Posts by Bryan

Plutarch, in his Reply (at 1116c) says this -- and then ends with a helpful quote from Colotes:

But I should like to ask the very man (Epicurus), who brings this indictment, if his school does not see this distinction in their own system, whereby some objects are enduring and unchanging in their being, just as atoms too in their doctrine are forever the same because they are too hard to be affected, while all aggregates of atoms are subject to flux and change and come into being and pass out of it, as innumerable films leave them in a constant stream, and innumerable good others, it is inferred, flow in from the surroundings and replenish the mass -- which is varied by this interchange and altered in its composition, since in fact even the atoms in the interior of the aggregate can never cease moving or vibrating against one another, as the Epicureans say themselves.

"It is true" you (Colotes) say "that this sort of difference in ways of being is found in the actual world. But Epicurus shows himself a better philosopher than Plato in applying 'being' to all alike -- to the intangible void and resistant body and to the elements and their aggregates, holding that a common and single way of being is found in both the eternal and the generated, both the indestructible and the destructible, both the unaffected and enduring and changeless realities that can never be expelled from their being and those whose being lies in the fact that they are acted upon and changed and which never for an instant remain as they were."

The "aliquam" from your list is the adverb "largely," --- which is not that common -- but in this sentence it is a version of aliquis and means "some."

"It is thought better to obtain some part rather than none [at all]."

Lists of the books from these two paragraphs:

Quote from Don

The idea that Zeno questioned the authorship of the letter to Pythocles is speculative at best

Yes I fully agree. Although Usener puts this in the "Spurious Letters" section, ὑποψία only means there was some uncertainty regarding them.

The Greek, indeed, is broken, but it could go something like:

"[Zeno, because he was] approaching the [writings] of the men [i.e., the founders of the school] with precision, regarded those [precise points] that were accepted by them from the foundation [of the school] as very important – therefore he acquired some uncertainty regarding..."

Which makes sense -- and happens to us all the time!

Also, he would have been very aware that the idea of "separating" is at the center of the word he uses for "compound."

Great question. I cannot find a good quote for this.

(We do have the scholion 10.73c "it is clear [Epicurus] states that the cosmoi are also perishable because their parts are transforming")

Impermanence is certainly part of the discussion of whole natures vs. qualities -- with only the necessary qualities of whole natures existing as permanent (starting at 39c).

[Don, I accidently posted just after you, but I see we jumped on the same section!]

Quote from Don

Zeno’s name doesn’t appear in the manuscript, so I'd suggest looking at Epicurus's titles, too.

I agree.

Zeno’s name is not preserved in that column of P.Herc. 1005. (7/10), so while many scholars infer Zeno of Sidon as the author of these books, I am unsure.

1. Περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀτόμων Ἀνομοιότητος (On the Dissimilarity of Atoms)
2. Περὶ Παρεγκλίσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἀθρόου Προκαταρχῆς (On the Swerve and the Initial Beginning of the Aggregate)
3.0 Περὶ Τελῶν (On Fulfillments, "On Ends"), which contains
3.1 Περὶ Τελειώσεως Ἄκρας καὶ τῆς Εὐδαιμονίας (On the Highest Perfection and Wellbeing)
4. Περὶ Γραμματικῆς (On Grammar)
5. Περὶ Ἱστορίας (On History)
6. Περὶ Παροιμιῶν καὶ τῶν Ὁμοίων (On Proverbs and Similar Things)
7. Περὶ Λέξεως (On Terminology)
8. Περὶ Ποιημάτων Χρήσεως (On the Usage of Poems)
9. Περὶ Εὐσεβείας (On Piety)

Zeno is mentioned once in the succeeding surviving columns, where Philódēmos is talking about his time with Zeno, and their frustration that "most of the Epicureans" have "inaction in the books."

We know Epikouros wrote an "On Piety" (as Cicero and Philodemus say) but for the rest of these, I think this is the only source (these are not in D.L.'s list).

A translation of the second half of the column, with speculative insertions is:

"...but also, in response to the accusations against the reasoning and the way of life of those around Epíkouros – through these writings, he [i.e., Zeno of Sidon]^? made his defense – supplying incredible [amounts of material] of the things in [Epíkouros']^? books concerning each: such as On Grammar, On History, On Proverbs and Similar Things, and On Terminology, and On the Usage of Poems, and On Piety…"

Another possibility is that both are true. Just as there was "On Piety by Epikouros" and also an "On Piety by Philodemus" -- these titles could be shared by Zeno and Epikouros.

Less important, but just for fun:

Quote from Don

black, short and deformed. (πάντας ἀνθρώπους μέλανα[ς] εἶναι καὶ μικροὺς καὶ δι̣[εσ]τραμμένους) [Book footnote suggests a reference to "Pygmies"]

Although he does talk about Anthony having Pygmies in another work, here I do not think Pygmies are in-mind:

"..but it will be possible if someone were to present this in a similar way and also those things that all the [Epicureans] accomplished who entered into our school along with Hérmarchos: [presenting them] as those who had intended [to do something] and also as those who had accomplished [that thing], which I do not think [was the case] in times before [them] – with all humanity [before then] being obscure [in their expressions], small [minded], and corrupted [in their actions]..."

Quote from Eikadistes

drew [much] unmixed [wine]

Around 280 ^BC (when Epíkouros was about sixty-one), after the first failed Gallic invasion, we read the following about one of the Gaulish leaders:

"There was still a hope of saving the life of Brennus, so far as his wounds were concerned; but, they say, partly because he feared his fellow-countrymen, and still more because he was conscience-stricken at the calamities he had brought on Greece, he took his own life by drinking neat wine."

-- Pausanias, Description of Greece 10.23.12 (2nd century AD)

It is often said, "The Greeks thought drinking unmixed wine was fatal" -- but that idea could not have lasted beyond one planned "final party" unless there were some truth to it. Right? I know I’m missing something.

Quote from Don

Twelve Principles

Yes, I think the only reference to the work we have is at D.L. 10.44b (that color shifts with atomic position).

Quote from Eikadistes

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.

Quote from Kalosyni

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."

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:

https://attalus.org/translate/diodorus34.html

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?

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.