I don't have a great interest in perfume use, but I saw from an in-flight documentary that perfumes are based on alcohol, not oils. I know of people who use fragrant oils in their homes with various ideas about the effects. I'm not saying that taking μυροπώλιον as "perfumer’s shop" is wrong, but I neither can I confirm with you that it is right either.
I was not aware of this distinction, but it is interesting and makes sense. Alcohol would be nearly ideal for the role of a dispersant.
I'm not sure whether you understood the structure of the first section (ἕκαστος ... ἂν τύχῃ) with its "ὁ μὲν ... ὁ δὲ ... ὁ δὲ ... ὁ δ᾽" structure, and then made it into "idiomatic" English by omitting the structure, or whether you just missed it.
This is the definition that I had in mind, though I did not reference it when I was translating.
to connect a series of clauses containing different matter, though with no opposition, Il.1.18sq., 306 sq. (five δέ-clauses), 433 sq. (eight δέ-clauses), cf. X.An. 1.3.14,7.10sq.: freq. when the members of a group or class are distinctly specified, παῖδες δύο, πρεσβύτερος μὲν Ἀρταξέρξης, νεώτερος δὲ Κῦρος ib.1.1.1; τάφρος . . , τὸ μὲν εὖρος ὀργυιαὶ πέντε, τὸ δὲ βάθος ὀργυιαὶ τρεῖς ib.1.7.14; πρῶτος μέν . . , δεύτερος δέ . . , τρίτος δέ . . ib.5.6.9; τότε μέν . . , τότε δέ . . , at one time . . , at another . . , ib.6.1.9, etc.: esp. with the Art. used as a Pron., ὁ μέν . . , ὁ δέ . . ; τὸ μέν . . , τὸ δέ . . , etc.
I may well be wrong, but I will attempt to explain my thinking. I remember trying to decide which conjunction would be better to use (either “and” and “or”) in this section. I chose “or” because it seemed like it worked best in the widest variety of situations. I didn’t “waste”
much time thinking about it. Since it was a rhetorical device, it was not meant to be analyzed too closely, but I can’t help what I think.
ὅποι ἂν + subjunctive "to whatsoever place one might ...". I don't think it is happen to be near, rather at.
I don’t know what I did here. I don’t see anything that I would have translated as “near” in this stretch. I guess I either attempted to smooth it out, or my eye skipped to the line below it after I looked up τύχῃ. (I had to use a lexicon to figure out exactly what to do with τύχῃ here.)
ὡς - "on the premises", "at the home of" doesn't seem to have been translated.
I felt that this one would be somewhat redundant if I was correct in carrying some form of the infinitive “to frequent” throughout. I omitted it for this reason in both of these places.
ἐγγυτάτω - these are superlative adverbs, but the superlative sense doesn't seem to have been brought out. [near - nearer - nearest, far - further - furthest, few - fewer - fewest]
I recognized the forms as superlatives. I took liberties and put it into English how I would say it. However, I am curious about ἐλάχιστοι. If I translated this “no one,” would you consider it to be too strong for even the superlative?
διατριβόντων "waste"? time, or the more neutral "spend" time. None of the New Testament examples - with or without χρόνον seem to have the sense of "waste" eg. Acts 15:35 Παῦλος δὲ καὶ Βαρνάβας διέτριβον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι, μετὰ καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν, τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου.
I see your point. I assumed a negative connotation based on the glosses.
εἴθισθε - how did this become "them"
Easily. I am a careless idiot.
προσφοιτᾶν καὶ διατρίβειν - spend time both often and long
ἁμοῦ γέ που
I will review these two as well. I would benefit from taking the time to do so.
Since this has taken much longer than I anticipated, I will do the other translation tomorrow. It has actually been quite helpful to reflect on my work here. I hope I don’t appear to be justifying my translations. I am trying to retrace my steps so that I can reap the greatest benefit possible. Thank you!