AN EPICUREAN FAREWELL: SAINT-E´VREMOND, LUCRETIUS, AND THE GODOLPHIN MANUSCRIPT

This article examines the religious beliefs and writings of the French exile Charles de Saint-E´vremond in light of the corrections that he made to his works in the ﬁnal months of his life. These corrections provide signiﬁcant emphases and nuances to Saint- E´vremond’s view on death and salvation at a time when he could not ignore his own advancing years. Yet, while the corrections might appear to ‘clarify’ his views, they also embody the author’s particular brand of Epicureanism, which is underpinned by the continuous metamorphosis of body and mind. In this way, Saint-E´vremond’s revisions showcase his ﬁnal views on the afterlife at the very moment that he anticipated his own death and imagined his own posterity. With this focus on the writings of Saint- E´vremond, this article considers the dual notion of ‘the afterlife’, that is to say, the spiritual afterlife and the literary afterlife. Drawing on early modern ideas about death and posterity, this study reveals how Saint-E´vremond grappled with the uncertainty of the spiritual afterlife whilst hoping for a literary afterlife in his attempt to bequeath an ‘authoritative edition’ of his writings to future generations.

the papers of Fouquet's close friend Suzanne du Plessis-Bellière. 3 In this letter, Saint-É vremond mocked and ironized Cardinal Mazarin's conduct during the negotiations of the Treaty of the Pyrenees and it was not the first time that Saint-É vremond's caustic wit had gone too far. 4 Warned about this discovery and his impending imprisonment, Saint-É vremond fled France and came to England where he became one of the Restoration court's most prominent cultural figures. In London he co-founded and hosted a salon with Hortense Mancini, Duchesse de Mazarin, which was described by Mme d'Aulnoy as 'le rendez-vous de tout ce qu'il y avoit d'illustre et de spirituel à Londres'. 5 He was the salon's leading intellectual, collaborating on plays and operas with his fellow habitués for performances at Mancini's apartments until her death in 1699. 6 As he looked over his life's works, Saint-É vremond penned the words of the Roman Epicurean Lucretius onto the flyleaf of the manuscript that he was correcting, which is now referred to as the Godolphin manuscript: 'quod procul a nobis flectat natura gubernans' [may Nature steer this course far, far from us for all our sakes]. 7 Appearing in Book 5 of De rerum natura (c. 55 BCE), this quotation forms part of Lucretius's commentary on the most difficult test of Epicureanism, relating the struggle to lay aside fear in the face of disaster to submit unconditionally to the whims of fate. Reflecting on 'the trinity of Nature', that is the sea, the earth, and the sky, Lucretius ominously predicts this triad's eventual destruction: Yet a single day Will deliver all of these to doom -and all the world's vast Mass and machinery, held up age after age, at last Will come collapsing down. 8 As he imagines humanity's encounter with the ultimate catastrophe, Lucretius's response places all hope in fate: 'May Fortune steer this course far, far from us for all our sakes.' 9 Removing the agency of Roman deities from his narrative of the universe, Lucretius argues that 'fortuna' is the only guiding force to which the cosmos is bound. It is this second quotation that Saint-É vremond writes in the front of his manuscript with the notable variation of 'natura' for 'fortuna'. 10 By inserting this quotation into the opening page of the book, he frames his works with Lucretius's apocalyptic imagery. With this epigraph, Saint-É vremond underlines his doubts in heavenly design and eternal life at a moment when he could not ignore his advanced age and failing health. In this article, I explore Saint-É vremond's views on death and the afterlife, particularly his relationship with Epicureanism, through this Lucretian epigraph and the accompanying annotations in the manuscript. By analysing these annotations alongside Saint-É vremond's philosophical beliefs, I draw attention to the intersection between literary and spiritual afterlives that is rooted in Saint-É vremond's broader preoccupation with posterity. The most extensive corrections are reflections on death and on fear of death, suggesting that the author was eager to clarify his stance on the subject. This emphasis alongside Lucretius's apocalyptic imagery on the opening flyleaf reveals that Saint-É vremond was keenly aware of his own mortality and, of course, of the finality of this editorial project.

Saint-É vremond's beliefs
In many ways, the nod to Lucretius at the start of Saint-É vremond's manuscript is unsurprising. Saint-É vremond had written several essays and letters in which he endorsed Epicureanism, most notably 'Sur les plaisirs' (1647). He had also debated and corresponded with the most important scholars of Epicurus, Pierre Gassendi and François Bernier. 11 These conversations became the basis of Saint-É vremond's essay, 'Sur la morale d'É picure' (1684), in which he declares that 'de toutes les opinions des philosophes touchant le souverain bien, il n'y en a point qui me paroisse si raisonnable que la sienne [d'É picure]'. 12 Nevertheless, this explicit reference to Lucretius's verse takes a particularly prominent place in the Godolphin manuscript. It appears beneath Saint-É vremond's statement of ownership: 'Ce livre apartient a Saintevremond: j quod procul a nobis flectat natura gubernans' [This book belongs to Saint-É vremond: j may Nature steer this course far, far from us for all our sakes]. 13 Together, these two lines intertwine Saint-É vremond's authorship of the writings contained in this manuscript with the 10 He would eventually bequeath this manuscript to his close friend Sidney Godolphin in whose family it was to remain until 1930. poetry of Lucretius, and, in doing so, draw attention to the enduring influence that Epicureanism held over Saint-É vremond's thought. Denys Potts has argued that the substitution of 'fortuna' with 'natura' in Saint-É vremond's citation is deliberate and significant since Saint-É vremond included the same misquotation in his essay 'Sur les Anciens' (c. 1685), though Potts does not elaborate on this significance. 14 It is possible that Saint-É vremond misremembered the quotation, especially as 'natura' is used just as often in Lucretius, almost synonymously. Moreover, it is highly likely that Saint-É vremond knew Lucretius through his reading of Gassendi's De vita et moribus Epicuri (1647), which is strewn with quotations from De rerum natura that mingle with Gassendi's own commentary on 'natura' and atomism. 15 On the other hand, the notion of 'fortuna' in the early modern period still retained medieval connotations of pagan divinity and providence, making the word less compatible with Lucretius's materialist manifesto. Instead, 'natura' would have more aptly conveyed the greater emphasis placed by the scientific and philosophical communities of the seventeenth century on the physical world. 16 This is echoed in an untitled sonnet written by Saint-É vremond around 1647, in which he pleads: Nature, enseigne moy par quel bizarre effort Nôtre Ame hors de nous est quelquefois ravie; Dis nous comme à nos Corps elle même asservie S'agite, s'assoupit; se reveille, s'endort. 17 Quentin Hope notes that Saint-É vremond addresses his plea here to 'Nature' rather than to God, evoking the spirit of the scientific academies that were emerging across Europe. 18 Homing in on his characterization of the soul, Saint-É vremond lingers on its simultaneous autonomy and subservience within the human body. This is reminiscent of Lucretius's observations on the mind and body in Book 3 of De rerum natura. Through the example of fainting, Lucretius argues that loss of consciousness testifies to the mind's ultimate physicality: Earthward he sinks, with all his wits at sea, while now and then He has a vague desire to struggle to his feet again. This line of argument about the loss of consciousness was raised by opponents to Cartesian dualism during Saint-É vremond's lifetime. 20 Yet, in his verses, Saint-É vremond is not fashioning himself as a critic of Descartes. Instead, the poetic voice appears puzzled, and eager for clarity. In both these examples, Saint-É vremond situates this uncertainty within the jurisdiction of 'nature'/'natura'. Away from the lottery of circumstance that characterizes 'fortuna', Saint-É vremond accentuates matter and nature in his rendering of Lucretius.
Looking closely at the flyleaf, the Lucretian epigraph seems to have been crossed out and this has been curiously overlooked in the few discussions of the manuscript. 21 The horizontal lines appear to match those in the rest of the manuscript where Saint-É vremond has indicated sections that he wanted the copyist to omit. Yet, the words here remain easily legible. Unlike elsewhere in the manuscript, Saint-É vremond did not scrawl over them or conceal them with blank paper. I argue that this feeble crossing-out constitutes Saint-É vremond's attempt to signify that he did not want the epigraph included in the published version of his works, but felt no need to obscure it completely in this personal copy. It seems that Saint-É vremond was happy for certain readers to see this epigraph -namely, the manuscript's custodian and Saint-É vremond's close friend Sidney Godolphin -but deemed it inappropriate in the published version given its irreligious undertones. The epigraph therefore remains a valuable angle through which to approach both the manuscript and Saint-É vremond's philosophical position in his final years.
Taking this Lucretian epigraph as a framing device, I seek to stress the implications of Saint-É vremond's corrections in this manuscript. Few authors are given the opportunity to collate their life's works for a final edit, as Saint-É vremond was doing with the Godolphin manuscript. Denys Potts first drew attention to this manuscript in 1965, setting out its contents and the extent of the revisions, and there has been no serious engagement with it since then. 22 Building on his study, I situate the manuscript in the context of Saint-É vremond's writing habits and the subsequent process of reconstructing his works at the end of his life. As Quentin Hope has pointed out, Saint-É vremond's writing habits were erratic; he never felt obliged to explore a topic thoroughly from beginning to end nor even to finish his essays at all. 23 In addition, Saint-É vremond often sent his works to his friends and, if they appeared in print, he would reread them and make corrections to them. 24 This unstructured approach has resulted in multiple versions of several essays, compelling readers to consider how to decode these variations.
At the same time, I aim to foreground these corrections as central observations pertaining to Saint-É vremond's religious outlook at the end of his life. There has been extensive scholarly interest in Saint-É vremond's religious position, particularly his views on salvation. He remained nominally Catholic throughout his life, thanking 'mon temperament qui ne me détache en rien de la religion dans laquelle je suis né'. 25 He publicly maintained his Catholic faith in spite of the hardships that this entailed during his exile in London. 26 It has been argued that Saint-É vremond preferred Catholicism's focus on good works and charity, and that he also saw advantages in the synaesthetic ornament of Catholic worship, namely the music and the incense, evoking an Epicurean inclination towards the senses. 27 Crucially, Saint-É vremond's hope that Louis XIV would eventually commute his exile played the most significant role in his loyalty to Catholicism. As late as 1686, Saint-É vremond continued his efforts to persuade the French king to permit his return to France. 28 That said, his writings suggest a hesitancy to commit fully to the idea of salvation, and he was always more engaged in the social aspect of religion rather than the theological. 29 In the 1930s, Saint-É vremond's editor John Hayward maintained that Saint-É vremond did not believe in salvation and did not practise Catholicism. 30 More recently, Hope has argued that Saint-É vremond believed in Christian charity but not necessarily in Christian doctrine. 31 For his part, René Ternois stressed that Saint-É vremond viewed the question of salvation as a subject that should not concern an honnête homme. 32 Nonetheless, Ternois was adamant that Saint-É vremond did not believe in an afterlife. 33 Similarly, Potts referred to him as a 'radical sceptic', but emphasized that he was not an ardent opponent of religion and in fact advocated Christian moral law. 34 In his own time, Saint-É vremond was regarded as a sceptic, and his refusal to take the last rites on 23  Twenty years later, in the late 1690s, Saint-É vremond was approached by Barbin, and later by Barbin's widow Marie Cochart, to collaborate on a volume of his authentic works headed by a portrait of the author, but he turned both offers down. 42 It was not until 1701 that the young Huguenot refugee Pierre Desmaizeaux was able to convince the eighty-eight-year-old Saint-É vremond to prepare his works for publication, on the strict agreement that they would not be published until after his death. 43 After years of refusal, what changed Saint-É vremond's mind? If we follow Ternois in turning to Desmaizeaux's 'Vie de M. de Saint-É vremond', which appeared in the 1709 edition, Desmaizeaux had asked Saint-É vremond several times to consider publishing a correct edition of his works, but the latter had always refused. 44 However, Saint-É vremond did agree to indicate the works that he had not written, and to correct others, which he passed onto Desmaizeaux. In 1701, Desmaizeaux discovered that Pierre Mortier, a publisher in Amsterdam, was preparing to publish a new edition of Saint-É vremond's writings, and he wrote to Mortier to say that he could provide an accurate compilation of Saint-É vremond's works, which he duly sent in 1702. 45 When Desmaizeaux disclosed this undertaking, Saint-É vremond initially refused to give the project his blessing -but soon afterwards he did grant his approval. 46 This account, however, still fails to justify Saint-É vremond's decision, especially as Saint-É vremond and Desmaizeaux were relatively new acquaintances in 1702. 47 Furthermore, Desmaizeaux often distorted events in his recollections in order to amplify the importance of his own actions. 48 In his narrative of the circumstances leading up to Saint-É vremond's eventual consent, Desmaizeaux is typically vague, subtly implying that his efforts in contacting Mortier impressed on Saint-É vremond the need to reconsider his lifelong unwillingness to publish. Given that Saint-É vremond's decision signals a firm shift away from prioritizing his aristocratic prerogative to avoid publication and towards a greater regard for his posthumous reputation, it is a critical moment. However, Desmaizeaux's well-established unreliability undermines the veracity of his account, necessitating further investigation.
Saint-É vremond's unlikely U-turn may be explained by a close reading of his correspondence around this time with the Abbé de Hautefeuille, which was transcribed and published by Potts  In seeking to discover what Cochart had attributed to him, Saint-É vremond maintains his characteristic playfulness, joking that his writings are 'bagatelles' and that the author's portrait, his portrait, will discourage sales, all of which ironically betray a degree of self-consciousness. The absence of authorial control, as well as his absence from France, compelled Saint-É vremond to discover from others the contents of works supposedly written by him. Several months later, Saint-É vremond writes again to the Abbé in unusually strong language: Il faut que Madame Barbin ait le diable contre moi. Elle imprime sous mon nom un gros livre de nana où il n'y a pas une ligne qui soit de moi hormi une petite lettre sur la critique de mes ouvrages. 51 Lacking his habitually jovial tone, whereby he almost always softens a biting remark with a quip, this letter suggests that Saint-É vremond was genuinely frustrated. He continues with a voice marked by irritation, explaining that another unauthorized edition of his works has appeared in addition to that of Cochart in which there are 'cent quarante maximes où il n'y en a que trente et une que vous trouverez dans mes petits ouvrages. Tout le reste ne m'appartient'. 52 Although he does not mention these fraudulent publications again in his correspondence, it is only a few months later that he acquiesces to Desmaizeaux's request to start work on an authoritative edition of his works, suggesting that the proliferation of false works compelled Saint-É vremond to think seriously about his literary reputation.
Thus, Desmaizeaux set about collecting the pirate copies and various editions of Saint-É vremond's writings as well as Saint-É vremond's personal papers. Desmaizeaux had these writings copied out for Saint-É vremond to read and to correct. 53 The Godolphin manuscript comprises one of these corrected scripts. 54 Before his death, Saint-É vremond gave this manuscript to his friend, Sidney Godolphin. Godolphin had been a frequent member of the Mazarin salon, 50 54 No other manuscript has yet been identified. It is possible that the copyist was still in the process of writing out Saint-É vremond's works for the author to correct and that the endeavour was interrupted by the death of the latter, in which case this would be the only manuscript. It is also possible that Desmaizeaux had prepared other manuscripts that were corrected by Saint-É vremond and that they have been lost. If this is the case, it is nonetheless curious, however, that Saint-É vremond should give only one manuscript to Godolphin for safekeeping. attending readings and dinners at Hortense Mancini's apartments from the early years of the salon until Mancini's death. 55 At the time that Saint-É vremond was making his corrections, Godolphin was one of the few remaining friends from the heyday of the Mazarin salon; the majority of Saint-É vremond's friends were dead. 56 The Godolphin manuscript, then, represents Saint-É vremond's final revision of his writings at an age when he was acutely aware of this finality. In this light, the Lucretian epigraph emerges as his overarching sentiment in compiling a lifetime of works.
Potts maintains that Saint-É vremond was 'too old and infirm to be able to reconstruct with any degree of success the original text of works that had been abridged or censored when Barbin printed them'. 57 Similarly, Ternois frequently alludes to the Godolphin manuscript as 'imparfait' and 'insuffisamment corrigé', playing down the importance of the Godolphin manuscript, since he claims Saint-É vremond was unable to remember the exact rendering of his works so many years later. 58 Despite this, Potts emphasizes that the corrections in this manuscript cannot be ignored by future editors of Saint-É vremond's corpus. 59 Likewise, I argue that the Godolphin manuscript merits study in its own right outside of comparisons with older manuscripts. It is not merely an attempt to reproduce a complete collection of Saint-É vremond's works just as they had originally been written; more importantly, the manuscript provides a glimpse of the lasting impression that Saint-É vremond wanted to commit to posterity by revealing the writings and beliefs that he was willing to let circulate in the public domain. Furthermore, this manuscript is also a part of the ongoing process of self-editing in which Saint-É vremond participated throughout his life. Many of his essays were written over several decades as he sought to refine his style and to reframe altered opinions. Although scholars have identified Saint-É vremond's age as a drawback, his years surely enrich the value of this manuscript, affording the author a rare double perspective that enabled him to revise his works as he looked over a life lived and as he anticipated his literary afterlife, and in turn affording readers of the manuscript the chance to glean these reflections.

The final edit: corrections in the manuscript
Turning to the corrections themselves, we can see that Saint-É vremond's ageing is apparent from the first page of the manuscript. Beneath the manuscript's overall title, there follows the title of the first work: Judging from the shakier hand and the darker ink, it is clear that the words 'dans ma vieillesse' are written in a different hand -Saint-É vremond's. The text of this essay was first composed around 1671 when Saint-É vremond would have been about fifty-eight years old. 61 However, the first pages of this work were added later between 1685 and 1686, when Saint-É vremond would have been seventy-two. 62 Additionally, the Godolphin manuscript bears witness to a number of corrections that Saint-É vremond made in 1702 at the age of eighty-nine. 63 This emphasis on his 'vieillesse' in the letter's title suggests that the text as a whole now represents his views 'sur toutes choses' in his final years. Immediately drawing attention to his ageing mere pages after the Lucretian epigraph, this insistence recalls Saint-É vremond's particular brand of Epicureanism, which is shaped by bodily change and its ramifications on spiritual beliefs.
In an early essay from the 1640s, 'L'Homme qui veut connoître toutes choses, ne se connoît pas lui-même' (1647), Saint-É vremond underscores the organic materiality of Epicurean thought: 'Tout est Corps pour Epicure: Ame, Esprit, Intelligence; tout est Matiere, tout se corrompt, tout finit.' 64 In 'Sur la morale d'É picure', Saint-É vremond extends this imagery of corporeal metamorphosis to argue that physical change is accompanied by philosophical change: Tous les Objets ont des faces differentes, et l'Esprit qui est dans un mouvement continuel, les envisage differemment selon qu'il se tourne: en sorte que nous n'avons, pour ainsi parler, que de nouveaux Aspects, pensant avoir de nouvelles Connoissances. D'ailleurs l'Age apporte de grands changemens dans nôtre Humeur. 65 To support his claim, Saint-É vremond references the distinguished Epicurean scholar, François Bernier, who 'avoüe aujourd'hui qu'après avoir philosophé cinquante ans, il doute des choses qu'il avoit crû les plus assûrées'. 66 This observation is a close rephrasing of Bernier's own reflections in Doutes de Mr. Bernier sur quelques-uns des principaux Chapitres de son Abrégé de la Philosophie de Gassendi (1682), in which Bernier confesses that 'il y a plus de trente ans que je philosophe, très persuadé de certaines choses, et voilà cependant que je commence à en douter', revealing that Saint-É vremond kept abreast of the latest literature on Epicureanism. 67 This relationship between material and intellectual change mirrors Saint-É vremond's defence of Epicurus in 'Sur la morale d'É picure'. In this essay, Saint-É vremond recounts the contradictory reports on Epicurus's life and conduct made by the latter's contemporaries, marvelling that 'je n'ay jamais vû des Sentimens si divers, que ceux qu'on a eus sur les Moeurs de ce Philosophe'. 68 Saint-É vremond reconciles the paradoxical claims about Epicurus, that he was at once indulgent and ascetic to pleasure, by drawing attention to Epicurus's changing health during his lifetime. 'Pour moi', Saint-É vremond concludes, 'je regarde Epicure autrement dans la jeunesse et la santé, que dans la vieillesse et la maladie.' 69 Recasting Solomon's famous dictum in Ecclesiastes, Saint-É vremond postulates that there is a 'tems d'étre sobre et tems d'étre sensual, selon Epicure'. 70 This new maxim becomes especially pertinent in the context of Saint-É vremond's final years, when it might be adapted to say that there is a time to refuse publication and a time to assent, gesturing towards Saint-É vremond's turnaround in 1701. Epicurus had undergone a similar reversal, observed by Saint-É vremond in 'L'Homme qui veut connoître toutes choses, ne se connoît pas lui-même': 'Epicure fait profession ouverte de metre le souverain bien dans les sens, et enseigne que tout finit avec eux; neantmoins ne semble-t-il pas dementir en mourant les maximes dont il a fait profession Durant sa vie?' 71 Ultimately, change is the consistent precept in Saint-É vremond's philosophical outlook. By weaving Bernier's admission into his conceptualization of Epicureanism, Saint-É vremond foregrounds change as central to his own interpretation of Epicurus to include both bodily and spiritual transformation, bolstered by the authorial claims of Bernier. Just as the materiality of the manuscript intersects with (and underscores) the materiality and physical reality of an ageing body, the corrections in this manuscript exemplify these 'grands changemens', providing a more complete account of the author's philosophical trajectory.
I now return to the letter to Créquy in the Godolphin manuscript. After highlighting old age in the letter's title, Saint-É vremond goes on to discuss its shadowy twin -death. Saint-É vremond announces his turning towards 'la Religion dont le soin nous doit occuper avant toutes choses'. 72 There follows a section that has been crossed out, which reads: Instead, having deleted these lines, Saint-É vremond simply introduces his subject before immediately undermining his contemporaries' excessive hope in life. Typically ambiguous, he claims that it is for the 'insensez de compter sur une vie qui doit finir et qui peut finir à toute heure'. 74 On closer inspection, it is evident that the words 'doit finir et' have been added as a correction. This stress achieved through the addition of the verb 'devoir', with its connotations of obligation and burden that are absent from the verb 'pouvoir', serve as a reminder of Saint-É vremond's impending death, but also signal his explicit acceptance of his inevitable fate.
Saint-É vremond's insistence on humanity's preoccupation with death and salvation is reinforced by the corrections that he made to the aforementioned 'L'Homme qui veut connoître toutes choses, ne se connoît pas lui-même'. Writing to an unnamed friend, Saint-É vremond seeks to disengage him from his determined study of philosophy, which has made his friend anti-social. More significantly, since his friend's search entails confirming 'ce que vous estes, et ce que vous serez un jour quand vous cesserez d'estre icy', Saint-É vremond is at pains to stress that many philosophers 'l'ont cherché comme vous, Monsieur, et ils l'ont cherché vainement'. 75 Indeed, Saint-É vremond had also been preoccupied by the (im)mortality of the soul in his youth but had eventually renounced his investigations, particularly after his meetings with Gassendi. 76 To this discouragement, Saint-É vremond adds the following correction: Votre curiosité a este de tous les siecles aussi bien que vos reflexions et l'incertitude de nos connoissances. Le plus devot ne peut venir a bout de croire touiours ni le plus impie de ne croire iamais, et cest un des Malheurs de notre vie de ne pouvoir naturellement nous assurer sil y en a une autre ou s'il ny en a point. 77 While recognizing the universality of his friend's predicament, Saint-É vremond conveys the ultimate uncertainty of seeking answers on life after death of which neither the most devout nor the most impious can be sure.
This response is reminiscent of Epicurus's challenges to the non-contradiction principle. This Aristotelian principle held that two opposite assertions could not be simultaneously true. Without denying the principle entirely, Epicurus reveals its inadequacies in his letters to Herodotus and to Pythocles where he repeatedly allows two alternative explanations to be equally true if neither can be proven to be false. 78 In the same vein, Saint-É vremond maintains the equal possibility of either the mortality or the immortality of the soul since neither outcome can be proven with certainty. Unlike Gassendi, who had reconciled Epicureanism with Christianity by inserting free will, divine governance, creation, and the immortality of the soul into his argument, Saint-É vremond appears resigned to the uncertainty of salvation. 79 This correction is particularly fascinating as it raises several questions over why Saint-É vremond inserted it into the Godolphin manuscript. As advice, it could no longer allay the fears of the unnamed addressee, who would have received the original letter nearly fifty-five years earlier. Was this candid statement part of the 1647 letter but censored by Barbin, owing to its frank admission of the possibility of nothingness after death? Or did Saint-É vremond decide to append these lines later in 1702 to illustrate what he saw as a fruitless philosophical investigation?
This endorsement of resignation to the uncertainty of an afterlife forms a consistent part of Saint-É vremond's other writings on death. The correction echoes the central argument in 'Sur les plaisirs', in which he maintains that 'Pour vivre heureux, il faut faire peu de Réflexions sur la Vie'. 80 For Saint-É vremond, all that could 'effacer l'horreur du passage' was 'la persuasion d'une autre Vie attendue avec Confiance, dans une assiete à tout esperer et à ne rien craindre'. 81 Here, there is a subtle suggestion about the benefits of a lively faith, which deflects from the terror of absolute oblivion in death with the promise of 'une autre Vie'. Saint-É vremond recognizes that this yearning after faith is a means of easing the dread of an inevitable grave. Nonetheless, he returns to a position of acceptance, asserting that 'il faut aller insensiblement où tant d'Honnêtes-gens sont allés devant nous, et où nous serons suivis de tant d'autres'. 82 Stemming from a powerlessness that is an essential facet of the human condition, 'un des Malheurs de notre vie' in the words of Saint-É vremond, this resignation is the central tenet of Lucretius's presentation of Epicurean philosophy. 83 The day of the apocalypse that Lucretius presents and that Saint-É vremond inscribed into his manuscript, entailing the destruction either of the world or of the individual, is certain in its eventuality yet undetermined in its temporality (certain to happen but without a fixed date). In what could be described as a paraphrase of Lucretius's verse, Saint-É vremond's response to this uncertainty is to submit to fortune and to avoid tormenting himself with the subject's inconclusiveness.

Conclusion: an Epicurean farewell
Like Lucretius's poem, De rerum natura, Saint-É vremond's project in editing his lifetime of works remains incomplete. Just eighteenth months after Desmaizeaux finally persuaded him to publish his works, Saint-É vremond fell ill, and died on 9 September 1703. According to the doctor Le Fèvre who attended him in these final hours, Saint-É vremond refused a priest 'sans démentir son caractere de Philosophe Epicurien qu'il a soustenu jusqu'au bout'. 84 In the process of his revisions, Saint-É vremond was able to reconstruct his works as he had originally written them before the alterations of the censor. However, he was also able to add and omit sections to improve his works in both their style and content, thereby confusing the notion of authorial 'completeness'. The result is a varied and at times fragmented collection of Saint-É vremond's writings, which offers alternative essays and raises questions over the most authentic versions of his works. In keeping with his strand of Epicureanism, which is defined by continuous change, it is fitting that Saint-É vremond's bibliographical legacy is similarly dynamic. The Godolphin manuscript now emerges as one of several sources that bear witness to Saint-É vremond's ever-changing outlook.
During the time he spent re-reading and revising his works, it must have occurred to Saint-É vremond that he was living a similar experience to Epicurus, in their comparable diseases and in their ability to prepare for death. Epicurus was famously criticized for seemingly defying his own teachings on death and posterity by writing a will that would ensure his legacy for future generations. Saint-É vremond not only bequeaths his words, his beliefs, and his ideas to posterity but, with the Lucretian epigraph, he also leaves a visible, indeed an aptly material, trace of the philosophical system that was most influential on his writings. And yet, in attempting to control his legacy and the fate of his works and reputation, Saint-É vremond appears to resist submitting to fate after all. For the man sent into exile because of his irrepressible compulsion to satirize, and whose works are always brimming with irony, perhaps this Lucretian epigraph is his final joke to himself. 84 Cited by Ternois in 'Saint-É vremond devant la mort', p. 143.

Abstract
This article examines the religious beliefs and writings of the French exile Charles de Saint-É vremond in light of the corrections that he made to his works in the final months of his life. These corrections provide significant emphases and nuances to Saint-É vremond's view on death and salvation at a time when he could not ignore his own advancing years. Yet, while the corrections might appear to 'clarify' his views, they also embody the author's particular brand of Epicureanism, which is underpinned by the continuous metamorphosis of body and mind. In this way, Saint-É vremond's revisions showcase his final views on the afterlife at the very moment that he anticipated his own death and imagined his own posterity. With this focus on the writings of Saint-É vremond, this article considers the dual notion of 'the afterlife', that is to say, the spiritual afterlife and the literary afterlife. Drawing on early modern ideas about death and posterity, this study reveals how Saint-É vremond grappled with the uncertainty of the spiritual afterlife whilst hoping for a literary afterlife in his attempt to bequeath an 'authoritative edition' of his writings to future generations.