Epicurus and his professional rivals

:" ·, i!' "'

EPICURUS AND HIS PROFESSIONAL RIVALS.

I. Introduction

For a historical appreciation of any system of thought a certain amount of biographical information is needed. Other-wise we may never progress beyond vague speculation about its philosophical ancestry ; for the same doctrine can just as well be fostered by the negative influence of one school of thought as by the positive influence of another. If, on the n I other hand, we can . find out whom its founder "1 and what he thought of them, our hand is immediately strengthened. In this respect we are very much better furnished with clues about the origins of Epicureanism than we are about those of Stoicism and Scepticism, the other two

·schools that grew up in the generation following the death of Aristotle. But my feeling is that writers on Epicureanism have either ignored these clues or handled them far too uncritically. The object of this study is to establish just what Epicurus did think of certain philosophers in whom he was especially interested.

The first essential is a brief outline of Epicurus' early career. Born is Samos in 341 B.C., he was the son of an Athenian cleruch, a schoolmaster named Neocles. He turned to the study of philosophy in his early teens, impatient, it was said, at his schoolteacher's inability to answer his question : «<f Hesiod says 'There first was created Chaos', what was the Chaos created from? ». The teacher replied that it was the job of the so-called philosophers to answer such questions. It was probably at this time that Epicurus began to attend the lectures of a local Platonist named Pamphilus. At the age of eighteen he had to travel to Athens for his year's military training. This was in 323, when Aristotle had already quit Athens for Chalcis. At the Academy Xenocrates was .in charge, and Epicurus could have attended his lectures, but did not. I At some stage, probably after his year in Athens,2 he studied under Nausiphanes ofTeos, a disciple ofDemocritus. In 311/0, at the age of thirty-one, he set up his first school. This was in Mytilene, but he quickly moved on to Lampsacus, where he taught until 307/6. Then, at the age of thirty-five, he travelled to Athens, bought the plot of land which was to

David Sedley

David Sedley ‘Epicurus and his professional rivals’ in J. Bollack and A. Laks (eds.), Etudes sur l’Epicurisme antique dLille 1976 121-59

122 David Sedley

become famous as the Garden, and established his school there. He had already while in Asia Minor gathered around him most of those who were subsequently to stand out as the leading figures of the Epicurean movement. Many, including his closest associate Metrodorus, joined him in Athens, but some stayed behind to keep up the Epicurean groups in Mytilene and Lampsacus. In his travels, Teos, Lampsacus and Athens had provided the settings for a series of encounters with other philosophers, and these did not fail to leave their mark on him.

2. Diogenes Laertius X 6-8.

Epicurus still retains a reputation for having «set a depth of polemic hitherto unplumbed among ancient philosophers») One product of this is a massive study published by Ettore Bignone in 1936,4 in which Epicurus' formative period is pic-tured as one of sustained and bitter polemics against philoso-phies which can in some sense or other be described as sceptical, and especially against the early works of Aristotle. Such mis-representations (as I believe them to be) have been made possible by the uncritical acceptance of an ancient tradition about Epicurus' malice towards other philosophers, preserved in Diogenes Laertius X 6-8. It is around this passage that I shall construct my own argument. Diogenes is listing the claims of Epicurus' detractors, before moving on to those of his sympathisers. K.ai p.ilv K.ai Ttp.oK.poxf/<: ev role; bwypa!.pop.evot<: Ev!.ppav-roic;, o Mf1rpo8wpov p.ev ab€AI.f!O<;, p.a'IJfiTil<: 8€ avrov rf]c; axo"Af]c; '-Pf/OL 8ic; avrov rf]<; fzp.epac; ep.eiv CJ:/1'0 rpvi.PfJc;, eaV70V 7€ bLf/· '"'fElrat p.6'"'ft<: eK.I.f!V'Yeiv Laxv-aat 7a<: vvK.7eptvac; eK.eivac; !.pLAOOO!.pLac; K.ai rilv J.l.VOTLK.iiV eK.EiVfiV OVVDLa'"'fW'"'ff]V. TOV 7€ 'E11'iK.ovpov 1ro"AA.a K.a7a 7ov AD'"'fOV il'"'fVOf/K.evat K.ai 1ro"Av p.a"li.A.ov K.ara 7ov {3iov · TO 7€ awua EA€€LVW<; bLa·

And also Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, and pupil of Epicurus until he left the school,. says in his work called Euphranta that Epicurus vomited twice daily from overeating, and tells how he himself hardly ma-naged to escape those late-night philosophy sessions and that mystical fraternity. He says that Epicurus argued ignorantly and lived much more ignorantly ; that his physical condition was piti-

' ii,

i1

f

Epicurus and his professional rivals 123

K.eia'!Jm, we: 1ro"AA.wv erwv P.il Mvaa'!Jat a11'0 TOV !.pOpeiov 8tavaarf]vm · p.vav re ava-A.iaK.etv fzp.epfla{av de; 71!v

20 rpa11'etav, we; avro<; ev rf1 1rpoc; Aeovnov emaro"Af1 '"'fpa-l.f!EL K.ai ev mic; TOV<; ev MvnA1Jv'!1 l.f!LAOOOI.f!OV<; • avvei-vai 1'€ avni) 1'€ K.ai Mf/T po-

25 8wp£J? emipac; K.al a"AA.ac;, Map.p.apov K.ai 'H8eiav K.al 'Epwnov K.ai NtK.iowv. K.ai ev TaL<; f11'T0: K.ai TptaK.OVTa {3{{3)\0Lc; mic; Tiepl !.pVOEW<; Ta

30 1r"ll.eiam mvra A.fl"Yew K.ai CtVTL'"'fpa!.pELV EV avmic; aAAOL<; 7€ K.ai Navat!.pavEL ra 11'"ll.eia-ra, K.ai avrf1 !.paOK.€LV ovrwc: · «a"AA.' er nc: d.AA.oc;

35 elxe K.CtK.ELVOc; w8ivwv rilv a1ro rov ar6p.aroc; K.aVXfiOLV 71!v OOI.f!WTLK.f]v, K.a'l9a1rep K.al QAAOL 11'0AAOi TWV avopa-11'0bWV». K.ai avrov 'E11'LK.OV·

40 pov ev mic; E11'WTOAaic; 11'€pl Navat!.pcivovc; A.f.'"'fetv · «mum 1i'Ya'"'f€V avrov eic; EK.OTaOW rotaVTf/V ware p.ot A.otoo-peia'!Jat K.al a11'oK.a"ll.eiv DL·

45 8aaK.a"ll.ov». 11'A€VJ.l.OVa 7€ aV70V eK.aAEL K.al Ct'"'fpap.p.a-TOV K.al a1rarewva K.al 11'6p-Vf1V • rove; re 1repl TIA.arwva

K.ai avrov 50 TIA.arwva xpvaovv · K.ai

'ApWT07EAf/ aawrov,< K.al > K.aTU!.pa'"'fOVTa rilv 1rarp<J.;av OVO{av 07paTEV€O'!JaL, K.at !.papp.aK.011'WAEiv · '-POPJ.l.OI.f!O·

55 pov 7€ Tipwra'"'fopav K.ai '"'fpa-l.f!Ea K.al ev K.wp.atc; '"'fpap.p.am 8toaa-K.ew · 'HpaK.A€LTOV TE K.VK.f/·

ful, so that he had for many years been incapable of ri-. sing from his litter ; that he would spend a mina a day on food, as he himself writes in the Letter to Leontion and in those To the Philo-sophers in Mytilene ; that he and Metrodorus also had other courtesans living with them-Mammaron,S Hedeia, Erotion and Nicidion ; that in the thirty-seven books On Nature he says little that is new, 6 and in them attacks, among others, especially Nausiphanes, and says in his own words, ((That man, if anyone, was in labour with the sophistical pomposity issuing from his mouth, like many another slave» ; and that Epicurus himself in his letters says of Nausiphanes, ((This made him so beside himself as to insult me and nickname me 'schooltea-cher'>>. And he called him 'jelly fish', and 'illiterate', and 'swindler' and prosti-tute'. And the Platonists he called 'Dionysus-flatte-rers' ; Plato himself'golden'; Aristotle a debauchee, and one who had squandered his family property and joined the army, and a drug-gist ; Protagoras a porter, Democritus' secretary, and a village schoolmaster; Hera-clitus 'The Stirrer' ; Demo-critus 'Lerocritus' (Judge of Idiocies) ; Antidorus 'Sanni-

124 David Sedley

n]v, Kai Ll.1]JJ.OKptrov A17p6. KpLrov, Kai 'Avr{8wpov 'Lavvi8wpov · rove; re K1JVOV<; exiJpovc; rf]c; 'EA.f..a. 8oc;. Kai rove; DWAEKTLKOV<; noA.v..p-(}6povc; · ITvppwva 8€ CLJJ.af}f] Kai ana{8evrov.

dorus' (Giver of Foolish-ness) ; the Cyzicenes 'ene-mies of Greece'; the Dialec-ticians 'destruction-mon-gers' ;7 and Pyrrho 'une-ducated' and 'uncultured'.

26 Miq..Lpapov : Mappapwv BPOH f : Mappcipewv F : Mappcipwv Spengel, Usener 34 a'A/1.' er nr; a!I.A.or; Stephan us : a/1./1.' etrwr; • af..X B : a/1./l.mw a/1./1.' pac : a/1./1.' 1/ nr; a/1./1.' F : a/1./1.' trwaav Usener 35 KaKeivor; dgt : "fap Keivor; sac FaC pac 51< Kcu'>supplevi: < ov> Hermann 64 rro"A.vl(J{}opovr; Bake : rro"A.vl(J{}ovepovr; codd ..

This catalogue of abuse has done Epicurus' reputation no good. It has given the impression of an upstart who, for lack of good arguments of his own, resorted to wholesale character-as-sassination. But then Herodotus m,ight have a similar repu-tation tf we had nothing but Plutarch's De Herodoti maligni-tate to go on. We should suspend judgment long enough to ask ourselves how and why anyone might have compiled this De Epicuri malignitate. Unfortunately throughout this cen-tury credence has been given to the extraordinary view of Wilhelm Cronert that the source of these epithets was a single letter by Epicurus.S Cronert himself, reconstructing this bizarre letter, arbitrarily incorporated in it a variety of further att(!cks by Epicurus for which he thought he had found evidence, and concluded that the one letter - which has since become famous as the Letter to the Philosophers in Mytilene9 - vilified Pythagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Democritus, Protagoras, Hipparchus, Nausiphanes, Socrates, Plato, the Platonists, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Heraclides of Pontus, Phaedo, Aristippus, the Cynics, Stilpo, Alexinus, Antidorus, Pyrrho, and Zeno of Citium.l 0 Then, as if to refute his own argument, he commented that Epicurus would never· have written a letter like this, and that it must have been a forgery. At least two subsequent scholars have also welcomed the forgery theory, as an easy way of getting 'Epicurus off the hook.ll

Such an indiscriminate barrage of abuse, even if it could be fathered on Epicurus, might persuade us that we ·were dealing with a psychopath, but would leave us none the wiser as to his philosophical ancestry. However, even at first glance the various epithets look too heterogeneous to fit Cronert's


account. They must have been culled from a number of different sources. Some are merely nicknames, habitual ways of referring to opponents rather than insults applied on one particular occasion. That this is how he used 'The Jellyfish' of his former teacher Nausiphanes is clear from its occurrence in a sentence which survives verbatim from one of his letters.l 2 On the other hand the epithet 'illiterate', also applied to Nausiphanes, is presumably not a nickname but a description. These and other differences will become clear in the paragraphs which follow.

3. Aristotle and Protagoras.

The sayings about Aristotle and Protagoras are sharply distinguished from the others by their anecdotal character. Diogenes' source has tried to present them as straightforward abuse, but fortunately we can compare his version with a less biased report of Epicurus' original words, and the contrast is revealing. In Book VIII of Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae the Cynic Cynulcus concludes a disquisition on Aristotle's zoolo-gical works with these words : 1 3

Although I've still plenty to say about the Druggist's foolish words, I'll stop - although I know that even Epicurus, that great devotee of truth, says this of him in the Letter on Occupations, that having squandered his family property he joined the army, and that, doing badly in it, he took up the drug-trade ; then, he says, since Plato's school had opened, he entered it and attended the lectures, being not ungifted, and gradually attained the character14 for which he is known. I know that Epicurus is the only person to have accused him of this, and that neither Eubulides nor even Cephisodorus dared make such an accusation against the Stagirite, although they even published works against him. And in the same letter Epicurus also says that the sophist Protagoras, having been a porter and a wood-carrier, first became Democritus' secretary. He impressed Democritus by some special way he had of tying up logs, and through this start he was taken under his wing. He also became a school-teacher in some village. And it was from these activities that he embarked on the business of sophistry. And I too, fellow diners, from this long speech shall now embark on the business of gluttony.

Although this story of Aristotle was a well known one

126 David Sedley

when Athenaeus wrote,l 5 Epicurus was the sole source for it, and we had better be more cautious than Athenaeus about believing it.l 6 On the other hand, the account of Protagoras' early career belongs to a biographical tradition going back at least to Aristotle.! 7 Protagoras, as a young man, had a job carrying logs. He invented some device which made the work easier. This won him the admiration of his fellow-Abderite Democritus, who, seeing in him a potential philosopher, undertook his education.

Now clearly these tales could sound slanderous to an unsympathetic ear, especially if quoted without a context. But if Epicurus' aim in recounting them had been malicious, would he have weakened his account of Aristotle's dissolute early life by adding that when he discovered philosophy he turned out to be gifted? The title of the letter, On Occupa-tions, confirms that the theme was the occupations which some philosophers had pursued before turning to philosophy. Now it happens that in later literature examples are sometimes cited of people who progressed from ignoble beginnings to become distinguished philosophers. And among them are two pupils of Epicurus - Mys, a slave, 1 8 and Leontion, who had been a courtesan.19 It must have been to pupils like these that Epicurus addressed his Letter on Occupations, in an attempt to convince them that their humble past careers need not stand in the way of their becoming philosophers. In a context of this kind his citation of Aristotle's career, however little basis it may have in fact, points not to con-tempt but to esteem.20 A New York art school used to advertise its courses with a poster which read, «At the age of thirty-five Gaugin worked in a bank». The point was not, of course, to mock Gaugin as a bank-clerk.

This account of Epicurus' attitude to Aristotle lends support to some important work done since Bignone, by Furley and others.21 This is beginning to reveal an Epicurus acquainted with some portions of Aristotle's school treatises, and sometimes making constructive use of their arguments in formulating his own doctrines. I doubt if Bignone's picture of the young Epicurus vehemently polemicising 'against the early, Platonising works of Aristotle, while remaining altogether ignorant of the school treatises, ·can any longer be taken seriously. That Epicurus knew at least some of Aristotle's school treatises is virtually proved by a fragment of a letter,. written by Epicurus or by one of


his contemporary followers; in which Aristotle's Analytics are specifically named.22 The only attack by Epicurus on Aristotle for which any real evidence exists was one in which he denounced the teaching of rhetoric.2 3 If, as remains probable, Epicurus had further occasion to refute.Peripatetic doctrines, his target is more likely to have been Theophrastus. For Theophrastus was head of the Lyceum during most of Epicurus' residence in Athens, and by all accounts enjoyed enormous popularity. He was credited 'with a following of some two thousand pupils, and it was said, with some exagge-ration, that the entire population of Athens turned out for his funerai.24 It comes as no surprise to find that the attested titles of Epicurus' works include one Against Theophrastus, 2 5 though none against Aristotle. A living rival is more of a threat than a dead one.

4. Timocrates.

The report of the Letter on Occupations in Diogenes Laertius is meticulously accurate in its vocabulary but thoroughly deceitful in the slant it puts on it. Clearly then the other supposed insults, stripped of their original context, must also be approached with caution. To explain the hostile reporting, we need look no further than the special grudge borne by its source, Timocrates.26 A brother of Metrodorus, he too joined the school, but in time broke with it and became its implacable opponent.2 7 Epicurus wrote a work Maxims concerning Emotions, against Timocrates, and another work against him in three books.28 Metrodorus also wrote extensively against him.2 9

A digression at this point will help show how extraordina-rily successful Timocrates was in contaminating the biogra-phical tradition about Epicurus and Metrodorus. One example can be found in the first book of Cicero's De natura deorum. Cotta, the Academic spokesman, in his refutation of Epicurean theological doctrine, complains of the general belligerence of Epicureans to their opponents. Among others he cites the case of Epicurus himself :-3 o

...... although Epicurus slanderously attacked Aristotle, vilely defamed Phaedo the Socratic, wrote whole books tearingapart Timocrates, the brother of his friend Metrodorus, because of some philosophical disagreement or other, was

.128 David Sedley

ungrateful even to Democritus whose teaching he followed, ·and showed such hostility to Nausiphanes, his.owrr teacher from whom he had learned nothing .

. list coincides with that of Diogenes Laertius in naming slanders against Aristotle, Democritus and Nausiphanes. The defamation of Phaedo is attested only_ here, but is not hard to explain. Phaedo, although he wrote Socratic dialogues and even founded a short-lived school at Elis, was best remem-bered for the fact that before becoming a pupil of Socrates he had been a slave and a male prostitute.31 It is not easy to believe that Epicurus found. cause to wage a philosophical polemic against this long-dead and uninfluential figure, but only too likely that he gave an account of Phaedo's unusual background alongside those of Protagoras and Aristotle in the Letter on Occupations, and that this too was later distorted by Timocrates into the appearance of slander.

But what is most revealing in Cicero's list is its inclusion of an attack on Timocrates himself. After his own lifetime Timocrates seems to have been unknown as a philosopher, being remembered only as someone who had fallen out with Epicurus. So what is he doing here in the company of Aristotle, Phaedo, Nausiphanes and Democritus? The diffi-culty : vanishes -once we recognise that Timocrates himself was not only Diogenes Laertius' source but also Cicero's. For Timocrates · had an obvious axe to grind. Epicurus had denounced him ; and in his own defence he set out, it seems, to show that Epicurus had similarly slandered all the great philosophers, and that he was thus in good company. >' For confirmation that Timocrates was Cicero's ultimate source we need only read on a few pages. For the only other mention of Timocrates in Cicero's entire works occurs soon afterwards in the same speech of Cotta, this time in his critique ofthe Epicurean concept of p,leasure. Cotta tells how the .. Academic philosopher Philo of . Larisa often quoted verbatim. Epicurus' . sayings on pleas:ure, and many more shameless ones of Metrodorus :32 For Metrodorus attacks his own brother Timocrates for hesitating to make the belly the· measure of everything contributing to a happy life. Notice the similarity to the previous passage, with Timocrates once again cast in the role of innocent victim of persecution. My confident guess is that both these parts of Cotta's speech derive from a single Academic source, presumably Philo,3 3 Cicero'·s former teacher, whose information will have come ultimately from Timocrates' anti-Epicurean writings .. '.

., Epicurus and his professional rivals 129

Timocrates re-appears in this guise of innocent victim in some anecdotes preserved by another voice of the Academic tradition, Plutarch. These are found in a section of his anti-Epicurean work Against Colotes and in a very similar passage of his later work Epicurus' Doctrines Make a Pleasant Life Impossible. Both passages seem to contain many echoes of Timocrates' attacks on Epicurus and Metrodorus ;34 and at one point we are given fuller details of the charge preserved by Cicero, that Metrodorus assailed Timocrates for doubting that all happiness can be . measured by the belly :-3 5

Does this not resemble Metrodorus' words written to his brother, ((There is no need to save the Greeks or to win honours from them for wisdom, but to eat and to drink wine, Timocrates, gratifying not harming the belly? » And again in the same letter he says, <dt brought me joy andfortitude to learn from Epicurus the right way to gratify the belly)), and <dt is the belly, natural philosopher Timocrates, with which the good is concerned)),

I feel strongly that the source of these remarks was not Metrodorus' letter itself, but Timocrates' distorted report of it - with the vocatives inserted to strengthen its air of authenticity. There is no doubt that both Epicurus and Metrodorus taught that a stable condition of physical wellbeing, including in· particular absence of hunger, is a major factor of happiness. But the advocacy of gluttony .quoted by Cicero and Plutarch reads like a malicious parody of the doctrine. Furthermore, there is good independent evidence that it was parodied in this way in Epicurus' own lifetime, and that Timocrates was one of the culprits. The chief item of evidence is Epicurus' own words in a passage of his Letter to Menoeceus, which also deserves attention as a correct statement of the Epicurean doctrine on gastronomic pleasures :-3 6 ·

Sellsufficiency we consider a great good, not so that we may in all circumstances make do with little, but so that if we do not have much we may make do with the little, in the true persuasion that luxury is best enjoyed by those who need it least, and that anything natural is easilv attainable while that which serves no purpose is hard to Plain flavours bring the same pleasure as a luxurious diet whenever all the pain brought about by want is removed, and bread and water afford the highest pleasure when taken by someone

130 David Sedley

in need of them. Therefore to grow accustomed to plain, and not luxurious, fare is an essential ingredient of health, makes a man resolute for the necessary activities of life, disposes us the better for the luxuries when we do meet them from time to time, and makes us courageous in the face of fortune. So when we say that the end is pleasure, we do not mean the pleasures of the debauched and those that are found in high living, as some people out of ignorance and lack of sympathy or through misunderstanding us believe we do ( w<; ILV€\ a"(VOOiwre<; K.ai ovx Of.J.OAO"(OVV7€\ 11 K.aK.W\ EK.oex6p.evot

but the absence both of bodily pain and of mental disquiet. For it is not endless drinking bouts and parties, nor the enjoyment of boys and women, nor that of fish-dishes and the other contents of a luxurious table, that makes the pleasant life, but reasoning which stays sober, seeks out the reasons for all choice and avoidance, and banishes the opinions that cause most of the disturbance in men's minds.

Here we have seen Epicurus complaining that his doctrine of qualified hedonism bordering on asceticism37 is being mistaken for one of downright debauchery. And so it was. Timon of Phlius, Sceptic philosopher and younger contem-porary of Epicurus, rlescribed him in the third book of his Silloi as «"(aarpl rfl<; ov A.ap.vpwrepov ovo€v»3 8 - gratifying his stomach, the greediest thing in the world. Still in the third century B.C. (although we cannot assign exact dates) we find Epicurus singled out in New Comedy as the high-priest of gluttony. Damoxenus in the Syntrophoi39 has a cook who claims to have learnt the techniques and refinements of his art in Epicurus' school. Baton in the Synexapaton40 has an enraged father accusing his son's paedagogos of debauching the boy ; and the paedagogos replies that he has merely been acting in accordance with the teachings of wise men, or at any rate of Epicurus, who says that pleasure is the good. The same playwright in his Androphonos41 has one character arguing as follows : Being able to go to bed with women, and to buy two jars of Lesbian wine - that is the wise man, that is the good. What 1 am saying now is what Epicurus said. If every-one lived the life I live, there'd be no misfits and no adulte-rers. Finally Hegesippus in the Philetairoi :42 The wise Epicurus, when someone asked him what is the good which men always seek, replied 'Pleasure'. Well said, great sage!


There is no good in the world that compares with eating, for it combines goodness with pleasure.

These entertaining distortions are no doubt typical of the misrepresentation bewailed by Epicurus. Why did they pick on Epicurus, who recommended only the neutral pleasures of absence of pain and absence of worry? Of course, he was not the first philosopher to be unfairly satirised in Greek comedy ; and a professed hedonist always runs the risk of being portrayed as a sensualist. 4 3 Nevertheless, in this case there are reasons for pinning a major share of the blame on one man, Timocrates. Notice, for instance, that Timon's description of Epicurus as "(aarpl

p.evo<; recalls Metrodorus' supposed words to Timocrates that Epicurus taught him "(aarpl A stronger indication comes from Alciphron's imaginary letter from Leontion, the mistress of Epicurus, to Lamia, the mistress of Demetrius Poliorcetes. Leontion bewails her fate in the clut-ches of this hypochondriac, suspicious, abusive old lecher.45 How often, she asks Lamia, do you suppose that I've taken him on one side and said «What are you doing, Epicurus? Don't you know that Timocrates the brother46 of Metrodorus is making fun of you for this in the assemblies, in the theatres, among the other sophists?)) But what can he do? He is shameless in his passion. Now Alciphron, although writing in the second or third century A.D., was well informed about the literature of the fourth and third centuries B.C., and his description of Timocrates publicly making fun of Epicurus' lechery, even allowing for a degree of exaggeration, certainly contains a core of truth. We have already seen ( §2) some examples of the debauched life which Timocrates attributed to Epicurus : he vomited twice a day from overeating ; he spent a mina a day on food ; he and Metrodorus shared five courtesans.

My suggestion is that Timocrates waged a one-man cam-paign against Epicurus and Metrodorus, trading on his special position as a former member of the school's inner circle.47 His campaign was extraordinarily successful, for from that day to this the name of Epicurus has been associated with gluttony. It is probably Timocrates whom we have to thank for the modern meaning of «epicure». The misnomer first occurs in English literature in the sixteenth century, when Plutarch, whose anti-Epicurean works trade heavily on the gluttony charge, enjoyed enormous popularity.

I 132 David Sedley

, ·,,,, It does not of course follow that all Timocrates' allegations 'against Epicurus and Metrodorus are false. His handling of · Epicurus' biographical accounts of Protagoras and Aristotle : suggests that he preferred to bend the truth rather than jettison it altogether. That Metrodorus did write to Timocrates on the topic of pleasure is not in doubt,48 and we know that

' in doing so he defended Epicurus' doctrine that in addition ·to momentary «kinetic» pleasure (i7oovi] Kara KtVT/OtV) there

.·· is a long-term state of «katastematic» pleasure, which for the body consists in absence of pain (a1rovia) and for the mind in

· absence of worry It is quite possible that he also quoted with approval Epicurus' remark that The pleasure

·· of the stomach is the beginning and root of all good, and · wisdom and excess are judged by reference to it. What 1 ., suppose Epicurus means here is that until you learn ' moderation in eating and drinking you will never learn the , moderation necessary for the achievement of other plea-

" sures ;49 but the saying was easily misrepresented as giving pride ·of place to gastronomic pleasures. If Metrodorus

·really wrote to Timocrates that he had learnt from Epicurus . how · to gratify the belly, he must have added that the · way to do so was to limit its desires. If so, Timocrates' crime

was to quote him out of context: But when we come to the remarks that seem to rriake gastronomic pleasures the only good, I can see no alternative to regarding them as maliciously fathered on Metrodorus by Timocrates. My most charitable suggestion is that Timocrates meant to denounce Metrodorus' doctrine of pleasure, combined with the well-known Epi-curean disrespect for political careerists,S o as tantamount to saying that there was no need to save Greece or to win honours for wisdom, and that all that mattered was eating and drinking, but that for rhetorical effect he used the form of direct quotation.

5. Heraclitus.

·. With these clues as to the type of distortion practised by Timocrates, we can now return to the list of abusive names

· whose use he attributed to Epicurus. It is obvious to-anyone browsingin the surviving writings of Epicurus that he suffered from a deep-seated aversion to mentioning his rivals by name. Usually they appear simply as «someone» or «some people»,

. ,J ' • • . • • ' •


or else generically as «the physicists», «the sophists», or «the astronomers». (Only once in his surviving philosophical works does he name a philosopher outside his own school, and this is Empedocles'Sl ). No doubt the nicknames listed by Timocrates served a similar function. But even nicknames are not necessarily indicative of contempt. Epicurus' contempo-rary Timon of Phlius had nicknames for everybody including himself - Cyclops, because of his one eye -::- and called Anaxagoras o Noik,52 a tag which picked out his central doctrine but at the same time expressed esteem for him. Similarly when Epicurus labelled Heraclitus o the Stirrer, he was neatly picking out what was regarded as Heraclitus' central doctrine, that of eternal flux, and at the same time punning on his metaphor of the KVKewv, or barley-drink, which in the words of Heraclitus separates you do not stir it.53 It would need something more than Timocrates' word to persuade me that Epicurus' intention here was malicious.

6. Plato .

On Timocrates' list there remain Democritus, Nausiphanes, Pyrrho, Plato and the Platonists, the Dialecticians, the Cyzicenes, and Antidorus. I shall have nothing to say about Antidorus, since I do not know who he was.54 The others are all either contemporaries with whom Epicurus was personally acquainted or, in some sense, his direct philoso-phical forerunners.

I include Plato as a forerunner for the reason, mentioned earlier, that Platonism seems to have presented the young Epicurus with his first excursion into philosophy. There are few of his mature doctrines which could not be explained in some sense as reactions against Platonism. But the only polemic that can be pinned down with certainty is in the papyrus fragments of Book XIV of his Tie pi 55 Much of the small surviving portion is devoted. to criticising the theory of elements put forward in Plato's Timaeus. But in all probability it is part of a systematic refutation of all rival physical theories ;56 and if so it has no special significance for Epicurus' reaction against Plato. When Epicurus called Plato «the Golden» he probably had in mind Plato's proposal in Republic III to divide the citizens into three classes called

134 David Sedley

Golden, Silver and Bronze, the Golden ones being the philosophers. 57 As for the title Dionysus-flatterers which he gave to the Platonists, this was a name in regular use for the flatterers of the Syracusan tyrant Dionysius, 58 and in using it of the Platonists he was clearly mocking their quest for political influence, especially in Sicily. But Epicurus' reaction against Platonism is already a well-worked topic, and I shall move on.

7. Democritus.

No one will dispute that the greatest single influence on Epicurus' thought was Democritus. It is impossible to say whether it was the works of Democritus that led Epicurus to the school of Nausiphanes, or vice versa. But we can safely assume that by this time he had decisively rejected the philosophy of Plato and shifted his main interest to the Presocratics. Of these Democritus was not in fact the one he most admired. According to the biographer Diodes his favourite Presocratics were Anaxagoras, although he some-times criticised him, and his disciple Archelaus.s 9 Of his direct predecessors in atomism, Leucippus was stated by both Epicurus and his eventual successor Hermarchus never to have existed,60 although this view was not shared by all members of the schoo1.61 As for Democritus, Epicurus is said by- Cicero and Plutarch to have spoken of him offensively and ungratefully.62 This can be connected with Timocrates' report that he bestowed on him the title «Lerocritus» -«Judge of Idiocies». The nickname invites comparison with those of Heraclides Ponticus, who because of his wide girth and luxurious attire was known as ;6 3 and Alexinus the Megarian philosopher who was dubbed Elen-xinus because of his use of the dialectical elenchus.64 No doubt Epicurus' name for Democritus is offensive.65 Never-theless, it need signify no more than occasional exasperation with the man to whom he still acknowledged his chief philosophical debt. I suggest this not as an apologist for Epicurus, but on the express word of two of his leading pupils. Leonteus, head of the Epicurean group at Lampsacus, wrote in a letter quoted by Plutarch that Epicurus for a iong time called himself and his system Democritean, and used to honour Democritus for having arrived at the truth about


the nature 'of things before him. And Metrodorus, in his work On Philosophy, stated that without. Democritus' lead Epicurus would never have attained wisdom.66 I do not detect any rabid anti-Democritean sentime:qt here. It is precisely because it was to Democritus' physical system that Epicurus owed his own that he had frequent occasion to spell out his disagreements with it.67 At worst his view is Amicus Democritus sed magis arnica veritas.

It is still common to be told that Epicurus denied any debt to previous philosophers and absurdly claimed complete originality for his doctrines. Nothing in our ancient sources supports this assumption. Epicurus' well-known claim to be self-taught was merely a denial that he had learnt anything from those under whom he had studied, namely Pamphilus and Nausiphanes, and the ancient writers who report it recognise it as such. 6 8

8. Nausiphanes.

It is only against Nausiphanes that we find Epicurus in truly vitriolic mood. We have already seen in the examples quoted by Timocrates the highly personal nature of his invective. Sextus quotes some similar remarks from Epicurus' Letter to the Philosophers in Mytilene :69 I suppose the declaimers 7 0 will think I'm a disciple of the J ell.vjish, because I attended his lessons in the company of some juvenile alcoholics. The nickname «Jellyfish» meant insen-sitive. 7 1 Later in the same letter, Sextus continues, he commented that Nausiphanes was a scoundrel, and occupied himself with matters from which it is impossible to attain wisdom. Sextus understands these 'matters' to be the t.talJflt.tam, especially rhetoric, which Nausiphanes taught. This sounds plausible, 7 2 though since we know that Epicurus also called him a prostitute and a swindler other interpreta-tions are clearly possible.

Just what Epicurus did owe to Nausiphanes is uncertain. At least one critic 7 3 claimed that his epistemological handbook the Canon was filched from Nausiphanes' work the Tripod, and this may mean that Nausiphanes had anticipated him in some aspects of his theory of knowledge. 7 4 But the scarcity of evidence for Nausiphanes' doctrines makes it hard to go further. A papyrus of Philodemus preserves some

136 David Sedley

quotations, possibly from Epicurus' Letter to the Philosophers in Mytilene, 7 5 in which Nausiphanes seems to be described as reading the works of Anaxagoras and Empedocles and heatedly quibbling about them ; and soon afterwards the works of Democritus are mentioned in a similar context. It may well be that the chief benefit which Epicurus derived fro:q1 his studies in Teos was a thorough grounding in the Presocratic philosophers.

9. Pyrrho.

But his stay there did acquaint him with at least one other philosopher, his older contemporary Pyrrho of Elis, not long back from his travels in the east with Alexander the Great. We are told that Nausiphanes, who recommended his pupils to adopt Pyrrho's disposition (though not his doctrines), often recalled how Epicurus had shared his admiration for Pyrrho's lifestyle and had always been asking questions about him. 7 6 The story does not state explicitly that Epicurus ever met Pyrrho in person ; but even if he did not, he certainly learned a great deal about him while in Teos. His reported esteem for Pyrrho has largely been overlooked by scholars too eager to see in Epicurus and Pyrrho themselves the prototypes of the dogmatism and scepticism that separated their respective followings in later generations. This oversimplification ignores some salient facts. For one thing, Pyrrho was less the syste-matic Sceptic his later followers wanted to make of him, than a Socratic figure, teaching not by the written word but by personal example and by undermining dogma in debate ; while Epicurus himself was hardly a dogmatic dogmatist, for, at any rate in his cosmological teachings, he was not averse to recommending suspension of judgment.77 For another thing, both had their. roots in the Democritean tradition of philosophy. 7 8

What are we to make of Epicurus' admiration for Pyrrho's lifestyle? The overriding feature of Pyrrho's character was by all accounts his a:rr pa"fJ.l.OOVVf/, his detachment from worldly affairs and circumstances, 7 9 and this reappears prominently in Epicurus' moral philosophy, for example in the doctrine of airrapK.ew.80 In principle Epicurus could equally well have learnt this doctrine from the Cynics, or from the Megarian philosopher Stilpo. But we know, as it happens,


that he rejected their versions of it, shrinking from the begging humility of the Cynics81 and opposing Stilpo's extreme view for its denial of a place for friendship in the life of the wise man.82 So a process of elimination83 brings us back to Pyrrho. But if, as I am suggesting, Epicurus allowed his moral philosophy to be shaped by his admiration for Pyrrho, can we still believe Timocrates' report that he also labelled Pyrrho «uneducated» and «uncultured»? We can - and for a reason suggested by a fragment in which Epicurus praises natural philosophy for imparting to us not the nad5ela for which most people vie, but selfsufficiency (av·rapKeta) and pride in the good things that belong to us rather than to our circumstances. 84 This contrast between popular paideia and the philosopher's autarkeia is a revealing one, for Epicurus was well known in antiquity for his opposi-tion to paideia, the traditional Greek education rated so highly in the Academy and Peripatos, with its emphasis on rhetoric. grammar, music and mathematics. These mathemata, he felt, served as a distraction, if not a positive hindrance, to philoso-phy's true task of allaying human fears. To his·pupil Apelles he wrote, I congratulate you for embarking on philosophy while untainted by any nad)e{a.85 There is every reason to think that Pyrrho, like his later followers, also took a stand against the mathemata. To take one example, Sextus is adamant that Pyrrho's own love of poetry is not to be equated with a belief in its usefulness as a subject of study ;8 6 and this is reminiscent of Epicurus, who taught that the wise man will enjoy musical recitals but will steer clear of disputes about musical theory.87 I am in no doubt that when Epicurus described Pyrrho as aj.l.atJr/c:; and imaloevToc:; he was not calling him an ignorant yokel but praising him as untainted by any mathemata or paideia. And we should see in Pyrrho the source ofEpicurus' conviction that the truly philosophical life does not require education along the traditional lines.

10. The Cyzicenes.

. Up to this point I hope to have shown some reasons for disbelieving in the purely calumnious Epicurus, and for seeing him as one whose acquaintance with contemporary philosophers produced a variety of stimuli - some negative, some positive - on his intellectual development. His reaction

"'

138 David Sedley

to Pyrrho suggests that accidents of personal acquaintance may have exercised more influence than any of the major school doctrines which we assume to have «held the field» in his day. This point is confirmed by Epicurus' hostility to

' the two schools remaining on Timocrates' list. But for the erup-tion of Vesuvius in 79 A.D-. and the consequent survival of an Epicurean library at Herculaneum, we would be reduced to guesswork about Epicurus' relations with .the Dialecticians, and would not even know who the Cyzicenes were. The Herculaneum papyri contain the vital clues, and, now armed with new readings of some key passages, I can throw light on both questions. 8 8 c• According to Timocrates, Epicurus insulted the Cyzicenes. H.S. Long's recent Oxford Classical Text of Diogenes Laertius still carries the old emendation Kvvuwv<: for Kvtucrwov<: -surprisingly, since as long ago as 1936 Bignone8 9 pointed out an ' unmistakeable parallel with a fragment of Philodemus On Epicurus 11,90 which cites a letter of Epicurus «con-cerning a certain Cyzicene astronomer-geometrician». This offered the vital clue as to the identity of the Cyzicenes. For Eudoxus of Cnidos, the great mathematical astronomer and associate of Plato, taught for a period at Cyzicus, and produced there several distinguished pupils. One of these, Polemarchus, in turn became the teacher of Callippus of Cyzicus, who was later to move to Athens and exert a profound influence on· Aristotle's astronomical thinking. All this points to an established Eudoxan school at Cyzicus, which our fragment suggests was still going strong in Epicurus' day. \The Cyzicene astronomer-geometrician seems to be the

subject of a letter addressed to someone called Arcephon, and also to «the circle of Idomeneus and Leonteus», which is simply a formula for the Epicurean group at Lampsacus. Since Lampsacus and Cyzicus were neighbouring towns on the Hellespont, it is not surprising that the Epicureans of Lampsacus should have shown an interest in the Eudoxans of Cyzicus. But it was much more than an idle curiosity ; for. in a fragment of a different letter, written by a first-generation Epicurean . and again preserved by Philodemus,9 1 a new recruit to the Epicurean school named Cronius is described as without experience of logic-chopping, because Eudoxus himself did not spend enough time on philosophy, as Arcephon also told us. This implies that the· new recruit

J '· t .

1

5

10


had originally been trained in the school of Eudoxus, and also that the character called Arcephon, whom we met in the previous fragment, had himself some past connexion with the Eudoxans. So it begins to look as if the proximity of the Epicurean and Eudoxan schools on the Hellespont had resulted iri a rivalry for the custom and allegiance of the young men of the area. Epicurus himself taught for four years at Lampsacus before moving to Athens, and afterwards maintained his close connexion with the town, revisiting his followers there two or three times. Perhaps this local rivalry was the context in . which he developed his hostility to the discipline of geometry. The theoretical objections to geometry were set out in a work entitled Aporiai, not by Epicurus himself but by one of his leading pupils Polyaenus ; and Polyaenus was a native of Lampsacus who, before meeting Epicurus, had himself had a· brilliant career as a mathematician, very probably at the Cyzicene schoo1.92

Eudoxus had also had an interest in ethics, making his name as a leading exponent of hedonism. Here is a palpable overlap with Epicurus' own preoccupations, and there is reason to think that the rivalry between the two schools touched on this question too.93 But it is astronomy that seems to have been the chief area of dissension, and it was probably the legacy Of Eudoxus' interest in Babylonian astronomy and astrology that led Epicurus to call the Cyzicenes «enemies of Greece».94 For one illustration of the astronomical dispute, we can turn to a passage of Epicurus, On Nature, Book XI :-9 5

]avarei\i\wv, avaretvovre<; el<; ro JJ.Epo<; 1raa11<; 'Y1i<:, ov J,J.ETE{31'/JJ.EV eK rovroy 17JJ.iv ov6J,J.evo<; lf)aiveraL, OVOf 1r0i\i\'f7v ev{ore 'TrCtVV 'Y1iV JJ.E[ rafJ]e{3nK6atv. Ka[i aWrov ovK eanv av T[o]v<; 'TrAa'YLaaJ,J.OV<; a[l]n[aaa]!JlJaL. T[i] 'Yap . r'f7v ev[ lJevo ]e K[a]TaaralJJ,J.'l'/aLV'[ i]] r'f7v evlJevoe KaraaralJJ,J.'l'/aLv i1 r'f7v evlJevoe i] r!]v[oe] ae [1r]oteiv oei ma[ rorep ]av · Karaard lJ[JJ.'l'/aiv j rwv ava[r]oi\c;:)v[i] o]vaewv; ware[ ...... ] r 1 {3 [ ) ' ' .. [ a VV awo .. .... €LKOTW<; OLJJ. aL ...

.. (lacuna about 170 letters) ·

[The sun; if we walk to-wards the place from which it appeared to us] to ri-se, and head up into the mainland zone, appears to us to set where we pre-viously passed by, some-times even when we have moved in all only a short distance. And this time we cannot blame it on the lateral deviations. For

. why should you make the measurement taken from here, or the measurement from here, or the one from here, or this one, a more reliable measurement of ri-sings or settings? So [ ........

140 David Sedley

o]poiwpa n f!VAAO'YirealJai 7L rrepl TOVTWV. ra pev 'YCtP voovvrec; Af'YW o€ ra [op ]'Yava-ev o[€] roic; ]oovvrec; avrovc;, ov p6vov K.ara rae; [c:ivopa]rrooeiac; [r]ac; vrro r[wv] avr[o]ic;

af..(..a K.ai rae;, K.ard rwv ..paaparwv rwv r[o ]v 1]A.iov, c:iopwreiac; c:ivaroA.wv K.ai ovaew[v ], elK.6rwt; [iK.avo ]v ov o [ v

TWV Op'YaVWV o[v]lJev ¢-rrapnrovr[ wv] 9 wvoim opoiw[pa]

c:iA.A.' ec;[n... op]'Ya[va ...

(lacuna about 170 letters)

] rrpoarroinpa K.ai TOV ra erri TOV

op'Yavov oei'Ypam n] v avrrzv c:ivaA.o'Yiav ro[i]c; K.ara rc:i per€ wpa ..p[ owpwre[o]v 'Yap olpal rrpwr9v [pev] TOV ev..ppovovv[ 7 ]a on

omv rreiXi-ov K.oap[ov] K.alfwv e[v]

rrepl..paapa[r6]c; nvoc; eK. [avprr]rw[p]cirwv nvwv TWV K.ar' c:ivarreprro[pe]vwv rrpoc; emv6n[ ]v ii alel<ae> awapevnv arr[ ......... ] roaavr[a ...... ]rowvT[o ....... ]

[ .......... ]a[ ............... ..


]o. omv olpaL err/: 70 VJrOK.eipevov rvxu, K.a[l] piJ owpwv TOre

K.ara TO vrroK.eipevov A.[ e h9pev[ 0 ]v K.al TO K.ara TO

............ They cannot hope 1 to form a L mental] model and to reason out anything about these matters. For it seems to me that when they spend their time contriving some of them - their ins-truments, I mean - and amusing themselves with others, it is no wonder, in view not only of the ensla-vements brought upon

. them by their doctrines but also (as far as concerns the appearances of the sun) of the indeterminacies of ri-sings and settings, that they cannot form and adequa-te mental model by means of their instruments which produce no regularity. But their instruments are [ .......

This only] leaves a pre-tence and a perverse claim that the indications on the instrument create an analo-gy that corresponds with what we see in the heavens. For our friend must, it seems to me, make the dis-tinction :(a) that when he argues about the cosmos and what we see in it he is arguing about a certain ima-ge arising from certain ac-cidental properties of things passed through the medium of vision into a thought process or into a memory process permanently pre-served by the mind itself [conveying certain] quan-tities, qualities, r etc. ; but (b) that when he speaks about the indications on his instrument he is spea-king about the intrinsic properties of an object (lmo· KeLf.1.€VOV). .

...... So] when, as I see it, he finds himselflooking"at the object and failing· to distinguish a statement ba-sed on the object itself from one based on that which is

50

55

65

70


[om r]ov piJ] rroA.A.ai oe [a ]rro [ 70 ]v [<.pavr ]aaiat r ]QV rcir[ov, p]i] onrov K6ap[ov, e]tK.orwc; aonpovei vrro TWV rrepi TOV i/A.iov apriwc; pnlJeprwv avaroA.wv K.ai ovaewv. [ EX]WV pev 'YCt[p] Kai ni[xa] rr(anv eK.aara TWV ..paa[parwv ... ]wv K.aL[ ..... ]aa[ ....... ] VOVO [.] KT [ ...... ]q,[ ....... ]nva[ ....... ] l}VP [ ..... ]peKT'Y/[ ............ <.p ]awo ............... .. ................. ]rnv[ ........ .


]i/pWV piJ evavr{ac; avarof..f/c; Kai ova ewe; n avva <.paapa

evrrepwevonpevov eK. TOV A.nrrreov ..popav nva

i/A.iov J<al aeA1}[v]nfc;l [elc;] Ka[i Kai OV riJp [o]iff[wc; aieH [ou]o€ 70 OVTW e]vavriwc; <.pareov exr'e 1LV Kara 'Ye oiJ TO vrro!'[ei]pevov 'J<alJ' eavr6, Kal pi/ rrpoc; 1]piic;, aA.A.ac; J<al af..f..ac; [T]OVTWV .

J<ai rrepi pev r[o]Vrov < rov > pepOVC: OVrW OW]\r}JrTEOV.

conceived by means of the object, and the object does not give rise to many pre-sentations of theminiature, let alone of the cosmos, it is no wonder that he is puzzled by the risings and settings of which I have just spoken in connexion with the sun. For by trus-ting, presumably, that each of the images [ .................. .

... If ... ] we do not want to attach to them an image of reversed rising and setting contrived from the object, we must arrive at a mental conception ofa motion of sun and moon towards their rising and setting, and must not say of motion which always occurs in this way, nor of whatever moves in this way, that it happens in the opposite way accor-ding to the intrinsic proper-ties of the object, and that from some view-point other than our own these things are arranged in various dif ferent patterns.

That then is the distinc-tion which we must make with regard to this topic.

7 alniwaat'hu Vogliano 8-9 [1)]- Ka7aa7cd}f.1.1'/0tv secl. Vogliano 17 Kv[:Nv]&ovvreo; Vogliano 18 [av&pa]1ro&eiao; Hayter: [1Tapef.1.]-1To&eiao; Vogliano 20 ?Tapa['Yt')'v]of.l.E!vao; Vogliano 25 a?Tap-

Cronert ap. LSJ : Vogliano 33 f.l.EV Vogliano 40 ; aXatJr)aw Vogliano 48 : V1TO Vogliano 50 [ <.pavr ]aairu Hayter 52 70V i(l\iov PHerc. 1 042 : 70 ]vo; i)iv:ovo; PHerc. 154 66 eio; Hayter : Vogl iano 67 [o )V7[ wo; : [a]i>7[iJv Rosini; : ale]i : aei Vogliano 67-68 [ov]&e 70 OU7W f.1.€VOV PHerc .. 154, om. PHerc. 1042 73 7oiJ Gomperz.

142 David Sedley

\ lit'!: Here we have seen Epicurus attacking some anonymous opponents for their use of mechanical instruments to illustrate mathematical laws for the orbits of the sun and moon. (Epicurus calls these instruments organa ; we should probably call them orreries, or planetaria). This has a parti-cular topical interest, because a mechanism rescued in 1901 from the Antikythera shipwreck has recently been identified as a similar instrument, but of the first century B.C .. The most famous one in antiquity was that built by Archimedes, nearly 'a century later than those mentioned in our text. Do not mistake Epicurus' dislike of them for mere opposition

· to " technology. They were weapons in the campaign to - «save the phenomena» by proving that apparently irregular

planetary motions could be explained as complex combina-tions of regular circular motions. Their purpose was thus to vindicate the divine nature of the stars ; while for Epicurus

· the ·only purpose of astronomy was to disprove the divinity l of the stars.

,\l.; That the builders of these organa were followers of Eudoxus is' in itself likely enough, especially in view of the story, preserved by Plutarch, that the followers of Eudoxus and Archytas were the first exponents of organike, the construc-tion of mechanisms to solve mathematical problems.96 But the confirmation is to be found in the first column of

· Epicurus' text. Here he is attacking the assumption that objectively valid measurements of celestial orbits ·can be taken from a terrestrial viewpoint. The first sentence describes a familiar optical illusion produced by the sun. If you walk eastwards just before sunset, the sun can give the of s,etting at the place where you were standing a few minutes earlier. · This is intended to underline the impossibility of finding a single correct vantage point for astronomical observations, a deficiency which for Epicurus contributes to making mathematical astronomy a bogus science.

His use here of eic; ro JJ.Epoc; rflc; 1raaf1c; "file; to describe eastward movement puzzled me until I considered the possibility that when he wrote these words he was not in Athens but in Lampsacus. The Attic peninsula east of Athens is hardly a «zone of the whole land», but the phrase can easily be understood as a reference to the continent of Asia, stretching eastwards from Lampsacus with no known limit.

1 And a detailed contour map of Lapseki, the modern site of confirms that there is. a gently sloping path .

r:·· ,. ') ' '•


leading eastwards from it on which the illusion described by Epicurus would be very apparent. If I am right, and Epicurus wrote this book while at Lampsacus,97 the probability that the Cyzicenes . are his target is immediately strengthened.

The argument about the impossibility of calculating where the sun sets includes the remark, And this time it cannot be blamed on the 1TAa"(taaJ.tol. The implication is that some other irregularity previo:usly discussed was attributed by the opponents to these 1Til.a"(taaJ.tol. To learn more about this mysterious term, we must turn to Simplicius' account of the three concentric spheres by. which Eudoxus explained the sun's movements.9 8 The outer sphere coincided with that of the fixed stars, rotating from east to west once in twen-ty-four hours. Inside this was the second sphere, carrying the sun in the reverse direction through the zodiac and comple-ting one revolution a year. It is this evavrla Jdvnatc; that we find Epicurus objecting to near the end of our passage (61 ss.). ·,, The third sphere was introduced to account for supposed deviations of the sun to north and south of the ecliiptic. The sun is described as deviating to the sides, 1TapeKTpe1T6J.tevoc; elc; ra 1TAa"(ta , and it must be to these deviations eic; ni 1Til.a"(ta that Epicurus is referring when he speaks of the 1TAa"(taaJ.toi. They may, he says, use this third sphere to explain away north-south variations in the sun's course, but they can never use it to explain east-west variations in its observed position at sunset. The significant point is that these lateral movements of the sun are a fiction, a product of faulty observations, peculiar to the Eudoxan system. Here we have the strongest possible indication that the opponents under attack are followers of Eudoxus.

In the next fragment (14-26) we are told of the Cyzicenes' obsession with their instruments and of the' enslavement brought upon them by the doctrines of their school. The mention of this «enslavement» in the use of their instruments ([av5pa]1Tooelac;, if the conjecture is correct) enables us to recognise an allusion to them in a famous passage of the Letter to Pythocles where Epicurus warns against the slavish devices of the astronomers (rae; av5pa1To5woetc; aaTpOAO"(WV rexvtrelac;).99 His preoccupation with denouncing these planetaria makes it hard to doubt that they were on open display in Cyzicus and exercised a considerable fascination on visitors to the town.

For the remainder of the text I can offer here only a brief

'·'. ·,,

.' :144 David Sedley

summary of ·the argument, reserving detailed .commentary for another occasion. The understanding of celestial pheno-

, mena requires the formatio:t;t of a mental picture of them (owvoiq, op.oiwp.a A.a{3eiv), and Epicurus seems to be saying, reasonably enough for a .materialist philosopher, that the purely mathematical model . of interconnecting spheres fails

, on this score. Then, from the third column onwards, he .. borrows heavily on the language of Scepticism, in stressing the distinction that must be made between the V1TOK.€LJleVOV

, and.; the l{)aw6p.evov-- on the one hand the objectively existing body, on the other the subjective appearance that derives from it. The. planetarium, whose intrinsic properties we can know by close examination, counts for Epicurus as a vnoK.eip.evov ; whereas. the movements of the heavens are

· so distant as to be. mere subjective appearances which we have no means of The fatal error of the Cyzicenes is to assume that they can validly argue from the one to the other. "

hciThe Cyzicenes then, thanks to these fragments, can be promoted from a textual corruption to a school which survived for at least fifty years, long enough to collaborate with Plato, to influence Aristotle, and to feud with Epicurus. '1! . '

·'·\

11 !'The Dialecticians. ,;·

Used as the name· of a school, ota"A.eK.TLK.oi at this da:te means the Megarians,l 00 against whom both Epicurus and Metrodorus ·wrote works. This school was· founded by Euclides of Megara, a cont'emporary and friend of Socrates, and survived until the time of Epicurus, after which it was eclipsed by the Stoa. The ·later Megarians were known as DLaA€K.7LK.Oi, because they had reduced their philosophical method· to one of questions· demanding <<yes» or «no» answers.l 0 1 By common consent, their leading dialectician

· at this timel 0.2 was Diodorus Cronus, a flamboyant character who, · I suspect, had 'considerable influence on all · three Hellenistic schools, less through the intrinsic importance of

. his doctrines than through the force of his personality. Like his Megarian predecessors, his formal commitment was to the

. doctrines of Parmenides .. He clearly saw himself in the role of Zeno of Elea, as depicted by Plato in the Parmenides, seeking l out;, supplementary · arguments ., to ; back : up the

Epicums and his professional rivals 145

Eleatic denials of motipn, change, plurality, and the know abi-lity of the physical world. For example, taking a leaf out of Zeno's book he devised his own four paradoxes ridiculing the idea that anything can be in motion, although he conceded that things can be said to «have moved».l 03 It is symptomatic of his impact on the new Hellenistic schools that the Sceptics, who were deeply interested in· refutations of motion, knew only Diodorus' paradoxes and not those of Zeno.l 04 What is more, one of Diodorus' pupils was the other Zeno, the future founder of Stoicism ; and the debt of the Stoa to Diodorus' pioneering work in modal logic needs no proof from me. -

In looking for his impact on the third Hellenistic school, the Epicureans, one immediately thinks of their rejection of owA.eK.nK.i} as .superfluous to philosophy.105 Was this a reaction specifically to Diodorus and his circle? Not neces-sarily. But I am encouraged to think so by the name no"Avl{)lJ-6pot, «destruction-mongers», which Epicurus gave to the otaA.eK.nK.oi.l 06 Of ·course, this name would be appropriate enough to anyone who was fond of destructive arguments ; but it is supremely apt for Diodorus, who had an argument to prove that destruction is impossible.l07

Diodorus is best remembered today for his «Master Argument», whose conclusion is that «nothing is possible which neither is nor will be true».l 08 It was probably this powerful. defence of determinism that pushed Epicurus, not unlike Aristotle before him, to assert that statements about the future are neither true nor false.l 09 Indeed, one of Epicurus' outstanding contributions to the history of thought was as the first true champion of free will against deterministic arguments. II O This is usually seen as a reaction to Demo-critus, but I have long suspected that Epicurus was provoked in tms more by the debating skills of Diodorus than by the tacit assumptions of his atomist predecessor. Ill

Epictirus had chosen to set up his school in Athens, and Athens was not just a prestige address for philosophy schools, but a central forum for the exchange of ideas. It is inconcei-vable that he spent his thirty-five years there just sitting in the Garden. Contact with rival schools was both desirable and inevitable .

For confirmation,· we have merely , to eavesdrop on a conversation held between Epicurus and Metrodorus ten years after the foundation of the school in Athens. This

j

146 David Sedley

unique opportunity is afforded by the fragments of Epicurus' On Nature, Book XXVIII, written in 296/5 B.C .. 112 The book is a monologue addressed to Metrodorus, whose comments are from time to time relayed to us by the author in the way that a film character engaged in a telephone conversation will echo the gist of what is being said to him for the benefit of the viewers.

The first surviving portion discusses their views on the function of language in philosophy. Epicurus admits the shortcomings of his previous view, according to which the philosopher must try to reform ordinary language into a more accurate medium of expression. He also criticises a doctrine once professed by Metrodorus, comparable to that of Hermo-genes in Plato's Cratylus, that names are purely arbitrary labels of which one is not to be preferred to another. Thus their former viewpoints had been diametrically opposed ; but by the time of writing they appear to have agreed on a midway position. You might think that these changes of heart arose purely from debate within the school. But the text suggests that this is not the whole story. At one point Epicurus seems concerned to. distinguish their former views from those of some unnamed opponents :-113

I am convinced that I see these names clearly in the way in which we used to distinguish them, as you took the meaning, and not in the senses in which certain people would them. Perhaps, though, you'll say this isn't the time to prolong the discussion by bringing this up ? Quite so, Metrodorus. For I'm sure you'd be able to bring up lots of names which you used to see certain people taking in various ridiculous senses, and indeed in any sense rather than their actual linguistic meanings, whereas our own usage never flouted linguistic convention and we did not alter names for perceptible things.

These opponents sound very like Diodorus and his follo-wers.114 For Diodorus took. the extreme view that the meaning of a word is nothing more than that intended by the speaker while ,uttering it. To establish this he renamed

I one of his slaves with the conjunction 'AA.A.a f.J.TJV. According to another story, he had two slaves, whom he Mev and .Ll€. And no doubt he used to produce these unfortunate slaves during debates as living proof of his theory. As a consequence, he also taught that ambiguity is impossible, since a word can only have one meaning at a time. So when

Epicums and his professional rivals 147

Epicurus adds at the end of the column that he has already exposed these opponents' errors in a work. On Ambiguity, 1

little doubt can remain as to their identity. It sounds very much as if Metrodorus' retraction of his former linguistic doctrine had been brought about in part by contact in debate with Diodorus and his associates, whose theory had looked uncomfortably like a reductio ad absurdum of his own.

A little later in the same book, Epicurus outlines his ideas for a new method of testing opinions, by examination of their practical consequences. He then gives an example of an argument that can easily be refuted by this method :-11 5

This is also what makes it easy for everyone to laugh when somebody secures another's agreement that it is impossible to know and not know the same thing, and then brings up the Veiled Father and other such riddles.

Now, the Veiled Father is known to us as a dialectical riddle employed by Diodorus.11 6 The opponent is first asked to agree that it is impossible to know and not know the same thing, and does so. The dialectician then asks him, «Do you know your father?» «Yes», he replies. «And if I show you someone with his head veiled, will you know him? » «No», replies the opponent. «But», says the dialectician triumphan-tly, «the man with his head veiled is your father. Therefore you will both know and not know your father, and it is possible to know and notknow the same thing».

This is usually dismissed as a harmless riddle. But Epicurus cannot have taken it so lightly, or he would hardly have devoted the next two and a half columns to its refutation. A different riddle, but with the identical conclusion, was apparently used by earlier Megarians and is quoted in Plato's Theaetetus as an argument against the doctrine that knowledge is perception.11 7 There is every reason to think that Diodorus' riddle was designed for the same purpose, ·and hence as a weapon against anyone like Epicurus who defended the link between perception and knowledge. In On Nature XXVIII we see Epicurus ·busily revising and tightening up his epistemological doctrines. A precious insight into the motives that led him to seek these improve-ments is afforded to us by the discovery that when he wrote the book he was still smarting from clashes with Diodorus and his followers.

148 David Sedley

12. Conclusion.

This study 11 8 has no pretensions to completeness, but I hope- to have contributed to two goals. The first is to pinpoint the role of Timocrates in the anti-Epicurean tradition, and to show that evidence derived from him should never be taken at its face value. The second is to replace the traditional Epicurus, who heaped indiscriminate abuse on his elders and betters in a desperate attempt to mask his own unoriginality, with one who, while as content as any Greek philosopher to engage in polemical skirmishes, recognised many merits in his professional competitors, and was not ashamed to learn from them.

D.S.


NOTES

1. Some sources (Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. ev.>XIV 20; 14), including Demetrius Magnes (D.L. X, 13), asserted that he had studied under Xenocrates. Tliis was probably just guesswork, and should certainly not be believed in the face of Epicurus' own express denial (Cicero N.D. 1,72). 2. The majority of modern writers on Epicureanism put his studies under Nausiphanes before his military service (cf. P. Boyance, Gnomon 46, 1974, p. 753). But according to Hermippus (D.L. X,2) before becoming acquainted with Democritean philosophy he had worked as a schooltea-cher, and if true, can hardly have been before the age of 18. Besides, the sources that claimed that he had studied with Xenocrates dated his period with Nausiphanes later than this (Aristocles, lac. cit. in previous note). Strabo's biographical summary- XIV, 11l8a_rpa#/vcu ... evrfaoe (sc. ev L<l/lw) Kai ev Tew Kai e<.prJ{3evacu AvfwrtaL - is sometimes cited in support of the orderTeos-Athens. But I doub't if these words express a chronological sequence. 3. J.M. Rist, Epicurus, An Introduction (1972),p. 9. 4. E. Bignone, L 'Aristotele perdu to e !a formazione filosofica di Epicuro (1936). 5. Editors since Usener have accepted Spengel's Mapp,apwv as an emendation for MapJ.uipwv, following col. V of Philodemus Adversus [sophistas 1. There an op2onent is derided, amo.ng other things, for cla1ming (falsely, it is implied) that NtKiowv and McitlJ .. ta[p]ov were the mistresses of Idomeneus and Leonteus respectively. As Sbordone correctly states on p. 139 of his edition 1947), the papyrus has insufficient space for the termination -[pt JOV, and Mappapov has two attestations m Attic inscriptions. Names in Mappap· are to my knowledge unattested. By «other courtesans» D.L. presumably means other than Leontion - the clarity of the entire passage has suffered in the abridgment of source material. 6. Usener (Epicure a, 1887, p. 362-3) emends the text in such a way as to construe raiJra AE"fELV with Navatt,oaveL (says the same things as Nausiphanes). This may well have been tne meaning intended by D.L.'s source, but D.L. clearly did not understand it in -this way, since the point of his €v aiJraic; can only be to sever raiJra from Navatt,oavet. 7. The form rroA.vt,ofJ6povc;, whose use Plutarch (Non posse 1 086e) attributes to Epicurus, is clearly more afpropriate to the dialecticians than the rroA.vt,orfovepovc; of the mss., and have little doubt that it is the word which Epicurus used. Of course, the incorrect form may nevertheless be what D.L. wrote in our passage. But I print the emended form for convenience in the ensuing discussion. 8. W. Cronert,Kolotes und Menedemos ( 1906),p. 16-24 ; Bignone, L 'Ar. per d. II,Chapter VI, esp. p. 43-153 ; A. Vogliano1 «Epicurea» Ii A erne I (1948), p. 95-119 ; H. Steckel, «Epikuros» suppl. X, 1968, 579-652), col. 601 ; G. Arrighetti, Epicuro, Opere (2nd' ed., 1973) p. 680-1 ; and, to my knowledge, all others who have touched on the question. According to Cronert, it is «sehr wahrscheinlich» that the source is a single letter, apparently for the following reasons. The Aristotle and Protaggras slanders are attested (see § 3) as belonging to Epicurus' letter llepi (rwv) emTf'/OEVJ.larwv. The denunciation of t'l'aUSlphapes is by Sextus (see § 8) to the letter Ilpoc; rove; ev MvnA.rwn tpLAOOOtpOVC:. But the latter, as quoted by Sextus, contains the word E1rLT€T'TJO EVK we;. So the two titles must be alternatives for one and the same letter, which, by a further stretch of the imagination we

regard as the source of all the abusive epithets attested for Epicurus. Ep1curus' letters were classified both according to recipient and according to subj_ect-matter, it is claimed, and hence each had two alternative titles. The evidence for this last point (p. 20) is insufficient and the whole theory is open to numerous objections. But it is enough to as the following discussion will make clear, that the letter Ilepi (TWVJ E1rLT'TJO€VJ1arwv had specific theme quite unconnected

150 David Sedley

with Epicurus' attacks on Nausiphanes or anyone else. Bignone took over and elaborated Cronert's account, incorporating all sorts of other fragments in the supposed letter - now re-titled Epistola ai filosofi di Mitilene sulle occupazioni dt!gne (sometimes indcgne) di un filosofo. This is depicted as a major document of Epicurus' early period, denouncing a heterogeneous collection of philosophers, especially the «platonico-perip(!tetici» 1 on countless topics ranging from debauchery to scepticism. Hidden m the tangle of fanciful speculation there are some sound ideas, but it is no easy task to unravel them. 9. See fr. 101-4 Arr., with commentary. Usener ( fr. 11-4 and 171-3) was the last to distinguish correctly between the Letter to the Philoso-phers in Mytilene and the Letter on Occupations. 10. Cronert includes Zeno of Citium on no evidence whatever (p. 20). Many of the others qualify only on the basis of tenuous evidence that Epicurus, or other early Epicureans, were rude about them. I have ciiosen to regard all invectives by Epicurus' disciples as irrelevant to the present study - they can tell us nothing about Epicurus' own philoso-phical development. 11. S. Luria,Symb. Osl. XV-XVI (1936),1?. 21 s. ;A. Vogliano,Acme I (1948), p. 108. Cronert himself later pnvately retracted the· forgery theory, according to Bignone (L 'Ar.perd. Il,56 note 2). 12. Quoted below, § 8. 13. 354 a-d. 1TOAACL o€ exwv en AE"feLV 1Tepi wv e'A71pf1G€V 0 <.papJ.l.aK0-1TWAf/<: 1TaVOJ.l.at, KaiTot elow<: Kai 'E1TiKovpov Tov '{J!.'Aa'AflfJeamTov TaiJT' ei1Tovra 1T€pi cWTOV ev TV 1repi e1TLTf/O €VJ.l.aTWV emaTo'Afl, em Kam<.pa"fWV Ta 1TaTpya e1Ti aTpaTeiav WPJ.l.f/0€ Kai on ev mUTT/ KaKWC:: 1Tpanwv e1Ti TO <.papJ.l.aK01TWAeiv 1}'AfJev. elm ava1T€1TmJ.l.EVOV TOV TI'AaTWVOC:: 1T€pt1TaTOV, '{J11ai, 1Tapa{3a'Awv eavTOV 1TpoaeKafJwe TOi<; AO"fOL<:, OVK wv a'{JI.Jf/<:, Kat' KaTa J.l.tKpov elc:; Ti]V fJewpOVJ.l.EVf/V <tV> 1}'AfJev. oloa oe on TaVm J.l.OVO<: 'E1TiKOVpO<; efpf/K€V KaT' aUTOV. OUT€ 0' Ev£3ov'Aiof1<;' a'A'A' avo € Kwwoo wpo<; TOLOVTOV n eTOAJJ,f1U€V ei1Teiv KaT a TOV l:,m"f€LptTOV, KaiTOL KaL GV"f"fpitp.J.l.aTa eK/5ovre<: KaT a TCtVO poe;. ev oe Tfl aiJTfl E1TWT0Afl 0 'E1TiKOVpO<: Kai TipWTa"fOpav '{J11ai TOV GO'{J!.GTi)V eK Kai 1TpWTOV J.l.EV "f€VeafJat "fpa<.pea !:.f/J.l.OKPtTOV. fJaVJ.J.alJfJevra 0' V1T' eKetVOV e1Ti nvt' ioi{L avvfJeaet a1TO TallTfl<; Tfi<; apxfi<: aVUAfl<.fJMiVat V1T' cWTOV Kai otoaaKetv ev KWJ.l.T/ nvi 'YPitp.J.l.aTa. a<.p' wv E1Ti TO UO'{JWT€V€LV owfiaat. Ka"fW oe, avope<; avvoatm'Afic;' a1TO TWV 1TOAAWV TOVTWV AO"fWV Ti]V OpJ.l.i]V exw em' TO iiofl "fUGTpiteafJat. 14. < LV> i)'AfJev is Usener's emendation for and is strongly supported by 1T€pte£3a'AeTO in Aelian's paraphrase (see next note}. 15. Cf. Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. ev. XV, 2, 1 : - Tiwc; "fUP olav Te, KafJa1Tep '{J110iV 'E1TtKOVpO<: ev Tfl 1repi TWV e1TtTf/O€VJ.l.aTWV emaTo'Afl, veov J.l.eV cwra KaUJ>PU'Yeiv cWTOV Ti]V 1TaTPctJaV ovaiav, E1T€LTa o€ E1Tt TO aTpaTeveafJat avvwaat, KaKW<: oe 1TpaTTOVTa ev TOVTOt) e1Ti TO <.papJ.l.UK01TWAeiv e'AfJeiv, E1T€tTa ava1T€1TTQ}.1EVOV TOV TI'AaTWVO<; 1T€pt1TaTOV 1ram 1rapa{3a'Aeiv aiJTov ;

Also Aelian, Var. hist. V, 9 : - 'AptaTOTEAf/<: aawTevaaJ.l.€VO<; Ta eK TOV 1TaTpO<; XPfiJ.l.aTa WPJ.l.f/G€V e1Ti OTpaTeiav, elm a1Ta'A'AaTTWV KaKW<: ev TOVT4J, <.papJ.l.aK01TWAf/<: ave<.pd.Vf/. 1Tapewpveic; oe el<: TOV Tiepi1TaTOV Kai 1Tapauovwv TWV AO"fWV, aJ.J.etVWV 1T€'{JVKW<; 1TOAAWV elm 1Tepte£3a'AeTo, i)v J.l.€Ta TaiJra eKTf/aaTo. · 16. According to the best trusted sources, Aristotle, orphaned at an early age, was brought up under the guardianship of Proxenus of Atarneus, and joined the Academy in 367 B.C., aged 17. It is unlikely that he had the legal power to .squander his inheritance at this tender

't, ,,


age, and certain he did nC?t, at J:lis death his consid.erab.le wealth included famtly properties m Chalets and Stagna (as his will proves, D.L V, 11-16). Epicurus' story is probably linked to an alter-native tradition, expressly repudiated by at least one Aristotelian biographer (Vita Syriaca I, 6 ; cf. Timaeus, FGH 566, 156 ; Vita Marciana 11 ; Fihrist 6 ; all in I. DUring, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Goteborg 19 57) that Aristotle turned to philosophy at the age of 30, having previously practised medicine. Charges of high living had been levelled at Aristotle by detractors older than Eptcurus - Cephisodorus, Theocritus of Chws. and the historian Timaeus (see Diiring,p. 373 ss., testimonia 58 hf k ; 60a1 b, d ; and p. 386 s., 389-92 ; During's attempt to make al these smrs dependent on Epicurus is chronologically implausible). The story of a squandered inheritance was also told of Democritus, D.L. IX,36 39 ; and Plato was said1 before turning to philosophy, almost to have enfisted as a mercenary so1dier,Aelian, Var. hist. III,27. · 17. D.L. IX 53=Aristotle fr. 63 Rose; Aulus Gellius V,3. For Protagoras' invention. see P.-M. Schuh!, Aristote, Cinq ceuvres perdues (1968), p. 143-6. For chronological doubts about the story of Democritus and Protagoras_. see W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, II (1965),p. 586 note 2. 18. Aulus Gellius II, 18 ; Macrobius Saturn. I, 11,42. For a general study of such stories, see 0. Gigon, «Antike Erzahlungen iiber die Berufung zur Philosophie», Museum Helveticum 3 (1946),p. 1-21. 19. Theon, Progymnastica (Spengel Rhet.II,lll-2). Cf. Lactantius Div. inst. III, 25, 7 (=fr. 227a Usener) : Epicurus ... rudes omnium litterarum ad philosophiam inuitat. 20. Only Arrighetti, to my knowledge, has observed that D.L. X,S may misrepresent Epicurus : Sia in DL che in A ten eo i particolari della vita di Aristotele prima di darsi alla filosofia sono gli stessi ; solo che nel secondo e aggiunto un giudizio nettamente positivo sul valore dello Stagirita che nel prima manca, e cia basta per dare un colore tutto diverso alle due testimonianze. Queste le conseguenze dell' omissione di un particolare : pensiamo ai risultati cui si poteva giungere anche so/tanto procedendo con questa metoda. (p. 680). Mr. M.D. Reeve has drawn my attention to the parallel case of Stifpo, who, according to Cicero De jato, 10, was said by his own associates to be a drunkard and a lecher. This was not an msult but a compliment (neque haec scribunt uituperantes, sed potius ad laudem), because they went on to point out how by adherence to his doctrines he had completely conquered these natural weaknesses. For sentimentality_ about humble origms, cf. Aristotle, Rhet. I, VII,32 ; Valerius Maximus III,4. 21. I have in mindJarticularly the First Study in D.J. Furlev's Two Studies in the Greek to mists ( 1967), and J .M. Rist's «Pleasure 360-300 B.<;:.», Phoenix 28 ( 1.974), p. 167-79. The latter argues persuasively that Eptcl.!rus had read Anstotle EN VII. But in his Epicurus, An Introduction R.tst m .my '?Pinion overstates the case for Aristotelian influence. Cf. hts Stozc Phzlosophy (1969), p.l : Now that the phrase ((post-Aristo-telian philosophy)) is gradually being taken to refer to philosophy largely governed by Aristotle ... 22. Philodemus,Adversus [sophistas] fr. }3 Sbordone = fr. 127 Arr. 23. Philodemus, Vol. rhet. I ed. Sudhaus, LIV, 10-17. 24. D.L. V,37,41. 25. Plutarch,Col. 1110c=fr. 30 Usener, fr. 16 Arr. 26. <:;ronert (p. 16 note (4) denies that Timocrates is the source, assertmg t.\lat the quotation from his book Euphranta stops at avvfJta"fW"ff/V. I cannot agree that this is a natural or even a possible way . to read the passage. The aqcusative and infinitive construction cont!nuys down to otoaaKa'Aqv. There Diogenes changes to the <€Ka'Aet)J but I thin!c, .to avoid confusion with the mfmttives 'AotoopewfJat Kat a1TOKa'Aetv m the direct speech that precedes - CP.rtainly not to signal his own reporting, since in 9 he

•

David Sedley

.. , strongly dissociates himself from all the preceding allegations (But · , these people are mad ... ).

' ' 21/ • For1 attempts to elapo_rate the history of this episode, see . R. Philippson, «Timokrates» (RE VI A;l266 ss.), and F. Sbordone;

. ,, «Per la storia dell' epistolario di Epicuro» (Miscellanea Rostagni1 1963, c; p: · 26-39). These studies, thougli ·valuable, should be recogmsed as · . extremely· speculative, since they rely largely on fragments from the

Herculaneum papyri in which Timocrates is not named. Sbordone . (p · 30-3) takes him to be the subject of Philodemus, llpa-y,uaTeicu

coi. XI-XVIII, on the strength of two or three occurrences of his ' name. But, although his naine does occur in col.XII (see C. Diano, ; Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi, 1946, p. 7), I find his role in the

passage by no means as clear as Diano and Sbordone think it. And . although he is mentioned again in col.XIV 2 (aoe'Atp(;c; Mev[TO]P.[io]ov

Tt,UOK.paT'f/C: ; Sbordone's aoe/1.1/)jJc; ,uev [aiJr]oii might just fit the lacuna, , but the text does not supply a 8€ ; _Mentondes "':as the .elder b!other of 1 .• :. Timo_crates and .Metrodor)ls, zra XII,9 ss. Wilke); the

· j.· remamder of hnes 1-8 IS umntelhgible m the present state of the ;. ,· papyrus. I have, however, through a new examination of the papyrus, , :been able to establish the correct reading of lines 8-12 : Ofll A.ovTcu . o' a,u€1\et K.ai 'Y.(eh.-yovvia nc; I vn' avTOV TW[v] nepi TOV 'EniiKovp]ov l

<J>povn(c;). en' 0AVJ.l1Tt00WpOV -yfap 1] J J<ai) npoTefpOV 70Jt'a0€ -ypa- . 1 tpwv L· .. l· ... Whoever is the subject of biographical investigation in this ;• sec:tion of tJ:te ?JOrk is argued by Philodemus, on strength a letter · · · wntten by him m or before 294/3 B.C. (the archonship of Olympwdorus),

.;r·;::: to have been the father of a. female disciple of EQicurus named ,, ' Phrontis (hitherto unknown to us). This cannot be Timocrates. If

· · .. Timocrates' daughter had joined the Epicurean school it would hav(;l been a celebrated triumph of the Garden, not an obscure inference from

· . a letter of uncertain date. I cannot find any evidence for Philippson's ·.·.· statement (col. 1266) that Timocrates apparently did not go to Athens,

or for Sbordone's (p. 30) that the rift occurred c. 301 B.C .. What is, however, clear to me is that Timocrates' Euphranta cannot have been

· '' written much before 290 B.C., since it referred to the 37 books of the · ': nepi tpvaewr:;, and Epicurus did not reach Book XXVIII until 296/5

(seenote 112 below).· As for the title of Timocrates' book, I have ·. followed Susemihl ( Geschichte der Griechische Litteratur in der

Alexandrinerzeit, I, 1891, p. 1 05) and LSJ in favouring the neuter ·. EVtppaVTa (Frolics?). Philippson prefers EiJtppaVToUdie Vergnygli11ge, ··coL 1'?.67). For another possibility, see Usener, Index s.v. bVtpaVTO<:;

( cf. Cronert ; p. 2 6-8). . . . · 28. Fr. 41, 72-3 Usener; Cronert,p. 24 note 136.Timocrates became proverbial in Epicurean literature for the excessive strength of his emotions : see Philodemus De ira XII,9 ss. Wilke, on his hot temper, and De lib.· die. XX b, 3 ss. Olivieri, on his self-confessed extreme love and hate for his brother. · .

· 29.' Fr. 29-30! 39-42 Korte Epicurei fragmenta», Jahrb. · fur class. Philo., Suppl. XVII, Leipzig 1890, p. 531-97).

30. N.D. 1,33 : ... cum Epicurus Aristotelem uexarit contumeliosissime, . Phaedoni Socratico turpissime male dixerit, · Metrodori sodalis sui fratrem ·Timocratem, quia nescio quid in philosophia dissentiret, totis uolu_miJ:tibus conciderzt, in Democritum ipsum, quem secutus est, fuerzt zngratus, Nausiphanen, magistrum suum a quo nihil didicerat tam male acceperit.

, 3). For the evidence about Pl);aedo, see L. Preller, Ausgewiihlte . · satze ( 1864), p. · 363 ss .. Cronert (p. 22) suggests that the abusive

·, word erawnaetr:; whose use Plutarch attributes to Epicurus and , Metrodorus (Non posse 1 086e) alluded to Phaedo's work as a prostitute; , 32. N.D. 1,40 : Nam etiam Philo noster ferre non poterat aspernari Epicureos mollis et delicatas uoluptates ; summa enim memoria

., pronuntiabat plurimas Epicuri sententias iis ipsis uerbis quibus erant ' :· scriptae , ; ,. Metrodori uero; qui est Epicuri collega sapientiae, multa

f.-:',.

. ': •1 recitabat ; accusat, enzm . Timocratem · fratrem suum ·


Metrodorus quod dubitet omnia quae ad beatam uitam pertineant uentre metiri. 33. Cotta adds the comment, Neque id semel dicit sed saepius. Adnuere te uideo ; nota enim tibi sunt ; proferrem libros si negares . This is of course dramatic window,dressing, not evidence that Cicero knew the works of Metrodorus at first hand. Cf. Tusc. Il,8 : Epicurum et Metrodorum non /ere praeter suos quisquam in manus sumit. For Philo as a source o Cotta's . speech, see I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' . metaphysische Schriften II (1928), p. 148 ss. ; R. Philippson, «Des Akademikers Kritik der epikureischen Theologie im ersten Buche der Tuskulanen Ciceros»,Symo. Osl. 20 (1940), p. 21-44, andRE 2te Reihe VIla ( 1939), col. 1154. Philo's material may itself have been derived, through. Clitoinachus, from Carneades, · who, to judge from his remarks quoted by Plutarch in Non posse 1 089c, also knew Timocrates' book. Tlie Academy clearly made it a standard reference work for anti-Epicurean propaganda. Was it to the Academy that Timocrates deserted ( cf. Bignone, L 'Ar. perd. II,46)? 34. Plutarch, Col. 1124e'-1127e, and Non posse 1097a-1098d. At Non posse 1 097 d-e the account of life in the Garden, with expensive foods on the table and the courtesans Leontion1 Boidion, Hedeia and Nicidion dancing attendance, seems to be basea on a memory of the passage from Timocrates cit(;ld in D.L. X, 7. And in 1 098b Plutarch gives, as an example of the base pleasures which the Epicureans enjoyed, the exultation of Metrodorus' mother and sister at his marriage to a courtesan and at his polemical works against his own brother Timocrates. In the other passage, at' 1126c, there is a further allegation manifestly derived from Timocrates :Plato, who sent out his disciples to reform state constitutions, is contrasted with Epicurus, who sent people to Asia to defame Timocrates and to get him banished from. the king's court, because he had offended Metrodorus whose brother he was. Not only do the two passages share a great deal of their source material, but they also have in common the fact that , nearly all their anti-Epicurean accusations are either directea against Metrodorus or concerned with him in some way - another pointer to Timocrates as source. (It should however be added that Plutarch's interest in Metrodorus is by no means confined to these two pas.sages). R. Westman, in his important study Plutarch gel{en Kolotes (A eta Philosophica Fennica VII, 19 55), allots only one bnef mention to Timocrates (p. 35. Non posse 1098 c-d : r'i "fOP ov rovTotr:; eotK.e Ta M'f/Tpoowpou npor:; TOV aoe'Atp(;v -ypa<.pdvr.or:; <<OVOev 0 ei 'EA.X'f/var:; ovo' eni OO<;iQ. OTetpavwv nap' aVTWV TVYX.CtV€tv, aA./1.' eathetV Kat' nt'vetv .OLVOV, W Tt,UOKpaTe<:;, b.[31\af3wr:; Tfl-yaaTpi Kai KEXapw,uevw<:;». K.ai nal\tv nov 'P'f/Otv ev Toir:; aVTOi<:; -ypa,u,uaatv W<:; «K.ai exap'f/V Kat el'Japavva,U'f/V, on e,ual'Jov nap' 'EtnKOVpOV opiJwr:; -yaaTpi · Kai «nepi -yaaTepa -yap, w tpVOto/1.6-ye Tt,UOKpaTec;, TO a-yal'JOV».

Cf. Athenaeus VII,279. f : Kai aVTOC:: o€ nov 0 M:r)Tp6owpoc:; OVK anoKpvnr6,uevor:; Tar:; KaMr:; TaVmr:; -&eaetr:: 'PfiOiv · nepi -yaaTepa -yap, w tpvawM'Ye Tt,u6KpaTEr:;, nepi -yqmepa o Kara tpvaw rrw anaaav exet anovo7]v. 36. Ep. Men. 130-2. 37. For further testimony to Epicurus' asceticism, see Seneca,Ep. mor. 18.9=Epicurus fr. 158 Usener, and D.L. X, ll=fr. 1R2 Usener . 38. Athenaeus VII 279f =Timon fr. 7 Diels (Poetarum Philosophorum Fragmenta, 1901). 39. CAF 3, 349-51. On the following passages, and their relation to anti-Epicureanpropagandaisee especially P. De Lacy, «Cicero's Invective against Piso», TAPA LXXI ( 1941), p. 49-58. · 40. CAF 3, 328. 41. CAF 3, 327.' .

,. ' 154 David Sedley

42: CAF 3, 414. I have omitted other probable parodies which do not mention Epicurus by name, most notably tile Asotodidaskalos of Alexis(?), CAF 2, 306 s. 43: Cf.,Thomas Carlyle's denunciation of «Profit-and-Loss Philosophy» (i.e.,, Utilitarianism) Sartor Resartus,Book II,Chapter 7 (1835): ,«Soul is not synonymous w1th Stomach». 44. Notes 38 and 35 above.

Alciphron, Epistulae amatoriae IV, 17,1 0 : JToocuw: ofet Jle, Ab.pta, 1rpor; aixrov lo {g,JTaparevoJlbrqv el1reiv «T{ JTote'ir; 'Em'Kovpe; oiJK otoiJa wr; OLaKWJli.t)0€1. 0€ TtJ10KpaTf/\ 6 Mf/Tpoowpov < aO€AI/)0\ > €m' TOVTOL\ ev ra'ir; EI<K Af/OLat\, ev roir; iJeaTpOL\' 1Tapa ro'ir; ii'A'AOL<: 00'/)W· rai<:;» i aXA.a r{ eanv aVT{i; 1Totf7oat; avaioxvvr6<: ean rij) epcw. 46."; Following Mf/Tpoowpov some mss. signal a lacuna, making the standard editorial insertion aoe'AI{J6<: a near certainty. 47. · I read Timocrates' allusion· to his escape from the Epicureans' JlVOTLKi? avvowrwriJ (D.L. X,6) as an attempt to prove his credentials as an authoritative source. Cf. D.L. X,5, the story that Epicurus praised and flattered Idomeneus, Herodotus and Timocrates for revealing his secrets ; however, the reference here may be to the assertion of Timocrates and Herodotus that Epicurus was not a genuine' Athenian citizen,, D.L. X, 4. That Timocrates became a major source of anti-

' Epicurean propaganda was first suggested by Usener (p. 419) ; and B1gnone (L Ar. perd. 11,223 ss.) names him as the source of the parodies in New Comedy. • '

· 48., D.L. X,136=Metrodorus fr. 29 Korte. Fr. 409 Usener : apxi? Kai JTavro<: araiJoii 1i rf7<: raorpo<:

, 1/oovi},' Kat ra 00'/)CL Kai Ta 1T€pLTTa elr; TaVTf/V EXeL T1JV aVai(Jopav. «Wisdom and excess» strikes me as the natural meaning of ra ooi{Ja, Ka( ra JTeptrra. Translators normally take 1TeptT7a here as denoting something good («culture» Bailey, «refinements» LSJ), presumably following the lead of Plutarch (Col. ll25b), who attributes to Metro-dorus,. not Epicurus1 the opinion that ra Ka'Aa 1ravra Kai aoi{JCL Kai 1T€pLTTa ri?<: 1/JVXi?<: always have physical pleasure as their goal. For there 1T€ptT7U must mean <<Unusual» rather than «excessive»., It sits in the phrase, and indeed when Pl1;1tarch para-phrases this passage m Non posse 1087d he prefers to om1t the word. My guess is that Metrodorus had quoted Epicurus' original saying, and was in turn perversely misinterpreted by Plutarch's source (probably

note 34 abov:e) me.aning by «clever inven-tlons» - an 1mprobable meamng 'ln Ep1curus' ongmal context, and one which debases the entire maxim. 50. Cf. fr. 558-60 Usener. 51.. ITepl lfJVOew<: XIV, fr. 29.28.17-18 Arr. 52. D.L. IX,112 (Timon) ; IIJ6 =Timon fr. 24 Diels (Anaxagoras). For a comprehensive list of Greek nicknames, see Hug's article 'Spitznamen', RE 2te Reihe IIIA,1821-40. 53: Fr. 22 B 125 Diels-Kranz : Kai 0 KVI<€WV odararat<Jlfl>J<LVOUJleVO<:. I accept this traditional emendation of Theophrastus,De vertigine 9-1 0 (vol. III p. 138 Wimmer). J. Bollack and H. Wismann (Heraclite, ou la separation, 1972, p. 340 s.) dt::fend the transmitted text, taking the maxim to stress the enduring separateness of the elements. But their

'attempt to show that Alexander Aphr.,Problemata IV, 42, where the negative occurs, preserves a quite different saying of Heraclitus overlooks the fact that this whole passage is a mere paraphrase of the Theophrastus text. For my present purposes the important point is that in antiquity the KVKewv was regularly understood as a symbol of universal flux (Chrysit>pus,SVF II, 937 ; Lucian, Vit. auct. 14). I can find no evidence for Epicurean hostility towards Heraclitus over the flux doctrine. To Lucretius (I, 635-704) and Diogenes of Oenoanda (5, I, 1 0-12; III, 7 ss. Chilton) his heresy is to have made fire the sole element. For Epicurus' receptiveness to his views on the nature of the

.,_;· .. ,: _( '- _,_ ....


sun, see my forthcoming article cited in note 88 below. 54. Antidorus was the subject, or addressee, of a work in two books by Epicurus ('Avriowpo<: a' W, D.L. X,26), and of a polemic by the Epicurean Colotes (Plutarch,.. Col. 1126a). If he can be identified with tlie 'Avr6owpo<: of D.L. V,9.d., he was himself an Epicurean, presumably a renegade hke Timocrates. For a full discussion of the problem, and of the nickname Lavv{owpo<:, see Cronert's fundamental study, Kolotes· undMenedemos, p. 24-6; also B.A. Miiller,RE Suppl. III (1918), p. 120-1. 55. Ed. A. Vogliano, «I frammenti del XIV libro del ITepi <fJVOeW<: di Epicuro» (Rend. Accad. Scienze Bologna, Classe Scienze Morali, serie terza, vol. VI, 1931-21 pp. 3-46) = fi. 29 Arr. ; see also W. Schmid's important study, Epzkurs Kritik der platonischer Elementenlehre, Klass. -Philo!. Stud. 9 (Leipzig 1936). 56. See D. «The Structure of Epicurus' On Nature», Cronache ercolanesi 4 (1974J,p. 89-92. · 57. 41Sa ss. ; this is B. Farrington's interpretation (Science and Politics in the Ancient World, 1939, p. 98, 130), followed by Arrighetti, p. 681. Note also that the «silver» class are called eJTiKoupot! 58. Athenaeus 249f, 254b, 435e. 59. D.L. X,12. Anaxagoras spent his final years at Lampsacus, where ne was honoured as a local hero for centuries after his death (fr. 59 A 23 Diels-Kranz ; D.L. II, 14), and where Archelaus is said to have succeeded to the headship of his school (fr. 59 A 7 Diels-Kranz). Epicurus, in establishing his own school at Lampsacus, may have set out quite deliberately to assume the mantle of Anaxagoras and Archelaus, presenting himself as their philosophical heir. 60. D.L. X, 13. Epicurus' claim has had its modern adherents. For an account of the controversy, see V.E. Alfieri, Gli atomisti : frammenti e testimonianze (1936), p. 8 note 27 ; and Guthrie H. G.P. 11,383. 61. Apollodorus the Epicurean accepted that Leucippus was the master of Democritus (D.L. X,13). 62. Cicero, N.D. I, 33; Tusc. I, 34; Fin. I,61 8 ; Plutarch,Non posse 11 OOa. Epicurus' attitude to Democritus w1ll receive a much fuller treatment in a forthcoming article by Pamela Huby, with whose findings I am in full agreement. But I differ slightly over the interpre-tation of these passages, which she regards as attributing to Epicurus a moderate and constructively critical attitude to Democritus. I read them as trying to show Epicurus in a less friendly light than this, but suspect that, with the possible exception of Tusc. I,34, they are based not on knowledge of Epicurus' actual writings but on a generalised anti-Epicurean tradition within the Academy, probably deriving ulti-mately from Timocrates. 63. D.L. V, 86. 64. D.L. 11,109. 65. Unless (which I doubt) he was praising Democritus as the man who judged other people for their idiocies. 66. Plutarch,Col. 11 08 e-f. 67. Epicurus must have Democritus particularly in mind in a passage of his ITepi I{J!Jaewr; where he criticises his forerunners' shirking of the free will question :The first men to give a satisfactory account of causes, greater men than their predecessors and man1 times greater than those who came after them, unwittingly ... made l!ght of weighty matters in assigning alf causation to necessity and chance (34.30. 7-17 Arr. ; Diano, Epicuri Ethica, 1946, p. 45-7 ). 68. Sextus,Math. 1,2-4 ; Cicero,N.D. I,72 ; D.L. X,l3. Cf. Aristocles ap. Euseb.,Praep. ev. XIV,20, 14: AE"f€Tat o€ 0 'E1TiKovpo<; V1TOJ1EVTLVWV Jlf/OeVO<:. b.i<f/KOeVat, evrvxe'iv oe roi<: TWV 1TaAaiwv 69. Math. 1,2-4 : OVK a1TeOLK€ oe Kai oui TflV 1Tpor; Navat'/)CLvrw TOV llvppwvo<; b.Kovari?v ex&paV' 7TOAAOlJ\ "fclP TWV vewv ovveixe Kai

I

•

156 David Sedley

' 'TWV /).alJ·ruJ.arwv anovoaiwc; /).aNO'Ta oe P'fi'TOPLK.i]c;. '}'€VO-. · /).evoc; ovv 'TOV'TOV JJ.a1'lflrilc; 0 'EniK.ovpoc; vnep 'TOV OOK.eiv aV'TOOLOaK.roc; 1 elvm K.ai aV'TOipvi}c; \{A-ADOO'{!Oc; iJpveiro eK. navroc; rponov, rf7v re nepi

a!Jrov eanevoe, no"l\vc; re e'}'ivero rwv /).a1'lf//).arwv K.a7f7'}'opoc;, ev ole; eaeJJ.VVvero. 1/)f/OL '}'OVV ev rfl npoc; rove; ev MvnAf7vn \{A-AOOOI{)Ovc; enwro"Afl «07/J.at o€ e'}'w'}'e rove; {3apvar6vovc; K.ai

! JJ.a1'lf/rf7v !J.€ rov n"/\eVJJ.OVoc; elvat, J.l.eTCl JJ.etpaK.iwv nvwv K.patnaAWV'TWV CtK.OVaavra», vvv n"AeV/).OVa K.a"Awv 'TOV Navm\{)aVf/V we;

. avaia1'lf/rov· K.ai naAl.v npo{3ac; rro"AM re K.aremwv ravopoc; vneJJ.tpaivet 'TfJV ev roic; /).afYt1/).aatv aV'TOV npoK.oni}v AE'}'WV «K.ai '}'G,P nOVflpOc;

- av1'Jpwnoc; iiv K.ai emre'Tf/O€VK.Wc; TOWV'Ta wv ov ovvarov elc; aotpiav . e"/\1'Jeiv», alvwao/).evoc; ra /).afYt1/).ara".

·. 70. f3apvarovot is a colloquial name for actors (Demosthenes 18,262). Could Epicurus here be expressing anxiety about being misrepresented on the stage (cf. § 4)? Plutarch (Non posse 10B6 e-f) includes the word in a list of e1ght abusive terms whose use he attributes jointly to Epicurus and Metrodorus ; he then lists seven philosophers as

_targets of the invective. the t"':o lists do not seem to .correspond ·closely, and the Loeb ed1tors (B. Emarson and P. De Lacy, Plutarch's Moralia, vol. XIV, 1967, p. 16-17) are perhaps overconfident in connecting [3apvar6vovc; with Theophrastus by a process of elimination. In the present study I am attaching less weight tha:n is usual to this l'_assage, since it does not specify which of the terms were used by

.: • Epicurus and which by Metroaorus. 71. Sextus1 loc. cit. in note 69 above ; Aristotle,PA 681 a 18 ; cf. Plato,Phileo. 21 c.

. 72. The fragments of Philodemus' rhetorical works take Nausiphanes . to task at great length. For bibliography, see F. Longo, «Nausifane nei

papiri ercolanesi» (Ricerche sui papirt ercolanesi, ed. F. Sbordone, vol. I, 1969, p. 9-21), p. 13 note 12. 73. Ariston, D.L. X,14. 74. However, the only explicit testimony for Nausiphanes' theory of knowledge puts him in the mainstream of fourth-century Demo-critean scepticism about knowledge of the phenomenal world. Seneca,

.. Ep. · mor. 88.43-5.: Nausiphanes ait ex his quae uidentur esse nihil · magis esse quam non esse ; ... si Nausiphanz (sc. credo), hoc unum

certum est, nihil esse certi. I agree 'with Bignone (L 'Ar. perd. II, 65 ss.) that Seneca's source for this entire is Epicurean (but not Epicurus himself, as Bignone thinks1 since in § 44 the Academic!, qui nouam induxerunt scientiam, ninil scire must be the men of Arcesilaus' New Academy). We thus cannot discount the possibility that Nausiphanes' scepticism is being exaggerated for polemical

. purposes. 7 5. Philodemus,Adversus [sophistas] fr. X Sbordone = Epicurus fr. 104 Arr. 7 6. D.L. IX,64. 77. I have in mind the doctrine of no"/\"1\axwc; evo exea1'lat in the Letter to Pythocles, and the sceptical tone of the passage from Tiepi I{)Vaewc; XI quoted in § 10 below.

· 78. Pyrrho was at any rate an avid reader of Democritus (D.L. IX, 67), . as well as being the teacher of the Democritean Nausiphanes. 79. D.L. IX,62-8. 80. Ep. Men. 130 ; SV 44-5, 77 ; fr. 476 Usener ; fr. 135a Usener (p. 345)=fr. 58 Arr .. For Epicurean anpa'}'iJ.OOVVf/, see Usene;:,p. 2, 6 ; p. 328, 21 ; cf .. also the title of a work by Metrodorus, uepi rov

, elvat TfJV nap' iJJJ.ac; air{av npoc; €VOaLJ.WViav rf}c; eK. n0v · ._,} npa'}'/).arwv (Metrodorus fr. 5 Korte). Closely linked to this concept

pursuit._ .. of an overriding goal. for both schools. ' ,_:-,_ .. :,-_:·,:_:: -.,

. I


81. D.L. X, 119 : the wise man will not live like a Cynic or be a beggar. 82. Fr. 173-5 Usener . 83. Although the self-sufficiency of the wise man is a doctrine which in its various forms looms large m the Socratic tradition of philosophy, it is much more central to Cynicism than to the politically-minded schools of Plato and Aristotle. Furthermore, the Democritean tradition may have an even stronger claim to it. It is already foreshadowed in the fragments of Democritus (68 B 246 Diels-Kranz; cf. B 176, 210), and takes on an importance with Pyrrho and Epicurus. Most striking of all, Pyrrho s pupil Hecataeus of Abdera went so far-as to name avrapK.eta as the ret..oc; (73 A 4 Diels-Kranz). For a general history of the concept, seeP. Wilpert,RAC I, col. 1039-50. 84. SV 45 . 85. Fr. 117 Usener; cf. the more famous advice to Pythocies, fr. 163 Usener. 86. Math.I, 272, 281 ss .. In this context Sextus specifically links Pyrrho and Epicurus as the two 'YPCL/.J.!J.anK.f]c; K.arf7'}'opot (at Math. I,l it is not they but their schools that are named as the opponents of the !J.aiYt?JJ.aTa). For Pyrrho's indifference to erudition, see a:lso Timon's verses quoted at D.L. IX,65. 87. Fr. 20 Usener. 88. A full examination of the evidence concerning the Cyzicenes requires a good deal of papyrological, philological and biographical discussion, which I cannot undertake here_ without upsetting the balance of this paper. What I therefore offer is a summary of my results, inculding the relevant texts, but omitting most critical apparatus and discussion of detail. For a fuller account the reader is referred to my forthcoming article in Cronache ercoldnesi, «Epicurus and the Mathematicians of Cyzicus». For earlier discussions1 see Bignone, L'Ar. perd. II, 76 ss,; C. Diano, Lettere di Epicuro e aei suoi (1946), p. 29-30 ; W. Liebich Aufbau, Absicht und Form der Pragmateiai Philodems ( 1960), p. 44-53 ; L. Spina,_ «Eudosso e ciziceni nei papiri ercolanesi», Cronache ercolanesi I (1971;, p. 69-72. 89. L 'Ar. perd. II, 76 ss. 90. Fr. 6 coL III Vogliano (Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta in Hercu-lanensibus papyris servata, 192 8). I now give my own readings of the papyrus, since Bignone and all since him have been badly misled by Vogliano's text. This numbers among its errors the astonishing misreading of the name Arcephon in line 3 as Xenophanes, as a result of which this fragment even infiltrated the appendix to Diels-Kranz (Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 8 th ed., 1956, p. 491). ne] jpi nvoc; aarpoi"Ao'}'O'}'[e]wiJ.erpov napialrflatV ['A]pK.e-I{JW!i?'L K.ai I roic; n[ep]i rov 'loo!J.eveja K.ai [A]e[o]vrea nwppwjre,bwt ?TPof3aivov[a]t nejpi avmpeaewc; rf]c; I .]tp[ ......... J ........... ]!J 6[K.]VfljLo]ovc; ovaxej[p]aivwv, roo' en[i] nav AVJJ.f/c; [ ... ]vov-!J.evov j[ .. ]woao.[ ..... ]rwlj[ ..... ] ro [ ..... f His opinion l concerning a certain astronomer:seometrician .of Cyzicus he makes clear to Arcephon and to the followers of Idomeneus and Leonteus who go too far in arguing against the doctrine of aponia [.; ....... , and] seems angry at their cowaraice, 91. Philodemus Tipa·YJJ.areiru (PHerc. 1418) col. XX (Diano op. cit. in note 88 ab<;)Ve, p. 9-10 ; Liebich, OR. cit. 1 p. _32 The text corrects a large number of m1sreadmgs m D1ano's versiOn :-'-1! ]JJ.ac; npo[ ..... j ............. ]o11awova. [ .... ]fi'YJJ.[ ·I·-- K.ru' np ]9e"A1'Jwv· «Kp6vt0c; K9[tv]'o,"Ao['Yei] I iiv 'TV[X]T/, K.aine•p, ov!K. [ ... ]01T0c;' wv, anetpoc; Be "/\enrol AO'}'iac; ota 'TO J.l.f/Oe 'TOV lK.avwc; ev I \(A-AOaoi{Jiru, K.a1'Janep iJIJ.iV e"AeyevJ!fai 'Ap[K.]etpw[v] K.a[i] 'TO OVJJ.f3!=[f3]17K.[oc;] I €!J.il[v]vev». Kpoviwt o' avrwl' r'Y1 [p,i'] j<,qwv'· «OVK OALUKt<; '}'ap K.ai Aeoi>IT[w]v npoc; "En{K.ov[p]ov €V\{)f/J.l.Wc; n[eJip[i] aov

J

ll'mtr-·_:. :c ,<

>

158 David Sedley

K.ai npenovrwr; o o 7Japa oov K.a[i] TWV viwv r ?WV I<. at nap' I<. at

r[ar;] wr; 1<.[ .... ]. [ ....... ]o[ ... j And later in the same letter : «Cronius debates skilfully when the occasion arises, even though he is not r ... ] and lacks experience of logic-chopping 'because Eudoxus himself did not spend enough time on philosophy, as Arcephon also told us as well as recounting what had happened)). And in a letter to Cronius himself: ((For Leontion too has frequently spoken of you to 'Epicurus in kind and appropriate terms, and so has Pythocles, whom you have sent to stay with us, and who is taking charge of your sons and considers that it was under the influence of Eudoxus and Diotimus that those letters were written which ...... ». 92. Cf. Bignone, L 'Ar. per d. II, 83 ; Diano, Zoe. cit. in note 88 above ; Rist, Epicurus, An Introduction, p. 7 (where he is wrongly called «Polyaenus of Cyzicus» ). 93. For Eudoxus' hedonismA see AristotleiEN X, 1172b 9 ss. . The fragment quoted in note above imp ies a connexion between Ep1curus' hostility to the Cyzicenes and the opposition of some

. Lampsacene Epicureans to the doctrine of anovia, the doctrine. that the absence of bodily suffering is necessary to the truly Qleasurable life.

.· Vogliano's misreadings Ze< V>OI,O[avet in line 3 and anoo[ in line _ 8 have led to a wide-spread misapprehension that the dispute concerned

scepticism and theology. 94. See Bignone, L 'Ar. perd. 11 1 85, and «Conferme e aggiunte all' Aristotele perduto» (Melanges Bmsacq I, 1937, p. 87-116),98 ss .. For Babylonian influences in Hellenistic mathematics and astronomy, see 0. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (1957, 2nd ed. 1969\ Chapter VI.

. 9?. I JII - rL] b III Vogliano (1 resti dell' XI libra del lle.oi 1,0voewr; ctz Epzcuro, 1940, p. 36-43)=fr. 26.37, 1 - 41, 21 Arr.. The book is preserved in two copies among the Herculaneum papyri (PHerc. 154, in Naples, and PHerc. 1042, now in London). The text offered here which corrects Vogliano's misreadings, amalgamates my readings of the two papyri into a single draft without any indication of the original line divisions. I have already discussed the first column in Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Papyrologists (Oxford 1974),p. 269-75. 96. Plutarch, Vit. Marc. 14. For a full account of the «Antikythera mechanism,>, see now Derek de Solla Price, Gears from the Greeks (1975). 97. Either Epicurus had already written Book XI before his move from Lampsacus to Athens in 307/6, or he wrote it during one of his subsequent visits to Lampsacus (D.L. X>10). The former would mean a surprising gap of seven or more years between Book XI and Book XV (wntten m 300/299). 98. Simplichis, In De caelo 493, 11 ss. · 99. Ep. Pyth. 93. 1 00, Some of this section on the Megarians is based on my article «Epicurus, On Nature1 Book XXVIII» (Cronache ercolanesi 3, 1973, p. 5-83), which shoula be consulted for the texts quoted here and for further comment (especially p, 16-7,21,62-5, 71-3). Wl. D.L. II,l06. 102. In my article cited in note 100 above, I have maintained (p. 63) that Diodorus did not die as is usually said, in 307 B.C., and was probably still alive in 296/5. To the arguments adduced there. I can

. now add the following. An anecdote preserved by Sextus (PH II 245) makes Diodorus a friend of the phys1cian Herophilus. The latter was active in Alexandria in the first half of the thud century B.C., and hisfioruit is placed by Jaeger about 270-60 («Vergessene Fragmente des Peripatetikers Diokles von Karystos», Abh.d.preuss.Akad.d. Wiss., 1938;


Phil.-Hist.Kl., 3, p. 15, 36 ss.) ; for further evidence supportin_g Jaeger's dating, see· P.M. Fraseri Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972) vol. If, 504 note 58. Fraser himself (vo . I, 481) dates Diodorus' floruit to the second quarter of the third century, forgetting that Zeno of Citium was his pupil in the late fourth century (D.L. VII,25), but this at least is an error in the right direction : it is time that we stopped thinking of Diodorus as the determinist to whom Aristotle reacted, and placed his career firmly in the Hellenistic period. 103. Fr. 121-9 Doring (Die Megariker, 1972). There is certainly some connexion between this argument of Diodorus' and Epicurus' similar theory about motion (fr. 278 Usener). H. von Arnim ( «Epikurs Lehre vom Minimum», Almanach d.Kais.Akad.d. Wiss., Wien 1907 p. 14) and J. Mau ( «Uber die Zuweisung zweier Epikur-Fragmente», Philologus IC, 1955, p. 93-111, esp. 107 ss.) see here a direct dependence of Epicurus on Diodorus. I think it more likely that both derived their views from Aristotle (cf. Furley's study, cited in note 21 above). 104. In Sextus' discussion of motion (Math. X,37-168), the deniers of motion are listed as Parmenides and Melissus, who are even made the authors of the Zenonian dichotome argument (ib.46-7),and Diodorus (ib.48). Zeno is known to Sextus only as the inventor of dialectic (Math. VII, 7). Another Sceptic source (D.L. IX, 72) informs us that Zeno denied the existence of motion, and then promptly saddles him with one of Diodorus' most characteristic arguments : ro K.tVOVJ.1€VOV our' ev i}l eon T01T4J K.tvei.Tat our' ev 0 JJ.fJ eon. This ( pace Vlastos, Phronesis XI, 1966, p. 4) is not identical to Zeno's arrow argument : the Zenonian arrow is trapped in an instant of time, while the Diodorean would-be mover 1s trapped in a pocket of s2ace without any reference to time (Diodorus fr. 124, 127 Doring). The form of argument is strongly associated with Diodorus (cf. fr .. 126, 128 fin.), and I am doubtful about crediting Zeno with its invention. . 105. D.L. X,31. 1 06. See above, note 7. 107. Fr. 126, 128 fin. Doring. 108. Fr. 131-9 Doring. 109. Cicero,De fato 21 ; cf. 37, and the texts cited in fr. 376 Usener. 110. Aristotle,EN III,l-5 hardly counts as a fundamental investigation of t}.le will Epicurus'. study of it, ip. a book of the Ilept I,OVOewr;, survlVes iragmentanly m three cop1es among the Herculaneum papyri, published by C. Diano, Epicuri ethica ( 1946) p. 24-51 =fr. 34 Arr .. D1ano's readings, supnlied to him by Vogliano, are largely unsound, and I am now working ori a revised editwn. 111. Epicurus' arguments in his book on free will (see previous note) are' largely, ·phrased as criticisms of contemporary determinism. In the fragment cited in note 67 above, his assertion that the earlier atomists were unaware that they were making light of weighty matters in calling necessity and chance universal causes is sandwiched. parentheti-cally between comments on the self-contradictoriness of an implicitly present-day determinist. . 112. For the date, see my edition (art. cit. in note 1 00 above), p. 56, 79.. 113. 13 IV 5 inf.- V 12 sup. 114. Cf. fr. 111-5 Doring. 115. 13 IX 11-18 sup. 116. Fr. 109-10 Doring; cf. Lucian,Vit.auct. 22. 117.Plato,Theaet.165b-c · 118. Among those who have read thispaper and discussed its contents with me, lam particularly endebted to Dr. J ¢rgen Mejer of Copenhagen.

Epicurus and his professional rivals

Documents

Transcript of Epicurus and his professional rivals