EUDEMUS (4th – 3rd-century BCE) mentioned in a letter written by Epicurus
Do we know anything else about this particular Eúdēmos ?
There was a man named Eúdēmos [of Pergamon] who wrote commentaries on Epíkouros' work On Nature. However, he was a teacher of Philōnídēs of Laodíkeia (and therefore was active around 180 BC) – so he could not have been the recipient of letters from Epíkouros.
but more about quality of life ---> having and feeling good energy
Yes, I completely agree. While the long-term benefits of eating well are great, what really drives me are the immediate, day-to-day rewards.
I’ve got a few go-to salmon recipes I can throw together in under 5 minutes with almost no effort. For example: miso paste and soy sauce spread over the salmon, then topped with chopped garlic, and finally finished with a drizzle of syrup -- straight into the oven!
Yes "mistake" or "failure" is the idea for ἡ ἁμαρτία. Using that same word, Epikouros in On Nature Book 14, says (of Plato):
"but some people make a mistake (ἁμαρτάνουσιν) regarding these component elements."
Full quote is:
"...Such is the case for those who define one particular shape for fire, or earth, or water, or air: since they are more ridiculous than those who do not define any type of shape for each element -- given that, in their comparative juxtapositions, those who define a specific shape for each element should have agreed, either willingly or unwillingly, that certain multiple particular forms of shapes are produced which can affirmatively be said to be substantial, in accordance with each compound. But some people make a mistake (ἁμαρτάνουσιν) regarding these component elements, and there is something more consistent to be said that pertains to these elements -- speaking in this way, those who define one particular shape for each element could also entirely refer to the variety in the mixtures..."
P.Herc. 1148 col. 1/34
When we develop intense desires for what is unnecessary (οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον) -- and also not easy to get (οὐκ εὐπόριστον) -- we then have a problem that arises completely from our thoughts and not from any actual need.
Definitions set boundaries around particular characteristics.
From a certain angle, definitions (or "limits,") can only say what something is not -- and it is "examples" that say what something is.
Consider an ancient scholiast on Dionysius Thrax's Τέχνη Γραμματική (The Art of Grammar):
"And Epíkouros – although he used examples (αἱ ὑπογραφαί) all the time – he shows that limits (οἱ ὅροι) are more valuable, [because he used] limits instead of examples in his work of his natural philosophy lecture: while dividing everything into atom and void by using limits – and while saying that an atom is a solid body having no share of interposition with the void. Void is an intangible nature, that is, untouchable."
I am incorporating it into the Epicurea as an addendum, it works better that way to continue editing and (more importantly) cross-referencing all the material. I've already made a few corrections on it there.
an index or table of contents page for P. Herc.?
I am still following Usener closely. But once we are done with the Epicurea, that will probably be the best way to find and organize even more new material.
I wanted to include the Life of Philōnídēs (P.Herc. 1044). Which is quoted in part in the Epicurea at U95.
The Greek is a mix of the readings of Gallo, Assante, and Nicolardi. I have in no place added to the Greek. There is no agreement as to the order, so I have tried to make it roughly chronological.
The comments of the Italian scholars are given via computer transition. There are mistakes, please let me know if you see them.
This inscription is in praise of Dicaearchus (brother of our Philōnídēs). Their father, also mentioned here, was also named Philōnídēs.
SGDI II 2677 - PHI Greek Inscriptions
It says the family is from Laodicea on-the-sea "Λαοδικέα τῶν ποτὶ θαλάσσαι."
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is famously mentioned in the Christian Bible and alluded to in the Tanakh. Our man Philōnídēs of Laodíkeia certainly interacted with him closely and was, in general, a long-standing friend of the Seleucid royal family.
To read a bit of the news from the time of Philōnídēs, we have Diodorus Siculus on Antiochus IV Epiphanes:
Wikipedia says Philōnídēs is from "Laodicea in Syria" but P.Herc. 1044, fr. 45 says that, after leaving Athens:
"… during Philōnídēs’ voyage to Syria – having detoured homeward, he was planning to return into Caria (εἰς Καρία[ν]), so that he might not be away from his parents…"
(Syrian) Laodicea on-the-sea OR (Carian) Laodicea on-the-Lycus?
Thank you, TauPhi. The author is surprisingly honest about his structure: "it will perhaps be best to underrate the originality of Epicurus here rather than exaggerate it; so I shall assume, merely for the sake of argument, that Diodorus comes first." The most important point is that they were contemporaries.
The predominance of motion is an interesting angle of attack from Diodorus. Given that the atoms are totally solid, I do not imagine the minima are capable of individual movement. Even the “softest” atom is really just “smooth" but also hard. The minima are parts — but not bendable or independently moveable parts. So I think the assumption of a moving minima is where his predominance-of-motion argument fails. That is, it fails at the beginning, like most of his nonsense.
It seems that for many of the cells, the final sentence in Greek is placed into the next cell. A few examples:
The Cambridge edition conforms to the general sequence of the Loeb (except at 120, which it splits by placing 121 in between — though this is only a matter of numbering; the text remains in the same order). Using the Hicks/Loeb as the standard will work.
Most editors follow the same order, and those who have proposed changes to that order have lost the argument over time (and thus have only added unnecessary confusion). As far as I have seen, the order followed in this PDF is the one currently being published by Cambridge.
The ‘f’ issue is also occurring on my computer.
Great topic. I wish we had full access to pictures of all of O or Q. As we know, they both have, at least for books 4-6, titles and subtitles from a few hundred years after Lucretius' death. Smith's version of DRN does include these.
For example book six (from O) and five (from Q):
Yes I was happy to see you, TauPhi, did not follow Bailey's order for the letter to Herodotus. Giving little explanations why his translation is missing/moved in some places is the perfect way to deal with it.
This is exciting -- this is a brilliant and fun translation! You are bringing out a lot of different aspects and it is a joy looking over this!
For 91, I see "κατὰ μὲν τὸ πρὸς ἡμᾶς, according to what it is to us," as a contrast with "κατὰ δὲ τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ, in relation to itself, or according to what it is in-and-of-itself." What do you think?
This is excellent, very clear and will certainly prove helpful. Although the idea is simple, I do not think I have seen it done before. A link to this should probably be on the main page, as it really has the essential texts, in a beautifully accessible format. Thank you!
This looks beautiful! There is an insignificant font disparity at 1-859 and 1-998, but the text is correctly matched.
One mismatch here:
