Blue Öyster Cult speaks for me.
Seasons don't fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain
We can be like they are...
Blue Öyster Cult speaks for me.
Seasons don't fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain
We can be like they are...
Here's a quick paraphrase that literally just came to mind (apologies for the first draft nature, suggested revisions or edits welcomed):
Gods aren't scary.
Death won't bite.
Feeling good is easy.
Feeling bad is finite.
Here is a poetic rendition I did for myself sometime back:
No fear of gods, ghosts or fates;
nor death’s bare naught that awaits.
Simple pleasures come easy to gain;
a happy soul serves, travails to wane.
The last line is intended to reflect Epicurus' own tapping into memories and his friends whilst in great physical pain. But I still think that line might be improved upon (whilst retaining the rhyme ). Suggestions welcome.
{The transitive usage of "wane" is, I think, archaic.}
I frequently repeat my reservations and criticisms of the "Tetrapharmakos"
Yes, the context in which Philódēmos mentions the Tetraphármakos will further support some reservations. We should remember the paragraph just before the Tetraphármakos says:
"...of those who are called Epicureans. While someone known or even described in detail by us, who also claims to be 'the authentic reader' on select writings and on a multitude of compositions – even if he performs poorly, he has selected many passages, but in individual thoughts he is the most inexperienced! In fact, for what he must do, he looks only at the main points – just like [someone] whom they say is 'a helmsman [navigating] from the book.'"
(Philódēmos, [Ad Contubernales], P.Herc. 1005, col. 3/4)
[Ad Contubernales]
Just a reminder that the papyrus only has ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ... We have no idea to whom Philodemus was addressing the treatise or who he was arguing against (in the title, he obviously had strong feelings expressed in the text itself).
Plus, even if Philodemus wasn't a fan (a for or against case can be made) of the "four line cure" it was definitely in use and in circulation among the wider Epicurean community. It's authenticity as an Epicurean "memento" verse is indisputable. That connection to the ancient members of the school is enough for me to continue to be a "fan."
it was definitely in use and in circulation among the wider Epicurean community. It's authenticity as an Epicurean "memento" verse is indisputable
Don aside from the papyrus we are talking about what citations can you provide for that? Possibly they are in the thread above and if so I will delete this post... (But after looking I don't see anything.)
I cited in this post above that Bailey does not mention it appearing anywhere else. But maybe someone has found another cite. Can anyone provide a cite to where this appears other than the papyrus? I seem to recall there might be something brief in Cicero but not even a full recitation that would verify that this is the version. But by all means let's keep an eye out to track this down.
In the intervening time since this thread was started we have spent a lot of time with Cicero and he quotes Epicurus in great detail but does not ever give this formulation the kind of central estimation of being a summary of the whole philosophy that it receives in the modern world. Cicero lets Torquatus and Velleius go on and on with apparently reliable explanation of many without any reference to this formulation.
If some combination of Lucretius or Diogenes of Oinoanda or Diogenes Laertius or any similar figure were found to have cited this formulation I would feel entirely differently.
Don aside from the papyrus we are talking about what citations can you provide for that? Possibly they are in the tread above and if so I will delete this post...
I'm not aware of any other than a possible paraphrase in Cicero and its similarity to the first few PDs.
My contention + and fondness for it as a link to the ancient members of our school and that it is of ancient Epicurean provenance is:
1. If Philodemus created it, he is a pivotal member of the ancient Epicurean school.
2. If Philodemus was critiquing its use among other Epicureans, they were obviously using it.
This is exactly the kind of thing that infuriates me about DeWitt's book (not, notably, his academic papers). He'll throw out a statement like this with no citation or reference. And then he brings up the tetrapharmakos in other points of the book in an evidently positive light.
Yes I agree! I see his statement about "would never" as a personal opinion -- which sounds good to me -- but it sure would have been nice to cite for us where the name "tetrapharmakon" comes from!
And yes I agree too with the inconsistency that he cites it elsewhere more approvingly than I would myself. Again, not that I think that it can't be made to work quite nicely by those who know the big Epicurean picture, but that in its truncated form it can too easily be misunderstood by those who don't, especially if people get the impression it can take the place of the first four full doctrines. Nobody here does that, but it's very frustrating to read these generalist articles stating that the tetrapharmakon is all you need to know! It's a great summary of everything important that Epicurus had to say!
No, it's not!
The "ultimate authority" in December 2024!
I asked:
When was the word "Tetrapharmakon" first used?
ChatGPT said:
The word "Tetrapharmakon" (meaning "four-part remedy") is attributed to the later Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (circa 110–35 BCE). While it encapsulates key aspects of Epicurean philosophy, its formulation as a concise term may not have originated directly from Epicurus himself. The phrase is most famously associated with a poetic fragment found in Philodemus' works, which outlines four key maxims derived from Epicurus' teachings:
The earliest surviving textual evidence of the term is in Herculaneum papyri linked to Philodemus' writings, dating to the 1st century BCE. This suggests that the term gained currency among Epicureans as a way to succinctly summarize their core ethical guidance during or after Philodemus' time.
Cassius said:
Who was the NEXT person after Philodemus to mention it?
ChatGPT said:
The term "Tetrapharmakon" is primarily associated with the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus of Gadara (circa 110–35 BCE), who utilized it to encapsulate four principal doctrines of Epicurean philosophy. The earliest known textual evidence of this term appears in the Herculaneum papyri, specifically in Philodemus' works dating to the 1st century BCE. Subsequent explicit mentions of the "Tetrapharmakon" are scarce in surviving ancient literature. While later Epicurean thinkers and commentators, such as Diogenes of Oenoanda in the 2nd century CE, propagated Epicurean doctrines, it remains uncertain whether they specifically referenced the "Tetrapharmakon" by name. Therefore, based on existing evidence, Philodemus is the earliest and, perhaps, the sole ancient source to explicitly mention the "Tetrapharmakon."
Hey this might actually lead to something - but note the qualifying last sentence. I hope this doesn't lead us to find eventually that the term was intended by the christians who used it to be insulting, as one might read DeWitt to deduce....
So the name tetrapharmakos, and not just the details of the formulation, does appear in the Philodemus text itself?
--- For Comparison Purposes, Grok:
When was the word "Tetrapharmakon" first used?
The word "Tetrapharmakon" (or its variant "Tetrapharmakos") was first used in the context of ancient Greek pharmacology, but its metaphorical use in Epicurean philosophy dates back to the 1st century BCE. Specifically, it appears in the works of Philodemus, preserved in the Herculaneum Papyri, where it refers to the four chief doctrines or remedies for healing the soul. This is documented in sources like the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, which lists the term and its uses, and various discussions on Epicurean philosophy websites.
Who was the NEXT person after Philodemus to mention it?
After Philodemus, the next known mention of the "Tetrapharmakon" comes from the early Christian writers Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian, both of whom referenced it in their works critiquing Epicurean philosophy. This is based on posts found on X.
According to the PhD dissertation linked below, it appears tetrapharmakos was a general idea among philosophers and physicians in the ancient world. The Epicurean one was likely a response to this.
Theory and Terminology of Mixture in Galen.
The concepts of krasis and mixis in Galen’s thought: PhD Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von MA Claudia Mirrione
T2 Galen in Hipp. Nat. Hom. comment. K. XV 32.1–11 Mewaldt 18.27–19.7
In fact, the four line verse found in Philodemus is not even brought up! This dissertation sheds a whole new light on how tetrapharmakos was understood in the ancient world. I wouldn't necessarily recommend reading the entire paper, but do a few searches for Epicurus or the word tetrapharmakos and skim the quotes. An unexpected find.
PS. It appears Dr. Mirrione got her PhD: https://www.klassphil.hu-berlin.de/en/avh-profess…-staff/mirrione
Great find Don.
So where, if ever, in the ancient world do we have a variation of the word "tetrapharmakos" appearing on the same piece of paper as the four lines from Philodemus?
Are you then saying that the general idea of a "four-part-cure" originated with nothing to do with Epicurus whatsoever, and it is a generic term that commentators just came to apply to the passage from Philodemus after it was discovered in the modern world simply because it has four parts, just like we apply the word "kleenex" to any kind of tissue paper or "xerox" to photocopying?
Not quite. Philodemus calls it the tetrapharmakos:
right there starting at the end of the first line in this clip: ΤΕΤΡΑΦΡ ΜΑ / ΚΟC (tetraphar ma / kos).
It appears to me that the idea of a four part mixture that resulted in something greater than its parts was a common idea in ancient Greece. The Epicurean one is simply the school's response to this idea.
Another paper:
And look at that, a different WP article!
We do have the use of "pharmakon" by Epikouros in Peri Phýseōs, Book 14 (P.Herc. 1148 col. 24):
"This is also desirable: that one who is entirely afflicted by such over-questionings has a kind of remedy – through which it is possible that a simple condition [of life, focused] in the observation of nature will set free their innate trouble."
column 24
P.Herc. 1148 col. 24
Sketched 1803-1803 by Carlo Orazi
[ἀ-]
γ̣απητ[ὸν] καὶ τοῦτ[ο], τὸ
δὴ πάντα τὸν συνε̣[χό]με-
νον̣ [ταῖς] τοιαύταις περι-
εργ[ε]ίαις ἔχειν οἱονὶ φάρ-
μακ̣ον δι' οὗ κα̣τα̣στάσεις
ἁ̣πλ[ᾶς ἔστι]ν ἐν τῆι περὶ φύ-
σε[ως θεωρί]αι ἀπαλλαγή-
σε[σθαι τῆς σ]υμφύτου ἑαυ-
τα̣[ῖς ταραχ]ῆς ἣ καὶ ὕσ̣τε-
10ρον̣ [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ η̣πο ̣ ̣ σιτ ̣ ̣
γε [ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ὥστε ̣ ̣ ̣ υ̣ ̣
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ τοιού̣[τοι]ς ̣ ̣
[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ον̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
[ -ca.?- ]