Posts by Bryan

Quote from Don

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.

Thanks for these Don! So it seems these two agree and both have μήν.

Quote from Eikadistes

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].

Quote from Eikadistes

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!

Thank you for sharing. It is strange that Cassius is still present when Brutus is told the news. It almost seems as though Brutus had and believed some vision about her death, and then he just was not surprised when the messenger confirmed what he already "knew."

The video included this image. They were certainly rendering the eyes with great skill. It seems clearly to be beyond paint, and instead "false eyes," maybe with precious stones?

Thank you for sharing Don! That was inspiring!

Awesome idea, and it looks cool as well! That could open up some fun possibilities!

I'm going as Dionysus. I like the kaftan thawbs I got for the costume so much I have not stopped wearing one of them since they arrived. My wife thinks its just a phase, so she is not worried, but I think she may be wrong.

Thank you for sharing! Yes, it seems the link is still not working. I thought I dropped the ball, but it seems in fact they did!

So I started playing around with some molds, but I need to try some different materials to improve my results.

Quote from TauPhi

column 34 seems to be a refutation of philosophers endorsing the four elements as building blocks of reality coming directly from Epicurus in his 'On Nature - Book 14'

Thank you for bringing this up! Here is one version of what remains from columns 33-35. This is very interpretive, the bracketed and rubricated version with comments is attached.

Epíkouros, Peri Phýseōs, Book 14, P.Herc. 1148, columns 33-35:

(about monism) ...for these situations are not generated from this one single underlying substance by its concentrating or by its dispersing ¬ but rather, what situation prevails is produced out of the differences in the variations of the shapes…

(about Platonic solids) ...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 one particular shape for each element – given that, in their comparative juxtapositions, those who define shape for elements should have agreed, either willingly or unwillingly, that certain multiple particular forms of shapes are produced which can affirmatively be said to be substantial [i.e., really existing] in accordance with each compound: but some miss the mark 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 wholly refer to the difference in the mixtures – but those people who… for the…

…how could someone perceive water or air or fire as solid and indissoluble, when one cannot even perceive earth as solid and indissoluble? not to mention the fact that those people representing these ideas of indissoluble elements do in reality divide them: given that each of these elements is not conceived as solid, then one could provide many and varied images of shapes according to the divisions of elements – and there will not be just triangles, or pyramids, or cubes, or any other finite shape specific to each element – for those who define a particular shape for each element would have nothing persuasive to say to convince us that it is more fitting to think that these four visible forms are apprehended by us according to their divisions of a specific shape for each element rather than the elements being varied in their specific class of shapes…

Thank you all for this discussion! It inspired me to spend the night working on the text. Here are the surrounding columns. Please let me know if you see any errors.

Quote from Cassius

do you know if there is a translation of what exists most closely before and after this passage?

I have never seen it translated anywhere. I have the next column, number 6, in Epicurea -- it is where Philodemus mentions the rumors that "Leóntion and another ‹companion› are mentioned in the treatise – and that the lover of Idomeneús was Nikídion, and of Leonteús was Mammárion, and of Hérmarchos was Dēmētría – and such a kind also was Polýaenus, tutor of Pythoclês."

Quote from Cassius

I think it is almost or more an issue that we do not have the immediate before or after context of these lines.

The Tetraphármakos is in P.Herc. 1005 column five, and we do have most of columns 2 - 7, but the context is still difficult to work out.

Quote from Eikadistes

3-D print coin

These SFOTSE prints are great. But I lost track of the producer. Do you know if they are still being sold?

These are the "necklace" molds I referenced last night (with a drachma of Demetrius Poliorcetes for scale). It's an amateur effort -- the most recent one is almost bubble free! But if anybody wants some, just let me know and I'll be happy to gift a few of them (along with a Demetrius drachma).