Posts by Eikadistes

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.

Bryan in particular, I'm wondering if you're come across it in any P.Herc. fragments.

Epicurus employs "metakosmos" twice in the Epistle to Pythokles without mentioning deities (10.89).

I am struggling to find mentions of it from other ancient Greek sources. Have you found any?

I am specifically looking for declensions of μετακοσμος and not the Latin INTERMVNDIA.

Quote from Julia

Isn't satisfaction exactly what "net pleasure" is?

I note in Bailey Fragment 68 that Epicurus criticizes those who cannot ἀρκεῖται (árkeîtai, a middle-passive inflection of ἀρκέω) "be satisfied" with τὸ τῆς φύσεως τέλος (tò tês phúseōs télos) or "the goal of nature", which, as we know from Diogenes, hēdonēn einai telos ("The goal is pleasure"). Being able to attain a state of satisfaction or even, choosing my words carefully, fulfillment (proverbially, "having filled one's cup of pleasure") seems appropriate in this case.

I personally think of (the notion of) the gods as being "ceaselessly-satisfied".

Quote from Cassius

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.

Happy Eikas!

The spirit moved me and I created a section for Nietzschean criticism of Epicurus. Let me know if you aware of any texts with explicit analyses of Epicurean Philosophy in Nietzsche's works!

Philodemus' On Choice and Avoidance has also made its appearance.

Quote from Don

Look forward to reading your efforts and seeing your translation decisions.

I appreciate your review! It's a work in progress, and I imagine I'll continue tweaking it as my understanding of verbal adjective, and the various, aorist tenses expands.

In the meantime, piggy-backing off of Hiram 's initial effort, I've published his (with the help of Google translate's) English translation of the French translation of On Irrational Contempt.

I'm completed translating the Epistle to Menoikeus! I've taken a few more poetic liberties seizing opportunities for phrases like "the Spring of Philosophy" and "the Winter of the Mind". I am still polishing it, and will use this as a base upon which to make further edits.

My biggest takeaway is this: trying to read Epicurus in Epicurus' own words is a great exercise and tickles the minds in unexpected ways. It is a deeply pleasurable activity.