Also, breaking a word down into its morphemes goes far to establishing a general expectation of the word's meaning. For example, today I was looking at the not very common word "Epeisodos," where we get "Episode." But you can see the meaning is along the lines of "upon course into" and in context "penetration" is precisely the idea -- as Epikouros is talking about the penetration of particles into the mind.
Epíkouros, Peri Phýseōs, Book 25, P.Herc. 1056 col. 12 (fr. B 34)
I wanted to throw in the word's entry from the Glossarium Epicureum:
Not quite μετακόσμιος, but we have two instances of μετακοσμέω, rearrange / modify:
Epíkouros, Peri Phýseōs, Book 25, P.Herc. 1056 col. 20 (fr. B 42) …πράττε[ι], ἀλλὰ τὰ αὐτὰ πάντ' ἔχον οὐκ̣ [ἐξ]α̣[ι]ρ̣ούμεθα τῆς αἰτίας τὸ ἀπ̣[ογεγ]εννημένον ἀλλ' ἕν τι ποιοῦν[τες] αὐ[τ]ὸ καὶ τὴν σύστασιν [ὁμοίως κα]θαίρομεν τὸ δ' οὐ νο[υθε]τ̣οῦ̣μέν γε, πολλὰ δὲ οὐδὲ κατά τινας ἐθισ̣μ[ο]ὺ̣[ς] ἄνευ νοῦ λέξ̣εω̣ς μετακ[ο]σ[μ]οῦμεν… τὸ γ]ὰρ ἐξαιρού μεν̣[ο]ν̣ τῆς αἰτ̣[ίας] κατ' ἀνάγκ̣[ην]…
Epíkouros, Peri Phýseōs, Book 25, P.Herc. 1191 fr. 115/116 …ενέσθαι, ἀλ[λὰ κε]νὸν [καὶ] τὸ {δι' ἀνάγκην καλ[εῖ]ν προ[ὸ]ς ὧν φάτε. ἂν δὲ μ[ή] τις τοῦτο ἀποδείξει, μηδ' ἔχει ἡμῶν [τ]ι συνεργὸν μηδ' ὅρμημα ἀπο[τ]ρέπειν ὧν καλοῦντες δι' ἡμῶν αὐτῶν τὴν αἰτίαν συντελοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα ὅσ[α] νῦν δι' ἡμῶν αὐ[τῶ]ν ὀνομάζοντες τὴν αἰτίαν [εἶναι διαβ]ε[βα]ιούμεθα πράττε[ιν] κατὰ χώραν ἀνάγκην προσαγορεύων, ὄνομα μόνον ἀμείψει.} ἔργον δ' οὐδὲν ἡμῶν μετακοσμήσει, ὡσπερ ἐπ' ἐνίων ὁ συνορῶν τὰ ποῖα κατ' ἀνάγκην ἐστὶν ἀποτρέπειν εἴωθε τοὺς προθυμουμένους παρὰ̣ βίαν τι π[ρ]άττειν. ζητήσει δ' ἡ διάνοια εὑρεῖν τὸ ποῖον [ο]ὖν τι δεῖ νομί[ζ]ειν τὸ ἐξ ἡ[μ]ῶν αὐτῶ[ν π]ως [πρ]αττόμενον [μ]ὴ προθυμ[ουμένων πράτ]τειν. οὐ γὰρ ἔχει ἄλ[λο τι οὐθὲν] εἰ μὴ φά[ναι τὸ] ποῖον [κατ' ἀνάγκην] ἐσ[τὶ]…
which is also attested by Epíkouros, Peri Phýseōs, Book 25, P.Herc. 697 col. 4 (fr. A 54) …ἀνάγκ̣ην προσαγορεύω̣ν, ὄνομα μόνον ἀμείψ̣ει, ἔργον δ̣' οὐθὲν ἡμῶν μετακ̣οσμήσε̣ι̣, ὥσπερ ἐπ' ἐνίων ὁ συνορ̣ῶν τὰ ποῖα κατ' ἀνάγκην ἐστιν, ἀπ̣οτρέπειν εἴωθε τοὺς προθ̣υμουμένους παρὰ βίαν τι πρ]άττειν. ζητήσει δ' ἡ διάνοια εὑρεῖν τὸ ποῖο̣[ν ο]ὖν τι δεῖ νομίζε]ιν τὸ ἐξ̣ [ἡμ]ῶν αὐτῶ[ν π]ω̣ς̣ [πρ]αττόμενον τῆ̣ προθυμ̣[ίαι τοῦ πράτ]τ̣ειν. οὐ γὰρ ἔχει ἄλ[λ' οὐθὲν] π̣ρ̣[άττ]ει[ν] ἢ φάν̣[α]ι̣…
The relational view of time states that time depends on the succession of physical events in the Universe
Of the three, this is certainly the closest to Epikouros.
It's a letter from Diogenes to an Antipater. It continues:
"I am therefore sending you that dialogue, Antipater, so that you may be in the same position as if you yourself were present, like Theodoridas, agreeing about some matters and making further inquiries in cases where you had doubts. The dialogue began something like this: 'Diogenes', said Theodoridas, 'the [doctrine laid down] by Epicurus on an infinite number of worlds is true...'"
So he wrote a dialogue and then had it written in stone.
I wanted to throw in this sweet little bit from Diogenes of Oinoanda, fr. 63, Smith trans.
"I am sending you, in accordance with your request, the arguments concerning an infinite number of worlds. And you have enjoyed good fortune in the matter; for, before your letter arrived, Theodoridas of Lindus, a member of our school not unknown to you, who is still a novice in philosophy, was dealing with the same doctrine. And this doctrine came to be better articulated as a result of being turned over between the two of us face to face; for our agreements and disagreements with one another, and also our questionings, rendered the inquiry into the object of our search more precise."
It must be observed that Epicurus makes no show of his logical procedures and, like the layman, employs the enthymeme or elliptical syllogism.
At Book 14, P.Herc. 1148 col. 9 (alt. col. 42), Epikouros uses the word "enthymematikous / ἐνθυμηματικοὺς" which LSJ defines as:
Cosmos connects well with a galaxy, To Pan with the universe. If we want other cosmoi, I'd think we only have to accept multiple galaxies. As we know, Epíkouros uses Cosmos in the plural, but not To Pan.
We do have the use of "pharmakon" by Epikouros in Peri Phýseōs, Book 14 (P.Herc. 1148 col. 24):
"This is also desirable: that one who is entirely afflicted by such over-questionings has a kind of remedy – through which it is possible that a simple condition [of life, focused] in the observation of nature will set free their innate trouble."
Adding this for some scale of a mina bar.
These are some examples of coins issued in the first two decades of the garden's existence in Athens. Both are coins by Dēmḗtrios Poliorkētḗs. When he was younger he showed himself with only horn buds, but eventually, as seen here, with full horns.
I frequently repeat my reservations and criticisms of the "Tetrapharmakos"
Yes, the context in which Philódēmos mentions the Tetraphármakos will further support some reservations. We should remember the paragraph just before the Tetraphármakos says:
"...of those who are called Epicureans. While someone known or even described in detail by us, who also claims to be 'the authentic reader' on select writings and on a multitude of compositions – even if he performs poorly, he has selected many passages, but in individual thoughts he is the most inexperienced! In fact, for what he must do, he looks only at the main points – just like [someone] whom they say is 'a helmsman [navigating] from the book.'"
(Philódēmos, [Ad Contubernales], P.Herc. 1005, col. 3/4)
At most we can state a label of the subject matter.
Yes, this seems to be the case, for example, for all of On Nature Book 10. Although only a few sentences can be formed, there are many places where the topic, at least, is clear.
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.
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].
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!
