Discussion of Vatican Saying 63 - "Frugality Too Has A Limit..."

    Quote from Little Rocker

    Don, I love how you produce posts like the ones above and then say you're no good at such things.

    ^^ I am just painfully aware of what I don't know when it comes to ancient Greek. I don't want to succumb to the Dunning-Kruger Effect or to pretend I'm fluent. I often feel like I know just enough to get myself into trouble!! Then the curiosity and enthusiasm take hold, all caution goes out the window, and I end up posting deep dives into manuscripts and paleography... but ask me to conjugate a verb past the present indicative or decline a noun into all its various permutations, and I'm going to have to look it up!

    Don: It occurs to me that in my one long past attempt to refer to Usener directly that I realized that he has not been translated directly into English and therefore access to it is barred to me.

    Do I recall correctly that Usener wrote in German? I presume that now given our internet reach we have the ability to ask Martin and possibly others as well for assistance in understanding Usener's own notes on these issues?

    Or are you already able to consult Usener?

    Quote from Cassius

    Do I recall correctly that Usener wrote in German? I presume that now given our internet reach we have the ability to ask Martin and possibly others as well for assistance in understanding Usener's own notes on these issues?


    Or are you already able to consult Usener?

    He actually wrote in Latin:

    Hermann Usener Epicurea ( 1887) : Hermann Usener (editor) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    Epicurea is a collection of texts, fragments and testimonies by Epicurus composed by Hermann Usener in 1887
    archive.org

    I've been using Bailey and Usener interchangeably since I think Bailey was a protege of his?

    Oh, and Anderson's site is the only English version of Usener's Epicurea that I know of...

    Epicurus: Fragments - translation

    However, Bailey follows Usener's Epicurea format quite closely... although Usener didn't include the Vatican Sayings because they weren't discovered until after Epicurea's publication! Bailey includes this in this preface:

    Vatican Gnomologium. This is contained in Codex Vaticanus gr. 1950, a MS. of the fourteenth century. It was first published by C. Wotke, with some notes by Usener and Gomperz in Wiener Studien, vol. x (1888). Von der Muehll has collated the MS. again from photographs and in some cases has cor- rected the readings reported by Wotke. In the majority of these excerpts the text is fairly sound, but there are some in which it still remains very uncertain.

    Here are the Weiner Studien papers from 1888 by Wotke, Usner, and Gomperz:

    Wiener Studien : Schenkl, Karl, 1827-1900, ed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.
    archive.org

    And here is Usener's VS63 and footnotes:

    Wiener Studien : Schenkl, Karl, 1827-1900, ed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.
    archive.org

    He does state that the manuscript says εν λεπτοτητι καθαριος in the footnote but has his "corrected" text in the body of the paper.

    Quote from Pacatus

    Don How would you, personally, render V63 in English? Maybe taking a stab at both formal equivalence and a more dynamic rendering?

    Be careful what you ask for... ^^

    TLDR: Here’s my attempt at a translation, a little literal, a little paraphrase:

    There is elegance even in simplicity. The one who is unable to consider this is nearly equivalent to the one who falls down because of a lack of limits.

    If you’re interested in how that was arrived at, feel free to read on:

    I realize this post is WAY too much information and far into the weeds; but, as requested, I’m sharing my translation of VS63; however, in deference to observation by Little Rocker and my response, I’m going to “show my work” so everyone can see what I don’t know and what I had to look up.

    First, we have to determine the Greek text I'm going to work with.

    Muehli:

    ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθαριότης, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι.

    Usner:

    ἔστι καὶ ἐν λιτότητι μεθόριος, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι..

    Vat.gr.1950 manuscript clearly has:

    ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι.

    First phrase:

    ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος,...

    There is a word καθαρειος (kathareios) which would have been pronounced as, and was later spelled καθαριος (katharios). However, καθάρειος is an adjective per LSJ:

    Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κα^θάρ-ειος

    With various (although similar) meanings: cleanly, neat, tidy; decent, respectable (men) > οι καθαρειοτεροι; daintiness (of food); purity. There’s also the connotation of the “economy of movement (in a surgeon's hand)” so there’s an idea of economy, of doing what’s only necessary only. That kind of elegance or refinement which is an interesting spin.

    Muehli used καθαριότης in his transcription to change the adjective to a noun, but that is clearly not what is written in the manuscript. Saint-Andre accepts Muehli’s transcription and adds the note “καθαριότης means purity, cleanliness, neatness, scupulousness, integrity, elegance, refinement, simplicity, frugality, economy, etc.”

    But Greek could turn adjectives into nouns to mean something like “that which is …” or “one who is…”

    So, I could arguably come up with something like:

    *There is refinement even in X … or Elegance is even in…X

    Now, the X is the λεπτότητι / λιτότητι issue. I am reluctant to rethink the manuscript. However, my resolve wavered when I read in that definition linked above that καθάρειος is the opposite of λιτότης! This is the word that Usener uses to “correct” the manuscript. This is exactly the kind of wordplay I’d expect from Epicurus, too. But, let’s look at the actual word *in* the manuscript.

    λεπτότητι is the dative of λεπτότης “thinness, opp. παχύτης (“thickness”); fineness, delicacy, opp. πάχος (“thickness”), thinness, meagreness, of body; metaphorical, subtlety.”

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

    Now, reviewing the Wiktionary entry for Usener’s λιτότης, λιτότητι is the dative singular. The meaning per LSJ is “plainness, simplicity” but LSJ also has that pesky “cj. for λεπτότης in Epicur.Sent.Vat.63.” meaning they thought it was the *wrong* word and that it was substituted for λεπτότης in the manuscript. But I’m not seeing that in Vat.gr.1950, and I’m not aware of any other list or text that includes this exact saying. I’m assuming LSJ is simply taking Usener et al.’s word for it? If anyone has any idea where this saying might show up in the manuscript tradition elsewhere, please share.

    So, IF I take the manuscript literally, I get:

    *There is elegance even in meagreness…

    Paraphrase nominalizing the adjective?? *One who displays elegance even in meagreness…???

    Okay, so there are the first five words!

    ἧς is (per Wiktionary) the genitive singular for “who, which, that” and with the next two words - ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος - I can put together:

    *..for the one who is inconsiderate or thoughless; …for the one who is unable to consider…

    ** There is elegance even in simplicity for the one who is unable to consider …

    The next word παραπλήσιόν (according to Wiktionary) can either by an Attic spelling of πᾰρᾰπλήσῐος or the accusative of the word. LSJ provides various related meanings, including “coming alongside of : hence, coming near, nearly resembling ; of numbers, nearly equal, about as many ; of size, about as large ; of age, about equal.” So, the general meaning is “nearly equal” or “resembling.”

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

    τι “something”

    πάσχει is the 3rd person singular active indicative (he/she/it) of πασχω and means “undergoes, experiences (vs. acting), experiences something, has something happen to one.”

    τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι. This appears to be a dative phrase with an embedded prepositional phrase inside it: τῷ (διʼ ἀοριστίαν) ἐκπίπτοντι. Let’s tackle τῷ ἐκπίπτοντι first. Ἐκπίπτοντι is a dative (to be expected from τῷ) present active participle of εκπιπτω, meaning “falling out of…; being thrown down…” It is a passive sense opposed to “throwing or casting out” (εκβαλλω).

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

    The full LSJ definition has some interesting connotations, including “to be cast ashore” or “fall from a thing, i.e. be deprived of it.”

    The prepositional phrase is διʼ ἀοριστίαν which appears to mean “because/for the sake of of illimitability.” LSJ specifically cites “illimitability” as the sense used in VS63. The word ἀοριστίαν has the sense of lack of limit or even indefiniteness or even indecision. So, the whole phrase appears to be something like:

    ***...for the one who is falling down because of lack of limits”

    That is REALLY bad English, but if you’ve stuck with me this far, hold tight.

    Review:

    ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι.

    Here’s my attempt at a translation, a little literal, a little paraphrase:

    There is elegance even in simplicity. The one who is unable to consider this is nearly equivalent to the who falls down because of a lack of limits.

    With that, I’m bringing in the scholarly translations to compare results and refine my own. In light of ALL that above, I’m inclined to agree with the direction of Saint-Andre and Long & Sedley:

    Saint-Andre: There is an elegance in simplicity, and one who is thoughtless resembles one whose feelings run to excess.

    Long and Sedley: There can be refinement even on slender means, and one who fails to take account of it is in a similar position to someone who goes astray through ignoring limits.

    I hope this all helps others to see how Long & Sedley and Saint-Andre arrived at their translations. One big change in theirs compared to others is acceptance or not of Usener's change to λιτότητι which means "austerity, frugality, frugalness, thrift." Whether one accepts what's easily read in the manuscript or whether one want to "correct" the manuscript is going to change VS63 dramatically!

    Outstanding work Don.

    I presume that where we end up depends in large part on the connotations of the English word "elegance," which carries a positive connotation. The standard / Bailey translation, which as you state would fit a pattern of Epicurus to use contrasts, would be to use a word like "limit" to imply that exceeding or approaching a negative floor "on the bottom" is being contrasted with a negative ceiling "on the top." So what it comes down to me is whether the first part of the balance is best served by a word with positive connotations, such as "elegance" or one that is more implicitly negative, or at least realistic, like limit.

    So you've proved to at least my own personal satisfaction that there is no "horror" in what St. Andre for example proposes. However the strain being put on general usage by the word "elegance" would not cause me to change from the Bailey/Usener version, in that a negative assessment seems more clear and consistent with the overall tone of the passage and the philosophy. E picurus talks a lot about limits in his philosophy, but not so much - as I recall - about "elegance." If there were other instances in which Epicurus praises "elegance" I would see more of a chance of that being an acceptable word here. However we know that Epicurus spits upon beauty unless it bring pleasure, and I would think he would do the same with "elegance," at least in the way we use that word today:

    St Andre on fragment 512:

    So to me this ends up like "marriage" -- the relevant text appears clearly awkward so as to indicate corruption, but one translation seems to be more consistent with the most general perspective as stated in other places. To me, that overall and overriding general perspective seems to be VS71: "Every desire must be confronted by this question: What will happen to me if the object of my desire is accomplished, and what if it is not?"

    And that means to me that the implication is that there is a time for luxury and a time for simplicity depending on circumstances. Menoeceus: [130] "Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good. And again independence of desire we think a great good — not that we may at all times enjoy but a few things, but that, if we do not possess many, we may enjoy the few in the genuine persuasion that those have the sweetest pleasure in luxury who least need it, and that all that is natural is easy to be obtained, but that which is superfluous is hard. And so plain savours bring us a pleasure equal to a luxurious diet, when all the pain due to want is removed; and bread and water produce the highest pleasure, when one who needs them puts them to his lips."

    Has anyone suggested that VS71 is corrupted or open to question?

    Well, it comes down to where you decide if you're going to trust the manuscript and use λεπτότητα "elegance" or whether you're going to correct the scribe like Bailey and Usener and substitute λιτότης "limit".

    And it's not elegant as in fancy. It's elegant as in not fussy. I like the connotation of the economy of movement or elegance of the surgeons hands.

    Quote from Don

    That's a slippery slope. Where does one just ignore the manuscripts and substitute whatever, one wants to be there?

    Very definitely a big question. And I think the answer has to be something like taking some texts as more certain than others, and then holding those where there is a question to a test of "Is it something that is consistent with the rest of Epicurus said?" and "Did other ancient critics (of whom there were many who had lots to say) point out an alleged inconsistency?" But in the end there is no way to be omnisciently "certain" on these questions than any other, and we all have to do the best we can.

    This issue of checking the meaning of a passage, even where text des not appear corrupt, against the wider scope of the philosophy is huge:

    For example if someone reads this passage from Menoeceus without any reference to the rest of what Epicurus said, then the entire philosophy is pure minimalism and asceticism:

    Quote from Letter to Menoeceus

    [128] The right understanding of these facts enables us to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and (the soul’s) freedom from disturbance, since this is the aim of the life of blessedness. For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfill the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; (but when we do not feel pain), we no longer need pleasure.

    Because standing alone this would appear to mean at least these two things:

    1. Escape from pain is the prime and overriding directive. You would never choose any course of action that produces any pain at all. ("For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. ")
    2. You don't need pleasure at all for its own sake, just to escape pain.

    But if someone were to reach those conclusions then they would not only miss the heart of the philosophy, they would in fact stand it on its head.

    Epicurus said that words should be clear, but words mean something only in context, and have to use reasonable rules of construction in everything we interpret.

    This is a difficulty of language that is just unavoidable, just as waterholic is talking about in a nearby thread as to "friendship." The work can't stop with our choice of the most common usage of a word in a dictionary. I wish it could!

    Quote from Don

    Well, it comes down to where you decide if you're going to trust the manuscript and use λεπτότητα "elegance" or whether you're going to correct the scribe like Bailey and Usener and substitute λιτότης "limit".

    This got me wondering about the history of the manuscript, and I found this on Wikipedia:

    Quote

    There are many extant manuscripts of the Lives, although none of them are especially old, and they all descend from a common ancestor, because they all lack the end of Book VII.[25] The three most useful manuscripts are known as B, P, and F. Manuscript B (Codex Borbonicus) dates from the 12th century, and is in the National Library of Naples.[a] Manuscript P (Paris) is dated to the 11th/12th century, and is in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.[27] Manuscript F (Florence) is dated to the 13th century, and is in the Laurentian Library.[28] The titles for the individual biographies used in modern editions are absent from these earliest manuscripts, however they can be found inserted into the blank spaces and margins of manuscript P by a later hand.[29]

    There seem to have been some early Latin translations, but they no longer survive. A 10th-century work entitled Tractatus de dictis philosophorum shows some knowledge of Diogenes.[30] Henry Aristippus, in the 12th century, is known to have translated at least some of the work into Latin, and in the 14th century an unknown author made use of a Latin translation for his De vita et moribus philosophorum[30] (attributed erroneously to Walter Burley).

    Diogenes Laertius - Wikipedia

    Kalosyni : You bring up a good point about manuscripts. I tried to dig up everything I could find on Vat.gr.1950 that contains the Vatican Sayings:

    DigiVatLib

    The manuscript is contained in (and was found in) Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (the Vatican Library) at shelfmark Vat.gr.1950.pt.2 (Vatican, Greek manuscript No. 1950, part 2).

    Manuscript content is dated between 1301-1350 CE.

    Height: 243

    Width: 165

    The binding: The paper boards are covered with brown leather and are marked with straight lines. On the back are printed in gold the shields of Pope Paul VI and Eugenius Tisserant cardinal librarian.

    Codex was among those who were rescued by the French in 1797 and restored in 1815 (v. seal of Bibl. Nat. Paris in ff. 1r and 545ν).

    Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 1745-1962, recensuit P. Canart, t. I, Codicum enarrationes, in Bibliotheca Vaticana 1970 (Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti), pp. 762-766.

    Contents (with folio/page numbers):280r-340v: Xenophon, 427/26-c. 353 a.C. Xenophontis Memorabilia

    341r-392v: Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus, imperatore romano, 121-180 <Marci Aurelii Antonini imperatoris in semetipsum libri XII>

    392v-399r: Epictetus, sec. I-II Epicteti enchiridii paraphrasis christiana

    401r-v: Epictetus, sec. I-II <Excerpta rhetorica>

    401v-404v: Epictetus, sec. I-II <Florilegium seu gnomologium Epicureum>

    408r-518v: Maximus Tyrius, sec. II <Maximi Tyrii dissertationes>

    518v-540v: Albinus Smyrnaeus, sec. II Albini (Alcinoi cod.) epitome doctrinarum Platonis

    542r-545v: Aristoteles, 384-322 a.C. Aristotelis de motu animaliunm

    PS. I noticed that folios/pages 401v-404v has "Epictetus, sec. I-II <Florilegium seu gnomologium Epicureum>" which seems to be a misprint because it's corrected to Epicurus in parentheses. Not sure what's going on there, because those are the Vatican Sayings pages.

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

    The LSJ accepts Usener 's corrections (see link), but I'm becoming more skeptical. I need to emphasize that the word "limit" in Usener/ Bailey comes from their "correcting" the clearly legible manuscript word καθαριος (katharios) to μεθόριος (methorios).

    So, Usener is "correcting" TWO words out of the initial five. They're swapping out 40% of the first five words to make it say what they want!

    Manuscript: ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος

    Usener: ἔστι καὶ ἐν λιτότητι μεθόριος

    Manuscript: There is elegance (καθάριος) even in meagerness (λεπτότητι)...

    Usener: There is a limit (μεθόριος) even in frugality (λιτότητι)...

    So even if I accepted frugality instead of thinness/meagerness, I have a hard time accepting the word limit. If I accepted λιτοτητι "frugality" I'd still come up with "There is elegance/refinement even in frugality..."

    Plus, καθαρειος "refinement, elegance" is the opposite of λιτοτης "frugality, simplicity". And that sounds to me like something Epicurus would write, with using opposites to make some wordplay. Which is inadvertently what I wrote instead of sticking to meagerness!

    There is elegance even in simplicity. The one who is unable to consider this is nearly equivalent to the who falls down because of a lack of limits.

    My paraphrase would be something like: There is nothing wrong with frugal, simple living. In fact, it has its own sense of elegance and refinement. If one doesn't grasp this, that person is nearly the same as one who gets cast down in life for having no limits to his desires.

    Thanks - it is good to know the issues involved with the phrase.

    I can see the possibility of "elegance in simplicity" being stretched to have a similar meaning as "limit of frugality" but I do not see Epicurus praising "elegance" elsewhere .

    In fact if we were sure the word were elegance I would be inclined to see a negative implication, such as a variation of Lucretius' embroidered blanket, which we have no need of because it does not keep us any warmer than the rough one.

    Without context or another example of it I guess we will always have to keep this limit in mind on the translation.

    "Elegance" is probably not the best translation of καθαριος so I should stop using it. Here is the LSJ entry:

    Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κα^θάρ-ειος

    Here's Saint-Andres note to his translation:

    Quote

    Translating this phrase as "an elegance in simplicity" ties it to other statements Epicurus makes about both living beautifully (e.g., Vatican Saying #17) and living simply or naturally (e.g., Vatican Saying #21).

    For reference, here are those two. They don't use καθαριος but hint at that sentiment:

    VS17. It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of.

    VS21. Nature must be persuaded, not forced. And we will persuade nature by fulfilling the necessary desires, and the natural desires too if they cause no harm, but sharply rejecting the harmful desires.

    PS: I'd encourage anyone who's interested to take a look at the καθαρειος definition above and the two below and post how they would translate this opening phrase:

    "There is (καθαρειος) even in (choose 1: A. λεπτότης or B.λιτοτης)..."

    A. λεπτότης

    Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λ , λεπτό-ρρυ^τος , λεπτότης

    B. λιτοτης

    Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λ , λι?́ταργ-ος , λι_τότης

    I'd be particularly interested if Joshua or some of our other poets wanted to take a stab at it.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      102
      1

    4. Don

      November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM

    2. “Better to lose the money because of me than to lose me because of the money.” 3

      • TauPhi
      • November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      232
      3

    4. Don

      November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM

    2. An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference) 12

      • Cassius
      • November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      902
      12

    4. Pacatus

      November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM

    2. Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14

      • Julia
      • November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
    3. Replies
      14
      Views
      1.1k
      14

    4. Julia

      November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM

    2. New Slideshow: Nothing Comes From Nothing

      • Cassius
      • November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      538