#Δ Φ

[m-ayo-o]

i’m no hero

Toji Fushiguro x female reader you meet Toji by chance when you were struggling with an illness. you end up dating the intimidating man, who turns out to be pretty soft. he's ready for a serious relationship and wants to treat you right!!

nb: I placed Toji in his 40s. feel free to imagine whatever age you're comfortable with 18+ content. mdni.

"good girl" / "daddy" / explicit sex throughout

stranger 3.4k α sfw, first meeting, age gap sweet 3.2k β f. oral, size kink control 4.1k ⁺⋆ m. oral, degrading, spitting, gag risky 4.4k ε cockwarming, voyeurism, ft. satoru past 1.5k Δ implied group sex + m x m oral hot date: ♡ princess treatment! part one 2.5k φ m. oral, f. orgasm denial part two 1.6k Φ cowgirl, doggy play nice: ♡ explicit threesome ft. satoru! part one 2.2k ☾ f. oral, reverse cowgirl, m. oral part two 1.3k λ doggy, squirting, m x m oral, f x m oral part three 1.4k μ face sitting, dp [oral + vaginal]

BONUS!

games π guessing game ft. satoru + nanami

toji jjk m.list

likes, comments + reblogs appreciated! ♡

[eeveearoace]

honorable mentions: δ (lowercase delta) and ε (lowercase epsilon). i ran out of space ;-;

[m---a---x]

Welcome to the premier of One-Picture-Proof!

This is either going to be the first installment of a long running series or something I will never do again. (We'll see, don't know yet.)

Like the name suggests each iteration will showcase a theorem with its proof, all in one picture. I will provide preliminaries and definitions, as well as some execises so you can test your understanding. (Answers will be provided below the break.)

The goal is to ease people with some basic knowledge in mathematics into set theory, and its categorical approach specifically. While many of the theorems in this series will apply to topos theory in general, our main interest will be the topos Set. I will assume you are aware of the notations of commutative diagrams and some terminology. You will find each post to be very information dense, don't feel discouraged if you need some time on each diagram. When you have internalized everything mentioned in this post you have completed weeks worth of study from a variety of undergrad and grad courses. Try to work through the proof arrow by arrow, try out specific examples and it will become clear in retrospect.

Please feel free to submit your solutions and ask questions, I will try to clear up missunderstandings and it will help me designing further illustrations. (Of course you can just cheat, but where's the fun in that. Noone's here to judge you!)

Preliminaries and Definitions:

B^A is the exponential object, which contains all morphisms A→B. I comes equipped with the morphism eval. : A×(B^A)→B which can be thought of as evaluating an input-morphism pair (a,f)↦f(a).

The natural isomorphism curry sends a morphism X×A→B to the morphism X→B^A that partially evaluates it. (1×A≃A)

φ is just some morphism A→B^A.

Δ is the diagonal, which maps a↦(a,a).

1 is the terminal object, you can think of it as a single-point set.

We will start out with some introductory theorem, which many of you may already be familiar with. Here it is again, so you don't have to scroll all the way up:

Exercises:

What is the statement of the theorem?

Work through the proof, follow the arrows in the diagram, understand how it is composed.

What is the more popular name for this technique?

What are some applications of it? Work through those corollaries in the diagram.

Can the theorem be modified for epimorphisms? Why or why not?

For the advanced: What is the precise requirement on the category, such that we can perform this proof?

For the advanced: Can you alter the proof to lessen this requirement?

Bonus question: Can you see the Sicko face? Can you unsee it now?

Expand to see the solutions:

Solutions:

This is Lawvere's Fixed-Point Theorem. It states that, if there is a point-surjective morphism φ:A→B^A, then every endomorphism on B has a fixed point.

Good job! Nothing else to say here.

This is most commonly known as diagonalization, though many corollaries carry their own name. Usually it is stated in its contraposition: Given a fixed-point-less endomorphism on B there is no surjective morphism A→B^A.

Most famous is certainly Cantor's Diagonalization, which introduced the technique and founded the field of set theory. For this we work in the category of sets where morphisms are functions. Let A=�� and B=2={0,1}. Now the function 2→2, 0↦1, 1↦0 witnesses that there can not be a surjection ℕ→2^ℕ, and thus there is more than one infinite cardinal. Similarly it is also the prototypiacal proof of incompletness arguments, such as Gödels Incompleteness Theorem when applied to a Gödel-numbering, the Halting Problem when we enumerate all programs (more generally Rice's Theorem), Russells Paradox, the Liar Paradox and Tarski's Non-Defineability of Truth when we enumerate definable formulas or Curry's Paradox which shows lambda calculus is incompatible with the implication symbol (minimal logic) as well as many many more. As in the proof for Curry's Paradox it can be used to construct a fixed-point combinator. It also is the basis for forcing but this will be discussed in detail at a later date.

If we were to replace point-surjective with epimorphism the theorem would no longer hold for general categories. (Of course in Set the epimorphisms are exactly the surjective functions.) The standard counterexample is somewhat technical and uses an epimorphism ℕ→S^ℕ in the category of compactly generated Hausdorff spaces. This either made it very obvious to you or not at all. Either way, don't linger on this for too long. (Maybe in future installments we will talk about Polish spaces, then you may want to look at this again.) If you really want to you can read more in the nLab page mentioned below.

This proof requires our category to be cartesian closed. This means that it has all finite products and gives us some "meta knowledge", called closed monoidal structure, to work with exponentials.

Yanofsky's theorem is a slight generalization. It combines our proof steps where we use the closed monoidal structure such that we only use finite products by pre-evaluating everything. But this in turn requires us to introduce a corresponding technicallity to the statement of the theorem which makes working with it much more cumbersome. So it is worth keeping in the back of your mind that it exists, but usually you want to be working with Lawvere's version.

Yes you can. No, you will never be able to look at this diagram the same way again.

We see that Lawvere's Theorem forms the foundation of foundational mathematics and logic, appears everywhere and is (imo) its most important theorem. Hence why I thought it a good pick to kick of this series.

If you want to read more, the nLab page expands on some of the only tangentially mentioned topics, but in my opinion this suprisingly beginner friendly paper by Yanofsky is the best way to read about the topic.

[lipshits-continuous]

I think what annoys me more than saying the Dirac delta distribution is a function is when people say it's 0 everywhere except when x=0, it is infinity. Like that is just not compatible with the fact it's integral over ℝ is supposed to be 1. Suppose we did define an extended function that way:

δ is a Lebesgue measurable since {x∈ℝ:δ(x)<a} is empty for a≤0 and ℝ\{0} for a>0 which are both Lebesgue measurable sets. δ is non-negative so we can calculate the integral via

where the inequality is pointwise.

Now since δ is 0 except at x=0, we require any simple measurable function φ≤δ must also be 0 except at x=0. This leaves us with a constant times an indicator function:

where a>0, and

Then we have

So taking the supremum over a we get

So δ cannot be the Dirac delta distribution. You really need the theory of distributions to talk about the Dirac delta.

P.s. I know this isn't the typical notation for an integral with respect to a measure but this was the notation I had in my lectures

[thecrazyalchemist]

Just clicked for me:

Sigma (σ) bonds - because of the 's' orbital

Pi (π) bonds - because of the 'p' orbital

Delta (δ) bonds - because of the 'd' orbital

Phi (φ) bonds - because of the 'f' orbital

[wadudospeitaos]

91$$..𝖿𝗋𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽〝

(ଠ﹏ଠ〃))ㅤㅤ╰(⇀ᗣ↼)╯ㅤㅤ(；个ロ个))ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ(⊙︹⊙ _)ㅤㅤ((҂ ＞︿＜)ㅤㅤ〜((•́ ｍ•̀)〜ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

90$$..𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗈𝗎𝗌〃

ヽ(｡`Δ ´ ))ㅤㅤ(ಥﾛ ಥ )/ㅤㅤ┐(ºヘº)┌ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ(￣□ ￣ ‶ ))ㅤㅤ((╬ - ｪ - )ㅤㅤ(Ò∆Ó ＃))ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

89$$..𝖿𝖾𝖺𝗋〃

(Φ﹌Φ )ㅤㅤ(º ︿º |||))ㅤㅤ((〃＞﹏＜〃) ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ(×｡× )〣ㅤㅤo( · ᗒᗣᗕ)oㅤㅤ(・^・..))ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

88$$..𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾〃

((>< )/ㅤㅤΣ( 0ヘ0 )Σㅤㅤヾ(•́︿•̀ #)〣ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ(˃〃﹏〃˂)ㅤㅤ(◉ᆺ◉))ㅤㅤ(TДT´ ))۶ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

..

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ(🎧) 𝖪𝖠𝖮𝖬𝖮𝖩𝖨𝖲 of my own, use at will ㅤㅤㅤ自分の顔文字、^﹏^自由に使ってください [04:50]

[apollopythios]

Okay, here's a thread on "how to read the Greek alphabet?"

The Greek alphabet consists of 24 letters:

α,β,γ,δ,ε,ζ,η,θ,ι,κ,λ,μ,ν,ξ,ο,π,ρ,σ;��,τ,υ,φ,χ,ψ,ω.

So here we go:

Α,α-alfa [a]

Β,β-beta[b]

Γ,γ-gamma [g]

Δ,δ- delta [d]

Ε,ε-epsilon[e;short]

Ζ,ζ-dzeta [dz]

Η,η-eta[e;long]

Θ,θ-theta [th]

Ι,ι-jota[i]

Κ,κ-kappa [k]

Λ,λ-lambda[l]

Μ,μ-mi [m]

Ν,ν-ni [n]

Ξ, ξ- ksi [ks]

Ο,ο-omikron [o;short]

Π,π-pi [p]

Ρ,ρ- ro [r]

Σ,σ(at beginning and in the middle), ς(in the end)-sigma [s]

Τ,τ-tau [t]

Υ,υ-ypsilon [y]

Φ,φ-phi [f or ph]

Χ,χ-khi [ch or kh]

Ψ,ψ-psi [ps]

Ω,ω-omega[o;long]

[unblinkingvoid]

WHAT DOES DESIRE DO TO YOU?

Does it:

a) cradle you

b) gut you

c) starve you

d) nourish you

e) inspire you

f) obliterate you

g) awaken you

h) hinder you

i) steal your warmth

j) pass through you

k) take you to a river

l) tie red string to your finger

m) clog your arteries

n) smell you

o) taste you

p) touch you

q) hear you

r) see you

s) understand you

t) turn into you

v) pay for your bus ticket

w) prepare you

x) wait for you

y) yield to you

z) echo your name

α) ignore you

β) tempt you

γ) famish you

δ) waste you away

ε) lie to you

ζ) strike you

η) steal from you

θ) betray you

ι) spread inside you

κ) sicken you

λ) anoint you

μ) undress you

ν) lead you to the minotaur

ξ) give you a mirror

ο) warn you

π) surround you

ρ) harden your joints

σ) shoot you with the wrong arrow

τ) rot your teeth

υ) build you a bench in the middle of the sea

φ) sedate you

χ) please you

ψ) love you

ω) win

[gemsofgreece]

Me again, a follow up question. While I know it's pretty much impossible to have a perfect transposition from greek to latin alphabet, I'm trying to have at least some kind of ruling. This said, would you transpose κ as a english "K" (harsh sound) or "c" sweet sound. Ex, Αλκιμεδων is Alkimedon or Alcimedon or whatever? Thank you

That's a great question. The truth is that the transliteration of Greek to Latin characters is terrible because even though the closest letters are chosen, these letters often have different sounds between the two alphabets. The problem is aggravated by the fact that English especially took a lot of Greek words via their Latin version and not directly and by the reliance on the popular Erasmian pronunciation which is questionable on so many levels (and ugly), to say the least.

Grasping the opportunity provided by your example, there is not a soft c in Greek at all. Never has been. The closest one by sound is σ (σίγμα) which is the equivalent of s. There is only κ (kappa) which is a harsh k. The frequent usage of c in words of Greek origin probably only means that these words have made a passing through the Latin language first.

But not just that, d is considered the equivalent of δ but the latter hasn't been pronounced as d for a couple millenias and even when it did, it was still softer than the modern d of the latin alphabet languages.

So the correct way to transliterate Αλκιμέδων to the Latin alphabet is actually Alkiméthon. The problem here is that Greek has two entirely different letters for the two ¨th¨ sounds, whereas English doesn´t. Some transliterate δ as ¨dh¨, as a solution of sorts. This would turn it into ¨Alkimédhon¨.

But because there are so many problems, there are no established rules. I believe the transliteration that should prevail now is the one that follows as accurately as possible the living pronunciation. Pre-hellenistic pronunciations are just theories after all.

So how I would transliterate is:

β as v (not b)

γ as gh (not g) before the consonants and the vowels α, ο, ω, ου and as y before the vowels ε, αι, η, ι, ει, οι, υι

δ as th or dh (not d)

η, ι, υ, ει, οι all as i

θ as th

κ as k

ξ as x or ks (not gz)

σ, ς as s or even as ss in the middle of a word because it is a little more “snaky” than the English s

φ as f or ph

χ as h or kh. Maybe that's how it should be written even before another consonant (i.e χρόνος - hrónos or khrónos as the more popular ¨chronos¨ is often mispronounced as kronos)

ψ as ps, but remember that both consonants are voiced unlike in English where the p is silent.

ω as o

αι as e since this has been the pronunciation for so long

ου as u or ou although I visually don't like the latter. Some use the oo which is not all that wrong but it looks utterly horrendous.

γγ, γκ as ng in the middle of the word, as g in the beginning or if it appears more than once in the word.

μπ as mb in the middle of the word, as b in the beginning or if it appears more than once in the word.

ντ as nd in the middle of the word, as d in the beginning or if it appears more than once in the word.

τζ as tz and not j, as it is a thinner sound.

τσ as ts and not ch, as it is a thinner sound.

This is more or less the transliteration that lately is used for Modern Greek. Those chaotic differences are the reason a Greek woman might tell somebody her name is Thanái and they won't realise she's telling them her name is Danae. XD

Now even though this is more correct I acknoweldge that visually the inaccurate transliteration is often more aesthetically pleasing or maybe it's because we are used to it. Take as example the verb for "skin, peel" :

γδέρνω is gderno in the usual transliteration but it is ghthérno in the more accurate one. The funny thing is that ghthérno looks terribly ugly but it sounds far more delicate and pretty when spoken than the inaccurate but better looking gderno XD

It's a mess what can I say. I have sometimes received some mild criticism for retaining the latin version of Greek words i.e I write Ευρυδίκη as Eurydice instead of the more accurate Evrithiki. Just for visual aesthetics. Honestly Evrithíki sounds nice when you say it but it looks so ugly in latin characters ffs I am so sad about this XD.

The latest example is that I wrote "Andronicus Palaeologus" even though I should have written "Anthronikos Paleologhos". And yet I believe that the latter sounds better than the former. Still, even if it's visually better, Idk, I think we should opt for accuracy especially in more "official", serious circumstances. Unless it looks much uglier and pronunciation doesn't matter in a certain situation so in this case we can show some understanding :P

Alkimethon though looks fairly good IMO

[psychidion]

Which Greek letters are seen on this kylix?

Image description: Early form of the Greek alphabet on an Attic black-figure bowl

This kylix is part of the collection at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

Letters on the top side as far as I can tell:

Alpha Α

Beta Β

Gamma Γ (yes, it looks like a lambda, but that's how they used to write it)

Delta Δ

Epsilon Ε

Digamma Ϝ (super strange to see this- but maybe it's not written in Ionic)

Zeta Ζ (yes, it looks like an iota, again it's how it used to be written)

Eta Η

Theta Θ

Iota Ι

Kappa Κ

Lambda Λ (slightly older form again)

Mu Μ

Nu Ν

Omicron Ο

Pi Π

Rho Ρ (this one threw me off so badly, because why is that an actual R)

Sigma Σ

Tau Τ

Upsilon Υ (sometimes written like a v)

Chi Χ (but like a cross)

honestly have no idea what this extra O is standing for, maybe a miswritten Phi Φ? Although it's clear on the bottom side...

Psi Ψ (chicken foot type).

They are missing Xi Ξ and Omega Ω!

[m-ayo-o]

bonus chapters: she always smiled and spouted pretty ideals

25+ y/o Megumi Fushiguro x female reader life after Megumi makes you his girlfriend! bonus chapters for this extended fic [14.5k] 18+ content. mdni

treasure .6k α kink discovery, fluff night out 2.3k β sfw, alcohol consumption urge .7k ⁺⋆ stripping, dry humping ft. 25+ yuji connect 1.4k ε m. oral friends? 1.8k Δ f. oral, m x m oral, doggy, spanking pretty pet .8k φ "kitten", soft dom, m. oral tied up 1.6k Φ bondage, fingering, f. oral, sex

megumi jjk m.list

likes, comments + reblogs appreciated!

[cmc-linguistics]

Zeghenian (Ζᾳχῃνική [zdɛː.ɣɛ̃ːː.ɲi.kɛː])

First conlang of 2024! WOOHOO! Ðis one is a posteriori, but ðis time, it's based on Ancient Greek. So wiþout furðer ado...

Phonology and orthography

/p t k b d g m n ɸ θ s x ħ r l sd ps ks i iː y yː u uː ɪ e eː ø o oː ɛ ɛː ɛːː œː ɔ ɔː ɔːː a aː/ [ɲ ŋ c ɟ β ð z ʃ ʒ ç ʝ ɣ r̥] <π τ κ β δ γ μ ν φ θ σ χ ʽ ρ λ ζ ψ ξ ῐ ῑ ῠ ῡ/υι υ ευ ηυ ε ει οι ο ου αι ᾳ/η ῃ ῳ ᾰυ ᾱυ/ω ωυ ᾰ ᾱ> <νι γγ κι γι VφV VθV VσV σι VσιV χι VχιV VχV ῥ>

Example Sentence

Ἐγώ, Δημοσθένης ὁ Κρητικός, ᾠκοδόμησᾰ αὐτό τὸν οἶκον. Ðis translates to "I, Demosþenes ðe Cretan, built ðis house".

Pronunciation

[e.ˈ gɔː | dɛː.moz.ˈ ðẽ.nɛːs ħo krɛː.ti.ˈ kos | œː.ko.ˈ do.mɛː.sa ɔ.ˈ to tõ ˈ ø.kõ]

Gloss

1S.NOM, Demosthenes DET.DEF.M.NOM.SG Cretan, build.AOR.ACT.IND.1S self DET.DEF.N.ACC.SG house.ACC.SG

Summary

Well, ðere you have it! Ðis conlang took around an hour or so to fully þink out, and it turned out great. See you next time!

[nofatclips]

Έχω ένα φόβο by Bad Movies from the album Σ​τ​ο λ​ά​κ​κ​ο με τα φ​ί​δ​ι​α​.

[andrewminyardlawyer]

Okay, here u are nitka na temat: "jak czytać alfabet grecki?"

Alfabet grecki składa się z 24 liter:

α,β,γ,δ,ε,ζ,η,θ,ι,κ,λ,μ,ν,ξ,ο,π,ρ,σ;ς,τ,υ,φ,χ,ψ,ω.

A więc zaczynamy: Α,α-alfa [a]

Β,β-beta[b]

Γ,γ-gamma [g]

Δ,δ- delta [d]

Ε,ε-epsilon[e;krótkie]

Ζ,ζ-dzeta [dz]

Η,η-eta[e;długie]

Θ,θ-theta [th]

Ι,ι-jota[i]

Κ,κ-kappa [k]

Λ,λ-lambda[l]

Μ,μ-mi [m]

Ν,ν-ni [n]

Ξ, ξ- ksi [ks]

Ο,ο-omikron [o;krótkie]

Π,π-pi [p]

Ρ,ρ- ro [r]

Σ,σ(na początku i w środku wyrazu), ς(na końcu)-sigma [s]

Τ,τ-tau [t]

Υ,υ-ypsilon [y]

Φ,φ-phi [f lub tak jak czytali starogrecy ph]

Χ,χ-khi [ch lub tak jak czytali starogrecy kh]

Ψ,ψ-psi [ps]

Ω,ω-omega[o;długie]

[bosses-stay-flawless]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Your Sorority Crush x Greek Para (@sororityxcrush)

Women’s History Month!!!

HBCUs: To the sisters in every HBCU, we don’t rep the same thing, but I recognize the values and your legacy of service and to my fellow AKAz Pinky’s Up!!! You know if you know!!! Ivy & Pearl Girl…

My sisters speak my language:

Alpha - Α α Beta - Β β Gamma - Γ γ Delta - Δ δ Epsilon - Ε ε Zeta - Ζ ζ

Eta - Η η Theta - Θ θ Iota - Ι ι Kappa - Κ κ Lambda - Λ λ Mu - Μ μ

Nu - Ν ν Xi - Ξ ξ Omicron - Ο ο Pi - Π π Rho - Ρ ρ Sigma - Σ σ/ς

Tau - Τ τ Upsilon - Υ υ Phi - Φ φ Chi - Χ χ Psi - Ψ ψ Omega - Ω ω

[aboutanancientenquiry]

"Poetics of Fragmentation in the Athyr Poem of C. P. Cavafy

Gregory Nagy

[Originally published in Imagination and Logos: Essays on C. P. Cavafy (ed. Panagiotis Roilos) 265-272. Cambridge, MA 2010. The original pagination of the article will be indicated in this electronic version by way of curly brackets (“{“ and “}”). For example, “{265|266}” indicates where p. 265 of the printed article ends and p. 266 begins.]

Ἐν τῷ μη[νὶ] Ἀθύρ

[[1]] Μὲ δυσκολία διαβάζω    στὴν πέτρα τὴν ἀρχαία. [[2]] <<Κύ[ρι]ε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ>>.    Ἕνα <<Ψυ[χ]ὴν>> διακρίνω. [[3]] <<Ἐν τῷ μη[νὶ] Ἀθὺρ>>    <<ὁ Λεύκιο[ς] ἐ[κοιμ]ήθη>>. [[4]] Στὴ μνεία τῆς ἡλικίας    <<Ἐβί[ωσ]εν ἐτῶν>>, [[5]] τὸ Κάππα Ζῆτα δείχνει    ποὺ νέος ἐκοιμήθη. [[6]] Μὲς στὰ φθαρμένα βλέπω    <<Αὐτὸ[ν] … Ἀλεξανδρέα>>. [[7]] Μετὰ ἔχει τρεῖς γραμμὲς    πολὺ ἀκρωτηριασμένες· [[8]] μὰ κάτι λέξεις βγάζω –    σὰν <<δ[ά]κρυα ἡμῶν>>, <<ὀδύνην>>, [[9]] κατόπιν πάλι <<δάκρυα>>,     καὶ <<[ἡμ]ῖν τοῖς [φ]ίλοις πένθος>>. [[10]] Μὲ φαίνεται ποὺ ὁ Λεύκιος    μεγάλως θ’ ἀγαπήθη. [[11]] Ἐν τῷ μηνὶ Ἀθὺρ    ὁ Λεύκιος ἐκοιμήθη.

It is hard to read . . . . on the ancient stone. “Lord Jesus Christ” . . . . I make out the word “Soul”. “In the month of Athyr . . . . Lucius fell asleep.” His age is mentioned . . . . “He lived years . . . .”? The letters KZ show . . . . that he fell asleep young. In the damaged part I see the words . . . . “Him . . Alexandrian.” Then come three lines . . . . much mutilated. But I can read a few words  . . . . perhaps “our tears” and “sorrows.” And again: “Tears” . . . . and: “for us his friend mourning.” I think Lucius . . . . was much beloved. In the month of Athyr . . . . Lucius fell asleep . . . .

Translated by George Valassopoulo in E.M. Forster, Pharos and Pharillon, Hogarth Press, 1923 from C. P. Cavafy, Poems 1916-18 as published on the Official Website of the Cavafy Archive, http://www.cavafy.com/

My contribution, however slight, to an understanding of this difficult poem starts with an alternative translation of my own, followed by an exegesis. My translation has no literary merit: it is simply a working translation, keyed to the exegesis that follows it. In order to facilitate the reading of the exegesis, I have numbered, within double-square brackets ([[ ]]), the lines of the translation to match the verses of Cavafy as printed in their original format. As we will see, even the formatting of this poem is part of its meaning. Here, then, is my translation of the poem—and of its formatting:

[[1]] “With difficulty, I am reading … what is on the ancient stone. [[2]] It starts <<Lord Jesus Christ …>> Then there is another word, <<psyche>>, I can make out that much. [[3]] <<In the month Athyr …>> <<… Lucius went to sleep>>. [[4]] In remembrance of his age … <<He lived for such-and-such number of years>> [[5]] —the letters <<Kappa>> and <<Zeta>>, for twenty and seven, show … that he was a youth when he went to sleep. {265|266} [[6]] Right in the middle of the damaged parts, I see <<… himself … the Alexandrian>>. [[7]] Then there are three lines that are … very much dismembered, [[8]] but I can somehow make out some words … like, <<our tears>>, <<pain>>, [[9]] then once again <<tears>>, … and, <<for us his friends, sorrow>>. [[10]] It seems to me that Lucius … would have been very much loved. [[11]] In the month Athyr … Lucius went to sleep.”

What follows is my exegesis, pursued line by line. In this exegesis, double quotation marks enclose wording xxx spoken by the poet who is reading an inscription in his poem: so, “xxx”. Double angular brackets enclose wording pictured as seen by the poet in the act of reading the inscription: so, <<xxx>>. And single quotation marks enclose wording that I use to translate Greek wording that falls outside the poem: so, ‘xxx’.

I start with the first comma, “,” at line [[1]] of my translation of the poem. With the placement of this comma “,” I mean to convey a double meaning inherent in the poem. That is, there are two levels of difficulty in this poem. One, it is difficult to read the fragmentary inscription engraved into stone. And two, it is difficult to read the poem. Not only is the fragmentary inscription difficult to read; even the act of reading the poem is difficult in the first place. For us as readers, it is as difficult to read the fragmentary poem as it is difficult for the poet to read the fragmentary inscription. That is because the reader of the fragmentary inscription, who is the poet of the poem that pictures the inscription, is implying that all poems are fragmentary inscriptions. Even more, the poet is implying that any act of reading anything is difficult: “With difficulty, I am reading.”

At line [[2]], the first three words of the fragmentary inscription seem at first to be easy enough to read. <<Κύ[ρι]ε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ>> or <<Lord Jesus Christ>>… So far, so good. Maybe the reading will not be so difficult after all. Some letters have broken off, yes, but they can be restored without too much difficulty by the reader poet, who is following here the convention of experts in the heuristic science of epigraphy, making restorations of missing letters xxx by enclosing the letters of their restoration within square brackets: so, [xxx].

But now the real difficulties begin. Now the reader poet is starting to have a difficult time reading the next word at line [[2]], as the inscription becomes more and more fragmented. The reader thinks he can still make out the word <<Ψυ[χ]ήν>>, which translators tend to render as <<Soul>>, but the letter <<χ>>, which is also the first letter of <<Χ>>ριστός or <<Ch>>rist, has broken off, and it can only be restored within square brackets, just as experts in epigraphy restore missing letters within square brackets. Now, on second thought, the {266|267} reader is made more aware that the <<Lord>> of <<Lord Jesus Christ>> as read earlier at line [[2]] is also fragmented. There the missing letters are <<ρι>> in <<Κύ[ρι]ε>>, but those missing letters had been easily restored, also within square brackets, by the reader poet reading as an expert in epigraphy.

There is more to be said about the word <<Ψυ[χ]ήν>> as read by the reader poet at line [[2]]. This word, which is conventionally rendered as <<Soul>>, has been left untranslated in my working translation, where I give simply <<psyche>>. I do so because the translation ‘soul’ for ψυχή works only if the Christian sense of ψυχή is meant. But what if a pre-Christian sense is also meant here? In the Greek of Homeric diction, for example, ψυχή can refer either to the breath of life, when someone is alive, or to a disembodied simulacrum of identity after death, when someone is dead. And, by contrast with ψυχή, the word αὐτός in Homeric diction means not only ‘self’ when someone is alive but also ‘body’ when someone is dead. We see such a contrast between the words ψυχή and αὐτός at the very beginning of the Iliad:

Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί’ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε, πολλὰς δ’ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν ἡρώων, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή

Anger, sing it, goddess! The anger of the son of Peleus, Achilles, the baneful anger that caused countless pains for the Achaeans and hurled to Hades many powerful psychai of heroes, but they themselves [autoi, = their bodies] were made prizes for dogs and for all kinds of birds. And the will of Zeus was being accomplished.

Iliad I 1-5

The Homeric body, as expressed by αὐτός or ‘self’, is still the self even after death, while the Homeric ψυχή after death is no longer the self but merely a disembodied simulacrum of the self. It is the ψυχαί or disembodied simulacra of the self who are being hurled down to Hades, not their bodies, who are the ‘selves’ themselves, the αὐτοί.

So then the question is, does the <<Αὐτόν>> or <<himself>> in the accusative case, as we read this word later on at line [[6]] in the poem of Cavafy, refer to the <<Alexandrian>> at the same line [[6]] in the Christian sense of the ‘self’ as a ψυχή that transcends death—or to the ‘self’ in the Homeric sense of a body left {267|268} behind by the ψυχή after death? At line [[2]] of the poem by Cavafy, the word <<Ψυχήν>> is also in the accusative case, just as the <<Αὐτόν>> or <<himself>> is in the accusative case at line [[6]]. Something is happening to the psyche, is being done to the psyche—whether this psyche is a Christian or a pre-Christian ψυχή.

At line [[3]], the reading continues, but we do not find out what happened to the psyche. All we can find out so far is that whatever did happen happened <<in the month of Athyr>>. That is what the inscription says in the first part of the line. In the second part, which is separated from the first part by a break in the line, the inscription goes on to say that a young man <<went to sleep>>, and we learn that his name was <<Lucius>>>. I translate the break between the first part and the second part of the line not with three dots marking ellipsis but with two sets of three dots marking two separate ellipses. That is because the break comes in the middle of a quotation, and there is no way of knowing whether the missing words are part of one syntactical sequence or of two.

The fragmentary inscription, as imagined at line [[3]], does not say outright that the young man <<went to sleep>>, since the root of the verb that I translate as <<went to sleep>>, <<κοιμ->>, is imagined as a learned epigraphical restoration. In the inscription, the root <<κοιμ->> has broken away and has to be restored within square brackets: <<ὁ Λεύκιο[ς] ἐ[κοιμ]ήθη>>, which can be approximated as <<Lucius [went to sleep]>>. The experience of going to sleep is epigraphically conjectured, without being poetically realized. At line [[5]] and then again at line [[11]], by contrast, the epigraphical conjecture will become a poetic reality. In those two lines, [[5]] and [[11]], the experience of going to sleep is a reality created by the poetry, no longer a conjecture derived from the heuristic science of epigraphy.

At line [[4]], the remembrance of the age of the young man Lucius anticipates a certainty—that the number of years he lived is known to the reader poet—who anticipates what is already known by the writer of the inscription. But the number is missing in this line, where the reader would expect to read it. That is why I translate here at line [[4]] the missing number by using the words <<such-and-such>>. What line [[4]] says is that <<He lived for such-and-such number of years>>. Line [[5]], which comes next, will fill in, adding the numbers that are expected but not yet found at line [[4]]. The <<such-and-such>> number of years at line [[4] can finally be filled in with real numbers at line [[5]], but only because the reader can now make out the <<Kappa>> and the <<Zeta>>, Greek letters reused for the Attic numerals <<20>> and <<7>>, in this case showing <<27>> as the age of the young man Lucius when <<he went to sleep>>.

At line [[5]], my working translation starts with a dash, and the first letter of the line is not capitalized. These details in formatting are meant to show that the previous line [[4]] did not end in a full sentence. The present line [[5]] {268|269}continues where the previous line [[4]] had left off. Meanwhile, the reading in the inscription that had to be restored as <<went to sleep>> at line [[3]] is now the reading in the poem as written by the poet and as read by the reader of the poem at line [[5]].

In the lines that follow, both in the lines of the inscription and in the lines of the poem, the fragmentation is so severe that the reader of the inscription and the reader of the poem can barely make out any readable words. All there is to read in the inscription is what the speaking reader actually sees, as signaled by “βλέπω” or “I see” at line [[6]]. If we take this word “βλέπω” in a sublime Platonic sense, not in the everyday sense of ‘βλέπω’ as ‘I see’ in everyday modern Greek, then what the “I” actually “sees” is an absolute Form, in that Plato’s use of βλέπω focuses on the seeing of Forms in Plato’s Theory of Forms. But the question is, what Form does the reader poet see “in the middle of the damaged parts”? And the answer is, he sees what he reads, which is <<… himself … the one from Alexandria>>. That <<himself>>, conveyed by <<Αὐτό[ν]>> in the accusative case at line [[6]], could be not only Lucius, the young man from Alexandria. It could be Cavafy himself from Alexandria. Or, as I noted some moments ago, the <<himself>> could be the Homeric body, which is temporarily the ‘self’ as distinct from the ψυχή after death. Or again, in a Christian sense, it could be the ‘self’ as permanently reunited with the ψυχή after death.

Or, yet again, in an ancient Egyptian sense that is most appropriate to Alexandria in Egypt, the <<self>> conveyed by the <<Αὐτό[ν]>> in the accusative case at line [[6]] could be the body of Osiris. In Egyptian myth, the god Osiris was the first person to die and then be resurrected after death. He had gone to sleep while sealed within a larnax or ‘chest’—and his body was then dismembered and scattered by Seth, lord of chaos, only to be reassembled and restored to life by the goddess Isis, loving consort of Osiris, in the month of Athyr. The ancient Egyptian myth about the fragmentation of Osiris and about his subsequent restoration by his consort Isis in the month of Athyr has been retold in the learned essay of Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris. The form of the myth as known to Plutarch was doubtless well known to Cavafy. Here is my paraphrase of the Egyptian myth as retold in the Isis and Osiris of Plutarch:

356B. It all happened on the 17th day of the month Athyr. The occasion for the death of Osiris is a sumposion ‘symposium’ attended by the god and 72 symposiasts who conspire to trick Osiris into lying down into a larnax ‘chest’ that fits him perfectly—and him only. Once Osiris takes his place inside the perfect fit of the larnax, the conspirators seal it and cast it into the Nile. With reference to the sacred number 72, we may compare the number of assembled men in the narrative about the genesis of the Septuagint. {269|270}

357A. The larnax containing Osiris floats down the Nile and into the sea, floating onward all the way to the Phoenician seacoast city of Byblos, a place that becomes the namesake for ‘papyrus’ and ‘book’ and, ultimately, ‘bible’ as represented by the Septuagint. Isis ultimately brings back the body from Phoenicia to Egypt.

357D. In Egyptian ritual, Plutarch says, the eidōlon ‘image’ of any dead person, when it is ritually carried around in a kibōtion ‘box’, is not just some ‘reminiscence’ [hupomnēma] of the ‘sacred experience’ (pathos) concerning Osiris. The ritual act of carrying around such an eidōlon is in the specific context of a sumposion ‘symposium’.

357E. The mythical honorand of the ritual symposium, Maneros, is envisioned as the inventor of ‘the craft of the Muses’ [mousikē].

357F-358A. Seth finds the sōma ‘body’ of Osiris in the moonlight and ‘dismembers’ (dieleîn) it.

358A. Then Isis looks for the parts of the sōma in a papyrus boat. The narrative adds an aetiology: how papyrus boats are immune from attacks by crocodiles. It is implied that Isis is reassembling the parts of the body of Osiris in order to reintegrate it for his eschatological resurrection.

358A. There is a different taphos ‘tomb’ of Osiris for each different ‘part’ [meros] of Osiris in different places throughout Egypt because Isis performed a separate taphē ‘entombment’ for each. Another version has it that she made eidōla ‘images’ for each polis in which Osiris is entombed.

The dismemberment of the body of Osiris is matched by the dismemberment of the poem of Cavafy, which is pictured as the reading of a dismembered inscription. The fragmented members of the poem need to be reassembled by the reader poet just as the fragmented members of the body of Osiris need to be reassembled by Isis. Just as the task of reassembling the fragmented body of Osiris is the key to the eschatological restoration and resurrection of Osiris, so also the task of reassembling the fragmented body of the poem is the key to restoring this poem and bringing it back to life.

But the task is difficult for the reader, perhaps so difficult as to be impossible. That is because the missing parts of the body of the poem, which match the missing parts of the inscription that is read by the reader poet, may perhaps never be found, may perhaps never be reunited with the parts that remain. And so the remains of the body of the poem may perhaps never be brought back to life. Unlike the goddess Isis, whose quest is to reassemble and restore all the missing parts of the body of Osiris, the reader of the poem may have to give up any hope, settling for something that falls far short of restoring the whole poem. The reader may have to settle for the fragmentation that remains. {270|271}

But the reader poet persists. He continues to read the inscription, as if to sustain a hope of restoring it and bringing it back to life simply by continuing to read. The reader continues to restore missing fragments within the square brackets that mark what is missing. The remains of the body of the poem call for the restoration of the fragments that are missing.

But now the reading becomes even more fragmentary, even more difficult. In the three lines that follow line [[6]], the fragments that remain are too disjointed to be read in continuity. Here the dismemberment of the body of the poem becomes decisive. It happens immediately after the <<self>> is signaled at line [[6]]. The next line [[7] signals that the reader of the fragmentary inscription is about to read “three lines that are … very much dismembered.” These “three lines” in the inscription will now be reenacted in the fragmentary wording and syntax of the next three lines in the poem, [[8]] and [[9]] and [[10]].

At lines [[8]] and [[9]], the reader reads words that break apart from each other, such as <<our tears>> and <<pain>> at line [[8]] and <<tears>> and <<for us his friends, sorrow>> at line [[9]]. The words at lines [[8]] and [[9]] are separated from each other by the breaks in the inscription. They are no longer connected to each other organically. And the two lines [[8]] and [[9]] are disjointed even as lines, since line [[8]] does not close in a full sentence but is picked up by the disjointed additions that follow. That is why the tears cannot end at [[8]] but need to start all over again at [[9]].

Then, at line [[10]], even the poem breaks apart, breaks up, disintegrates. This time, it is not the wording of the inscription that disintegrates. Rather, the disintegration happens in the wording of the poem itself. The wording at line [[10]] has taken over from the wording of the fragmented inscription. The wording of the poem here at line [[10]] is meant to tell what the fragments cannot tell fully, but now even the wording of the poem becomes fragmented. It is not that the fragmentation is caused at line [[10]] by breaks in the inscription. It is caused by breaks in the structure of the poem, in the body of the poem. The syntax of “It seems to me that Lucius … would have been very much loved” shows that the poetry is becoming fragmented, just as the inscription is already fragmented. The line is not a complete sentence, since something is syntactically missing in the ellipsis (…) that separates the two parts of the line.

Then, at the end, at line [[11]], the fragmented words of the poem as expressed in the previous line [[10]] are replaced by the restored words of the inscription. There are no more square brackets to indicate the missing letters of the inscription. Now “Lucius went to sleep” for sure, “ὁ Λεύκιος ἐκοιμήθη,” and these words are no longer quotations from the inscription, enclosed in double angular brackets and showing the epigraphical restorations, as they had been before at line [[3]], <<ὁ Λεύκιο[ς] ἐ[κοιμ]ήθη>>, which I had translated {271|272} as <<… Lucius went to sleep>>. This time, at line [[11]], the words “ὁ Λεύκιος ἐκοιμήθη” or “Lucius went to sleep” are not the words spoken by the inscription but the words spoken by the reader poet. But these words too, like the words of the inscription, are fragmentary, as we see from the spacing between the first and the second part of the line.

What ultimately reintegrates the disintegrating poem as it draws to a close is the love expressed for Lucius at line [[10]]: “μεγάλως θ’ ἀγαπήθη” – “[he] would have been very much loved.” In the logic of the inscription, this love was experienced by the original readers of the inscription—and by its original composer. But now we see it experienced all over again by the composer of the poem that frames the inscription. This composer becomes the first reader of this poem by virtue of being the last reader of the fragmentary inscription that he sees being framed within his poem. And just as the ultimate reintegration of Osiris after his disintegration is driven by the love of Isis in the ancient Egyptian myth, now the ultimate reintegration of the poem after its own disintegration is being driven by love—a love restored in the act of reading a fragmented inscription. Such is the integrating power, paradoxically, of Cavafy’s poetics of fragmentation."