Abstract

This article deals with a complicated philological problem in section 133 of Epicurus’ Epistle to Menoeceus. There is a lacuna in the text; various supplements have been proposed, but the resulting syntax remains anomalous. This article argues that the interpretation of the syntax which underlies all the most influential supplements proposed to date, from Usener to Sedley and beyond, should be rejected. A new suggestion is put forward, based on a different syntactical interpretation and on a careful new analysis of the readings preserved in MS P.