text in translation).

As another example, I'm still trying to determine whether Epicurus wanted me to get married or not!

That is an excellent example. Here's my take: https://sites.google.com/view/epicurean…l-relationships

I like your way of thinking, Eikadistes ! We can take pleasure in learning from others mistakes "for setting right" our own choices without taking pleasure in the actual misfortune of others. Learn by observation but not Schadenfreude.

The word at the end of the Greek being translated "wish, etc" doesn't seem to have any sense of fortune or luck:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…entry=eu)/xomai

It means wish for, long for, prayed for, etc. St Andres and similar translations seem to be spot on.

Quote from Godfrey

Not knowing Greek, I'm focused on "but only for his correction." A related sentiment might be:

VS74: "In a scholarly debate, he who loses gains more because he has learned something."

Excellent observation, Godfrey !!

http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/dl/dl10.html

Oh! Now this is interesting!! This Greek text (based on Long, it looked like) refers to Usener fragments!

καὶ ἐπιχαρήσεσθαί (fg. 592 Us.) τινι ἐπὶ τῷ διορθώματι

LOL! Usener fragment 592 just lists this line from Diogenes Laertius! So, DL *is* the source for this line.

However, Usener didn't include the part about the ruler μόναρχον in fragment 592. He put that as fragment 577. So, I'm not sure where Yonge is getting his interpretation.

Well, this is interesting:

Yonge translates that line in combination with the preceding one:

Quote

he will propitiate an absolute ruler when occasion requires, and will humor him for the sake of correcting his habits;

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/diogene…ok-10#part-10-1

Skeptical of this, but this adds even more ambiguity to the question.

https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manusc…es_laertius.htm That's an interesting article on the manuscripts and printed editions of DL's Lives.

This is a *perfect* example of the hazards of reading only *one* translation of an ancient text (or, in fact, any non-English original text in translation).

It seems the phrase in question comes right before the talk about establishment of a school. In the Greek, this is that sentence right before the school one:

Quote

καὶ ἐπιχαρήσεσθαί τινι ἐπὶ τῷ διορθώματι

So, we can try to dissect it and see what we come up with. Here we go...

καὶ = just and conjunction: "and, also, etc"
ἐπιχαρήσεσθαί http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29pixarh%2Fsesqai%2F&la=greek&can=e%29pixarh%2Fsesqai%2F0&prior=kai\&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0257:book=10:chapter=1&i=1#lexicon

Ah! So, that's where the ambiguity is coming in! The definition LSJ gives is "rejoice over, exult over, mostly of malignant joy" but also "rarely in good sense, to rejoice in another's joy". The first sense is followed by the dative case, the latter by the accusative. The word used here is in the future infinitive middle. The middle "tense" always points back to the individual so I could see this meaning "will take joy in one's own misfortune." Maybe.
τινι "to anyone/anything" (dative)
ἐπὶ τῷ διορθώματι "for a means of correction, or setting right." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=diorqw%2Fmati&la=greek&can=diorqw%2Fmati0&prior=tw=|&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0257:book=10:chapter=1&i=1#lexicon

As y'all know, my ancient Greek is rudimentary, but I could see this line meaning that the wise one rejoices in their own misfortunes because they can use it as a means of correction for themselves. If they mess up, it's seen as an opportunity for correction. I would need to see more translations but I think that's at least plausible looking at the Greek.

Yeah, that's not how Hicks at Perseus translates that section:

Quote

And he will make money, but only by his wisdom, if he should be in poverty, and he will pay court to a king, if need be. He will be grateful to anyone when he is corrected. He will found a school, but not in such a manner as to draw the crowd after him

Where is this? I don't see that in my version that I did: https://sites.google.com/view/epicureansage

There's a section in Lucretius where he talks about being on hill and seeing a shipwreck and being grateful for not being involved in the catastrophe. Or something like that. But I don't remember this in the "wise man" sayings.

I see this in the Perseus edition online: "He will be grateful to anyone when he is corrected." DL X.120. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…0%3Achapter%3D1

Thoroughly enjoyable, gentlemen! Nice work!