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.
Danish scholar Marcus Meibomius
So, Marcus divided the books into paragraphs; what I called verses in my Menoikeus translation.
Usener's Epicurea was published in 1887; but we have above the 1758 French translation with enumerated PDs. Curiouser and curiouser.
I'm wondering if Martin is able to determine where the 44 comes from in the German translation.
French 1758
Spanish 1792
The Latin translation here also has no numbers or divisions:
Quod beatum atque...
Thought about this on my morning walk today. The three maxims said to have been inscribed on the temple of the Oracle at Delphi are probably most well known through Socrates emphasis of "know thyself." But there were three inscriptions plus 147 maxims ascribed to the Seven Sages. For a summary, check out the Wikipedia article:
What got me on my walk was thinking about the first maxim, then that led to thinking about the others.
My question to myself was "How would Epicurus have viewed or interpreted the maxims?" They were basically "common knowledge" by his time (and beyond). However, would he have seen them as part of παιδεία - the acculturation or indoctrination he urged one to escape - or would he have reinterpreted them in light of his philosophy?
Here's my attempt at reinterpretation:
Here's the three:
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν "Know thyself"
Μηδὲν ἄγαν "Nothing too much"
Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ατα "Give a pledge and trouble is at hand"
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν "Know thyself"
This one is easy, in my opinion. Epicurus taught his students to use their feelings of pleasure and pain to guide their choices. We need to assess consequences that our choices may have on us. How else is one to do this than to know yourself, know how you react in situations, pay attention to what you're really feeling, and so on. I see no real trouble in accepting "Know thyself" in an Epicurean context.
Μηδὲν ἄγαν "Nothing too much"
I also think this maxim *can* be incorporated into an Epicurean context, but carefully. Epicurus constantly wrote about limits and that we should pay attention to them. He did not advocate mediocrity or asceticism but did talk about choosing the "best" as opposed to the "most." "Nothing too much" seems a better interpretation/translation than "Everything in moderation." The maxim is negative (nothing) not positive (everything).
Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ατα "Give a pledge and trouble is at hand"
I've seen this referred to as the forgotten maxim as well as it having multiple translations due to the ambiguity of εγγύα. Various meanings are:
"pledge, surety, security, whether received or given; betrothal, contract for a future marriage." The idea seems to be making an obligation to another person, being required to do something. To me, this hints at Epicurus's aversion to necessity. We are not - and should not - be bound by necessity when it is possible to make a decision not to be subject to necessity: κακὸν ἀνάγκη, ἀλλʼ οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη ζῆν μετὰ ἀνάγκης. "Being constrained in our choices is bad, but we are not constrained to live constrained in our choices." (my translation of VS9) If we want to help a friend, our friend should be safe in the knowledge that we would help them. No pledges or surety required.
Those are some thoughts off the top of my head. I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on these or any of those 147 maxims from the "Seven Sages" (see the Wikipedia link above)
However, didn't Philodemus also encourage his readers to get back to the books? I need to delve back into that work of his.
This is what I was looking for...
ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐγνωσμένος ἢ καὶ διιστορη̣μένος ὑ̣π’ ἡμῶν, ὃς καί φησι εἶν̣[α]ι̣ ὁ̣ γνήσιος ἀναγνώ̣[σ]τ̣ης ἐ̣π̣ὶ γραφὰς [ἐγλεκ]τὰς κα[ὶ πλ]ήθη συγγρ̣α̣[μμ]άτων, κἂν βάλ̣ηι̣ [γ]ε̣ [κα]λῶς, ἀνείληφε πολ[λὰ]ς̣ ἐγλογὰς καὶ τῶν μ[ὲ]ν̣ ἐπὶ μέρους διανο[η]μάτων ἀπειρότατός ἐστιν. ἃ δὲ προστάττεται ποι̣εῖν, ἐπὶ κεφάλαι[α βλέ]πει, καθάπερ ὃν λ[έγου]σιν ἐκ βυβλίου κυβ[ερνήτ]η̣ν̣ καὶ διὰ παντ[ός - - -]
...
ἀλλὰ τὸ σχετλιώτατ̣ο̣[ν] ἐκεῖν̓ ἐστὶν̣ [ἐ]πὶ τοῖς πλείοσιν τῶν Ἐπικουρείων ὃ τὴν ἐν τοῖς βυβλί[ο]ις ἀ[νε]ν̣εργησίαν ἀπαραίτητο[ν ποιεῖ...]
He who claims to know us and to be instructed by us, who claims to be a genuine reader of various writings and of complete books, even if he says something correctly, he has only memorized various quotations and does not know the multitude of our thoughts. What he has to do, he looks up in summaries, like people who believe that they [can learn to be] steersman from books and [can cross every ocean].
...
but the most shocking thing of most Epicureans is the unforgivable inactivity in regards to the books...
Here's some commentary from Hiram on PHerc 1005 (primarily using the translation and commentary in Les Epicuriens):
This may be relevant:
However, didn't Philodemus also encourage his readers to get back to the books? I need to delve back into that work of his.
Having mentioned Long & Sedley again, I'll repost the link to Internet Archive. Highly encourage a free account there to "check out" books.
The section on gods begins on p. 139 with the commentary I summarized starts at the bottom of p. 144:
As I understand it, current scholarly consensus is that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd c BCE as if it was written in the 6th c BCE. All the predictions are "accurate" because the author was simply relating known historical facts. As a summary, from Wikipedia:
Dating
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.
Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.
I see that "bitter gift" referred to on this Jehovah's Witness site:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1997805
"Lacking “the joy of Jehovah,” Epicurus called life a “bitter gift.” (Nehemiah 8:10)"
And then other sites quote the letter to Menoikeus about the pleasures of the profligate. But nowhere does Epicurus call life a *bitter gift*... Nowhere! It's frustrating that it appears so widespread online!!
Welcome aboard, Evan!
See, now this is an application where AI would come in handy. This sounds like some academic master's thesis or something. Well done, Joshua. This would be fascinating.
I like your metaphors, Pacatus 
Note: I am aware that “canon” can be translated as “rule” – but I take it more in the sense of a measuring (or weighing) tool, a set of guiding principles to make life easier and more enjoyable.
I think your spot on with seeing the canon like a tool. A κανών (kanon) was originally a measuring tool, like a yardstick (or meter-stick), plumb line, or the like.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κα^νών
to experience the pleasure freely without a need to thank anyone.
Agreed... with the following addendum Your post got me to thinking.
When you say "without a need to thank anyone," I'm assuming (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) you're referring to a god or a capital-G God. "Someone" who has "bestowed" their "blessings" upon you. Scare quotes used intentionally here. Fully and completely agree with that sentiment.
However...
Epicurus's writings and associated texts contain multiple references to the importance of gratitude in the Epicurean life, including:
So, gratitude appears to be an important component of the Epicurean life, of an Epicurean perspective on the world. For me, this includes gratitude directed toward people (not gods) or just gratitude for the joy of living, gratitude for the fact that I'm around to experience both the little pleasures and the big pleasures available to me. As silly as it may sound, I say "Thank you" when the alarm goes off in my car to tell me I've left the keys in the ignition. I'm not thanking the universe; I am literally thanking the engineer that came up with the idea of including this in my car. That's what I'm thinking when I say that. I am sure to thank people for doing nice things for me and not letting them pass by. I'm not a god. I don't see gratitude as a weakness 
I can also feel gratitude for the sun shining on my face when I'm walking through the woods or seeing the sun streaming through the leaves. Not to some Deity for His Creation 
but gratitude for the *fact* of my existence and my ability to be here and now and to experience that pleasing sensation.
I don't mean to belabor this point, but I have found this attitude helpful and felt the need to share it.
And then remember to ask yourself: "What will happen to me if I get this or do this?, and what will happen to me if I don't get this or don't do this?"
Just wanted to add... when you ask this of yourself, also consider the wider circle of people around you, remembering that what you do will bring consequences for others as well, and any harm done to them will evoke some kind of reaction, breakdown of friendship, or retribution. (Ultimately the best way of functioning would be "post-conventional moral reasoning").
Good points, Kalosyni. I'd offer some emphases to your statement: "what you do will bring consequences for others as well, and any harm done to them will evoke some kind of reaction" towards you, "breakdown of" your "friendship, or retribution" towards you! We do not exist in a vacuum. One of the things that flows from having responsibility for our choices and rejections is that we need to weigh the consequences to ourselves. I'm not saying that others' concerns are more important than our feelings. I'm saying that our feelings are inextricably linked to our interactions with others. Our well-being is caught up in social interactions of all kinds. We need to be cognizant of how we can provide ourselves with the best social interactions we can have to provide ourselves with the most pleasurable life. If we lie, cheat, steal, belittle or even just disregard others, our lives will be less secure and thus most likely less pleasurable. Epicurus's observation is of great importance: "a pleasurable life does not exist without the traits of wisdom, morality, and justice; nor do the traits of wisdom, morality, and justice without pleasure: because the virtues grow together with a pleasurable life and the pleasurable life is inseparable from these."
