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.
"of bodies some are composite, others the elements of which these composite bodies are made."
σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι συγκρίσεις, τὰ δ᾽ ἐξ ὧν αἱ συγκρίσεις πεποίηνται:
συγκρίσεις
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, σύγκρι^σις
πεποίηνται
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ποιέω
"It is upon sensation that reason must rely when it attempts to infer the unknown from the known." (End of verse 39)
καθ᾽ ἣν ἀναγκαῖον τὸ ἄδηλον τῷ λογισμῷ τεκμαίρεσθαι:
τῷ λογισμῷ (Dative case) = through logismōi
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λογ-ισμός
τὸ ἄδηλον = "the unseen; what is not evident to the senses"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἄδηλ-ος
τεκμαίρεσθαι = "to judge by signs and tokens"
It does not appear that the phrase "the unknown from the known" is actually in the Greek. The only word is τὸ ἄδηλον "the unseen" so the actual paraphrase would be something like "it is necessary to judge the unseen through reasoning" while also calling back to the previous phrase that talks about the senses.
Did I hear my name? 
The Greek for the section you discussed around 8:11 is:
τὸ πᾶν ἐστι σώματα καὶ κενόν: σώματα μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἔστιν, αὐτὴ ἡ αἴσθησις ἐπὶ πάντων μαρτυρεῖ.
The "bodies" are σώματα (sōmata). So...
"the whole of being (τὸ πᾶν) consists of bodies and space (our old friend κενόν (kenon)):. For the existence of bodies is everywhere attested by sense itself."
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, σῶμα
"generally, a body, i.e. any corporeal substance"
In Lucian's "A True Story" there is a description of a battle with troops coming from various stars as well as the sun and moon. So it was possible for Lucian at least to think of stars as habitable places and not just "holes in a sphere".
(The list of troops from the sun and moon also implies that they are large, and not the size of a basketball)
All good points! Thanks!
I'd be curious to look at the vocabulary Lucian uses in the Greek for any clues.
Would it be correct to say that the implication of a "world" is that it constitutes certain areas out of the totality of things (the universe)
I would say "yes" with the continued caveat that "world" does not equal "planet" in the modern sense. "World" seems to consistently translate κόσμος (kosmos) "world system" which sets it apart from - or makes it a subset of - το παν "the all."
I'm not sure if the significance you're ascribing to "revolving" or where that comes from.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κόσμος
With the change in the understanding of the universe over the past 2,000+ years, it's very difficult to come up with a 1:1 correspondence between κόσμος and our modern scientific "definition" of cosmos (Carl Sagan's and Neil de Grasse Tyson's TV series notwithstanding).
To the Greeks, κόσμος encompassed the Earth at the center with our sun orbiting around us with the stars embedded in or as holes in the surrounding sphere. So taking that route, κόσμος to us, is the visible universe. However, it would seem to be that, to the ancients, each planet (other Earths) would have its own sun. When Epicurus/Lucretius says there are other worlds, he's using κόσμοι (plural) which implies that arrangement. The "gods" supposedly live "between" kosmoi, so by definition, they don't seem to be "living" IN a world-system. They are said to live *between* world-systems. BUT each κόσμος has its own home planet at its center.
That LSJ definition includes:
Philos., world-order, universe, first in Pythag., acc.to Placit.2.1.1, D.L.8.48 (cf. [Philol.]21), or Parm., acc. to Thphr. ap. D.L.l.c.; “κόσμον τόνδε οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ” Heraclit.30; “ὁ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν κ.” X.Mem.1.1.11: freq. in Pl., Grg.508a, Ti.27a, al.; “ἡ τοῦ ὅλου σύστασίς ἐστι κ. καὶ οὐρανός” Arist.Cael.280a21, cf. Epicur.Ep. 2p.37U., Chrysipp.Stoic.2.168, etc.; “ὁ κ. ζῷον ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν” Posidon. ap. D.L.7.139, cf. Pl.Ti.30b: sts. of the firmament, “γῆς ἁπάσης τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ κόσμῳ κειμένης” Isoc.4.179; “ὁ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὅλος κ.” Arist. Mete.339a20; μετελθεῖν εἰς τὸν ἀέναον κ., of death, OGI56.48 (Canopus, iii B. C.); but also, of earth, as opp. heaven, “ὁ ἐπιχθόνιος κ.” Herm. ap. Stob.1.49.44; or as opp. the underworld, “ὁ ἄνω κ.” Iamb.VP27.123; of any region of the universe, “ὁ μετάρσιος κ.” Herm. ap. Stob.1.49.44; of the sphere whose centre is the earth's centre and radius the straight line joining earth and sun, Archim.Aren.4; of the sphere containing the fixed stars, Pl.Epin.987b: in pl., worlds, coexistent or successive, Anaximand. et alii ap.Placit.2.1.3, cf. Epicur.l.c.; also, of stars, “Νὺξ μεγάλων κ. κτεάτειρα” A.Ag.356 (anap.), cf. Heraclid.et Pythagorei ap.Placit.2.13.15 (= Orph.Fr.22); οἱ ἑπτὰ κ. the Seven planets, Corp.Herm.11.7.
So, even that is a somewhat vague, wide-ranging definition.
So sum up, neither Martin nor Eikadistes are wrong in their modern analogies, but it could also be said that neither are quite correct either.
Eikadistes , yes, that's my take as well. A κόσμος kosmos includes the spherical Earth at its center surrounded by the vaults of the sky with the stars etc embedded in it.
Observable universe is a good modern analogy.
Then "The All" includes other kosmoi. The gods then would live somehow in that area(?) between kosmoi?
Great post, Scott . Thanks for the comments. Your mentioning "home" made me think of another Ancient Greek word: Ο ΟΙΚΟΣ (ho oikos) which had a range of meanings encompassing home, the physical building(s), estate, and also all the members of the "family" (husband, wife, children, slaves).
The later Byzantine/Modern pronunciation of "eekos" gives English the eco- of ecology and economics.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, οἶκος
I think the Latin equivalent would be domus.
So the Epicurus wiki puts preconceptions there but the others do not? Possible to tell why?
That must be where once long ago I thought I read that.
It's there in 124.
[124] οὐ γὰρ προλήψεις (prolepseis) εἰσίν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπολήψεις ψευδεῖς (hypolepseis pseudeis "false opinions") αἱ τῶν πολλῶν ὑπὲρ θεῶν ἀποφάσεις,
Typically, the gods fail to protect those with wrong ideas of them.
That idea comes in with the section that follows the section you quoted:
One is not impious who does not take up the gods of the hoi polloi; but the one who attributes the beliefs of the hoi polloi to the gods. [124] For what they believe are not prolepses, but rather the judgements of the hoi polloi concerning the gods which are false, hasty assumptions. So, they believe the greatest evils are brought to the wicked from the gods as well as the greatest aid to the good, because the hoi polloi are believing that the gods accept those who resemble themselves who are similar through all excellences and goodness; all those not of their sort are strange and alien.
For another comparison, here's the Epicurus Wiki which gives an interesting take: http://wiki.epicurism.info/Letter_to_Menoeceus/
But do not believe anything about divine nature other than what is congenial for an eternally happy existence. The gods do exist because we have preconceived notions of them. But they are not like how most people describe them, because they do not retain the notion of the gods that they first receive. Rejecting the popular myths does not make one impious. Impious is one who upholds popular beliefs about the gods, because those pronouncements are false opinions rather than actual preconceptions.
And Saint-Andre's:
Letter to Menoikos, by Epicurus
Do not ascribe to god anything that is inconsistent with immortality and blissfulness; instead, believe about god everything that can support immortality and blissfulness. For gods there are: our knowledge of them is clear. Yet they are not such as most people believe; indeed most people are not even consistent in what they believe. It is not impious to deny the gods that most people believe in, but to ascribe to the gods what most people believe.
Your underlined section in the translations takes into account :
οὐ γὰρ φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς οἵους νοοῦσιν. ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺς ἀναιρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας θεοῖς προσάπτων.
An even more literal translation of these lines would be:
γὰρ... For, because... (has to be second word in phrase for arcane grammatical reasons)
φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς οἵους... they are protecting/defending/maintaining/preserving them (appears to refer to the gods)
οὐ νοοῦσιν they (the hoi polloi) are not perceiving/conceiving/seeing
ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺς ἀναιρῶν "for impiety is not that which is ordained/appointed/taken up by the hoi polloi"
των πολλών is simply the genitive case of 'οι πολλοί (hoi polloi) "the many" which means exactly what it does in English: the masses, the common people. τας δόξας (tas doxas) are the beliefs or doctrines, same word in the Principal Doctrines. So, "One is not impious who does not take up the gods of the hoi polloi; but the one who attributes the beliefs of the hoi polloi to the gods."
So .. the charges of cannibalism against the early Christians was "substantially" correct? Or is that specious?
FYI The "sum of things" in the original is ΤΟ ΠΑΝ (to pan). Here's a link to a thread on this phrase:
A list for further searching for full access somewhere or reading in depth:
https://philpapers.org/rec/AISEAA (full text available at link) This one may have surfaced before.
...people felt about Dionysus as about no other god. He was not only outside of them, he was within them, too. They could be transformed by him into being like him. The momentary sense of exultant power wine-drinking can give was only a sign to show men that they had within them more than they knew; “they could themselves become divine."
That's a very interesting summary and direct quote, Godfrey . As I'm sure you meant to emphasize, this seems to echo or parallel Epicurus's ideas that we can live like gods among mortals. I agree that last part is problematic, but I would be curious of the timeline of developments. Maybe that's why Epicurus could enthusiastically participate in the feasts and sacrifices, and of the Dionysian ones especially, while overlaying it all with his version of piety.
I'm still trying to find the words Obbink translated as "meagre feast" which *could* be nothing more than a reference to maza and wine.
I'll be interested to find if anyone finds anything else in this topic.
Well, this has turned into a very interesting thread!
I dug into the transcriptions in light of the summaries in those notes I pasted. Please remember my Greek is rudimentary at best. As a way to jump back in to my studies, I've just started the video series from the Center for Hellenic Studies. Don't have the book, so we'll see how it goes.
I defer to the translations in my notes (from Obbink), but it's nice to see names and phrases corroborated in the papyrus.
Anyway, here are some excerpts:
Column 28, lines 10-15: ε̣[ὑρίσ]κεται πάσαις ταῖς πατρίοις ἑορταῖς ((filler)) καὶ θυσίαις κε[χ]τ(*)[η-] μένος. "to all the traditional feasts and sacrifices"
πατρίοις patriois, related to patrimony, patriot, having to do with hereditary or what's been handed down from the forefathers.
ἑορταῖς feasts
θυσίαις sacrifices, burnt-offerings
Column 28, lines 15-21: ἐπ' Ἀρ[ιστ]ωνύμου μὲγ γὰ[ρ] (For during the time of archon Aristomenos) Φύρσωνι (to Physon) περί τινος αὐτοῦ πολείτου Θεο̣δότου (fellow-citizen Theodotos) γράφων καὶ τῶν ἑορτῶν [φησι (he says)] πασῶν (of all the feasts)
Column 28, line 24/25: τὴν τω̣[ν] Χε(*)ῶν ἑορτὴν "the feast of Khoai"
Well, that was fun! 
Eikadistes especially might be interested in seeing the papyrus transcription and images of On Piety:
DCLP/Trismegistos 62400 = LDAB 3563
Scroll down there for columns 28, 29.
I guess what I want to know is this: in which public festivals, specifically, did Epicurus participate? Better yet, let me ask, what public festivals existed in Hellenistic Greece were compatible with Epicurean theology?
Your question made me go back and look at my posted notes on On Piety. This post talks about those festivals:
You can of course check out the link, but here are some excerpts:
Col. 28/9: Epicurus wrote to Phyrson during the archonship of Aristonymus (289/8 BCE) about Physon's countryman from Colophon, Theodotus, Epicurus says that he (Epicurus) shared in all the festivals... Epicurus celebrated the festival of the Choes and the urban mysteries and the other festivals at a meagre dinner, and that it was necessary for him (prob. Theodotus) to celebrate this feast of the Twentieth for distinguished revelers, while those in the house decorated it most piously ('ολως) and after making invitations to host a feast for all of them.
Notes
For festivals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthesteria
The Choes were part of this festival dedicated to Dionysus
The "urban mysteries" refer to the Attic Dionysia, either the Lenaea (in the month of Gamelion, Epicurus's birth month) or Lesser Mysteries during 20-6 Anthesteria, both in honor of Dionysus.
I find it interesting that the festivals mentioned were dedicated to Dionysus. It could just be coincidence that those are mentioned; or Athens had a lot of Dionysian festivals; or Epicurus had an affinity for Dionysian festivals or the god. No way to tell from what I've read so far.
Col. 29: Epicurus advised them to retain asservations made by means of these and similar expressions, and above all to preserve those made by Zeus himself (maintain the practice of swearing by Zeus by name νή Δία!)... Not merely "it must be so!"
Notes
So, Epicureans, feel free to pepper your writing and conversation with νή Δία! "By Zeus!"
Very good posts, Eikadistes . And I like where you ended up.
I'll have to go back and check my notes on Obbink's work on On Piety to see if I wrote down any mention of specific rites Epicurus took part in. Can't remember off the top of my head.
There's also the fact that the religious rites in ancient Athens included dramatic festivals and things we might not consider religious. I guess *similar* to your mention of Christmas and July 4.
Cassius , do I remember mention somewhere of Epicurus approving music but not dance or some such thing (other than than "I can't imagine the good without... pleasing movements, etc.")?
