Posts by Eikadistes

Bryan 's dedicated transcription of Demetrios of Lakonia's fragments are inspiring. These are exactly the kinds of things I want to amass in a single location for comparison and study.

I took your transcription, put in on twentiers.com and, attempted (...heavy emphasis on "attempted"...) to provide my own translation (that needs improvement) so as not to claim your work.

Anyway! I want to find as many chunks of these sorts of texts as possible, and I mean to do so with respect to the original sources, therefore, if you can, please let me know (any one you) if you come across untranslated chunks that can be added. Likewise, I'm proud to host anyone's translations who would care to contribute to this growing resource. Anyway, thanks for your hard work!

Bryan I'm tagging you in another post, so heads-up.

Most "Yo, my dude, think about it like this..." pseudo-thinkers I know are lazy eclectics.

I think the Epicurean path requires stated devotion, frankly, like Christians, in admitting that we lack the tools to perfect our own lives, and we need a path to guide us.

My guide is the guy who figured out quantum indeterminism, and doesn't scold me for beating-off.

I've also taken a swing at the Last Will.

After doing some digging, I learned that the Mētrō̂ion (Temple to the Mother Goddess) mentioned in the Will served a dual function in terms of overseeing the legal transfer of property.

Quote from Don

1 point to Cicero for the salutation

I noticed that as well. Epicurus' Epistles (per Diogenes) all include introductory greetings, except for the Last Letter. Cicero provides us with that stylistic consistency, but with a surprising name.

Later, in Methods, Philodemos makes a statement that seems to support what was stated above: “We should refer our notion of the gods to the revelations which take place by mental perception and which guarantee clearly that heavenly and eternal beings exist.”

This section on Page 2 seems to assume Hermarkhos as the addressee:

"...diese Wahl fiel ihm um so leichter, als Metrodor und Polyän, unzweifelhaft bedeutendere Köpfe als Hermarch, bereits vor ihm gestorben waren. Hermarchs Bestallung zum Vormund der Kinder seiner beiden toten Freunde (fr. 14) und Epikurs letztes vertrauliches Rundschreiben an alle überlebenden Schüler, deren erster Hermarch nun war (fr. 15), sind zwei überzeugende Beweise für das enge Verbundensein und den vertrauten Verkehr der Mitglieder des Gartens."

"...this choice was all the easier for him because Metrodor and Polyene, undoubtedly more important minds than Hermarch, had already died before him. Hermarch's appointment as guardian of the children of his two dead friends (fr. 14) and Epicurus' last confidential circular all the surviving students, whose first was Hermarch (fr. 15), are two convincing proofs of the close connection and familiar intercourse of the members of the garden" (a rough rendering from Google Translate).

Quote from Don

I also just remembered this in my Internet Archive favorites. No idea if it'll be helpful, but here it is:

https://archive.org/details/derepi…age/n7/mode/1up

Interestingly, on pages 20-21 of that archived document, the author notes the same discrepancy without providing a particular reasoning as to the the justification thereof.

I speculate that Hermarkhos would have made himself available, at least, or even as much as managing the legal transition. In any case, there would have been several, pressing reasons for him to remain at the Garden in Athens. On the other hands, I note that Epicurus wrote numerous letters to Idomeneus and "Friends at Lampsakos" suggesting to me a trend in referring to "Idomeneus & Co.".

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.

Per the Last Will, "Let them make Hermarchus trustee of the funds 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 if anything should happen to Hermarchus before the children of Metrodorus grow up...", so it seems that exhorting one to "watch over the children of Metrodoros" would have been received by their guardian(s), "Hermarchus", and possibly Amynomachus and Timocrates (to whom we know the letter was not addressed).

That's at least one additional bit of support for Cicero's position!

Quote from Don

First thoughts...

Cicero is earlier than Diogenes, so he would take precedence?

I believe so. His textual resources were superior. Additionally, he was a pupil of a Scholarch, and friends with numerous Epicurean philosophers, and, unlike Diogenes, he includes Epicurus' greeting in the letter. I am inclined to agree with Cicero that this was addressed to to Hermarkhos.

Quote from Cassius

Would it make sense that Hermarchus was present and would not need a letter, while Idomeneus may have lived somewhere else?

I question who was where and when. Do we know that Idomeneus stayed in Lampsakos? If so, it does seem more likely to me that he would have been writing to someone non-present.

Quote from Don

Hermarchus was Epicurus' successor, so addressing it to him makes sense?

This would seem to be the most prudent, especially because Hermarkhos' managerial control over Garden funds would have affected the children of Metrodoros, whereas Ideomeneus was just a financier, and Epicurus' was intimately closer with Hermarkhos than Idomeneus.

I'm flirting with the idea that it was to Hermarkhos, but I'd like more advocates for the devil.

In particular, "The diagnosis of urolithiasis alone does not explain the dysentery. Haemolytic uraemic syndrome explains both gastrointestinal and renal symptoms leading to death, however this syndrome is almost exclusively a childhood disease, inconsistent with the clinical picture, and particularly with strangury, which indicates obstruction. Apart from lithiasis, causes of urinary obstruction in an elderly person of 71 years could include infection, hypertrophy or malignancy of the prostate, bladder tumour or disseminated abdominal malignancy. The philosopher’s amazing productivity until his very last days points against a diagnosis of a serious and debilitating chronic disease such as disseminated malignancy. Interestingly, physicians at these times appeared to have been unaware of the existence of the prostate. The diagnosis of a prostatic diseasemight thus have been easily missed as symptoms could easily have been attributed to lithiasis. All his three brothers had succumbed to hydrops, a term used to define generalised oedema, mostly secondary to heart failure, but also suggestive of chronic renal or liver disease. All the fragments of evidence indicate that Epicurus had for a prolonged period of years had a balanced urinary tract lithiasis or, less possibly, prostatic hypertrophy and this underlying condition was acutely deteriorated during a gastrointestinal infection."

Nonetheless, I'm still curious to whom the letter was addressed.

Also, worth reading, is Bitsori, Maria. "Epicurus' Death". World Journal of Urology, 2004.

I've attached it, in the event it gets removed from Academia.edu.

Both Cicero (1st-century BCE) and Diogenes Laërtius (3rd-century CE) preserve Epicurus' final letter:

"'Epicurus Hermarcho S. Cum ageremus, vitae beatum et eundem supremum diem, scribebamus haec. Tanti aderant vesicae et torminum morbi ut nihil ad eorum magnitudinem posset accedere. Compensabatur, tamen cum his omnibus animi laetitia quam capiebam memoria rationum inventorumque nostrorum. Sed tu, ut dignum est tua erga me et philosophiam voluntate ab adulescentulo suscepta, fac ut Metrodori tueare liberos.'" Cicero (On Ends 2.30.96)

"'Τὴν μακαρίαν ἄγοντες καὶ ἅμα τελευταίαν ἡμέραν τοῦ βίου ἐγράφομεν ὑμῖνταυτί. στραγγουρία τε παρηκολουθήκει καὶ δυσεντερικὰ πάθη ὑπερβολὴν οὐκἀπολείποντα τοῦ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς μεγέθους. ἀντιπαρετάττετο δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις τὸκατὰ ψυχὴν χαῖρον ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν γεγονότων ἡμῖν διαλογισμῶν μνήμῃ. σὺ δ᾽ἀξίως τῆς ἐκ μειρακίου παραστάσεως πρὸς ἐμὲ καὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπιμελοῦ τῶνπαίδων Μητροδώρου.'" Diogenes Laërtius (Lives 10.22)

Cicero says that it was written from Epicurus to Hermarkhos. Diogenes says it was to Idomeneus.

Do we have any additional support either way?

And also ... switching-gears, since the ultra-fine particles from which they are made cannot interact with any matter on Earth besides the ultra-fine particles upon which the human mind operates, why do they need to live beyond Andromeda? Why can't they just live in a Ghost Castle in Cleveland completely unaware of the human drama playing out in a visual spectrum they do not perceive?

Or, better yet, rather than a Ghost Castle in Cleveland, why not just in the human mind?

To be transparent, here's how my mind is working:

I am speculating that the notions of Space Sanctuaries ("between worlds") filled with Majestic Void Dwellers were poetic innovations of Lucretius and perhaps Philodemos (both poets who took liberties, personifying natural forces, appropriating myths, and publishing prayers).

It's not so much a matter of mutual exclusivity: I believe, hypothetically, at least, the concepts seem compatible. It's more of a question of focus and intention. Did the Greek Epicureans actually care about the dwelling-place of the deities? Was that query on their radar? Or was it a moot point?

Here's what Lucretius has to say about the (forgive my mockery) Cosmic Retirement Centers:

Quote

“[T]heir tranquil abodes which neither winds do shake nor clouds drench with rains nor snow congealed by sharp frosts harms with hoary fall: an ever-cloudless ether overcanopies them, and they laugh with light shed largely round” (DRN 3.18-22)

“This too you may not possibly believe, that the holy seats of the gods exist in any parts of the world: the fine nature of the gods far withdrawn from our senses is hardly seen by the thought of the mind; and since it has ever eluded the touch and stroke of the hands, it must touch nothing which is tangible for us; for that cannot touch which does not admit of being touched in turn. And therefore their seats as well must be unlike our seats, fine, even as their bodies are fine.” (Ibid. 5.146-154)

“[N]or will you approach the sanctuaries of the gods with a calm breast, nor will you be able with tranquil peace of mind to take in those idols which are carried from their holy body into the minds of men as heralds of their divine form.” (Ibid., 6.76)

Some authors, like Cicero, gives us this idea that the Epicurean gods are essentially Space Ghosts—invisible-to-translucent humanoid figures with objective existences that are composed of a spirit-like substance who dwell far away from the natural disasters of the stormy, terrestrial sphere—and their visual forms emanate through the universe like radio waves to the receiver that is the human mind. We observe their reality from an incredible distance, even more distant than the stars: as our eyes observe the evolution of a dying star as it goes supernova, so our minds document the movement of Epicurean Void Dwellers as they breathe, speak with friends, and laugh about jokes.

Lucretius helps us visualize these sorts "holy sanctuaries" that are "cloaked in ether". Even then, I internally debate whether or not he was referring to Cosmic Spirit-Bodies living in Metacosmic Paradise Compounds versus something like "Beings that exist in the same spatial dimension as the Earth, but cannot interact with Earth matter (except for the minds of rational animals)".

Either way, given that Lucretius used On Nature as his source to structure De Rerum Natura, were these ideas his? Or were they truly poetic imaginings from Epicurus' actual propositions? Similarly, while I consider Cicero a completely unreliable and dubious source, he did attend lectures by an Epicurean scholarch, and was trained under, and among other Epicureans. He has reason to exxaggerate their claims as "a former friend who just 'didn't get it' and misunderstood everything", or, he could be faithfully representing their claims. I'm willing to swallow either pill.

I really want more fragments from the Kathegemones, Demetrios of Lakonia ( Bryan that's why I tagged you), and Philodemos that make explicit claims about the God or gods or divine nature. Most of our fragments from the Kathegemones are preserved in Philodemos' On Piety, which is great, yet not only is it, itself, fragmented, but also, the quotations are few, and limited, and completely intermixed with Philodemos' personal extrapolations and paraphrasing. I believe there is a line hiding in a P.Herc. somewhere that will fit the gap in this puzzle.

It would be really telling if Epicurus dropped a line or two that incontrovertibly demonstrate that he had curiosity regarding the question of "What does a Space Ghost Apartment look like?" versus (what I'd like to consider, more and more), "The gods are unique, mental phenomena."

(...though, now that I think about it, Philodemos records Epicurus as having described four classes of beings in the universe: 1. Void (empty space) 2. Simple Bodies that are Indestructible (particles) 3. Bodies Arranged in Indestructible Configurations Made from Similar Kinds of Simple Bodies (i.e. the bodies of the gods), 4. Bodies Arranged in Destructible Configurations Made from a Variety of Simple Bodies (molecules, organs, animals, etc.) ... hereagain, did he mean to describe the biology of Space Ghosts? Or was he doing his best to describe the neurology of spirituality?

Quote from Joshua

On poems:

https://archive.org/details/lapoes…age/92/mode/2up

Greek text starts on page 94ish. (Borrow for 1 hour)

Great find, Joshua! In my continued effort in amassing texts, I transcribed the Italian and ran it through Google Translate. I published the results at https://twentiers.com/on-poems/.

I came across this quotation in the de Lacey translation:

According to Philodemus, “even though god was not born, yet he is composed of soul and body and with this nature he is necessarily a living creature.” (On Methods of Inference)

What do you make of this proposition?

Quote from Bryan

Not quite μετακόσμιος, but we have two instances of μετακοσμέω, rearrange / modify:

Great find! I never caught that the verb μετακοσμέω ("to re-arrange" or "modify") is related to the noun μετακόσμιος ("between-worlds"). 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.