We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
"when the first sliver of moon was visible" -- by my method that would 1st day waxing
Right. Using the Nov/Dec calendars above, to my understanding:
The noumenia or the first sliver of waxing would be Nov. 24 or 25.
The 10th would be Dec. 3
The 20th or "earlier 10th" would be Dec. 13 or 14.
Then the final 10 waning days count down toward the next noumenia.
So the 20th day of the lunar month would always look the same.
By my counting then, the 20th (which would be the 2nd 10th) would fall on the last day of a visible waning crescent.
Wouldn't the "earlier tenth" (20th) look like the moon on the above charts on Dec. 13 or 14th? The Noumenia seems to have started when the "first sliver" of the new moon was visible.
btw, I really like this line of thinking of Kalosyni and the graphics that Eikadistes has been working up!!
Thanks for that reminder, Joshua ! You're absolutely right. The fact that we can even have this discussion about *conflicting* ideas from a day 2,400 years ago is amazing!
Let's pare that pertinent sentence down to its bare bones:
Ἐγεννήθη δέ, φησὶν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν Χρονικοῖς, κατὰ τὸ τρίτον ἔτος τῆς ἐνάτης καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος ἐπὶ Σωσιγένους ἄρχοντος μηνὸς γαμηλιῶνος ἑβδόμῃ,
Ἐγεννήθη "he was born"
φησὶν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν Χρονικοῖς
Apollodorus says in (his) Chronicle
δέ is just the conjunction "and, so, etc."
κατὰ τὸ τρίτον ἔτος τῆς ἐνάτης καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος
during the 3rd year (τὸ τρίτον ἔτος) of the 109th Olympiad
ἐπὶ Σωσιγένους ἄρχοντος
in the archonship of Sosigenēs
μηνὸς γαμηλιῶνος ἑβδόμῃ,
μηνὸς "month" noun singular masculine genitive of μήν
γαμηλιῶνος "Gamelion" noun singular masculine genitive
ἑβδόμῃ "seventh" adjective singular *feminine* dative
ἑβδόμης adjective singular *feminine* genitive
ἑβδόμη adjective singular *feminine* nominative
Words in ancient Greek have to agree with each other in number, case, and gender. Every permutation I've seen of "seventh" is *feminine*. There's no word in that sentence that seems to fit with being modified by a feminine adjective. There has to be a seventh something. However, used by itself it can mean "the seventh one" as in
ἡ ἑβδόμη "the seventh day". So, my theory continues to be "of (the) month of Gamelion, (the) seventh one (i.e., seventh month).
Just this morning, I had a thought on codex Parisinus gr. 1759 (14th c.) known as P.
Look at that manuscript, and it looks like the actual spelling of the word that everyone just translates as "seven/th". To me it looks like:
ευδομ(*superscript*) and not εβδομ/. Well, lol and behold, according to LSJ "εὕδομος" is Boeotian for ἕβδομος!
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ε , εὐδιά-φθαρτος , εὕδομος
And Boeotia didn't use Gamelion as the name of a month. So, here's my scenario: Somewhere along the line, Apollodorus's work was copied by a scribe from Boeotia who didn't think his readers would know what Gamelion was, so he decided to put in the word "seventh" in his dialect as opposed to "standard" Greek to make sure to specify Gamelion was the seventh month.
All this is wild conjecture on my part, but I've seen academic theories built on less 
If anyone wants to join in the fun of transliterating ancient Greek manuscripts:
it seems like he could have easily verified Epicurus', particularly given his popularity and the availability of documentation.
That's assuming Apollodorus *wanted* to verify it.
Apollodorus of Athens could have used the word "seventh" as a gloss to to clarify which month on the Attic calendar corresponded with "Gamelion" because there were dozens of dissimilar calendars in the ancient world and informing the reader which sequentially-numbered month they were in helps provide context.
Remember, too, that Diogenes Laertius (DL) would not have been using the autographs from Apollodorus's own hand. DL was probably using a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of Apollodorus's Chronicle from possibly decades if not hundreds of years later. A later scribe could have easily inserted a 7 or Z or VII or εβδομ* into their copy of the manuscript to make help show what Gamelion was in the ancient Athenian calendar. Especially since Gamelion and similar sounding months were different numbers for different city-states. Maybe Apollodorus never even wrote the word "seven/th"! Then the word or symbol got transposed, misinterpreted, etc., etc., etc. As I understand it, the only "copy" of this Fragment about Epicurus's birthday is preserved in Book 10 of DL's book!!
Another line of interest for me is the line in Epicurus's Will:
καὶ ἡμῖν εἰς τὴν εἰθισμένην ἄγεσθαι γενέθλιον ἡμέραν ἑκάστου ἔτους τῇ προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος, ὥσπερ καὶ εἰς τὴν γινομένην σύνοδον ἑκάστου μηνὸς ταῖς εἰκάσι τῶν συμφιλοσοφούντων ἡμῖν εἰς τὴν ἡμῶν τε καὶ Μητροδώρου <μνήμην> κατατεταγμένην.
Epicurus talks about celebrating his birthday on the 20th of Gamelion, ὥσπερ..
ὥσπερ means "like as, even as" the members of the school assemble every month on the 20th in remembrance of Metrodorus and Epicurus. That like as seems to me to say "Keep celebrating my birthday as we have been on Gamelion 20 just like we meet on the 20th of every month to remember Metrodorus and me." The discrepancy of Gamelion 7 and 20 is resolved elegantly by the fact that Gamelion was the 7th month of the Attic calendar in Epicurus's and Apollodorus's time.
Nearly every day of the Attic month is holy on some level, and has some symbolic meaning, and we already discussed the Attic symbology of the Seventh. It seems to me that Epicurus having been being born on the 20th is what makes the Twentieth significant
That is *exactly* where I'm coming down on this.
The following is my attempt to paraphrase the author: "Numerous translators differ about the spelling of the ancient Greek word for 'seventh' as presented in the original text. The difference in translation could be the difference between 'the seventh month of Gamelion' versus 'the month of Gamelion's seventh'. One authority says hebdómēi. Another says hebdómē. Yet another says hebdómēs. As it turns out, I agree with the interpretation that lends credence to the proposition that 'the seventh' is an adjective that describes "the month" and not a noun indicating 'the nth sequential day'".
Yes, that's my general take, too.
Do they expect their readers to speak ancient Greek and can read Usener in Latin without a problem?)
LOL. Yes, I do think they expect that! And, most likely, most of them can/could. I doubt they ever considered us lay researchers being interested in their esoteric work!
Here's a link to Wilamowitz's work Aristoteles und Athen. On p. 190 it says:
geburtstage können nur gelegentlich wie bei Epikur und in seinem kreise geschichtlich sein ; Sokrates und Piaton haben mythische.
Birthdays can only occasionally be historical, as with Epicurus and in his circle; Socrates and Plato have mythical ones.
That implies to me that Epicurus's birthday was only considered important within his circle/school. Socrates' and Plato's took on mythic proportions due to their (undue) stature within Greek philosophy.
How is this known? By whom? If he gave the days of Socrates and Plato, would it not be reasonable to assume that he would do the same for Epicurus, another Hegemon?
Epicurus was "the most reviled and most revered" so any number of authors wouldn't feel his exact birthdate warranted mention. I don't see why we would expect every author - especially the student of Stoics! - to bother with recording Epicurus's birthdate. Plus, Diogenes Laertius included Epicurus's Will which (to me) gives his birthdate anyway. Not everyone wants to acknowledge the importance of Epicurus!
You've been busy, Eikadistes . Let me try and give my responses (if warranted) chronologically from your posts. And I agree that Lewis's short work is obscure and wrapped in the jargon of Academia. I'm working my way through it, but I do find the 7th month idea intriguing to say the least....
Long’s apparatus gives: ἑβδόμη [hebdómē] Bpc: έβδομης [hebdómēs] FP: om. Bac. (But see Usener’s apparatus on B, Epicurea, 366.)"
Honestly, I got hung up on "apparatus" right away, on top of the abbreviated citations, etc. I had to look it up, and it appears, according to the Oxford English Dictionary: "Materials for the critical study of a document. In full critical apparatus: = apparatus criticus n." So, it's just shorthand for a researcher's materials they've cobbled together taken as a whole. B, F, and P are all Diogenes Laertius manuscripts:
"B 1. The oldest representative of the first class is B, the Codex Borbonicus gr. iii. B. 29 (formerly 253), a parchment codex of the twelfth century, in the public library at Naples: it was corrected by a hand of the fourteenth century whose readings not infrequently agree with those of Co." (Bailey: Epicurus: The Extant Remains) The superscripts of B appear to be different copies of the original B manuscript.
Here is the pertinent section of what I *think* is codex Parisinus gr. 1759 (14th c.) known as P. The 4th line is where the Gamelion line is which looks to me line .... μηνος γαμηλιωνος *βδομ*... I'm not sure what the superscripts before and after *βδομ* are.
Here is end of the section in manuscript codex Laurentianus LXIX. 35 (14th c.) known as H. This is the top of the folio with the ending of Gamelionos from the previous page: [γαμηλι]ωνος εβδομ**. Again, I'm not sure what to make of the superscripts but it looks to me like -Ης so έβδομης which appears to be modifying Gameliōnos. But why would ebdomēs be feminine and the name be masculine? Is it attached to the earlier της? Is it something like "the month of Gamelion, the seventh one" which is not an uncommon construction (e.g., the ball, the red one):
Unfortunately, I couldn't get to the other manuscripts or they aren't available digitized.
Usener's apparatus on B on p.366 of Epicurea reads:
The note on line 17 is the one that is pertinent to the Gamelion 7 issue. Which, using my rudimentary Latin (and Google Translate) reads something like:
"|| 17 between μηνὸς and τῆς there is one empty space, and what is left in verse B1 παπυλεῶνος ἑβδόμη. ... ἔτεσιν ὕστερον he supplied B2 | ἑβδόμη B2: ἑβδόμης FPQHf"
So, Usener seems to be saying that manuscript B2 had εβδομη while manuscripts F, P, Q, Hf had εβδομης. I have no idea what παπυλεωνος refers to, and Gamelionos makes more sense in context. I'm also now sure how "he" is when Usener refers to "he supplied." Usener seems to think the εβδομης, the genitive singular feminine form of έβδομος, is supported by 4 manuscripts while the other is supported by a version of B. Is he saying that "he" supplied εβδομη(ς) in the "one empty space" between μηνὸς and τῆς which would imply something like "the seventh month of Gamelion"?
I realize I'm not even a couple lines into replying to your posts, but there's a lot here so I'm going to his Reply here and open a new post.
I would like to see the original fragment from Apollodorus of Athens if it is available.
I get the impression that the Chronicle only exists in fragments, including in Diogenes Laertius
I'm consolidating some papers and other sources that acknowledge τῃ προτέρᾳ δεκατῃ (“the early tenth”) referring to “the twentieth”. My goal is to get this all in one spot about the 7, 10, and 20 of Gamelion.
Over the next few days is the goal!
Cain's book was a revelation for me. Specifically, she talked about introverts who can be gregarious at parties, great public speakers, etc., but who also get exhausted by that (even though they find it enjoyable!) and need alone time to "recharge their batteries." I was like "Hey! I recognize that person!"
I hope you enjoy it. I think she has some videos or TED Talks on her introvert research too if you don't want to read the whole book.
Question:
How does this conversation about certainty and "knowing" connect to the Epicurean position of waiting for evidence in matters with multiple potential, feasible causes?
So, are you saying my response is too Socratic? To be more Epicurean someone should just say "I'm certain Hell doesn't exist"?
I suppose you could state that out of the gate then give reasons for it.
However, the question itself is nonsensical within an Epicurean worldview since Epicurus firmly stands on the conviction that "Death is nothing to us" since we are only this arrangement of atoms and void. We are material beings. Even if "Hell" existed, there could be no one - no things - to populate it. The concept of Christian Hell is built on a faulty foundation.
And the youth might ask in reply: "And so, kind sir, are you telling me that all this adds up to your telling me that you are certain, and that you know, that there is no hell? Or are you trying to drown me in a sea of words and answer questions with questions and leave me unsatisfied like that gadfly Socrates?"
Seriously though, if someone is going to ask me "Do you believe Hell exists?" I'd have to ask them what they mean by Hell. Not trying to be the jerk Socrates, but if they want to talk about Hell, what are they talking about and what gives them confidence that this place exists?
But if we're going to discuss it,...
Are we talking about an actual place of fire and brimstone inhabited by condemned souls existing after death in the Christian mythology?
I'd have to say that I have no reason to believe such a "place" exists in the universe other than in the context of Christian mythology. My experience of the universe demonstrates to me - to high degree of confidence - that there is no supernatural overlord - either benevolent or malicious - dealing out punishment. My experience also demonstrates to me that I am no more than my physical parts working in unison and out of that comes my consciousness. When I die, and my physical parts dissolve back into atoms and void, there's not going to be any thing - there will be no thing - which would or could be sent to a place like this Christian figment of the imagination.
Are we talking about a metaphorical concept of psychological punishment in the present? A "Hell on earth"? Okay, that's a more viable concept we can discuss.
And so on...
And the youth might ask in reply: "And so, kind sir, are you telling me that all this adds up to your telling me that you are certain, and that you know, that there is no hell? Or are you trying to drown me in a sea of words and answer questions with questions and leave me unsatisfied like that gadfly Socrates?
You say "You've never been there." Again, I would ask "Where would I go to visit this place?" My senses and experience and reason tell me that there is no immortal soul that exists after I am dead. You say this "Hell" is a place of punishment potentially for me and for those who do evil in the world. But if I do not exist after I die - and I see no evidence that I do - how can this Hell-place affect me? Even if it does exist, who dwells in it? Spirits without bodies? And if they have bodies, where do they stand? If they are Spirit, they can have no effect on me now, while I am alive. And once I'm dead, I no longer exist for them to have an affect on me. If you say I've never there, you would be correct, because, to my understanding of the universe, there is no "there" to go to.
I would simply turn the question back to you and ask you to define your terms when we speak of Hell. Describe this place of which you obviously have some knowledge that I do not possess. Please, tell me from whence you came about your certainty and where I, too, can gain knowledge of this place. I wish to learn!
Display MoreProbably the Latin for this jab from Cicero in "On The Nature of the Gods" is also going to be relevant:
Hereupon Velleius began, in the confident manner (I need not say) that is customary with Epicureans, afraid of nothing so much as lest he should appear to have doubts about anything. One would have supposed he had just come down from the assembly of the gods in the intermundane spaces of Epicurus!
I will see if i can find the Latin.....
Here it is: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…%3Asection%3D18
18] Tum Velleius fidenter sane, ut solent isti, nihil tam verens quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur, tamquam modo ex deorum concilio et ex Epicuri intermundiis descendisset, “Audite” inquit “non futtilis commenticiasque sententias, non opificem aedificatoremque mundi Platonis de Timaeo deum, nec anum fatidicam Stoicorum Pronoeam, quam Latine licet Providentiam dicere, neque vero mundum ipsum animo et sensibus praeditum rutundum ardentem volubilem deum, portenta et miracula non disserentium philosophorum sed somniantium.
Interlinear translation: https://nodictionaries.com/novifex?text=1…et%2C+%E2%80%9C
M. Tullius Cicero, de Natura Deorum, LIBER PRIMUS, section 18
You beat me to it! Cross posted
Tum Velleius fidenter sane nihil tam verens quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur, tamquam modo ex deorum concilio et ex Epicuri intermundiis descendisset
Then Velleius confidently feared nothing so much as not to be seen to doubt about any matter, as if he had just descended from the council of the gods and from the interworlds of Epicurus.
So for 'certain' we are talking "certo"?
Yes.
Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, certus
determined, resolved, fixed, settled, purposed: non dubius.
"You don't know there's no hell - and there's no way you can know - because you've never been there!"
Where would this place called Hell be? My senses tell me there is nothing but atoms and void , and nothing is created from that which does not already exist.
You say "You've never been there." Again, I would ask "Where would I go to visit this place?" My senses and experience and reason tell me that there is no immortal soul that exists after I am dead. You say this "Hell" is a place of punishment potentially for me and for those who do evil in the world. But if I do not exist after I die - and I see no evidence that I do - how can this Hell-place affect me? Even if it does exist, who dwells in it? Spirits without bodies? And if they have bodies, where do they stand? If they are Spirit, they can have no effect on me now, while I am alive. And once I'm dead, I no longer exist for them to have an affect on me. If you say I've never there, you would be correct, because, to my understanding of the universe, there is no "there" to go to.
