НАШАТА БИБЛИОТЕКА: Epicurus. The Extant Remains / Ed. by Cyril Bailey. Oxford, 1926

 ИЛИЯНА БЕНИНА   НИКОЛА БЕНИН

Критично издание на оцелелите пасажи от Епикур с паралелен английски превод и коментар.

PREFACE

Aw interest in Lucretius took me back many years

ago, as it has others, to the study of the remains of

Epicurus, without which the true meaning of the

Latin poet cannot be fully understood. The great

work of Usener placed at one’s diszosal all that was

then available for the knowledge of Epicurus, and with

the exception of the Vatican Gnomologium nothing has

since been added. But the study of Epzcurea brought

me to the conclusion that something more than a mere

text was needed: the work of Brieger, Giussani, Tohte,

and others on certain portions of the Epicurean theory

had at once shed light and raised new problems, and

I was thus led to set about making my own text,

translation, and commentary. Since I have been at

work, there have appeared the German translation of

Kochalsky, the Italian translation and brief commentary of Bignone, and quite recently the new

Teubner text of von der Muehll. Each of these—

and especially in my view the work of Bignone—have

greatly advanced the study of Epicurus, but there is

1 For certain fragments of the Ilepi Sicews see Commentary,

p- 391.

6 INTRODUCTION

still no complete ! translation in English and no complete commentary in any language.

In the circumstances it seems worth while to publish

the result of a good many years’ work on the Epicurean

text. But I do so with much hesitation. No one can

be more fully aware than I am of the extreme difficulty

of the writings of Epicurus, and the necessarily tentatative character of any solution of their many cruces :

I would repeat with fervour the words of Usener,

_ ‘nunc cum librum manibus emitto, sentio me hominem

et inconstantem fuisse’. But I trust that I have shed

some light on dark places and at least have made it

clear where the problems lie and what are the data for

their solution. I hope to follow up this work shortly

with a volume of critical essays on the system of

Epicurus, where it will be possible to deal with some

of the problems at greater length.

My debt to many predecessors in Epicurean studies

is great, and will become obvious in the commentary,

but I think that after Usener I owe most to two great

Italian scholars, Giussani and Bignone.

pen sh

OXFORD, September, 1924.

* Many of the important passages have been translated by Mr. R. D. Hicks in his Store and Epicurean (1910), but I do not always find myself in agreement with his versions. His translation of Diogenes Laertius in the Loeb series unfortunately appeared too late for me to use it. For the same reason I have been unable to use the translation of the Letters and the Kvpia. Adgat by A. Ernout in his Commentary

on Lucretius I, II.

CONG REN ES

INTRODUCTION. MSS. and editions .

TEXT AND TRANSLATION.

Epistula ad Herodotum

Epistula ad Pythoclea .

Epistula ad Menoeceum

Kvpiar Adgar .

Fragmenta

Vita Epicuri .

COMMENTARY.

Letter to Herodotus

Letter to Pythocles

Letter to Menoeceus

Principal Doctrines

Fragments

Life of Epicurus

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL TERMS

FRONTISPIECE. Epicurus, from the bust in the Museo

Capitolino, Rome.