New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
Here's a brief blog post on dynamic vs formal equivalence theories of translation:
Dan McClellan provides his take on translation (and mentions dynamic/formal theories are outdated):
Great thread. I would add that this doesn't only apply to translations of text from non-English languages. Consider the difficulty people have with reading Shakespeare or even trying to read something in English from the 18th or 19th century. Your point about "familiarity with idiomatic terminology" is applicable there, too. For ancient languages, consider how hard it is to get the jokes in a translated play by Aristophanes or to understand the "oldest joke" - “A dog walks into a bar and says, ‘I cannot see a thing. I’ll open this one.’”
I need to go "back to the books" before sharing half-baked ideas!
I've been under the mistaken idea that the Hermarchus/Idomeneus letter was Epicurus' will. Egads! I got that wrong. To cement this in my mind: The will is DL 10.16-21. The letter in question is just a short section of DL 10.22.
The will lays out, in detail, what Epicurus wants done, including (emphasis added):
***
19 And let Amynomachus and Timocrates take care of Epicurus, the son of Metrodorus, and of the son of Polyaenus, so long as they study and live with Hermarchus. Let them likewise provide for the maintenance of Metrodorus's daughter,32 so long as she is well-ordered and obedient to Hermarchus; and, when she comes of age, give her in marriage to a husband selected by Hermarchus from among the members of the School ; and out of the revenues accruing to me let Amynomachus and Timocrates in consultation with Hermarchus give to them as much as they think proper for their maintenance year by year. ... Let them make Hermarchus trustee of the funds33 along with themselves, in order that everything may be done in concert with him, who has grown old with me in philosophy and is left at the head of the School. And when the girl comes of age, let Amynomachus and Timocrates pay her dowry, taking from thep roperty as much as circumstances allow, subject to the approval of Hermarchus. ... And if anything should happen to Hermarchus before the children of Metrodorus grow up, Amynomachus and Timocrates shall give from the funds bequeathed by me, so far as possible, enough for their several needs, as long as they are well ordered. "
***
The letter in question in 10.22 just says: watch over the children of Metrodorus.
Throughout the will, Hermarchus is assigned the care of Metrodorus' son and daughter in the third person: ie, Hermarchus should do this. In the letter in 22, the addressee of the letter is asked "to watch over Metrodorus' children." It seems to me that it would make perfect sense for Epicurus to write a personal message to Hermarchus in the end asking him to watch the kids as a last personal memento for his trusted friend and student to keep.
In my opinion, this points to Cicero having the addressee correct.
There was a letter to Idomeneus, U130 (emphasis added):
***
Plutarch, Against Colotes, 18, p. 1117D: But if, Colotes, you had met with expressions of Socrates’ such as Epicurus pens in a letter to Idomeneus: "So send us for the care of our sacred body an offering of first-fruits on behalf of yourself and your children – so I am inspired to put it;" to what more unmannerly terms could you have resorted? {Traditionally, first-fruits were offered to a god – support for Epicurus’ bodily needs is so depicted.}
Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, VII p. 279F: It was in fact, for the sake of the belly and the pleasures of the flesh in general that this man flattered Idomeneus and Metrodorus. ... Epicurus, in fact, was the teacher of these men.
***
Note that there are children mentioned in the letter to Idomeneus, but they're Idomeneus' children. Diogenes could have mixed up the letters in his piles of documents or a copyist confused them or any number of other misattributions.
For those reasons, I'm giving the point to Cicero... As much as it pains me to do it 
PS. Having reread the text of the letters, it seems to me that Diogenes Greek text rings more personal and thus sounds more like a last note to a dear friend. Plus, Diogenes doesn't actually include the salutation to Hermarchus but only says there's also this letter "to Idomeneus". So right now:
1 point to Cicero for the salutation
2 points to Diogenes for a more authentic sounding text
I also just remembered this in my Internet Archive favorites. No idea if it'll be helpful, but here it is:
Cicero probably had superior "knowledge" of Epicurus, on issues like prolepsis and images, given the proximity in time and probably number of teachers.
Ah, but he was also more likely to have access to primary texts through his friends and his personal connections than Diogenes may have had. Remember:
Then again, upon review, Epicurus directly explains that is is writing the letter to ῡ̔μῖν (plural pronoun in the accusative) meaning "to y'all", so perhaps the letter was to a non-present group (the Garden in Lampsakos vis-a-vis Idomeneus?) It seems unlikely he would have been writing to "y'all" if that group were in his presence, or just sitting in another room, or down the street.
Unless it was literally his last will and testament addresses to "the Garden" with Hermarchus the incoming leader.
First thoughts...
Cicero is earlier than Diogenes, so he would take precedence?
Hermarchus was Epicurus' successor, so addressing it to him makes sense?
Two letters?? Least likely in my mind
Good catch! For ease of reference...
Cicero
30 96 "But I must not digress too far. Let me repeat the dying words of Epicurus, to prove to you the discrepancy between his practice and his principles: 'Epicurus to Hermarchus, greeting. I write p189 these words,' he says, 'on the happiest, and the last, day of my life. I am suffering from diseases of the bladder and intestines, which are of the utmost possible severity.' Unhappy creature! If pain is the Chief Evil, that is the only thing to be said. But let us hear his own words. 'Yet all my sufferings,' he continues, 'are counterbalanced by the joy which I derive from remembering my theories and discoveries. I charge you, by the devotion which from your youth up you have displayed towards myself and towards philosophy, to protect the children of Metrodorus.'
Diogenes L
10.22 And when near his end he wrote the following letter to Idomeneus :
"On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could augment them ; but over against them all I set gladness of mind at the remembrance of our past conversations. But I would have you, as becomes your life-long attitude to me and to philosophy, watch over the children of Metrodorus."
Here's the official transliteration:
χων πορευόμενοι καθάπερ ἡμεῖς
[δ]ι' ἀέρος. πρὸς δὲ τὸ τρίτον, ὅτι πο-
τὲ μὲν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπαραλλά-
κτων μεταβησόμεθ', ὅταν ἦι τι
5δισταζόμενον τῶν περὶ [αὐ]τὰ
συμβαιν[όν]των, τῶι δὲ τὸ [μὲν ἐ-]
ξ ἐναργεία̣ς καταλαμβάν[ε]σθαι
τὸ δὲ μὴ πρόδηλον εἶναι, [χρ]ησόμε-
θα σημείωι τῶι βλεπομέ[ν]ωι πρὸς
10τὴν παραδοχὴν τοῦ φα[ινο]μέ-
νου· ποτὲ δὲ [ἀπὸ τ]ῶν οὐκ [ἀπ]αραλ-
λάκτων, ἐ[φὸ] καὶ καθὸ μ[ετ]έχει
τῆς αὐτ[ῆς γε] κοινότη[το]ς τῶν
ὁμοίων α̣[ὑτοῖ]ς̣ συμπτωμάτων,
οἷον ὅταν̣ [τινὰ] μὲν ἀνθρώποις
μ̣[όνο]ι̣ς̣ ἐ̣[οίκ]η<ι>, τινὰ δ' ἐο̣[ικότα τ]ῶ̣[ι θ]ε̣-
ῶ̣ι̣ [ζ]ῶιά ἐστ̣ιν. εὐστόχως ἄ[ρα τ]ῆ̣ι ἐ[κ]
ζώ[ι]ω̣ν μετα̣βάσει χ[ρησόμεθα],
νο[μίζοντες] οὐδὲν [κωλύειν]
[μὴ τῶι φρονεῖν μ]ὲν ἀνθρ̣[ώποις]
ὡ[μοιωμένον] τὸν θεὸν ὑπ[ά]ρχ[ειν]
δ[ιὰ τὸ τὸν] ἄνθρωπον φρο̣ν[ή-]
σε[ως μόνον τῶν] παρ' ἡμῖν ζώιων
δεκτικ̣[όν, φρ]ονήσεως δὲ χωρὶς
μ̣[ὴ νοεῖσθ', ἀλλ]ὰ̣ μὴ γεννᾶσθαι
συνεσ[τηκένα]ι̣ δ' ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ
σώμα[τος· καὶ ἔσ]τ̣α̣ι ζῶιον σὺν
τούτωι [καὶ ἀθ]ά[νατον]. πρὸς...
The "body...........'living being'" line is highlighted below...
Ghost Castle in Cleveland
I'll bet I pass it on my way to work everyday
What a great find, Bryan !
And check out all the usages of that verb:
Eikadistes : I like your characterization of that, too:
This sort of suggests to me that the "space between worlds" would have been perceived as a creative continuum in which re-arrangements of particles occurs.
all around!!
Yes, β as v instead of b may have started for some dialects of Greek in the Koine period. Classical Greek and Homeric definitely had "b". Βάρβαρος was definitely barbaros, for example.
I typically used Υ/υ for U, V, and Y in my "code." Unless it came at the beginning, then ι: ιελλο συβμαριν or ΙΕΛΛΟ ΣΥΒΜΑΡΙΝ.
See also
I have found there's no better way to get to know the alphabet - speaking as middle schooler me - than to try and write English in Greek letters. I literally took notes in junior high in Greek letters.. and that's what eventually put me on the path to try and learn Greek ("Well, if I'm writing in these letters, I should really know some of the language.") It's slow going at first. Write your name, write family members names, write pet names, write short sentences. Try to get "fluent" enough to write your shopping list in Greek letters. Write notes to yourself. Do you "to do" list. The next time you go to the grocery store, try something like:
See if you can "decipher" those. 
You need to be a little creative. Ancient Greek didn't have c, f (use φ), h, j, q, v, or w, and we don't typically use ps, kh, and other such letters, unless you want to try a sentence like "ἑρ λιψ υερε κρακκεδ φρομ θε κολδ." Try deciphering that, too.
It becomes a kind of code for awhile, fun to play around with.
If you try this, the letters will become second nature, THEN you can start transliterating actual Greek words much easier... and then on to translation!
NOTE: The video uses "Erasmian" pronunciation. I would recommend looking at Luke Ranieri's stuff on Polymathy, etc. including https://lukeranieri.com/wp-content/upl…-2021-11-21.pdf
Chiming in...
While the "then's" could be taken as hierarchical, they could also just be identifying three co-equal kinds of desires: for eudaimonia, for freedom of disturbance for the body, and for life.
The life one is interesting, because I could also take the "natural" desires as a desire for things like food, shelter, etc.
For those who don't want to go to the trouble of downloading my paper, here is the pertinent section. And all of this is open to further discussion:
127g. καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον·
"And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessities; on the other hand, the natural ones only."
ἀναγκαῖαι "necessary, essential; (if a plural noun as here) necessities"
127h. τῶν δ᾽ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι,
"then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, there are those necessary for eudaimonia;
Those necessary for eudaimonia are open to interpretation but must be based on Epicurus's philosophy.
127i. αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῆν.
ἀοχλησία "freedom from disturbance"
σώματος genitive singular of σῶμᾰ
σῶμᾰ "the body; one's material body or existence"
“then, those [necessary] for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those [necessary] for life itself.”
There are some translations that interpret αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν to mean only things like clothing and shelter - those things that provide "freedom from disturbance" for the body, that is for one's physical existence. That isn't literally what is written so that is simply one interpretation. Those kinds of things - clothing and shelter - would seem to fall under the final category of those necessary for life. So, this category should catch those between eudaimonia and those necessary for life. This is an interesting category.
I would contend that those "necessary for life itself" are those essentials at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, sleep, air, etc. Again, clothing and shelter would seem to fall into this category.
Have not read but skimmed: talks about Epicureans and Euclid regarding mathematics:
DeWitt is not the only commentator to take the position that there were twelve fundamentals and attempt to enumerate them - so does Diskin Clay, someone who is well recognized among mainstreatm commentators. His list is much the same, though not identical, to DeWitt's. See Clay's "Epicurus Last Will and Testament."
I feel I would me slacking if I didn't play the gadfly here and point to this thread from June of this year when it comes to the "Twelve Fundamentals." I have nothing else to add to what I said in that thread, but it feels pertinent to this current conversation:
130, right?
. [130] τῇ μέντοι συμμετρήσει καὶ συμφερόντων καὶ ἀσυμφόρων βλέψει ταῦτα πάντα κρίνειν καθήκει. χρώμεθα γὰρ τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ τοὔμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.
Where was I getting my take then?! Oh, I left it out of my full translation but not the commentary. That's what I get for looking at a translation (even mine!) and not returning to the books.
Here's the line in question ..
130b. χρώμεθα γὰρ τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ, τῷ δὲ κακῷ τοὔμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.
Let's start at the beginning:
χρώμεθα
This one takes some explaining, and it seems to be often passed over in translation. This verb is in the middle voice which means the subject of the verb is both the agent and experiencer. So, χρώμεθα generally means something like "we consult a god or oracle for ourselves" or "the declaration of an oracle or god." I think this is significant, because, in the context of Epicurean philosophy, there are no gods who are going to provide advice through a supernatural means via an oracle. So, what is going on here? The Epicurean consults their own faculty of weighing the consequences of their own choices.
The word is also used in several more places within this verse.
This is especially important because the next word γὰρ "because" sets up the answer to the question "Why do we 'consult the oracle' of the consequences of our actions?"
Next, we have our old friends μὲν...δὲ…. Let's look at the similarities in those two phrases:
[μὲν] τῷ ἀγαθῷ κατά τινας χρόνους ὡς κακῷ,
[δὲ] τῷ κακῷ τἄμπαλιν ὡς ἀγαθῷ.
So, Epicurus is contrasting τῷ ἀγαθῷ "the good (pleasure) with τῷ κακῷ "the bad" (pain). Let's look at the embedded phrases that modify the meaning here.
κατά τινας χρόνους "over time"
τἄμπαλιν "on the other hand, on the contrary"
So, "we consult the consequences of our actions because, on the one hand, good/pleasure over time can lead to bad/pain; on the other hand, bad/pain can lead to good/pleasure."
PS .. with κακῷ and ἀγαθῷ being in the dative, that's where I'm getting "leads to." In the sense of the means with which something is done or the cause of something. So, I don't think there's a simple A is B and B is A construction here. That said, I am more than happy for someone with more experience with ancient Greek to comment on that.
[130] Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters. For the good on certain occasions we treat as bad, and conversely the bad as good.
We have to be very careful with phrases like "pain as good". I don't know which translation you're using there, but that's not what the letter says. My own more literal translation is:
So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.
Pain is entirely evil, but we have to endure it sometimes for the pleasure that results. But pain is not "good." Pain can be instrumental to gain pleasure, but it is not "good."
I note you're calling it criticism but you're also including the positive parts?
For sure, I'm including everything I can find. Most of it is complimentary.
I just took that in the sense of "literary criticism". That site is an impressive anthology of resources!
