Sedley Epicurus Rivales

8/18/2019 Sedley Epicurus Rivales

1/20

: á i ''

EPICURUS AND HIS PROFESSIONAL RIVALS.

I ntroduction

For a historical appreciation of any system of thought acertain amount of biographical information is needed. Other-wise we may never progress beyond vague speculation aboutits philosophical ancestry ; for the same doctrine can just as

well be fostered by the negative influence of one school ofthought as by the positive influence of another. If on the nother hand, we can . find out whom its founder 1and what he thought of them, our hand is immediatelystrengthened. In this respect we are very much better furnishedwith clues about the origins of Epicureanism than we areabout those of Stoicism and Scepticism, the other two

áschools that grew up in the generation following the death ofAristotle. B ut my feeling is that writers on Epicureanism haveeither ignored these clues or handled them far too uncritically.The object of this study is to establish just what Epicurus didthink 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 Atheniancleruch, a schoolmaster named Neocles. He turned to thestudy of philosophy in his early teens, impatient, it was said,at his sch oolteache r s inability to answer his question : Ç


2/20

122 David Sedley

become famous as the Garden, and established his schoolthere. He had already while in Asia Minor gathered aroundhim most of those who were subsequently to stand out as theleading figures of the Epicurean movement. Many, includinghis closest associate Metrodorus, joined him in Athens, butsome stayed behind to keep up the Epicurean groups inMytilene and Lampsacus. In his travels, Teos, Lampsacus andAthens had provided the settings for a series of encounterswith other philosophers, and these did not fail to leave thei rmark on him.

2. Diogenes Laertius X 6-8.

Epicurus still retains a reputation for having Çset a depth ofpolemic hitherto unplumbed among ancient philosophersÈOne product of this is a massive study published by EttoreBignone in 1936,4 in which Epicurus formative perio d 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 madepossible by the uncritical acceptance of an ancient traditionabout Epicurus malice towards other philosophers, preservedin Diogenes Laertius X 6-8. I t is around this passage that Ishall construct my own argument. Diogenes is listing theclaims of Epicurus detracto rs, before moving on to those ofhis sympathisers.K.ai p.ilv K.ai Ttp.oK.poxf/>. And he called himjelly fish , and illiterate ,

and swindler a nd prosti-tute . And the Platonistshe called Dionysus-flatte-rers ; Plato himself golden ;Aristotle a debauchee, andone who had squanderedhis famil y property andjoine d the army, and a drug-gist ; Protagoras a porter,Democritus secretary, anda village schoo lmaste r; Hera-clitus The Stirrer ; Demo-critus Lerocritus (Judge ofIdiocies) ; Antidorus Sanni-

Text


3/20

124 David Sedley

n]v, Kai Ll.1]JJ.OKptrov A17p6.KpLrov, Kai Avr{8wpovLavvi8wpov á rove; reK1JVOVsupplevi: Hermann 64 rro A.vl(J{}opovr;Bake : rro A.vl(J{}ovepovr;codd

This catalogue of abuse has done Epicurus' reputation nogood. It has given the impression of an upstart who, for lack ofgood 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 Herodot i maligni-

tate to go on. We should suspend judgment long enough toask ourselves how and why anyone might have compiled thisDe Epicuri malignitate. Unfortunately throughout this cen-tury credence has been given to the extraordinary view ofWilhelm Cronert that the source of these epithets was asingle letter by Epicurus.S Cronert himself, reconstructingthis bizarre letter, arbitrarily incorporated in it a variety offurther att( cks by Epicurus for which he thou ght he hadfound evidence, and concluded that the one letter - whichhas since become famous as the Letter to the Philosophers inMytilene9 - vilified Pythagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus,Democritus, Protagoras, Hipparchus, Nausiphanes, Socrates,Plato, the Platonists, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Heraclides ofPontus, Phaedo, Aristippus, the Cynics, Stilpo, Alexinus,Antidorus, Pyrrho, and Zeno of Citium.l 0 Then, as if torefute his own argument, he commented that Epicurus wouldneverá have written a letter like this, and t hat it mu st havebeen a forgery. At least two subsequent scholars have alsowelcomed the forgery theory, as an easy way of getting'Epicurus off the hook l l

Such an indiscriminate barrage of abuse, even if it couldbe fathered on Epicurus, might persuade us that we áweredealing with a psychopath, but would leave us none the wiseras to his philosophical ancestry. However, even at first glancethe various epithets look too heterogeneous to fit Cronert's

Epicurus and his professional rivals 125

account. They must have been culled from a number ofdifferent sources. Some are merely nicknames, habitual waysof referring to opponents rather than insults applied on oneparticular occasion. That this is how he used 'The Jellyfish'of his former te acher Nausiphanes is clear from its occurrencein a sentence which survives verbatim from one of hisletters.l 2 On the other hand the epithet 'illiterate', alsoapplied to Nausiphanes, is presumably not a nickname buta description. These and other differences will become clearin the paragraphs which follow.

3. Aristotle and Protagoras.

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

lthough I ve still plenty to say abou t the Druggist sfoolish words, I ll stop - although I know that evenEpicurus, that great devotee o f truth, says this of him in theLetter on Occupations, that having squandered his familyproperty he joined the army, and that, doing badly in it,he took up the drug-trade ; then, he says, since Plato s schoolhad opened, he entered it and attended the lectures, beingnot ungifted, and gradually attained t he character14 for whi chhe is known. I know that Epicurus is the only person to have

accused him of this, and t hat nei ther Eubulides nor evenCephisodorus dared make such an accusation against theStagirite, although they even publish ed works against him.

nd in the same letter Epicurus also says that the sophistProtagoras, having been a por ter and a wood-carrier, firstbecame Democritus secretary. e impressed Democritus bysome special way he had of tying up logs, and through thisstart he was taken u nder his wing. He also became a school-teacher in some village. nd it was from these activities thathe embarked on the business of sophistry. nd I too, fellowdiners, from this long speech shall now embark on thebusiness o f gluttony.

Although this story of Aristotle was a well known one


4/20

126 David Sedley

when Athenaeus wrote,l 5 Epicurus was the sole source forit, and we had better be more cautious than Athenaeusabout believing i t. l 6 On the other hand, the account ofProtagoras' early career belongs to a biographical traditiongoing back at least to Aristotle. 7 Protagoras, as a youngman, had a job carrying logs. He invented some device whichmade the work easier. This won him the admiration of hisfellow-Abderite Democritus, who, seeing in him a potentialphilosopher, undertook his education.

Now clearly these tales could sound slanderous to anunsympathetic 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 dissoluteearly life by adding that when he discovered philosophy heturned out to be gifted? The title of the letter, n Occupa-tions confirms that the theme was the occupations whichsome 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 tobecome distinguished philosophers. And among them are twopupils of Epicurus - Mys a slave, 1 8 and Leontion, who hadbeen a courtesan.19 It must have been to pupils like thesethat Epicurus addressed his Letter on Occupations in anattempt to convince them that their humble past careersneed 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 toadvertise its courses with a poster which read, ÇAt the age ofthirty-five Gaugin worked in a bankÈ. The point was not, ofcourse, to mock Gaugin as a bank-clerk.

This account of Epicurus' attitude to Aristotle lendssupport to some important work done since Bignone, byFurley and others.21 This is beginning to reveal an Epicurusacquainted with some portions of Aristotle's school treatises,and sometimes making constructive use of their argumentsin formulating his own doctrines. I doubt if Bignone'spicture of the young Epicurus vehemently polemicising'against the early, Platonising works of Aristotle, whileremaining altogether ignorant of the school treatises, ácanany longer be taken seriously. That Epicurus knew at leastsome of Aristotle's school treatises is virtually proved by afragment of a letter,. written by Epicurus or by one of


his contemporary followers; in which Aristotle's Analyticsare specifically named.22 The only attack by Epicurus onAristotle for which any real evidence exists was one in whichhe denounced the teaching of rhetoric.2 3 If, as remainsprobable, Epicurus had further occasion to refute.Peripateticdoctrines, his target is more likely to have been Theophrastus.

For Theophrastus was head of the Lyceum during most ofEpicurus' residence in Athens, and by all accounts enjoyedenormous popularity. He was credited 'with a following ofsome two thousand pupils, and it was said, with some exagge-ration, that the entire population of Athens turned out forhis funerai.24 It comes as no surprise to find that the attestedtitles of Epicurus' works include one Against Theophrastus 2 5though none against Aristotle. A living rival is more of athreat than a dead one.

4. Timocrates.

The report of the Letter on Occupations in DiogenesLaertius is meticulously accurate in its vocabulary butthoroughly deceitful in the slant it puts on it. Clearly thenthe other supposed insults, stripped of their original context,must also be approached with caution. To explain thehostile reporting, we need look no further than the specialgrudge borne by its source, Timocrates.26 A brother ofMetrodorus, he too joined the school, but in time broke withit and became its implacable opponent.2 7 Epicurus wrotea work Maxims concerning Emotions against Timocratesand another work against him in three books.28 Metrodorusalso 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 examplecan be found in the first book of Cicero's De natura deorum.Cotta, the Academic spokesman, in his refutation of Epicureantheological doctrine, complains of the general belligerence ofEpicureans to their opponents. Among others he cites thecase of Epicurus himself : 3 o

...... although Epicurus slanderously a ttacked Aristot levilely defamed Phaedo the Socratic wrote whole bookstearingapart Timocrates the brother o his friend Metrodorusbecause o some philosophical disagreement or other was


5/20

128 David Sedley

ungrateful even to Democritus whose teaching he followed,áand showe d such hostil ity to Nausiphanes, his.owrr teacherfrom whom he had learned nothing

. list coincides with that of Diogenes Laertius in namingslanders against Aristotle, Democritus and Nausiphanes. Thedefamation o f Phaedo is attested only_ here, but is not hardto explain. Phaedo, although he wrote Socratic dialogues andeven founded a short-lived school at Elis, was best remem-bered for the fact that be for e becoming a pupil o f Socrateshe had been a slave and a male prostitute.31 It is not easyto believe that Epicurus found. cause to wage a philosophicalpolemic against this long-dead and uninfluential figure, butonly too likely that he gave an account of Phaedo s unusualbackground alongside those of Protagoras and Aristotle inthe Letter on Occupations, and that this too was laterdistorted by Timocrates into the appearance of slander.

But what is most revealing in Cicero s list is its inclusionof an attack on Timocrates himself. After his own lifetime

Timocrates seemsto

have been unknown as a philosopher,being remembered only as someone who had fallen outwith Epicurus. So what is he doing here in the company ofAristotle, Phaedo, Nausiphanes and Democritus? The diffi-culty : vanishes -once we recognise that Timocrates himselfwas not only Diogenes Laertius source but also Cicero s. ForTimocrates á had an obvious axe to grind. Epicurus haddenounced him ; and in his own defence he set out, it seems,to show that Epicurus had similarly slandered all the greatphilosophers, and that he was thus in good company.> For confirmation that Timocrates was Cicero s ultimatesource we need only read on a few pages. For the only othermention of Timocrates in Cicero s entire works occurs soonafterwards in the same speech of Cotta, this time in hiscritique ofthe Epicurean concept of p,leasure. Co tta tells howthe Academic philosopher Philo of . Larisa of ten quotedverbatim. Epicurus . sayings on pleas:ure, and many moreshameless ones of Metrodorus :32 For Metrodorus attackshis own brother Timocrates for hesitating to make the bellytheá measure o f everything contributing to a happy life.Notice the similarity to the previous passage, with Timocratesonce again cast in the role of inno cent victim of persecution.My confident guess is that both these parts of Cotta s speechderive from a single Academic source, presumably Philo,3 3Cicero ás former teacher, whose info rmation will have come

.

.


Timocrates re-appears in this guise of innocent victim insome anecdotes preserved by another voice of the Academictradition, Plutarch. These are found in a section of his anti-Epicurean work Against Colotes and in a very similar passageof his later work Epicurus Doctrines Make a Pleasant LifeImpossible. Both passages seem to contain many echoes of

Timocrates attacks on Epicurus and Metrodorus ;34 and atone point we are given fuller details of the charge preservedby Cicero, that Metrodorus assailed Timocrates for doubtingthat all happiness can be . measured by the belly : 3 5

Does this not resemble Metrodorus words written to hisbrother, ((There is no need to save the Greeks or to winhonours from them for wisdom, but to eat and to drink wine,Timocrates, gratifying not harming the belly? È nd againin the same lett er he says, dt brought me joy andfortitudeto learn from Epicurus the right way to gratify the belly)),and dt is the belly, natural philosopher Timocrates, withwhich the good is concerned)),

I feel strongly that the sourceof

these remarks was notMetrodorus l etter itself, but Timocrates distorted report ofit - with the vocatives inserted to strengthen its air ofauthenticity. There is no doubt that both Epicurus andMetrodorus taught that a stable condition of physicalwellbeing, including iná particular absence of hunger, is amajor factor of happiness. But the advocacy of gluttony.quoted by Cicero and Plutarch reads like a malicious parodyof the doctrine. Furthermore, there is good independentevidence that it was parodied in this way in Epicurus ownlifetime, and that Timocrates was one of the culprits. Thechief item o f evidence is Epicurus own words in a passageof his Letter to Menoeceus, which also deserves attention asa correct statement of the Epicurean doctrine o n gastronomicpleasures : 3 6 á

Sellsufficiency we consider a great good, not so that wemay in all circumstances make do with little, but so thati f we do not have much we may make do with the little, inthe true persuasion that luxury is best enjoyed by those whoneed it least, and that any thing natural is easilv attainablewhile that which serves no purpose is hard to Plainflavours bring the same pleasure as a luxurious diet wheneverall the pain brought about by want is removed, and breadand water affor d the highest pleasure when taken by someone


6/20

130 David Sedley

in need o f them. Therefore to grow accustomed to plain, andnot luxurious, fare is an essential ingredient o health, makesa man resolute for the necessary activities o f ife, disposes usthe better for the luxuries when we do meet them from timeto time, and makes us courageous in the face o f fortune. Sowhen we say that the end is pleasure, we do not mean the

pleasures o the debauched and those that are found in highliving, as some people out o ignorance and lack o sympathyor through misunderstanding us believe we do (w< IL V a (VOOiwre


7/20

I 132 David Sedley

, á t does not of course follow th at all Timocrates' allegations'against Epicurus and Metrodorus are false. His handling ofá Epicurus' biographical accounts of Protagoras and Aristotle: suggests that he preferred to bend the truth rather thanjettison it altogether. That Metrodorus did write to Timocrateson the topic of pleasure is not in doubt,48 and we know that

' in doing so he defended Epicurus' doctrine that in additionáto momentary ÇkineticÈ pleasure i7oovi] Kara KtVT/OtV there

.áá is a long-term state of ÇkatastematicÈ pleasure, which for thebody consists in absence of pain a1rovia) and for the mind in

á absence of worry t is quite possible that he alsoquoted with approval Epicurus' remark that The pleasureo the stomach s the beginning and root o all good and

á 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 givingpride áof place to gastronomic pleasures. f Metrodorus

áreally wrote to Timocrates that he had learnt from Epicurus. how á to gratify the belly, he must have added that theá 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 theremarks that seem to rriake gastronomic pleasures the onlygood, I can see no alternative to regarding the m as maliciouslyfathered on Metrodorus by Timocrates. My most charitablesuggestion 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 tosaying that there was no need to save Greece or to win

honours for wisdom, and that all that mattered was eatingand drinking, but that for rhetorical effect he used the formof direct quotation.

5 Heraclitus.

á With these clues as to the type of distortion practised byTimocrates, we can now return to the list of abusive names

á whose use he attributed to Epicurus. t is obvious to-anyonebrowsingin the surviving writings of Epicurus that he sufferedfrom a deep-seated aversion to mentioning his rivals by name.Usually they appear simply as ÇsomeoneÈ or Çsome peopleÈ,

. J ¥ ¥ . ¥ ¥ ¥


or else generically as Çthe physicistsÈ, Çthe sophistsÈ, orÇthe astronomersÈ. (Only once in his surviving philosophicalworks does he name a philosopher outside his own school,and this is Empedocles'Sl ). No doubt the nicknames listed byTimocrates served a similar function. But even nicknames arenot necessarily indicative of contempt. Epicurus' contempo-

rary Timon of Phlius ha d nicknames for everybody includinghimself - Cyclops, because of his one eye and calledAnaxagoras o Noik 52 a tag which picked out his centraldoctrine but at the same time expressed esteem for him.Similarly when Epicurus labelled Heraclitus o theStirrer, he was neatly picking out what was regarded asHeraclitus' central doctrine, that of eternal flux, and atthe same time punning on his metaphor of the KVKewv, orbarley-drink, which in the words of Heraclitus separatesyou do not stir it.53 t would need something more thanTimocrates' word to persuade me that Epicurus' intentionhere was malicious.

6. Plato

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

I include Plato as a forerunner for the reason, mentionedearlier, that Platonism seems to have presented the young

Epicurus with his first excursion into philosophy. There arefew of his mature doctrines which could not be explainedin some sense as reactions against Platonism. But the onlypolemic that can be pinned down with certainty is in thepapyrus fragments of Book XIV of his Tiep 55 Muchof the small surviving portion is devoted. to criticising thetheory of elements put forward in Plato's Timaeus. But in allprobability it is part of a systematic refutation of all rivalphysical theories ; 6 and if so it has no special significance forEpicurus' reaction against Plato. When Epicurus called PlatoÇthe GoldenÈ he probably had in mind Plato's proposal inRepublic III to divide the citizens into three classes called


8/20

134 David Sedley

Golden, Silver and Bronze, the Golden ones being thephilosophers. 57 As for the title Dionysus-flatterers whichhe gave to the Platonists, this was a name in regular use forthe flatterers of the Syracusan tyrant Dionysius, 8 and inusing it of the Platonists he was clearly mocking their questfor 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 onEpicurus thought was Democritus. t is impossible to saywhether it was the works of Democritus that led Epicurusto the school of Nausiphanes, or vice versa. But we cansafely assume that by this time he had decisively reject ed thephilosophy of Plato and shifted his main interest to thePresocratics. Of these Democritus was not in fact the one hemost admired. According to the biographer Diodes hisfavourite Presocratics were Anaxagoras, although he some-times criticised him, and his disciple Archelaus.s 9 Of hisdirect predecessors in atomism, Leucippus was stated byboth Epicurus and his eventual successor Hermarchus neverto have existed,60 although this view was not shared by allmembers of the schoo1.61 As for Democritus, Epicurus is saidby- Cicero and Plutarch to have spoken of him offensivelyand ungratefully.62 This can be connected with Timocratesreport that he bestowed on him the title ÇLerocritusÈ -ÇJudge of IdiociesÈ. The nickname invites comparison withthose of Heraclides Ponticus, who because of his wide girth

and luxurious attire was known as ;6 3 andAlexinus the Megarian philosopher who was dubbed Elen-xinus because of his use of the dialectical elenchus.64 Nodoub t Epic urus name for Democritus is offensive.65 Never-theless, it need signify no more than occasional exasperationwith the man to whom he still acknowledged his chiefphilosophical debt. I suggest this not as an apologist forEpicurus, but on the express word of two of his leadingpupils. Leonteus, head of the Epicurean group at Lampsacus,wrote in a letter quoted by Plutarch that Epicurus for a iongtime called himself and his system Democritean, and usedto honour Democritus for having arrived at the truth about


the nature of things before him. And Metrodorus, in hiswork On Philosophy stated that without. Democritus leadEpicurus would never have attained wisdom.66 I do notdetect any rabid anti-Democritean sentime:qt here. t isprecisely because it was to Democritus physical systemthat Epicurus owed his own that he had frequent occasion

to spell out his disagreements with it.67 At worst his viewis Amicus Democritus sed magis arnica veritas.t is still common to be told that Epicurus denied any debt

to previous philosophers and absurdly claimed completeoriginality for his doctrines. Nothing in our ancient sourcessupports this assumption. Epicurus well-known claim to beself-taught was merely a denial that he had learnt anythingfrom those under whom he had studied, namely Pamphilusand Nausiphanes, and the ancient writers who report itrecognise it as such. 6 8

8 Nausiphanes.

t is only against Nausiphanes that we find Epicurus intruly vitriolic mood. We have already seen in the examplesquoted by Timocrates the highly personal nature of hisinvective. Sextus quotes some similar remarks from EpicurusLetter to the Philosophers in Mytilene : 9 I suppose thedeclaimers 7 will think I m a disciple o f the J ell.vjishbecause attended his lessons in the company o f somejuvenile alcoholics. The nickname ÇJellyfishÈ meant insen-sitive. 7 1 Later in the same letter, Sextus continues, hecommented that Nausiphanes was a scoundrel and occupie dhimself with matters from which it is impossible to attain

wisdom. Sextus understands these matters to be thet.talJflt.tam especially rhetoric, which Nausiphanes taught.This sounds plausible, 7 2 t hough since we know that Epicurusalso called him a prostitute and a swindler other interpreta-tion s are clearly possible.

Just what Epicurus did owe to Nausiphanes is uncertain.At least one critic 7 3 claimed that his epistemologicalhandbook the Canon was filched from Nausiphanes workthe Tripod and this may mean that Nausiphanes hadanticip ated him in some aspects of his theory of knowledge. 7 4But the scarcity of evidence for Nausiphanes doctrines makesit hard to go further. A papyrus of Philodemus preserves some


9/20

136 David Sedley

quotations, possibly from Epicurus etter to the Philosophersin Mytilene 7 5 in which Nausiphanes seems to be describedas reading the works o f Anaxagoras and Empedocles andheatedly quibbling about them ; and soon afterwards theworks of Democritus are mentioned in a similar context.

t may well be that the chief ben efit which Epicurus derived

fro:q1 his studies in Teos was a thorough grounding in thePresocratic philosophers.

9 Pyrrho.

But his stay there did acquaint him with at least one otherphilosopher, his older contemporary Pyrrho of Elis, not longback from his travels in the east with Alexander the Great. Weare told that Nausiphanes, who recommended his pupils toadopt Pyrrho s disposition (though not his doctrines), oftenrecalled how Epicurus had shared his admiration for Pyrrho slifestyle and had always been asking questions about him. 7

The story does not state explicitly that Epicurus ever metPyrrho in person ; but even if he did not, he certainly learneda great deal about him while in Teos. His reported esteem forPyrrho has largely been overlooked by scholars too eager tosee in Epicurus and Pyrrho themselves the prototypes of thedogmatism and scepticism that separated their respectivefollowings in later generations. This oversimplification ignoressome salient facts. or 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 butby 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 wasnot

averseto recommending suspension of judgment.77 or anotherthing, both had their. roots in the Democritean tradition ofphilosophy. 7 8

What are we to make of Epicurus admiration for Pyrrho slifestyle? The overriding feature of Pyrrho s character wasby all accounts his a:rrpa fJ.l.OOVVf/,his detachment from worldlyaffairs and circumstances, 7 9 and this reappears prominentlyin Epicurus moral philosophy, for example in the doctrineof airrapK.ew.80 In principle Epicurus could equal ly wellhave learnt this doctrine from the Cynics, or from theMegarian philosopher Stilpo. But we know, as it happens,


that he rejected their versions of it, shrinking from thebegging humility of the Cynics81 and oppos ing Sti lpo sextreme view for its denial of a place for friendship in thelife of the wise man.82 So a process of elimination83 bringsus back to Pyrrho. But if, as I am suggesting, Epicurusallowed his moral philosophy to be shaped by his admiration

for Pyrrho, can we still believe Timocrates reportthat

healso labelled Pyrrho ÇuneducatedÈ and ÇunculturedÈ? Wecan - and for a reason suggested by a fragment in whichEpicurus praises natural philosophy for imparting to us notthe nad5ela for which most people vie but selfsufficiencyavárapKeta) and pride in the good things that belong to us

rather than to our circumstances. 84 This contrast betweenpopular paideia and the philosopher s autarkeia is a revealingone, for Epicurus was well known in antiquity for his opposi-tion to paideia the tra ditional Greek education ra ted so highlyin 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 hisápupil Apelleshe wrote, I congratulate you for embarking on philosophywhile untainted by any nad)e{a.85 There is every reason tothink that Pyrrho, like his later followers, also took a standagainst the mathemata. To take one example, Sextus isadamant that Pyrrho s own love of poetry is not to beequated with a belief in its usefulness as a subject of study ;8and this is reminiscent of Epicurus, who taught that the wiseman will enjoy musical recitals but will steer clear of disputesabout musical theory.87 I am in no doubt that when Epicurusdescribed Pyrrho as aj.l.atJr/c:; and imaloevToc:; he was notcalling him an ignorant yokel but praising him as untainted

by any mathemata or paideia. And we should see in Pyrrhothe source ofEpic urus conviction that the truly philosophicallife does not require education along the traditional lines.

10. The Cyzicenes.

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

'


10/20

138 David Sedley

to Pyrrho suggests that accidents of personal acquaintancemay have exercised more influence than any of the majorschool doctrines which we assume to have Çheld the fieldÈin his day. This point is confirmed by Epicurus hostility tothe 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 toguesswork abou t Epicurus relations with .the Dialecticians,and would not even know who the Cyzicenes were. TheHerculaneum papyri contain the vital clues, and, now armedwith new readings of some key passages, I can throw lighton both questions. 8 8c¥According to Timocrates, Epicurus insulted the Cyzicenes.H.S. Long s recent Oxford Classical Text of Diogenes Laertiusstill carries the old emendation Kvvuwv


11/20

140 David Sedley

o]poiwpa n f VAAO'YirealJai7L rrepl TOVTWV. r pev YCtPvoovvrec; Af YW o r [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.ardr w v ..paaparwv rwv r[o ]v 1]A.iov,c:iopwreiac; c:ivaroA.wvK.ai ovaew[velK.6rwt; [iK.avo ]v ov o v

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

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

(lacuna about 170 letters)

] rrpoarroinpa K.aiTOV r erri TOV

op'Yavov oei'Ypam n] v avrrzvc: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 n v w v TWVK.ar' c:ivarreprro[pe]vwv rrpoc;emv6n[ ]v iialel awapevnvarr[ ......... ] roaavr[a ..... ]rowvT[o ....... ]

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

(lacuna about 75 letters)

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

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

............ They cannot hope 1to form a Lmental] mod eland to reason out anythingabout these matters. For itseems to me that when theyspend their time contrivingsome o f them their ins-truments, I mean andamusing themselves withothers, it is no wonder, inview not only o f he ensla-vements brought upon

. hem by their doctrines butalso as far as concerns theappearances o f the sun) o fthe indeterminacies of ri-sings and settings, that theycannot form and adequa-te mental model by meansof their instruments whichproduce no regularity. Buttheir instruments are [ ......

This only] leaves a pre-tence and a perverse claimthat the indications on theinstrument create an analo-gy that corresponds withwhat we see in the heavens.For our friend must, itseems to me, make the dis-tinction : a) that when heargues about the cosmosand what we see in it he isarguing about a certain ima-ge arising from certain ac-cidental properties o f hingspassed through the mediumo f vision into a thoughtprocess or into a memoryprocess permanently pre-served by the mind itself[conveying certain] quan-tities, qualities, r tc. ; but(b) that when he speaksabout the indications onhis instrument he is spea-king about the intrinsicproperties o f an object lmoáKeLf.1. VOV). .

...... So] when, as I see it,he finds himselflooking atthe object and failingá todistinguish a statement ba-sed on the object itsel f romone based on that which is

50

55

65

70


[om r]ov piJ]rroA.A.ai oe [a rro [7 ]v[


12/20

142 David Sedley

\ t : Here we have seen Epicurus attacking some anonymousopponents for their use of mechanical instruments toillustrate mathematical laws for the orbits of the sun andmoon. (Epicurus calls these instruments organa ; we shouldprobably 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 identifiedas a similar instrument, but of the first century B.C Themost famous one in antiquity was that built by Archimedes,nearly a century later than those mentioned in our text. Donot mistake Epicurus' dislike of them for mere opposition

áto echnology. They were weapons in the campaign to- Çsave the phenomenaÈ by proving that apparently irregular

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

á the áonly purpose of astronomy was to disprove the divinityof the stars.

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

á Epicurus' text . Here he is attacking the assumption thatobjectively valid measurements of celestial orb its ácan betaken from a terrestrial viewpoint. The first sentence describesa familiar optical illusion produced by the sun. f you walkeastwards just before sunset, the sun can give the ofs,etting at the place where you were standing a few minutesearlier. á This is intended to underline the impossibility of

finding a single correct vantage point for astronomicalobservations, a deficiency which for Epicurus contributesto making mathematical astronomy a bogus science.

His use here of eic; ro JJ Epoc; rflc; 1raaf1c; file; to describeeastward movement puzzled me until I considered thepossibility that when he wrote these words he was not inAthens but in Lampsacus. The Attic peninsula east ofAthens is hardly a Çzone of the whole landÈ, but the phrasecan 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 ofconfirms that there is. a gently sloping path .

r:áá.) ¥


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

The argument about the impossibility of calculating wherethe sun sets includes the remark, nd this time it cannot beblamed on the 1TAa (taaJ.tol. The implication is that someother irregularity previo:usly discussed was attributed by theopponents to these 1Til.a (taaJ.tol. To learn more about thismysterious term, we must turn to Simplicius' account of thethree concentric spheres by. which Eudoxus explained thesun's movements.9 8 The outer sphere coincided with thatof the fixed stars, rotating from east to west once in twen-ty-four hours. Inside this was the second sphere, carrying thesun in the reverse direction through the zodiac and comple-ting one revolution a year. It is this evavrla Jdvnatc; that wefind Epicurus objecting to near the end of our passage (61 ss.). áThe third sphere was introduced to account for supposeddeviations of the sun to north and south of the ecliiptic. Thesun is described as deviating to the sides 1TapeKTpe1T6J.tevoc;elc; r 1TAa (ta , and t must be to these deviations eic; ni1Til.a (ta that Epicurus is referring when he speaks of the1TAa (taaJ.toi. They may, he says, use this third sphere toexplain away nor th-south variations in the sun's course, butthey can never use it to explain east-west variations in itsobserved position at sunset. The significant point is thatthese lateral movements of the sun are a fiction, a productof faulty observations, peculiar to the Eudoxan system. Herewe have the strongest possible indication that the opponentsunder attack are followers of Eudoxus.

In the next fragment (14-26) we are told of the Cyzicenes'

obsession with their instruments and of the enslavementbrought upon them by the doctrines of their school. Themention of this ÇenslavementÈ 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 theLetter to Pythocles where Epicurus warns against the slavishdevices o f the astronomers (rae; av5pa1To5woetc; aaTpOAO (WVrexvtrelac;).99 His preoccupation with denouncing theseplanetaria makes it hard to doubt that they were on opendisplay in Cyzicus and exercised a considerable fascination onvisitors to the town.

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

á,,


13/20

á.. :144 David Sedley

summary of áthe argument, reserving detailed .commentaryfor another occasion. The understanding of celestial pheno-

, mena requi res the formatio:t;t of a mental picture of themowvoiq, op.oiwp.a A.a{3eiv), and Epicurus seems to be saying,

reasonably enough f or a .materialist philosopher, that thepurely mathematical model . o f interconnecting spheres fails

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

, and.; the l{)aw6p.evov-- on the one hand the objectivelyexisting body, on the other the subjective appearance thatderives from i t. T he. planetari um, whose intrinsic propertieswe can know by close examination, counts for Epicurus asa vnoK.eip.evov ; whereas. the movements of the heavens are

á so d istant as to be mere subjective appearances which wehave no means of The fatal error of the Cyzicenesis to assume that they can validly argue from the one to theother.

hciThe Cyzicenes then, thanks to these fragments, can bepromoted from a textual corruption to a school whichsurvived for at least fifty years, long enough to collaboratewith Plato, to influence Aristotle, and to feud with Epicurus.

'1 .á á\

11 'The Dialecticians.;á

Used as the nameá of a school, ota"A.eK.TLK.oi at this da:temeans the Megarians,l 00 against whom both Epicurus andMetrodorus áwrote works. This school wasá founded byEuclides 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 álater Megarians were known asDLaA K.7LK.Oi, because they had reduced their philosophicalmethodá to one of questionsá demanding


14/20

146 David Sedley

unique opportunity is afforded by the fragments of Epicurusn Nature, Book XXVIII, written in 296/5 B C 112 The

book is a monologue addressed to Metrodorus, whosecomments are from time to time relayed to us by the authorin the way that a film character engaged in a telephoneconversation will echo the gist of what is being said to him

for the benefitof

the viewers.The first surviving portion discusses their views on thefunction of language in philosophy. Epicurus admits theshortcomings of his previous view, according to which thephilosopher must try to reform ordinary language into a moreaccurate medium of expression. He also criticises a doctrineonce professed by Metrodorus, comparable to that of Hermo-genes in Plato s Cratylus, that names are purely arbitrarylabels of which one is not to be preferred to another. Thustheir former viewpoints had been diametrically opposed ;but by the time of writing they appear to have agreed on amidway position. You might think that these changes ofheart arose purely from debate within the school. But thetext suggests that this is not the whole story. At one pointEpicurus seems concerned to. distinguish their former viewsfrom those of some unnamed opponents : 113

I am convinced that I see these names clearly in the wayin which we used to distinguish them, as you took themeaning, and not in the senses in which certain peoplewoul d them. Perhaps, though, you ll say thisisn t the time to prolong the discussion by bringing this up ?Quite so, Metrodorus. For I m sure you d be able to bring uplots of names which you used to see certain people taking invarious ridiculous senses, and indeed in any sense rather thantheir actual linguistic meanings, whereas our own usage never

flouted linguistic convention and we did not alter names forperceptible things.These opponents sound very like Diodorus and his follo-

wers.114 Fo r Diodorus too k. the extreme view tha t themeaning of a word is nothing more than that intended bythe speaker while ,uttering it. To establish this he renamedone of his slaves with the conjunction AA.A.a f J TJVAccordingto another story, he had two slaves, whom he Mev andLl And no doubt he used to produce these unfortunateslaves during debates as living proof of his theory. As aconsequence, 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 alreadyexposed these oppon ents errors in a work. n Ambiguity,little doubt can remain as to their identity. t sounds verymuch as if Metrodorus retraction of his former linguisticdoctrine had been brought about in part by contact in debatewith Diodorus and his associates, whose theory had looked

uncomfortably like areductio ad absurdum of

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

This is also what makes it easy for everyone to laughwhen some body secures another s agreement that it isimpossible to know and not know the same thing, and thenbrings up the Veiled Father and other such riddles.

Now, the Veiled Father is known to us as a dialectical riddleemployed by Diodorus.11 6 The opponent is first asked to agreethat it is impossible to know and not know the same thing,and does so The dialectician then asks him, ÇDo you knowyour father?È ÇYesÈ, he replies. ÇAnd if I show yousomeone with his head veiled, will you know him? È ÇNoÈ,replies the opponent. ÇButÈ, says the dialectician triumphan-tly, Çthe man with his head veiled is your father. Thereforeyou will both know and not know your father, and it ispossible to know and notknow the same thingÈ.

This is usually dismissed as a harmless riddle. But Epicuruscannot have taken it so lightly, or he would hardly havedevoted the next two and a half columns to its refutation.A different riddle, but with the identical conclusion, wasapparently used by earlier Megarians and is quoted in Plato sTheaetetus as an argument against the doctrine that knowledge

is perception.11 7 There is every reason to think thatDiodorus riddle was designed for the same purpose, áandhence as a weapon against anyone like Epicurus whodefended the link between perception and knowledge. In

n Nature XXVIII we see Epicurus ábusily revising andtightening up his epistemological doctrines. A preciousinsight into the motives that led him to seek these improve-ments is afforded to us by the discovery that when he wrotethe book he was still smarting from clashes with Diodorusand his followers.


15/20

148 David Sedley

12. Conclusion.

This study 11 8 has no pretensions to completeness, butI hope- to have contributed to two goals. The first is topinpoint the role of Timocrates in the anti-Epicureantradition, and to show that evidence derived from him should

never be taken at its face value. The second is to replace thetraditional Epicurus, who heaped indiscriminate abuse onhis elders and betters in a desperate attempt to mask his ownunoriginality, with one who, while as content as any Greekphilosopher to engage in polemical skirmishes, recognisedmany merits in his professional competitors, and was notashamed to learn from them.

D.S.


NOTES

1 Some sources (Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. ev.>XIV 20; 14), includingDemetrius Magnes (D.L. X, 13), asserted that he had studied underXenocrates. Tliis was probably just guesswork, and should certainly notbe 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 underNausiphanes before his military service (cf. P. Boyance, Gnomon 46,1974, p. 753). But according to Hermippus (D.L. X,2) before becomingacquainted 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 Xenocratesdated his period with Nausiphanes later than this (Aristocles, lac. cit.in previous note). Strab o s biographical summary- XIV, 11l8a_rpa /vcu ..evrfaoe (sc. ev L


16/20

150 David Sedley

with Epicurus' attacks on Nausiphanes or anyone else. Bignone tookover and elaborated Cronert's account, incorporating all sorts of otherfragments in the supposed letter - now re-titled Epistola ai filosofi diMitilene 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 theÇplatonico-perip( teticiÈ 1 on countless topics ranging from debaucheryto scepticism. Hidden m the tangle of fanciful speculation there aresome sound ideas, but it is no easy task to unravel them.

9. See fr. 101-4 Arr., wit h comm enta ry. Usener ( fr. 11-4 and 171-3)was the last to distinguish correctly between the Letter to the Philoso-phers in Mytil ene 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 thatEpicurus, or other early Epicureans, were rude about them. I haveciiosen to regard all invectives by Epicurus' disciples as irrelevant to thepresent 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 pnvat ely retracted th eá forgerytheory, according to Bignone (L Ar.perd. Il,56 note 2).12. Quoted below, ¤ 8.13. 354 a-d. 1TOAACLo exwv en AE"feLV1Tepi wv e'A71pf1G V PU'Yeiv cWTOVTi]V1TaTPctJaV ovaiav, E1T LTao E1TtTO aTpaTeveafJat avvw aat, KaKW


17/20

David Sedley

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

' ' 21 ¥For 1 attempts to elapo_rate the history of this episode, see. R. Philippson, ÇTimokratesÈ (RE VI A;l266 ss.), and F. Sbordone;

. , ÇPer la storia dell' epistolario di EpicuroÈ (Miscellanea Rostagni 1 1963,c; p á26-39). These studies , thougl i ávaluable, should be recogmsed asá . extremel yá speculative, since the y rely largely on fragments from t he

Herculaneum papyri in which Timocrates is not named. Sbordone. (p á 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 , alth ough his n aine 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 th e lacuna,, but the text does not supply a 8 ; _Mentondes ':as the .elder b other of1¥ :. Timo_crates and .Metrod or)ls, zra XII,9 ss. Wilke); the

á á 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

povn(c;). en 0AVJ.l1Tt00WpOV -yfap 1] J J


18/20

154 David Sedley

42: CAF 3, 414. I have omitted other probable parodies which do notmention Epicurus by name, most notably tile Asotodidaskalos ofAlexis(?), CAF 2, 306 s.43: Cf.,Thomas Carlyle s denunciation of ÇProfit-and-Loss Philosophy È(i.e.,, Utilitarianism) Sartor Resartus,Book II,Chapter 7 (1835): ,ÇSoulis not synonymous w1th StomachÈ.44. Notes 38 and 35 above.

Alciphron, Epistulae amatoriae IV, 17,1 0 : JToocuw: ofet Jle,Ab.pta, 1rpor; aixrov lo {g,JTaparevoJlbrqv el1reiv ÇT{JTote'ir; 'Em'Kovpe; oiJKotoiJa wr; OLaKWJli.t)0 1. 0 TtJ10KpaTf/\ 6 Mf/Tpoowpov m'TOVTOL\ ev ra'ir; EI K Af/OLat\, ev roir; iJeaTpOL\' 1Tapa ro'ir; ii A AOL


19/20

156 David Sedley

'TWV /).alJáruJ.arwv anovoaiwc; /).aNO'Ta oe P'fi'TOPLK.i]c;.'}' VO-. /).evoc; ovv 'TOV'TOVJJ.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//).arwvK.a7f7'}'opoc;, ev ole; eaeJJ.VVvero. 1/)f/OL'}'OVV ev rfl npoc; rove; evMvnAf7vn \{A-AOOOI{)Ovc;enwro"Afl Ç07/J.ato e'}'w'}'e rove; {3apvar6vovc; K.aiJJ.a1'lf/rf7v J. rov n"/\eVJJ.OVoc; elvat, J.l.eTCl JJ.etpaK.iwv nvwvK.patnaAWV'TWVCtK.OVaavraÈ, vvv n"AeV/).OVaK.a"Awv 'TOVNavm\{)aVf/Vwe;

. avaia1'lf/rová 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 ÇK.ai } G,P nOVflpOc;

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

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

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

¥ Epicurus and which by Metroaorus.71. Sextus 1 loc. cit. in note 69 above ; Aristotle,PA 681 a 18 ; cf.Plato,Phileo. 21 c.

. 72. The fragments of Philodemus' rhetorical works t ake Nausiphanes. to task at great length. For bibliography, see F. Longo, ÇNausifane nei

papiri ercolanesiÈ (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' theoryof knowledge puts him in the mainstream of fourth-century Demo-critean scepticism about knowledge of the phenomenal world. Seneca,Ep. á mor. 88.43-5.: Nausiphanes ait ex his quae uidentur esse nihil

á magis esse quam non esse ; ... si Nausiphanz (sc. credo), hoc unumcertum est, nihil esse certi. I agree 'with Bignone (L Ar. perd. II, 65 ss.)that Seneca's source for this entire is Epicurean but notEpicurus himself, as Bignone thinks 1 since in ¤ 44 the Academic , quinouam induxerunt scientiam, ninil scire must be the men ofArcesilaus' New Academy). We thus cannot discount the possibilitythat Nausiphanes' scepticism is being exaggerated for polemical

. purposes.7 5. Philodemus,Adversus [sophistas] fr. X Sb ordon e = Epicuru s fr. 104Arr.7 6. D.L. IX,64.77. I have in mind the doctrine of no"/\"1\axwc; evo exea1'lat in the Letterto Pythocles, and the sceptical tone of the passage from Tiepi I{)Vaewc;XI quoted in ¤ 10 below.

á 78. Pyrr ho 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 ; V 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 th e title of a work by Metrodorus, uepi rov

, elvat TfJV nap' iJJJ.ac; air{av npoc; VOaLJ.WViav rf}c; eK. n0vá ._,} npa'}'/).arwv (Metrod orus fr. 5 Korte). Closely linked to this concept

pursuit._ of an o verriding go al. 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 Usener83. Although the self-sufficiency of the wise man is a doctrine whichin its various forms looms large m the Socratic traditio n of philosophy,it is much more central to Cynicism than to the politically-mindedschools of Plato and Aristotle. Furthermore, the Democritean traditionmay have an even stronger claim to it. It is already foreshadowed in th efragments of Democritus (68 B 246 Diels-Kranz; cf. B 176, 210), andtakes on an importance with Pyrrho and Epicurus. Most

striking of all, Pyrrho s pupil Hecataeus of Abdera went so far-as toname avrapK.eta as the ret..oc; (73 A 4 Diels-Kranz). For a generalhistory of the concept, seeP. Wilpert,RAC I, col. 1039-50.84. V 45 .85. Fr. 117 Usener; cf. the more famous advice to Pythocies, fr. 163Usener.86. Math.I, 272, 281 ss In this context Sextus specifically linksPyrrho and Epicurus as the two 'YPCL/.J. J.anK.f]c;K.arf7'}'opot (at Math. I , lit is not they but their schools that are named as the opponents of theJ.aiYt?JJ.aTa). For Pyrrho's indifference to erudition, see a:lso Timon'sverses quoted at D.L. IX,65.87. Fr. 20 Usener.88. A full examination of the evidence concerning the Cyzicenesrequires a good deal of papyrological, philological and biographicaldiscussion, which I cannot undertake here_ without upsetting thebalance of this paper. What I therefore offer is a summary of myresults, inculding the relevant text s, but omitting most critical apparatusand discussion of detail. For a fuller account the reader is referred tomy forthcoming article in Cronache ercoldnesi, ÇEpicurus and theMathematicians of CyzicusÈ. For earlier discussions 1 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 PragmateiaiPhilodems ( 1960), p. 44-53 ; L. Spina,_ ÇEudosso e ciziceni nei papiriercolanesiÈ, 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 no w give my own readings of thepapyrus, since Bignone and all since him have been badly misled byVogliano's text. This numbers among its errors the astonishingmisreading of the name Arcephon in line 3 as Xenophanes, as aresult of which this fragment even infiltrated the appendix toDiels-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?'LK.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[......... J6[K.]VfljLo]ovc; ovaxej[p]aivwv, roo en[i] nav AVJJ.f/c; [ .. ]vov- J.evov j[ . ]woao.[ ..... ]rwlj[ ..... ] ro [ .....fHis opinion l concerning a certain astronomer:s eometrici an .of Cyzicushe makes clear to Arcephon and to the followers of Idomeneusand Leonteus who go too far in arguing against the doctrine o f aponia[.;....... and] seems angry at their cowaraice,91. Philodemus TipaáYJJ.areiru (PHerc. 1418) col. XX (Diano op. cit. innote 88 ab


20/20

158 David Sedley

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

r[ar;] wr; 1< [.... ] [ ...... ]o[ ... jAnd later in the same letter : ÇCronius debates skilfully when theoccasion arises, even though he is not r ] and lacks experience o flogic-chopping because Eudoxus himself did not spend enough time onphilosophy, as Arcephon also told us as well as recounting what hadhappened)). And in a letter to Cronius himself: ((For Leontion too hasfrequently spoken o f you to Epicurus in kind and appropriate terms,and so has Pythocles, whom you have sent to stay with us, and who istaking charge o f your sons and considers that it was under theinfluence o Eudoxus and Diotimus that those letters were writtenwhich ..... È92. 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 calledÇPolyaenus of CyzicusÈ ).93. For Eudoxus hedonismA see AristotleiEN X, 1172b 9 ss . Thefragment quoted in note above imp ies a connexi on betweenEp1curus hostility to the Cyzicenes and the opposition of some

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

á 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 ÇConferme e aggiunte allAristotele perdutoÈ (Melanges Bmsacq I, 1937, p. 87-116),98 ss ForBabylonian influences in Hellenistic mathematics and astronomy, see0. 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 bookis preserved in two copies among the Herculaneum papyri (PHerc. 154,in Naples, and PHerc. 1042, now in London). The text offered herewhich corrects Vogliano s misreadings, amalgamates my readings ofthe two papyri into a single draft without any indication of theoriginal line divisions. I have already discussed the first column inProceedings o f the XIV International Congress o f Papyrologists(Oxford 1974),p. 269-75.96. Plutarch, Vit. Marc. 14. For a full account of the ÇAntikytheramechanism,>, see now Derek de Solla Price, Gears from the Greeks(1975).97. Either Epicurus had already written Book XI before his move fromLampsacus to Athens in 307/6, or he wrote it during one of hissubsequent visits to Lampsacus (D.L. X>10). The former would mean asurprising gap of seven or more years between Book XI and Book XVwntten m 300/299).

98. Simplichis, In De caelo 493, 11 ss á99. Ep. Pyth. 93.100, Some of this section on the Megarians is based on my articleÇEpicurus, On Nature Book XXVIIIÈ (Cronache ercolanesi 3, 1973,p. 5-83), which shoula be consulted for the texts quoted here and forfurther 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 wasprobably 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 wasactive in Alexandria in the first half of the thud century B.C., andhisfioruit is placed by Jaeger about 270-60 (ÇVergessene Fragmente desPeripatetikers Diokles von KarystosÈ, Abh.d.preuss.Akad.d. Wiss., 1938;

Epicurus an d his professional rivals 159

Phil.-Hist.Kl., 3, p. 15, 36 ss.) ; for further evidence supportin_gJaeger s dating, see á P.M. Fraseri Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972) vol. If,504 note 58. Fraser himself (vo . I, 481) dates Diodorus floruit to thesecond quarter of the third century, forgetting that Zeno of Citiumwas his pupil in the late fourth century (D.L. VII,25), but this at leastis an error in the right direction : it is time that we stopped thinkingof Diodorus as the determinist to whom Aristotle reacted, and placedhis career firmly in the Hellenistic period.103. F r. 121-9 Doring (Die Megariker, 1972). There is certainly someconnexion between this argument of Diodorus and Epicurus similartheory about motion (fr. 278 Usener). H. von Arnim ( ÇEpikurs L ehrevom MinimumÈ, Almanach d.Kais.Akad.d. Wiss., Wien 1907 p 14)and J. Mau ( ÇUber die Zuweisung zweier Epiku r-FragmenteÈ, PhilologusIC, 1955, p. 93-111, esp. 107 ss.) see here a direct dependence ofEpicurus on Diodorus. I think it more likely that both derived theirviews from Aristotle (cf. Furley s stud y, cited in note 21 above).104. In Sextus discussion of motion (Math. X,37-168), the deniers ofmotion are listed as Parmenides and Melissus, who are even made theauthors 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 thatZeno denied the existence of motion, and then promptly saddles himwith one of Diodorus most characteristic arguments : ro K tVOVJ 1 VOVour ev }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 theDiodorean would-be mover 1s trapped in a pocket of s2ace withoutany reference to time (Diodorus fr. 124, 127 Doring). The form ofargument 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 investigationof t} le will Epicurus . study of it, ip a book of theIlept I OVOewr; survlVes iragmentanly m three cop1es among theHerculaneum papyri, published by C Diano, Epicuri ethica ( 1946)p. 24-51 =fr. 34 Arr . D1ano s readings, supnlied to him by Vogliano, arelargely unsound, and I am now working ori a revised editwn.111. Epicurus arguments in his book on free will (see previous note)are largely, áphrased as criticisms of contemporary determinism. In thefragment cited in note 67 above, his assertion that the earlier atomists

were unaware that they were making light of weighty matters incalling necessity and chance universal causes is sandwiched. parentheti-cally between comments on the self-contradictoriness of an implicitlypresent-day determinist. .112. For the date, see my edition (art. cit. in note 100 above), p. 56, 79113. 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 á118. Among those who have read thispaper and discussed its contentswith me, l am particularly endebted to Dr. J ¢rgen Mejer of Copenhagen.

Documents

Sedley Epicurus Rivales