It must be observed that Epicurus makes no show of his logical procedures and, like the layman, employs the enthymeme or elliptical syllogism.
At Book 14, P.Herc. 1148 col. 9 (alt. col. 42), Epikouros uses the word "enthymematikous / ἐνθυμηματικοὺς" which LSJ defines as:
Cosmos connects well with a galaxy, To Pan with the universe. If we want other cosmoi, I'd think we only have to accept multiple galaxies. As we know, Epíkouros uses Cosmos in the plural, but not To Pan.
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."
Adding this for some scale of a mina bar.
These are some examples of coins issued in the first two decades of the garden's existence in Athens. Both are coins by Dēmḗtrios Poliorkētḗs. When he was younger he showed himself with only horn buds, but eventually, as seen here, with full horns.
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)
At most we can state a label of the subject matter.
Yes, this seems to be the case, for example, for all of On Nature Book 10. Although only a few sentences can be formed, there are many places where the topic, at least, is clear.
P. Herc.1418? U184? Yes.
Ok, great. Yes I am not that far in Epicurea, so I was just testing how the Glossarium Epicureum matched up (which was the source of my previous image listing some of the Collectio Altera).
Is it P.Herc. 1418?
And I think a person in Athens at the time could live off 220 drachmae (2.2 minae) a year — I think it would feel like it was perhaps between $15,000 to $30,000 today.
I think we are all in agreement about the mina as a unit. A mina was basically a pound -- and that could be a pound of anything, but in context of large purchases, was a reference to a pound of silver.
While Epíkouros occasionally spending a mina in a day was part of Timokrátēs' smear campaign, it seems that Epíkouros admitted that it was true: "Timokrátēs [also claims that]… [Epíkouros] spent a mina within a day on his table, as [Epíkouros] himself writes in a letter to Leóntion and in a letter to the philosophers in Mytilene." (Laë́rtios 10.7)
Unless we understand instead "as [Timokrátēs] himself writes in a letter to Leóntion and in a letter to the philosophers in Mytilene" which would be possible, but Αὐτὸς seems more naturally to refer to Epíkouros, it seems to me.
Great! Yes we can keep using that link, and I can update it going forward.
I think this link may work. This is the regular PDF version, which is larger than the versions I had been sharing. For this one, we are on page 229.
It just got over the 5 MB mark, and will very slowly grow to around 8 MB. So not very big. I can just upload the section we are working on here, or submit it all some other way. Probably a bit of both over time!
There are a lot of "Error! Bookmark not defined" notifications on the first pages.
Yes, the file is now too large to attach here, so I cut off the first few sections.
Hello all, updated file attached. We are on page 83.
Thanks for these Don! So it seems these two agree and both have μήν.
καὶ διατραπήσεσθαί τινας
Yes I think we can ignore that period some editors add and can connect this with the preceding κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν.
With Τινας as a subject-accusative which pluralizes its reference to τὸν Σοφόν and takes the infinitives γαμήσειν and διατραπήσεσθαί (taken as middle), we could have:
...and [Epíkouros says] in "On Nature" that some [wise men] will marry at some point in [their] life according to circumstance and [some] will refuse [to marry].
On Nature, Book 26, c. 296-295 BCE
I think you intended this to say book 28, which ends:
"Epíkouros' On Nature Book 28, from the early writings… written in the period of Nicias, who followed Antiphátēs."
Nicias was eponymous archon in 296/295 BC, following Antiphátēs who was eponymous archon in 297/296 BC. Therefore, book 28 was probably written in 295 BC, when Epíkouros was 45 years old. As Sedley points out, it is possible instead that 295 BC is the date of the republication of this particular edition (and Book 28 was originally written earlier).
Thank you for the list!
(Cicero, On Ends, 2.102)
"I have to admit that these are the sentiments of a good and humane man. But a wise man, and especially a natural scientist, which Epicurus claims to be, should not be thinking that anyone has an anniversary. Can the identical day, once it has occurred, occur time and again? Of course not. A similar day? Not even that, except perhaps after an interval of many thousands of years when all the stars return to their original positions at the same time. It is not the case, then, that anyone has an anniversary. 'But the anniversary of his birth is observed!' I am well aware of that! So be it."
I think that's as close as we are getting to Cicero wishing you a happy birthday.
Have a great birthday, Joshua and Kalosyni!
