ALL CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF FORUM EDITORIAL POLICY: "Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Good, Not A House Divided Against Itself."
REMINDER: SUNDAY WEEKLY ZOOM - July 26, 2026 -12:30 PM EDT - AGENDA: 1) Discussion of Epicurean philosophy, and 2) Ancient text study of De Rerum Natura. Level 03 members and above (and Level 02 by Admin. approval). Read more about it here.
New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Last week's transcript, on which we'll build this week
I think someone is trolling me - or the world is just getting dumber - or both!
But whoever is producing this is doing a great job showing how NOT to approach Epicurus.
Randres61 tells us -
Good afternoon,
I hold a degree in Biology, although I spent my entire professional career working in software development, designing and building computer applications. If you wish, you can find my profile on LinkedIn. As you can see, my professional background is, at first sight, quite different from the main focus of your forum.
I retired two years ago, and since I have always had a strong interest in philosophy—especially ethics—I now devote a significant part of my time to studying it on my own.
A few years ago I discovered Epicurus' ethical philosophy, and I began searching for and reading books about his thought, first in Spanish and later in English. During that search for reliable sources of information, I came across your forum through a ChatGPT recommendation while looking for high-quality resources on Epicureanism.
Although my initial interest was centered on Epicurus' ethics and his reflections on death, the more I have studied his work, the more I have come to understand that his philosophy should be viewed as a coherent and integrated whole, encompassing physics, canonics, theology, and, of course, ethics.
What I find particularly compelling is that Epicurus' philosophy is not merely an abstract intellectual system. On the contrary, I believe it offers practical guidance for dealing with many aspects of everyday life, which makes it both deeply meaningful and highly relevant.
I have registered on your forum because I hope to learn from its members and to deepen my understanding of Epicurean philosophy.
As a further indication of my interest in the subject, this year I will begin a two-year university program for senior students focusing on the history of philosophy, ethics, and political philosophy.
I look forward to your response. Before closing, I would also like to apologize for any limitations in my English, as I am still working to improve it.
Kind regards,
Premià de Mar - Barcelona - (Spain)
Welcome randres61
There is one last step to complete your registration: All new registrants must email Cassius so that this Welcome Thread can contain basic information about your background and interest in Epicurus. In that email, please tell us what prompted your interest in Epicureanism and which particular aspects of Epicureanism most interest you, and/or post a question.
This forum is the place for students of Epicurus to coordinate their studies and work together to promote the philosophy of Epicurus. All posting here is subject to our Community Standards, Participation Levels, and Posting Policies -- please read that page; it explains our ground rules and will save everyone time and friction.
ALSO - the Forum has an editorial policy as to the advocacy of anything other than Pleasure as what Epicurus taught to be the supreme good. All prospective members must read this post before proceeding with an account at Epicureanfriends.coom:
If you have not done so already, please be sure you have read Torquatus' Presentation of Epicurean Ethics (also available in a more compact side-by-side format at EpicurusToday.com). That is the clearest, most complete statement of Epicurean ethics to survive from antiquity, and reading it early will save you -- and us -- a great deal of confusion. Most people arrive with a version of "Epicureanism" assembled from the Tetrapharmakon, the Letter to Menoeceus, or scattered quotations of questionable reliability -- and of the three, the Tetrapharmakon is the least reliable foundation of all. It is many times more compressed even than the Letter, and terse enough that it has been read in sharply different, sometimes incompatible ways by different interpreters; at best it serves as a reminder of Epicurus's four main topics for someone who already knows their content, not as a source of that content. The Letter to Menoeceus is a real summary, but it too is compressed and was written for students who already understood the foundations of Epicurean ethics. Torquatus is the best surviving example of how Epicurus's own well-educated students understood and presented that foundation themselves. It is the fastest and most reliable way to find out whether what you already believe about Epicurus matches what he and his school actually taught.
The moderators here are well aware that many fans of Epicurus hold sincerely-held views about what Epicurus taught that are incompatible with this forum's purpose. This forum exists specifically for people committed to classical Epicurean positions, not for reconciling those positions with modern "eclectic" reinterpretations that borrow Epicurus's name while rejecting his actual conclusions. Reading Torquatus first is the quickest way to see where that line falls, before investing time in posts that argue against the very foundations this forum exists to defend.
All of us here arrived at our respect for Epicurus after long journeys through other philosophies. We don't demand of others what we weren't able to do ourselves. Epicurean philosophy is different enough from most other philosophies that understanding how deep those differences run simply takes time. That's why we have participation levels that give new members room to learn, but it's also why we have standards that can mean arguments being limited, or participants removed, when the purpose of the community requires it. Epicurean philosophy is not inherently democratic, isn't committed to unlimited free speech within its own meetings, and isn't organized around anything except the pursuit of truth and a happy life through pleasure as Epicurus explained it.
Please tell us a little about your background reading Epicurean texts, how you found this forum, and what particularly interests you -- that context helps us help you. Our Getting Started page also has ideas for using the site.
Beyond Torquatus, two books will do the most to deepen your understanding quickly. Norman DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy is the single best book-length treatment available. DeWitt treats Epicurus as a coherent system rather than filtering him through later Stoic, Platonic, or modern secular assumptions. If you read one book beyond the ancient sources, make it this one.
Emily Austin's Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life is a clear, engaging modern introduction that many of our members have found a useful on-ramp. Read it, but read it alongside Torquatus and DeWitt rather than in their place, since like most modern treatments it makes no attempt to give the full picture that DeWitt provides.
From there, Epicurus's own surviving letters -- to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus -- and Lucretius's On The Nature of Things are also on the essential reading list. Our Recommended Reading page has a fuller list for when you're ready to go further. None of this is required before you participate, but the more of it you've read -- starting with Torquatus -- the more you'll get out of being here.
Welcome to the forum!
Unfortunately I've never received any info on the first program but I did just receive this as a reminder for today
The Hellenic American Women's Council – HAWC Great Lakes Region – under the auspices of the Consulate General of Greece in Chicago -cordially invite you to commemorate the 250th anniversary of American Independence in a two-session online program on
Thomas Jefferson and the Art of Happiness in Epicurean Philosophy
Our two speakers Mr. Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos and Dr. Christos Yapijakis – Co-Founders of the "Society of Epicurus" – Garden of Athens – http://www.epicuros.gr/ will present to us how the Epicurean Philosophy inspired and influenced Thomas Jefferson – one of the Founders of the United States of America, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and 3rd President.
The 1st session was presented by Author Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos on Saturday, June 27th, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. C.T. (9:00 p.m. Greek Time)
2nd session: Saturday, July 25th, 2026
at 10:00 a.m. Central Time U.S. and Canada (6:00 p.m. Greek Time)
"I too am an Epicurean "
Thomas Jefferson
The pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence
and Epicurean Philosophy
by Dr. Christos Yapijakis
Register at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/regist…QSA6dpwAXGQJw1A
We would like to thank Cosmos Press / Dina Ress for her generous support in the preparation of the program.
You may register and share the attached program with family and friends.
All the best,
Dr. Christina Georgakis
HAWC Director Educational / Cultural programs
I know that PD06 has translation issues, but In this discussion of deception both it (especially in Bailey's preferred reading) and other statements about the result being what matters probably has a bearing on Epicurus' attitude toward deception and other actions that some presume to be "always" bad.
PD06. In order that men might not fear one another, there was a natural benefit to be had from government and kingship, provided that they are able to bring about this result. PD06: The translation given is by Mensch. Formerly we used Eugene O’Connor from “The Essential Epicurus": "Whatever you can provide yourself with to secure protection from men is a natural good.” Bailey: “To secure protection from men anything is a natural good by which you may be able to attain this end.” New Greek Version: “In order to obtain security from other people, there was (always) the natural good of sovereignty and kingship, through which (someone) once could have accomplished this.” This version is up for review given that the Greek for sovereignty and kingship clearly appears in the text but is emended out by Usener and others. See the discussion of PD06 for further detail.
Listening to the first part of that reminds me that PENELOPE is also using deception to put off the suitors - but of course only an extreme Stoic would fault her for that?
The role of deception here and how to evaluate it is clearly critical --- and I'd presume that Epicurus would NOT take the position that deception (or any other vice the Stoics would presume to be bad) is "always" bad.
n case anyone wants some background on The Odyssey, also mentions the lying…
That British accent really adds a lot - and the humor too!
This below is going to be far from authoritative but the citations give a place to start answering the question: How did the ancient Greeks view Odysseus? Hero, or deceiver? Give me ancient quotations with citations to back up your answer.
The answer is both. There was never a single ancient Greek consensus about Odysseus.
In the Homeric epics, especially the Odyssey, Odysseus is one of the greatest Greek heroes. His intelligence (mêtis, "cunning intelligence") is treated as a heroic virtue alongside Achilles' strength.
By the 5th century BC, however, several tragedians—especially Sophocles and Euripides—reinterpreted exactly those same qualities as dishonesty, manipulation, and moral compromise. Plato likewise treats Odysseus with considerable ambivalence.
So the ancient evidence shows a long evolution rather than a single view.
Homer's first description immediately establishes his greatness:
"Tell me, Muse, of the man of many turns (polytropos), who wandered far after he sacked the sacred citadel of Troy."
— Odyssey 1.1–2
The adjective polytropos ("many-sided," "resourceful," "versatile") is entirely complimentary here.
Odysseus himself proudly declares:
"I am Odysseus son of Laertes, known among all mankind for my tricks (doloisin), and my fame reaches heaven."
— Odyssey 9.19–20
Notice that he does not apologize for his cleverness. It is presented as part of his glory.
Athena repeatedly praises his intelligence.
For example:
"You are the best of all mortals in counsel and speech."
— Odyssey 13.297–298
Later she says:
"Who could surpass you in every kind of craft, even if a god wished to contend with you?"
— Odyssey 13.330–332
Athena, the goddess of wisdom, is consistently Odysseus' divine patron.
Even in the Iliad he is admired.
Agamemnon says:
"No mortal is your equal in counsel."
— Iliad 10
Nestor likewise repeatedly relies upon Odysseus whenever difficult judgment is required.
Homer is not blind to Odysseus' faults.
The most famous example is his boasting to Polyphemus.
After escaping, he cannot resist revealing his identity:
"Cyclops, if any mortal asks who blinded you, tell him it was Odysseus."
— Odyssey 9
This immediately brings Poseidon's curse upon him.
Thus Homer admires Odysseus but also shows that excessive pride can ruin even the cleverest hero.
By the fifth century BC the picture changes dramatically.
The opening of Philoctetes is astonishing.
Odysseus orders Neoptolemus:
"I command you to take Philoctetes by deceit."
— Sophocles, Philoctetes 101–102
Neoptolemus is horrified:
"Why by deceit rather than persuasion?"
— Philoctetes 103
Odysseus replies that lying is acceptable if it wins the war.
This is perhaps the clearest surviving ancient portrayal of Odysseus as morally compromised.
Neoptolemus also declares:
"I would rather fail honorably than succeed dishonorably."
— Philoctetes 94–95
Sophocles deliberately contrasts old heroic honor with Odysseus' political realism.
In Ajax, Odysseus is somewhat more sympathetic.
Although Ajax hates him, Odysseus eventually argues that Ajax deserves burial despite having been his enemy.
He says, in effect,
"I hated him while it was right, but now I pity him."
(Ajax approximately lines 1332 ff.)
This is one of the noblest speeches in Greek tragedy.
Thus Sophocles himself gives us two different Odysseuses:
Euripides generally presents Odysseus much more negatively.
In Hecuba, he appears as an expedient politician willing to sacrifice Polyxena for military necessity.
He argues essentially:
"The army's interests come first."
This reinforced the growing image of Odysseus as someone willing to sacrifice justice for success.
Plato is also ambivalent.
In the Lesser Hippias, Socrates discusses whether the man who lies deliberately is actually superior in knowledge to the one who lies unintentionally.
Odysseus becomes the central example of the intelligent deceiver.
Rather than simply condemning him, Plato turns him into a philosophical problem.
Yet in the Republic (Myth of Er), Plato gives Odysseus an unexpectedly noble ending.
After all his sufferings:
The soul of Odysseus searched for a long time until it found "the life of a private man who minds his own business," and gladly chose it.
— Republic 620c–d
After a lifetime of glory, he finally prefers a quiet life.
The Greeks admired two different heroic ideals.
As Greek politics became increasingly democratic and diplomatic during the fifth century BC, some writers began asking whether clever political intelligence easily becomes manipulation.
Odysseus naturally became the symbol of that question.
| Author | View of Odysseus |
|---|---|
| Homer (Odyssey) | Great hero whose cunning is admirable |
| Homer (Iliad) | Wise counselor and indispensable leader |
| Sophocles (Ajax) | Ultimately generous and humane |
| Sophocles (Philoctetes) | Master of deception and morally dangerous |
| Euripides | Frequently manipulative and politically ruthless |
| Plato | Brilliant but morally ambiguous; ultimately wiser through suffering |
As to the Stoics in particular:
What did the Stoics think about Odysseus?
The Stoics admired Odysseus far more consistently than did the Epicureans. In fact, Odysseus became one of the Stoics' favorite examples of the wise person confronting adversity. They did not admire him because he won the Trojan War or because he deceived his enemies; they admired him because he endured hardship with intelligence, self-command, and perseverance.
That said, they did not approve of everything Homer says about him. Several Stoics explicitly reject Homer's portrayal whenever it conflicts with Stoic ethics.
Here are the principal sources.
Epictetus refers to Odysseus dozens of times in the Discourses.
One of his favorite passages concerns Odysseus after being shipwrecked and meeting Nausicaa.
He asks:
"When Odysseus was shipwrecked and cast ashore, did he lose heart? No... He trusted not in reputation or riches or office, but in himself—in his judgments about what is in our power and what is not."
— Epictetus, Discourses 3.26.33–35
For Epictetus, Odysseus demonstrates that external circumstances cannot harm a truly wise person.
One fascinating passage shows that Epictetus is willing to criticize Homer himself.
Homer repeatedly depicts Odysseus weeping for home.
Epictetus replies:
"Do not believe Homer if he makes Odysseus unhappy."
Then he continues:
"If Odysseus really wept, what was he but a miserable man? ... To desire what is impossible is foolish."
— Discourses 3.24
This is a remarkable statement.
Epictetus effectively says:
Either Homer is exaggerating...
or
Odysseus was not acting as a wise man at that moment.
For Stoicism, philosophy is the standard—not Homer.
Epictetus also interprets Odysseus' travels allegorically.
Quoting the opening of the Odyssey,
"He saw the cities of many men and learned their minds."
Epictetus treats this as the philosopher's ideal:
travel not merely to see places, but to understand human nature.
Seneca also admired Odysseus, though in a somewhat different way.
In one letter he dismisses scholarly debates over the geography of Odysseus' voyage:
"We have no time to hear lectures on whether Odysseus wandered between Italy and Sicily or beyond the known world; we ourselves are tossed about by storms every day."
— Seneca, Letters 88.7
His point is that the real voyage worth studying is the moral journey through one's own life.
Elsewhere Seneca interprets Odysseus' desire to return home not as mere homesickness but as fulfilling one's duties to family and country—a characteristically Stoic reinterpretation.
Unlike Sophocles' Philoctetes, Stoic writers rarely celebrate Odysseus because he tricks people.
Instead they praise him because he:
His famous mêtis ("cunning intelligence") becomes, in Stoic hands, practical wisdom rather than deception.
Homer’s Odysseus is, first and foremost, a liar. His truth is whatever benefits him.
Yes this is very fascinating to me and the reason that I've never been certain what is really going on here.
That gets at specifically the issues I want to know about:
Did the ANCIENT GREEKS see Odysseus as first and foremost a liar? Or did they approve of his willingness to use deception against enemies? I suspect that the Stoics would have disapproved due to their absolutist approach to morality, but they came much later, and I don't know that for a fact as to the Greeks as a whole, who I suspect would not have shared that view. Were the Greeks in general embarrassed by the use of the Trojan horse? I don't get that impression.
I have this general impression that the ancient Greeks considered Odysseus in general to be a hero. In fact I can't believe I'm writing that that might NOT be the case. Yes, like the gods, subject to making mistakes or being arbitrary and capricious - but still a hero.
I don't think we can get to the bottom of that without knowing what the ancient authorities had to say about Odysseus. Did they condemn him or praise him or both?
But the way you phrased that Bryan is key -- did they see him as FIRST AND FOREMOST a liar?
I have updated this thread title and added Youtube links (into post 1 above) to the TV Miniseries production starring Armand Assante, Isabella Rossellini, Vanessa Williams, and many others.
We can certainly discuss the differences between this and the new Christopher Nolan version as well, as that too would be interesting.
But this older version gives us probably a more "standard" version of the story for those of us who have not read Homer in decades - if at all.
Another issue would be considering Epicurus' view of Homer's writing and plot from Epicurus' view of a character like Odysseus. What aspects of Odysseus' character would Epicurus find admirable, and which not?
I just finished watching the Miniseries version for the first time and I have a couple of preliminary comments:
Much more likely is that the majority of Greeks and Romans shared Cicero's formulation -- "a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures."
Cicero, In defense of Publius Sestius, 10.23: “He {Publius Clodius} praised those most who are said to be above all others the teachers and eulogists of pleasure {the Epicureans}. … He added that these same men were quite right in saying that the wise do everything for their own interests; that no sane man should engage in public affairs; that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures. But those who said that men should aim at an honorable position, should consult the public interest, should think of duty throughout life not of self-interest, should face danger for their country, receive wounds, welcome death – these he called visionaries and madmen.” Note: Here is a link to Perseus where the Latin and translation of this can be compared. The Latin is: “nihil esse praestabilius otiosa vita, plena et conferta voluptatibus.” See also here for word translations.
Update On This Thread -- I have split this quotation and subsequent responses so we can focus on it with greater focus.
Clearly Diogenes Laertius and Torquatus make statements to the effect that "the wise man is always happy."
Nevertheless Epicurus did not eliminate his kidney pains by arraying against those of his friends and his philosophy. And Torquatus said that the wise man will have more cause for joy than for vexation -- meaning that even though we have more pleasure than pain we still have pain.
So does calling someone "happy" mean that he takes no action to further reduce or eliminate the remaining pains. Is there some better label than "happy" for someone who has more pleasures than pain but is nevertheless focused on taking action to eliminate remaining pains - and even angry about it?
I think those questions are entailed in the original quote and deserve special attention.
Note - the last several posts in this thread are not as focused on the original point as the earlier ones. However they are still relevant: because if "tranquility" is your absolute priority, and you have 51% pleasure 49% pains, why would you take any further action to eliminate them; why be angry and be motivated to fix about the remaining pains? How does the rhetoric of "the wise man always have more reason for joy than for vexation" interplay with not being reconciled to a sick society?
Dehorting -- that's a new one for me, but traces right back to the latin as opposite of exhort - which isn't so archaic!
Dehorting is the present participle/gerund of the rare/archaic verb "dehort".MeaningTo dehort = to strongly advise against something, to dissuade, or to urge someone not to do a particular action.
merriam-webster.com
It is essentially the opposite of "exhort" (which means to strongly encourage or urge someone to do something).Examples
Notes
So this is from Metrodorus and not Epicurus himself? Seems to me I hear this attributed to Epicurus so if it is not that is a misunderstanding that needs correcting.
TO PYTHOCLES:
Sent. Vat. LI (= Pap. Berol. 16369, col. II) [20]
You tell me that the stimulus of the flesh makes you too prone to the pleasures of love. Provided that you do not break the laws or good customs and do not distress any of your neighbours or do harm to your body or squander your pittance, you may indulge your inclination as you please. Yet it is impossible not to come up against one or other of these barriers: for the pleasures of love never profited a man and he is lucky if they do him no harm.
From Tau Phi's collection of works of Metrodorus:
PHILODEMUS, On Anger, col. XLV [7]
In fact, Epicurus makes clear in his First Appellations both that the sage “will experience rage” and (will experience it) “in moderation,” and Metrodorus, if he says “the rage of the wise man” in its proper sense, shows also that he feels it “very briefly.”
Tau Phi I have a question here - is this "dehorting" a typo?
PLUTARCH, Against Colotes, 34, 1127 d [5]
If those who abolish laws, governments, and polices of men subvert
and destroy human life, and if Metrodorus and Epicurus do this, by
dehorting and withdrawing their friends from concerning themselves
in public affairs, by hating those who intermeddle in them, by reviling
the first most wise lawgivers, and by advising contempt of the laws
provided there is no fear and danger of the whip punishment.
The following quote from Tau Phi's recent collection of quotations by or about Metrodorus is relevant to this topic of whether all things that have a beginning must have an end. It's also relevant to DeWitt's point that for Epicurus the gods are not supernaturally immortal, but as they too are compounded of atoms and therefore void they must act to maintain their existence.
PHILODEMUS, On Piety, fr. 122 [17]
Metrodorus too finds a defence in saying in On Gods and further in On Change that that which has no share of the void endures, but that every compound is destructible.
The following quote from Tau Phi's recent collection of quotations by or about Metrodorus is relevant to this topic of whether all things that have a beginning must have an end. It's also relevant to DeWitt's point that for Epicurus the gods are not supernaturally immortal, but as they too are compounded of atoms and therefore void they must act to maintain their existence.
PHILODEMUS, On Piety, fr. 122 [17]
Metrodorus too finds a defence in saying in On Gods and further in On Change that that which has no share of the void endures, but that every compound is destructible.
From Tau Phi's recent collection on the works of Metrodorus I want to add this here under a list of quotes relevant to emergence.
It is pretty confusingly worded, or confusingly translated, or both, but it seems to me to be pretty clearly talking about a mixture of canonics (thinking to establish their own senses by destroying those of others) and emergence (seeing that one is affected by one quality and faculty of it, and another by another.)
PLUTARCH, Against Colotes, 5, 1109 c [5]
And as for these symmetries and proportions of the pores, or little passages in the organs of the senses, about which they talk so much, and those different mixtures of seeds, which, they say, being dispersed through all savors, odors, and colors, move the senses of different persons to perceive different qualities, do they not manifestly drive them to this, that things are no more of one nature than another? For to pacify those who think the sense is deceived and lies because they see contrary events and passions in such as use the same objects, and to solve this objection, they teach,—that when almost everything was confused and mixed up together, since it has been arranged by Nature that one thing shall fit another thing, it was not the contact or the apprehension of the same quality nor were all parts affected in the same way by what was influencing them. But those only coalesced with anything to which they had a characteristic, symmetrical in a corresponding proportion; so that they are in error so obstinately to insist that a thing is either good or bad, white or not white, thinking to establish their own senses by destroying those of others; whereas they ought neither to combat the senses,—because they all touch some quality, each one drawing from this confused mixture, as from a living and large fountain, what is suitable and convenient,—nor to pronounce of the whole, by touching only the parts, nor to think that all ought to be affected after one and the same manner by the same thing, seeing that one is affected by one quality and faculty of it, and another by another. Let us investigate who those men are which bring in this opinion that things are not more of one quality than another, if they are not those who affirm that every sensible object is a mixture, compounded of all sorts of qualities, like a mixture of new wine fermenting, and who confess that all their rules are lost and their faculty of judging quite gone, if they admit any sensible object that is pure and simple, and do not make each one thing to be many?
Here is one of the many useful quotes here that we need to be able to find very often. Lately it seems like every mention of Epicurus is accompanied by the assertion that he lived on bread and water (they like to throw in ....and a little cheese) when in truth nothing could be further from the truth or make less sense for Epicurus to have done. What does make sense, here as Seneca says, is that at intervals Epicurus would test his ability to remain happy while eating little, much as we might train through exercises of any sort to be at the top of our games in anything we do.
SENECA, Epist. ad Luc, 18, 9 [11]
Even Epicurus, the teacher of pleasure, used to observe stated intervals, during which he satisfied his hunger in niggardly fashion; he wished to see whether he thereby fell short of full and complete happiness, and, if so, by what amount he fell short, and whether this amount was worth purchasing at the price of great effort. At any rate, he makes such a statement in the well known letter written to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus. Indeed, he boasts that he himself lived on less than a penny, but that Metrodorus, whose progress was not yet so great, needed a whole penny.
