No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
page 136 note 1 An instance of another kind may be added. On Ep. II. 84 (p. 276) Mr. Bailey says that διαλογισμς, with its correlates, is not an Epicurean word. In saying this he apparently overlooks διαλογσματα in Ep. I. 68, and διαλογιαμοῖς in Sent. Vat. 10 (= Metrod. fr. 37). Cf. also Epicurea, fr. 138. We have also noted six instances in Philodemus and one in another Epicurean tract from Herculaneum.
May I also add a note of two misprints? P. 130, fr. 38, ‘φρνδα’ for ‘φροντδα’ P. 268, 1. 12 from foot, ‘aimed’ for ‘arrived.’