To Whom Was Epicurus' Last Letter Addressed?

Great catch!

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

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."

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

Quote from Eikadistes

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.

This would be one instance where I might not give Cicero's proximity in time quite so much credit. I am with DeWitt that Cicero probably had superior "knowledge" of Epicurus, on issues like prolepsis and images, given the proximity in time and probably number of teachers. But something like the name of an addressee of a letter doesn't require philosophic attention, and could more likely be a "slip of the pen" that wouldn't be reviewed so closely. \

But reading the comments above I am very strongly in the middle on what the real answer is and i have no confidence which is the right answer.

Quote from Cassius

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:

• Epicurus 341–270 BCE
• Hermarchus c. 325-c. 250 BC
• Cicero 106 – 43 BCE (Garden continued to thrive in his time)
• ....~250+ years
• Diogenes Laertius fl. 3rd century CE

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

I don't have an answer, but I would like to point out that there is good reason to think that Hermarchus was the first friend and scholar to join Epicurus apart from the latter's own brothers.

Epicurus' course brought him through the following places:

Born on Samos -> Colophon -> Mytilene -> Lampsacus -> Died in Athens

--His brothers may have gone with him, or they may have joined him later.

--Hermarchus was from Mytilene.

--Metrodorus, Polyaenus, Colotes, Idomeneus, Batis, Leonteus, and Themista were all, if the meagre evidence is to be relied upon, from Lampsacus.

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